2nd DDO Census Debate: Syrian Refugees

Thanks to TUF and donald.keller for engaging in this debate with us, and thanks to Skepsikyma for assisting me. As this is a policy debate, it should be assessed through the lens of net benefits. Our case will be compared either with the status quo or with a counter plan presented by Con, and voters should determine who won based on who produces the greatest benefit for all parties involved. Our case is contextual to the topic. We need not specify just how many should be taken, only that Syrian refugees should be accepted into the U.S., and that the necessary costs be borne federally. Just as Con stated, when that refugee status ends, they would either be required to seek citizenship or return home. 1) Crisis There are 4.6 million people who have fled Syria, as of last month.[1] This is clearly the result of safety issues within a war-torn nation.[2] The number of refugees is still rising, and will keep rising for the foreseeable future. Still more are displaced within Syria itself, and they are likely to add to this number.[1] Currently, Turkey hosts 1.9 million. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon have some 2.1 million.[3] Roughly 1 million have arrived in Europe, with the vast majority coming from Syria.[4] The problem is that the capacities and willingness of these nations to take on more people is not enough. Many go through Greece, where economic austerity has resulted in weakened protection systems for the poor. Asylum-seekers and refugees demanding the full attention of civil-society organizations, resulting in rampant xenophobia, intolerance, discrimination and even violence.[5] Europe as a whole is in such dire straits that there's a fear that the refugee crisis will tear it apart, with the Germans, their strongest economy, talking about shutting their borders and even reviving the Deutschmark.[6] The international system aimed at addressing the crisis is failing. "[T]he EU's Schengen Agreement theoretically guarantees a baseline of free movement. However, the Dublin Regulation restricts asylum seekers to applying for relief in a single state, which mean that to reach their destination of choice... refugees must cross through multiple, and increasingly hostile, borders."[7] Borders are closed in Spain, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, Austria, Slovenia, Sweden, Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia. Many countries have even constructed fences to keep refugees out. Authorities are physically assaulting, violently clashing with, and arbitrarily imprisoning refugees at their borders.[7-14] These efforts "drive people toward riskier, more chaotic overland or sea routes."[7] Almost 7,000 migrants are estimated to have lost their lives simply trying to travel to these locations, and that toll is likely to increase as more safe routes of transit vanish.[15] Among Middle East nations, Lebanon alone hosts 1 million refugees, which is dramatically overwhelming its population of less than 5 million people.[16] Refugees are pushed into legal limbo, subjected to fears of jail or harassment, and face long-term poverty as the benefits that Lebanon receives from the UN continue to shrink. Jobs are scarce and education more so as children are often forced to work in order to eat.[17] They've closed their borders, as have Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan.[18] The situation in Jordan, with over a million refugees, is so bad that many are returning to Syria due to a lack of medical care, food and water.[19] The situation in these countries is desperate as cold temperatures put countless lives at risk in nations with limited resources and refugees still in limbo.[20] There's clearly a need here, and while some nations are making minor dents in that need,[21] many are blocking any route in for migrants, leading to what's been termed as "The New Iron Curtains".[22] The lack of avenues by which to exit the desperate situation in Syria ensures that millions of people will be left with a terrible choice: stay in war-torn Syria, or risk life and limb emigrating. This has led the UN refugee agency to call for 130,000 Syrians refugees to be resettled by the end of 2016.[23] A U.S. commitment to register refugees advances the quality of life of those individuals and prevents deaths. It doesn't matter how many we accept - even if we go with the 10,000 Obama has already promised,[24] that would be a substantial benefit, returning to these people some semblance of safety and showing them basic humanity. 2. Duty The U.S. has made itself responsible for these refugees. Obama has already made that commitment, and to turn our back on that explicit agreement is tremendously detrimental to our international image, making the U.S. look like we're so paranoid about Muslim terrorism that we would ignore a humanitarian crisis and eschew our self-imposed obligation. But if that promise is not enough, our history should be. "[T]he United States has given a home to some three million refugees since 1975. In 2013, they came from 64 different countries." We even created the U.S. Refugee Admissions program, a legislative framework dedicated to refugee resettlement and protection. Using that history, the U.S. can better couch its decision to take on these refugees, using past data to show that they will not be burdens on society and that their children will be cared for.