Why is it our job to clean out UN refugee camps?

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?

anne-richard-and-unhcr
Obama Secretary of State for PRM, Anne Richard with then UNHCR, now Secretary General of the UN Guterres, decided that the US should take 50,000 from the DR Congo.

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….

map DR Congo
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.
In 2013 the Obama State Department told the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that we would take 50,000 from the DR Congo over five years.
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.
map nepal and bhutan
Other western countries promised to take another 30,000.
Here in 2015 the 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!
 
Screenshot (372)
 

Screenshot (368)
The numbers are difficult to read even in the original.  The top five ‘welcoming’ states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, New York and Georgia.  And, can you believe it, Hawaii, the state that is hankering for more diversity got zip!

 
I don’t believe there is a law that says we must take refugees that the UN wants us to take!
And, thus, I think it is time that the Trump Administration distanced itself from the dictates of the United Nations.  In fact, maybe it is time to do more than that! Let’s take the lead in rethinking the entire 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
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 Nayla Rush writing at the Center for Immigration Studies about the haphazard choices being made (even under Donald Trump!).
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!

Dear Mr. President, Invite the victorious Orban to the White House

Yesterday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban won for Europe (although most countries don’t know it) an astounding election victory for Western Civilization.

Orban and Soros
If the President invited Orban to the White House it would strike a mighty blow against his own nemesis—George Soros!

If President Trump wanted to put icing on his recent immigration control cake, he should invite Orban to the White House and give him a lavish state dinner. Such a move would turn the whole world on its head!
Heck, use the occasion to kick start a discussion about dumping the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. (See here.)
There are many stories about Orban’s win, but Politico is a good choice to quote since they can’t control their animus (in supposed news reporting!) toward the man and what he stands for!
 

Orbán wins landslide to secure third straight term

BUDAPEST — Viktor Orbán’s right-wing Fidesz party won a landslide victory in Hungary’s general election on Sunday, setting the stage for the prime minister to pursue his nationalistic vision and fight more battles with Brussels.

The result gives Orbán a third consecutive term as prime minister and a strong platform from which to further rail against migrants and Muslims, stage crackdowns on NGOs and mount strong resistance to greater EU integration.

More clashes between Budapest and EU institutions, particularly the European Commission and European Parliament, look assured. Orbán opposed a Commission plan to distribute migrants around the bloc while the Parliament has voted to put Hungary on a path toward censure for backsliding on democratic standards.

The election result will also likely embolden far-right parties and populists across Europe inspired by Orbán.

Orbán, who built a fence on Hungary’s southern border during the 2015 migration crisis, constructed his election campaign around strong a strong nationalist and anti-migrant message. The U.N. human rights chief earlier this year branded him a racist.

It really came down to one issue—immigration. Are you listening Donald?

But a senior Fidesz official said the anti-migrant message was key. “It is simply the fear of migrants. Fidesz did a single-issue campaign and it was successful,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

More here.
See my previous posts on Hungary, here.  My ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here.
Contact the White House! and tell the President to invite the victorious Orban to his home—the White House or Mar a Lago!

Australian Home Minister: Time to rethink 1951 UN Refugee Convention

Whoa! Now that would shake up the No Borders International Left for sure!
Peter Dutton is talking about the 1951 Refugee Convention that is under the control of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Trump at UN 2
Yes! Let’s push for an end to the UN Convention. Each country should make its own immigration policy!

He has a point!
Resettlement is not possible for the millions of migrants moving around the world, so why not create a better system to care for them where they are!
In fact, President Donald Trump told the United Nations this very thing on September 19, 2017 (see here).
But, the time is now and that means we should be on the offense and question the very underpinning of a system that is dangerously flawed, erodes national sovereignty, and is costly!
From The Guardian:

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.

peter-dutton1
Peter Dutton:  Is the 1951 Refugee Convention relevant today?

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.

Continue reading here.  See that he backtracked on earlier remarks about saving white South Africans.
Contact the White House!

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.
See my Australia category by clicking here.

Family reunification (chain migration) is bugaboo for new German government

Invasion of Europe news….

German special forces cropped
Members of German Special Forces in Muenster yesterday. Still no official report on the deadly attack.  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/muenster-attack-several-dead-after-car-drives-into-crowd-in-germany-a3808266.html

I bet Japan Times is eager to show the citizens of Japan what a mess one’s country becomes when the migrant tide is invited in!
From Japan Times:

BERLIN – A scuffle over immigration has marred the first weeks in office of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fourth coalition, promising anything but smooth sailing in the years ahead for the loveless left-right alliance.

