I guess I haveBernie Sanders on my mind today (see my previous post)!
Presidential candidate Sanders says if he gives Trump the boot from the White House he will ‘welcome’ 50,000 so-called ‘climate refugees’ to America each year in addition to likely a hundred thousand regular refugees.
When I say “regular refugees” I mean those people who say they would be persecuted for one of several reasons (politically, racially, etc) if returned to their home countries.
However, Open Borders Inc. has a whole new group that they call climate refugees who are moving from one place to another due to changes in the weather and they now want to expand the refugee definition to move those migrating third worlders to the west.
Somehow America is responsible for them too!
Here Bill Frelick atHuman Rights Watchpenned an opinion piece that I see was only picked up by Aljazeera in which he argues it is time to come up with a new definition of the word refugee. What he means is expand the historic definition in order to guilt-trip the west into taking in even more of the world’s impoverished and low skilled people to facilitate the Cloward-Piven strategy.
I’ve been writing about ‘climate refugees’ for years, but only yesterday someone told me that he had never heard of such a thing! See my ‘Climate refugee’category.
Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and as such, should be included in legislation on asylum seeking.
Actually mass migration is an existential threat to America if you ask me!
When Trump was elected Frelick confirmed that the President has no legal requirement to admit a single refugee under the Refugee Act of 1980.
Despite recent and increasing efforts by the United States and other governments to narrow their interpretations of the refugee definition and to shirk their protection responsibilities, the need to expand the grounds for asylum is becoming increasingly urgent as the consequences of climate change become more pronounced.
A desperate appeal for asylum by a family from a Pacific island may have far-reaching implications for protecting people forcibly displaced by the effects of climate change. It could cause countries around the world to reconsider their laws and policies concerning refugees.
Go to the piece and read all about the recent UN case, then this…
But Pacific islands are not alone in facing such threats. In landlocked countries like Chad, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe, where populations are heavily reliant on agriculture and livestock, rising temperatures have contributed to flooding, drought, famine and disease that erode not only arable land but also the resilience of populations that have suffered armed conflict and human rights violations.
Whether environmental disasters are the direct cause of displacement or an aggravating factor in combination with violence, inequality, and poor governance, millions of people on the African continent have already been displaced internally or forced to seek refuge in neighboring countries because they consider staying at their homes a threat to their lives.
[….]
While there still may be room to argue whether life-threatening threats are imminent in particular cases, the [UN] Human Rights Committee has recognized that fundamental refugee-protection principles need to be broadened now.
This means not only that our common understanding of what it means to be a refugee needs to change, but also that the 173 countries that are party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should ensure their asylum standards and procedures are adapted to protect all who face existential threats if returned to home countries that have become unlivable. [The US is a party to that treaty.—ed]
Open Borders, Inc. is priming the pump for the post-Trump era of their dreams because no matter how many we admit, it will never be enough as far as the Socialist Dems are concerned as they scheme to redistribute your wealth.
As the White House wrestles with the US State Department over the refugee ceiling for the coming fiscal year (which btw begins in 21 short days!), I’m reminded of what Bill Frelick, Director of the Refugee Rights Program at Human Rights Watch told Newsweekin November of 2016.
In a story titled, ‘TRUMP ELECTION LEAVES REFUGEE ADVOCATES FEARFUL AND UNCERTAIN’about how the Open Borders activists were feeling in the wake of Trump’s win, Frelick said this:
During his presidential campaign, Trump said he planned to suspend the Syrian refugee program, which is “fairly easy for him to do because this is discretionary,” says Bill Frelick, director of Human Rights Watch’s refugee program, who described himself as “shell-shocked” when he spoke with Newsweek on Wednesday. “In the U.S., there’s not a quota that has to be filled. The U.S. has a budgeted amount of money to do refugee resettlement, but there’s no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee, and there’s no legal obligation to do it.”
I’m not going to spend the time this morning going tit-for-tat with refugee advocates whose only line of argument, about changes being made in the US Refugee Admissions Program, is to attack the President as a hateful, bigoted, racist boob. Frelick: The Trump administration has slowed down refugee admissions by throwing sand into the gears of resettlement processing.
I guess people, like Bill Frelick at Human Rights Watch, assumed the program was running like a well-oiled machine as refugees by the hundreds of thousands (some not even real refugees) were being secretly placed in US communities while the federal resettlement contractors sucked down billions of dollars (including fat CEO salaries) from unwilling taxpayers who they then labeled as, what else, racist Islamophobic boobs, if they dared to question the process.
Is Bill Frelick, in his screed at theLos Angeles Times, saying the program had no flaws and critics like me over the years have been complaining about nothing?
I guess so when he quotes Barbara Strack (retired USCIS refugee bureaucrat) referring to the “assembly line” in a piece entitled:
Trump’s brutal refugee program reflects prejudice instead of compassion
“The process works like the assembly line in a factory,” Barbara Strack, who retired in January as chief of the Refugee Affairs Division at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told the New York Times. “This fiscal year, the administration essentially ‘broke’ the assembly line in multiple places at the same time.”
An assembly line shoved down citizens’ throats for nearly four decades!
