Here is the latest news from downunder about those migrants being detained on offshore islands as Australia is (rightly) trying to deter illegal boats from arriving on its shores.
But, once again, why is Australia’s immigration policy going to become a problem for towns in America where these mostly Muslim single men (that Australia won’t admit) will be set free.
Maybe each of these naive women marchers could take one home to live at her house (and pay all their expenses!).
Photo accompanying the Reuters story, note pre-printed signs apparently handed out to the “socialist” marchers! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-refugees-protest-manus/hundreds-march-in-sydney-for-asylum-seekers-ahead-of-png-camp-closure-idUSKBN1CK07O
SYDNEY (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters marched through Sydney on Sunday to call for detainees, being held in controversial centers for asylum seekers on remote Pacific islands, to be allowed to stay in Australia as a resettlement deadline approaches.
Canberra’s hardline immigration policy requires asylum seekers intercepted at sea to be sent for processing to two remote Pacific locations – one on Papua New Guinea’s (PNG‘s) Manus Island and the other on the Micronesian island nation of Nauru. They are told they will never be settled in Australia.
The Manus center is to be closed on Oct. 31 when detainees who have had their refugee applications rejected will be resettled in PNG.
Protesters led by socialists and refugee advocates in Sydney said the detainees should be resettled in Australia.
The article goes on to discuss the Obama dumb deal (now Trump’s dumb deal).
For new readers who don’t know, Trump has said we will take up to 1,250 of Australia’s rejects. See my archive on the ‘Australia deal’ by clicking here.
The first story I read this morning has got my blood boiling! Not because it is one more blast at Trump, or at Stephen Miller (he can take care of himself).
And, although I have now learned more about the secretive process thanks to the leakers (the blabbermouths!), what has me steamed is that the Trump Administration clearly still has many people throughout government (the State Department!) and in the White House who are not loyal to him and are so willing to dish the dirt on his Presidency.
Whose fault is that?
It is Trump’s fault for not placing enough of his own people in leadership slots—people who would be loyal and keep the bureacrats in check.
Was he even paying attention?
Indeed the US Refugee Admissions Program in the State Department is still being run by career bureaucrats who saw Obama’s fantasy 110,000 refugee ceiling last year as the holy grail!
For new readers, know that I have maintained that there is nothing heroic about this 45,000 (split the baby) ceiling.
Trump had the perfect opportunity to suspend the program entirely, to put off setting the ceiling. He could have done it for 6 months and told Congress to investigate the entire program with an eye to reforming it or setting up an entirely new system to admit only the most desperate people. (There is likely zero chance any reform will be initiated in election year 2018!)
So, as you read through New Yorker reporter Jonathan Blitzer‘s story, meant to paint Stephen Miller as the boogeyman (written thanks to so many blabbermouths), know that I believe Trump flubbed this one and took an easy way out.
(You should read the whole thing. I couldn’t snip it all! So, I picked out what interested me most and the emphasis below is mine.)
Late last month, the White House announced that next year’s cap would be forty-five thousand, a record low. The State Department, the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Vice-President, and the Office of Management and Budget had wanted the number to be higher.
But they had all been forced to compete with one influential White House official: Stephen Miller, the thirty-two-year-old former aide to Jeff Sessions who has become Trump’s top immigration adviser.
I’m still laughing! They are all angry because Miller knows how the “sausage is made.”
I recently spoke to four Administration officials [come on chickens, who are you? put your names out there!—ed] involved in the refugee-cap process to try to understand how Miller was able to outmaneuver an array of powerful factions in the federal bureaucracy. Each official described Miller as a savvy operator who understands how to insert himself into the policy-creation process. They also described him as the beneficiary of a dysfunctional and understaffed Administration. Miller hadn’t completely gotten his way on the refugee cap, they told me; he wanted it to be lower. The forty-five-thousand figure—which past Administrations would have considered impractically low—amounted to a kind of compromise.
Miller, who has gone from the political fringe to the White House on the strength of his reputation as an anti-immigration ideas man, joined the Trump campaign early.
