![\"By](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2015\/11\/An_Aerial_View_of_the_Zaatri_Refugee_Camp.jpg\")
<\/a>- \n
- 38.2 million are internally displaced (7.6 million in Syria, 6 million in Colombia, 3.6 million in Iraq, 2.8 million in the DR Congo, and lots elsewhere)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- 19.5 million are refugees, or 14.4 million if you exclude the Palestinians, with the largest numbers from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, DR Congo, and Myanmar. \u00a0Presumably this is understated as it seems to include only those who are either formally registered as refugees, not those who have moved to a neighboring country and live and work there illegally, though it\u2019s not entirely clear.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Of this number, 100,000 were resettled to third countries in 2014; and of that, 3\/4ths went to the United States. \u00a0The rest either wait for resettlement or, it is hoped, for most, a return home.<\/p>\n
Which makes the discussion about whether the United States should take in 10,000 Syrians, or 100,000, or none at all, foolish and entirely missing the point.<\/p>\n
In any case where there is a real, meaningful chance that the country of origin could be made \u201chabitable\u201d again, and refugees would be able to return, repatriation should be the objective, and a just and humane (but sensible and cost-efficient) provision for refugees\u2019 needs in the meantime. \u00a0In cases, where no return is imagined to be possible \u2014 because the regime that persecuted or expelled them is expected to stay in power indefinitely \u2014 then, yes, we should be talking about resettlement, and the only question should be where, that is, which locations can best economically and culturally integrate the newcomers, and whether wealthier third countries (or maybe \u201cfourth countries\u201d?) should pitch in with economic assistance for poorer receiving countries.<\/p>\n
Hence: \u00a0in Myanmar, for instance, there is no expectation that the existing regime will relent in its persecution of the Rohingyas<\/a> (though I\u2019ll have to renew my subscription to The Economist to be more up-to-date here than just a Wikipedia article), and there\u2019s no real pressure from the West to do so. \u00a0Going back further in history, when the United States accepted both Jews and ethnically-cleansed ethnic Germans, among others, post World War II, there was no doubt that these people could not return home.<\/p>\n
But in Syria, there\u2019s a shooting war. \u00a0Maybe it lasts years longer, or even decades, or generations. \u00a0But are we so certain of that? \u00a0Maybe it ends. \u00a0Heck, last I heard, the French were finally taking the initiative to bomb ISIS strongholds. \u00a0There is a real, meaningful chance that Syrians (or at least the majority Muslims; perhaps never the Christians and other minority religions) will be able to return to their homes, or that, at least, it\u2019d be poverty, rather than persecution, that keeps them away.<\/p>\n
So: \u00a0why are we resettling a relative handful of Syrian refugees \u2014 this small fraction of the total displaced \u2014 in the U.S., rather than kicking in the necessary funds for the refugee camps to operate more humanely and at less of a burden to their host countries?<\/p>\n
How much cash does the U.S. contribute to the operation of refugee camps? \u00a0Is the reason why we resettle that resettlement has fewer immediately-visible costs, more hidden costs? \u00a0That there are interest groups who profit from refugee resettlement in the U.S.?<\/p>\n
Resettlement is our first impulse. \u00a0Bring them here, we\u2019ll take care of them. \u00a0We imagine pitching in to cover the rent for a refugee family, or putting them up in an empty nester\u2019s empty bedrooms, or bringing over groceries, or sitting down with them to help them learn English. \u00a0Well, OK, maybe we don\u2019t imagine ourselves, personally, doing these things, but it\u2019s how we imagine helping refugees, in general. \u00a0It\u2019s a Matthew 25 thing: \u00a0Jesus said, \u201cI was hungry and you fed me,\u201d not \u201cand you wrote a check to a global charity that runs refugee camps.\u201d \u00a0We think of hands-on efforts as more worthy than supporting others with our pocketbooks.<\/p>\n
Refugee resettlement is also how we prove our openness to other races, other cultures, how we establish our bona fides<\/em> as a welcoming people.<\/p>\n
Even at the political level, the \u00a0number of refugees resettled in the U.S., not the number aided in camps or other local provision, is how we \u201cprove\u201d we\u2019re right-thinking people.<\/p>\n
And, again, resettlement (though not necessarily in the United States) \u00a0makes sense for those groups where there is no foreseeable return home, where the alternative is a lifetime in a refugee camp.<\/p>\n
But is it really a prudent, responsible action, with respect to Syrians<\/em>, given that (remember Mark Krikorian\u2019s 12: 1 ratio<\/a>) we can spend our money far more effectively on helping them in place? \u00a0And this has nothing to do with whether Syrians are more likely than Americans or other potential resettled refugees to join up with radical Islamic supremacist groups. \u00a0But we need to take a pause from these accusations (\u201cyou\u2019re a xenophobe!\u201d \u201cyou don\u2019t care about the welfare of Americans!\u201d) and think about whether what we\u2019re doing makes any sense in the big picture.<\/p>\n
- 19.5 million are refugees, or 14.4 million if you exclude the Palestinians, with the largest numbers from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, DR Congo, and Myanmar. \u00a0Presumably this is understated as it seems to include only those who are either formally registered as refugees, not those who have moved to a neighboring country and live and work there illegally, though it\u2019s not entirely clear.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n