<p>After halting the refugee intake for nearly a year, New Zealand said it will start receiving refugees again from this month.</p>

<p>The island-country had shut the refugee intake for nearly a year to stop the possible spread of the deadly coronavirus.</p>

<p>On Friday, the Jacinda Ardern-led government announced they will be resuming the refugee intake now, with the first group arriving soon.</p>

<p><strong>Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/here-are-top-10-countries-that-battled-covid-pandemic-the-best-359883">Here are top 10 countries that battled COVID pandemic the best</a></strong></p>

<p>The first group will be of 35 refugees, who will be arriving in February itself and nearly 210 refugees coming to the country by the end of June, Immigration New Zealand officials reported.</p>

<p>"With health protocols in place and safe travel routes, we are ready to welcome small groups of refugee families as New Zealand residents to this country, to begin their new lives," Fiona Whiteridge, general manager for refugee and migrant services at Immigration New Zealand, said in a statement.</p>

<p>All arriving refugees, however, will still have to complete a compulsory 14-day quarantine stay in isolation facilities which will be managed by the New Zealand government.</p>

<p>This decision has been appreciated by the experts who had expected an increased intake of refugees (from 1,000 per year to 1,500) from last year itself, which was not carried out due to coronavirus.</p>

<p>Now, the intake has resumed as New Zealand was one of the first countries to completely eliminate coronavirus from within their borders and continues to be a country with zero domestically-bred cases and deaths.</p>

<p>Till now, New Zealand has had 62 current coronavirus cases, taking the tally to 1,959, with the latest one being reported on Friday at a coronavirus quarantine facility.&nbsp;</p>


After halting the refugee intake for nearly a year, New Zealand said it will start receiving refugees again from this month. The island-country had shut the refugee intake for nearly a year to stop the possible spread of the deadly coronavirus.

After halting the refugee intake for nearly a year, New Zealand said it will start receiving refugees again from this month. The island-country had shut the refugee intake for nearly a year to stop the possible spread of the deadly coronavirus. On Friday, the Jacinda Ardern-led government announced they will be resuming the refugee intake now, with the first group arriving soon. Also read| Here are top 10 countries that battled COVID pandemic the best The first group will be of 35 refugees, who will be arriving in February itself and nearly 210 refugees coming to the country by the end of June, Immigration New Zealand officials reported. "With health protocols in place and safe travel routes, we are ready to welcome small groups of refugee families as New Zealand residents to this country, to begin their new lives," Fiona Whiteridge, general manager for refugee and migrant services at Immigration New Zealand, said in a statement. All arriving refugees, however, will still have to complete a compulsory 14-day quarantine stay in isolation facilities which will be managed by the New Zealand government. This decision has been appreciated by the experts who had expected an increased intake of refugees (from 1,000 per year to 1,500) from last year itself, which was not carried out due to coronavirus. Now, the intake has resumed as New Zealand was one of the first countries to completely eliminate coronavirus from within their borders and continues to be a country with zero domestically-bred cases and deaths. Till now, New Zealand has had 62 current coronavirus cases, taking the tally to 1,959, with the latest one being reported on Friday at a coronavirus quarantine facility.

New Zealand to resume refugee intake with 35 arriving in February

<p>A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report.</p>

<p>This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-covid-19-can-push-half-a-billion-people-into-poverty-291463">How COVID-19 can push half a billion people into poverty?</a></strong></p>

<p>The report published by the Norwegian Refugee Council’s&nbsp;Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), also said that&nbsp;Covid-19 may add further risks to millions of already vulnerable people.</p>

<p>It showed that the majority of new cases of displacement last year were in poorer countries.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/when-will-coronavirus-end-in-us-uk-france-india-study-predicts-dates-month-295324">When will COVID-19 end in US, UK, France, India? Study predicts dates &amp; month</a></strong></p>

<p>The data used&nbsp;in the study was calculated at the end of 2019. It was revealed that 45.7 million people were internally displaced&nbsp; and effectively became&nbsp;refugees in their own country,&nbsp;as a result of violence in 61 countries.</p>

<p>An additional 5.1 million people in 96 countries had been displaced by natural disasters&nbsp;such as earthquakes and floods.</p>

<p>Contributing to the figures, it says, are 33.4 million new displacements recorded in 2019, the highest annual figure since 2012.</p>

<p>Alexandra Bilak, the IDMC director, said she had hoped internal displacement would receive more global attention this year, following the launch in October of a&nbsp;UN high-level panel&nbsp;to address the problem and find long-term solutions. The panel held its first meeting in February.</p>


A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report. This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018.