So the process begins in June. We will remember that for next year!
Blitzer continues…
The chain of events that led to the announcement of the new refugee cap began on June 5th, when Miller met with officials from the State Department, the National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security, and a policy group called the Homeland Security Council. Every summer, the State Department and the N.S.C. lead a series of discussions to decide the next year’s cap. Officials weigh dozens of different considerations, solicit input from the various stakeholder agencies, and ultimately bring a number to the President for his approval. [Could the stakeholder agencies be the federal contractors?—ed]
[….]
Miller introduced the officials to Gene Hamilton, another former aide to Sessions, whom the Administration had installed at D.H.S. This year, Miller and Hamilton explained, D.H.S.—not the State Department—would present the refugee-cap number to the President.Hamilton would be Miller’s key ally in the process. “They were in direct and constant contact,” the second White House official told me. “If there was ever a question you had for Hamilton, he’d say, ‘Hold on,’ and call Miller.” According to the first White House official, “It was clear that there was some precooked plan here.”
On this issue of asylum (in the next snip)…
….know that there are an estimated 270,000 asylum seekers presently in the country waiting for their day before a judge to make a pitch for asylum. Under the Refugee Act of 1980, once granted asylum, they are REFUGEES in every sense of the word and are on track to citizenship. The only difference is that they were not screened abroad at all and did not have their airfare to the US paidby the US taxpayer. So, Miller is making a very important point on numbers.
Blitzer continues:
When officials pushed back against these kinds of changes, Miller would point to the backlog of asylum cases at D.H.S. and argue that the refugee program was unsustainable. All four officials believed this argument was disingenuous. “This was a manipulation to get the result he wanted,” one White House official told me. “He basically just had a political agenda: to limit the number of foreign nationals who come into our country.”
This next bit made me laugh!The bureaucrats who basically run the State Department were angry that Miller knows how the “sausage” is made in Washington!
Simon Henshaw is a career bureaucrat running the Refugee Program under Tillerson. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/bureau/213334.htm
You can bet the biggest blabbermouths Blitzer talked to came from the branch of the State Department called ‘Population, Refugees and Migration.’
I asked the officials how Miller, with his limited experience in the executive branch, had become such a formidable bureaucrat so quickly. “Look at who the senior advisers to the President were and are—Bannon, Kushner—Miller’s the only one with prior government experience,”the State Department official told me. “He knows something about government, and it turns out to be useful. He saw how the sausage was made. And he’s smart enough to make his own sausage.”The chaos of the Trump Administration helped. “The White House remains in utter disarray,” the official said. “If you don’t have an established set of procedures in place, it’s very easy to create your own process.”
[….]
In early September, officials at the State Department and N.S.C. were told that the Department of Homeland Security was ready to propose to the President that next year’s refugee cap be between fifteen thousand and twenty-six thousand people.
OPTICS! OPTICS! WHAT THE HELL! TO SATISFY SOME FOREIGN POLICY OPTICS! WHAT ABOUT AMERICAN COMMUNITIES SADDLED WITH THE COSTS AND THE CULTURAL UPHEAVAL?
Duke: No number below 40,000 was permissible.
Officials at the other government agencies involved in the process balked. “If we go below fifty thousand, we won’t satisfy the optics that the program was designed to generate, and that functionally hurts national security,” one White House official told me. “We look scared.” Miller and Hamilton weren’t swayed by the arguments, but when Elaine Duke, the interim Secretary of Homeland Security and Hamilton’s boss, insisted that the number couldn’t be lower than forty thousand, they were forced to retreat. (The White House disputed this account.)
Putting up a modest resistance, the State Department proposed a cap of fifty thousand. “People felt beleaguered and betrayed,” the official there told me.
[….]
“By the time we talked about splitting the difference, we were already two-thirds lower than where we were previously,” the State Department official told me. “We’d gone from a hundred and ten thousand”—which President Obama had set for the current year—“to around forty thousand, with no evidence to support the decision. It was purely political. The process has never been this corrupt.”
