But then, I’m not a politician.

As far as the barriers Iraqis face in immigration to the U.S. heres a link.

The United States had, until recently, reserved only 500 spots for Iraqi refugees in 2007 – though the State Department says it wants to allocate as many as 20,000 U.S. refugee slots to Iraqis. It would like to bring more in, but blames an unwieldy U.N. processing system. Perhaps the real problem has more to do with politics: Accepting Iraqi refugees would be akin to America admitting defeat in its efforts to pacify Iraq and a huge setback in its fight against terrorism in the region.

The report says the numbers are estimates, so like the Lancet numbers the methodology is critical. I’m also sure that you’ve noticed that the UN has a vested interest in pumping up those numbers in order to keep eyes off the devastation in Somalia.

Finally, I suspect the writer may have an agenda. The article notes that the writer is a fellow of the New America Foundation, which thinks things like Universal Risk Insurance and there’s this, proudly displayed on the web site of the New America Foundation:

Nir Rosen – who speaks Arabic and has Middle Eastern looks – went to Iraq in April 2003, just days after Baghdad fell.

Entering mosques and tribal meeting halls, and afforded access to fighters’ secret meetings and Iraqi homes, he documented the deadly behind-the-scenes manoeuvring in the post-Saddam power vacuum.

So I’m not saying there’s not a problem. Most assuredly there is, and it needs to be addressed. But I do wonder about the bias inherent in this reporter.

There is a reported number of refugees admitted to the United States, but I’d be more interested in the number rejected, and why. You’ve noted before the barriers to citizenship in this country, but I wonder about the barriers for shelter or asylum.