Since March of 2011, almost half of Syria’s population has been displaced. Most of these people were internally displaced while over three million refugees sought safe haven in surrounding countries, primarily Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. Informed by their previous experiences with other refugee populations (primarily Palestinians and Iraqis) and other geo-political interests, these three countries developed divergent immigration policies to deal with the current Syrian refugee crisis. Jordan houses many Syrian refugees in Zaatari, the second largest camp in the world. While the camp is only 1.3 square miles in size, Zaatari became home to 203,000 people at its peak density. In stark juxtaposition, Lebanon's initial policy was not to rely on camps at all, creating Syrian squatters dispersed throughout the country. With approximately 1.3 Syrian refugees, the country’s population has increased by over 25%. Finally, Turkey runs more than 22 smaller refugee camps that have been characterized as “perfect refugee camps” by the New York Times. The Turkish government recently took over refugee management from the UNHCR and has implemented initiatives to monitor refugee movement. Why did each of these states respond differently to the influx of Syrian refugees? What role does the camp play in managing refugee populations? The relationship between the refugee camp and the state broaches classical sociological questions about sovereignty and control of immigrant populations.