August 2, 2008
Iraqi Refugee Admissions Update
The Iraq invasion continues to result in Iraqi refugees fleeing to all parts of the world, including the United States. Matthew Lee reports for the Associated Press:
The United States allowed in more than 2,300 Iraqi refugees last month, setting a record and putting the Bush administration on pace to surpass its goal of accepting 12,000 by the end of September.
The State Department said Friday that 2,352 Iraqi refugees had arrived in the country in July, shattering the previous monthly record of 1,721 from June.
July's figure brings to 8,815 the number of Iraqi refugees to have been admitted in the current budget year that ends Sept. 30, giving the administration two months to take in 3,185 to hit the target.
"These are good results and we feel we're on track to reach the 12,000 goal," said James Foley, the department's coordinator for Iraqi refugee issues.
Officials said they expected to admit more than 1,600 Iraqi refugees in both August and September, easily reaching and likely surpassing the mark.
The 12,000 target is still far lower than the number admitted by other countries and only a small slice of the some 2 million Iraqis who have fled to neighboring countries since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Sweden, for example, has granted asylum to about 40,000 since 2003. Click here for the rest of the story.
August 2, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iraqi Refugee Admissions Update:
A door once open to war refugees is swinging shut
They and others hoping for asylum face a new, stricter law in the traditionally hospitable but now inundated nation.
Posted by: Jack | Aug 2, 2008 3:33:43 PM
"The 12,000 target is still far lower than the number admitted by other countries and only a small slice of the some 2 million Iraqis who have fled to neighboring countries since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003."
So what? Who really cares and why should we? Does the U.S. always have to bare the brunt of the burden of the world's refugees? Professor, I wasn't aware that you had become the arbiter of how refugees should be distributed throughout the world.
Posted by: Horace | Aug 2, 2008 5:51:23 PM
Horace asked, "Does the U.S. always have to bare the brunt of the burden of the world's refugees?"
It's hard to tell from this statement whether you think the US in fact "bears the brunt of the burden of the world's refugees" or not, but if you do think that you're mistaken. The US is better than many, many countries in refugee resettlement. That should not be over-looked, and other countries, especially other wealthy countries, can and should do more. But the total number of refugees the US takes in is still fairly small, has declined (despite no significant decrease in the number of refugees needed relocation) over the last 8-10 years, and, most importantly, is much smaller than the numbers sheltered by several countries that are much poorer and worse equipeted to deal with refugee resettlement than the US- Iran, for example, shelters many more refugees than does the US, as do many African countries when the relative size of the countries (not even considering the wealth) is taken into perspective. So, to say the US "bears the brunt" of the world refugee problem is at least highly misleading.
Posted by: Matt | Aug 3, 2008 8:13:08 AM