The White House announced Monday that it had reached its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States by the end of October, nearly five years after the war in Syria began.
The announcement was quickly met with self-congratulating fanfare. “We are pleased to announce that we will meet this goal more than a month ahead of schedule,” said Susan Rice, a White House National Security adviser.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokesperson, praised the number as a “six-fold increase from last year.” And Sen. Dick Durbin, D.-Ill., called it a “milestone” in confronting “the humanitarian crisis of our generation.”
But the White House’s announcement Monday was overshadowed by commitments from European allies, who are dramatically stepping up their support. The German government announced Sunday that it was preparing to accommodate 300,000 asylum seekers this year, in addition to nearly half a million last year. France has said they will resettle 30,000 refugees over the next couple years, and Canada has resettled the same number since November.
According to Oxfam, the U.S. is falling far short of the number of refugees it should be accepting. Based on an index calculated by the size of the economy and population, the U.S. is only doing 7 percent of its “fair share,” while its allies shoulder most of the burden, according to the charity organization.
That number is also based on the expectation that Western countries would only resettle 10 percent of refugees — about 460,000 people – and that Syria’s neighboring countries should absorb the rest. But as of March, European and American countries had only pledged 129,000 places, less than a third of that number.
The White House’s announcement comes after pressure from activists helped overcome long bureaucratic delays. Obama was initially criticized for initially admitting only 1,500 refugees; he announced in September last year that he increased the goal to 10,000 by October of 2016. By April of this year, however, only 1,300 had been admitted, leading the administration to accelerate its efforts after being criticized for long delays.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest signaled on Monday that President Obama may be willing to accept “a few thousand more [refugees]” next year. “The president would like to see a ramping-up of these efforts, but he’s realistic,” said Earnest.
Meanwhile, the situation for refugees in countries neighboring Turkey continues to deteriorate. In Turkey, refugees have trouble finding work permits, and only 40 percent of children from Syria attend school. In Lebanon and Jordan, nearly nine out of 10 of the 1.7 million refugees live in poverty.
Human Rights groups praised the Obama administration for meeting its goal, but urged the White House to take a leadership role in resettling refugees. “It is important to celebrate this milestone,” said Jennfier Quigley from Human Rights First, in a statement. “The United States can and should do more to be a world leader in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis.”
Top photo: U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice speaks during the daily briefing next to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
As a US citizen, I disagree with Oxfam. US immigration policy should weigh the probability of terrorist activity from each refugee and their descendants against their likely economic contribution to the US economy. The possibly irrational fears of US citizens toward refugees increase the probability of terrorist activity and decreases likely economic contribution to the US economy, so political climate is a legitimate concern for rational, principled actors. And the political climate is not good.
I looked at the Oxfam report briefly, and there’s a lot of statistics missing.
* How many refugees are acting rationally by abandoning their homes? By expanding immigration, charitable countries may be acting against the interests of refugees.
* How many refugees are fleeing poor economic prospects? I suspect that before any crisis arose a huge percentage of Syrians would have happily moved to European host countries. Some subset of these refugees may actually prefer the politics of ISIS. By my reckoning, even ambivalence toward the politics of ISIS is a nonstarter.
The important question in my mind is: Are refugee host nations acting rationally? Imagine that the US has gotten its immigration policy with respect to Syrian refugees perfect. We arrive at “perfect” by assigning a cost, *x*, to each resulting terrorist-attack caused death on US soil. If the latest policy change (1500 refugees -> 10000 refugees) yields an increase of *n* attack-deaths, then a cost of that policy change was *nx*. In the benefits column we have the economic contributions, direct and indirect, of the refugees and their descendants. If you like, go ahead and add some further items to the benefits column:
– Capital in future diplomacy with Muslim states,
– Reinforcement of American’s self-image as generous and kind, and
– Atoning for the suffering caused by US policy in and around Syria.
If the costs and benefits balance perfectly, then our latest shift in immigration policy put the costs and benefits into perfect alignment. If the US has gotten this right, then god help the European nations. If not, then the European nations will benefit from their immigration policies.
Different nations parametrize this cost-benefit differently. I encourage the authors to go on record with their *x*: How much did Orlando cost the US? What is 49x? You guys are cowards hiding behind some sanctimonious report. I’ll congratulate Germany for finding some means to atone for WWII and the Holocaust. Isn’t it 20,000,000 Russians and 7,000,000 Jews? The US shouldn’t let Germany’s guilt-based immigration policy shame ours.
