Most of them wind up in Syria or Jordan. At present, 500 is the maximum number the State Department is planning to resettle in the U.S. Story here.
A movement to allow in Iraqi refugees would be a waste of time, as Bush had made it clear that he disdains popular opinion and won’t ever change policy in the face of protests. But in this particular case, there’s more than just his usual obstinance at work. If 1.7 millions Iraqi refugees show up in the USA, they’ll start talking about their experiences, which may include torture and other abuse by American troops, corruption among American contractors and the Iraqi government, and other bad stuff. That would make it harder to cover up the truth about what has happened and is still happening over there.
Further, many of Bush’s supporters, besides being generally opposed to immigration, are of the opinion that Islam is an inherently violent and inferior religion, and they would not look kindly on opening the gates to such a huge number of Muslims. Of course there are now many Iraqis who detest the United States for understandable reasons. If we handed a passport to any Iraqi who showed up on our door, there’d likely be a few insurgents trying to sneak in, bent on violent revenge.
‘The Salvador Option" Continues, I see.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
I don’t believe in coincidences, with “I see no death squads here” (and this goes back to Central America death squads) Negroponte and Elliot Abrahams in place, the surge of Death Squad activity in 2005 and 2006 just made the situation worse, the sick thing is that at last the administration noticed that the death squads were doing what amounts to ethnic cleansing. I could before think that that was not a planned thing, but I’m not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
I brought that up because back then I pointed out that applying a Salvador option to Iraq was going to mean that:
The recent Lancet report points at the actual count to be even worse. 
Well, that takes us back to the OP, while it is true no complete opening of the borders to displaced Iraqis will follow, a huge increase on the maximum number should happen just out of shame and fairness, and to finalize repeating the history that was ignored before.
Possible, but I have trouble remembering any Vietnamese-American or Salvadorian-American bent on violent revenge. The thing is that the community does a good job on pointing out at the violent members that do sneak in, problem is that in El Salvador case sometimes the US had to be cattle prodded to do something about them. (Some former death squad members did come to the US and only recently they began to be in hot legal problems even though many did point at them during the Reagan and Bush senior administrations)
I know there are still some people that feel that the Iraq operation was a net gain for the Iraqis, but can this reasonably be true if, as the OP’s link claims, close to 2 million people have been displaced by the war? It doesn’t seem difficult to conclude that it is not.
Meanwhile, the US, given its responsibilities for the consequences of its invasion, should admit as many Iraqis as want to come here and can be vetted as not hostile to the US. From a practical standpoint, though, it’ll never happen, at least during this administration.
I can’t say I’d be shocked if the quota remained that low - after all, there was a special immigration category created recently for people who have served as translators with U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, people who might reasonably be assumed to be at a heightened level of risk for violent retribution. What’s the annual immigration quota for these people? A whopping fifty:
“The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Title X, Section 1059 of Public Law 109-163 enacted January 6, 2006) established a new immigrant visa classification for self-petitioning Iraqi or Afghani nationals who have worked directly with the United States Armed Forces as translators for a period of at least 12 months. The total number of principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant status under this provision may not exceed 50 in any fiscal year.”
Way to support the people who have supported the U.S., guys.
Those ethnicities didn’t already have a pan-Asian or pan-Latino movement of religious fundamentalism and violence directed towards murdering Westerners. Iraqi fury has a ready-made violent movement to be channeled through.
IIRC the Sunnis in Iraq, that are now the most affected, (and a good number of Shias) were some of the most secular in the Islamic world (seems to me that was one of the reasons why Bush thought a secular democracy could come out of it).
As more fundamentalist forces are taking over, I should not be surprised to see many of the ones that are leaving to be less supportive of fundamentalism, like doctors or technical workers.
And we can always use more of those, and the immigration authorities seem to think so too; which is why you probably have on occasion dealt with a doctor – but rarely with a lawyer – who speaks only fair-to-middling English.
Why are they so mad at us?? 
So let’s see. That makes 2 million displaced Iraqis on top of 500,000 or so dead Iraqis. Add to that 3,000 dead Americans and another 25,000 horribly wounded Americans.
And for what? The removal and execution of Saddam Hussein.
Somehow, it just doesn’t seem worth the cost. At least to me, it doesn’t.
A few months ago, I heard on the BBC World Service, about Iraqi girls turning up with suitcases in the Green Zone, having a quick marriage service and being whisked off to the airport. It sounded like a common thing.
Probably there is rather a lot of Iraqi GI brides in the USA.
My bad.
If approximately one-quarter of the population will be internally displaced or will leave the country in an “El Salvador Option” The number will be 5,500,000 For Iraq.
Sounds about right if the plan continues for 2 years more.
500.000 dead Iraqis?
That’s about 450 dead Iraqis killed (ie. combat related) each and every day for the last three years or so.
How can you possibly find that figure credible.
Easily. When you combine American military activities ( including the use of such things as cluster bombs and napalm ), all the internal factional fighting, the collapse of law and order leading to rampant violent crime , with the indirect war related but not violent causes of death, such as the ruin of the hospitals, I find such a high number quite plausible.
Cluster bombs and napalm are not being used by coalition forces in Iraq.
If you’re going to lump in every death due to violence, including old fashioned criminal violence, or disease, or accident, or exposure and attribute the cause to the occcupation forces, then you might as well throw in all Iraqi deaths caused by old age.
If you did that, the final total would be even higher than the half million number conjured up out of God knows where, but it would still be implausible nonsense.
So are you saying the Lancet knows more than god? News to them, but the way they obtained the numbers has not been discredited.
Sorry, that was the 2004 report, the news on the 2006 is here:
My bad. According to the Johns Hopkins study, the excess deaths are actually 655,000 since the war started. Turns out I was way too low.
Presumably not currently, but cluster bombs (and other weapons with submunition dispersal warheads, notably MLRS rockets) were used freely in 2003 by US and British forces alike. Altogether over 10,000 of them. Link
Civilian casualties due to these weapons were high and documented - and with the notorious failure rate of these weapons, I’m sure a few thousand duds still remain to liberate Iraqis from their limbs in the future.