XY-Einzelfall and the Aftermath

Last year a map circulated around social media in Germany via a Facebook page. The map claimed to show the amount of migrant and refugee crime in the country.

Titled “XY-Einzelfall” with a play on the fact that all the crimes shown on the map were considered “isolated crimes” (Einzelfall in German), people were outraged by the facts that Chancellor Angela Merkel was hiding from them.

After an investigation by Germany’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism it was revealed that the map was fake.

One of the main faults in the map was the way the creator sited refugees. In the map, virtually any crime committed by someone who a witnessed described as dark-skinned was then classified as a refugee or migrant for the purpose of the map. The true definition of the two were not used in the algorithm.

Additionally, the site used crime stories for its statistics that were already said to be fake. A news site Bild published an article about a New Year’s Eve attack by migrants in Frankfurt which turned out to be false. This was used in the map.

While it should have been clear that the map was fake, people that are against refugees to begin with ate up the fact that this map proved their thoughts correct. In this video a man discusses his thoughts about the map.


The creators of the map claimed that 84% of crime in Germany is from migrants when in fact it is actually only 13%. Remembering that the way the creators classified a refugee to begin with is inaccurate, all the data on this map is wrong.

In my opinion it is not so much that the refugees are prone to create crime, but it is more so that when there are 2 million more people in an area it is unrealistic to think that there won’t be a notable increase in crime. People are more likely to blame the increase on the refugees because that is the only thing that changed. It does not mean that all the additional crimes are committed by refugees.



More Refugees!

Searching online, it is tough to find studies that support the idea that refugees have a negative impact on its host countries’ economy.  On; a website which gives a platform for people to come together to ask and answer ‘questions that affect the world’, one user named Yannick Meyer answers the question,

What are the consequences, both negative and positive for Germany of accepting refugees from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries?


Looking at his answer, he cites no positive impacts for taking in refugees, makes claims about the negative economic, social, and political impacts but does not refer to any studies or sources to back up his claims.

We’ll stick just to his answer on the economic impacts. Yannick tells us that,

One of the major effects that refugees have on the host country is economic impact.

Yannick is correct.  Lebanon, for example has registered 1.1 million Syrian refugees as of March, 2015, the most refugees anywhere in the region.  It hasn’t seemed to negatively affect their GDP growth, which the World Bank predicted would grow 2.5 percent in 2015.  They also saw an estimated 2.0 percent growth in 2014 which was great compared to the 0.9 percent growth in 2013.



Yannick also states,

It is frequently thought that refugees are of little economic value…

Again, we can point to Lebanon, whom has registered the most refugees in the world. I quote,

“In fact, the inflow of refugees has arguably helped the Lebanese economy withstand the negative effect of its neighbor’s civil war.  Refugees have been an important source of demand for locally produced services in Lebanon, funded from own savings and labor income, from remittances of relatives abroad and from international aid.  In a recent World Bank report, we estimate that an additional 1 percent increase in Syrian refugees increases Lebanese service exports by 1.5 percent.

Our friends’ argument about negative economic impacts doesn’t seem to hold in the face of actual studies and numbers.  It is easy to rant and spew rhetoric without having to find actual numbers and studies to back up what you’re saying.  I highly encourage Yannick and anyone else to find any evidence or studies that support his claims and post them on this blog.

Reading and learning about the refugee crisis and how it has affected certain countries whom have given asylum to a large number of them, we should encourage our lawmakers and appointed public servants that the US expedite its admission to those fleeing war and persecution and maybe learn a little compassion from our friends over in Lebanon.


Privileged Anti-Refugee Sentiment?

Anti-refugee are highly prevalent yet it is incredibly difficult to find individuals willing to articulate the sentiments overly on the internet. Americans, by 60% to 37%, oppose plans for the U.S. to take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees who are trying to escape the civil war in their country according to a Gallup poll. Additionally, the current president ran on the premise that he was going to strictly prohibit refugees from entering the United States. Therefore, many individuals clearly share the idea that refugees should not be resettled in the United States.


Mary Doetsch argues in an opinion article that, “Despite claims of enhanced vetting, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to vet an individual who has no type of an official record, particularly in countries compromised by terrorism.” Though Doetsch may technically be correct about the reality of the vetting process, the actual reality is that this is a structural vulnerability faced by refugees, not a tool that they access at their convenience.


Doetsch argues in the same article that, “Nonetheless, during the past decade and specifically under the Obama administration, the Refugee Admissions Program continued to expand blindly, seemingly without concern for security or whether it served the best interests of its own citizens.” Though the program to resettle refugees may have expanded very rapidly and perhaps suffered some consequences from that situation, the fact remains that the United States is fulfilling its duty to international citizens.