Yes, they have had an assembly line since shortly after 1980 and that is why the program has created anger and controversy as American citizens, who pay the bills and have to live with the destabilizing results in community after community across America, feel left out and are now asking questions and demanding change.
Elections have consequences.
Frelick and his morally superior pals in the industry should admit there are problems and work to reform the program rather than take cheap shots at the President and his nominee to head the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration.
They won’t though, even if they know deep down that there are problems, because they are one-trick ponies and apparently none are brave enough to break from the Leftist herd mentality.
The Open Borders Left is working overtime this week to make sure the public knows that America is mean and being led by the meanest president in history.
Here is Human Rights Watch spewing forth on something you need to counter every time you hear it.
But, before I get to that: In the first part of this excerpt (below), I learned something that makes sense. Apparently the administration is arguing that we need to clean out the asylum backlog before bringing in more permanent refugees.
It is the second half of the long paragraph that includes a major talking point of the leftwing open borders advocates and refugee contractor groups.
They say that Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are ‘welcoming’ more refugees than we do.
But, you need to know this:
We give permanent residence and ultimately citizenship (VOTING rights) to those admitted to the US as refugees (or approved asylum seekers), while….
Those migrants housed (“hosted”!) in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan have no legal citizenship rights; many can’t even work. They only live there temporarily.
So the next time someone throws out this half truth, please correct him or her (LOL! It could be your US Senator or Congressman trying to spin you!).
The administration has sought to justify the decrease in refugee resettlement by arguing that the United States has a backlog of asylum cases. While Human Rights First has documented the negative impact the backlog has on asylum seekers, the organization notes that even if one combined the number of asylum seekers held up in the backlog and the number of refugees proposed today by the administration, the United States’ overall refugee acceptance per capita would pale in comparison to the numbers of those being hosted in front line states. Turkey hosts 35 refugees per 1,000 individuals, Jordan hosts 89 refugees per 1,000, and Lebanon hosts 173 per 1,000. If the United States were to admit only 50,000 refugees, the rate in the United States would only be less than 1 per 1,000, even when including the asylum office backlog, a dismally small number given the worldwide need.
Here is the truth:
The United States takes more permanent refugees/future citizens than any country in the world!
(2015 numbers because this particular news, where America is shown in a favorable light, is hard to find)
See my post on World Refugee Day for links to this data: https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2017/06/20/today-is-the-un-designated-world-refugee-day/
Trump is bad for Muslims….
Nothing new! The US has had a religious test for refugees—Jews and some other groups— since 1990, and Frelick knows it!
Also, Human Rights Watch is reporting this week, that the Trump Administration is bad for Muslim refugee admissions.
They are particularly angry with Trump because they claim he is promoting the idea of a religious test (that might favor persecuted Christians!) for admission to the US (gasp!).
Yet they themselves were more than happy to do that very thing—have a religious test—when it came to admitting thousands of Russian Jews and Russian Muslims to the US for over 2 decades!
Here we have Bill Frelick trying to gloss over that fact by suggesting religion was not how they justified their persecution claim. Give me a break!
Here is Frelick:
Historically, the U.S. admissions program has responded to refugees persecuted because of their religious beliefs — recall Soviet Jews, Iranian Baha’is, and Christian “lost boys” of Sudan — but a refugee’s specific faith was less relevantto a person’s rescue than the seriousness of the threat they were under. [What a crock!—ed]
He can’t intellectually (or legally) justify his criticism of a religious test when he and others have been supporting the Lautenberg Amendment since 1990.
….and join the union of nations experiencing Islamic terror attacks!
Well, they didn’t exactly say that, but that would be the ultimate result if Japan opened its borders to migrants from Africa and the Middle East. Saving Japan for the Japanese!
Japan, along with a tiny handful of countries has made the decision to fight to maintain its unique JAPANESE culture (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are most visibly fighting for the same thing!) against enormous pressure to invite in the third world .
Every few years (see my Japan archive), pressure builds for the country to take in more than its present handful of refugees. So here we go again!
FromHuman Rights Watch:
When looking for solutions to the global refugee crisis, Japan is often identified as a country that could do more. It contributes generously to the United Nations refugee agency but does very little in terms of recognizing asylum seekers in Japan or in resettling refugees stranded, often in terrible conditions, in Thailand, Lebanon, Kenya, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Hugh Williamson of Human Rights Watch
On a recent visit to Tokyo I raised this issue in meetings with members of both houses of parliament from the ruling coalition. We discussed resettlement. In each meeting, the most awkward moment came when I presented the politician with a list of countries that have resettled refugees, and how many they have accepted. The politician scanned the list, saw that other advanced economies had resettled many thousands of refugees, and noted that Japan’s total was less than 20 per year.
[LOL! I bet they scanned the list and made a mental note that most of the countries on the list are having more crimes and are battling Islamic terrorism while they, in Japan, live in relative peace!—ed]
The current government, like its predecessors, repeats the stance that Japan is not an “immigration country.”
HRW to Japan: you can’t just bring in a handful of Burmese, how about some Muslim Somalis, Syrians and Iraqis to make life more exciting! They have screwed up their own countries and they want a chance to screw up yours!
Hang in there Japan we are cheering for you! You have a right to keep Japan for the Japanese!
