The Sukkos Guide to Asylum Seekers

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Sometimes, a picture can tell a story which even a thousand words cannot come close to conveying. Last week, one of those pictures made its way around the world, and told a story which words had not, until that point, been able to tell, and even images had not so clearly illustrated.

A three-year-old boy, later identified to be Aylan Kurdi, from Kobani, Syria, washed up on shore on a Turkish beach after the boat he was on with his parents, his brother, and several other refugees capsized as they were fleeing their war-torn home, trying to find safe haven in a country that would allow them in.

Aylan never made it. Neither did his mother, his brother, or nine of the other passengers who were on that boat. But the image of a body of a three-year-old, face down on the beach in a red T-shirt and blue shorts, brought attention to the plight of the Syrian refugees as nothing else had been able to. The world, which had been trying to ignore the cries of these innocents, displaced from their homes because of ongoing war between (among others) the bloodthirsty Assad regime and the no-less-murderous ISIS forces, now had to pay attention.

Of course, “paying attention” seldom means more than issuing statements and “discussing” the problem. If the world has taught us anything, it is that its leaders are experts at abdicating responsibility. And if any action does end up being taken, you can count on it being window dressing, enough to make people feel good about their having “done something” but nothing close to addressing the problem.

Which brings us to the big question: Should the United States play a role in extending asylum to these refugees?

It is easy to understand the conflicted feelings most Americans must have toward this dilemma. Having been at war with radical Islamists since the despicable attacks of September 11, 2001, many Americans don’t feel the need to be charitable to people from the region and of the religion which has been the cause of our foremost national security issues. On the other hand, isn’t this what America does best? To paraphrase Emma Lazarus, we take in even the huddled masses and wretched refuse — so long as they seek to be free.

Many people raise concerns that these refugees will not “assimilate” well in America. Arguing that point is futile, because it is probably true. But since when does this country demand assimilation? As Jews — and especially frum Jews — we can attest to the fact that the United States does not demand assimilation; both that the government does not demand it as a matter of policy, and that society doesn’t demand it as a matter of practice.

Why is it that more and more Americans have been demanding that immigrants “assimilate” when this never was (and never should be) a prerequisite for immigrants becoming Americans? To answer that, one needs to first figure out what it is that immigrants need to have in order to become American while preserving their cultures and traditions — much as we have done since arriving here after the Holocaust. According to Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, and the Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, all immigrants really need is gratitude.

It’s a compelling argument, especially when reading through the entirety of it, and it speaks directly to the current crisis. Can anyone feel more gratitude toward a country than people who owe their lives to it? If we take in only those who are truly refugees, those who are truly vulnerable, who seek nothing but to make a better life here, they will almost certainly Americanize.

As Jews, who are usually on the other side of this situation, do we really want to do anything other than forcefully advocate for this country to do whatever it can for those in need? Too often, Jews find themselves without anywhere to go; do we really want to allow the norm to become that the United States of America says no?

But what about the fact that the people we would be advocating for here wouldn’t necessarily return the favor if the proverbial shoe were on the other proverbial foot? The Syrian people (especially the Muslim population) haven’t exactly been the greatest friends of Israel and they have no love for Jews of any stripe. Should we be advocating for them?

The Gemara (Sukkah 55b) tells us that the 70 oxen we are commanded to bring as korbanos on Sukkos are brought (as Rashi explains) to atone for the sins of the 70 nations of the world, so that they should have enough rain for the coming year. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 21:24) says that Klal Yisrael complains to Hakadosh Baruch Hu that while we do this for them, they repay us with hate, as the passuk says (Tehillim 109:4), “Tachas ahavasi yistenuni.”

Yet we still bring the korbanos for them. Because we need to do what is right. There’s a reason we have a responsibility for the welfare of the nations of the world — enough so that the korbanos we bring on Sukkos revolve around them. The fact that they are adversarial toward us didn’t change it then, and there’s no reason to think that should change it now.

To Read The Full Story

Are you already a subscriber?
Click to log in!