Refugees Revitalizing Detroit – Intro to International Relations

With the current focus in the media on Syrian refugees I was curious as to what America’s standpoint was on the issue. With the current civil war taking place in Syria many families have been displaced and it has become a global issue to find countries willing to take in the victims. This Article by The New York Times suggests that the refugees from Syria could actually be beneficial to the United States. The article describes Detroit as an “Urban Vacuum” with a declining population and discusses the idea of allowing Syrian refugees to repopulate and revitalize the area. It also cites other similar cases in which this has proven effective (Bosnian refugees settling in Utica, NY). On the other hand, the common immigration issue of assimilation is brought up as a downside to the plan. Other skeptics claim the refugees will likely leave the area once they achieve a certain level of economic stability. Personally, I thought this was a great resolution to the Collective Goods Problem. While it is easy to be sympathetic to the situation the Syrians are currently in, it is difficult for a country to formulate a real way to help without encountering issues such as the cost of the aid needed. With the Detroit idea not only has the United States found a way to help the refugees, the process itself would in turn help a declining community. Of course, the plan is not perfect and the United States would still encounter costs associated with helping the refugees, but the end result could be a win-win for both the refugees and America. I am interested in hearing if anyone else has any thoughts on whether this Detroit plan is a viable option for helping Syrian refugees. Also, any thoughts in general having to do with the Syrian refugee crisis. Does America (or any other country) have a responsibility to help?

Dr. Datta says:

September 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm

This article and post discusses a novel solution to the collective goods problem with respect to the Syrian refugee crisis. Detroit badly needs investment in terms of human and physical capital. In infusion of Syrian refugees would give Detroit a key component to grow its economy.

I personally think America does have a responsibility to help and protect, but this is an ethical/normative concern. In terms of hard, balance of power politics, I don’t know if the US has an incentive to contribute.

Gioia Kelleher says:

September 20, 2015 at 4:40 pm

Hi Zijada. I’m really glad that you chose the Refugee Crisis in Europe as the topic for your blog post, as I’ve also been spending a lot of time thinking about what role the United States will and should play in the crisis. I recently stumbled upon an article by Steve Hilton (a former senior advisor to the British prime minister, David Cameron) in the New York Times that I believe adds to the complexity of your question and builds upon many of the ideas that we have covered in class. In his article “Who’s Responsible for the Refugees”, Hilton claims that since the United States played a major role in causing the crisis, they should also play a major role in the solution. Hilton then claims that the United States has a “moral responsibility to help”. Though I do not believe that the United States will help because they are morally obligated to do so, I do believe that Hilton’s article brings up other realist reasons why the US may decide to help.

Although there is no world hegemon, and there will likely never be one, the United States is one of the strongest military and economic powers in the world. I believe that the fact that western European countries are looking towards the US for help in dealing with the crisis further promotes the United States’ status as a world power. During my research this past weekend, I have not seen any articles where journalists claim that China or Russia should take in more refugees or be more involved in a solution to the crisis. An article from Russia Direct, “Will Russia contribute to solving Syria’s refugee crisis?”, reports that in Russia “less than a dozen (refugees have) received actual refugee status”, thus inhibiting the refugees from receiving many tangible benefits. The article also reports that Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for the Kremlin, has said “that Syrian refugees can use Russian territory as a transit point, but the question about accepting refugees is irrelevant for Russia because he believes the burden of the current humanitarian crisis should be shouldered by those countries whose policy led to the civil war in Syria”. In comparison, the United States has recently pledged to increase the amount of refugees it will accept to 100,000 within the next two years.

At this point, I would also like to look at Dr. Datta’s response to your post. It is true that these policies do not promote the United States’ hard power, but as world powers go to war with each other less than ever before (as shown in the graph from the textbook) hard power may be of less consequence to the leaders of the United States. Soft power is playing an increasingly more important role in maintaining the United States’ status as a world power, and in order to maintain this status the United States must continue to promote itself as a world police and someone to call for help. From this point of view there are many substantial benefits for the United States to gain by coming to the aid of Syrian refuges and the European countries trying to help them in their resettlement.