ON REFUGEE CRISIS

In 2015, at the height of the refugee crisis in Europe, I found it astonishing that there couldn’t even be a rational debate about refugees in Germany — a debate NOT about whether you were for or against refugees, but about Angela Merkel’s controversial ‘open border policy’.

Any expression of a concern about the border security, whether the country could handle such a vast intake of refugees, and how the country could integrate people from such vastly different cultures was immediately shot down as ‘Nazi,’ ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic.’ Online comments section under newspaper articles were permanently shut down as the discussions quickly became polarized between pro vs. anti refugee camps and escalated into toxic name calling.

Even my German friends, who were mostly educated and liberal, seemed cautious about expressing anything for the fear of being labeled as xenophobic or racist: ‘We need to set boundaries,’ one of them observed cautiously, dimming his voice down as we walked down a crowded street. Another friend only expressed anything when I mentioned reading an article about five prominent philosophers debating their positions on the refugee crisis — one of whom argued: ‘a boat would sink if it got too overwhelmed’ — to which she agreed, as if she finally had a permission to say what she really thought.

And what couldn’t be expressed openly was being articulated by the AfD — the far right party in Germany — who articulated their concern, not by creating a rational conversation about the subject, but by stroking fear and fanning a full blown anti-immigration sentiment. I could see the parallel between what was happening in America — the sense of ‘unfairness’ felt by the majority on what was being perceived as a ‘preferential treatment’ of the minorities that could not be expressed openly for the fear of being labeled as ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ was being articulated by Trump by stroking a sense of resentment and galvanizing a full blown nativist sentiment — who the ‘real’ Americans were and who really belonged to America.

I wondered what would actually have been helpful conversations to have had, without rapidly devolving into a toxic name calling or fist fights.

It would have been helpful to have been able to talk about ‘fear’ itself — fear of what exactly, whether it was rational or irrational, and if irrational, so that it can be dispelled and if rational, so that it can be addressed.  Was a concern about border security rational or irrational?  Was it because the ones coming in were mostly young Muslim men or because open border posed a security risk no matter who was coming in? Whether the open border posed a security risk or not wouldn’t depend who was coming in — either open border was a security risk or it was not. And being pro-border control didn’t now have to mean you were anti-immigration.

What about a concern about whether the country could handle such a vast influx of refugees?  Was it because they were Muslim — with all the prejudices & assumption s that came with it — or was it because the country could only handle a certain number of intake, based on the resources they have, no matter who was coming in? Whether there should be a cap on number and if so on how many wouldn’t depend on who was coming in — either the country could handle the number or it couldn’t.

And what about fear of losing culture and identity of the nation with such an influx of people from other cultures? Should a country worry or not worry about losing their culture and identity of the nation with a vast influx of people from other cultures? Why or why not? Would the same volume of refugees from other groups have galvanized such fear? Whether a vast influx of people from other cultures would threaten the culture or identity of the nation or not wouldn’t depend on who was coming in — either there was a reason to worry about losing culture identity of the nation with an influx of people from other cultures or there wasn’t.

And I have already demonstrated in my essay Fear of Losing Culture & Identity of the Nation that the influx of people from other cultures didn’t threaten culture & identity of the nation, because it was the strong ethos of egalitarianism & inclusion that facilitated the acculturalization process of immigrants, without society having to impose it.

Being able to have a rational conversation about refugees, in essence, would have meant the process of identifying and extracting ‘prejudice’ out of rational reasoning — separating the ‘irrational’ from the rational — so that we can focus on addressing the legitimate concerns without being colored by prejudice or fear.