A wide variety of experiences and travelling have motivated me to pursue my research on the Refugee Crisis. Last summer, because of my interest in immigration affairs, I travelled to the USA-Mexico border to study the Trump administration’s effect on border policy. While in Texas and Mexico, my group met with an USA immigration lawyer who explained the process of immigrating and consequences of illegal immigration. There was a particular fact the lawyer told us that bothered me, for I realized the United States refers to immigrants as aliens when evaluating their legality. I found the word alien to be completely dehumanizing because it implies that foreigners without a determined status in the United States are not human, not that they are from another country. This specific wording in the United States’ law became the foundation of my interest in discourse analysis and an interest in, as Cecilia Lynch explained, “denaturaliz[ing] dominant explanations” (1). Therefore, I began my research under the belief that the immigration system in the United States, and even internationally, is flawed. The methodological choices I have made thus far are due to my interest in the discourse I noted while travelling. Despite my journey through various methodologies, I have maintained interest in the language surrounding the Refugee Crisis and its impact on countries’ policies and attitudes towards burden-sharing of Syrian refugees. Like the word “alien,” even the use of the word “burden-sharing” carries a negative connotation, and as I have explored this field of research, I have become increasingly aware of the negative discourse surrounding the Refugee Crisis. In fact, I created my puzzle under the normative assumption that humanizing discourse was the key to tolerance and uprooting the current system.

As I developed my project and shifted my focus from immigration to the Refugee Crisis, I noticed the varying discourses among country leaders surrounding Syrian refugees. I also realized that in my motivations, I express the belief that using illegal means to achieve asylum are justified. I feel that countries are improperly addressing the issue, for they are trying to lower their asylum quotas by restricting the number of asylums granted rather than stopping the conflict causing the issue. Thus, I have a tendency to favor discourse that sympathizes with refugees, such as the image of Aylan Kurdi, a little boy who was killed because his family chose to have smugglers transport them, which I plan to use in my discourse analysis. When I see tragic images, I am inspired to take action to ameliorate the situation. Ultimately, the goal of my project is to better the lives of refugees and immigrants while increasing border cooperation among countries, under the assumption that it is the best course of action for the future.

 

(1) Cecilia Lynch, “Interpretive Concepts, Goals, and Processes in International Relations,” in Interpreting International Politics (New York: Routledge, 2014), 14.