Trump transition needs to weigh-in on Obama’s Australian ‘refugee’ deal
Posted by Ann Corcoran on November 14, 2016
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?
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!