Since January, an estimated 710,000 migrants and refugees have entered the European Union. This number is about two and a half times the total count of migrants and refugees that entered in 2014. This staggering increase shows the magnitude of the current situation. As Walter Mead explains in an essay in the Wall Street Journal, the crisis is “one of the worst humanitarian disasters since the 1940s.”
In the short term, the situation has been provoked by the “breakdown of order in Syria and Libya.” However, it appears that these problems stem from more fundamental issues. Mead argues, “What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve.” Namely, poverty and political instability in the Middle East and Africa have contributed to this breakdown of order, and we have begun to see the spillover effects of these issues in Europe. Accordingly, given that this issue cannot be addressed in a matter of a few weeks or months, it is clear that the migrant crisis is a catastrophe that European countries have no choice but to confront and work to remedy, and the United States should lend a helping hand.
Notably, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has steered her country to a leading position in Europe; under Merkel’s leadership, Germany has adopted the most accommodating stance towards incoming refugees. The German government has set aside 6 billion euros for the settlement of refugees, a position more generous than that of any other country in the EU. Some estimates show that the cost of care in Germany for these refugees could reach around 10 billion euros in 2015.
The European Union as a whole is mobilizing to step up its political and financial contributions and to cooperate with countries like Turkey, who have already been enormously impacted by the crisis, in order to accommodate the “flood of refugees.” Each country has devised a number of measures to aid incoming refugees, with varying levels of scope and commitment. Given that Germany has one of the largest economies in the EU, it is not surprising that its aid program is relatively large. Nonetheless, the country stands out in its willingness to accept and accommodate migrants.
When asked if there was a limit on the number of refugees her country would accept, Merkel responded, “The fundamental right to asylum for the politically persecuted knows no upper limit; that also goes for refugees who come to us from the hell of a civil war.” This radical statement of acceptance marked Germany as a willing recipient of the displaced people. It is no surprise that Germany’s open door approach has resulted in a massive influx of refugees to the country. Germany is now expecting to take in about 800,000 refugees by the end of December, and a report by the UN High Commission on Refugees showed that Germany was “by far the country that received the most asylum applications with 188,486.”
Accordingly, Merkel’s approach has provoked considerable national controversy; many fear that the country will be overwhelmed, and many politicians—including some in Merkel’s own party—have spoken out and advocated for more caution. Their line of reasoning echoes sentiments from other skeptical European leaders. Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, for example, has been staunchly opposed to even allowing refugees to cross the country on their way westward. He believes that the refugees threaten Europe’s Christian identity and has called for tougher measures to block their arrival.
As a result, relations between the governments in the region have grown increasingly strained, triggering an emergency summit in mid-October to develop a more coordinated response. The leaders agreed on a “17-point plan” to collectively manage the flow of migrants. Merkel was a strong advocate for developing a more welcoming approach to accommodating these refugees, speaking out, “This is one of the greatest litmus tests that Europe has ever faced.”
Many of those who are not criticizing Merkel for taking in too many refugees are criticizing her for the manner in which she is receiving them. Although Merkel’s approach is more accommodating than those of her European counterparts, new German immigration policies suggest that the country’s stance is not as open-armed as it appears at first glance. Behind Germany’s welcoming impression “is a get-tough policy on people who don’t qualify for asylum.” Notably, this fall, Germany set up the first “one-stop reception and deportation center” in Bavaria. The center is a temporary holding place for incoming migrants, set up “expressly for turning back Balkan migrants quickly.”
It is clear that to continue to accept incoming refugees, the country has had to compromise on the comprehensiveness of its hospitality. That the country has begun moving refugees through deportation centers in a rapid and often chaotic manner suggests that the rate of incoming foreigners has begun to chip away at the country’s ability to uphold its promised generosity.
The country’s policies on the issue are intended to make the turnaround time for rejected asylum-seekers staying in the country faster and make up part of a “more assertive effort to discourage and deport migrants leaving home.” Understandably, to some degree, the policies are necessary measures to allow Germany to keep up with the influx of foreign refugees. Put simply, more refugees mean stricter policies. At the same time, the policies seem to undermine the credibility of the welcoming image Merkel has been cultivating.
While Merkel’s initiatives in response to the crisis have drawn sharp criticism from some of her country’s citizens and her fellow European leaders, across the pond, President Obama has spoken out publicly in support of Merkel’s attempts at greater hospitality, calling her over the summer to praise her efforts to mitigate the crisis at a time when Merkel was being confronted by all sides.
His bid of support stands out among criticisms and raises questions about the role of the US in this crisis. Currently, the United States has made plans to accept around 10,000 Syrian refugees in the upcoming year – a significant increase from the 1,500 who have been accepted since civil war broke out in Syria four years ago. Despite these promises, the US has done very little up until this point. Refugees are admitted into the United States annually, based on factors like the degree of risk they face, family ties in the United States, and whether they are in a group of “special interest” to the United States; however, since 9/11, the number of refugees admitted has “fallen drastically.”
As the director of the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford, Alexander Betts commented, “Historically, the US has the best record on resettlement, bar no other country on the planet,” so it is unusual that the United States has accepted such a small number of immigrants in this time of particular calamity and need.
In addition, a change in the US approach would require an overhaul of current policies. The 1,500 immigrants who have been accepted from Syria are people who have already entered into the US immigration system and are waiting to be let into the United States, “not the thousands working their way through Eastern Europe and landing in Greece.” In order to significantly benefit the aid efforts, therefore, the United States would not only need to increase the number of immigrants it accepts but would also need to begin accepting immigrants primarily from the pool of those currently making their way across the European continent.
Arguably, the reason Washington’s efforts toward Syrian refugees have been lackluster is because of the overwhelming concern about national security that dominates foreign and domestic policy discussions. For a country in which many are still distrustful of Muslims because of their supposed ties to terrorism, the fact that the Syrian refugees come from a country partly controlled by ISIL has stoked opposition to taking many of them in, especially among members of the Republican-controlled Congress.
Should Obama decide to put his money where his mouth is and follow Merkel’s suit with tangible policy changes, he will have to overcome domestic opposition – both from politicians and from the public – that is largely shaped by such security concerns. Like Merkel, he will also have to grapple with the logistical and economic burdens that accompany any influx of refugees. But while Merkel has faced domestic opposition in Germany, just as Obama would have in the United States, the anxiety about “national security” in the United States is a heavy ankle weight for Obama with which Merkel does not have to contend to the same extent.
Over the next few months, as the US government develops better strategies for containing and combating ISIL and as concerns over national security abate, Barack Obama may be able to do more than commend Merkel for her actions; with luck, he will be able to join her leadership and help establish a better life for the thousands of refugees fleeing Syria.