Starting from a Ban
Recently, US President Trump signed an executive order announcing a ban on citizens from seven countries entering US borders, even US green card holders. This ban has faced considerable criticism, with many media outlets interpreting it as a “Muslim Ban.” This irresponsible interpretation is highly inflammatory; it not only annoyed American multiculturalists but also enraged Islamic jihadists. Although these seven countries are Muslim-majority, this does not represent a US ban on Muslims entering, so the “Muslim Ban” claim is a complete distortion of facts.
First, I must state that I do not support President Trump’s ban because it is too strict and includes many people already confirmed to pose no threat to the United States. I can understand President Trump, and many Americans, in their urgent need for security and the desire to shut terrorism out. In fact, simply strengthening visa approval and entry controls could achieve the same, or even better, results. After all, terrorists do not only come from these countries; many are even citizens holding EU passports. Furthermore, these seven countries are not all “dangerous countries”; for example, in Iran, general terrorism has absolutely no foundation among the majority of the populace who believe in Shi’a Islam.
Many of Trump’s opponents have dramatized this ban, describing it as a prelude to deporting all immigrants. They fear-monger that Trump will next deport Mexicans, Chinese, and even all other “people of color” and “non-Christians,” practically calling him a second Hitler. However, the US President is not an emperor; he simply does not have that much power. On February 3, a federal judge in Seattle ordered a nationwide suspension of the ban. Trump is currently appealing this. Regardless of who is right or wrong, this embodies the checks and balances of American power; without widespread agreement, a party acting willfully is destined to fail.
Why the US Has No Obligation to Accept Refugees
I believe the intent of Trump’s ban includes opposition to the influx of refugees. CNN, a media outlet that consistently opposes Trump, recently reported that tens of thousands of refugees and those who had already obtained visas were affected by the ban. On this point, I support Trump’s decision. Because no matter which country they are from, refugees should be prohibited without exception.
At any time, a massive influx of refugees into a country is a disaster for that country. Since the Syrian war, benefiting from Merkel’s “Welcome Policy,” a large number of refugees have entered Germany via the “Balkan Route” and settled down. These people are not all from Syria or other war-torn countries; they include those from relatively safe North African countries, such as Morocco. Merkel’s welcome policy was not targeted at these economic migrants from safe countries, but under the disorderly influx of millions of refugees, even identifying the source countries of refugees became a problem, let alone detailed background checks. The direct consequence of this policy is the gradual deterioration of public security in Germany and other European countries, making terrorism an increasing threat to the public.
A country has no obligation to accept refugees from other countries. National sovereignty is the collective property right of citizens; specifically, citizenship and right of abode are privileges, not so-called “natural human rights.” As a refugee, fleeing is your own freedom, but this is not a reason for other countries to accept you. Countries that accept refugees, like rich people who donate money, are worthy of respect. But countries that do not accept refugees cannot be criticized for it. Demanding a country accept refugees is like demanding a rich person must donate money; it is a form of moral kidnapping. Refugees can flee, but expecting other countries to accept them and blaming those that don’t is a type of “I am weak, therefore I am right” rogue logic.
The living conditions of refugees are arduous and indeed deserve sympathy. But at the same time, this is caused by the failure of their own countries. Such failure has been accumulated by their ancestors for generations; as descendants, while inheriting their ancestors’ bloodlines, they also inherit the status quo. Just as Western developed countries are developed because they inherited the fruits of their ancestors’ industry; free countries never just fall from the sky. Humans are not equal from birth as individuals because no isolated individual exists; everyone inherits everything from their ancestors, including genes, culture, property, as well as birthplace and citizenship. For people living in war-torn countries, striving to flee the country is a personal right, but attempting to live in someone else’s country is not a personal right, nor is it another country’s obligation; rather, it is a privilege that can only be obtained through that country’s recognition. This recognition can be economic (e.g., investment immigration), based on expertise (e.g., skilled immigration), or cultural (e.g., many European countries are more willing to accept Syrian Christians). In short, you have the freedom to choose to be a refugee and flee your country, but other countries have no obligation to be your sanctuary.
I believe that Trump’s raising of the threshold for investment immigration and skilled immigration while banning refugees is in line with the national interests of the United States.
Viewpoints of Opponents
People who oppose Trump’s refugee policy usually have these arguments:
1 The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” stipulates “Freedom of Movement”.
Correct, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” writes:
Article 13
- Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
- Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
- Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
- This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Reading the original text carefully, one can notice that Article 13 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” only states that everyone has freedom of movement within the borders, as well as to leave and return to their own country, while Article 14 only prescribes political asylum. Regardless, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is, after all, just a declaration and has no binding force.
2 Many countries have signed the “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees”.
The “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” only stipulates the rule of “non-refoulement” (prohibition of expulsion or return); it does not include mandatory permission to enter. Furthermore, the “Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” applies only to political refugees, not war refugees, natural disaster refugees, economic refugees, or any other form of refugees.
3 Prohibiting people from moving freely, how is that different from the former China/Soviet Union/North Korea?
China/Soviet Union/North Korea and other communist countries restricted the freedom of people to move within their borders and the freedom to leave the country; this is fundamentally different from prohibiting foreigners from entering at will.
4 The US has long interfered in Middle Eastern affairs, leaving behind a mess, and therefore has an obligation to accept these refugees.
There is insufficient evidence to show that the refugee problem in the Middle East was caused by the United States; sectarian conflicts and local extremism have displaced more people. Even if, as in Iraq, the US invasion caused destruction, belligerent nations are under no obligation to accept the other side’s refugees.
5 If every country looks out only for itself like this, where should the refugees go?
Where refugees go is their freedom. Of course, for the majority of people unable to obtain residency in other countries, morally they should stay and strive to end the war and rebuild their own country.
6 Refugees can improve cultural diversity.
“Cultural diversity” or “multiculturalism” should be based on the most basic consensus. The method of attracting immigrants should be selective, not blind passive acceptance. The “cultural diversity” of a society does not bring direct benefits to that society; one might tolerate diversity to pursue higher goals, rather than conversely treating diversity as the goal itself.
Last modified on 2017-02-06