The international community struggles to find a solution for Syrian refugee sharing. European leaders and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are using burden-sharing discourse to address the situation, and while they appear to be characterizing Syrian refugees, they, in reality, are constructing specific identities for host countries.

The current literature categorizes three different types of burden-sharing frames. However, these frames are distinct, and the literature fails to recognize that the frames can coexist. In addition, it does not address the overlapping and inherently contradictory identities of host countries perpetuated by burden-sharing discourse. In the context of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, burden-sharing discourse reveals two overlapping identities for host countries: a victim identity and a hero identity. The victim identity characterizes host countries as helpless and collapsing under the burden of refugees. On the other hand, the hero identity calls host countries capable and the best option for shouldering the burden. How can host countries both be strong and capable as well weak and collapsing? These identities given to host countries offer insight into the reason why Europe is not resettling more refugees and the motivations behind the use discourse impacting policy, yet they are inherently contradictory.

The overflow of refugees and utter failure to properly handle the situation has led to tragedy and instability in the Middle East. Each discourse has very distinct motivations, which can be explained by deconstructing identities created from the discourse. Understanding these identities are crucial reforming the policy to ameliorate and prevent refugee casualties.