Earlier on this blog, we posted a link to a website that highlighted a lot of organizations and groups in the greater Baltimore, MD area that help and house refugees and asylees. This week, we’re getting specific.
The IRC, or International Rescue Committee, provides opportunities for refugees, asylees, and other immigrants live and thrive in the United States. They work with government bodies, civil society actors, and local volunteers to help refugees “translate their past experiences into assets that are valuable to their new communities.” The IRC is a great organization and they have several offices in the D.C., MD, and VA areas.
This is the website for Intercultural Counseling Connection, a Baltimore-based resource center for refugees. The website has social services resources, legal resources, and medical resources to help any refugees and asylees in the greater Baltimore area.
One common, if incorrect, anti-refugee argument is that by letting refugees into a country, you are opening up your borders to terrorists. By oversimplifying a world of politics and social dynamics, uninformed people have come to the false conclusion that Refugees = Terrorism. One recent example of this misguided equivalence was reported by Voice of Europe and immediately used to slander and discredit refugees. A 32-year-old Syrian refugee living in Germany set his apartment building aflame on April 2nd. Seventeen people were injured and one woman died. The man is being charged with arson, murder, and attempted murder, and rightly so. Nothing I write in this post is going to defend this man or his actions, but we cannot allow the actions of a few to make us lose sight of the bigger picture. People are taking this one crime and inflating it in order to attack refugees all around the world. Refugees are not terrorists or rapists or demons. They are refugees. They are people who have been forced out of their homes and out of their countries and they need our help.
Let’s Talk Numbers
In 2016, the Cato Institute put together a comprehensive report cataloging instances of terrorism on U.S. soil from 1975 to 2015. Over the last forty years, only 20 out of 3.25 million refugees welcomed to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil. Of those 20 convictions, only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all by Cuban refugees in the 1970’s, before the Refugee Act of 1980 created the modern rigorous refugee-screening procedures currently in place.
The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program includes security checks by several government agencies, an interview by the Department of Homeland Security, biometric security checks, cultural orientation, and medical checks, among other regulatory data collection. The process of entering the United States as a refugee is long and hard. Not only would this process be highly likely to identify and capture and terrorist attempting to enter the country as a fake refugee, but terrorist organizations are more likely to find other ways than to spend the time and effort on this process.
Where are US terrorists actually coming from?
The primary perpetrators of major terror attacks on U.S. soil have mostly been U.S.-born citizens or permanent legal residents originally from countries not included in Trump’s recent executive order travel ban. In the news almost constantly for the last few months have been the survivors of the Parkland, FL school shooting. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High was the site of a mass shooting earlier this year. Although people attempting to avoid the gun control debate refuse to call it an act of terrorism, that is exactly what unfolded. The school shooter was a young man born and bred on American soil and he perpetrated one of the world’s deadliest school massacres. In December of 2015, a mass shooting and attempted bombing took place in San Bernadino, California. Although Trump cites the San Bernadino attack as an inspiration for the travel ban, the shooters wouldn’t have been affected by it. Farook was an American-born citizen and Malik arrived on a visa and became a permanent resident. Trump’s restrictions on refugees would have done nothing to prevent their entry. Finally, an episode in American history that will never be forgotten. 9/11 is the one terrorist attack that truly changed our entire nation. However, of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, 2 were from the UAE, 1 was from Egypt, and 1 was from Lebanon. Despite the fact that this terrorist attack is constantly cited as a reason to refuse entry to refugees, none of those nations are on the list of banned countries. Looking back atthese tragedies may be hard to do, but Trump is attacking and vilifying refugees for things that they did not do.
The Travel Ban Will Make Things Worse
Earlier in this post, I mentioned Trump’s travel ban. In January of this year, Trump signed the “Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” The main policies I’d like to point out are that:
It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days
It places an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
Anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – faces a 90-day visa suspension
Not only is denying aid to refugees immoral, it’s un-American. And it’s not going to work. Trump and many of his supporters believe that by refusing entry, they will prevent terrorists from entering the United States under the guise of refugees. However, this is extremely unlikely to ever actually happen due to the rigorous vetting that refugees must go through before entering the country. Trump is sending a message to the entire world that America does not like or want refugees. His message is saying that the United States is against Muslims and against the nations listed in his ban. Although this isn’t the truth, these ideas become widespread and make it easier for groups like ISIS to recruit. What better way to turn someone against America than to tell them that they are unwanted and not worth helping? Trump’s politics of hate are doing nothing to deter terrorism. If anything, these policies are just going to make attacks more likely.