A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report. This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018. Also read: How COVID-19 can push half a billion people into poverty? The report published by the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), also said that Covid-19 may add further risks to millions of already vulnerable people. It showed that the majority of new cases of displacement last year were in poorer countries. Also read: When will COVID-19 end in US, UK, France, India? Study predicts dates & month The data used in the study was calculated at the end of 2019. It was revealed that 45.7 million people were internally displaced and effectively became refugees in their own country, as a result of violence in 61 countries. An additional 5.1 million people in 96 countries had been displaced by natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. Contributing to the figures, it says, are 33.4 million new displacements recorded in 2019, the highest annual figure since 2012. Alexandra Bilak, the IDMC director, said she had hoped internal displacement would receive more global attention this year, following the launch in October of a UN high-level panel to address the problem and find long-term solutions. The panel held its first meeting in February.

Report reveals record 50 million people internally displaced

<p>The Indian government has recently introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The Bill proposes that illegal immigrants in India belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan would be entitled to Indian citizenship after six years of residence even if they have no valid papers or passport.</p>

<p>Lawmakers have maintained that this move to grant Indian citizenship to the above categories of persons from neighbouring countries is based on &lsquo;humanitarian grounds&rsquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill, however, ends up raising more questions than it seeks to address, including raising doubts on the government&rsquo;s actual humanitarian concern and also the impact of such a move.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b><i>First</i></b>, the most notable criticism of the Bill is that in this entire scheme, Muslims are conspicuous by their absence. In short, Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill is seen by many as a consequence of the BJP&rsquo;s election promise in 2014 to grant citizenship to Hindus from Muslim majority countries. During its campaign, BJP had declared India to be a natural home for persecuted Hindus and said that it has a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed in other countries. However, it was not mentioned at that time that no such responsibility would be taken for Muslims who are faced with similar circumstances.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If the government was moved only by humanitarian concern towards victims of religious persecution and displacement, it could not afford to exclude approximately 36,000 Rohingya Muslims who were forced to flee Myanmar due to the 2015 insurgency and are currently living in different parts of India and praying for asylum ever since.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill also conveniently overlooks the plight of Muslim sects like Shias and Ahmediyas who face persecution in Sunni-dominated Pakistan.</p>

<p><b><i>Second</i></b>, even keeping the visible exclusion of Muslims aside, the claims about humanitarian concerns further seem inconsistent due to other reasons. Neighbouring Sri Lanka, where Tamils have faced a history of persecution has been excluded from the ambit, raising a question whether it was thought that such inclusion would be more suited to the interests of regional political parties, such as the AIADMK and the DMK than BJP. Also questionable is the move to exclude migrants from countries like China, prompting the critics to ask whether the government has decided to adopt a safer foreign policy of not wanting to openly label China as an aggressor or burning any further bridges with them.</p>

<p><b><i>Third</i></b>, the Bill has been widely criticised on the ground that it fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades-long movement against illegal migrants. The prime case in point is Assam, which is already suffering from a high influx of migrants from Bangladesh. According to the Assam Accord, 1985, anyone entering India after 25<sup>th</sup> March, 1971, is an illegal citizen, irrespective of their religion.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill has neither tried to assuage the apprehensions of all the stakeholders nor has it made adequate provisions to avoid conflict with the Assam Accord. This move of the government also comes at a time when, based on the Assam Accord and upon the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Assam is updating the National Register for Citizens to include people permanently residing in the state till 24<sup>th</sup> March, 1971 and to only treat such persons as citizens of the country.</p>

<p>Several Assamese organisations are protesting against this Bill due to the fear of exodus of religious minorities from Bangladesh amid rising attacks on them by militants as it may further complicate the already vulnerable demographic of Assam.</p>

<p><b><i>Fourth</i></b>, it is suggested by various quarters that even if the government decides to give shelter to victims of religious persecution from neighbouring countries on humanitarian ground, they should be only given &lsquo;Refugee&rsquo; status as per international law and not that of a &lsquo;Migrant&rsquo;.</p>

<p>&nbsp;The Bill seems to confuse &lsquo;Refugees&rsquo; with &lsquo;Migrants&rsquo; and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Bill seems to confuse &lsquo;Refugees&rsquo; with &lsquo;Migrants&rsquo; and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Bill seems to confuse ?Refugees? with ?Migrants? and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&lsquo;Migration&rsquo; means voluntary movement of people, usually for seeking better economic prospects. On the other hand, &lsquo;refuge&rsquo; is an involuntary act of forced movement, compelled by preservation of human rights and safety and not to gain any economic advantage. Using the correct terminology in the Bill is important as the laws and policies, especially under international law for migrants and refugees are entirely different.</p>

<p>Shelter to individuals of&nbsp;a select religion, however, by excluding others defeats the intention and rationality of international refugee laws.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Bill also plays foul with our own long-standing refugee policy. Even though India does not have a codified refugee policy, during the Tibetan refugee crisis, one of the main conditions was that refugees would have to return to their homeland once normalcy prevailed. In a direct contradiction, the proposed amendment not only provides citizenship rights to such refugees, but vastly relaxes the procedure to avail of such citizenship.</p>

<p>The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Bill maintains a studied silence on all the above issues. The Bill most importantly fails to explain why the Muslim community is being singled out in an apparent violation of Article 14 &ndash; Right to Equality &ndash; of the constitution. It was only after the Bill came under heavy criticism from opposition parties for being &lsquo;biased&rsquo; against one specific religion that it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination.</p>

<p>The unfortunate trend that emerges is that be it any party in power, the citizenship laws have always been used by ruling governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Earlier, the Congress government was forced to negotiate the Assam Accord, affecting primarily Muslims who, as a result stood debarred from obtaining Indian citizenship even after many years of residence. This in turn led to the electoral victory of Asom Gana Parishad.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In order to dilute the effect of the Assam Accord, the Congress enacted the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983, which provided for the detection and expulsion of illegal immigrants from Assam &ndash; all of them Bangladeshi Muslims. However, in an exercise in appeasement, it was ensured that the procedure provided in the Act and the implementation thereof was such that the expulsions were virtually negligible.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While favouring one community for electoral gains is bad enough, excluding the community altogether is even worse and severely undermines the otherwise secular socio-legal framework of our nation. It is a move that violates the policy of pluralism and co-existence on which the Indian polity is based.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court of India has stated on more than one occasion that secularism forms the basic structure of our constitution and cannot be done away with. The Bill may tend to do just the opposite.</p>

<p>Also, such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Therefore, the Bill may have a polarising effect and would further increase the trust deficit between the ruling government and the muslim community, something which a mature, participative and inclusive democracy can ill afford.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It is therefore hoped that the government would, rather than hastening with the Bill and taking a myopic view of things, agree to take into account the views of all those who are affected by the passage of the Bill and sufficiently answer their apprehensions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill raises doubts on the government?s actual humanitarian concern