I should also point out that *n* is not simply proportional to the number of refugees admitted. Assume that we’ve ordered refugees perfectly by risk and that we’re ignoring all benefits in making immigration decisions, that is assume that immigration decisions are simply an exercise of risk minimization. I encourage the authors to describe how that risk profile changes with each admittance. What was the risk for the first refugee? 0.0000001 attack-deaths? 0.0001 attack-deaths? What was the risk for the 10000th refugee? 0.0000008 attack-deaths? 0.0008 attack-deaths? What is the break even point in the cost-benefit? Do we stop admitting refugees when the cost per admittance reaches 0.01 attack-deaths? Do we stop when the sum reaches 49 attack-deaths? Don’t tell me how many refugees we should admit. Tell me what is an acceptable risk. And the units are “attack-deaths.” Go ahead and include “attack-maimings” if you like (53 in Orlando). If the rest of the world is willing to admit a refugee with a risk of 10 attack-deaths, then the rest of the world is irrational and should be ignored. Admitting a refugee with a risk of 1 attack-deaths that is fleeing certain death implies that the refugee’s life is more important than a citizen’s life.
“According to Oxfam, the U.S. is falling far short of the number of refugees it should be accepting. Based on an index calculated by the size of the economy and population, the U.S. is only doing 7 percent of its “fair share,” while its allies shoulder most of the burden, according to the charity organization.”
Newsflash to the two reporters who appeared to write this story without leaving the office:
Oxfam does not decide what the right amount is, the American people and the government we elect get to decide that. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not see large numbers of Americans demanding we take in more Syrian refugees.
Advocacy journalism seems to be defined as let us tell you what we think ought to change, which is fine I suppose, but it’s not likely that two interns will have the means to convince millions of people to change their mind.
You are a rightwing troll, one who has made so many (very stupid) factual errors that anyone regularly reading here no longer takes you seriously. Your claim that the two journalists who wrote this story are “interns” should be read with this information in mind.
It wasn’t half a million refugees in Germany last year, it was more than a million.
We should have never ever been involved in Syria. It was never a National Interest of the USA. We are there for the Saudis.
The USA should be accepting ZERO immigrants from Syria. If there is a refugee issue, they should go to Saudi Arabia.
1. Start wars causing over 4 million refugees
2. Admit 10000 of them to your country
3. PROFIT, er, claim credit for what wonderful humanitarians you are!
There is an ethical obligation to provide refuge to the people displaced by your attacks. The US should be taking millions of refugees. If the US met this obligation, they would also bridge some of their vast disconnect between macho military fantasies at home and the horrifying reality abroad. It’s harder to make war when you can see the results of your actions.
Unfortunately, the US seems to seek power by any means, without any responsibility. It’s not in their interest to discourage war.
well said!
first the gov F’s Americans one way.
then they F us another way.
When they’re not F’ing us, and they realise it, they get busy F’ing us.
If being a good person means giving up your earnings and opportunity and assets to the government thieves that support the wallstreet thieves that support the makewar thieves, then someone didnt read the Bible.
Hear, hear; second barabbas, and add:
..only if you’re referring to a non-pathological person.
This news article was written just for you, Ben.
Neither you nor the authors of this article seem to understand that the three of you don’t get to decide what the ethical and collective obligation of millions of Americans. You are free to express your opinion on the matter but claiming it’s factual or beyond debate is silly.
The West didn’t start that civil war. Perhaps we made it worse but we are under no obligation to act like Germany.
I’m confused. US attacks have displaced millions of refugees? The US is “making war” in Syria? I thought the Syrian government and Russia were fighting ISIS and a bunch of other people. I thought the refugees were fleeing Syrian government bombings (barrel bombs). I thought the refugees were fleeing ISIS governance and conscription.
Isn’t the Syrian civil war just a bunch of Sunnis taking over a Middle Eastern country? They were displaced from Iraq, so they’re looking for an independent nation. And the Saudis don’t like how the neighborhood has been changing since Afghanistan and Iraq, so they’re backing the power grab? Granted the US set the stage with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there are many powerful actors in Syria that are violently pursuing selfish agendas. The US is not responsible for the decisions of others to use violent methods. We do bear responsibility for amplifying the force of our preferred faction(s) in pursuit of our own interests. My understanding is that our preferred faction(s) stand opposed to Assad and ISIS. We’re supposed to stand idly while others amplify the force of Assad and ISIS?
In the US we criticize our military’s role in Syria because US citizens cannot influence the Syrian government’s policies, ISIS’s policies, Russia’s policies, or Turkey’s policies. The US’s goal in Syria is a “moderate” government that stands in tension with Iran. I agree that such a government would be the best outcome for the people of Syria (except maybe the “tension with Iran” part). If we admitted all of the moderates in Syria to the US as refugees, then who is going to live and vote in Syria?
In the time between setting and reaching the goal of ten thousand, hundreds of thousands more refugees have been created as a result of US policies.
thanks to wallstreet wanting cheap labor and the whores in congress, average 1,000,000 persons have crossed the border from mexico to the US since 1975.
correction
average 1,000,000 persons have crossed the border from mexico to the US every year since 1975.
lulz @ getting mad at wall street and congress for people wanting to come here for a better life