Refugee solidarity march in Brussels, Belgium
By constantly equating refugees to terrorists, we hurt not only the refugees, but ourselves. Muslims living in the U.S. whether they are citizens, refugees, asylees, or here on visas are constantly being bombarded with hateful rhetoric. What we need to do, as a nation, is come together instead of tearing ourselves apart. Saying refugees are terrorists is extremely harmful since they are the ones actively fleeing from terrorism. We can no longer accept politics of hate and fearmongering. America needs to be a light in the darkness and a place of hope for the refugees coming here. The best way to prevent terrorism is to prevent people from entering the ranks of terrorist organizations. In order to do that, we can undermine the arguments that terrorist organizations make; one common argument being that the only people who care about the refugees are the terrorist organizations. If America really wants to stop terrorism and eliminate terrorist threats, we have to let the refugees in and show them that we care.
I’ve heard it said that there are only two truly American art forms: jazz and comic books. Both of these have a rich history, but today we’re going to talk about how comic books as a visual medium are helping to support refugees and share their stories. Despite the common complaint that comics these days are getting ‘too political’, comic books have always had a history of political commentary. So… why did I even bring up comics on a blog about refugees? Action Comics #987 is why.
In September of 2017, Action Comics issue #987 ran and was immediately surrounded by controversy. At one point during the issue, a man is holding a group of immigrants at gunpoint because he feels that they were the reason he lost his job. Superman intervenes, like any hero would, and put himself between the bullets and the immigrants. This issue calls to mind the epidemic of hate and blame that is so unfortunately common in America.
Comic fans took this one of two ways: they loved Superman saving those in need or they felt Superman was being ‘un-American.’ Comics, especially Superman comics, have always been about showing the world the best that we can be. Superman is an ideal to strive for, and he has always been about helping people. This issue wasn’t meant to attack Americans but to emphasize the need to support and help anyone who has come to our country seeing asylum or a new home. Not only is that what Superman stands for now, but that’s what he’s always stood for. (And, as a side note, let’s not forget that Superman is a refugee too!)
Now, let’s get real. Superhero comics are great and all, but they’re still just fantasies. However, superhero comics aren’t the only ones out there. Because comic books and graphic novels are a vivid visual medium, people around the world have been using the comic book format to tell true stories of refugees and bring attention to this growing issue. Here, I’m going to discuss three comic books that support and help refugees.
Over a million Syrian refugees have fled to nearby Lebanon since the war began in 2011. Many face difficult circumstances while navigating life as a refugee. The International Rescue Committee has created a comic book to tell the story of Hala, a Syrian refugee. The interactive comic follows Hala as she walks out the door and faces several common risks and challenges that many women refugees face daily. It aims at teaching them the skills they need to navigate these rough situations in their new home. This comic book is helping refugee women all around the world.
Canada is another nation that takes in thousands of refugees every year. According to a report by PBS, a Canadian comic book collective is working closely with some of these refugees to share their stories. The artists meet with refugees and re-create their stories as single-page posters that will be displayed in bus shelters in the Vancouver area. Jonathan Dalton, one of the artists in the collective, believes that “by drawing people as cartoons… you can engage the reader to see themselves in the story.” Comic books have the power to bring to life a humanitarian cause that many people have become numb to.
The first page of Madaya Mom
Finally, ABC and Marvel Comics have created a comic called Madaya Mom, a free comic that illustrates the true story of a mother of five living in Madaya. Madaya is a Syrian town that has been besieged for over a year and has been cut off from the outside world; no journalists were allowed in and residents have been completely unable to get out. Because ABC NEWS cameras couldn’t report the story of the citizens of Madaya, they used sources within the country to interview an anonymous woman living in the city. Madaya Mom is important for people to read to understand what is going on in Syria and why so many refugees feel the need to flee.
All of these comic books are using an American medium to share humanitarian stories from around the world. Refugee stories are as American as the comic books themselves.
America has achieved a prominent position on the world stage by time and time again claiming the moral high ground, seeking to be the world’s policeman.
This statement is not meant as a criticism or a compliment; merely a statement of how things stand. And if the United States want to maintain a rhetorically significant position in global conversation, it must live up to the moral courage/standards it espouses. This isn’t only in a general PR sense, but also so that America’s citizens can be proud of the nation they live in.