Conservatives among Merkel’s Christian Democrats are keen to restrict as heavily as possible so-called family reunifications that would allow some of the million-plus migrants and refugees who have arrived since 2015 to bring in relatives.

That has stirred the ire of Social Democrats (SPD), the reluctant junior partners who helped Merkel into office to end the longest period of post-election limbo in post-World War II German history.

 
A thousand a month!

GERMANY-EUROPE-MIGRANTS
Chancellor Merkel and Interior Minister Seehofer

 
Japan Times continues…..

In their painstakingly negotiated coalition deal, the parties agreed that up to 1,000 people per month could enter Germany under family reunification, with only immediate relatives eligible.

New Interior Minister Horst Seehofer is eager to tighten the screws further, with a draft law that would prevent people dependent on social benefits from bringing in family members and further restrict which relations are eligible, including ruling out siblings.  

Now that is an idea!  The US should be doing that too! If the family already here is on welfare, they can’t bring other family members over.  Gee, I bet that is already a law we don’t follow!

Many people who arrived in Germany as refugees are yet to join the labor market, undergoing job training or language classes, and would therefore not qualify.

Seehofer is a former leader of the ultra-conservative CSU, the smaller Bavarian sister party of Merkel’s more centrist CDU.

[….]

“If the Social Democrats don’t cooperate, the ‘grand coalition’ would be over” less than a month after Merkel was sworn in, deputy leader of the conservative parliamentary group Georg Nuesslein told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper.

The family reunification row is just one front in a broader battle over immigration, integration and Islam in German society that has pitted the SPD against the CDU/CSU.

Seehofer is also keen to speed up expulsions of people whose asylum applications are refused, many of whom spend months or years contesting the decisions in the courts or acquire a “tolerated” residence status.

The twin issues of asylum abuse and family reunification are also key elements in the US debate over our southern border.
Can’t lose with the issue of more law and order!

Health Minister Jens Spahn, a rising star of the CDU’s right wing seen as a potential future candidate for the chancellorship, has spent his first weeks in office giving interviews urging more “law and order” in troubled city districts.

Continue reading the story at Japan Times, here.
Japanese readers must be asking:  Why would any sane government act to destroy its own country and culture?
See my Germany archive here. And, new readers might like to know that Japan doesn’t want to open its doors to the third world, here.
And, for those with a lot of time, see my archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ by clicking here.

Don't say I didn't warn you! The Left is advancing climate refugees as the next big crisis

This is a subject I’ve touched on from time to time—I have 51 previous posts on the topic.
 
climate-refugee-2-728
 
I hope to continue to bring it to your attention because it might seem like a fringe issue to you, but you can be sure the NO Borders political machine is advancing it as one more reason to erase borders worldwide (and redistribute wealth from the first world to the third world).
There has been some controversy however about the use of the word “refugee” since the ‘humanitarians’ don’t want the environmentalists appropriating the word.  Nevertheless, from the bits and pieces I have read, they are moving closer to an agreement.
I’m not proposing you buy this expensive book, but am just putting this out to you as one more ‘heads-up’ on the subject.

Facilitating the Resettlement and Rights of Climate Refugees

 

One of the most significant impacts of climate change is migration. Yet, to date, climate-induced migrants are falling within what has been defined by some as a ‘protection gap’. This book addresses this issue, first by identifying precisely where the gap exists, by reviewing the relevant legal tools that are available for those who are currently, and who will in the future be displaced because of climate change. The authors then address the relevant actors; the identity of those deserving protection (displaced individuals), as well as other bearers of rights (migration-hosting states) and obligations (polluting states).

climate refugee book

The authors also address head-on the contentious topic of definitions, concluding with the provocative assertion that the term ‘climate refugees’ is indeed correct and should be relied upon. 

The second part of the book looks to the future by advocating specific legal and institutional pathways. Notably, the authors support the use of international environmental law as the most adequate and suitable regime for the regulation of climate refugees. With respect to the role of institutions, the authors propose a model of ‘cross-governance’, through which a more inclusive and multi-faceted protection regime could be achieved.

“Cross-governance” sound a bit ominous!

Addressing the regulation of climate refugees through a unique collaboration between a refugee lawyer and an environmental lawyer, this book will be of great interest to scholars and professionals in fields including international law, environmental studies, refugee studies and international relations.

You can bet this will be required reading for your little darlings attending Leftwing colleges and universities (LOL! the high price of the book suggests that is where it is headed!).
Click here for my ‘Climate refugees’ category.
This may be the only place on the political right where you can find this much coverage (even as little as I have provided) on the subject.