In mid-September, Tillerson lowered the State Department’s desired number from fifty thousand to forty-five thousand. The State Department official said the Secretary’s staff was surprised. “He undercut his deputy,” the official said. “He undercut the recommendation of the staff. He broke with every other federal agency except D.H.S.” The other agencies had all previously said they would back the State Department, so forty-five thousand was the only number that went to the President.
“The President would never know that almost all of his Cabinet wanted a higher number,” one of the White House officials told me.
If you are looking for something to do, contact the White House and tell the President to put his LOYAL supporters in key positions in order to begin reining-in the blabbermouths!
I confess I didn’t read the whole opinion piece in the New York Times as carefully as I should have (I have so little patience for this sort of excruciating hand wringing analysis).
But, I read far enough to know that the gist of the schism, between our two major political parties, has to do with the rapid racial and ethnic diversification of America with the Dems on the side of the ‘new Americans’ and showing little interest in helping white working class American citizens.
Much of the current polarization is driven by difference of opinion on issues of race and immigration.
In fact one of those pontificating about how the Dems should proceed suggests that the Dems don’t hesitate to move in the direction of more catering to their immigrant base and forget the white working class altogether.
Begala is in favor of trying to get the white working class back in the fold
And then author, Thomas Edsall, mentions Paul Begala (remember him from the Clinton inner circle, Rush calls him the “forehead”) who is on the side of trying harder to reach the white working class.
Begala says something that I know many readers here will relate to (after you get past his painting of some whites as drunks and drug-addled).
Edsall at the NYT:
Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant and adviser to Bill Clinton, also comes back to the cultural breach between upscale Democrats and the white working class and poses this basic question:
If you look at the Democratic platform, or Hillary’s speeches on the economy, Democrats have a raft of good ideas, loads of sound policies that would make life better for the white working class. So why have they rejected us?
White working-class Americans are “dying before their time,” Begala wrote in an email, specifically citing the rise in alcoholism, cirrhosis, drug addiction, overdoses, suicide and poisoning:
If the life expectancy of, say, Somali immigrants in Minnesota suddenly took a dive, Democrats would be falling all over each other trying to ascertain the causes and advocate the cures. We owe white working-class Americans no less.
Ain’t it the truth!
This post is filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category, here.
I wish I could explain to you what all of this means for the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program which we reported got off to a flying start for FY18 with 98 arrivals since October 1, but I can’t. I’m not a lawyer and the whole thing just seems like a huge mess that should not distract you from doing what you must do locally and on the state level (see here).
The Supremes should never have wandered in to refugee law in the first place by literally writing, although temporarily, new law.
However, until I read this story at The Hill about the ban, I had forgotten that the 120-day refugee moratorium was still in place until October 24th!
You can thus see how meaningless that moratorium was since 98 arrived in ten days from October 1 and October 10 with the third largest number being the supposedly banned Somalis.
(In fact thousands of refugees were admitted during the ‘moratorium’ at the end of FY17 because of the Supreme Court mucking around in refugee law.)
The court has not yet ruled on whether to ultimately hear the other challenge to the ban, which was brought by the state of Hawaii. That case also challenges the part of Trump’s ban halting the U.S. refugee resettlement program for 120 days. That provision does not expire until Oct. 24.
Moral of the story: You are going to have to continue local and state political organizing and not rely on the courts, or the President, or the Washington swamp to bring a resolution to the issue.
See my whole category entitled‘Supreme Court’ if you want to learn more about what they did regarding refugees.
The new fiscal year (2018) is now ten days old and we see that the first of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s andPresident Trump’s proposed 45,000 refugees have arrived!
Top ethnic groups arriving in the group of 98 are from the DR Congo (25), Bhutan (21) and Somalia (16). For our friends in Minnesota know this: the Somalis were distributed to Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington and Wisconsin, but, as you know, they can and often do move within months to be with larger groups of Somalis in Minnesota, Ohio and in San Diego.
26 of the 98 are Muslims if you count the 4 Ahmadiyya from Pakistan who went to Maryland.
Here is where the first 98 were placed:
Top five states are Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire. Alaska and Hawaii got zip.