Content warning: This article mentions topics of extreme violence.
For decades now, the U.S has faced what some call a refugee “crisis.” As a country populated by what were, at some point, immigrants (other than its indigenous peoples), it’s hard to pinpoint an exact date when the crisis started. Some cite it as a phenomenon that emerged after World War II, while others see it in the context of more recent crises in Syria, Ukraine, or Afghanistan. Some international theorists believe in the hegemonic stability theory or realism, which holds that the U.S or any other powerful nation should help developing nations to maximize power. Other theorists believe in liberalism, which holds that both parties can benefit from agreements on either side; for instance, in exchange for hosting people such as refugees, the U.S. gains cultural enrichment, among other benefits.
Different U.S. presidents have varied their approaches towards solving this “crisis,” whether based on liberalism or realism. For example, Former President Barack Obama let about 85,000 refugees into the country in the fiscal year of 2016 alone, which reflects his liberalist beliefs. In contrast, President Donald Trump plans to admit 7,500 refugees this year, a record low. This is because he tends to make more nativist choices, which refers to someone who believes in the interests of native-born people over immigrants.
In the past, presidents have also tried to establish an equilibrium of different ethnicities based on who needed refuge the most. Based on his executive order in February, Trump plans to prioritize the admittance of white South African refugees. The South African government has debunked Trump’s claims that white Afrikaners are experiencing a genocide. Critics argue that Trump is focusing on a non-issue and implementing white supremacist values into America through his executive orders and power over the Supreme Court in cases like Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, which allows for ICE to racially profile those they see as immigrants.
The ongoing conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo can be viewed as more pressing issues to focus on within Africa. Since April of 2023, Sudan has been host to a civil war that started between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces. Recently, the RSF led a massacre in one of the last hospitals in Sudan’s El Fasher, which left approximately 460 Sudanese people dead, according to the United Nations. This massacre was so violent that the path of blood was seen in satellite imagery.
What makes this conflict unique is the number of people capturing it on video. There are viral videos of beheaded people and people actively being captured by the RSF. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the M23 Group, primarily composed of ethnic Tutsis and backed by Rwanda’s armed forces, invaded the DRC’s east. This conflict alone has killed thousands. Critics believe these conflicts in Africa alone deserve more consideration from the U.S than the genocide of white Afrikans.
However, the refugee crisis in the United States doesn’t just pertain to African countries. In October, Venezuelan’s temporary protected status in the U.S. was terminated. This move draws backlash, considering Venezuela’s current humanitarian drug crisis. The U.S. has allegedly bombed cartel ships in retaliation for the drug crisis, though this has yet to be confirmed. Curiously, the situation is viewed as severe enough that the U.S. has bombed random ships, but not pressing enough to continue granting protected status to Venezuelans who have lived here for years.
All in all, the refugee crisis in America is an extremely nuanced issue. In my opinion, there is no right answer, but the government could consider a combination of executive orders that would allow a range of people experiencing different forms of displacement. It’s interesting to see how other developing countries will respond to the United States’ new stances.