The Indian government has recently introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The Bill proposes that illegal immigrants in India belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan would be entitled to Indian citizenship after six years of residence even if they have no valid papers or passport. Lawmakers have maintained that this move to grant Indian citizenship to the above categories of persons from neighbouring countries is based on ‘humanitarian grounds’. The Bill, however, ends up raising more questions than it seeks to address, including raising doubts on the government’s actual humanitarian concern and also the impact of such a move. First, the most notable criticism of the Bill is that in this entire scheme, Muslims are conspicuous by their absence. In short, Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed. Muslim migrants would not be entitled to the benefit of such a law if it were to be passed × The Bill is seen by many as a consequence of the BJP’s election promise in 2014 to grant citizenship to Hindus from Muslim majority countries. During its campaign, BJP had declared India to be a natural home for persecuted Hindus and said that it has a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed in other countries. However, it was not mentioned at that time that no such responsibility would be taken for Muslims who are faced with similar circumstances. If the government was moved only by humanitarian concern towards victims of religious persecution and displacement, it could not afford to exclude approximately 36,000 Rohingya Muslims who were forced to flee Myanmar due to the 2015 insurgency and are currently living in different parts of India and praying for asylum ever since. The Bill also conveniently overlooks the plight of Muslim sects like Shias and Ahmediyas who face persecution in Sunni-dominated Pakistan. Second, even keeping the visible exclusion of Muslims aside, the claims about humanitarian concerns further seem inconsistent due to other reasons. Neighbouring Sri Lanka, where Tamils have faced a history of persecution has been excluded from the ambit, raising a question whether it was thought that such inclusion would be more suited to the interests of regional political parties, such as the AIADMK and the DMK than BJP. Also questionable is the move to exclude migrants from countries like China, prompting the critics to ask whether the government has decided to adopt a safer foreign policy of not wanting to openly label China as an aggressor or burning any further bridges with them. Third, the Bill has been widely criticised on the ground that it fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades-long movement against illegal migrants. The prime case in point is Assam, which is already suffering from a high influx of migrants from Bangladesh. According to the Assam Accord, 1985, anyone entering India after 25th March, 1971, is an illegal citizen, irrespective of their religion. The Bill fails to take into confidence or address concerns of indigenous people and their decades long movement against illegal migrants × The Bill has neither tried to assuage the apprehensions of all the stakeholders nor has it made adequate provisions to avoid conflict with the Assam Accord. This move of the government also comes at a time when, based on the Assam Accord and upon the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, the Government of Assam is updating the National Register for Citizens to include people permanently residing in the state till 24th March, 1971 and to only treat such persons as citizens of the country. Several Assamese organisations are protesting against this Bill due to the fear of exodus of religious minorities from Bangladesh amid rising attacks on them by militants as it may further complicate the already vulnerable demographic of Assam. Fourth, it is suggested by various quarters that even if the government decides to give shelter to victims of religious persecution from neighbouring countries on humanitarian ground, they should be only given ‘Refugee’ status as per international law and not that of a ‘Migrant’. The Bill seems to confuse ‘Refugees’ with ‘Migrants’ and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees. The Bill seems to confuse ‘Refugees’ with ‘Migrants’ and overlooks this important distinction by terming religious minority people as migrants, when they would in fact be refugees. × ‘Migration’ means voluntary movement of people, usually for seeking better economic prospects. On the other hand, ‘refuge’ is an involuntary act of forced movement, compelled by preservation of human rights and safety and not to gain any economic advantage. Using the correct terminology in the Bill is important as the laws and policies, especially under international law for migrants and refugees are entirely different. Shelter to individuals of a select religion, however, by excluding others defeats the intention and rationality of international refugee laws. The Bill also plays foul with our own long-standing refugee policy. Even though India does not have a codified refugee policy, during the Tibetan refugee crisis, one of the main conditions was that refugees would have to return to their homeland once normalcy prevailed. In a direct contradiction, the proposed amendment not only provides citizenship rights to such refugees, but vastly relaxes the procedure to avail of such citizenship. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Bill maintains a studied silence on all the above issues. The Bill most importantly fails to explain why the Muslim community is being singled out in an apparent violation of Article 14 – Right to Equality – of the constitution. It was only after the Bill came under heavy criticism from opposition parties for being ‘biased’ against one specific religion that it was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination. The unfortunate trend that emerges is that be it any party in power, the citizenship laws have always been used by ruling governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks. The Citizenship laws have always been used by ruling Governments to appease and consolidate their own respective vote banks × Earlier, the Congress government was forced to negotiate the Assam Accord, affecting primarily Muslims who, as a result stood debarred from obtaining Indian citizenship even after many years of residence. This in turn led to the electoral victory of Asom Gana Parishad. In order to dilute the effect of the Assam Accord, the Congress enacted the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983, which provided for the detection and expulsion of illegal immigrants from Assam – all of them Bangladeshi Muslims. However, in an exercise in appeasement, it was ensured that the procedure provided in the Act and the implementation thereof was such that the expulsions were virtually negligible. While favouring one community for electoral gains is bad enough, excluding the community altogether is even worse and severely undermines the otherwise secular socio-legal framework of our nation. It is a move that violates the policy of pluralism and co-existence on which the Indian polity is based. The Supreme Court of India has stated on more than one occasion that secularism forms the basic structure of our constitution and cannot be done away with. The Bill may tend to do just the opposite. Also, such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities. Such a selective law based purely on religious identities sends out the wrong message of hostile, unreceptive nationalism, which considers itself to be under siege from other communities. × Therefore, the Bill may have a polarising effect and would further increase the trust deficit between the ruling government and the muslim community, something which a mature, participative and inclusive democracy can ill afford. It is therefore hoped that the government would, rather than hastening with the Bill and taking a myopic view of things, agree to take into account the views of all those who are affected by the passage of the Bill and sufficiently answer their apprehensions.

