One of the most common self-report measures of empathy is the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980). Sample item: “I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other guy’s” point of view.” Actually, this particular item is part of the Perspective-taking subscale. There is also an Empathic Concern subscale, and two others that are used less frequently. I’ve used Davis’s scale many times (my academic reearcher side). I’d kind of like to administer it now, to thousands of people, along with a few simple questions assessing their take on the “migrant” (most commonly used in US news) or “refugee” (European news but also CNN here) crisis.
If you’ve been living with your head in a bubble, just click on the links above. (or NPR piece) There are over 4 million registered Syrian refugees (source). That’s FOUR MILLION. Registered. That’s not all. 7000 people crossed into a Hungarian border town overnight (in Guardian piece linked above). Thirty-four people (15 children) died in Aegean Sea yesterday, when their boat capsized. I believe at this point the term refugee is warranted. How many people would put their families in danger because they wanted to–voluntarily–migrate? Show of hands?
Remember, it’s not the Dark Ages.
These people know the dangers. But they also know the dangers of staying. A recent New York Times piece estimates that 200,000 have died in the Syrian civil war. This number is surely small, given that Reuters reported 210,000 last February. Chemical weapons are a looming threat.
Germany has just reintroduced border controls after years of open-borders. Who can blame them, with some 10,000 refugees arriving on a daily basis. Overall, Germany has been the most welcoming European country; eastern Europe, on the other hand, has shown greater resistance to housing refugees. Perhaps this should not be surprising, as they are poorer countries with their own problems. Even so, their attitude has been far more generous than that of the United States.
Most of the refugees remain in the neighboring countries of Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan, either hoping to return home, waiting for official refugee status, or unwilling to face the risks of travelling to Europe. Some hope to make it to the US, which has accepted about 1,500 refugees from Syria (out of ~70,000 total in the 2015 fiscal year).
Mostly, I’ve blocked so many news outlets that I don’t see the most bigoted and blind knee-jerk reactions to current events. But some people’s biases get past my radar, usually via comments on more sane friends’ posts. So I’ve seen remarks to the effect that we cannot accept any refugees migrants because some of them are going to be terrorists, and some are only in it for the remote possibility of killing US citizens. Remarks such as “We know all terrorists in the US are foreign born, or children of immigrants” (re: Boston bombings), or (and I cite) “Also you can not compare American born killers to those that would behead you for your beliefs. These people have no career, no education, and will not assimilate.”
Is it worse to be killed by a foreigner…?
It’s not clear if the people with no career and no education are the “American born killers” (and although Natural Born Killers immediately came to my mind, I don’t believe the film–or accompanying controversy–was in his mind) or the foreigners… but I suppose will not assimilate gives it away. I guess it just hurts worse to be killed by a foreigner. Maybe it’s related to some unseen battle of the gods.
Needless to say, I made no reply to that comment. Such ignorance revealed in two sentences, appalling, and probably beyond help. Does this person entirely lack empathy, or is it an ingroup/outgroup thing? Perhaps he can empathize when the “other guy” is a fellow American (and perhaps he is capable of seeing things from Timothy McVeigh‘s perspective).
Of course, that’s an extreme case… but many people also express reluctance to take in immigrants (seems the majority view of Republican hopefuls). And maybe there are people who would take advantage of the refugee crisis to gain admittance to the USA for “nefarious purposes.” But there is an extensive screening process in place for all of the refugees granted asylum in the United States. This process places many families into an eternal cycle of Ground Hog days. Documents expire before they can complete the next step, so that they must start everything anew.
There is risk…
Could a potential terrorist sneak through? Of course. After all, we’ve got plenty of homegrown crazies who seem quite capable of killing for all sorts of reasons, including just because you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (such as a school).
but it’s small
But of all the people leaving everything they know to risk their lives to reach a strange land, how many are likely to be terrorists en potentia? Do those who worry about the future terrorists even consider what it must feel like to be forced to leave your home? To leave knowing you may never reach your destination (if you allow yourself to think there may be a destination)? Knowing your children may drown, not knowing what awaits, how you will earn you livelihood, in most cases probably not even knowing what language people will speak in your new “home”?
Most of us in the USA (exceptions being those who have come from equally horrific situations–those coming north from Central American come to mind) are lucky enough to be unable to truly see things from the “other guy’s” point of view when it comes to situations such as these. We’ve never had to and will never have to walk a mile in those other guys’ shoes. We cannot conceive of such uncertainty and danger. But we should still make the effort, especially if reason cannot show us that we ought to help. (I have no trouble arriving at the need to offer asylum using the most cold and calculated reasoning. Apparently many people cannot follow the same rationale). We should try to imagine the hardship. We should try to let empathy rather than fear dictate out emotional reactions and choices.