Bring them here!

Daniel Byman, writing for Slate, calls for the U.S. to dramatically expand its acceptance of Iraqi immigrants. He bases this on two justifications: morality and strategic interest. Both are pretty straightforward. As we invaded the country, it is our responsibility to deal with its ramifications. The displacement of Iraqis has the potential to create the sort of discontent that the displacement of Palestinians has caused.

I'd like to add a third criteria: an economic one. The people of Iraq tend to be well educated and secular, particularly those who have been displaced. We should very easily to be able to attract Iraqi engineers, doctors, nurses, and scientists in addition to providing for humanitarian and strategic interest concerns. Bringing in highly qualified immigrants will be a boon for our nation, particularly here in Detroit where we have the ability to acclimate Arab immigrants and the desperate need for hard-working, well-educated individuals willing to work to build up our local economy.

The Next Phase of the Iraq War
Why We Must Welcome Thousands of Iraqi Refugees To The United States
Foreigners for Slate

Rarely do morality and strategy come together in the Middle East - particularly in the case of Iraq. Yet there is one area where the right thing to do for Iraq is also the best option for America's long-term interests: preventing the Iraqi refugee crisis from further destabilizing the region. So far, the debate in the United States has focused on the fates of Iraqis who have worked with U.S. diplomats and soldiers, as translators, and so on. Although these individuals are owed a special debt, our responsibility does not end there. The United States should accept tens of thousands of refugees and must encourage other major powers to do the same. Washington should also initiate a program to boost the capacity of neighboring states to host refugees and prevent them from becoming a source of instability.

Although casualty reports dominate the headlines, Iraq is also suffering a staggering exodus of refugees. More than 2 million Iraqis - from a total population of 27 million - have fled the chaos, and the numbers grow every day. (Even more Iraqis have fled their homes but have resettled in other parts of Iraq, thus technically avoiding the label "refugee.") So far, the migrants have clustered in nations close to Iraq, particularly in Syria and Jordan. The U.S. efforts to help these refugees have ranged from feeble to nonexistent. The United States has so far taken in barely more than 1,000 refugees but will reportedly boost this to 12,000 next year: a significant percentage increase on the surface but only when the absurdly low base rate is considered.

It is both morally abhorrent and strategically ill-advised to abandon these refugees. To state the obvious, the U.S. failure to establish security in Iraq drove them to leave their homes. Literally millions of people have fled under horrific circumstances, and the United States bears much of that responsibility. Americans may, understandably, say that they can no longer sacrifice to bring stability to Iraq, but that does not excuse us from the broader duty to help those who continue to suffer.

Putting aside our moral responsibility, the United States needs to take in refugees to offset significant strategic risks. The 1948 Israeli war of independence produced more than 700,000 refugees. Almost 60 years later, the region still suffers from the failure to solve this refugee problem. The Palestinian refugee crisis contributed to wars between Israel and its neighbors in 1956, 1967, 1982, as well as to Israel's constant terrorism problem.

Few Iraqi refugees are incorporated into the nations that are hosting them, but there is no prospect that they will return to Iraq in large numbers in the near future. It would not be surprising if, 20 years from now, millions of Iraqis still lived outside their home country. In other words, this problem will not disappear if we ignore it.