Resettling Refugees in America: Problem We Should Resolve with Dignity
Recent events in Syria and other war-torn countries have revealed that there are still many questions to be answered regarding resettling of refugees in the United States. For a very long time, America has been known as “the world’s most generous donor” (Sauerbrey 1), and it is not surprising that it is now overcrowded by people from different parts of the world whose stay in the home country is impossible for various reasons. There are now two opposite visions of how a massive influx of refugees should be addressed. According to one of them, the country should continue to resettle refugees. Moreover, it should consider redefining the concept, so that even more people benefit from America’s generosity.
Another vision suggests that the country should tighten its policy in relation to refugees, as their stay in the country has become a heavy economic burden. The truth lies somewhere in between, and involves integrating people from different countries into American community.Many experts, including Sauerbrey, view an influx of refugees as a threat to the country, and oppose the Obama administration’s attempts to redefine the concept. Until recently, a refugee was an individual who, owing to some reasons, could not count on the protection of his state, and was forced to leave it. These days, the number of individuals who fit the description is much less than the number of people who want to be resettled in the United States. The trend can be attributed to two major reasons. Firstly, the United States enjoys a relatively stable financial position, and people from other countries take every opportunity to become part of this prosperous community.
The desire to stability and prosperity is simple and clear, especially when it is supported by the government’s actions. Secondly, the United States’ government has adopted a policy that is friendly to refugees. According to Barnett, the government’s willingness to provide all forms of assistance to people calling themselves refuges is explained by the fact that specialized programs are “the money racket” (1). The allocation of funds lacks transparency, and there is a limited group of officials benefitting from it. Barnett’s fears are confirmed by the data suggested by Sauerbrey. The former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration is outraged by the plans of the Obama administration to interview young Hondurans aged up to 21 years with an aim to redefine the refugee status. This activity is expected to result in the increased number of people seeking refugee status who enter the country, and the launch of even more programs to assist them. Both Sauerbrey and Barnett fear that the government’s initiative will affect ordinary taxpayers. The refugees entering the country need food, shelter, medical assistance, and a number of other services.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that refugees cannot pay for all these services as their status is such that they are rarely employed. …
