Iceland, Asylum and the Lesson for America
The Icelandic Parliament descended into chaos in March 2024 when African and Middle Eastern asylum-seekers stormed the public gallery. During a debate on migration laws, they verbally abused lawmakers as one of their number attempted to climb the balcony. The sitting was suspended, and lawmakers retreated with visible confusion. Unlike other European countries, Iceland has had relatively small numbers of migrants until recently. Its lack of experience in vetting and managing migration could have consequences for America.
Most visitors to Iceland are immediately struck by how safe it is. Elected officials casually walk around supermarkets without a security detail and the country does not even have any armed forces. Neither the President’s private home nor the Icelandic Parliament have security guards posted outside. For those of us from English-speaking countries, where our societies are increasingly built around target-hardening and security and threat management, this is quite the culture shock. But the storming of the parliament could point to a coming change in Iceland in terms of insecurity linked to migration.
Iceland, like other Western countries, has been facing pressure to open its borders. As in America, this is usually justified in terms of the alleged economic benefit to the host society or the benefit of increased diversity. Iceland is being sold open borders based on both claims. A very lightly populated country, just 300,000 people call the volcanic island home, and much of its land area is glacial and unsuitable for human settlement. This small population, small tax base and limited resources mean even slight changes in immigration laws can have a disproportionate impact if not carefully managed. However, open-borders voices in Iceland are less cautious.
When Iceland took in 50 Syrian refugees in 2015, lawmaker Elin Hurst described it as a “shameful” number and demanded “ten times” that number. Björn Teitsson of the Icelandic Red Cross implied that Iceland should copy Sweden in its open-borders policies. In 2022, the Mayor of Reykjavik, Dagur B. Eggertsson, welcomed plans to house 1,500 refugees in the city. He acknowledged that housing would be an issue given the shortage of suitable houses even for native Icelanders and the high cost of living. In fact, it was demands for housing (along with the demand their extended families join them) that triggered the disruption at the Icelandic Parliament by asylum-seekers.
So how is this relevant to America? Principally, in terms of security. If Iceland is increasingly granting asylum to people from troubled countries with terrorism threats, this could impact American security. Asylum-seekers in other European countries have sometimes turned out to be terrorists who threaten America and Americans worldwide. If they obtain Icelandic citizenship, they can enter the U.S. under the ESTA scheme, and European passport holders have used ESTA to carry out terrorism in the U.S. itself, like the attack on the synagogue in Colleyville, Texas. Furthermore, lax border security in Iceland threatens U.S. interests, and Keflavik Airport (once a U.S. Air Force base) is a major transit point for passengers bound for North America from Europe. Iceland’s relative inexperience handling migration from trouble spots heightens this risk to America.
Another reason is the challenges facing Iceland are similar to many American small communities. A statue of Leifur Erikson, the first European to visit the New World, stands outside the Minnesota State House. Like their kin in Iceland, Scandinavian-Americans in Minnesota opened their communities and hearts to migrants; only to see the Minneapolis Metro area become a major hub for Somali terror group Al Shabaab. Americans are all too familiar with the open-borders voices attempting to seduce Iceland. Both Iceland and America must reject them.