BERLIN — The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017, a significant increase over the current annual cap of 70,000, Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday.
“This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope,” Mr. Kerry said, adding that it “will be accompanied by additional financial contributions” for the relief effort.
The American move, announced after Mr. Kerry held talks in Berlin with his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, still falls far short of the global demand for resettlement from people who continue to flee turmoil in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.
“This kind of piecemeal, incremental approach is simply not enough to effectively address this crisis,” said Eleanor Acer, director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, an advocacy group that has been pressing the United States to take 100,000 Syrians alone next year. “This minimal increase for next year is certainly not a strong response to the largest refugee crisis since World War II.”
Four million Syrians have fled to other countries, and hundreds of thousands of others from the Middle East and Africa have been pouring into Europe. Mr. Kerry said the United States would explore ways to increase the overall limit of refugees beyond 100,000, while carrying out background checks to ensure that their numbers are not infiltrated by terrorists.
“We still need to do more, and we understand that,” Mr. Kerry said at a news conference with Mr. Steinmeier.
Under the new plan, the limit on annual refugee visas would be increased to 85,000 in 2016. The cap would then rise to 100,000 the following year.
The United States has taken in only about 1,500 Syrian refugees since the start of the conflict there more than four years ago. American officials said that the Syrians accepted in the next year would come from a United Nations list of about 18,000 refugees.
The three largest groups of refugees admitted last year were from Iraq, Somalia and Bhutan. Syrians were at the bottom of the list of nationalities.Refugees are people who have fled their homes to escape war or persecution (and can prove it), while migrants more generally may be relocating for economic reasons.
In their meeting, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Steinmeier also focused on ways to end the war in Syria, where 250,000 people have died and 12 million have fled their homes in the past four and a half years. In addition, Germanyand the United States will try to rally support next week at the United Nations General Assembly for a significant increase in aid to United Nations refugee camps in the countries neighboring Syria, Mr. Steinmeier said.
The American response is unlikely to relieve much of the pressure on European countries, particularly Germany, which remains the most desirable destination for most of the migrants. Other efforts to address the crisis, such as agreeing to distribute migrants equitably among European Union members, have foundered so far, and in the absence of a unified and effective policy, the migrants have been left to find their own way across the Continent.
Germany recently has been under pressure from a seemingly unstoppable influx of migrants, and it reinstated border checks a week ago to better manage the crowds. The flow from Austria slowed over the weekend to less than 2,000 registered arrivals each day, according to Lars Rebel, a spokesman for the German federal police.
But Austria received about 20,000 newcomers over the weekend on its eastern border with Hungary. Most “still want to go to Germany, their great goal, their great dream, their great vision,” said Alexander Marakovits, a spokesman for Austria’s Interior Ministry in Vienna.
At least 10,000 arrived or passed through Sunday at the small Austrian village of Nickelsdorf, a city in the state of Burgenland near the border with Hungary that links Budapest to the east and Vienna to the west, Mr. Marakovits said.
The main highway linking the two cities was closed amid concerns that crowds of refugees would spill into traffic. Although everyone insisted the flow was manageable, the director of the state’s police, Hans Peter Doskozil, hinted at the strain.
“In the worst case, if there is no shelter, then the buses can go on the highway and make a kind of sightseeing tour,” Mr. Doskozil told the Austria Press Agency, “as crazy as that sounds.
“But they must drive away, so that the others see something is happening,” he added. “Otherwise you can’t hold the crowd back anymore.”
Gerry Foitik, head of the Austrian Red Cross, said his volunteers would probably manage to accommodate most migrants somewhere in Austria on Sunday night. But he said about 5,000 might remain in and around Nickelsdorf.
Mr. Kerry met with Mr. Steinmeier in Berlin at Villa Börsig, a palatial German guesthouse overlooking a lake. Later they met with a small group of Syrian refugees, who asked not to be identified by journalists out of concern for friends or relatives still in Syria.