So now that we’re all on the same page regarding patriotic pride, what does this have to do with refugees? If you look at the banner of this website (scroll up) you’ll see that we quoted Emma Lazarus’ The New Colossus, as is engraved upon the Statue of Liberty:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We are currently in the largest refugee crisis in recorded history. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR, 65.6 million people are currently living as refugees or as displaced persons inside their own countries. More than half of these people are under the age of 18, which is particularly shocking given that children make up only 31 percent of the world’s population. Furthermore, in 2016 alone, according to UNHCR, 75,000 children applied for asylum as “unaccompanied minors.”
Even though there is no evidence of refugees posing any national security threat to the United States, or any Western nation, the Trump administration continues to maintain a particularly hostile stance towards refugee populations, which, again, are mostly comprised of children. By not accepting these refugees the Trump administration is creating a national security threat that they explicitly are seeking to avoid.
Refugees who are unable to find asylum are being forced to stay in unstable regions, or flee to neighboring countries, where they face deteriorating conditions and few prospects. Their presence is also placing pressure on poor and middle-income countries, risking state collapse, furthering regional instabilities.
That’s not to forget that the refugees themselves have undergone a great deal of trauma and psychological stress, which makes them targets for militant mobilization and radicalization — thus expanding the conflict in the Middle East.
By not allowing refugees into the United States, we are not only creating the problems that the Trump Administration is actively seeking to avoid; we aren’t living up to our promise. If these people are not the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breather free, who is?
The suggested cap is based on estimates and suggestions from the Department of Homeland Security, which advocated for as low as 40,000, while completely ignoring the findings and suggestions of other relevant departments. The State Department and the Department of Defense both called for no fewer than the minimum 50,000-refugee cap,
(It’s also important to note that the annual Refugee Cap is only rarely met, and that more often than not the United States accepts significantly less refugees than it has the resources to.)
Unsurprisingly, the dip in the cap caused great outrage. As the global community finds itself in the largest refugee crisis in recorded history, it is remarkably counter intuitive to decrease the cap, when we have the capacity to accept 100,000s more.
The White House justified the 45,000 cap citing concerns of national security and limited resources. The budget released by the Trump Administration back in May stated “under the refugee program, the federal government brings tens of thousands of entrants into the United States, on top of existing legal immigration flows, who are instantly eligible for time-limited cash benefits and numerous noncash federal benefits, including food assistance through SNAP, medical care and education, as well as a host of state and local benefits.”
Most significantly though internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, completed in late July, found that refugees “contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government” between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes stating, “overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.”
Outside of the Government there are various other sources reaffirming how the economy is benefitted by immigrants and refugees. An analysis from the Washington Post reviewed research conducted by the American Community Survey, an annual survey conducted by the Census Bureau. Their analysis suggests that within a handful of years after arriving, quite a few refugees are doing as well as or perhaps better than the average American resident, according to basic economic indicators. “Within seven years, refugees reach a higher median income and lower use of food stamps than their neighbors. They develop language competency fairly quickly, and remain active in the workforce, buoying the local economy.”
Across the board economic indicators are suggesting that refugees and immigrants are very supportive and beneficial to the American economy – by blocking these refugees out we not only keep them from their potential, we block our own communities from thriving.
We are all familiar with the American romanticization of the victory over the Germans in World War Two. It’s arguable that the American self perception of being the policeman of the world began due to this victory, and while its so comforting to fall into the narrative it’s sooooo important that we remain honest about America’s position in the war.
In reality the United States stayed out of the war until they were directly assaulted by a foreign entity. The pacifist and non-confrontational tactics were not in the interests of maintaining a global peace, but only because it was easier to stay out of a second global conflict.
Further more, even though the United States had a great deal of knowledge about the dangerous situation that European Jewry found themselves in, and nonetheless efforts by Congress to increase immigration caps or refugee limits were blocked again and again. Most dramatically was the Wagner Roger Act.
The bill was introduced on February 9, 1939, by Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Representative Edith Rogers of Massachusetts, and would have permitted the entry of 20,000 refugee children, ages 14 and under, from tGermany, and it’s occupied territories, into the United States over the course of two years (1939 and 1940). The children would have been granted entry without reference to the existing quota system.
Who could argue against such a cause?
