Cut the
crap! Australia ‘refugee’ deal is about the Australian public not wanting any
more Muslim migrants by Ann Corcoran 11/27/16 while
Obama is willing to take all he can get!
Look at this New York Times story on the supposed deal the Obama Administration has made
with Australia to take its rejected asylum seekers off their hands! And, look
at the UN twisting like a pretzel as it tries to explain why this insane deal
is even being considered.
What it all boils down to is this:
the Australian public (the voters) are sick and tired of all the Muslim boat
people trying to break into Australia (so they have been parked offshore), but
Australian political leaders, by agreeing to take Central American (phony refugees) in Costa Rica, are banking on being able to sell the
public on most likely Catholics (or Christians of some sort) rather than the
Muslims whose asylum cases were rejected!
This is basically a swap of illegal
aliens! Don’t believe the UN that this is a “one-off!” Check out Malta,
the European island nation that sends the US its overflow African illegal alien
boat people, a travesty we have been writing about for years.
The Muslim boat people held in detention in Australian offshore
facilities have had their asylum claims rejected. So neither those on
Nauru or those in Costa Rica are legitimate (by definition) refugees!
For background, before you read on,
see Grassley and Goodlatte blast Obama, here. There is a list of the
nationalities of the failed asylum seekers, most come from Muslim countries.
New York Times (hat
tip: heymister24): SYDNEY, Australia For years, the United Nations’ refugee
agency told Australia that its policy of banishing asylum seekers to remote
Pacific island detention centers was illegal.
This is Obama’s Ambassador to the
UN, Samantha Power. This “deal” sounds like something she wholeheartedly
approved. What will Nikki Haley do about it (or other similar deals, this is
not a one-off) when she gets to the UN? Will she say No! We don’t know, but one
thing we can be sure of, Haley will likely dress more professionally than
Power!
Now, the agency is working with Australia in what both sides call an
unusual, not-to-be-replicated agreement to send some of those refugees across
the world, to be resettled in the United States.
The deal, announced by Australia
last week, is aimed at shutting down two offshore detention facilities — one on
the island nation of Nauru and the other on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea where
hundreds of people are housed in what rights groups describe as deplorable
conditions. The
United States has agreed to take some of them; how many, and how
quickly, remains unclear.
In an interview this week, Volker
Turk, an assistant high commissioner with the United Nations’ refugee agency,
said his staff would help with the screening and resettlement of refugees but
only as a “one-off” to allay their suffering. “We think there is an urgent imperative to
find a humanitarian way out of this otherwise very, very, complex conundrum,”
he said by telephone from Canberra, the Australian capital. What the heck is the “complex conundrum?”
Either they are legitimate refugees
that Australia should admit to the mainland or they are illegal aliens who
should be returned to where they came from.
THEY ARE NOT AMERICA’S PROBLEM EITHER WAY!
NYT continues: “We do not in any way want to give the impression
that we would continue supporting such types of mechanisms,” Mr. Turk said,
referring to Australia’s offshore detention policy. “We, all of us,
are very clear that this is a one-off, good offices, exceptional humanitarian
type of involvement because we do not believe that the future of
handling this lies in sending people to Manus Island and Nauru.”
Making the deal even more unusual, Australia has agreed to take in an
unspecified number of Central American refugees who fled gang violence in their
homelands. [Fleeing gang violence is not a criteria for being
designated a refugee!—ed] The United Nations says
there are an estimated 2,400 such people from El Salvador, Guatemala and
Honduras who have been screened and recognized as refugees [Who “recognized” them?—ed]. The United
States has long been reluctant to let them apply for asylum on its territory
and only recently agreed to let the United Nations vet them at a processing
center in Costa Rica.
I REPEAT, WHY ARE THE CENTRAL AMERICANS WHO FLED TO COSTA RICA OUR
PROBLEM?
Legitimate asylum seekers are
supposed to ask for asylum in the first safe country they get to, they are not
supposed to be ‘asylum shopping’ for better deals! By doing this ‘one-time’
(ha! ha!) deal we set the precedent for many more to come!
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/cut-the-crap-australia-refugee-deal-is-about-the-australian-public-not-wanting-any-more-muslim-migrants/
No comments:
Post a Comment