While the United States military was correct in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan this year, that still does not change the fact that Afghanistan is a bloody mess right now. Thousands are looking to leave the country. It is so bad that there were Afghan citizens swarming the airport, breaking through security to try to get on a plane. Some clung to military planes taking off and lamentably fell to their doom. Given the precarious situation in Afghanistan, an end to U.S. involvement was inevitable, as was the Taliban resurgence. The fate of thousands of Afghans, on the other hand, is not set in stone.
President Ronald Reagan once called the United States a city on a shining hill. For many people seeking a better life, the United States has represented a land of freedom, opportunity, and a chance at a better life. As it says on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal, "Give me your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." Emma Lazarus' words have rung true over the decades as the United States has led the world in accepting refugees. While this has been an ideal set in the moral fabric of the United States, it has been less-than-ideal in practice. One of the reasons that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the worst presidents is because he turned away refugees fleeing from Nazi persecution. More recently, President Donald Trump enacted a refugee ban as part of a litany of anti-immigrant regulations, whether it was for undocumented workers or those who "arrived here legally."
In spite of this imperfect enactment of laws pertaining to refugees, at least we can take some solace that 81 percent of Americans are in favor of letting Afghan who helped the U.S. military throughout the War in Afghanistan into the United States (CBS-YouGov). Let's think about the moral arguments that would create such a majority opinion. For one, accepting refugees is truly an issue of a right to life, which should make pro-lifers happy. Two, it is something that has defined the American Dream since its inception, which should make those on the Right happy that we are continuing with this tradition. Not only does it help the downtrodden, but it also contributes to the diversity of the United States, which should make the Left happy. I could quote Exodus 22:20 and point out that the Bible details how the the text lays out an obligation to help out refugees, which should make the religious in the U.S. happy. We are helping those fleeing from literal tyranny to make a better life for themselves.
The moral arguments should cover every major part of the political spectrum in the country, and yet there are some that are still against it. Some might be worried about the national security of the United States, so let's look at historical terrorism data (Nowrasteh, 2019). There have been three attacks or attempted attacks from Afghan-born individuals in the United States. Those attacks resulted in zero deaths and 30 injuries. Recent criminal data has a similar outcome. Afghan-born immigrants were incarcerated at a rate of 127 out of 100,000 individuals. As for native-born U.S. citizens? At a rate of 1,477 out of 100,000, which is to say that Afghan immigrants are 11.6 times less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. Furthermore, the Taliban doesn't have any ambitions beyond its own borders, which minimizes the likelihood of an attack on American soil. Also, let's keep in mind what happens on the next military endeavor (because odds are there will be one). If we abandon Afghans who helped the U.S. military during the War in Afghanistan, that tarnishes the United States' reputation. How likely would people be to help the U.S. military in future engagements knowing that translators and other supporters are hung out to dry?
Now that we have established that the threat from Afghan refugees to the American people is minimal, let's jump to the economic arguments. There are those on the Right, more specifically the anti-immigrant Right, that would like to portray refugees as an economic drain (e.g., Camarota, 2015). Some argue that greater welfare benefits are more likely to attract migrants. Earlier this month, political pundit Tucker Carlson blamed the housing crisis on refugees. He should be blaming land use regulations, but I digress. It might be politically convenient to blame refugees for being an economic burden, but refugees are in fact an economic boon.
Let's start with the fact that refugees typically do not compete for the same jobs as native-born citizens (Mayda, 2017), a trend we see also see with immigrants. There is economic evidence showing that six years after arriving to their new country, refugees work at a higher rate than native citizens. This study also shows that the break-even point in terms of cost is around nine years. By the time the typical refugee has been in the United States for 20 years, that individual has paid $128,689 in taxes, which is $21,000 more paid in taxes than they received in benefits (Evans and Fitzgerald, 2017). Analysis from Western European data comes to a similar conclusion (D'Albis et al., 2018). Using a specific case study, Vietnamese refugees were able to become contributing members of society after so many fled Vietnam in the 1970s (Alperin and Batalova, 2018). You can read more from the Brookings Institution on the economic argument for accepting refugees (Bahar and Dooley, 2020).
This is not to say that taking in a large influx of refugees is not a huge undertaking because it is. At the same time, what I can say is this. It does not matter whether a migrant is leaving their country willingly (i.e., immigrant) or unwillingly (i.e., refugee). Much like with immigrants, refugees are a net positive contribution to the economy, especially in the long-term. Not only would it be good for the U.S. economy if we were to accept more refugees, it would be the morally right thing to do. It is my hope that the U.S. government expands the Special Immigrant Visa [SIV] program and raises the refugee cap to help alleviate the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment