From the rich and utopian space station Elysium in Elysium to Hugo Drax's space station occupied by a "perfect" human race in the classic 007 film Moonraker, science fiction has imagined a “city on a hill,” closed off from a more chaotic world below. Elysium is the archetype of this idea - a utopian society completely closed in space - with no refugees seeking asylum from disease and death allowed on board. Parallels can be drawn between America today. With the current political climate, America's admission of refugees to this city on a hill is once again causing controversy, and America's role as a refuge for "your tired, poor, huddled masses" is once again called into question. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Today, the refugees of the Syrian crisis are tired, poor, huddled masses, and how America accepts them is a debate. To contribute to this great political debate, I will focus on the issue of Syrian refugees and the cultural preservation concerns expressed by many Americans. Therefore, the broader issue of immigration and other concerns – such as economic impact, national security and political self-determination – will be ignored to accommodate the specific issue of Syrian refugees and culture. I will also ignore the question of the number of refugees that should be accepted, but the number should not be negligible. Therefore, I will argue that the United States should welcome a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees and that such refugees will not erode American culture as claimed in some policy circles. To support this position, I will divide my argument into two sub-arguments: with the first answering why the United States should welcome a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees and the second answering why those refugees will not threaten the existing culture. I will first argue that the United States deserves to welcome a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees due to its involvement in the escalating Syrian conflict – a fact that will be established in the venue – applying the concept of desert. The concept of desert will be established using Joel Feinberg's “Justice and Personal Desert” in the paragraph following the one that establishes the premises. Once the above argument is established, I will argue that the influx of this non-negligible number of Syrian refugees will not harm existing American culture, as argued by a vocal and popular portion of the American right. To do so, I will refute the arguments for cultural preservation related to general culture – defined as the customs, ideas, and traditions of a culture – and social culture – defined as the shared language of a geographic territory's social institutions in life public and private. (Kymlicka, 1989). Having established my arguments, I will now address concerns about the unconventional division of my main argument into two sub-arguments in my article. I do so and devote much of this article to the second subtopic because even when my first subtopic – that the United States has an obligation to welcome Syrian refugees – is accepted, many politicians and ordinary Americans will continue to believe it. The need to preserve “American culture” is greater than the need to fulfill the obligations justified in my first subtopic. The argument for cultural preservation is powerful because it still constitutes a valid objection to accepting refugeesSyrians even when my first sub-argument is accepted. Therefore, the second argument will address cultural preservation objections to the first argument's position. To clarify why I will examine both general culture and social culture when many, but not all, political philosophers choose to ignore First, I do so because calls to protect “American,” “Judeo-Christian,” “Anglo-Protestant,” (Sager, 2007) – or any other term those who advocate for the preservation of the use of general culture – by prominent politicians and political commentators are as strong, if not stronger, than the voices calling for protecting American social culture . In essence, I'm addressing what's most relevant in America today, rather than eschewing an aspect of cultural preservation for the sake of adhering to philosophical norms and potentially avoiding trampling on culturally sensitive topics. Finally, to advance my discussion of the preservation of social cultures, which focuses specifically on language, I will apply the concepts and arguments related to immigration in general found in "Culture and Immigration: A Case of Exclusion?" by Alex Asger. to the specific issue of Syrian refugees. To better frame this question, the following premises will be established. First, the Syrian refugees in question will have a different culture than what is commonly perceived as “American culture.” Second, American involvement – ​​direct and indirect – in Syria has at least escalated the conflict in a way that has produced more refugees, primarily by providing logistical support to “moderate” rebel groups (Browne, 2016). This should be accepted because any involvement, from any side, intensifies the conflict, and because it is agreed across the political spectrum. With the background established, I will now move on to my first sub-argument in support of accepting a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees into the United States. To do so in accordance with the concept of desert, I will establish the three components of desert presented in Joel Feinberg's “Justice and Personal Desert”. The three components are the desert, the deserving and the desert base. The desert is something that those who deserve it are said to deserve. It can be positive, like a bonus for an excellent job, or negative, like going to prison for a crime. The deserving is the entity that deserves the desert. It can be a person or a non-personal entity. Finally, the basis of the desert is the reason why those who deserve deserve the desert. Feinberg further claims that the concept of desert is justified because “reasonable men” are naturally inclined to believe that merit – on which desert is based – is more convincing than a simple application of morality and law alone. A desert application can simplify this concept and its justification. For example, a student who is meritorious, deserves a good grade, the desert, because of his hard work, the base in the desert. However, a student who holds his classmates hostage for a good grade is entitled to a good grade because of utilitarian purposes - saving the lives of his classmates - but does not deserve, or does not deserve, a good grade . Most “reasonable men” will probably find the first scenario more justified due to merit and true merit than the second (Feinberg, 1970). Having defined the components of desert and justified the concept of desert, I will now apply desert to my first sub-argument for why the United States should accept non-negligible numbers of Syrian refugees. The merit and desert in this situation can be established easily, so I will focus most of this subtopic on discussionin favor of the desert base. To begin, I will establish that the United States is the deserving one in this scenario. In this case, the United States is a deserving non-person who will be detained in the desert in accordance with the desert base. Second, it will establish that the desert is bad, at least in a technical sense, i.e. that the United States should accept a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees. Having established who deserves and the desert, I will now discuss why the United States deserves to accept its desert, thus establishing the base in the desert. This is where the second premise comes into play. As the United States has escalated the Syrian conflict, it deserves to welcome refugees who have been the result of the conflict's escalation. Syrians who were not refugees before the escalation of the conflict are now refugees because they have lost homes, families, and viable means to earn a living due to the escalation of the conflict caused by US involvement. Since the United States is responsible for a non-negligible escalation of the Syrian conflict and, along with it, a non-negligible increase in the number of Syrian refugees, the United States should allow a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees to seek asylum in the United States United. With the first argument establishing why the United States should accept a non-negligible number of Syrian refugees, I will now focus on the second argument relating to the preservation of culture advocated by many politicians and political commentators. My second argument will be more complicated, since culture preservation is still a valid objection to the position of my first argument even if the general logic of my first argument is accepted. The preservation of culture can be divided into two categories: the preservation of general culture and the preservation of social culture. Supporters of preserving the general culture argue that the Anglo-Protestant work ethic, Western values ​​of democracy and tolerance, and some traditions – even if they have no utilitarian use – valued by Americans may be eroded by the influx of Syrian refugees. There are undoubtedly many other arguments for the preservation of general culture, but I will focus on the three mentioned above because they offer a concise and representative overview of the argument for cultural preservation. I will first present and refute each of the arguments for the preservation of general culture, starting in the next paragraph. In refuting anti-refugee counterarguments, I will accept the premises on which such arguments are based, because while such premises may appear to be based on fringe right-wing fears, it is better to argue that the influx of Syrian refugees will not validate those fears than to directly oppose those fears. The first argument in favor of preserving the general culture is that Syrian refugees will erode the existing Anglo-Protestant work ethic (Sager, 2007). This argument is based on the following premises: that the Anglo-Protestant work ethic exists, is responsible for the success of the United States and other Anglosphere countries, and that Syrian refugees will not come to America with an equivalent work ethic or better. While this topic and its premises may seem like it belongs on the right-wing fringe, many Americans are starting to embrace this sentiment given the current political context, which is why it deserves to be in this discussion. An opponent of my position may argue that the United States was built on an Anglo-Protestant work ethic that could be eroded by the presence of groups that do not adhere to Anglo-Protestant ways. Even if the influxof refugees may not be responsible for a total erosion of the Anglo-Protestant work ethic, advocates cite America's empirical decline in competitiveness and power relative to other nations as a result of the displacement of non-Anglo-Protestant groups into the United States . In this case, a change in the Anglo-Protestant work ethic results in a loss of utility. The analogy of a homeless person seeking refuge in a family's home – presented in the next paragraph – is often supported by advocates. A homeless person – called Joe for brevity – being taken in by a family would inevitably contribute to a change in the family's life. culture. Joe, who makes little effort to work, is a bad influence on the children of the family, reducing their motivation to maintain a strong work ethic, as they see how Joe is able to survive and live a comfortable life without working much. The family's work ethic is eroded. This analogy does not hinge on whether the family deserves to welcome Joe, but focuses on why Joe is bad for the family, which implies that the family's interests should take priority. This realistically portrays the “Americans first” sentiment suggested by cultural preservationists. Joe is analogous to the Syrian refugees, and family, in the United States. To answer, I will first assume that I accept the premises of the argument presented above. While these premises may be questioned, I will accept them because successfully arguing in your opponent's terms makes the argument more effective. However, although the comparison to the homeless is very effective, there are flaws which I will now present. First, the homeless man analogy ignores Joe's personal interests. Joe seeks refuge at the family's home because he believes the conditions in his home are better than the ones he lived in. Likewise, Syrian refugees will not move to a country with worse conditions. When Joe is accepted by the family, he is happy with the conditions he lives in and doesn't want them to get worse. Adopts family customs and values ​​and contributes to maintaining those standards of living. It is in his personal interest that the conditions of the family home are maintained, since these conditions are the main reason why he wants to stay in the family home. Therefore, Joe will naturally begin to adopt family customs and values, and the fear of an erosion of those customs and values ​​is unwarranted. Using this modified homeless man analogy that explains Joe's self-interests, I can refute the case for preserving the Anglo-Protestant Work Ethic. Syrian refugees, who supposedly arrive without an equivalent or better work ethic, are inclined to adopt the Anglo-Protestant work ethic to maintain current living standards and improve their circumstances. Therefore, adopting the Anglo-Protestant work ethic benefits refugees. Of course, one link in this argument that can be questioned is whether refugees will realize that adopting the predominant culture of the host population maintains living conditions and hospitality, but history has provided empirical evidence of how Irish Catholic, Eastern European, and Jewish immigrants, among others – even when they were mocked for having a poor work ethic when they first arrived – after a generation or two, they were able to successfully navigate American society by adopting the work ethic of Anglo-Protestant work. It is true that there have been obstacles along the way, with many immigrant communities living in poverty, but after a few generations, the success of those immigrant communities –who have come to America in far greater numbers than the entire Syrian population – demonstrates that there is no reason why Syrian refugees cannot do the same and that fears that Syrian refugees will erode the Anglo-Protestant work ethic they are unjustified. Refugees will not refuse to adopt an Anglo-Protestant custom that makes them better off. Therefore, the argument that Syrian refugees will erode the Anglo-Protestant work ethic is invalid. The second argument in favor of preserving the general culture is that Syrian refugees – who come from a mostly undemocratic Muslim country – will not respect American values ​​of democracy and tolerance. . This argument is based on the premise that Syrians will not embrace the democratic process because they are not accustomed to it in their country of origin, that Syrians come from a country where LGBTQ rights are scorned, and that the relatively homogeneous country of Syrian refugees from they come from will make it more difficult for them to accept different faiths and ideologies. This is a popular and favorite topic of the anti-refugee movement, because it simultaneously defends the cause of Syrian refugees and distances itself from intolerance and bigotry. Its popularity and the difficulty of refuting it simply by calling it a bigoted argument deserves its place in this discussion. Supporters commonly cite statistics about how the majority of Syrian refugees believe homosexuality should be illegal, or how the majority of Syrian refugees are prejudiced against Jews. Syrian refugees who do not embrace democracy and are intolerant will fuel tensions between different communities among other problems in the United States, and interests in preventing a degradation of intercommunity relations should take priority. To answer, I will assume once again that the premises and statistics of the argument in the previous paragraph are correct. Instead of trying to explain why Syrian refugees will arrive on America's shores tolerant and respectful of democracy, I will argue that Syrian refugees will become tolerant and respectful of diverse communities once they understand that American tolerance and democracy are the cornerstones of strength of America. To do this, I will use the dorm room bathroom policy thought experiment. Imagine two men's bathrooms in a dorm. One is always clean, virtually odorless and spacious, because its users agree to remove all belongings after use, among other actions to preserve cleanliness. The other bathroom is full of towels and personal toiletries accumulating mildew and is overall very dirty. Users of the latter bathroom seek refuge in the cleaner bathroom due to the conditions of their bathroom, but when they do so, the conditions of the cleaner bathroom worsen due to the unsanitary practices that bathroom migrants bring with them. Bathroom migrants are left perplexed because their new bathroom has become less clean. What would the new bathroom migrants do? This argument follows a similar logic to refuting the first argument for the preservation of general culture. Syrian refugees, even if they initially cling to their attitude towards democracy and tolerance, will change their perspective once they realize that these two American principles are what make America such a beautiful place to live. After all, without tolerance, Syrian refugees would. they wouldn't have been accepted in the first place, and without democracy the American government wouldn't be much different from the one they fled. Once again, Syrian refugees will adopt democracy and tolerance after an initialthey refuse because they realize that those values ​​are in the interest of the metaphorical boat in which they have sought refuge, and no one wants the boat they are on to sink (or rather, no one wants the bathroom they are using to become unsanitary). Therefore, the argument that Syrians will not respect American democracy and tolerance is unjustified because Syrian refugees will adopt these two principles of American society in their best interests. The final argument of a proponent of general culture preservation is one that is not based on the utility of a culture, based on the premise that people like to preserve culture for sentimental or other non-utilitarian value. Supporters argue that Syrian refugees will change or even eliminate some traditions that should be maintained for the sake of preservation, similar to how non-pharmaceutical charities protect endangered wildlife species even though they have almost no utility outside of the pharmaceutical industry, or how the U.S. government protects indigenous Native American cultures even though there is no apparent utility to the protectors. This argument is an integral part of the preservation of general culture, and some political circles have already used this argument specifically against Syrian refugees by spreading fears of how the influx of refugees into Europe is destroying “Western” culture, and how the same could happen in other countries. the United States with the arrival of Syrian refugees. Once again, I will accept the premise of this last argument for the preservation of general culture, and in response I will draw parallels with China in the late imperial era. In this case, Americans who want to preserve “Western” culture from the influx of Syrian refugees are analogous to the Qing Chinese who seek to preserve traditional Chinese culture from Western colonial powers. Syrian refugees are analogous to Western colonial powers with the important distinction of Western colonialism, dominant powers actively seek to change the culture of another country in imperialist pursuit, and Syrian refugees who are victims of a crisis seek to find a new country. This distinction will be fundamental. History tells us that China successfully repelled Western influence on traditional Chinese culture until the Xinhai Revolution, when internal, not external, factors destroyed traditional Chinese society. While it is true that those internal factors stemmed from external powers weakening Qing China, those same external powers are not present in the case of Syrian refugees fleeing to the United States. The power of Syrian refugees weakening the United States is dwarfed by the power of Western colonial powers weakening Qing China. If traditional Chinese culture can stave off change from a dominant culture – Western colonial powers seeking spheres of influence – then a dominant American culture can surely deter the threat of cultural change from Syrian refugees who have neither the resources nor the will to change American culture and seek to do so. spheres of influence. Syrian refugees do not have the power to change American culture, unlike real threats against endangered species or indigenous Native American cultures. Therefore, the argument that Syrian refugees will change or eliminate some traditions is not true based on the power difference between the host and refugee populations. I concluded my responses against the arguments for preserving the general culture with.