By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?
Placeholder Image
WASHINGTON The first U.S. Supreme Court debate over President Donald Trumps so-called travel ban took place this week, and while justices won't make a ruling until June, the decision is playing out at a time in which the refugee crisis in one of the impacted countries, Syria, may be getting worse.

The justices heard arguments Wednesday over the the administrations ban on travel from five countries with majority Muslim populations Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. This follows U.S. missile strikes this month in Syria in retaliation for a reported chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

While missile strikes may be exacerbating the refugee crisis in Syria, the United States has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees this year, compared to over 15,000 in 2016 and over 3,000 in 2017, according to State Department figures.

All of which leads to a pressing question: what obligation, if any, does America have to refugees fleeing countries where the United States is engaged militarily?

The Pottery Barn rule

There is no legal obligation or provision in international law that requires a country to take in refugees, even in a case of war, says Ryan Crocker, who has served as a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon.

But despite the lack of legal obligation, Crocker says that from 1945 onward, America has played a role of international leadership" in refugee resettlement from countries where U.S. military forces were directly involved.

As the Second World War in Europe drew to a close, for example, American ground troops were given orders to be on the lookout for refugees, to bring them in, feed them, bathe them, and keep them safe," Crocker says. Between 1945 and 1950, the U.S. admitted roughly 350,000 Europeans.

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the U.S. resettled refugees from South Vietnam who feared for their lives after the capture of Saigon by the Viet Cong ended the war in April 1975.

In anticipation of a catastrophic refugee crisis, the Indochina Migration and Refugee Act was signed into law in May 1975. The act provided over $400 million for the evacuation of 130,000 South Vietnamese from their home country, and their resettlement in the United States.

"It was a watershed moment for the United States in dealing with refugees displaced as a consequence of U.S. military efforts," says Jessica Darrow, a refugee studies lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration.

The Refugee Act of 1980 enlarged upon the 1975 legislation by standardizing resettlement services for all refugees admitted to the United States. This act became the legal basis for todays U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

The policy remained consistent in its approach until the 9/11 terror attacks, when the refugee program was temporarily suspended, and then reinstated with new security protocols and lower admission rates.

Serena Parekh, associate professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and author of "Refugees and the Ethics of Forced Displacement," says 9/11 had a profound impact on U.S. attitudes toward refugee resettlement.

Parekh says that pre-9/11, one of the central tenants of Americas approach to refugee resettlement had been the Pottery Barn rule, referencing a well-known incident in which Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush of the Pottery Barn rule before the invasion of Iraq.

You break it, you bought it, Parekh explains. If youre invading a region and you do something militarily that has a negative consequence no matter how good your intentions are you have to fix it. You are responsible for remedying the harm if there were predictable, foreseeable consequences to your actions.

But Parekh says that 9/11 was such a "collective trauma" that the Pottery Barn rule was disregarded in the effort to fight terrorism and do "whatever it took to prevent [9/11] from happening again."

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq displaced approximately 1 in 25 Iraqis from their homes, according to a study by the Brown University Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs titled "Costs of War."

The U.N. Refugee Agency reported in 2015 that over 4.4 million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad. Between 2007 and 2013, just 84,902 Iraqis were admitted to the U.S. as refugees, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

She says the lack of consideration for the Pottery Barn rule could be clearly seen in the United States' treatment of refugees during the Iraq War, particularly those who had helped the United States military as translators.

In 2008, Congress created the Special Immigration Visa program to bring Afghan and Iraqi translators to the United States. But it was widely reported that bureaucratic delays kept some translators trapped in dangerous circumstances for years while waiting for their visa to be processed.

In 2015, nine Iraqi interperters who had been promised U.S. visas sued the American government to get their visa status resolved.

Parekh said that the invasion of Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks was seen as such a good, that the unintended, but foreseeable consequences of the war refugees seemed like a small price to pay, says Parekh. Caring for the refugees who were created as a result of the invasion took a back seat, she said.

A moral obligation?

In Syria, Americas moral obligation is less clear cut than other historical examples, such as the U.S. invasion of Vietnam or Iraq, Parekh says, because its not as clear that our policy or action or lack of action directly caused the refugee crisis.

But Darrow argues that we have a moral obligation that extends far beyond just where we have intervened militarily, to all refugees worldwide seeking a safe and permanent home.

Yes, we have a moral obligation when we have been part of the destabilization, that people have fled because of us, directly or indirectly. But we have a larger moral obligation to all of the worlds refugees that we are not meeting, says Darrow.

Darrow says the decision-making of the United States should be guided by an instistence on human rights and a commitment to stopping the human rights violations that are occurring on a massive scale in places like Syria. She says that it is "not sufficient" for America to limit refugee resettlement efforts to those impacted by U.S. military intervention.

"We have a moral duty that extends to the worldwide flow of forced migration," she says. "Regardless of whether we're waging war on a country, we still have an obligation to be involved in refugee resettlement."

Looking forward

Though the Supreme Court's decision is not expected until later this summer, early analysis of Wednesday's hearing suggests that the court's five-member conservative majority seemed prepared to sustain President Trump's authority to impose the travel ban.

