The latest Malta mess; maybe just send them home to Somalia!

After all, they are dancing in Mogadishu again (we learned that from reader ‘riveratlantic’)!  The Netherlands and Denmark are planning to refuse more Somali ‘asylum seekers’ and the new President of Somalia told Somalis in America to come on home last month!

It came to a head over a broken toilet!

A group of Somali illegal alien/asylum seekers on the tiny island of Malta stormed to the police station to say that they had been evicted from a ‘center’ where they were being housed until their asylum claims could be processed.

Before I get to the toilet destruction news, remember that we have helped exacerbate Malta’s African illegal alien problem because we (beginning with the Bush State Department) have been transforming the economic migrants flowing across the Mediterranean from Libya into legitimate refugees and bringing them to the US.

Just last month we learned that an attache’ and another employee of the Italian Embassy in Kenya were helping facilitate the flow of Somalis  to Malta (for a handsome sum).

Here is the story from the Times of Malta (emphasis mine):

It started with a broken toilet, led to a mass exodus to the Ħamrun police station and ended with a handshake.

A group of 32 Somali men marched to the Ħamrun police station yesterday morning, claiming they had been evicted from Marsa open centre by management for no reason and flashing their centre residence cards in indignation.

But according to centre director Ahmed Bughri, the men were never kicked out and had simply been told that if they did not abide by open centre rules, they could “go live somewhere else”.

Some of the alleged toilet-wreckers that stormed to the police station. Look closely, some of these young men could soon be on a flight to your US city!

The incident came on the back of rising tensions between a Somali contingent and open centre management, stemming from damage done to some of the centre’s newly refurbished toilets and kitchens.

According to Dr Bughri, a small group of residents were systematically dirtying and damaging bathrooms and kitchens at the centre, to the detriment of their own colleagues.

Open centre staff on Monday found that one of the new toilets had been completely broken and knocked onto its side. Dr Bughri fined each of the residents who had a key to the toilet €10, to make up for repairs.

This did not go down well with many of those affected, who say they already live from hand to mouth on the monthly €130 allowance given to them.  [I think this is about $170 in US Dollars—-ed]

And matters reached a head yesterday, following an argument between Dr Bughri and one of the fined Somalis.

“I cannot have residents damaging or dirtying facilities and then not doing anything about it,” Dr Bughri said. “We’ve worked hard to improve this open centre and we won’t let it slide back into its previous state.”

He denied evicting the residents and said they had misunderstood his warning to either abide by the rules or leave.

Airlift to Mogadishu anyone?

Click here to see our extensive archive on Malta and how we (US State Department/Catholic Charities) unilaterally changed the definition of a refugee.

Climate refugee “crisis” alive and well

Longtime readers know that a few years ago I posted some stories (see our ‘climate refugeecategory) about the on-going conflict within the UN “community” about changing the definition of refugees to incorporate those people the “sustainability” movement claims will be flowing by the millions as the sea levels rise!

The whole thing is so silly and just a clear ploy for the first world to pay big bucks to the third world, or to open ones’ borders to the teaming (economic migrant) masses.   But, I see the pressure is still on to broaden the definition of refugee to include anyone running from the weather.

By the way, this is the definition of a refugee as set by the UN Refugee Convention in 1951:

The 1951 Refugee Convention establishing UNHCR spells out that a refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

The “humanitarian” refugee advocates objected at the time I was writing some posts on the subject (and probably still do!) to watering down the definition to include weather migrants.

But, here is a pitch by a  blog called “Sense and Sustainability” promoting the idea (again) of changing the definition of “refugee.”

Somali refugees displaced from their homes by floods cross a swollen river in Kenya. But, are identified as “climate refugees!”
Brendan Bannon/AFP/Getty Images

Human displacement due to climate change will be the “defining issue of our times!”  Really!

According to the UNHCR 2012 publication “The State of the World’s Refugees,” human displacement as a result of climate change will be “a defining issue of our times.” Environmentally induced migration and displacement could reach unprecedented dimensions, with predictions ranging from 25 million to one billion by 2050.

Despite global concern for those displaced by climate change, “climate refugee” remains merely a descriptive term under the UNHCR’s international refugee regime. The 1951 Convention does not account for people fleeing natural disasters, and thus confers no legal obligation of asylum on States. Even defining the term “climate refugee” poses problems, as this type of displacement can be attributed to many factors, including scarcity of land resources, political pressures, and natural hazards. While climate change may exacerbate these problems – causing more frequent extreme weather events or gradually reducing agricultural productivity – it is virtually impossible to separate climate causes from other drivers of migration. Accordingly, no established methodology exists for calculating the actual number of people displaced by climate change.

Whatever quibbles statisticians may have over the numbers, one thing is clear –millions of people remain displaced and unaccounted for as they do not fit neatly into the UNHCR’s definition of refugee. Is it a matter of renaming this category of people to fit within the international refugee regime? Or, in a warmer world, must the definition and understanding of the concepts of ‘refugee’ and ‘protection’ adapt?

There is a nice example here about Vietnam attempting to solve its own flooding problems (no proof that global warming makes the Mekong Delta wet!) without resorting to caterwauling that their citizens should be sent to the first world (although we are still taking “political” refugees from Vietnam, a practice that should have ended decades ago).

Sense and Sustainability goes on:

We must continue to seek durable solutions for this group, one of the world’s most marginalized refugee populations. We see in this population the human face of climate change, and we must accommodate this emerging breed of refugee within international frameworks. In the name of climate change, we have adapted our infrastructure, our lifestyles, and our understanding of sustainability.  Why not our definition of refugee?

About the photo:  It was used to illustrate this 2006 article about the coming weather migrant hordes with absolutely no proof that “climate change” made this river rise!  Let’s just put some Africans together in a photo with water and it will prove to the gullible public that global warming is real!