Exodus from Iraq

[East Street Trader]

I wondered how many have left Iraq. The Washington Times to-day says the number is estimated at 2 million during the last 4 years. The UNHCR estimate is 40 to 50 thousand a month.

The population before the invasion was something above 20 million.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...108080082/1001

I guess if I was an Iraqi I'd be trying to get out if I could.

Hard to know where they are going. The UNHCR thinks mostly they join refugees in Syria and Jordan.

I don't think the US or UK have taken many in.

[Arrian]

I'm surprised the Washington Times noted such a trend.

I think it would be good to take them in, if they want it. Seems like the stand-up thing to do.

-Arrian

[germanos]

Originally posted by East Street Trader

Hard to know where they are going. The UNHCR thinks mostly they join refugees in Syria and Jordan.

There are about a million in Syria, most of them in/around Damascus. House prices have skyrocketed.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Part of my portfolio here is Immigration Fraud. The amount of that fraud being perpetrated by Iraqis is understandable, but astounding. We haven't seen much of it in Singapore, but Kuala Lumpur seems to be a favorite jumping off point for those desperate to get to the West. (In truth, though, from a fraud perspective, Sri Lankans are a far bigger problem than Iraqis in our corner of the world; still, the Iraqi fraud is on the uptick.)

[Chemical Ollie]

The Swedish immigrations office have decided that Iraq is not a war zone and that all refugees could be returned (=expelled) safely.

[Ramo]

I think it would be good to take them in, if they want it. Seems like the stand-up thing to do.

Yep. It would be an utter disgrace not to. Besides, I've been looking forward to some decent Iraqi food...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The Swedish immigrations office have decided that Iraq is not a war zone and that all refugees could be returned (=expelled) safely.

They probably read the "Mission Accomplished" banner and concluded that major combat operations are over.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
The Swedish immigrations office have decided that Iraq is not a war zone and that all refugees could be returned (=expelled) safely.

Well, the reasoning's a fig leaf, but I don't blame them. Sweden has nothing to do with this fiasco, and yet has processed over 9000 asylum appications from Iraq (edit: in 2006 alone). The US, which created the whole refugee problem in the first place (ok, the UK helped), has taken in fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees in the past three years. Bush has pledged that the US would admit 7000 refugees by September of this year, but the notion that we're suddenly going to be able (and willing) to process 6500 refugees in the next six weeks is laughable.

Sweden vigorously, and rightly, opposed our invasion; I certainly can't begrudge their opposing cleaning up our mess, too. If that's the best excuse they can come up with, so be it.

[Colon™]

Nice the right to asylum ought to depend on political expediency IYO.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Colon™
Nice the right to asylum ought to depend on political expediency IYO.

A reasonable argument can be made that all rights, in the end, depend upon political expediency. But I'll skip that one.

I will suggest, OTOH, that the right to asylum does not supersede a nation's right to protect its self-interest. If Sweden has determined that it taking in more Iraqi refugees does significantly more harm to their national interests than taking them in does good, then that is their right. Moreover, if counterarguments like "but the refugees are a burden you helped create" or "but you're doing no more than other like-minded countries" do not apply, they should feel no guilt about their decision.

The Swedes are certainly free to be better than everyone else, but its wrong to expect it of them.

[Harry Tuttle]

I guess you guys have never heard of the State of Michigan.

[snoopy369]

I would think that if they believe in political assylum, then allowing in the victims of actions you protest against would be the morally right thing to do... ?

Otherwise they should stop protesting on moral grounds, and admit that they're just defending their national interest. Which in the case of the Iraq war would have been null (unless opposing the US is their national interest, but they'd never admit that, right?)..

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
I guess you guys have never heard of the State of Michigan.

Michigan has a hug Iraqi population, to be sure, but relatively few of them are refugees from the current war.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I would think that if they believe in political assylum, then allowing in the victims of actions you protest against would be the morally right thing to do... ?

Otherwise they should stop protesting on moral grounds, and admit that they're just defending their national interest. Which in the case of the Iraq war would have been null (unless opposing the US is their national interest, but they'd never admit that, right?)..

I'm not aware that Sweden is protesting on moral grounds. They did in 2003, God love 'em, but I don't think they are now; the train has left the station on that one.

Maybe in responding to ollie, I wasn't making myself clear: Sweden has already done far, far more for Iraqi refugees than any other country on earth; their moral credentials on this issue are impeccable. If they have now reached the conclusion that they've reached the limit of what they can do, they should not be ashamed to say so; rather, the rest of the world -- and especially the US -- should be shamed into catching up with them.

And now that I think of it: Sweden's in the EU. Certain other EU countries -- Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands in particular -- have done a reasonable job with the refugee crisis, but where the hell are the rest of their confederates? If Sweden's tapped out, why aren't France, Belgium, and Spain saying, "Nice job, Sweden! We'll take it from here?"

[East Street Trader]

I have no solutions to offer. But the situation would seem to need addressing.

I don't know what the effect on Syria might be of hosting a million refugees currently and having up to 40 or 50 thousand more arriving monthly. But I don't think the effect will be a good one.

