And, the allegations are coming from a humanitarian publication under the UN umbrella.
Why do you care?
Because the UN High Commissioner for Refugees is the first stop for most refugees coming to your towns. (We took 53 from Sudan in the last 7 months).
This is just more evidence that the US State Department should be cutting the umbilical cord to the United Nations Refugee Program. If we are going to be taking refugees from third world hell holes we should be doing the choosing and the processing without UN ‘help.’
(Don’t miss the chart below showing the UN as the first step in the screening of refugees to be your new neighbors!)
And, why is the Trump Administration continuing refugee resettlement started for no other reason (by George Bush and Barack Obama) than to please the UN?
Previous presidents jumped to the UN piper’s tune and said sure, the US will step up to take the Bhutanese and the DR Congolese because the UN asked us to.
These people were not our responsibility, no one could say we caused the problems that resulted in their care by the UN.
We have no strategic interest or reason other than to make the UN happy (and some big employers who want the cheap labor, the Dems who want voters and the contractors who want the payola!).
(By the way, there are other examples of cleaning out camps and of course the largest over the years have been the UN camps in Kenya, but the numbers have dramatically slowed in the last year, not so for the two I’m writing about now. And, of course the UN has no interest in cleaning out the Palestinian camps and sending those people to other Arab countries.)
DR Congo express to America….
The largest ethnic group of refugees coming to the US right now are DR Congolese. In the first 6 months of this fiscal year (’18) we admitted 2,569.
Checking Wrapsnet just now, I see that we have taken 40,899 since that promise was made, however going back to FY10, I see we are now at 49,476.
Will the flow ever stop?
Based on the Bush Bhutanese deal, the answer is likely NO!
Nearly 100,000 Bhutanese scattered across America…
In 2006 we told the UN we would take 60,000 Bhutanese off their hands over five years.
These displaced people are really Nepali people that were kicked out of Bhutan and Nepal wouldn’t take them back.
Other western countries promised to take another 30,000.
Here in 2015the UN reported on its “success” at that point in time:
A core group of eight countries came together in 2007 to create this opportunity for Bhutanese refugees to begin new lives: Australia (5,554), Canada (6,500), Denmark (874), New Zealand (1002), the Netherlands (327), Norway (566), the United Kingdom (358) and the United States of America (84,819).
Now 10 years after Bush Asst. Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey said we would take 60,000, we are at 95,841 (as of today).
In the last 6 months, an additional 1,925 ‘refugees’ of Nepali origin that we call Bhutanese were resettled across the country. I have to laugh because the total number in 2006 was 108,000 and between the US and other countries we have far surpassed that number now, so it begs the question—have more people arrived at the camps looking for resettlement in recent years? (See one of my many posts on fuzzy math!)
Here is where 95,481 have been place in the US in just 10 years!
I don’t believe there is a law that says we must take refugees that the UN wants us to take!
Surely, if we are going to offer ‘welcome’ to legitimate refugees, we have smart people who would know how to pick the most worthy candidates and not just take in ethnic groups wholesale because the UN tells us we must!
See my archive on the Bhutanese by clicking here. The thing that has brought them to the media’s attention over the years is the fact that they have a high suicide rate in America. In fact, for years leading up to 2006, they steadfastly maintained that they did not want to be “scattered to the four winds.”
Contact the White House, tell the President: As your Administration prepares refugee plans for the coming fiscal year, stop asking how high, when the UN says jump! We will pick our own refugees, thank you very much!
The home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, says “like-minded” countries [like the US!—ed] should come together to review the relevance of the 1951 United Nations refugee convention, arguing the document is outdated and does not account for the modern movement of people.
In a wide-ranging interview with Guardian Australia conducted on Tuesday, Dutton flagged a reluctance to allow the elderly family members of immigrants to come to Australia, and a desire to incentivise new arrivals to move to regional communities. He also reaffirmed the country’s commitment to a nondiscriminatory immigration policy.
Dutton said he agreed with statements made by the British prime minister, Theresa May, and others suggesting the UN convention relating to the status of refugees could be modernised “or at least an update of the way in which the convention works and what it provides for”.
He said countries’ efforts to resettle refugees were “token” given the numbers of displaced people, and argued offering support to refugee camps would be more effective than resettling a small portion of the refugee population.
Tell the President to go on the offense and push for dumping the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
If nothing else, a debate on the issue would be extremely useful and might even force our do-nothing Congress to reevaluate the Refugee Act of 1980—a law that has over time allowed the UN to call the shots on who comes to the US as refugees.
Let’s be clear right off the bat. Indonesia is a Muslim country and most of those attempting to pass through Indonesia (arriving there illegally), with a goal of being resettled in the US, Australia, Canada, or Europe, are Muslims.
What happened to the supposedly humanitarianism of Islam and governments ruled by it? Why are these people our problem in the first place?
The truth is that Indonesia doesn’t want them either!
For years the UN has been processing illegal aliens arriving in Indonesia from Somalia etc. in to your US towns via the US State Department. Frankly it needs to stop and it looks like it is slowing.
I just checked Wrapsnetfor processing through Indonesia to the US and found that we admitted 18 cases (21 individuals indicating most are single (men?) people, hmmm) in the first three months of FY18 (beginning Oct. 1, 2017).
(Journalism 101 requires that every refugee story begins with a sob story!)
JAKARTA: Ebrahim Adam fled armed conflict in his home region of Darfur, Sudan, in 2011, and ended up seeking asylum in Indonesia, hoping to be eventually resettled in Australia or another Western country so he could resume his dream of being an economist. [Usually they want to be doctors, so they say!—ed]
But after languishing for nearly seven years in Indonesia — where he cannot legally work, access public services or obtain citizenship — Ebrahim recently received bad news: His resettlement is unlikely to ever happen. The UN Refugee Agency’s office in Indonesia has begun informing the nearly 14,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia that they should not expect to be welcomed by another country. Instead, they should prepare to assimilate into Indonesian society as best they can, or consider returning to their strife-torn countries.
Analysts said Ebrahim faces additional obstacles: He is single, Muslim and of military age, which could make countries worried about terrorism less likely to take him in.
Globally, there are more than 24 million certified refugees and asylum seekers, the highest levels since the Second World War, according to the United Nations.
Historically, the chances of refugees ever being resettled are only around 1 per cent.
Those refugees residing in Indonesia face the additional obstacle that the United States and Australia, the two main resettlement destinations for refugees here, have put in place more stringent immigration policies, further decreasing their already long odds.
The situation of refugees hoping for resettlement in the West became more dire after President Donald Trump took office last January. His administration’s travel ban blocks people from eight countries from entering the US, including Somalia, the country with the second-highest number of refugees and asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia.
400 too many!
Last year, only about 400 refugees living in Indonesia were resettled in the United States, according to the United Nations. Indonesia is not a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention, which prohibits governments from returning people fleeing persecution to areas where they face serious threats, but the country has allowed certified refugees to remain here as they await resettlement in a third country.
For years, asylum-seekers from the Middle East and South Asia have used Indonesia as a transit point to reach Australia, boarding rickety wooden boats run by human smugglers for the perilous voyage across the Indian Ocean.
In 2013, however, the Australian government adopted strict new measures to discourage future arrivals by immediately transferring those who made it to its shores to spartan detention centers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, and refusing to ever consider them for resettlement.
But, golly gee, now we get the booby prize! We admit to America those same lawbreakers who attempted to get to Australia and were detained. And, we pay for it thanks to the Obama “dumb” deal that Trump agreed to!
It would make enormous sense if the UN spent more time persuading Indonesia to keep their coreligionists, and promote a PR campaign through Africa and the Middle East that there is no ticket to the West through Indonesia!
Update January 6, 2018: Many good points in this op-ed at The Hill about getting rid of UNRWA.
Many of you may not know that the United Nations treats Arabs (so-called Palestinians), who lost the 1948 war with Israel, as a very special class of ‘refugee’ with their own very special UN agency called the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and we pay a huge amount of your tax dollars to keep it going.
These ‘refugees’ (it is debatable about whether they are even legitimate refugees) are not cared for by the usual refugee agency—the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)—but have their own ‘camps’ (not camps, but cities) maintained partly by you as a perpetual thorn in the side of Israel.
If Arab countries really cared about ‘Palestinians’ and peace, they would have long ago absorbed the Palestinian Arabs, but in fact they are more valuable as thorns in Israel’s side then as humans.
Here an opinion writer at the New York Post argues that the Trump Administration should end US backing of UNRWA—turn off the spigot from the US Treasury to the UN agency! (emphasis is mine).
As the UN General Assembly voted to reject America’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, US Ambassador Nikki Haley issued a stern warning: We’ll remember this the next time you come calling for more hard-earned American taxpayer dollars. Most nation-states called her bluff, leaving many to wonder what comes next.
If President Trump wants to use his financial leverage at the United Nations to strike at the heart of the anti-America, anti-Israel institutional infrastructure, he should look no further than the agency responsible for Palestinian refugees: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
By most definitions, refugees are those forced to flee their country because of persecution, war or violence. Nearly every refugee in the world is cared for by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, whose ultimate goal is repatriation, resettlement and integration. The exception? Palestinian refugees. [Actually he is wrong about the legitimate definition of a refugee, who must prove persecution, war and violence have been added in by the refugee expansionist movement.—ed]
Arab states insisted on a different definition for Palestinian-Arab refugees of the Israeli War of Independence — and a different agency to care for them.
Today, millions of people are referred to as “Palestinian refugees” even though the only home they, and in many cases even their parents and grandparents, have ever known is either a refugee camp or an Arab host nation like Jordan.
Rather than use the billions of dollars of international assistance provided since 1950 to resettle and integrate Palestinian-Arab refugees — just as Israel successfully resettled and integrated Jewish refugees from the Middle East, North Africa and the Soviet Union — UNRWA’s mandate has always been to keep Palestinians as perpetual refugees.
In truth, it’s not a refugee agency but a welfare agency, which keeps millions of people in a permanent state of dependency and poverty — all while feeding Palestinians an empty promise that one day they’ll settle in Israel.
Yet the United States remains the agency’s largest single-state donor.
Even a serious threat (from the Trump Administration) to cut off the funding to UNRWA might cause the Arab world to “welcome” their co-religionists to come live with them ending the cycle of Middle East violence that is always blamed on Israel. (Of course, I know it won’t end all violence because the Muslim sects will be at each other throats forever, and Islam will continue to seek expansion of territory that they stole from Christians and Jews.)
Every time I see some Lefty Muslim apologist claiming that Palestinian Muslims should have their land (or some Leftwinger claims that the Native Americans should have North America), that it is only fair, I want to ask then at what point in human history can we go back to where everything was FAIR! What is that magical date in history when the world’s population was distributed fairly? Make them tell you!
See my category ‘Israel and refugees’ by clicking here. I haven’t written much for that category lately, but see that there are 163 previous posts archived.
This is what we should be doing as well and it has begun with the Trump Administration restrictions on migration to America from certain regions of the world.
I would be completely cheering for Australia if what Miranda Devine says is really happening, however, Australia is dumping those rejected asylum seekers (mostly Muslims) on US towns and cities (with the Trump Administration’s full cooperation), so I’m feeling less enthusiastic about this news (any news telling the UN to take a hike!) than I normally would.***
Columnist Devine tells UN to butt out of Australia immigration policy,here at the Daily Telegraph (hope you don’t get the paywall):
THE United Nations refugee agency was at it again last week pointlessly complaining about Australia’s sovereign right to secure its borders.
At a special press conference in Geneva, the UNHCR demanded the Australian government “live up to its responsibilities and urgently find humane and appropriate solutions” on Manus Island.
This is the organisation which runs refugee camps in the Middle East which are supposed to be for all persecuted, displaced people but which, for some reason, are almost entirely populated by Muslims.
By the way, almost all Syrian refugees admitted to the US in Obama’s last years in office were Muslims and we heard the same thing: the UN was picking our refugees and they were picking from their camps, thus mostly Muslims were being resettled.
It’s a curious demographic imbalance when Christians and other religious minorities are effectively being ethnically cleansed from the region, yet are not safe in UN camps because they are persecuted there by the same people who drove them out of their homes — that is if they weren’t crucified, beheaded or turned into sex slaves first.
But the UN turns a blind eye to the missing Christians on its books, declaring the imbalance a mystery, while attempting to shame countries like Australia to “do more”.
The New York Times reported these numbers as “Australia’s Immoral Preference for Christian Refugees”, with an opinion column arguing that “Selecting refugees based on their spiritual beliefs is a form of state-supported prejudice that secular societies like Australia have a moral obligation to reject.”
I didn’t see that New York Times piece, but they show their ignorance because I will bet a buck that the NYT cheered (or at least didn’t say anything about “state-supported prejudice”) when the US opened its doors to Russian Jews (calling them refugees), by the tens of thousands, a few decades ago.
And, I doubt they ever editorialized against the Lautenberg Amendment, here.
What about the UN’s apparent discrimination against Christians in its refugee camps? If the UN wants to claim the moral high ground, it should get its own house in order first.
SOUTH DARFUR, Sudan – Mother of six Hamila fled insecurity in Darfur a decade ago, seeking safety in the neighbouring Central African Republic, or CAR.
But this week, she was among more than 230 former refugees returning home on a UNHCR flights from a camp near Bambari.
“I am so happy for the chance to return to Sudan, especially for my children,” said Hamila, who had four more children while in exile. “Even if we face challenges at least we will be in our home country, among our relatives.”
Now that Donald Trump is in the White House maybe we can go back to the idea a reader presentedto us a couple of years ago—-let’s have a repatriation fund for refugees who are unhappy with America and want to go home.
And, I don’t want to hear from critics who don’t want their money spent for such a fund. Believe me, the cost of returning them is going to be far less to you than the cost of their dependence on our social services going forward.
The refugees should not be blamed, any blame for their unhappy presence here rests with the Congress, the US State Department, and the contractors whose income depends on paying refugee clients.
There would be one other side benefit to this fund!
It might well show which of the nine contractors*** were doing the worst jobs of helping refugees get resettled. In other words, it could be a gauge of sorts that might highlight the resettlement agencies doing the lousiest work and producing the most unhappy refugees.
*** I try to post the names every day or so of the nine contractors (aka VOLAGs) that monopolize all refugee resettlement in America because every day we have new readers: