SYRIAN REFUGEES STRUGGLE TO OVERCOME ANTI-MUSLIM AND GENDER BIAS IN THE US

Americans show more sympathy to Christian, female and English-speaking, people, study shows

New research into America’s attitude towards Syrian refugees has revealed a distinct bias against Muslims.

The study showed US citizens were more sympathetic towards people who were Christian, female and English-speaking.

Researchers also found that the extent of bias varied, with those describing themselves as white, Republican and Christian most likely to hold anti-Muslim sentiment.

“This anti-Muslim sentiment with respect to refugees and migrants has been documented in Western Europe,” said Melina Platas, an assistant professor of political science at NYU Abu Dhabi and a co-author of the research.

“We’ve seen some evidence of anti-Muslim sentiment in other contexts in the United States, so we were kind of expecting we would find something similar in the evaluation of refugees.

“The finding with gender we hadn’t anticipated to the same extent. It wasn’t clear which direction it would go. That result perhaps reflects that Americans view women as more valuable and give them preference.”

The study, based on a survey carried out in 2016 before US President Donald Trump’s election, was recently published in the academic journal PLOS One.

A total of 1,800 respondents were each shown photographs of three pairs of Syrian refugees with varying characteristics and asked to grade them on a score of one to seven.

Selected by the polling organisation YouGov to be representative of the American population in terms of gender, race, political outlook and other variables, the respondents were also asked whom among each pair they would prefer to admit to the United States.

Muslims were, on average, ranked 0.5 points lower than

Christians, the largest preference in the study. Weaker biases were found against refugees who were male, did not speak English and were unskilled.

Since the research was undertaken, Ms Platas said opinion polls indicated US views on refugees had hardened along party lines, with anti-refugee sentiment becoming more entrenched among Republicans.

“There’s been polarisation in the attitudes towards refugees in general. We see this in the difference in policy between the presidents,” she said.

During his time in office, former president Barack Obama raised the cap on the number of refugees allowed to enter the US, while President Trump has lowered the figure.

In Mr Obama’s final year as president, the limit on the number of refugees admitted to America was 110,000. By comparison, it was announced in September that in the current US fiscal year, the limit would be 18,000 people, an all-time low for the country’s refugee programme, which began in 1980.

Ms Platas said they were continuing to study the American public with respect to their views towards migrants.

With much recent rhetoric focused on asylum seekers coming primarily from Latin America, researchers are interested in whether these people are viewed differently to, for example, Syrian refugees.

The ultimate goal is to identify ways in which the public might be encouraged to develop empathy towards migrants.

“Divisive political rhetoric was certainly a motivation for the study,” Ms Platas said.

“What work in political science does show is that political elites can influence attitudes towards refugees.

“I’m interested in what’s driving that [polarisation], what’s underlying these beliefs about the issue and the consequences of these beliefs which, you could argue, translate into voter behaviour and policies which impact refugees.

“This has real consequences for thousands of refugees. It’s really just trying to understand why people hold the beliefs they do and what, if anything, can promote more inclusion towards these groups.”