That's nice, and will contribute to the positive image of the US overseas. I just heard a radio interview with Sweden's new head of the immigration authorities, who confirmed that we're planning to take in 150,000 Iraqi refugees for the next three years, assuming things don't get any worse. (That would be in addition to the ~100,000 who've come already since the war.)

Shouldn't we, like, get to do a free regime change somewhere soon?

Wow, really, 150,000? Good on Sweden, seriously. The kind of numbers that could actually make a difference.

That's pretty massive. Canada took on around 260,000 immigrants in total in 2005. Of that, 35,000 were refugees.

sounds unbelievable, frankly. Did he check with the government first? What measures did he talk about to cope with the massive influx of refugees? I understand the system is already under strain with the Iraqis who have fled to Sweden so far.

For those who don't know, Sweden is one-twentieth the size of Canada with about one-fourth the population. So 150,000 would be a lot. A lot.

Yeah. 20-30,000 is about how many asylum seekers Sweden receives a normal year, from all countries, but since 2003, things are a bit out of the ordinary.

(N.B, I'm not in any way denying their asylum rights, it's good they're being received. One just wishes that certain other countries, who might have been involved in creating this situation, would make more of an effort. Like take, I don't know, let's be crazy -- FIVE HUNDRED refugees?)

Hey, we did that.

Oh, you meant USA.

The US are not taking in any Iraqui refugees, because there cannot be any Iraqui refugees.

According to the US Iraq was liberated. Therefore those refugees would be fleeing from - freedom. Therefore 'Iraqi refugee' is a contradiction per se.

1-Nil for Homeland Security!

Yes you did, 519 asylum seekers in fact. And a whopping 47 got to stay.

(Assuming I read this correctly.)

One just wishes that certain other countries, who might have been involved in creating this situation, would make more of an effort. Like take, I don't know, let's be crazy -- FIVE HUNDRED refugees?

Yeah, considering that back in the day when I was working in refugee resettlement, my metro area alone took in far more than that - the agency I worked for resettled several thousand Soviets a year all by itself. (Yay Lautenberg Amendment...not that I'm bitter about certain politically favored groups having to meet a much lower burden of proof to qualify for refugee status or anything like that, no sirree...because your average Soviet Jew was in greater danger of persecution than, say, your average indigenous Guatemalan highlander during the civil war or anything.)

So yeah, as I think even Dubya would acknowledge in one of his more unguarded moments that the U.S. bears more than 0.175% of the responsibility for the current Iraqi refugee situation, a little parity would be nice.

For that matter, the entire U.S. refugee admissions ceiling for FY2007 is 70,000, which is frankly ridiculous. Here's a look at how U.S. refugee admissions and resettlement work. (An allocation of 5,000 refugee visas, total, for the Near East and South Asia?)

It's funny, because I think that despite anti-Americanism and all that, the US still has the image abroad of being a very refugee-friendly place, wide open to migration etc. I suppose the large Mexican (non-refugee) immigration contributes to that, even if much of it is illegal. But that perception might change with the border fence thing.

And European and US immigration debates are so strangely separate. I regularly hear comparisons between European nations, but no one ever compares the US with the EU, or with any single European country -- at least not here, but I read a lot of US press too, and I haven't seen it there either. I think most people simply have no clue about how large or small US immigration is, or they assume you can't compare, because the US is an immigrant nation without a welfare state, etc.

I don't know, it's just odd that people aren't making common cause on either side of the dispute -- I mean, those nutty vigilante groups that patrol the US-Canada border would find quite a few soul mates if they looked to Europe.

But didn't the number of asylum seekers explode in Sweden because of the recent amnesty, which signalled that Sweden is the place to go if you want to go to Europe? I'm not sure it's that wise to build on that reputation. I mean, there's a breaking point, in issues of economy, social coherence and tensions in general.

Also, I believe the Danish and American gov's attitude to Iraq asylum seekers is based on the idea that everything is going swimmingly there, in accordance with official policy statements. It wouldn't look good having to take refugees from all that progress and victory going on.

