Hey, Diane Finley! First off, let me just say that you totally rock those tinted glasses and that having Graves’ Disease must suck. Mad props to you, D-Fin.
Now, as to the meat of this missive: Sweden is making us look bad. I know, I know, it’s already a bit of an uphill battle what with IKEA and all. Those meatballs are tough competition, after all. And plus, I think they have fjords, and that’s tough. But until now I think we’ve managed to acquit ourselves quite respectably.
But Diane. Come on. It’s the whole Iraqi refugees issue. Sweden has allowed in 25,000+ Iraqi refugees in the last two years alone. Meanwhile, over the same time span, we’ve admitted about a thousand. This would be a permissible ratio if Sweden was a much bigger country than us, but Canada’s population is over three times the size of Sweden’s. If we were taking in refugees at the rate that Sweden is, we’d have over 78,000 in-country at this point.
Now, I’m not saying that we’re bound to take in refugees at the same rate as Sweden, but could we at least manage a figure that’s not embarrassing by comparison? Please?
Related Articles
13 users responded in this post
On the other hand, your government is much more willing to let me come there and work. And in the end, isn’t the important question “are they doing the best thing for Michael?”
Meanwhile, the US has a population about 10 times that of Canada, and has taken in something like 700 refugees in total.
USA! USA! USA!
Sweden, of course, bears far more responsibility for the current situation in Iraq than the US or even Canada.
Yes, but you have to remember that the American government at this point is, and I say this with no small amount of regret, completely batshit.
Because: Iraqi refugees = potential terrorists.
Stupid, but there you have it. That’s exactly the reason why there are so few Iraqi refugees in the United States.
Absolutely agreed with MGK.
Is there any chance you guys could let a lone cheesehead defect from Wisconsin?
I don’t wanna be led by a batshit government anymore.
Because: Iraqi refugees = potential terrorists.
Stupid, but there you have it. That’s exactly the reason why there are so few Iraqi refugees in the United States.
I disagree. This reasoning implies that America has a habit of taking in large numbers of refugees in other circumstances. Here in America, we don’t take refugees, we make refugees.
To be fair, though, after we’ve destroyed their country, murdered a million Iraqi citizens, created a disastrous puppet government, and set them up for invasion by their hated enemy Iran, I’d say it’s actually a pretty logical assumption that any given Iraqi who wants to come to the United States is at least a little unhappy with us.
I mean, that doesn’t make it right that we’re then also turning them down for asylum here, but I’m just saying that it does make some sense to be nervous around Iraqi exiles. Because we know as well as they do that if it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be exiles.
John Seavey, you’ve got a solid point. They wouldn’t be exiles if not for us. Granted, that’s because they wouldn’t be able to leave Iraq without us, but why let the history of the situation in question prevent us from sniping at the US government? Let’s pretend everything was great and happy under Saddam’s regime, and go with that.
I could go on about how the situation on the ground, as described by returning troops, is much different from the picture painted by the Misinformation Machine that is the news media. Some lectures given by MI officers have been particularly enlightening on the topic. But I won’t. Instead, I’d like to point out that, for every 1,000, maybe 10,000 refugees attempting to leave the country for legitimate reasons, there is at least one person attempting to use the refugee system to bring harm to the Western world in any way they can. The US and the UK are the primary targets, but failing that, it would be entirely rational, from their perspective, to attack any available Western target. This is reason enough for caution. The US and its allies must be careful. And if one of the more careful nations in the world happens to be directly across a gigantic, largely permeable border from me, that suits me just fine. It wouldn’t do for the US or Canada to throw open the gates. I’m not saying that’s what Sweden has done, as I don’t know their policy, but it stands to reason that they could afford to be a bit less cautious. I hope they don’t find that to be an error.
“The US and its allies must be careful. ”
One good way to be careful is not to go invading countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason. Some people get a little bit peeved at that…
Why hasn’t Canada accepted more Iraqi refugees? Probably because the United States sees them as potential terror threats, and thinks our border leaks like a sieve. I despair over the future of my country.
Hey brand, let’s pretend things are so much better in Iraq now that Saddam is gone. Let’s pretend that the areas that General Betrayus listed as dropping in violence aren’t the areas that have already been ethnically cleansed. Let’s pretend that two extremist monotheistic (My god is on my side and you’re wrong by default) cults can get along in perfect harmony in a true democratic society if we just give them a little more time.