The Syrians, asked by Mr. Kerry why the surge of migrants had been so great in recent weeks, said they had despaired of being able to return home and that life in refugee camps was becoming harder as food rations were cut back.
“The reason people are coming now is because they gave up hope completely,” one woman said.
One man asked: “Are not five years enough for the international community to intervene, especially the United States?”
Asked at his news conference why the United States could not accept more Syrians more quickly, Mr. Kerry said that budget constraints and vetting requirements established after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks limited the scope of the response.
“We are doing what we know we can manage immediately,” he said. But he did not rule out the possibility that more might eventually be done.
Along the migrant trail, those who had appeared boxed in on Friday — stranded in Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary — somehow managed to continue their trek. With help from the Serbian authorities, who made no secret of their policy of pushing them through as fast as possible, most of the migrants who had been thwarted at the Hungarian border made their way west into Croatia.
From there, some continued toward Slovenia, where the authorities said around 2,500 had crossed the border by Sunday morning; the Croatians took a larger number to the Hungarian border in the northeast.
In Hungary, angry officials, who have been struggling to extend a razor-wire fence at the Serbian border to include the Croatian frontier, received the arrivals, packed them on trains and buses and moved them quickly to the Austrian line. The authorities there were allowing them to enter — 5,000 on Saturday alone.
The authorities in Slovenia, meanwhile, were halting migrants at the border with Croatia to the south and allowing them to pass in small groups, taken by bus from border crossings at Obrezje and Rigonce to several locations around the country.
By Sunday morning, the crowds had diminished, with only about 300 people waiting at the huge Obrezje crossing, and only about half as many in Rigonce. Those who continued to straggle toward the border from deeper inside Croatia were simply allowed through by the Croatian authorities, leaving it up to the Slovenians to stop and process them.
The Slovenians took the migrants, one busload at a time, to a processing center in Brezice, a few miles from the border. There, they were registered but not fingerprinted. Slovenia is a member of the European Union, as is Croatia, but unlike Croatia it also is part of the Schengen accord, which allows passport-free travel but encourages strong external borders.
Illustrating how hard it is to keep the refugees from their main goal — Germany — only seven migrants had requested asylum in Slovenia by Sunday. The rest were taken to six refugee centers around the country. From there, many simply decided to make their own way north toward the Austrian line, where a few hundred had crossed by Sunday morning.
Michael R. Gordon and Alison Smale reported from Berlin, and Rick Lyman from Ljubljana, Slovenia. Reporting was contributed by Somini Sengupta from the United Nations; Palko Karasz from Graz, Austria; Emmarie Huetteman from Salzburg, Austria; Barbara Surk and Kristina Bozic from Ljubljana; and Bostjan Videmsek from Obredje, Slovenia.
I think it is really good that the US is accepting more refugees. It's really sad what is going on, and those people are dying trying to escape the place they're in. Hopefully peace can me restored there.
ReplyDelete- Muzamil Ahmad p.6
As read in the week #4 article of accepting more Syrian refugees, the United States of America would like to have even more refugees in the U.S.A. In my opinion, I think it is scary to hear that "four million Syrians have fled to other counties"(New York Times). It's crazy to think that it is that bad in Syria that people have to leave. I also think it is very cool how we are trying to increase the amount of refugees living in the United States to 100,000 refugees. We have heard that many people are fleeing their countries, all over the world, and to what end will the United States go to to hold more refugees.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Hulsing
Per. 2
I feel it is a wonderful idea to let refugees come into the Unites States to have a safe place to live. I think it will be great to help other people out. The only thing that is scary is “the increase in number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017”(New York Times). I like the idea of letting people in to have a safe place while their country is a disaster but I feel like we should have a limit of how many people we are able to take into our country at a time.
ReplyDeleteI think it is good that we are letting in refugees but we also need to monitor whats going on and how many we are letting over. We cannot have so many to where we are losing out on everything. We should limit the amount just by a bit.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is good that the US is trying to help refugees. It is very sad that people in other countries like Syria have to leave their own country. Its good that ¨advocacy group that has been pressing the United States to take 100,000 Syrians alone next year¨ (The New York Times). Although this is a positive change for the refugees, the US needs to be careful not to let in more people than they can handle. It is good that the refugees will have a safe place live.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Brinkmann Per.4
As much as it might seem like the right thing to do, America shouldn't be taking in refugees at a time such as this. The government has proven, once again, that they don't understand that ISIS, along with other radical Muslims, want America gone. As in gone-gone. It doesn't matter how many "background checks" they do. People that have hostile intention will get in.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 2 states, “This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope". I believe this is a good thing that U.S is helping refugees, because if things got really bad over here I would hope a country would have the decency to do the same. Also to remember there are bad people out there so I hope they are being careful who they let in.
ReplyDeletewhen i read this article i thought that it was a really good idea for the U.S to help the refugees because it's the right thing to do when they had to leave their own country due to civil war. the fact that the U.S doesn't fully understand ISIS makes it a little bit scary because some of the refugees might in fact be radical Muslims(terrorists) and we probably wont realize that until it's to late, so i hope they are being more careful on who they are letting into the united states.
ReplyDeleteI think it is great the US is helping these refugees out. I do think that some of the refugees could be ISIS soldiers who could kill innocent Americans. So we should watch over the refugees very carefully. But overall I think it's great giving these refugees a second chance.
ReplyDeleteThe United States of America isn't a selfish country! We help people in need because we know what it's like to be in the position where we didn't have a country, so we made our own. We should still be concerned about ISIS and monitor the refugees that enter the country but that doesn't mean we can't help them out. The country just has to take precautions in this situation so nothing bad happens.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it's great that we help these refugees now. However we need to be careful who we let in to the United States. Some people may come in to our country with bad intentions, but many harmless people have no where to go and its important that we can give them a place to go.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this is the good thing to do but maybe not the right. Even if the U.S. makes sure there isn't any ISIS people getting into the country, they still will. Doing this seems like the right thing but could hurt us immensely if we don't have high security. The U.S. just has to be cautious about doing this.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good idea to allow refugees into our country because we can provide them with a safe environment. However, I find it worrisome that advocates want to "increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017" (New York Times). The United States needs to make sure we do not go overboard on the amount of people we let in. We do not want to take on more than we can handle. We also do not know what kinds of people we are letting in. They need to perform high-level security checks to ensure the safety of United States citizens. Although providing a secure place for refugees is good, we need to do it in a way that our own United States citizens do not lose their benefits to accommodate for the refugees.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Lasecke period 2
I think that it's a good idea to allow refugees into our country because it provides them a safe place to live. I think it's great to help people out and it's good to hear that, "an advocacy group that has been pressing the United States to take 100,000 Syrians alone next year."(The New York Times). However, I think that it's important that the U.S. doesn't take in too many people. We should be able to keep things under control and prevent things from going overboard.
ReplyDeleteI think its a good idea to let them in our country but if we have so many troops down there why are they needing to come to our country for help?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a good idea to let refugees into our country. This is a good idea because we can keep them safe and help them out. However, i believe that we need to be careful when letting refugees into our country by monitoring them.
ReplyDeleteMadi Kakavas Period 6
I don't think it is a bad thing to let others in. The only reason it would become an issue is if we took in more people than we had room for and could provide for. Many Americans at one point have faced a time where they didn't have a safe place to settle down. Letting people in could be a risk, but not everybody from other countries has bad intentions for America. Doing background checks on the people coming in is a good idea.
ReplyDelete-Aubrey Koenigs, Period 6
I support Obama's decision to help people fleeing from unstable countries. Though I am also worried about the problems it could bring such as overpopulation but i am more concerned with the people in need of help. I am also concerned with sheltering, such as who will pay for their shelter and where will they get jobs and how will they be integrated into our society.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good idea to let refugees in our country and help them out. However, we shouldn't let more people in than we can handle. The article says, "...an advocacy group that has been pressing the United States to take 100,000 Syrians alone next year" (The New York Times). The United States should do security checks before letting anyone in, otherwise I support it.
ReplyDeleteWe should help out the refugees. They have left there home and need a place to go. They have been forced out of there houses and forced to walk on foot. Know they are trying to get into a place that is safe. We need to help them and treat them as equals. Richard Hull period 2
ReplyDeleteI support Obama's choice of letting in more immigrants from Syria because these people are normally left without a real home, in fact they left it. but as he states "'This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope'", showing that he also thinks that the Syrian refugees have no home to return to. also the article talks about how Syrian refugees will get rations and support when they enter america so they can actually start a new life without having to completely start over again on their own. Making me truly proud to be an american.
ReplyDeleteSoulius Jones period : 1
I completely agree with what Soulius is saying, America is the land of second chances, and that is exactly what we should provide for these Syrian refugees. Many of the refugees are traveling with small children who have done nothing wrong and just need a safe and stable environment to stay. Although the idea of over population is a valid concern, as long as the US controls the number of refugees coming in and doesn't allow more than we can accommodate for, there should be no problems. Background checks also didn't sound like a bad idea, but many of these families are in desperate need of a safe place to stay and don't have the luxury of time to wait for a complete and background check to be approved. Sarah Moghaddam period:1
DeleteI agree with soulius as I think that America is making a great decision to let them in. I believe that America should be more diverse and that it should give everyone a second chance no matter what the situation. Also most of these people need a place to go as they don't have an actual home where they are right now. Hopefully this will continue and the only thing they would have to do is a secure background check to make sure a "bad" person isn't coming into our country and having us in danger
DeleteWhen reading the article titles "U.S. Will Accept More Refugees As Crisis Grows," it brings me joy to think that the United States is still such a generous country. This is definitely something that Americans should be proud of. It does worry though to think that "The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees the United States accepts each year to 100,000 by 2017" (New York Times). This worries me because America's population is already booming with the increase of 100,000 refugees a year. I feel that The United States may over populate and there will not be enough resources for all of us.
ReplyDeleteFaith rosenberry
I believe that the U.S' acceptance and increase in aid to refugees is a very positive action. In an objective comparison however, accepting one hundred thousand refugees is not a lot when compared to the four million that are fleeing their homes. This statement made by Eleanor Acer, the director of the refugee protection program at Human Rights First, supports this claim: “This kind of piecemeal, incremental approach is simply not enough to effectively address this crisis" (New York Times). As we have seen in this article and previous ones, Germany and other western EU countries are taking in mass numbers of migrants compared to the US. The US has traditionally been a country founded by immigrants since its origins. As a world super power I strongly believe the US has the resources and experience to accept more struggling refugees.
ReplyDeleteJonPaul Lambert Period 1
I think that it is nice of the US to except refugees into the country; however I don't know if it is the smartest thing to do. In every group of people, there will be one or even a few who will have different views then the rest of the group. When the article says, "The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees by 100,000 in the year 2017" (The New York Times) it is interesting to see that large of an increase in such a short amount of time. I think it would be most benificial to except refugees ,but do so at a slower pace.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I am 50-50 on letting migrants into our border. I believe that America is "a land of second chances and a beacon of hope" (John Kerry). I also believe that letting immigrants from terrible parts of the world into America could lead to bad things we couldn't even imagine would happen. I know we are one of the kindest countries in the world but could we be too nice?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I think that we should let refugees into our country. We could be known as the good country that takes people in rather than forcing people out. Although, I think we should draw the line somewhere.. I think refugees should meet certain requirements before being able to live in the U.S. and I think they should pass security checks before coming in. It would be good to take people in but wouldn't be good to go over what we can accommodate.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Guevarra period 1
Once i read this article i had a better understanding of what was happening, i think it is a good idea we let refugees into our country. We can and should help them. As long as we can keep everything and everybody safe. I think they should meet the requirements of other people trying to become citizens. If we have the capability to take them in, we defiantly should.