The trouble is, having 10s of thousands of refugees roam around streets of US would mean blowing the cover on the story of shining American success in Iraq, wouldn't it? (not that we are esp. good at receiving refugees, but this is worse for PR than almost anything else--since we generated them ourselves).

With American public's ignorance of the world affairs, that would be a disaster for every politico involved--since that's the real palpable sign (as opposed to abstract ones, which is all that we have yet) that we have utterly f..ked up the place....

Read somewhere that during WW2, certain axis countried banned wounded soldiers from coming home, lest they be seen by their publics and give lie to the official propaganda....We're now all the way there....

BTW, I have to confess being surprised at the magnitude of refugees admitted by Sweden: for a country of, what, 10 million souls, traditionally of a rather highly homogeneous ethnic stock, admitting 10s of thousands of refugees from alien cultures annually has to be a really noticeable demographic shock!

klaus -- The amnesty added a couple of thousand people, some of whom were Iraqis, but there's really three reasons it's been increasing so much of late: 1) Iraq was destroyed, 2) there were already a lot of Iraqis in Sweden, so people head towards where their relatives are 3) you guys shut the border, so we are now taking the people who used to go to Denmark too. In terms of asylum requirements, Sweden hasn't really changed its immigration policy since the mid-90s.

I believe the Danish and American gov's attitude to Iraq asylum seekers is based on the idea that everything is going swimmingly there....

Well, then I hope you're going to chip in once reality hits. About that, what are Danish attitudes to Iraq now? I assume people want out, but what percentages?

kao hsienchih -- Well, as I said, normally the numbers are lower. So far, the increase has been gradual enough to make it reasonably unproblematic, even if there is growing ghettoization and a small but persistent far right movement that will probably get into parliament next time. Population is nine million.

[Btw, rereading my first comment, I got one thing mixed up: the last 100 k mentioned aren't "since the war", but total up until now, incl. the Kuwait war & aftermath.]

About that, what are Danish attitudes to Iraq now? I assume people want out, but what percentages?

One of the curious things about Denmark is how hawkish and pro-US people are generally. In spite of our evil socialist society most Danes line up dutifully (if only morally) when the US bugle sounds. Compare that to Germany, where society leans a bit more to the right, but where people are very pacifist (for obvious historical reasons), a bit anti-American frankly, and, among other things, very anti-nuclear power and weapons, unlike the French.

But I digress. Numbers are currently 70% in favour of getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were about 55-60% in favour of getting into the mess in the first place. No distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to be expected.

And while I may head into hostile territory here, I agree with the current immigration policy, for now. It's working, by restricting immigration the social inheritance trap is being unwound, and the ghettos are, if not disappearing, then slimming down. Since immigrants and refugees usually end up in the motherland community in the new country, having that community in a good shape will provide no end of good for society. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of refugees to take in in the future when that is done.

by restricting immigration the social inheritance trap is being unwound, and the ghettos are, if not disappearing, then slimming down.

Or they're moving abroad?

klaus, what exactly is the Danish policy, and how does it differ from the Dutch policy, for example? I talk about the latter quite frequently with Dutch friends. Essentially they say that it is getting stricter and stricter with asylum seekers. And while on the one hand the emphasis is shifting to assimilating existing immigrants, on the other it is difficult for people to assimilate into a society "that considers a) your religion to be backwards, hostile and terrorist b) finds you inferior in general," to quote one of my friends. To quote him further, "There's little that policy can do to help things, only people can help things. You can't legislate people to love their neighbour."

Alle: Or they're moving abroad?

Not to my knowledge. I'm only aware of those that go to Sweden to take advantage of your more lenient laws, but that's hardly moving abroad, Malmö and København are only half an hour away from each other. What's happening is simply that, as people get used to life in Denmark, they manage better socially and financially, until they have the strength to move out of the ghettos, to a better neighbourhood.

AT: I'm not up to snuff on Dutch policies, but the best thing the current Danish government has done is the 24-years rule, which I talked about some time ago. It simply refuses residence permits for foreign partners before the age of 24. Very ugly law, but it works like a charm at stopping the arranged marriages where parents fetch a husband or bride back in the old country for their children. It's mainly been this practice that's reset the social mobility clock with every new marriage, and the law puts a stop to that.