The decision is likely to have a profound impact on the nearly 13 million Syrians that are now on the run including 5.3 million who have been forced to seek refuge in neighboring countries, and 6.1 million displaced inside Syria, according to the Pew Research Center.

Crocker says that in recent years, the United States has sadly disengaged from a leadership role in refugee resettlement.

In 2017, we had 3,100 migrants drown in the Mediterranean [Sea], he says. How many times can you recall a U.S. Navy vessel sailing to the rescue of a floundering refugee boat? Its a nice round number. Zero.

Crocker says he was one of 50 senior former national security officials to file an amicus brief in support of the state of Hawaii and the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Projects lawsuit against the Trump administration in the travel ban case.

I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, thats who we are, and its an obligation for those of us who feel that way to push back against those who try to change who we are as a nation, says Crocker. No matter how much lipstick you put on it, it is still a highly discriminatory measure based on national origin and religion. And thats why its in front of the Supreme Court.
Sign up for our E-Newsletters
How to avoid 'sharenting' and other paparazzi parenting habits
ce406c66b9871a104ac24256a687e4821d75680dcfc89d9e5398939543f7f88f
A recent study revealed parents often spend up to two hours staging a single photo of his or her child to post online. - photo by Amy Iverson
Before having kids, some people just dont appreciate their friends baby posts. But after having a child of their own, three fourths of new parents jump right on the parental social media bandwagon. If you have become a member of this group, there are some rules to follow for posting responsibly.

Much of a parents worry is how to teach their children to use social media responsibly. We talk with our kids about privacy, oversharing, and setting restrictions on their devices to keep them safe. But parents themselves need to look in the digital mirror once in a while. Before having children, it doesnt take as much effort to think about what to post online. Its up to us to decide what we share about our own lives. But once you become a parent, there are many questions to think about regarding what is appropriate to post about your kids on social media.

In a recent survey, kids clothing subscription company Mac and Mia surveyed 2000 new parents to find out how they are documenting their kids lives on social media, and what concerns they may have.

First of all, people without children seem to feel a bit differently about the onslaught of baby pictures online than those who are parents. 18 percent of people say before they had kids, they were annoyed by their friends baby posts. But after having children of their own, 73 percent admit they post progress pictures of their little ones every single month.

Not only are new parents letting the world know each time their baby is a month older, but they are posting about their kids every few days or so. Men and women report they post 6-7 times per month about their baby.

And while 70 percent of new parents say the benefit of using social media is how easy it is to help family and friends feel involved, there are some downsides. Here are a few tips to avoid the pitfall of becoming paparazzi parents.

Dont miss the moment

In the Mac and Mia survey, some parents admitted to spending up to two hours to get the perfect shot of their baby. That seems a little extreme. New and old parents alike should be careful about spending so much time taking pictures and videos that they dont enjoy the moment. Years ago, I decided to never live an experience through my phone. A study by Linda Henkel, a psychology professor at Fairfield University in Connecticut, found that when people took pictures of objects in an art museum, they didnt remember the objects as well as if they simply observed them.

This photo-taking impairment effect can happen to parents as well. If we are so consumed by getting the perfect photo, we can miss out on the moment all together, and our memory of it will suffer.

Dont forget about privacy

60 percent of couples say they have discussed rules and boundaries for posting their babys photos, according to the Mac and Mia survey. Even so, men are 34 percent more likely to publish baby posts on public accounts. If parents are concerned about their childrens privacy, keeping photos off of public accounts is a given.

In the Washington Post, Stacey Steinberg, a legal skills professor at the University of Florida, and Bahareh Keith, a Portland pediatrician, wrote that sharing too much information about kids online puts them at risk. They write that all that sharenting can make it easier for data thieves to target out kids for identity theft. Check that your privacy settings are where they should be and never share identifying information like full names and birth dates.

Dont be paparazzi parents

36 percent of parents say they take issue when their childs photo is posted online by someone else. Responsible social media users will always ask permission before posting a photo of another child. But parents should also think about whether their own children will take issue with their own posted photos a few years down the road.

When parents are constantly snapping pictures and throwing them on social media, it can be easy to forget to pause and make sure the post is appropriate. I always use the billboard example with my kids. I ask them to picture whatever they are posting going up on a billboard in our neighborhood. If they are okay with that, then their post is probably fine. Parents should ask themselves this same question when posting about their children. But they should also ask themselves if their child would be OK with this post on a billboard in 15 years. If it would cause embarrassment or humiliation, it might be best to keep it private.

Once children reach an appropriate age, parents should include them in the process of deciding what pictures are OK to post. Researchers at the University of Michigan surveyed 10- to 17-year-olds and found children believe their parents should ask permission more than parents think they should. The kids in the survey said sharing happy family moments, or accomplishments in sports, school and hobbies is fine. But when the post is negative (like when a child is disciplined) or embarrassing (think naked baby pictures or messy hair), kids say to keep it off social media.
Latest Obituaries