Grace Myers
Syrian Refugee Policy in France, the United States, and Sweden
Introduction
Immigration and refugee policy determines the future populations of countries and reflects many key beliefs of policymakers. This paper will examine the moral theory of utilitarianism and the “dark side” interpretation of organizations and argue that these two theories explain the majority of variance in immigrant and refugee policy between France, Sweden, and the United States. Sweden contrasts with France and the United States with greater benevolence towards refugees and different interpretations of utilitarianism. To facilitate examination of these different policies, this paper will focus on the Syrian Refugee Crisis as a microcosm of the countries’ immigration policies as a whole.
Theoretical Framework
Utilitarianism and the dark side theory of organizations explain the variance in refugee policy between France, Sweden, and the United States. Utilitarianism is the moral theory of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Jeremy Bentham (b. 1748), an English philosopher credited with creating the modern idea of utilitarianism, recognized that individuals have their own preferences but that society should aggregate them to create the best society possible (Sandel, 2009). University of Oregon political science professor Daniel Tichenor recognized utilitarianism as a driving factor in immigration policy, saying that “[it privileges] certain visions of nationhood, social order, and international engagement” (Tichenor, 2002). Therefore many countries create immigration policy out of a distinctly utilitarian interest of what they perceive to be best as a whole for their nation.
The “dark side” of organizations is the idea that routine nonconformity through environmental, structural, and cognitive practices creates inefficient organizations that succumb to a “dark side” that undermines an organization’s initial goals (Vaughan, 1999). Environmental factors can include the replacement of effectiveness with legitimacy; structural factors include the segregation of knowledge among varying levels of bureaucracy. Cognitive factors include the rejection of abnormal events as flukes rather than possible flaws in the organization. The dark side of organizations pervades nearly every country and level of governance and applies to Syrian Refugee Crisis policy as well.
Syrian Refugee Policy in France
France’s utilitarian intent in its refugee policy is clear. To preserve its standing in the United Nations, France agreed to accept resettled refugees from other parts of Europe but agreed to take only 24,000 of the first wave of 160,000 UN-resettled Syrian refugees in September 2015 (Ferris & Kirisci, 2016). The preservation of international relationships and France’s power within world organizations is important to France with its “strong integrative national identity” (Weil and Spire, 2006). Therefore France’s decision to begin accepting refugees through the EU’s resettlement program was borne of a utilitarian obligation rather than any moral imperative.
Political parties also change their attitude toward Syrian refugees based on their interpretation of utilitarianism. The Front National, a far-right party, has combined France’s recent economic struggles with the Syrian refugee crisis to create a compelling portrait of a nation losing its “Frenchness” (Stockemer and Barisione, 2016; Weil and Spire, 2006). For political parties in France, the Syrian immigration refugee serves as a utilitarian tool to garner support. The leader of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, argued that to do the greatest good for the greatest number France should not accept refugees. In her opinion, this which would preserve the Frenchness and thus the cohesiveness of France (Joseph, 2017). President Emmanuel Macron’s responses were largely pro-immigrant; his campaign ran on the idea that “The duty of Europe is to offer asylum to those who are persecuted and seek its protection” (En Marche, 2018). In Macron’s view, the most utilitarian France is the one that does the greatest good for the greatest number, including the vulnerable refugees.
Though some aspects of French refugee policy are well-meaning, the dark side of OFPRA is clear. The replacement of efficiency with legitimacy is a trademark “dark side” environmental factor that French demonstrates in its policy (Vaughan, 1999). The OFPRA (Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides) is the main office in charge of regulating refugee entrance and placement and validation of refugee status. OFPRA caseworkers who interview refugees are poorly trained and often do not speak the language of the refugee. The agency is more concerned with looking legitimate and efficient–each case worker can have more than 300 cases per year–than with actually achieving fair results, a clear organizational failure (Allwood & Wadia, 2010).
Another dark side factor is the idea of processes as sources of power rather than structure and efficiency. Vaughan notes that “a substantial literature connects routine decision-making by organizational elites with unanticipated adverse outcomes for disadvantaged others” (p. 277). France only provides eight days for a refugee to file an official asylum application, which is grossly insufficient to prove the validity of their refugee status. The emphasis on routine over efficacy does create adverse outcomes for refugees–only 11.6% of asylum claims were accepted in France in 2007–proving a dangerous dark side of OFPRA (Allwood & Wadia, 2010, p. 103).
Allwood and Wadia also note that though laws regarding detention centers in France are among the strictest in the European Union, violence and mistreatment are rampant (p. 104).
This routine nonconformity toward the intent of the law shows a cognitive dissonance in the dark side theory and demonstrates how the utilitarian intentions of the law are ignored in favor of a dark side (Vaughan, 1999). This is further compounded by the idea of path dependency in state management (Lane, 2009). France’s “path” in this case is that of inattentive management of detention centers which has been present at least since the early 2000s (Allwood & Wadia, 2010). France relied on its past system of management of refugee detention centers and retained its dark side ways throughout the Syrian Refugee Crisis as well (Mould, 2017). Looking at immigration policy through this smaller issue allows the reader to see the dissonance between intention and actualization in French immigration policy as a whole.
Syrian Refugee Policy in the United States
The United States currently demonstrates a “United States-first policy” that is utilitarian in nature, hoping to increase the greater good of American citizens (Bhatia and Jenks, 2018). The period between 2014 and 2016 generally saw about 1,000 refugees approved for relocation to the United States per month (Ostrand, 2015). However, the Trump presidency drastically decreased asylum application approvals, with about 250 refugees per month in 2017 and about 3 per month so far in 2018 (Amos, 2018). This shift toward anti-refugee sentiment is a relatively recent phenomenon and changes interpretation today of the utilitarian end goals of the United States.
This shift, driven by Donald Trump, favors the prioritization of American jobs and preserving the elusive “American Dream” for current American citizens (Bhatia and Jenks, 2018). Bhatia and Jenks highlight the key role played by Trump in nurturing the idea that immigrants are a challenge to American success:
“[Donald Trump’s] campaign platform and now policy agenda are founded on isolationist beliefs and a general lack of openness to ‘outsiders’, which materialise in Trump’s
position on trade agreements, border security, immigration and, of course, a travel ban on
Muslims. In other words, the current presidential platform argues that the American
Dream can be restored by protecting the local workforce, securing the southern border,
decreasing immigration and prohibiting Muslims from entering the country” (p. 225).
The recent rejection of Syrian refugees is borne of a (perhaps misguided) desire to preserve American security and reflects a shifting interpretation of utilitarianism, where America is first and everyone else is second. Complex notions of race and origin play into this, limiting the actual definition of an “American” to what is comfortable for Trump. In Trump’s mind, Bentham’s idea of aggregating each person’s desires and doing the best for the most only applies to white Americans (Bhatia and Jenks, 2018).
This recent pullback in refugee support has caused a pervasive dark side in United States bureaucracy that normalizes harmful interpretations of immigrants and thus encourages deviant actions. Trump’s anti-refugee rhetoric has categorized them as dangerous potential Jihadists who pose a threat to national security and “invade” America (Bhatia and Jenks, 2018). This normalization of war-like terminology allows harmful rhetoric to pervade government organizations and encourages violence and negative treatment of both refugees and immigrants.
Bhatia and Jenks (2018) recognize this elevation of American virtues at the expense of refugee safety, nothing “The relatively more barbaric actions of jihadi refugees are juxtaposed with positive self-presentation of Americans, whose ‘generosity and cultural liberalism’ set them apart in this asymmetric category-set” (p. 233). This dehumanisation of refugees has led to an outright rejection of their asylum applications in the United States and violence and discrimination toward other immigrants (Cruz-Torres, 2018). This violence is not legal nor officially approved, but it persists nonetheless because it becomes deviance normalized by presidential rhetoric (Bhatia and Jenks, 2018). This “dark side” shows the consequences of inflammatory speech from high-level officials and reveals much about immigration policy in the United States in 2018.
Syrian Refugee Policy in Sweden
Sweden, in stark contrast to the United States and France, takes in more than its fair share of Syrian refugees (Ostrand, 2015). Sweden’s confidence in their economic system has led them to view immigrants as a utilitarian boon to the country; more workers fortify a work force and therefore an economy’s long-term growth (Mankiw, Romer, and Weil, 1992). Ostrand mentions Sweden’s exceptional welcoming nature towards Syrian immigrants, noting that, “Sweden, for instance, has a reputation among Syrian asylum seekers for being a “safe haven,” which could be a contributing factor in the high number of Syrian asylum seekers, and consequently the large number of Syrians granted asylum” (p. 272).