Pretending is fun, isn’t it?
Brand said:
“John Seavey, you’ve got a solid point. They wouldn’t be exiles if not for us. Granted, that’s because they wouldn’t be able to leave Iraq without us, but why let the history of the situation in question prevent us from sniping at the US government? Let’s pretend everything was great and happy under Saddam’s regime, and go with that.”
It is distinctly possible, you know, to dislike the current state of affairs without liking the previous one either. Yes, I agree, Saddam Hussein was a cruel, ruthless dictator and he oppressed his people…but that does not mean that turning Iraq into a non-functioning country, in a state of open civil war, with over a million dead (which I think might have managed to eclipse Saddam’s total) and hundreds of thousands more fleeing the country was somehow “solving the problem”. In medical terms, this would be like walking up to someone with a broken leg and telling them you’re going to give them a painkiller, then shooting them in the head.
“It is distinctly possible, you know, to dislike the current state of affairs without liking the previous one either. Yes, I agree, Saddam Hussein was a cruel, ruthless dictator and he oppressed his people…but that does not mean that turning Iraq into a non-functioning country, in a state of open civil war, with over a million dead (which I think might have managed to eclipse Saddam’s total) and hundreds of thousands more fleeing the country was somehow “solving the problem”. In medical terms, this would be like walking up to someone with a broken leg and telling them you’re going to give them a painkiller, then shooting them in the head.”
This is all very true and fair. However, there are several other points to consider.
Saddam was a madman. A truly horrific despot. He kept control in Iraq via the worst sort of oppression imaginable. However, he DID keep control in Iraq, which, as we see now, was no mean feat. Even now, we, as outsiders, have a hard time really understanding all the forces that are driving the war in Iraq, most (but by no means all) of which have nothing to do with Western action. How willing are you, as a Westerner, to believe that cruel oppression truly was the best option for order in Iraq? What about before Saddam’s fall, before we knew the outcome? Do you think you could, at that point, have said that nothing else is worth trying? And now, after it’s happened, do you think we should help sort things out, or run and let the Iraqis kill each other until they sort it out for themselves?
It is hard to get an accurate picture of what precisely is going on in Iraq. Certainly, you hear these things on the news about the awful violence, the anti-US rallies, and the like. My contacts within the military tell a different story. The vast majority of the Iraqis that a soldier on the ground in Iraq meets is still extremely grateful for our role in liberating them from Saddam. Those still fighting are a small minority. When I hear this from the people whose lives rely on having an accurate assessment of the situation, alongside what the news is telling us, I’m a bit skeptical of one of the two sources.
I could go in-depth about the factors contributing to ongoing violence in Iraq, and why they are difficult to see, let alone navigate, for Western leaders and the public alike. Most of the latter portion of my degree focused on going over this issue again and again, from professors on both sides of the political spectrum, most of whom have studied extensively in the Middle East. The numerous briefings and lectures from officers in the US Army don’t hurt either. However, there’s just not enough room here for me to write another term paper. I’m just sick and tired of people painting the US and its allies as bloodthirsty villains roughly equivalent to those in Saturday morning cartoons, and/or acting like it is our obligation to embrace people to our bosom when they may just have a knife and the inclination to use it.
Well, being a Swede I might add….
We don’t have Fiords! (Or Fjordar). Unfortunately that’s the Norwegians…
One reason why we have accepted so many refugees from Iraq is that we have done so for many many years. We took a lot in during the Saddam years, so a lot of people down there have relatives or friends that have managed to get to Sweden, and thus we have a good reputation for being a safe place to get the hell out to. It is always more easy to run to a place you at least have even the faintest acquaintance with.
Our current right wing government (yeah they appear every 12-16 years only to be voted away in the next election when people remember why they didn’t vote for them in the first place) is none to pleased however, and is gunning hard for us deporting people back to Iraq since there’s obviously no war going on there. USA told us so! It is perfectly safe. Really. Please ignore the fact that the same government advices swedes not to travel there at all because it is far too dangerous! Just for us obviously, not for them…
Luckily it is quite possible to keep prolonging that decision to get deported for quite some time, especially if there is a public outcry against it. Which there is.
So while it is true that we accept tons of refugees, not everybody wants it to remain that way.