Iraqi Refugees Find Few Welcoming Mats

25 May 2007 - 12:00pm

For Iraqi refugees, finding a place to go is a major challenge. Strict policies in many European countries makes finding asylum difficult, but Sweden has proven to be the most welcoming country.

"Alvesta is just one of scores of villages, towns and cities in Sweden that are hosting an ever-growing number of Iraqis fleeing the violence back home. The Scandinavian country took in some 9,000 Iraqi refugees in 2006 -- over 40 percent of the 22,000 Iraqi refugees who found their way to Europe. And Sweden is bracing for a significant increase this year. Based on the numbers of Iraqi refugees arriving in Europe in the first two months of 2007, the total seeking asylum this year could be well over 40,000. And with much of the rest of Europe doing little to help, most of them are likely to end up in Sweden."

"According to estimates by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the number of Iraqis displaced within Iraq -- already some 1.9 million -- is growing by 40,000 to 50,000 each month. Well over 2 million have made it across the border to neighboring countries -- Syria now hosts some 1.2 million Iraqi refugees, and Jordan has crammed in 750,000, representing an almost 15 percent boost to that country's population."

"Only a tiny percentage is able to get to Europe. Plane tickets are prohibitively expensive for most Iraqis -- and many have to pay an additional $5,000 to $15,000 on the black market for passports and visas. But those who do come know where to go. Stockholm's asylum policy is the most generous in the West -- Sweden accepts some 91 percent of all applications for refugee status. Germany, by contrast, accepts only 11 percent of applicants for refugee status and Britain just 12 percent."

Source: Der Spiegel, May 23, 2007
Bookmark and Share
All of that only scratches the surface of what's wrong with this study. The idea that complex urban development patterns and human behavior can be meaningfully studied according to one primary criteria — density — is wrong from the start.