Cut the crap! Australia 'refugee' deal is about the Australian public not wanting any more Muslim migrants

….while Obama is willing to take all he can get!
Look at this New York Times story on the supposed deal the Obama Administration has made with Australia to take its rejected asylum seekers off their hands! And, look at the UN twisting like a pretzel as it tries to explain why this insane deal is even being considered.
What it all boils down to is this: the Australian public (the voters) are sick and tired of all the Muslim boat people trying to break into Australia (so they have been parked offshore), but Australian political leaders, by agreeing to take Central American (phony refugees) in Costa Rica, are banking on being able to sell the public on most likely Catholics (or Christians of some sort) rather than the Muslims whose asylum cases were rejected!
This is basically a swap of illegal aliens! Don’t believe the UN that this is a “one-off!”  Check out Malta, the European island nation that sends the US its overflow African illegal alien boat people, a travesty we have been writing about for years.

The Muslim boat people held in detention in Australian offshore facilities have had their asylum claims rejected.  So neither those on Nauru or those in Costa Rica are legitimate (by definition) refugees! 

For background, before you read on, see Grassley and Goodlatte blast Obama, hereThere is a list of the nationalities of the failed asylum seekers, most come from Muslim countries.

New York Times (hat tip: heymister24):

SYDNEY, Australia — For years, the United Nations’ refugee agency told Australia that its policy of banishing asylum seekers to remote Pacific island detention centers was illegal.

samantha-power
This is Obama’s Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power. This “deal” sounds like something she wholeheartedly approved. What will Nikki Haley do about it (or other similar deals, this is not a one-off) when she gets to the UN? Will she say No! We don’t know, but one thing we can be sure of, Haley will likely dress more professionally than Power!

Now, the agency is working with Australia in what both sides call an unusual, not-to-be-replicated agreement to send some of those refugees across the world, to be resettled in the United States.

The deal, announced by Australia last week, is aimed at shutting down two offshore detention facilities — one on the island nation of Nauru and the other on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea — where hundreds of people are housed in what rights groups describe as deplorable conditions. The United States has agreed to take some of them; how many, and how quickly, remains unclear.

[….]

In an interview this week, Volker Turk, an assistant high commissioner with the United Nations’ refugee agency, said his staff would help with the screening and resettlement of refugees but only as a “one-off” to allay their suffering. “We think there is an urgent imperative to find a humanitarian way out of this otherwise very, very, complex conundrum,” he said by telephone from Canberra, the Australian capital.

What the heck is the “complex conundrum?” 

Either they are legitimate refugees that Australia should admit to the mainland or they are illegal aliens who should be returned to where they came from.
THEY ARE NOT AMERICA’S PROBLEM EITHER WAY!
NYT continues:

“We do not in any way want to give the impression that we would continue supporting such types of mechanisms,” Mr. Turk said, referring to Australia’s offshore detention policy. “We, all of us, are very clear that this is a one-off, good offices, exceptional humanitarian type of involvement because we do not believe that the future of handling this lies in sending people to Manus Island and Nauru.”

[….]

Making the deal even more unusual, Australia has agreed to take in an unspecified number of Central American refugees who fled gang violence in their homelands.  [Fleeing gang violence is not a criteria for being designated a refugee!—ed]  The United Nations says there are an estimated 2,400 such people from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras who have been screened and recognized as refugees [Who “recognized” them?—ed]. The United States has long been reluctant to let them apply for asylum on its territory and only recently agreed to let the United Nations vet them at a processing center in Costa Rica.

I REPEAT, WHY ARE THE CENTRAL AMERICANS WHO FLED TO COSTA RICA OUR PROBLEM?
Legitimate asylum seekers are supposed to ask for asylum in the first safe country they get to, they are not supposed to be ‘asylum shopping’ for better deals! By doing this ‘one-time’ (ha! ha!) deal we set the precedent for many more to come!

Continue reading here.
If you want to learn more about Samantha Power, we have a lot, click here.

Trump has power to stop refugee flow, will he also slow flow of our $$$ to UN?

All over the country, as we have been reporting, refugee advocates are having pow-wows and crying sessions about what Donald Trump might do about refugees on January 21st.
Many of those advocates have gotten comfortable, and felt safe in their jobs, through several Presidents including Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, but all that is expected to change.
This is a story from New Hampshire Public Radio (Clinton country) where experts try to predict what is coming.
The first quotes are from Chris George from the New Haven, CT resettlement agency. We told you about him here last week.  He is hoping we still take in Obama’s last wish—110,000 this fiscal year.

ruxandra-paul
Asst. Professor Ruxandra Paul (Amherst): Trump on solid ground to cut flow of refugees, but she worries that other countries will follow suit. However, one thing never mentioned is that we are far and away the world leader in PERMANENTLY resettling refugees, most countries, including most European countries, do not admit permanent refugees.

Then we hear from a law professor who argues that we have given Presidents too much power.  As far as the Refugee Act of 1980 goes, the crafters of the law (all Dems) gave the President power. Congress was expected to “consult” and weigh in, but that body has until very recently ignored its role.
(Only Senator Sessions held a required hearing on Obama’s plan, the House has been silent under Rep. Trey Gowdy’s chairmanship of the immigration subcommittee.)
New Hampshire Public Radio:

“A president can exercise the highest level of authority, when it comes to border control or foreign policy,” says Sudha Setty from Western New England University Law. “So in terms of setting that refugee ceiling for future fiscal years, future President Trump does have the authority to set that ceiling very low.

