Trump transition needs to weigh-in on Obama’s
Australian ‘refugee’ deal, by Ann Corcoran 11/14/16
What is to be gained
by admitting over 1,000 rejected Australian asylum seekers—-mostly Muslims? Why are they our problem?
We have been writing
about this stunning revelation for a couple of days, but it looks like it is
going forward as Obama sends officials to the island of Nauru to start
processing Australia’s rejected asylum seekers.
Update thanks to a reader: ‘Refugees’ from Nauru wouldn’t arrive
until after January 20th. I don’t see this as necessarily a good piece of news
because as I read it, the processing will proceed which puts Trump in an even
worse position and that is denying entry to ‘refugees’ that the Obama Admin.
has screened and given promises to. See the story
here, what do you
think? See our previous posts here and here.
Can they do
anything to stop the DEAL? Remember the so-called ‘refugees’ failed Australia’s
asylum application process.
Another
news story from AP gives us more details. Apparently we
asked Australia to take some illegal migrants that were parked in Costa
Rica. WTH! Why are those migrants in Costa Rica our problem? I will
bet a million bucks these aren’t even legitimate refugees but economic
migrants:
Turnbull announced at
Obama’s Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in September that Australia would
participate in the U.S.-led program to resettle Central American refugees from
a camp in Costa Rica.
It makes me
wonder if Australia is trying to save itself from too many Muslims so is
willing to take the Central Americans instead.
This deal
smells and is emblematic of an issue I haven’t written about since 2015 when I
last posted my Ten
Reasons for a Moratorium on Refugee Resettlement, see that post by
clicking here.
I was making
the point that there
is ample evidence that the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program is
being used for extracurricular activities of the State Department, not (as
advertised!) to help poor downtrodden people who are pawns in these deals.
Why did we admit thousands of Meskhetian Turks
to America when Russia didn’t want the Sunni Muslims in their midst (those who came to my
county had to sell homes in Russia when they resettled here)? They could hardly
be ‘refugees.’
Why did we airlift Uzbek Muslim extremists to
America in the Bush Administration and call them ‘refugees?’ What national interest was involved in helping
the UN close camps in Nepal to move nearly 100,000 Bhutanese (Nepali!) people
here over the last 9 years (many did not want to come here)? I suspect
we were sucking up to the UN. Now, what is to be gained by admitting over 1,000
rejected Australian asylum seekers—-mostly Muslims. Why are they our
problem?
Here is what I said in my Ten Reasons for a
Moratorium…. This is number
7. Only legitimate refugees should even be considered. Moving people around the
world for other reasons should be specifically prohibited.
Congress needs to specifically disallow the
use of the refugee program for other purposes of the US Government, especially
using certain refugee populations to address unrelated foreign policy
objectives—Uzbeks, Kosovars, Meshketians and Bhutanese (Nepalese) people come
to mind.
I don’t know if
Trump and his team have any power to halt this DEAL before the 20th of January,
but I sure hope he tries!
Comments
The
danger is that Obama has been so secretive about who the refugees and illegals
are, that Trump may have problems finding them.
They certainly have enough time between now and January 20th
to “disappear”. At a minimum, it will be
costly. Worst case will be that they
can’t be found.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment