Since the war in Iraq began in 2003, people from the Middle East have had many reasons to flee their homeland. War came to Iraq, Afghanistan, and finally Syria. Meanwhile, dictatorships and food insecurity in Somalia and Ethiopia have forced many there to leave their homes as well. That these people have to leave everything cannot be debated; what they should do next is the big question. Europeans have a slightly different view of this point when compared to most Americans. Being a Swedish citizen who is staying temporarily in the U.S., I see how the northern European countries view this issue and why it is distinct from the American view.
Despite Sweden’s population of only 10 million, its average standard of living is one of the highest in the world. People have asked me if you really get paid to go to college, and yes, you do. “The Swedish Model” became world-famous during the 70s and was adopted in Scandinavia and partially in the U.K. It really means that everyone gets back all of what they paid in taxes through different institutions of welfare. For example, almost everyone can go to college for four to eight years while being paid a monthly amount of money by the government, and the ones who can’t are still secured by a good social-security system that pays them more while unemployed than a full-time employee on minimum wage would make in the U.S.
A mandatory one-year military service gives many the chance to get acquainted with practical professions, while some choose to stay with the armed forces, which are never used. The universal health-care system gives everyone the best possible care no matter the income or profession. The model also includes a monthly check to all mothers with children to provide for the extra expenses that children come with, which in essence means that not even children are too big an investment. The model includes a lot more than even all this, but essentially, many people view it as a means through which to offer everyone, no matter how wealthy, the same possibilities in life. This model has been proven to work well since World War II; Sweden has become one of the world’s wealthiest countries and from time to time the best country to live in.
For a refugee, the offer of such a socioeconomic model seems tempting, especially when the relevant country doesn’t have border control. The parts of the Swedish model that guarantee everyone the same possibilities in life do indeed hold true for refugees and immigrants. For example, the government pays all unemployed immigrants enough to get an apartment, gives all students with a native language other than Swedish regular Swedish classes, and offers classes free of charge to all people new to the country. After living in Sweden for more than two years, you’re granted permission to vote in all local elections, and as soon as you have a job and demonstrate intent to stay in the country, you’re given citizenship.
With this in mind, the national budget only leaves room for a certain number of people who only take from the system without putting something in if the welfare state is to be preserved. After all, the majority of the people will use up what they have paid through taxes, or more, leaving no room for people without income. The issue of asylum for refugees is then broadened; should we lower the standard for incoming refugees or should we simply shut the border? Once again, no solution has been found, as no one wants to see poor people living miserably and earning non-livable wages in the private sector; closing the door of opportunity for the ones in need seems inhumane.
The U.S. doesn’t have any such welfare system, which means that the majority of the populace wouldn’t notice if 100,000 new people came in and started to work and then pay for whatever they needed in terms of housing and health care themselves. The only ones who would notice a difference are the business owners, who would get a broader range of customers. Yet, another aspect of receiving immigrants from the Middle East worries Americans: terrorism. To generalize terrorism to a specific religion, Islam, is not really a sustainable strategy. Only 14 percent of Muslims would agree with something that ISIS has expressed or done, which is mostly because of the actions of western countries in their homeland. Further, ISIS would neither recruit more nor act more violent towards America if the U.S. accepted as large a percentage of the refugee population as Sweden has: almost two percent over two years. By comparison, the U.S should accept 6.36 million refugees, equivalent to the population of Miami’s metropolitan area. In the past two years, the U.S. has only accepted about 150,000 refugees.
Now, once again we revisit the question about whether Europe handles the issue badly or if Europe has reason enough to blame America for not doing enough. Personally, I don’t think you can blame a country for not helping others if it needs help as well—which at least doesn’t apply to the U.S. today. The sacrifices many European countries, including Italy, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Greece, and Turkey, make for their economy, welfare, and citizens, are of course voluntarily and a decision made by their governments.
This means that if you don’t want to help the outside world, you don’t have to. The United States hasn’t helped much with this crisis, nor have China and India. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, current candidates in the 2016 presidential election, both think that no Muslim refugees should be allowed into the United States because they might be, or might have connections to, terrorists. I think the real question has more to do with the cost of accepting a relevant amount of refugees.
If the U.S. would like to do more, there are other ways to help in the crisis without the military—and actually, without accepting many refuges at all. By providing monetary support to Europe instead of accepting refugees alone, America will help a great deal. Yet, if the United States of America wants to lie back and look at the world’s miseries from the outside without helping, it is welcome to do so.
To end this crisis and the struggles facing countries that accept many immigrants and refugees, I think the world has to cooperate. Instead of playing an outsider role, every country must contribute to the cause—including America.