Let’s see, 3 million divided by 7,000 is what percent?

I am not suggesting that the US take in every Iraq refugee displaced by the war, but 7,000 seems like a fairly small number to me.

Most Iraqi refugees have fled to Syria and Jordan, both of which
have recently tried to restrict the influx. The U.N. estimates that
40,000 to 50,000 people flee Iraq each month and have dwindling options
of where to go.

Jordan’s chief government spokesman also did not sound impressed with the U.S. plan.

Nasser Judeh said 7,000 is still a small number compared to the 700,000 Iraqi refugees Jordan has had to accommodate.

“7,000 Iraqi refugees is just 1 percent of the number we have,” Judeh said.

Iraqi refugees in large numbers recently have been lining up in
front of the offices of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees in
Damascus to seek international refugee status, with many saying are
seeking emigration but only want to guarantee they have somewhere to go
if forced to leave Syria.

On the other hand, given the administration’s indifference for the UShomeless population and those displaced by Katrina, and considering the nightmare of the Ibrahim family and others stuck in immigration limbo hell, I shudder to think about what may be in store for the Iraqi refugees coming to the US.

Not to mention that they will serve as the new scapegoats/footballs in the anti-immigration extremists’ rhetoric.

UPDATED: I’m curious about your take on this situation, Scout, given your post-Katrina POV. Anything to add?

4 thoughts on “Let’s see, 3 million divided by 7,000 is what percent?

  1. You are right to shudder for the fate of immigrants — likely Moslems who will encounter pretty ugly prejudice in a lot of places.
    Of course, knowing the Bushies they might restrict immigration to *wealthy* people. I wouldn’t put it past them.

  2. Scorpio, I guess if the post has a point, it’s that I don’t really know what I’m right about, or rather, that there’s nothing ‘right’ about this whole awful mess:
    we create an enormous humanitarian crisis- millions homeless in an unstable region because of our war, but we make a big deal of taking in 7000 of them, all the while having a pathetic track record of dealing with humanitarian crisis here at home. It seems like such a paltry inadequate political gesture.

  3. From Americablog:
    Basically, it is a wash and no change of any significance in policy (in application, well, that’s yet to be seen). From the linked article:
    “The 7,000 Iraqis would be included as part of 70,000 refugees worldwide permitted under U.S. law to resettle in the United States each year.”
    However, check this source out:
    Under current legislation, the United States admits 70,000 officially-designated refugees each year.
    Most of them are admitted through a system of regional allocations under which 5,500 a year currently come from the Middle East.
    http://www.payvand.com/news/07/f…7/feb/ 1109.html
    So, under the curtrent policy, 500 were admitted in the past year. The ‘new’ policy may tweak the division of that 70,000 total a bit, but is no guarantor that the full quota will be admitted.
    And, upon careful reading of this:
    “U.S. Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, who led the task force, said the United States would attempt to resettle about 7,000 Iraqi refugees from countries where they have fled from Iraq.”
    That could just as well be interpreted as a statement that the quoita of 5,500 from the Middle East will in fact remain unchanged, and the remainder of potential Iraqi refugess eligible for admission will come from countries outside the Middle East where they have “resettled.”
    In short, everything cancels out and the ‘announcement’ masks what is essentially no change in policy.
    voxd | Homepage | 02.15.07 – 5:46 am | #

Comments are closed.