Setty said Trump’s freedom to exercise sweeping decisions, like banning Muslims from entering the U.S. continues a disturbing trend of the last two administrations.

“The lesson of the last 15 years has been that we have given the president a tremendous amount of power. And we have not put into place a lot of accountability measures when it comes to anything that is deemed to be national security or terrorism or national security related, and that’s not changing any time soon.”

Next up is another assistant professor with a little nugget that is useful.  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees gets $1.5 BILLION a year from us (and not mentioned here is the fact that the UN is choosing most of our refugees).

Amherst College Political Scientist Ruxandra Paul is watching both sides of the Atlantic right now. She says if U.S. leadership changes direction on its decades long commitment to refugee resettlement, more global uncertainty is sure to come.

“Donald Trump has been suggesting that the US has contributed too much and that allies from western Europe are not covering their share of the burden.”

Last year the U.S. gave the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) more than $1.5 billion. The European Union next in line, followed by several European countries, gave in the hundreds of millions. [We gave a half a billion here just in July—ed]

From a legal perspective President Donald Trump will be on solid ground if he chooses to lower the refugee ceiling. If he does, Paul says, it’s possible other countries will do likewise.

Nikki Haley?

In light of that bit of information, that the UNHCR gets $1.5 billion a year from us, is Nikki Haley going to be tough enough and would she be able to deal with the refugee issue which The News & Observer, a North Carolina paper, says is one of four major UN issues she will have to confront?

haley-graham1
Will Senator Lindsey (Open Borders!) Graham be coaching from behind the curtain?

Ambassador to the UN is not a little out-of-the-way job and will depend greatly on who Trump picks for the Secretary of State which she will be reporting to! Placing Haley there is not putting her in a place to simply keep enemies close. A deputy assistant job in the Labor Department would have been a better fit.
If Trump does go hardline on refugees and wants the UN funding cut would Haley resign and cause him a PR embarrassment down the road?  I think she would (and the likes of Senator Lindsey Graham will be cheering her on from the sidelines as they prepare for 2020)!

Here The News & Observer ponders the question about refugees:

Trump wants to end Muslim migration to the U.S. until terrorist threats are addressed, banning refugees fleeing violence in countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. This policy directly violates international law, which stipulates that other countries have an obligation to take in people seeking refuge from persecution in their home country and cannot bar refugees based on origin. [Trump (we hope) will follow US law which gives him the power to limit refugee flow, not international law!—ed]

Although Haley opposes Trump’s outright Muslim ban, she was among 30 governors who demanded Syrian refugees not be resettled in their states, citing security concerns. A spokeswoman for the governor said last year that until refugees can be properly vetted “it’s not appropriate for them to be sent to South Carolina or any other state.” [Just words and they all knew it!—ed]

guterres-un-symbol
New UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, is, from our point of view, the worst possible UN leader they could have chosen.

Refugees are not allowed into the country until they pass a series of background and health checks, a process that can take up to two years. Governors can’t legally stop refugees from being resettled in their states. [For the umpteenth time, the Syrian screening has been reduced to 3 months and we do admit refugees with TB and other diseases.—ed]

Incoming U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres is likely to resist any American efforts to dismantle refugee programs. He formerly served as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and is a strong advocate for wealthy countries doing their fair share to help the most vulnerable. He will take office Jan. 1.

This last makes me wonder (again) whether the Trump transition team has any idea of what they are up against at the UN and how those of us who voted for Trump feel about the ‘world body.’
Endnote:  If you were digesting your Thanksgiving meal and didn’t read my post last night, here it is. Islamists say their long game is to take America down through immigration and out-breeding us!

Not good: Nikki Haley to be Trump Ambassador to United Nations

But I guess we should be glad that she isn’t going to be Secretary of State.  It would have been much better all around if she had been tapped as Ambassador to India (as several of our readers suggested!) See breaking news at The Hill.

haley-romney
Disastrous duo! These two will not rein-in UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program!

At the UN, Haley will replace the truly awful Samantha Power (our lengthy Power archive is here), but will she have the gumption to stare down the new UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, an avowed Socialist, who, as UN High Commissioner for Refugees, presided over (and encouraged!) the refugee invasion of Europe and has been pushing the US and other western countries to permanently resettle hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants for the last decade.
For more on Guterres our archive is here.
Indeed the UN is picking the refugees the US has been taking and that is the reason almost all Syrians entering the US are Muslim and not persecuted Christians.
In recent months we have seen the Mormon Church (Mitt Romney is a Mormon) get behind the resettlement of refugees, including Syrians and Somalis, in a big way, see here. For eight of the nine years I’ve written about the program, Mormons stayed out of the issue. Also, remember that faced with the hard left calling him a racist, Romney squished-out on immigration in 2012 (one reason that cost him the election in my opinion).
A combo of Haley (who did nothing to stand in the way of the refugee resettlement program as it arrived full force in SC two years ago) at the UN and Romney in the State Department will (I predict) not bode well for reining-in the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.  (What is Trump thinking?)
If Romney is selected as Secretary of State, he will show his true colors by who he picks (or encourages Trump to pick) to replace Anne Richard as Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration.
However, keep fingers crossed that Trump picks a hard liner on Muslim migration for State who can also keep Haley under control at the UN.
We will be watching……
Guess I won’t be retiring anytime soon!
P.S. Here is what Grover Norquist (who has been pushing for more Muslim migration to America ever since I began writing RRW in 2007) said on twitter this morning on hearing the news:

Grover Norquist Retweeted POLITICO

Great choice. Nikki Haley is the future of the GOP. Trump is playing the long game.