America’s Refugee Admissions Program a dumping
ground, Krikorian has it exactly right! by Ann Corcoran 12/9/16
In an article posted last evening
at National Review Online, Center for Immigration Studies Director, Mark Krikorian highlights one of the most
important outrages we have observed with how our present Refugee Admissions
Program is being used (and abused!).
Fazliddin Kurbanov sentenced in
Idaho last year on Islamic terrorism charges is one of hundreds (thousands?) of
Uzbek Muslims who obtained refugee status in the US during the Bush
Administration. Why? Uzbekistan is a safe Muslim country. Were they too radical
for the Muslim government there?
It is something we pointed out here in 2012 (#7) when
we gave Ten
Reasons there should be a moratorium on the program. We said
Congress must disallow the use of the program for other foreign policy
objectives of the US State Department.
At NRO (The Corner) Krikorian uses
the news-hook of the recent Somali terror attack at Ohio State and the insane
Australia deal and then says this (emphasis is mine):
Whether or not the Australia scheme
reaches fruition, it’s important to realize that it’s not unusual. For years now,
the State Department has been using resettlement back in America-land as a way
of making other countries’ diplomatic problems go away.
They’ve done this with the Somali
Bantu, Bhutanese in Nepal, Meskhetian Turks from Russia, Bangladeshi Rohingya
from Burma, and others. What they have in common is that they are groups the
State Department has decided to collectively move to the United States for
foreign policy purposes.
In other words, the refugee program is being used as a way of smoothing
over diplomatic disputes in the interest of maintaining global stability, with
the “irritant” populations being dumped in American communities for the hicks
in fly overland to cope with as best they can.
This is yet another area of immigration policy that urgently needs change.
We might also add airlifts of
Kosovars to Ft. Dix during the Clinton administration (many went home later)
and the airlift of the mysterious (and sometimes unwilling!) Uzbeks to the US
for some foreign policy goal of the George W. Bush administration.
Changing the subject, this reminds
me! Recently those resettlement contractors going in to new towns to sell
the RAP where the citizens are uninformed and naive are being told that no
refugee has been involved in terror cases in the US. It is such a big lie
and I really need to put together a list of all the cases I know about!
America,
the Dumping Ground by Mark Krikorian, 12/8/16
Our
refugee system contains a million kinds of stupid. Admitting Somalis who’d been
settled for years in Pakistan – like the Ohio State jihadi and his family – is
only one of them.
Another
“refugee” absurdity was revealed recently – the Obama administration has agreed
to admit illegal aliens intercepted at sea by Australia and held in camps
outside that country, on two Pacific islands. The number of people said to be
affected is reported to range from 1,600 to nearly 2,500; my colleague Nayla
Rush has an overview here.
These are
people Australia has decided do not warrant refugee status (or what our law
would consider asylum). Therefore they have no right to move to Australia. But
for a variety of reasons, Australia cannot, or does not want to, send them
back, and the “refugees” won’t accept offers of resettlement in New Guinea or
Cambodia because they’re holding out for a First World country.
What’s
more, their presence in those Australian-run camps on the islands of Nauru and
Manus (the latter owned by Papua New Guinea) has become a political headache.
Most are from Iran, with smaller numbers from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Somalia, and elsewhere. I can see why Australia would want this deal; it costs
Oz taxpayers $2 billion to run the two island detention facilities and closing
them down would rid the government of the headache.
But if
Australia doesn’t consider them refugees, why should we take them? It
appears we’re doing this as a favor to Australia; some speculate it’s a quid
pro quo for Australia’s taking some U.S.-bound illegals in camps in Costa Rica,
though how that’s comparable isn’t clear, and Australia has denied any such
bargain.
The
chairman of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Bob Goodlatte and Chuck
Grassley, also want to know why we’re doing this, and they wrote to the
secretaries of State and Homeland Security asking for details on the
secret agreement to bring the illegal aliens here.
When
Capitol Hill staffers asked the State Department how many such “refugees” would
be resettled here under the secret deal, they were told the number was
“classified.” DHS officers have already been dispatched to the islands to start
processing the illegals for placement in a town near you, and it’s not clear if
the Obama administration will be able to rush them to the U.S. before
President-elect Trump’s inauguration.
If they
don’t get them here in time, they might not be relocated here at all, given
Trump’s pledge to suspend immigration from terrorist-ridden countries where
adequate screening cannot be done – countries like Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan.
Whether
or not the Australia scheme reaches fruition, it’s important to realize that
it’s not unusual. For years now, the State Department has been using
resettlement back in America-land as a way of making other countries’
diplomatic problems go away.
They’ve
done this with the Somali Bantu, Bhutanese in Nepal, Meskhetian Turks from
Russia, Bangladeshi Rohingya from Burma, and others. What they have in common
is that they are groups the State Department has decided to collectively move
to the United States for foreign policy purposes.
In other
words, the refugee program is being used as a way of smoothing over diplomatic
disputes in the interest of maintaining global stability, with the “irritant”
populations being dumped in American communities for the hicks in fly-over-land
to cope with as best they can. This is yet another area of immigration policy
that urgently needs change.
No comments:
Post a Comment