Kyrzanowski (2017) argues as well that benevolent refugee policy originates in a “politicization logic” that weighs the economic and political benefits of allowing refugees with the possible drawbacks (p. 98). Historically, Sweden’s pride in its generosity towards refugees–such as Jewish refugees during World War II–has led to an overall positive interpretation of immigration (Kyrzanowski, 2017). Therefore, the utilitarian thing to do–what is best and most desirable for the most number of people–would be to admit Syrian immigrants.
The politicization of immigration that has led to its general acceptance in Swedish discourse has also brought about some qualities of the dark side of organizations. Sweden’s generous acceptance of refugees has begun to find some opposition, as policymakers began questioning the viability of continued open borders starting in the early 2000s, and accelerating with the Syrian Refugee Crisis (Ostrand, 2015). The humanisation of refugees which encouraged this benevolent policy has been reappropriated in a kind of cognitive dissonance that uses prior arguments and twists them to fit changing public sentiment. Khosravi (2009) identified this change in humanisation from justification for entrance to justification for rejection, saying that:
“Focusing, in particular, on the techniques used by the detention apparatus to ‘humanise’
and ‘rationalise’ the confinement and expulsion of asylum seekers, it is argued that a
discourse of ‘caring’ and ‘saving’ works, in effect, as a disciplinary mechanism that
presents asylum seekers as responsible for their own detention and deportation.” (pp. 38)
This dissonance shows the pervasive dark side of Swedish immigration policy that could compound and continue to veer from the original intent of the refugee policy.
Comparisons and Contrasts
The refugee policy of these three countries can be explained by a utilitarian perspective and dark side theory, but all differ. All three countries’ utilitarianism are rooted at least in part in their heritage and traditions (and thus in path dependency), but with very different outcomes. France and the United States are more similar in their nativist sentiment, where each interprets utilitarianism to mean the best for the native population. They view their heritage and “Frenchness” or “American Dream” (two manifestations of the same nativism) as essential to the overall good of their country. However, each has different treatment of immigrants: France takes in many more (perhaps because they are physically closer to Syria and have less of a choice), whereas Trump’s U.S. is trying to cease accepting refugees altogether. Sweden’s heritage led the country to a much more benevolent interpretation of utilitarianism, where everyone–both native Swedes and immigrants–would benefit from more accepting policy. Each policy can be understood through a utilitarian lens, but each countries’ interpretation of who utilitarianism applies to is different.
Likewise, the “dark side” of organizations in all three countries impedes the goals of each but in different ways. France stands apart as it is concerned much more with legitimacy than the other two, sacrificing efficiency for perceived legitimacy. Both the U.S. and Sweden have witnessed a bastardization of goals and rhetoric to fit changing sentiments. The deviance from initial goals that results from this changing usage of (often negative) rhetoric becomes normalized, especially in the case of Trump’s war-like terminology in the United States. Thus, though the three countries differ in their dark side problems, each has distinct manifestations of the dark side.
Assessment of Theory and Application
Utilitarianism does a good job explaining the difference in these three countries and who they value when policy attempts to do the greatest good for the greatest numbers. Through this theory, a nativist sentiment becomes stark in both France and the U.S. By excluding immigrants from the cost-benefit equation of the utilitarian framework, countries essentially dehumanise them. This is a key takeaway that was made possibly by the utilitarian framework. However, this theory falls a bit short in explaining the deeper roots of these sentiments. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) suggest that people can be humans (emotional, responsive people who don’t always make optimal decisions) or econs (rational, thoughtful, non-reactive people). Utilitarianism accounts for the “econ” point of view but misses the mark on the “human” aspect of these nativist sentiments.
The dark side theory of organizations does a superb job explaining the French deviance from official policy. The reliance on processes for legitimacy and the replacement of efficiency with perceived legitimacy are classic dark side examples presented by Vaughan (1999). However, this analysis runs a little thing in the United States and Sweden, where the main factor undermining the utilitarian process and policy is rhetoric, either harmful or twisted (or both!). However, normalized deviance is a good way to describe this acceptance of political rhetoric to fit non-policy-endorsed processes. Once again the “human” factor at work here is neglected in an attempt to rationalize the dark side elements at play. Explaining “human” deviance from the “econ” perspective is not always feasible.
