British-Syrian TV pundit causes firestorm, says Syrian refugees should not come to UK

If all Syrians coming to America were like the UK’s Halla Diyab, the Leftwingers would be leading the charge to STOP Syrians from coming here.

She suggested they go to neighboring countries where they are among people of their own culture!  And, the horror, she questions who will pay for all the Syrians?  For that, she is labeled ‘Syria’s Sarah Palin.’

One country she lists as a better place to send Syrian refugees is deportation-nation Saudi Arabia!

From Al-Arabiya News (hat tip: ‘pungentpeppers’):

A British-Syrian TV pundit is threatening to sue social media users who slander her or threaten her life after her recent controversial views regarding not allowing Syrian refugees to come to Britain were aired on a BBC program.

Halla Diyab, a writer and producer based in London, told BBC One’s This Week news program that Syrian refugees would be better off seeking asylum in neighboring Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt – rather than coming to England where they will face a cultural barrier such as not being able to speak English.

Syrian refugees shouldn’t be “picky and choosey,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Neil.

She also voiced concerns over how much allowing Syrian refugees into the country would cost British taxpayers.

Many people publicly condemned Diyab’s views referring to her as “Syria’s Sarah Palin”;’ however, the British-Syrian pundit is now concerned the criticism has went too far with some angry viewers saying she is an Assad-loyalist and others making comments about her morality.

There is much wailing and moaning from the ‘humanitarian’ crowd who call her insensitive.  You can read all of that yourself.  I guess she, or they, don’t know that some of their ‘humanitarian’ brethren would agree with Diyab (here).

Then she asked who will pay for all of this?

And, if peace comes, will they go home or will taxpayers continue to support them?  Yikes! The ultimate sin to ask those questions!

During one part of Diyab’s BBC appearance, now available online, Diyab takes a sip of coffee, and asks: “If Syria returns to peace, will the British government force them to go back to Syria or will they stay here forever?

“As a British taxpayer, will I be requested to subsidize for a new Syrian population in this country?”

“It would be much better for them to stay in neighboring countries that are close to Syria culturally and demographically, like the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon,” she added.

And, the you-know-what hit the fan on social media.  Hang in there Halla!

The answer is yes, of course, these refugee resettlements are always permanent, even when the word ‘temporary’ is bandied about.

Regarding our photo caption.  Consider for a moment what would happen to the immigration issue if a large majority of immigrants arriving in America, or the West generally, said they would vote for conservatives.  In a heartbeat, the political Left would be demanding we halt all immigration!  Heck, they might be at the border with guns!

Over 1,100 migrants rescued off Italy in 24 hour period this week

The African invasion of Europe continues…..

The number of mostly economic migrants trying to reach Europe has gone through the roof since this time last year!  Most are seeking asylum (of course) and most will not be granted ‘refugee’ status.

Note that of the 1,123 rescued, 1,000 are young men.

From the BBC (hat tip: ‘pungentpeppers’):

Italy’s navy has rescued 1,123 people from inflatable boats in the space of 24 hours, as clandestine migration from North Africa reaches record levels.

The latest migrants were found in eight boats and a barge about 120 miles (222km) south-east of Lampedusa.

They included 47 women, four of them pregnant, and 50 children, all probably from sub-Saharan Africa, the navy said.

[….]

Some 2,000 migrants landed on Italian shores last month, nearly 10 times the number recorded in January 2013.

[….]

According to the government, last year saw an “incessant and massive influx of migrants” with a total of 42,925 arrivals by sea, or more than three times as many as in 2012.

[….]

Once in Italy, the migrants will be assessed to see if they have legitimate grounds for claiming asylum.

They have to satisfy the authorities that they are fleeing persecution and would face harm or even death if sent back to their country of origin.

Nearly three out of four asylum applications in EU states were rejected in 2012.  [But, are those rejected sent back to Africa or left to wander Europe?—ed]

Read it all.  Also, check out the BBC’s Mediterranean migration route map we posted here.  Note that Turkey (Istanbul) is a main hub for the illegal migrants.

Addendum:  Arab News says ‘go after the people smugglers’ to stop the flow.

Refugee resettlement a controversial issue among “humanitarian workers”

Saudi Arabia deports hundreds of Ethiopian asylum seekers daily. http://ethiopianewsforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67724

Holy cow!  Did you know that!  Did you know that some “humanitarian workers” believe that the drawbacks to resettlement outweigh the advantages?  That is what “Relief Web” says in this stunning admission.

And, shock of shocks they criticize Saudi Arabia for ‘welcoming’ NO refugees.

Relief Web (skipping down through the section which says how it helps refugees, gets them out of danger, etc).  Emphasis is mine:

And yet resettlement is a controversial issue amongst humanitarian workers, a significant proportion of whom consider that its drawbacks equal or outweigh its advantages. The resettlement process, they argue, is labor intensive, expensive, and increasingly slowed by the extensive security checks undertaken by resettlement countries.  [US relaxed security checks this week!—ed]

Furthermore, because the demand for resettlement places is so much higher than the supply, bribery and corruption can easily arise in the refugee selection process. It is often suggested that those refugees chosen are not the most vulnerable, but rather the most entrepreneurial and assiduous in navigating the procedure. [Like the Chacha family!—ed] And even those people often find that the going is tough when they arrive at their destination, unfamiliar with its language and culture.

