Exodus from Iraq

[Colonâ„¢]

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 Colonâ„¢


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.

[Colonâ„¢]

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 Colonâ„¢
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/middle_east/6989789.stm

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