[25] There's support among the population, as many citizens are even willing to open their homes.[26] Our duty is also international. Other nations are taking on so many refugees because they recognize this is a crisis, but they're at or past their breaking point. The United Nations has submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the U.S. for consideration.[27] We should consider them. Other countries know that the U.S. can take on refugees, and they expect us to help shoulder the load. To do otherwise would tell the international community and our allies that we don't care about their problems, spitting in their faces when they need our assistance. 3. Backlash A large part of why ISIS is so successful is the result of their propaganda. It has been successful because we've failed to understand that "the problem of the Islamic State [is] a political problem with a media dimension, not the other way around." Political realities are intrinsically linked to their messaging and thus, so long as the political realities exist, we cannot divorce them from the propaganda.[28] Taking in these refugees is an opportunity to alter those political realities. By reducing all of the problems we've mentioned in our first contention, we're also denying ISIS fodder that continues to be used to recruit people from all across the world. But it goes deeper than that. Propaganda is most successful when the message being presented is facilitated by the facts, i.e. people aren't going to believe something just because they're told it's true. If they see evidence that shows that the propaganda is deceptive, then that propaganda loses much of its power to sway them. Right now, despite Obama's message of acceptance, many U.S. governors are actively banning the entry of refugees, and the result has been a general perception that Americans hate or fear these refugees.[29] That bolsters the Islamic State's legitimacy. Their messaging "give[s] the impression of deep discomfort and even jealousy that the Muslim population the Islamic State so covets for its self-proclaimed 'caliphate' would rather live in 'infidel' Western lands." ISIS was happy to take responsibility for the Paris attacks because they "calculate[d] that a small number of attackers can profoundly shift the way that European society views its 44 million Muslim members and, as a result, the way European Muslims view themselves." They want the West "to equate refugees with terrorists. In turn, [ISIS] wants refugees to equate the West with prejudice against Muslims and foreigners."[30] Thus, taking in refugees has multiple benefits. First, the treatment of those refugees who come here will stand as examples of good treatment of Muslims. This undermines ISIS propaganda and improves U.S. messaging abroad. Second, these Syrians will spread their personal stories by social media and other means. While messages from the U.S. itself may be written off, the various associations of these people with their fellow countrymen will lend credence to what they say. Third, every refugee can interact with the general American populace, telling their stories about ISIS and the civil war. First-hand accounts will dramatically reduce the incentive for individuals from this country to go abroad and join ISIS. As some 30,000 people have defected and who are complicit in their terrorist actions, this is important.[31] The result of all this is a general failure of ISIS propaganda, which dramatically reduces their power. They require a caliphate to rule and people to conscript, not to mention an influx of people from without. In both cases, this functions against them, reducing the propensity for those in western nations, particularly Americans, to be drawn by that propaganda and reducing the general enmity of Syrian civilians for the U.S. While this may not be enough by itself to stop ISIS, it hamstrings them, reducing the effectiveness of one of their most potent weapons and improving the image of the U.S. abroad in the process. 1. bit.ly/1jsBiUu 2. brook.gs/1nuAu60 3. bit.ly/1jsBiUu 4. bit.ly/1jsBiUu 5. bit.ly/16cR1CA 6. huff.to/1PlT9XR 7. bit.ly/1OgTUnn 8. bit.ly/1Otpv5A 9. bit.ly/1PCtNp5 10. bit.ly/1PcNl9j 11. huff.to/1SsXQFL 12. bit.ly/1LbJu3K 13. bit.ly/1AC7QQo 14. bit.ly/1Nhzya3 15. bit.ly/1SsXVt5 16. nyti.ms/1HLPKPB 17. cnn.it/1OwfB1S 18. bbc.in/1ZwUMuu 19. bit.ly/1NhzCGH 20. bbc.in/1N7F6YJ 21. bit.ly/1lXxwGx 22. bit.ly/1KrpX0z 23. on.wsj.com/1EH06nV 24. bit.ly/1QauqJo 25. nyti.ms/1OOJIUF 26. reut.rs/23brH9u 27. 1.usa.gov/1JEkK7N 28. brook.gs/1n72nk4 29. cnb.cx/1MEd3wK 30. wapo.st/1S00Nue 31. nym.ag/1PCu23y