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: The politics of humanity

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged the world leaders at The UN Global Compact&nbsp;Leaders Summit&nbsp;2016 to &quot;welcome the stranger in our midst&quot; as 50 nations pledged to take in 360,000 refugees.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Obama praised countries including Canada and Germany for taking in refugees fleeing from various conflicts, AFP news agency reported.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
&quot;We are facing a crisis of epic proportion,&quot; Obama said.<br />
<br />
&quot;We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values,&quot; he added.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Canada has granted asylum to more than 30,000 Syrian refugees since December and PM Justin Trudeau said this was a challenge as well as &quot;an opportunity,&quot; vowing &quot;there is more to come.&quot;<br />
&nbsp;
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>&quot;We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values&quot; - Obama</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=&quot;We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values&quot; - Obama " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: &quot;I believe we cannot allow ourselves to stop here. We must finally get ahead in tackling this crisis,&quot; on Germany taking in more refugees.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
It&#39;s pertinent to mention that in its recent electoral polls, Angela Merkel&#39;s party has suffered a setback due to her &#39;open-door&#39; &nbsp;refugee policy amid rise in anti-refugees sentiments.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Referring to Merkel&#39;s struggle, Obama said: &quot;the politics can be hard&quot; for leaders who open up to refugees and migrants.&quot;<br />
<br />
The number of refugees entering the United States will go up to 110,000 next year, up from 85,000 this year, the Obama administration said.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>As per US officials, seven countries including Romania, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Luxembourg will resettle at least 10 times more refugees this year than 2015.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=As per US officials, seven countries including Romania, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Luxembourg will resettle at least 10 times more refugees this year than 2015.?" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a>?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
According to the UN refugee agency, the number is just a fraction of the 1.1 million refugees who are in need of resettlement this year.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, as per US officials, seven countries including Romania, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Luxembourg will resettle at least 10 times more refugees this year than 2015.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Financial contribution to UN appeals and international organisations have also increased since 2015 by about $4.5 billion.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The pledges will include funds to send one million refugee children to schools and allow one million refugees to legally work.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Over 65 million people are displaced in the world which include 21 million refugees fleeing from war strife countries like Syria.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Currently only eight countries are hosting half of the world&#39;s refugees: Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya and Uganda.<br />
<br />
<strong>Swipe at Trump</strong><br />
<br />
Obama also said the refugee crisis was a &quot;test of our common humanity, whether we give in to suspicion and fear and build walls,&quot; in an apparent strike against US presidential candidate Donald Trump.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Trump had threatened to build a wall on the US border with Mexico to keep out migrants and make them pay for it.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
(WION with inputs from AFP)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
&nbsp;

'To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values,' the US President said talking about refugee crisis

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged the world leaders at The UN Global Compact Leaders Summit 2016 to "welcome the stranger in our midst" as 50 nations pledged to take in 360,000 refugees. Obama praised countries including Canada and Germany for taking in refugees fleeing from various conflicts, AFP news agency reported. "We are facing a crisis of epic proportion," Obama said. "We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values," he added. Canada has granted asylum to more than 30,000 Syrian refugees since December and PM Justin Trudeau said this was a challenge as well as "an opportunity," vowing "there is more to come." "We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values" - Obama German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "I believe we cannot allow ourselves to stop here. We must finally get ahead in tackling this crisis," on Germany taking in more refugees. It's pertinent to mention that in its recent electoral polls, Angela Merkel's party has suffered a setback due to her 'open-door' refugee policy amid rise in anti-refugees sentiments. Referring to Merkel's struggle, Obama said: "the politics can be hard" for leaders who open up to refugees and migrants." The number of refugees entering the United States will go up to 110,000 next year, up from 85,000 this year, the Obama administration said. As per US officials, seven countries including Romania, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Luxembourg will resettle at least 10 times more refugees this year than 2015. ? According to the UN refugee agency, the number is just a fraction of the 1.1 million refugees who are in need of resettlement this year. Meanwhile, as per US officials, seven countries including Romania, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, France, Luxembourg will resettle at least 10 times more refugees this year than 2015. Financial contribution to UN appeals and international organisations have also increased since 2015 by about $4.5 billion. The pledges will include funds to send one million refugee children to schools and allow one million refugees to legally work. Over 65 million people are displaced in the world which include 21 million refugees fleeing from war strife countries like Syria. Currently only eight countries are hosting half of the world's refugees: Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kenya and Uganda. Swipe at Trump Obama also said the refugee crisis was a "test of our common humanity, whether we give in to suspicion and fear and build walls," in an apparent strike against US presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump had threatened to build a wall on the US border with Mexico to keep out migrants and make them pay for it. (WION with inputs from AFP)

UN summit: Obama urges world leaders to 'welcome strangers', 50 nations pledge to take in 360,000 refugees