Conclusion
Using utilitarianism and the dark side theory of organizations to compare contrast policy reactions is a comprehensive approach to understanding the Syrian Refugee Crisis in France, Sweden, and the United States. These two theories are the best to examine these countries because they account for both motivation and failures of policy. By examining both the intent and the outcome of policy, the important role of nativism in all three countries was revealed. This study revealed the importance of understanding how the dark sides of organizations work alongside refugee policy. The Syrian crisis serving as a microcosm of the larger immigration policy at work in these countries allowed for a more succinct examination and highlights several important points for the future of immigration and refugee policy. First, governments need to take into account the possible outcomes that could result from already established normalized deviance in immigration bureaucracies. Second, the rising nativism of the United States and France is not unique to these two countries and will likely be a large factor in future policy (Immerzeel and Muis, 2017). Governments must contend with these rising far-right groups in the future if they wish to pass refugee policy of any kind. These three countries provide a good cross-section for understanding responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis and provide optimism but reticence for the feasibility of future immigration and refugee policies.
Works Cited
Allwood, G. & Wadia, K. (2010). Refugee women in Britain and France. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Amos, D. (2018, April 12). The U.S. Has Accepted Only 11 Syrian Refugees This Year. National
Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/04/12/602022877/
the-u-s-has-welcomed-only-11-syrian-refugees-this-year.
Bhatia, A. & Jenks, C. J. (2018). Fabricating the American Dream in US media portrayals of Syrian
refugees: A discourse analytical study. Journal of Discourse and Communication, 12(3), pp.
221-239. doi:10.1177/1750481318757763.
Cruz-Torres, M. L. (2018). The U.S.-Mexico Border, Immigration, and Resistance. Latin American
Perspectives, 223(45), pp. 26-29. doi:10.1177/0094582X17699908.
En Marche! (2018). Le programme d’Emmanuel Macron pour l’Europe. La République en marche.
Retrieved from https://en-marche.fr/emmanuel-macron/le-programme/europe.
Ferris, E. & Kirisci, K. (2016). The Consequences of Chaos: Syria’s Humanitarian Crisis and the
Failure to Protect. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Immerzeel, T. & Muis, J. (2017). Causes and consequences of the rise of populist radical right parties
and movements in Europe. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), pp. 903-930. doi:10.1177/0011
392117717294.
Joseph, Y. (2017, May 9). In Their Own Words: Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron. The New
York Times, pp. A10.
Khosravi, S. (2009). Sweden: detention and deportation of asylum seekers. Journal of Race & Class,
50(4), pp. 38-56. doi:10.1177/0306396809102996.
Kyrzanowski, M. (2017). “We Are a Small Country That Has Done Enormously Lot”: The ‘Refugee
Crisis’ and the Hybrid Discourse of Politicizing Immigration in Sweden. Journal of
Immigrant and Refugee Studies, 16(1), pp. 97-117. doi:10.1080/15562948.2017.1317895.
Mankiw, N. G., Romer, D., & Weil, D. N. (1992). A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic
Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), pp. 407-437.
Mould, O. (2017). The Calais Jungle: A slum of London’s making. City Journal: An Analysis of
Urban trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, and Action, 21(3), pp. 388-404. doi:10.1080/1360
4813.2017.1325231.
Ostrand, N. (2015). The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 3(3),
pp. 255-279.
Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux.
Stockemer, D. & Barisione, M. (2016). The ‘new’ discourse of the Front National under Marine Le
Pen: A slight change with a big impact. European Journal of Communication, 32(2), pp.
100-115. doi:10.1177/0267323116680132.
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and
Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tichenor, D. J. (2002). Dividing Lines: Politics of Immigration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25, pp. 271-305.
Weil, P. & Spire, A. (2006). France. In Buaböck, R., Ersbøll, E., Groenedijk, K., & Waldrauch, H.
(Eds.), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, Volume 2: Country Analyses – Policies and
Trends in 15 European Countries (pp. 187-211). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.