But, what you describe as the contrast between the desire to integrate immigrants while looking down on them is one of the frustrating things about the European debate on immigration; it's all about hot emotions rather than cold sociology. The stricter laws on immigration that I consider necessary, if only temporarily I hope, have only come in place because of the push from the racist far right, which again has only had its resuscitation because of the real problems with immigration that have been more or less deliberately ignored by the anti-racist left. I don't find that either wing sees brown people as simply people, but rather as fair-natured angels or fanatical, primitive brutes.

It's funny, because I think that despite anti-Americanism and all that, the US still has the image abroad of being a very refugee-friendly place, wide open to migration etc. I suppose the large Mexican (non-refugee) immigration contributes to that, even if much of it is illegal.

Well, one would not be telling the whole story about how many refugees the U.S. accepts on a de facto basis (even if it is done kicking and screaming, after losing Federal class action litigation) without mentioning American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh,which effectively granted a “path to citizenship” (as the current comprehensive immigration reform discussion calls it, though the phrase annoys me to no end) to several hundred thousand Central American refugees who had their asylum applications denied largely on political grounds.

Of course, though the migration route from Central America to the U.S. isn’t exactly easy, it’s a lot more feasible to get here from there than from Iraq. And as Latin Americans are much more likely to have family already here, I think there is a better-developed support network – and for that matter, they are more likely to have close relatives already here who can petition for them via the normal immigration process rather than having to apply for asylum.

But yes, the Iraqi situation is not the first in which the U.S. Government has been a big, fat bunch of hypocrites about accepting refugees.

I'm only aware of those that go to Sweden to take advantage of your more lenient laws

That's what I mean. Refugee crises do not go away because a country shuts its borders, they are simply diverted somewhere else.

AT: Some info here, here, here. Sadly I can't seem to find immigration statistics that shows the fall in refugees accepted -- it's available via the link I posted to Klaus before, but that's in Danish.

That's what I mean. Refugee crises do not go away because a country shuts its borders, they are simply diverted somewhere else.

But, those that migrate from Denmark to Sweden do so because of the 24-years rule, which does not affect refugee issues at all. Also, you can't blame this on solely on Denmark, UK has a substantial Iraqi population too, but they're not going there, because:

Stockholm's asylum policy is the most generous in the West -- Sweden accepts some 91 percent of all applications for refugee status. Germany, by contrast, accepts only 11 percent of applicants for refugee status and Britain just 12 percent.

So that's basically the issue.

OK, Klaus, now I'm confused. In theory, aren't all countries that are signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention using the same standard for judging who is a refugee, which is someone whose "life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership or a particular social group or political opinion" in his home country? Why the huge disparity in adjudications?

Of course, given the disparities found right here in a recent comprehensive study, involving adjudicators who in some instances sit right down the hall from each other, the U.S. certainly has no room to say anything.

Why the huge disparity in adjudications?

Because signing those UN conventions isn't legally binding. Nearly every country in the world has signed on to the UN human rights declaration, but, you know. It was one of Blair's more controversial election promises to make the EU declaration British law, and he did, so it's binding there. Part of the law and everything.

So that's basically the issue.

Again, that's what I'm saying. Sorry if I was being unclear before, but I'm not talking about people, as in individuals, migrating from Denmark to Sweden (or elsewhere). I'm talking about the asylum applications, refugee streams etc, moving from those countries who limit refugee acceptance, to those who have not (yet) done so. Supply and demand, sort of: whatever the Danish government likes to pretend, it's not the number of needy refugees that's been going down since those laws were made.

Almost all countries in Europe have made it more difficult for refugees to enter -- not because of substantially rising refugee numbers, but rather because of some kind of continent-wide asylum psychosis caused by centrist politicians adopting the scare rhetoric of far-rightists, over the last decade. Denmark has made it harder than virtually anywhere else. (And yes, UK is only marginally better.) In contrast, Sweden has so far made very minor changes in its policy, and that's why people are now going there instead. Which, in turn, creates some sort of funnel effect by massing refugees towards the few countries who have bucked the trend, and forcing them to follow suit.

