In a talk with Germany foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a plan that the United States will accept up to 100,000 worldwide refugees in 2017, a significant increase from the 70,000 cap annually, according to the New York Times.
Millions of migrants escaping from civil wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan have fled to their neighbor countries, such as Lebanon and Turkey, to settle down. But in the past few months, more refugees started to look for a more prosperous land in the west—Sweden, France, Germany and Austria being their final destinations. The media has reported numerous stories about how migrants hop on trains and buses without paying fees, sleep in the streets and camps and even walk for days in order to reach the border between Austria and Germany.
In this unprecedented humanitarian crisis, some of the European countries, particularly Germany, have reached out the refugees and given them generous support in terms of physical needs. At the beginning, polls showed that the majority of people supported Chancellor Merkel’s government for what it has done for the refugees. But that did not last long. The continuing influx of refugees apparently causes conflicts and pressure on the German society, largely because most all of the refugees are from Muslim countries. Some states in Germany have made policies to accommodate the refugees’ religious traditions at the cost of local residents.
In the German state of Bavaria, Martin Thalhammer, the head of the Wilhelm-Diess Gymnasium, sent a letter to parents asking female students to avoid wearing “revealing clothes” because “refugee accommodation” has been set up next to the school’s gym, according to The News Observer.
Benefited by disconnecting from the Eurasia continent, North Americans so far have not been as affected by the migrant crisis as the European countries. But as a leader in the free world, should the U.S. have the obligation to share the burden with its European allies to relieve them from the pressure of this crisis? Though the Obama administration has pledged to help Europe, Secretary Kerry said that taking refugees, “given our law right now, post 9/11, requires a very specific vetting security process.”
Of course, money has to be allocated for refugee resettlement—numerous processes that start when the refugees set foot in the U.S. soil. According to the State Department and NPR marketplace, refugees going through relocation have to go through several interviews, show required proofs, pass a health and security screening and wait. These processes could take months or even a year. The Congress has final say in how much money should be allocated to the resettlement program.
Given the current laws and framework of security, it is less likely for the U.S. to take in refugees as much as Europe, despite the moral obligation. Furthermore, the majority of American people still have negative feelings about Muslims in a post 9/11 era. In several states with small populations, taking in large number of foreigners will eventually change the demographic structures and thus the political distributing power. Wyoming is the only state in the US that does not have a refugee resettlement program. Governor Matt Mead sought to start one but faced strong opposition. State lawmaker Scott Clem said “a small change in the demographics here could upset the Wyoming economy, the Wyoming culture.”
The German people who were overwhelmed by their history in the Second World War have not spoken out about the potential threats and negative impact of bringing a large number of refugees in a short amount of time. The people of the United States, however, should not feel pressured to speak out if the influx of refugees will change lives of local residences. It is necessary for the federal government to respect the will of states and local governments to arrange the resettlement programs, given the capacity of each states.
