A new deal between Turkey and the European Union aims to limit the refugee flood pointed at Europe.  Refugees who do not apply for asylum, or whose requests are denied, will be returned to Turkey.  However, the European Union has promised to accept an equal number of refugees as those it deports to Turkey from Greece.  The deal also promises to make travel easier for Turkish nationals into Europe, and some financial payouts.

The number of refugees, principally from the civil war in Syria, has reached levels not seen since the Second World War.  The flood shows no sign of slowing.  Understanding that they will be dealing with refugees for some time to come, people across the Western world have been debating what to do.  In spite the short-term deal, there is no indication that a consensus is forming on the long term problem.

One argument stands on the fact that it is vastly more expensive to care for refugees the further West they travel.  Estimates are that it costs ten times as much to care for a refugee within Europe proper than it does in states bordering Syria, where the cost of living is much cheaper.  A similar figure applies to refugees brought to America, a fact being discussed by the legislature in South Carolina:

Kevin Bryant, a Republican from Anderson, S.C., noted that the Palmetto State has welcomed almost 850 refugees from all over the world since 2010.  “Why should we bring one refugee here when we could spend the same money and help 10 in their part of the world?” Bryant told the Associated Press.

Others, especially in Canada, believe that refugees have a right to be resettled at any cost.  Indeed, the government is planning to use taxpayer money to build mosques across the country for the use of refugees.  The money would be taken out of the Defence Department’s budget, thus cutting military spending in favor of resettling refugees in Canada.

Critics in Europe say that costs are not limited to money alone.  They point to the chaos that the refugee crisis has brought.  Sweden has 53 “no-go” areas controlled by Muslims where police are not permitted to enter, according to a report by Danish journalist Jeppe Juhl.

Muslim leaders have rejected these kinds of arguments.  In America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ national spokesman said that such concerns are, if “not illegal,” at least “un-American.”  CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial, but remains deeply involved in America’s debates over government policy toward Muslims.

In Europe, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany claims that the chaos caused by migrants proves that Islam is not a problem.  “The Muslim faith is irrelevant to these drunken men who do such disgraceful things,” according to the council’s leader.  Thus, though the men are Muslims, their failures are individual rather than a function of their faith.  But this does not explain the no-go zones that crop up in Islamic areas across Europe.

While the debate continues, refugees live in filth and squalor in many makeshift camps.  This is especially true for women and the children abandoned with them.  Reckless smugglers have flourished in the face of government disagreement.