Mark Parent
Opinions Editor

Since the beginning of last semester, the entire western world has been divided over how to effectively deal with the migrant crisis currently engulfing Europe and the Middle East.

    Here in the U.S., we have been largely shielded from any real responsibility regarding the acceptance of refugees; however, this lack of involvement has not spared our country from engaging in a rather heated debate over the merits of allowing or disallowing the admittance of refugees.

And, to be frank, I’ve been frustrated by the pettiness and ineptness that has run rampant on both sides of the issue.

    The Democrats, for instance, want us to believe the following: there are no tangible security risks involved with admitting refugees; it’s our moral obligation to help the refugees; and the real reason for the migrant crisis is U.S. foreign policy, after all.

    Then, on the other side of the political aisle, the Republicans argue against the admittance of refugees by citing security risks, a lack of confidence surrounding the issue of integration and a desire to promote alternative solutions to the problem.

    Personally, both of these arguments are deeply flawed; however, it is clear that the conservative argument in the debate is far superior.

    Now, I must admit, there has been an excessive amount of racially-charged rhetoric surrounding this particular issue — by a very small minority, I might add.

This kind of language is uncharacteristic of the American way and should not be tolerated. In fact, anyone with German, Irish or Italian ancestry should remember the blatant discrimination his or her ancestors endured upon arrival in the U.S.

    Yet, the merits of the conservative argument remain superior to their liberal counterparts due to the support of the facts on the ground.

    For starters, just last week the European Commission reported to the world that roughly 40 percent of the migrants entering into Europe are refugees; the other 60 percent are classified as economic migrants.

    As the Wall Street Journal points out, economic migrants include “those coming from countries deemed relatively safe.”

In other words, these individuals are taking advantage of the crisis in Syria to flee to the wealthier countries of Europe — notably Germany, Sweden, and Norway.

    Of course, the mixing of economic migrants with refugees creates a truly terrible situation. Put simply, if western countries were to grant all migrants asylum, irrespective of the nature of their status, then the very purpose of international conventions and domestic law would be undermined.

    On the other hand, the process of differentiating between economic migrants and refugees is arduous and inconclusive; not to mention the fact that it has become nearly impossible to identify the correct nationality of many of the migrants.

    The reason for this difficulty lies in the breakdown of, most notably, the Syrian state.

    This past November, Al-Jazeera reported that someone in, say, Istanbul can purchase a Syrian passport for under $1,000. In fact, it’s so easy to obtain a counterfeit Syrian passport that “Facebook, Twitter and other forums are full of posts and ads offering refugees of any nationality counterfeit Syrian passports, birth certificates, international driving licenses — and even college degrees.”

Certainly, this taints the process of asylum for any Western country.

Of course, it must be noted, the challenges posed by the black market for passports and other critical documents pale in comparison to the danger produced by the Islamic State’s (IS) “industry of fake passports.”

    As the Wall Street Journal reported last month, IS “has managed to seize passports in Iraq, Syria and Libya” and subsequently built an arsenal of reproductions. And even though Europol, Europe’s police agency, has the potential to use experts to spot the fake documents, it is highly unlikely that all of those with counterfeit papers will be barred from entering Europe.

     So, as it currently stands, the odds of IS fighters being able to penetrate European — and even American — security remains relatively high. This is especially true considering the fact that last spring IS began publicly stating its intentions to smuggle fighters into Europe within the flow of refugees.

    It is simply undeniable that the further acceptance of refugees — in Europe and the U.S. — poses a significant security challenge.

With that being said, it becomes important to address two of the most common criticisms of the conservative approach: morality and America’s responsibility for the crisis.

    First of all, there is nothing immoral about prioritizing national security.

And on top of that, most leading conservative voices are calling for an increased military presence in the region in order to create a safe zone for the millions of refugees scattered across Europe, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

By establishing a safe zone and embarking on a military solution to the situation in Syria, refugees would be able to remain in their homeland and eventually rebuild it.

    Next, it must be stressed that the U.S. is not responsible for the migrant crisis.

Yes, I admit that the Iraq War was a mistake and contributed to sectarian divisions in the region, but it is intellectually dishonest to solely correlate that particular conflict with the migrant crisis.

    The simple truth is that Bashar al-Assad is a bloodthirsty tyrant, who is determined to gun down his people in a futile effort to retain power.

And by that same token, the majority-Shia Iraqi government actively engaged in a policy of ethnic alienation that fueled the emergence of IS in its western regions.

    Believe it or not, bad actors in the Middle East are the true reason for this crisis. And if the world is ever going to solve this problem, there needs to be a global coalition of forces — led by the U.S. — to remove Assad from power and squash IS.

    But, of course, we’ll need a new president before any of this can happen. Let’s just hope we pick the right person.