Are You A Terrorist? Comparing Security Screening for Iraqi Asylum Seekers in the United States and Sweden

How can countries balance demands for national security while remaining committed to humanitarian protection? In 2016, the United States and European Union agreed to resettle significant numbers of refugees. Some politicians, including President Trump, argued that refugees are a security threat, even though there are few refugees connected to terrorism. This article investigates how the United States and Sweden screened for terrorism with Iraqi asylum seekers from 2003‐2013, in order to discover how states balance protection and security. This study finds significant policy convergence in three areas (security checks and databases, interagency cooperation, and safety valve programmes), but retains different definitions of terrorism. Policy convergence was driven by international law, UNHCR guidance notes, and international conferences. The study concludes by discussing the policy implications for “extreme vetting” and the use of future safety valve programmes. Policy Implications From 2003‐2013, both the US and Sweden added new security checks, databases, and interagency cooperation. One lesson is that in response to perceived security threats, states often add new layers of bureaucracy and technologies, resulting in slower, more burdensome processes. To overcome these barriers, both the US and Sweden created safety value immigration programmes to relieve the pressure from overwhelming demand from Iraqi asylum‐seekers. Policymakers should consider the strategic use of safety valve programmes to speed up processing, allocate additional resources, and provide temporary protection without revising the wider immigration systems.