Congress members on either side of the isle argued that the bill would increase unemployment, even if the refugees were young children. Groups like the American Legion and the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, which included members of the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, supported a decrease in immigration to the United States overall and that any charitable efforts should be directed to impoverished American children.
And most upsettingly: Laura Delano Houghteling,the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration, summarized the sentiment of the opposition when she complained that “20,000 charming children would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults.”
No.
Most of them didn’t grow up at all.
The Bill died in Committee in early March.
Over the course of the war several hundred refugee children from Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal were admitted to the United States during the war, far fewer than the 20,000 children proposed by the Wagner-Rogers Bill.
In order to control population levels, nations must set what is known as refugee admissions and resettlement ceilings. Commonly called the refugee cap, this represents the maximum number of refugees that a nation will admit during one fiscal year. In 2018, America is witnessing its lowest refugee cap in history under the Trump administration. Trump’s proposed refugee cap lands at 45,000 refugees. This is the lowest number since the White House began setting refugee caps in 1980 and it is well under the average of 75,000 per year over the last decade. Not only is this historically low, but Trump has slashed the number by more than half of Obama’s target 110,000 refugees for the 2017 fiscal year.
In a 2018 analysis by the International Rescue Committee, it became evident that the Trump administration is on pace to resettle below half of their already reduced 45,000 refugee cap. If the refugee resettlement efforts remain this abysmally low, fewer than 25,000 refugees will be admitted and resettled in the United States in 2018.
Why We Need To Return to Obama-era Resettlement Levels
America takes pride in our global leadership role, so why are we abandoning that role when we can truly make a difference? The United States is a world power expected to lead and it is our responsibility to lead by example.
We are currently in a global humanitarian crisis. According to the Migration Policy Institute, mass displacements of individuals hit a record high in 2015. There are more refugees around the world today than ever before in history and as Trump’s refugee cap went into effect for 2018, the United States is responding to a world crisis by allowing the fewest amount of refugees into our country in almost 40 years. The refugee crisis is a human crisis and we need to lead the world in a humanitarian effort to help protect and resettle these displaced men, women, and children.
In addition to the moral arguments for the admission of more refugees, I want to point out that accepting refugees into the U.S. reflects American values. Refugee resettlement enriches our economy, promotes multiculturalism, and enhances our national security.
Uprooted from Iraq and Syria, Salam and Aseel Bunyan and their family were resettled in Idaho, where they have opened a Middle Eastern restaurant
Despite popular belief, refugees are a great boon to the U.S. economy. We will go into more detail in a later post, but refugees entering the U.S. contribute to economic growth as entrepreneurs, consumers, and taxpayers. In 2016, over 80 percent of refugees in the International Rescue Committee’s early employment program were economically self-sufficient within six months. And refugees pay on average $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in government benefits.
Finally, the process for entering our nation as a refugee is one of the most rigorous of any in the world. Refugee vetting involves six government agencies and can take up to three years. Not only are these individuals well considered before entering, but turning them away could have disastrous consequences. Forcing refugees to return to nations that are not safe for them or cannot accommodate them will cause increased instability in the social and political spheres of those regions.
Not only is denying aid to refugees immoral, it’s un-American. And it’s not going to work. Trump and many of his supporters believe that by refusing entry, they will prevent terrorists from entering the United States under the guise of refugees. However, this is extremely unlikely to ever actually happen due to the rigorous vetting that refugees must go through before entering the country. Trump is sending a message to the entire world that America does not like or want refugees. His message is saying that the United States is against Muslims and against the nations listed in his ban. Although this isn’t the truth, these ideas become widespread and make it easier for groups like ISIS to recruit. What better way to turn someone against America than to tell them that they are unwanted and not worth helping? Trump’s politics of hate are doing nothing to deter terrorism. If anything, these policies are just going to make attacks more likely.
This statement is not meant as a criticism or a compliment; merely a statement of how things stand. And if the United States want to maintain a rhetorically significant position in global conversation, it must live up to the moral courage/standards it espouses. This isn’t only in a general PR sense, but also so that America’s citizens can be proud of the nation they live in.
(It’s also important to note that the annual Refugee Cap is only rarely met, and that more often than not the United States accepts significantly less refugees than it has the resources to.)
The bill was introduced on February 9, 1939, by Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Representative Edith Rogers of Massachusetts, and would have permitted the entry of 
No.
Refugee Rhetoric 