Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our databases.

This functionality is provided solely for your

convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any
representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS
AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY
AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY,
ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning
Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Virtual Reference Library Terms and Conditions and by using the machine
generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the
machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

The American way of refuge: offering sanctuary to Syrian exiles is both compassionate and wise--and just might give the
united states a chance for a regional "reset."
Hoover Digest. (Winter 2016) Reading Level (Lexile): 1270.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Hoover Digest

Full Text:
Americans are mere spectators to the drama of Syria's refugees teeming into Europe. We are taking no responsibility for our part in
the tragedy. Worse yet, we are missing an opportunity to reset our relations with the peoples of the Middle East by showcasing one of
our core values, which is also one of our great domestic and international advantages: we are a country of, and welcoming to,
refugees.

Americans pride ourselves on being a sanctuary for people fleeing violence, injustice, and political and religious persecution. We
have a proud history of sheltering those who fear remaining in their homelands, and it has strengthened our country in myriad ways--
bringing us immigrants courageous enough to start anew in a foreign land; testing and rewarding our tolerance; reinforcing our sense
of ourselves as a community devoted to opportunity and individual liberty; infusing our culture with new influences and the malleability
that comes from accommodating them; and creating a "brand" that gives us competitive advantages in the global competition for
talent.

We are so accommodating that Fidel Castro included thousands of prison inmates among the Cuban refugees of the 1980 Mariel
boatlift to spite our harboring of people fleeing his despotism. But our history has also had sad failures to admit the desperate. When
we have averted our eyes, it is typically either the result of overt racism (prohibitions on Asian immigrants in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries), our fear of being drawn into an ongoing war (denying Jews admission in the 1930s), our inability to
distinguish between refugees and "economic migrants" (interdicting Haitian boats teeming with people fleeing first the Duvalier
butchery then the junta that came after in the 1990s), or our alarm at a sudden rush of would-be immigrants (Central Americans
fleeing murderous violence in 2014).

None of these conditions applies in the case of the Syrian refugees clawing their way to Europe. The only remotely applicable reason
for reluctance is the notion that we might be drawn into a war, but Bashar al-Assad's Syria is not the great power Hitler's Germany
was. Moreover, as the past four bloody years of Syria's agony demonstrate, we can choose not to fight in Syria. Which makes the
dilatory response of our government to the plight of Syria's suffering all the more shameful.

Our policies have fueled the conflict in Syria in at least six ways: being apologists for Assad (recall Hillary Clinton saying that he was
a reformer); creating the expectation we would usher him from power (recall President Obama saying Assad must go); fecklessly
arming and training "moderate" Syrian rebels; permitting Iran's direct involvement to prop up Assad; drawing but not enforcing the
"red line" on chemical weapons use by Assad--a practice he has continued; and now watching as Russia escalates its involvement.
And let's not forget the State Department's disgraceful "hashtag diplomacy," a futile social-media gesture that added insult to injury.
Our government's callousness is buying us generations of resentment.

And where are the Republican hopefuls, those calling for a better American foreign policy? Carly Fiorina thinks America has already
done its "fair share." Jeb Bush, who speaks so movingly about immigration in other contexts, and Marco Rubio, whose family
members are Cuban refugees, both agreed in principle that the United States should accept some Syrians, but couched their vague
support in the context of preventing jihadis. Neither spoke up until Donald Trump made news saying, "They're living in hell, and
something has to be done." John Kasich's faith may drive his views on Medicare expansion, but Syrian refugees are evidently
Europe's problem. Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz, so strident in their proclamations of faith, have no room at the inn. Conservatives
need to do some soul-searching.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The United States of America is failing at the central tenet of leadership: that of setting an example for others to follow. We have
given money--$4 billion at last count--much of it to assist Turkey and Jordan, neighboring countries that are amazingly and nobly
helping the four million displaced Syrians. But checkbook diplomacy is no substitute for solutions, as we so often tell other countries.

Jordan's central political dilemma since 1945 has been devising a balance to accommodate the two million Palestinian refugees it
accepted with the creation of the state of Israel; yet it has still admitted at least 650,000 Syrian refugees (and more likely double that,
since many have been absorbed into Jordanian cities). The fourth-largest city in the country is the Zaatari refugee camp. Germany
expected to receive 800,000 asylum-seekers in 2015, opening its borders while Hungary's government verged on xenophobia.
Sweden admitted 80,000 refugees in 2014--and it is a more homogenous country than the United States, so its difficulties will likely
be greater in fostering civic cohesion in this new mix. If the United States met the standard by population that Sweden has set, we
would admit two million Syrians. We have admitted 1,500 since the war began, and the additional 10,000 that President Obama
promised last fall to take in would be but a drop in the bucket.

Do Syrian refugees have economic reasons to emigrate? Of course they do--their country is a bombed-out wreck. But economics are
not what put families with small children perilously to sea. Are we at risk of jihadis slipping in among the refugees to threaten our
societies? Of course we are, but they are slipping into our countries even without the cover of a torrent of refugees. In fact, we are
likelier to have cooperation in finding and managing threats from people grateful to be resettled here (as has proved the case with the
more than 100,000 Iraqis admitted since 2003 and 20,000 Afghans since 2001).

True, countries accepting refugees from the Syrian war are creating long-term problems for themselves: problems of assimilation,
problems of employment, and problems of political backlash. But they are also gaining the traditional advantages America has long
benefited from, both domestically and internationally. Most important of those advantages is the justifiable pride at looking difficulties
in the face and choosing to be a society that lifts its lantern to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Kori N. Schake is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a member of Hoover's Working Group on the Role of Military History
in Contemporary Conflict.

Schake, Kori N.

Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)

Schake, Kori N. "The American way of refuge: offering sanctuary to Syrian exiles is both compassionate and wise--and just might
give the united states a chance for a regional 'reset.'." Hoover Digest, no. 1, 2016, p. 37+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A444819099/OVIC?u=omah46832&sid=OVIC&xid=3998e4ba. Accessed 6 May 2018.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A444819099