For Syria, for the refugees or for the stability of the middle east generally.

Before the war I gather Iraq provided work to a whole lot of migrant workers in that region.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


A reasonable argument can be made that all rights, in the end, depend upon political expediency. But I'll skip that one.

I will suggest, OTOH, that the right to asylum does not supersede a nation's right to protect its self-interest. If Sweden has determined that it taking in more Iraqi refugees does significantly more harm to their national interests than taking them in does good, then that is their right. Moreover, if counterarguments like "but the refugees are a burden you helped create" or "but you're doing no more than other like-minded countries" do not apply, they should feel no guilt about their decision.

The Swedes are certainly free to be better than everyone else, but its wrong to expect it of them.

How many people migrated to Sweden last year? 50,000? 100,000? But 6500 Iraqi refuguees are a threat to your national interests?

It's ridiculous to argue that the willingness to play host to asylum seekers should depend on the question whether the asylum grantee created the unsafe situation. By that yardstick Sweden can freely refuse asylum requests from anywhere, unless you can point to a country where persecution reigns due to Swedish hands.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Colon™


How many people migrated to Sweden last year? 50,000? 100,000? But 6500 Iraqi refuguees are a threat to your national interests?

It's ridiculous to argue that the willingness to play host to asylum seekers should depend on the question whether the asylum grantee created the unsafe situation. By that yardstick Sweden can freely refuse asylum requests from anywhere, unless you can point to a country where persecution reigns due to Swedish hands.

You're misreading me. I'm suggesting that the 6500 are in no way a threat to US national interests; the US should have been taken in many more refugees, much sooner. We should have been following the example of Sweden.

Sweden, on the other hand, with a population of only 9 million, has taken in 60,000-70,000 refugees since the war started; in other words, it's experienced a population growth of ~7% over three years in refugees alone. I can easily understand a desire to stop that flow, at least until the ones who've already arrived have been adequately accomodated.

But if it is your assertion that a country must take in however many refugees show up on its doorstep, for however long they keep showing up, no matter how many they've already taken in -- then I think we have to agree to disagree.

[Colon™]

70,000 / 9,000,000 = 0.78%

You must be a liberal arts major.

Fair enough to argue the US shouldn't try to duck its responsibilities. Doesn't mean you can make the right to asylum subservient to political POV.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Colon™
70,000 / 9,000,000 = 0.78%

You must be a liberal arts major.

D'oh!

Fair enough to argue the US shouldn't try to duck its responsibilities. Doesn't mean you can make the right to asylum subservient to political POV.

Never said you should. I'm suggesting that you can make the right to asylum subservient to the larger national interest, in the same way that all other rights are always subservient to the larger national interest.

[Chemical Ollie]

We should send the Iraqis to Denmark, a country that participates in the Iraq war. That would be a sweet irony, as Denmark has used a very strict immigration policy in recent years.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
We should send the Iraqis to Denmark, a country that participates in the Iraq war. That would be a sweet irony, as Denmark has used a very strict immigration policy in recent years.

QFT.

[Kontiki]

In fact, we should have sent all of them to Winston's house.

[germanos]

Syria struggles with Iraqi influx

2000 a day

[East Street Trader]

Kudos to Syria for accepting all these people.

And the conditions sound a whole lot better than have been the norm in Africa with comparable levels of migration.

How long Syria can continue to accept so many must be a question.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


They probably read the "Mission Accomplished" banner and concluded that major combat operations are over.

The carrier's mission was accomplished. The ship's crew, which requested the sign in the first place, returned to port soon after bush's speech. Eat me.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


The carrier's mission was accomplished. The ship's crew, which requested the sign in the first place, returned to port soon after bush's speech. Eat me.

Yep, that was the intended message.

I've got a bridge for you too. I'll even accept credit card payment.

[C0ckney]

we had some asylum applications recently from iraqis who had worked with and aided british forces during our time in basra. these guides, interpreters etc. fear, with some justification, that they will targeted once we pull out of the country.

disgracefully, our government is refusing to give these people any special treatment, and they won't be fast tracked in any way.

[Elok]

Y'know, when I read this thread's title for some reason I immediately thought of the Bob Marley song. And then it struck me: that region needs to listen to reggae in the worst way. So does our administration, if it comes to that. Suppose we all do, really.

And now, on topic. Aren't there some security concerns about possibly letting in Al-Kay-Eeda terrist types with the refugees? I mean, do they demand rock-solid ID from all of those people and refuse the ones who don't have any, or what?

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by C0ckney
we had some asylum applications recently from iraqis who had worked with and aided british forces during our time in basra. these guides, interpreters etc. fear, with some justification, that they will targeted once we pull out of the country.

disgracefully, our government is refusing to give these people any special treatment, and they won't be fast tracked in any way.

Why not? Naturally, collaborators face their doom when occupying forces leave the country. That serves as a warning for all future traitors.

[East Street Trader]

Looks like Syria is now having to refuse entry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6989789.stm

I wonder what the attitude is in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?