Article content continued

Some Syrians just exploit the crisis for their own economic gain.

The condition of being poor doesn’t nullify the condition of being physically endangered: the one usually exacerbates the other. Poor Syrian refugees are still refugees.

Some Syrians have medical degrees and iPhones.

If cell-phone ownership voids asylum, countries ought to turn away even the occasional North Korean. Hold on, though: Doesn’t the fact of Syrian peoples’ resources and skill-sets negate the argument that they’re culturally bankrupt economic migrants? Well, no matter. We musn’t let rationality get in the way of an argument.

Syrians might be terrorists.

Your neighbor might be a terrorist. If he is, he may be trying to get into Syria. Mostly victims get out, and Western countries try to resettle the most vulnerable.

Syrians are “country-shopping.”

If running for one’s life across continents is “shopping,” it’s the shopping trip from hell. Refugees can’t safely continue concentrating in countries like Lebanon, which the UNHCR calls a “tinder box.” Nor should refugees concentrate in poorest European entry points. Refugee flows have to be managed so host countries won’t be overwhelmed. Until then, refugees will manage themselves.

Sudden influxes of Syrians will inevitably be attacked.

Ah, yes: the “we’re excluding you to protect you” argument. A classic. Working women were warned that colleagues would harass them; gay military service-people warned that fellow officers would hurt them. But somehow, these warnings sound awfully like threats when the proposed remedy is to give attackers what they want instead of resolutely fending off their attacks.

Above all, those urging caution seem to believe that Canadians’ compassion came only from a picture. That picture certainly made support for resettlement boil over, but it’s been simmering throughout the long years that Syrian and international advocates argued that we have to let people in. There’s nothing rational about continuing to ignore them.