The Pros And Cons Of The Refugee Crisis
I would say no because many news stations report the increase of attacks fueled by islamophobia (Adesina). Wouldn’t these refugees be better off in countries that have similar cultures and religion instead of putting them in places that supposedly will react violently towards them. We should first ask though what do these countries citizens think about accepting these refugees. Recent poll in the US show that 53% of Americans do not want refugees, 28% want refugees, 11% only want Christian refugees, and 8% are unsure (Talev). In the UK a recently conducted poll states that 49% of UK citizens believe that they should take in “fewer or no refugees”, and only 20% thought they should accept more refugees (Richards). If this is not enough Let’s also look at the economic side of things. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner has requested $4.5 billion or approximately $1,057 per capita to assist the refugees but it has only been able to scrounge together $2.0 billion with about 55% ($2.5 billion) left to gain (UNHCR). Is this an exorbitant amount of money for the United States or charitable organizations? No it isn’t because the Obama administration paid $500 million dollars to train four or five fighters in Syria to combat ISIS which could have gone to settling Syrian refugees in safe places in the middle east (Ackerman). Many also suggest that we also settle Syrian refugees in the United States and European countries. This is a bad idea due to the fact that its cost. To resettle a refugee in the middle east for five years it would cost on average $5,285 per individual, per family it would cost on average $21,140 but if you wanted to settle a refugee with a barebones budget in the United States for five years it would cost on average $64,370, per family on average $257,481 (Zeigler). The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap.