Posted by Ann Corcoran on November 27, 2016
….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!
Continue reading here.
Posts