ReplyDeleteMcKenna shield, period 4
After reading this article on the Refugee Crisis, it kind of woke me up to how good we have it here in the United States. I think the refugees as human beings should be able to have the right to the freedoms we have here. Therefore, I believe that we should open our gates to a certain number of refugees. Though it would be a limited number of people, it would still make a huge difference in the caring for these people.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article abou the refugee crisis, I'm stuck on which side to choose here. In one aspect i'm thinking it would be good to get these people out of a bad situation and on the other hand I'm thinking why do they have to come to our already heavily populated country. It is said that our country is, "A land of second chances and a beacon of hope" (John Kerry). I believe that this quote is true but I still don't believe that they should all swarm into our country. We should help them out, but we should also get other country's to pitch in. If not America will go even more down hill than it already is.
ReplyDeleteI realize now how good we have it here in the land of the free. But having that been said I still don't believe that the refugees should be aloud into the U.S
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article about the Refugee Crisis, I believe that everyone should be helped but we all know they cant. In America we all have it amazing here. I do think we should take some refugees but not too many that we cant handle it anymore. Since we cant give all refugees another chance we should still give at least some another chance.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about the refugee crisis, I believe that everyone could be helped. But we all know everyone of them can not be helped. But all the help we can do, we should do it. Even if we just help a few, it is worth it.
ReplyDeleteThe refugee crisis is a big problem lately, I also do believe that everybody should be helped. But many of the migrants had shelter provided to them in a bordering county. But many of the people had decided they wanted a better life, so they all started to keep moving until they found a spot they really liked. Many of their goals are in countries like Germany, but some of these countries do not want to mix the cultures. Many countries was to keep their Catholic or Christian religion.
ReplyDeleteI am very happy that the US is doing this. In my opinion we should be doing this more. Additionally I believe that we should do more. We should go after the prosecutors, we have to make a statement that this cannot happen, in or outside the US.
ReplyDeleteI think that this idea is a very positive one for the United States. The United States was created off the foundation of the idea that anyone can come here in search for freedom and a better lifestyle. As Mr. Kenny said "This step that I am announcing today, I believe, is in keeping with the best tradition of America as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope" (Kenny). This really reflects the ideas and culture of America. By expanding the refugee cap to 100,000 we are allowing more people to share this culture with us.
ReplyDeleteZach Potter per 5
While reading this article I did realize that the number of refugees has increased because of the crisis going on in the middle east and that has been a major issue. Its really sad to see what they have to go through or what they have been through but it is also really good to know that the United States is helping the Syrian refugees. I think that everyone deserves a new start in life, the United States provides you the chance, and the freedom you need.
ReplyDeleteSara Abu Wishah, Period 5
They are doing the right thing but the United States are taking too much for refuge. It is the right thing to do but they should not be do all of them. Everyone should do equal parts.
ReplyDeleteSeeing that the US is accepting more people is giving me hope for the poor refugees that have to move away from their own country. the US is made by Immigrants, and studies show that Immigrants bring a lot to the country and don't cost that much.
ReplyDeleteI think this is good as we need to open our doors for refugees who are being persecuted in their countries. Every country needs to open their doors for refugees escaping their country. If we don't it makes the refugees have a 100% chance of being persecuted.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is nice of the US to except refugees into the country; however I don't know if it is the smartest thing to do. In every group of people, there will be one or even a few who will have different views then the rest of the group. When the article says, "The Obama administration will increase the number of worldwide refugees by 100,000 in the year 2017" (The New York Times) it is interesting to see that large of an increase in such a short amount of time. I think it would be most benificial to except refugees ,but do so at a slower pace
ReplyDelete