Refugee to native ratios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

I thought this was interesting and disappointing. We've already discussed America's betrayal of Iraqi translators and their promised immigration, but this is an overall view. It's not a stretch to say that America is a nation of immigrants and became a superpower in no small part from recent immigrants' contributions. Not to mention that we were taught in school that the US upholds certain principles such as protecting the vulnerable and helping the needy (per capita we are still a very generous nation).

The wiki page above suggests that we are less welcoming of refugees than Armenia. And overall, Ethiopia and civil rights champion China have more foreign refugees than we do. What gives? Considering our defense budget (even with austerity, our share is 65% of global) and how much foreign military aid we give to allies, you'd think we could at least finance some refugee camps or relocation programs, if our DHS/State refuse to allow refugees within our borders for security reasons and red tape.

The shift from federal poverty programs to the states and private NGOs/churches in the US is fairly well documented, and I wonder if foreign aid is following a similar trend. Oxfam, MSF, and others have to pick up the slack for less generous G20 governments (and of course those orgs are funded by donations). In the Mideast and Central Africa (where many conflicts are occurring), neighboring nations are on the front lines of the refugee crisis and bursting at the seams. Over a million Iraqis fled the war and are living elsewhere, but Iraq now has to host some 200K refugees from Syria.

If you can believe, the native:refugee ratios for Jordan and Lebanon is under 10:1. You can imagine the social strains and risks (the US would probably collapse under those conditions, so I don't know how poorer states do it). The refugees may not speak the language, don't have work or school authorization, and if they can find low-wage work - that may cause resentment among the locals (who often are in precarious economic situations too). They are literally living in tents for years, waiting and hoping to return home some day when it's safer. Many fall prey to scamsters offering fake visas or promises to get to the west. A whole generation of youth are at risk of having little to no future. Sure, I understand that tax dollars flow from the rich nations to the UN and other orgs, who distribute it to the camps and local authorities. But it is not nearly enough. This is yet another facet of our broken immigration system. We can't even get enough skilled foreign workers from Asia, so I suppose there is no hope for refugees from insecure parts of the world. Distance can't be in issue, since SWE/NOR's ratio is about 100:1, while the US is 1,200:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Historically, the US has greatly benefited from harboring refugees from European states undergoing war/revolution, as well as from our allies in Asia. Persian-Americans and Jewish-Americans have flourished here after the 1979 revolution and WWII, respectively. Those who are given a chance here often become some of our most patriotic and productive citizens. They are highly motivated to make the most of this precious opportunity, succeed, and give back. They also bridge the diplomatic gap between the US and other states who may be on rocky terms with us. Humanitarian arguments aside, even from a selfish economic/strategic standpoint, it makes sense for us to take in more refugees.

-----

How is admittance of refugees different than other immigrants?  Are camps really the norm?  Are they expected to return at some point?

-----

I am not sure about the answers but here is some brief digging:

It seems that the majority of refugees do live in camps, maybe due to the host nation's infrastructure limitations and uncertainty over their immigration/assimilation policies. The conditions in the camps are pretty bad, like a prison, or like the first scene in Scarface (I guess the US loved to take in Cuban refugees in the '80s because that showed how much better the US was vs. Castro's Cuba). But still, it's better than facing shelling and starvation every day in Homs, or risking rape and murder in the Central Af. Republic. 

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/consider-this/Consider-This-blog/2014/2/4/photos-of-the-unknownrefugeecrisis.html

Re: the US law - I think refugees can apply for temporary protected status or full asylum here, but I imagine the process is slow and with a high rejection rate. Also, if many of the refugees have little education and access to US diplomatic personnel, how can they apply? I doubt they could afford their airfare to the US either. But in the Syria case, I don't think we have an embassy there, so maybe we could reach out to the refugees who already made it to Turkey, Jordan, etc. Interview them in the camps, grant some of them visas, and set them up with host families or relatives here?

http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

For the few who get refugee status for themselves and their families, I think they go through the regular green card process if they want to stay here permanently. Though I am not sure what happens if their app is rejected - maybe they get deported to another nation that will take them (but not their home country where they could still be at risk)? I guess we have deported 3,000 Cubans in the last 30 years, but not sure to where.

http://www.usimmigration.com/new-rule-cubans.html

And during the Bush years, it seems that refugee Cambodians convicted of a crime (not just violent acts, but in some cases merely driving drunk or possessing an unlicensed weapon) in the US faced deportation to Cambodia, even if they grew up here and know little about Cambodian culture. It is possible that jail and torture (and poverty at the very least) awaited them in Cambodia.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Refugees-with-a-record-face-shock-deportation-1089366.php

Lastly, this is somewhat related - but there is growing furor at the US Border Patrol for their record of using deadly force against Mexican nationals who weren't really a threat to anyone. In most cases, there was little to no investigation, disclosure, and punishment for the agents involved. Like most law enforcement agencies, there seems to be a circle-the-wagons and silent-treatment mentality regarding public oversight and accountability.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308220322/u-s-border-patrol-scrutinized-for-increasing-fatalities