So my point would be that Denmark isn't solving its refugee problems, it's handing them over to someone else. You could argue that Sweden should do the same, but that would really only be to pass the problem to Syria or Jordan, and, in the end, to leave the refugees to rot. Hardly a solution, or at least not one I'd be willing to defend.

If there's any solution, it consists in making Europe, and in particular countries like Denmark, open its borders to standard levels of migration again, so the burden can be somewhat evenly shared. (And, of course, long term, to strike at the supply-side, by helping Africa and the Middle East to become somewhat less of a mess, but blah blah.)

Because signing those UN conventions isn't legally binding.

So there is actually a more stringent standard for determining who is persecuted, or what persecution is, or what the allowable grounds for persecution are under domestic law in some places? Or am I missing something?

And if you're going to ratify a treaty, but not actually follow its rules, then what's the point?

Eva: So there is actually a more stringent standard for determining who is persecuted, or what persecution is, or what the allowable grounds for persecution are under domestic law in some places?

I believe it is now often demanded that people prove they are personally persecuted, rather than simply member of a persecuted community.

And if you're going to ratify a treaty, but not actually follow its rules, then what's the point?

Signal diplomacy, to show intent, to fake concern, to pretend earnest compassion, to get it out of the way so they can negotiate trade agreements and military shipments, etc. Expedient hypocrisy.

alle: Your argument is fundamentally moral, that it's common decency to take in those in need. But you too must have some pragmatic limit. Currently there are about 12 million refugees in the world, and some 21 million internally displaced. I doubt any one of those have any less right or need to find a safe haven than those admitted to Sweden so far. But at some point the problems grow too big, and you can't afford your moral high ground any longer, and you have to opt for selfish pragmatism.

It's rotten, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. But the problems are real, and not just the product of a continent-wide psychosis. If mainstream politicians had been less afraid to grapple with them, they wouldn't have ceded ground and influence to the racist far right, and then maybe the debate would be about more than just tightening immigration rules.

But at some point the problems grow too big, and you can't afford your moral high ground any longer, and you have to opt for selfish pragmatism.

Yes, but a 700-million continent like Europe should not exactly break under the pressure of, what, five hundred thousand refugees annually? Of course all refugee migration causes some problems (while solving others), but the so-called crisis of today is fundamentally political. It is caused by some nations shifting all the burden to others (to court the racist vote), at which point they can't take it anymore.

I'm not going to pretend like it's possible to turn this development around just like that, and I don't have high hopes that Sweden will resist the pressure to follow in Denmark's footsteps, in the long run. But the first step to resolving the issue must be to stop pretending like Europe is being swamped by unwashed barbarian hordes, which is pretty close to the prevailing discourse today.

Signal diplomacy, to show intent, to fake concern, to pretend earnest compassion, to get it out of the way so they can negotiate trade agreements and military shipments, etc. Expedient hypocrisy.

Not that I don't agree with you, but the question was actually somewhat rhetorical. I'd much prefer to see various governments who a) are in a position to afford it, and/or b) are at least partially responsible for the refugee situation, put their money where their mouths are. Accepting even 7,000 refugees, though still an improvement over accepting 60, is an embarrasment.

the so-called crisis of today is fundamentally political.

I don't think so, I believe in the urban/rural-divide theory, a social issue more than anything else. That's why it's so daft to treat Muslims as a demographic group. The reason American Muslims do better than European Muslims is because half of them are black converts, and the actual immigrants and refugees that happen to be Muslim are most of them well-educated urbanites. But the current political environment doesn't exactly help. Bad dynamics all round.

Just for kicks, bump for those of you with online WSJ access (I don't, but we do get the print edition in the lunchroom at work).

And for those of you with no online access, the State Dept. announced that it has admitted one Iraqi refugee in April, and another one in May.

[Note: without further Congressional action, visa quota allocations not used in the year for which they were allocated are lost forever, so if the U.S. is going to use up the 6,000+ remaining Iraqi refugee visas by the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, they'd better get cracking].