Iraqi Refugees in the United States

In the reading for this week, Gregory referred to the responsibilities that are conferred upon an occupying nation according to the Geneva Convention of 1949. The basic responsibilities include protecting the people and their property, and Gregory stresses the point that the U.S. has failed to do so since the initial incursion. I was interested in looking at asylum and immigration to the United States and whether or not it constitutes one of the obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

I found a few articles that report Iraqi refugees are being admitted in much higher numbers recently (2007,2008) than they were at the beginning of the war, with this LA Times article reporting that the target for 2008 was 17,000 refugees.

One article from the Chicago Tribune discusses the influx of Iraqi refugees to the Chicago area. I found it interesting that the article compared the trend in Iraqi immigration to the flow of Vietnamese refugees into Chicago 30-40 years ago. The article predicts that the Iraqi population in Chicago could increase to 30,000 or more. I felt like this statistic highlighted the fact that the current immigration policy is not a symbolic gesture or concession to Iraqis, but a significant step towards resettlement.

Gregory makes the reader aware (if they weren't already) that the U.S. has not typically heeded international advice or statue in this conflict, but I feel that the idea of responsibilities that accompany occupation are still relevant. Do you think that accepting refugees is one of the obligations of an occupying power? Is it another way of ensuring the protection of the Iraqi people, or is it simply an attempt to "make up" for the protection we failed to give in the first place?

Would You Return?

With our migration theme now focusing on Iraq, I have found several articles from throughout the last year or so discussing displaced Iraqis and the prospect of returning to their homes. This article from Reuters, written by Refugees International entitled "Would You Return?" discussed the question; Can they return home? And if not, what would it take for them to return to their cities, neighborhoods and houses? The answers to these questions reflect the still very high number of violent incidents in the country and that these displaced peoples don't necessarily want to return to the place where they saw members of their families murdered. It is difficult to understand people's emotions after their lives have been so drastically impacted, but it seems like the desire of displaced Iraqis to return to the lives they had prior to the U.S. invasion is not universal. Restoring the lives of these people is often not even a possibility, one Shia woman's home was demolished by a Sunni militia with the intent of making it clear that she and her family/old community are not welcome. I don't know where to begin in my attempt to understand such a terrible situation for so many people, does anyone have any thoughts about what the responsibility of the United States is in this dilemma? Has the military already messed up enough, or should they continue to help people return to their old lives?

"I felt like the country shifted away from me, and that I wasn’t shifting with it"

This post is a take on the movement of one American (emblematic of many) away from his country.  I read an article (1/29/09) from the Santa Barbara Independent, reporting after a film screening of an oil-company-employee-turned-documentary-filmmaker.  Mark Manning tells of how he became frustrated with our nation and its actions and set out to make a film (Road to Fallujah) about exactly what was happening-- an effort to try to humanize the "enemy."  I think this is a strongly felt sensation since of the US invasion and war on Iraq.

After the screening, the audience was connected via live video feed to Iraqi citizens.  This dialogue between the two people was an effort by Manning so that "[People could] get in touch with the suffering that war causes. For most Americans [in the audience on Tuesday], that was probably the first time they’ve actually met people who have been on the receiving end of our military action. It’s not a joyful kumbaya experience, but it’s real. I think that once you start that process of humanizing the other side you create a connection that is really hard to break.”

After reading Laura's piece about how the conclusion of this conflict will go, I thought about the US's role, and after reading this article, about how the American people will react.  How will our relations to Iraqis change?  What sort of ending to the conflict will we demand?  Will complacency prevail?  How might this affect our role as citizens in future military decision-making?  

Rot or Die

The article I found for this week, entitled Rot or Die: Iraqi refugees in Lebanon tells a tragic story of Iraqi immigrants that are considered illegal in Lebanon because the country does not adhere to international refugee laws and are thus imprisoned. This situation has layers of immigrant abuse, denial of international aid required for asylum seekers, unlawful imprisonment and general disrespect for these immigrants' rights as human beings. This precarious situation is summed up: "by first arresting and detaining Iraqi asylum seekers who do not have valid visas, and then giving those in detention a “choice” between returning to Iraq or indefinite detention, Lebanon in practice commits refoulement—and thereby violates international law."

The questions that arise in this situation, especially as the US is withdrawing from Iraq in the next few years is, who will take care of these people? Who is responsible for these immigrants and refugees? Is it neighboring countries, the international community, the US itself? These are questions that need to be addressed and quickly especially in light of these immigrants escaping one human rights abuse and falling victim to another.

Shia Arrests

Our topic was population dynamics and migration so I found some news claiming 35 Shia citizens were arrested. They were arrested after a protest in support of a man named Sheikh Namr Baqer An-Namr gave a sermon. The article claims that the Shia are only 10% of the 22 million and that the majority live in the oil-rich eastern part of the country. The man who is currently Minister of the Interior, Nayef, looks to be the next on the throne for Saudi which would probably mean a bigger crackdown on the Shias in the east as he already has a rough reputation in treating the Shia people of KSA. The Shia are marginalised by numbers but in terms of power, they hold access to the major oil fields and also the refineries and processing facilities. The Shia have reduced the movement in the commodity chain and are able to make a lot of profit taking the oil-making process from start to almost finished. Many non-Shia Saudis believe for some reason or another that the Shia in KSA are led and connected to Iran and that they follow an Iranian agenda.

The work force

In this artice http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=3172_0_5_0 it further discusses the situation of the workforce in Saudi Arabia. It says that 70 percent of the work force are foreign workers and I think this is important. In the article we read it said that a lot of the citizens in Saudi Arabia turn to militant action due to the inablitiy to find work. Perhaps if Saudi Arabia is serious about stopping "terrorist" organizations they would not allow as many migrant workers and let their own citizens work for them.

Saudi former detainees on the move

Starting a different strain on "the movement of people" than we have talked about, in this New York Times article from February 3rd, the author describes the influence of terrorist movement between countries, especially Saudi Arabia's own.  

SA's government released a list of wanted terrorists, which included a number of Saudi nationals that were recently released from Guantanamo Bay detention.  Upon release, they were sent through a Saudi "rehab" program which was thought to be highly successful, until the release of this list, which included many Saudis who had been treated.  After treatment, they apparently fled to re-join terrorist organizations in neighboring nations.

Although this is not our typical idea of 'movement' of people as in immigration, I thought that it was an interesting take on the theme.  It is especially interesting to consider the ramifications of this new development (of freed Guantanamo inmates re-joining terrorist activity) to the Obama administration, or even to the ability of people to move freely.

Could developments like this spawn a call for stricter border controls and limitations on the movement of people in places like SA, which has previously been a relatively low priority on the list of security risks?  How about for the rights of former Guantanamo prisoners?