Rhetoric shortsighted

Merely hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday, the rhetoric linking the attacks to the influx of refugees into Europe amplified.

Incoming Polish Minister of European Affairs Konrad Szymanski stated: “In the wake of the tragic events in Paris, Poland doesn’t see the political possibilities to implement a decision on the relocation of refugees.”

Ben Carson is reported as saying that in the wake of the attacks in Paris, the U.S. should block refugees from the Middle East. These views seem to be vindicated by the discovery of a Syrian passport on one of the assailants.

The policy that this rhetoric suggests, however, is shortsighted. It does not weigh the benefits of accepting refugees and the security concerns that could arise if refugees are not given safe haven.

Policy decisions must take into account global demographic changes taking place. The populations of the developed powers in North America and Europe are rapidly aging, stagnate or decreasing. Data show that 81 percent of the 689,000 refugees applying for asylum in Europe this year are younger than 35, and more than half are ages 18 to 34. The refugee influx could be a long-term benefit to an aging Europe by renewing the much needed population of younger workers.

A policy of “refoulement” could be a greater security risk in the long run than accepting refugees. Sending a large population of young, unemployed, disenfranchised men back to economically devastated countries plagued by conflict could provide new recruits to groups such as ISIS.

The writer is a U.S. Navy lieutenant and a graduate student in the School of International Affairs at Penn State.

This story was originally published November 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM with the headline "Rhetoric shortsighted."