On November 4, the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats held a hearing titled, “Challenge to Europe: The Growing Refugee Crisis.”  The full hearing is below (it begins roughly 59 minutes into the video).

Going into it I thought I would hear members of the committee talk about how the U.S. could cooperate with our European allies to alleviate their burden and what we would do to address the crisis.  Instead, I heard Congressmen resort to fearmongering and partisanship.

In his opening statement, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), said that if the flow of refugees went unchecked, “it will change the fundamental nature of European countries.”  He went on to add that as a result of the influx of refugees, “what we are witnessing is the destruction of Western Civilization.”  After that he focused on violence and extremism, but at no point did he discuss what the United States was doing to help, nor did he offer possible solutions to the crisis.  For Rohrabacher, the refugee crisis is not a humanitarian issue; instead, it is about preserving Western culture and stemming the flow of the barbarian hordes.

His colleague, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), began his statement by pointing out that not all of the refugees are from Syria and that some may have “other motives as well.”  The problem with this line of thinking is that a refugee, no matter where they are from, is still a refugee and deserves humanitarian assistance.  The U.S. cannot say that only refugees from certain countries deserve our help.  Additionally, the scare tactic that they could be coming with sinister intentions is unfounded and quite frankly, ridiculous.

Rep. Poe also mentioned that Hungary, which has built a border fence and used tear gas and water cannons on refugees, is only trying to protect its national sovereignty.  He went on to say “the United States, rather than trying to understand the situation in Hungary, even last week the U.S. ambassador dressed down the Hungarians, for what the State Department believed was not the right course in dealing with migrants.  That does nothing to help our relationship with Hungary, a NATO ally.”  First, does Poe really believe the State Department and other American government officials are not trying to understand the situation?  Really?  Second, it is unclear what Poe is referring to in regards to Ambassador Bell, although it is probably her speech from October 28 titled, “We Will Build a Stringer Bridge.”  In the speech, Bell address numerous areas of cooperation with Hungary but also mentions issues of concern, notably corruption, a free civil society, freedom of the press, and the refugee crisis.  Countries that are truly allies should be able to express concern about issues; keeping quiet only exacerbates the problems.

Rep. Rohrabacher also jumped on the Hungary bandwagon, stating that it has been a “tremendous friend and asset to the peace and stability of the world.”  He went on to take a jab at the White House, saying it should stop complaining over every little thing they disagree with.  I’m sorry, but those issues of concern are not “little things.”  For somebody who claims to be “a most forceful spokesman for human rights and democracy around the world,” Rohrabacher’s words seem contradictory.

Rohrabacher continues to praise Hungary and resorts to fearmongering- “Hungary was totally justified in what it is doing to try to stem the flow, and frankly if our European allies are not willing to stem the flow of large numbers of people who are not native to their territory, they will lose their territory.”  Basically, this U.S. congressman just gave his support to the xenophobic far-right throughout Europe.  That’s right, if you don’t keep non-Europeans out, you will lose your country.

The only highlight came during Rep. Albio Sires‘ (D-NJ) opening statement.  In it, he proposed the U.S. should look to the root causes of migration and “for a political solution to the war in Syria.”  Rep. Sires went on to say that the world looks to the U.S. “to lead when it comes to the refugee resettlement.”  The problem, of course, is that we are not providing that leadership.  We have fallen far short in resettling refugees from the crisis; 10,000 pales in comparison to the over 1 million in Lebanon and over 2 million in Turkey.  Fortunately, he went on to add that the U.S. “can do much more,” and that we must “provide assistance and increased coordination to our European allies to help them cope with the number of migrants and refugees.”

Besides the close-minded scare tactics and pandering to Hungary exhibited by Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher, the other concern I had about this hearing is that out of the thirteen members of this subcommittee, only five showed up (Reps. Weber and Frankel make appearances during the questioning of the two witnesses).  If the refugee crisis is truly the largest migrant crisis the world has known, as was pointed out during the hearing, then where were the other members?  Wouldn’t we want “all hands on deck” to address this serious issue and from a humanitarian response to help our European allies?  (It should be noted that one member was absent due to a heart attack.)

My fear is that absurd sentiments like those from Reps. Poe and Rohrabacher will win the day and influence policy to the point where the U.S. fails to act and give the necessary assistance so desperately needed.

Thanks for reading.

Governments in both the United States and Europe recognize that having children places greater financial burden on parents.  In the U.S., the federal government has in place the Child Tax Credit.  Taxpayers with children “may be able to reduce [their] federal income tax by up to $1,000 for each qualifying child under the age of 17.”  The problem with the CTC is that it is taxpayers might qualify for the credit, and even then, the amount might not be the maximum of $1,000.  In Europe, on the other hand parents receive monthly allowances to help with the costs of raising children.

Children’s Allowances
Instead of listing the amount for each country, I am going to use Germany, Great Britain, and Sweden as examples.   In Germany, parents receive an allowance called Kindergeld.  According to the German Embassy in the U.S., “In 2010 the amount paid for a couple’s first child was raised 20 euro to a sum of 184 euro per month [$207] per child. For a second child, parents receive an additional 184 euro per month and for a third or fourth child, 190 [$214] and 215 [$242] euro respectively.  Parents or guardians are eligible to receive Kindergeld at least until the child’s 18th birthday.”    So, a family with three children, for example, would receive 558 euro [$628] per month.  That makes the $1,000 CTC seem quite paltry.

In Great Britain, parents receive £20.70 per week [$32] for the eldest or only child, and £13.70 [$21] per additional child.  Going back to our family with three children, that comes to around £192.40 [$296] per month.

Finally, in Sweden, “Child allowance is SEK 1 050 per child [$124]. The amount of large family supplement depends on how many child allowances you receive.”  The allowance is paid every month up until the age of sixteen.  Under this policy, our family of three would receive SEK 3754 [$443.11] per month.  Here’s a helpful chart breaking this down:

For more information, the EU has a great website called the “European Platform for Investing in Children,” which includes country profiles and summarizes each Member State’s policies.

Lesson
If American legislators were truly concerned about family values, they would enact policies to establish children’s allowances.  The CTC does not even come close to helping parents with the costs associated with raising children.  An extra $300-400 per month could mean the difference between a parent working a second job or not.  Receiving children’s allowances could also help improve child nutrition, which in turn, helps with the health of a child and could reduce healthcare costs.  According to UNICEF, the child poverty rate in the U.S. in 2012 was 32.2%, up from 30.1% in 2008.  A monthly child allowance could reduce our rate of child poverty.

It should be noted that there is one case where parents can receive a monthly children’s allowance in the U.S.- foster care.  Here in Wisconsin, foster parents can receive between $232 and $499 per month, depending on the level of care.  If a state government realizes that a monthly allowance is helpful to cover the basic needs of foster children, why doesn’t every family, regardless of whether they have foster children or not, receive one?

Thanks for reading.