The refugee crisis conundrum

The refugee crisis in Europe and the proper American response to it is a conundrum. And anyone who suggests what we should do without recognizing the conundrum—the perplexing tension between the demands of charity and security—should not be taken seriously.

President Obama has proposed that we accept 10,000 refugees. Canada has pledged to take 25,000. Germany expects 800,000 this year. Balkan states are closing their borders or passing the migrants through as quickly as possible. But the Syrian civil war and the people desperately fleeing it are half a world away. Is it even our problem?

God expects his image bearers to love one another. “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). But, to be fair, neighbor obligation is qualified by circumstances. One has greater responsibility for the neighbor at hand than the one on the other side of the globe. One’s capacity to help also makes a difference. If I cannot swim, I am not responsible for jumping in to save a drowning man. Jordan is morally obliged to help the Syrian refugees, but its limited means reduce its obligation. Germany has greater means—wealth, organizational infrastructure, and a Christian moral heritage—but it is farther away and has a problem integrating its current Muslim population. America has great means—material and moral—and great logistical capacity to bridge the ocean divide. Though the suffering in our midst are not the far-flung suffering, capacity entails responsibility.

Yet the cause of the refugee crisis itself complicates it with legitimate security concerns. Monstrous and resourceful people ideologically devoted to indiscriminate mass murder will surely use this pitiful exodus as a Trojan horse for infiltrating the West with jihadis. Screening the refugees is difficult as there is no data available from the Syrian government to help us. Some have suggested we accept only Christians, or at least prefer them, others that we exclude young unmarried men.

There is a middle course to explore. Syria is not a prison that people have been looking for an excuse to escape. It takes the threat of death or destitution to dislodge people from their native land in these numbers. So given that it would be better for all concerned if these displaced people could stay in their own countries, or at least their own regions, the United States could, as some have suggested, establish safe zones within Syria and Iraq. We would have to enforce it as a no-fly zone and protect it with troops. Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution suggests 30,000 ground troops initially, soon replaced by a coalition of European and Middle Eastern forces. (Destroying ISIS and declawing Damascus is another matter.) We could also generously assist good neighbors like Jordan with much of what they need for their refugee camps.

To whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48). A nation with a rich Christian heritage should extend itself in love. But a government must first protect the people under its care. This balance of charity with security is the task for the Solomons in Washington, if there are any.