In his article, Matthew Osnowitz argues that, “Just because we are not morally obligated to accept the Syrian refugees does not mean that we should not let the refugees into the country.” Ultimately, Osnowitz reaches the conclusion that the United States does not have a moral obligation to let refugees into its borders because there are ostensibly other countries which have opened their doors to them. However, the United States does have the resources and capacity to resettle refugees and doing so would be more beneficial than detrimental. Though Doetsch argues that refugees policy is not tight enough, she fails to consider the fact that the United States should be trying its hardest to view the situation from those who are in vulnerable positions of suffering as opposed to privileged views.vlad-tchompalov-219131.jpg


Safety over Liberty? Let us refute.

According to, the author argues that,

“…radical Islamists in the U.S. have primarily targeted Jews, Christians, homosexuals and other minorities, proper immigration precautions benefit every faith – including Muslims. The 3,000 innocent people murdered by radical Islamists on 9-11 included 31 innocent Muslims (and 300-400 innocent Jews).”

It would be more accurate to say that radical Islamists primarily target random civilians with the purpose of causing as much chaos and destruction as possible.


“Nearly all of those who perished were civilians with the exceptions of 343 firefighters, 72 law enforcement officers, 55 military personnel, and the 19 terrorists who died in the attacks”

The 19 highjackers who committed the atrocious acts on 9/11 were not refugees and to bring up the events of that fateful day so we can justify a possible unconstitutional travel ban is ludicrous.

“The purpose of Trump’s executive order is to establish a vetting system that protects all Americans from ISIS and other foreign terrorist infiltrators’ attacks. The order explains: “Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program.”

While the executive order offers good intentions; of course we want to protect all Americans from terrorists attacks, the number of times a foreign national or refugee has executed a successful terrorist attack on US soil can probably be counted on both hands.

The San Bernadino attacks were carried out by US citizens.

The Orlando shooter was a US citizen.

Now one could argue that the Tsarnaev brothers were refugees, but they might have gotten off on a technicality.  Their parents arrived in the US on tourist visas and then later applied for political asylum, where the brothers then entered the US a few years later through the same means.



“(For those curious: Asylum seekers apply for refugee status from within the U.S.; refugees seek it from their home countries.)”

One notorious account of an actual refugee committing acts of violence was the recent story of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, a Somalian refugee who injured 11 people at Ohio State University last November.

Now you maybe thinking, AHA!  There’s one.  Yes, there is that one account.  So should we be shaping US law around the one incident a refugee committed an act of violence?

I don’t believe so.  I think the US is more vigilant than that.  We have a terrible amount of gun deaths in the US and yet we stick to our guns.  I can understand the notion that certain terrorist organizations would take advantage of our vetting process to sneak in perpetrators of violence, but like everything else, there’s risk.  We shorten that risk through a thorough vetting process already in place.

If we want to make America great again, let’s show the world how we treat those who need our greatness the most.


Resettlement is for the Best

The United States tends to have an unspoken policy where more refugees and asylees are permitted to remain within U.S. borders so long as their country of origin has ideologies which disagree with the United States’. In that case, why is the United States choosing to take so many less refugees?

Many argue that the United States simply does not have the resources to resettle the sheer amount of refugees who have fled their home countries. However, those individuals fail to remember that refugees are not incapable of being great additions to the American economy. According to the Washington Post, in one case, “over the course of a decade, refugees created at least 38 new businesses in the Cleveland area alone.”


While it is difficult for refugees to resettle and find jobs in their new environments, the process would be expedited if U.S. policy were more lenient. Refugees lose their families and their networks are decimated in the horrors of fleeing persecution. When refugees resettle, they often do not know people in the area and therefore, cannot tap their networks for resources. On top of the burden of culture shock and loneliness, refugees are forced to go through many screening services. The screening services that refugees endure often have many flaws including language barriers causing refugees more stress. America’s duty is to be a firm but welcoming host to individuals who have fled countries terrorizing their own people.

Making the vetting process better adapted to the needs of refugees would improve their resettlement process remarkably.

America does have a status to uphold but its consistently boasts itself as one of the greatest and most powerful countries. The United States are leaders and need to set an example for other countries, particularly if the United States is to expect other countries to help in the refugee crisis. After all, if the U.S. is to brag about being the land of the free, they must do their part in protecting the freedoms of all individuals, especially those who are in dire need because they face persecution.