Finally, critics of resettlement point to the fact that so few countries are prepared to make this solution available to the world’s refugees. In the Syrian context, for example, countries such as the U.S. and UK are under mounting pressure to resettle refugees from politicians, advocacy groups and the media.

We, at RRW, suggest resettlement in Saudi Arabia and rich Gulf states all the time!

Yet few people have even raised the possibility of resettling Syrian refugees in nearby Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. As Amnesty International recently pointed out, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council “have not offered a single resettlement to refugees from Syria.” Indeed, far from welcoming refugees, Saudi Arabia recently expelled a massive number of foreigners, including 200,000 from Yemen and 150,000 from Ethiopia, two countries which are poorly placed to absorb such an influx.

Coincidentally? Our second most visited post this week is this one from earlier in January about Saudi Arabia deporting their fellow Muslims—Somalis.   Our most-read post this week was on Wyoming considering opening its doors to Muslims from Africa and the Middle East (among others).  Wyoming thinks it will control who comes to Wyoming—no it won’t, the US State Department and its contractors decide.

Sri Lankan illegal alien poster boys for critics of US asylum system

Judy Rabinovitz, the men’s ACLU attorney, is concerned for the US taxpayer! Sure she is!

This story makes my blood boil, but not in the way the New York Times hopes it will.  Five Tamils (Sri Lankans, are they Tamil Tigers?) paid smugglers $55,000  each to get them to the US where they planned to apply for asylum.  Instead they were caught, placed in detention where they languish supposedly because we have a screwed- up asylum system.

First question of course is where did poor struggling ‘refugee’ fishermen get $55,000 each?  And, since we learned they traveled through Dubai, Moscow, Cuba and Haiti why didn’t they ask for asylum at their first stop, second stop, third stop?  Legitimate asylum seekers are to ask for asylum in the first safe country in which they land!   (Amazing that the reporter seems not at all interested in answers to these two important questions!)

Readers, this is not the first time we have read about the Moscow to Cuba route for illegal alien smugglers to get people to America!  And, it is just assumed in every report I have read that it is aok just to work one’s way across the world with the US as the target destination.  Some of them go from Cuba to Mexico and then across our land border.

Here is some of the story, but read all of it!  From the New York Times via NDTV (hat tip: ‘pungentpeppers’):

New York:  Five Sri Lankan men left hometowns reeling from the remnants of a ruthless civil war and embarked on a months-long human-smuggling journey that spanned seven countries.

They each paid $55,000 for a ride by air and sea to a fresh chance in the Americas. They were captured within hours of their arrival in South Florida and served as witnesses for the FBI in the investigation of their smugglers, cooperation that the men were led to believe would work in their favour as their cases made their way through immigration courts.

Three years later, they are still waiting for their cases to be resolved.

Captured in Florida:

The fisherman said that in Sri Lanka he was being extorted for money, received telephone death threats and was forced to quit his job with an opposition party. After contacting a wealthy smuggler known as Mohan, he left his wife and toddler and fled on a five-leg flight: Sri Lanka to Dubai to Moscow to Cuba to Haiti.

In Haiti, he met Mohan, and the other Tamil immigrants who would become his companions in a years-long court battle. They left Haiti for the Bahamas, then embarked for Florida on Dec. 5, 2010.

They were brought to a safe house, another Sri Lankan in the group, whose first initial is R., said in an interview at the Krome Service Processing Center, an immigration jail in Miami at the edge of the Everglades. He said they were given a warm meal, a hot bath, and an extortion demand for an additional $6,000 from each of them.

A few hours later, the FBI woke the men from their slumber.

Boo hoo!  They got the wrong immigration judge:

The men applied for political asylum, each with a personal story of the persecution they suffered as Tamils.   [likely a made-up story prepared before leaving home—ed]

Had their cases been heard one county south, said Ferreyra, the former federal prosecutor, their asylum claims would more likely have been accepted.

Are US immigration lawyers at the ACLU keeping them here for their own selfish reasons—as poster boys for their media/political goals?

“This just all shows how irrational and unjust the correctional immigration system is,” said Judy Rabinovitz, a lawyer for the men and the deputy director of the ACLU’s immigrant rights project. “How much have U.S. taxpayers paid to keep these people locked up?”

The men are torn between their lawyers’ insistence on fighting for asylum and their desire to go home, even if to a dangerous and uncertain future.

I agree with Rabinovitz on one thing—don’t keep them locked up at taxpayer expense!   Deport them sooner than later!

In the past we have written a good bit about Sri Lankans breaking into Canada, check out some of those posts here.

Israel: deceptive headline about African migrants

Press conference January 22 in Tel Aviv
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/last-days-freedom-african-migrants-israel

Here is the headline of a story about Israel’s problems with over 50,000 illegal African migrants in the country:

African Migrants In Israel Asked To Leave The Country — Or Report To A Detention Center

I thought, wow, they are getting serious.  The headline left me with the impression that they were rounding ’em up by the tens of thousands.

Then this:

This month alone 1,700 African asylum seekers living in Israeli cities were ordered to report to the Holot facility, according to the Jerusalem Post. But very few have done so.

So, how many showed up at the detention center?

Only 26 African migrants arrive at detention facility as 30-day deadline expires

Israel is also offering a payment of $3,500 for any economic migrant willing to leave the country.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

New readers:  See our category ‘Israel and refugees’ for more.