While Western countries worldwide are struggling with mass immigration from third world countries, Australia has taken a much harder line than most. The island nation refuses to allow the migrant boats to reach their shores, intercepting them at sea and turning them away.
Most of them are taken to nearby Papua New Guinea, or to the tiny Micronesian islands of Manus and Nauru, where they are held in refugee centers to await processing.
The message sent by Australian authorities is clear: illegal immigrants are not welcome.
This stance has been applauded by most Aussies, while being reflexively opposed by the nation’s social justice warriors.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is leader of the Liberal Party, and is continuing policies set by his predecessor Tony Abbot. Both men are left-wing progressives, but even so they have stood firm against the invasion of Australia by Muslims fleeing their home countries.
The United Nations has stepped into the fray, calling the conditions that refugees are held under “unacceptable”. This is presumably because they are not given apartments, furniture, cell phones, fashionable clothing, and massive food allowances like they are in most of Europe.
In an effort to appease the meddlesome and paternalistic U.N. commission, Turnbull has been looking for a way to unload the migrants on another country. It appears he may have found the perfect dupe in Secretary of State John Kerry.
In early November a secretive deal was exposed where President Obama has agreed to take 1800 of these refugees off Australia’s hands. It is referred to as a “deal”, but it’s not clear what, if anything, American citizens are getting out of it.
Though the so-called migrants were deemed too dangerous to be allowed admittance to Australia, due to their connections with state sponsors of terrorism, Obama and Kerry have quietly agreed to grant them permanent residency, and distribute them throughout American cities and towns, without consulting local governments.
They had hoped to pull this scheme off without any public scrutiny, until congress found out about the arrangement through media reports in early November.
As soon as the reports emerged, two Republican congressmen sprang into action.
Senator Charles Grassley, from Iowa, is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Bob Goodlatte from Virginia chairs the House Judiciary Committee. The two joined together to send a letter to Secretary John Kerry and Department of Homeland Security head Jeh Johnson, demanding answers.
Dear Secretaries Johnson and Kerry:
On November 11, a press report surfaced disclosing that the United States Government was finalizing a deal with Australia in which the United States would take refugees located on certain Pacific island nations that Australia has refused to admit. Congress learned, through the media, that the 1,800 migrants interdicted before reaching Australia’s shores, could be transferred from detention facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru to U.S. soil.
The letter stated that the two lawmakers had received confirmation that most of the migrants had come from Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran and Sudan. All of these countries have been known to harbor terrorists and finance their activities.
The congressmen were obviously not happy with being cut out of the loop in such an important matter that affects national security. The letter continued with stronger language:
“This situation is concerning for many reasons. First, your departments negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress. Such information was not disclosed to Congress during the annual refugee consultation that occurred on September 13, 2016, even though your staff confirmed that the agreement had, at the time, been negotiated ‘for months.’ Second, the agreement and the number of refugees to be resettled has been deemed by your departments as classified, thus the American people are left in the dark as to the rationale for this agreement. Third, the individuals who will be resettled are coming from countries of national security concern. In fact, two of the countries are officially designated by the State Department to be State Sponsors of Terrorism. Finally, it begs the question why Australia and other countries refuse to admit these individuals, what other countries are doing to help alleviate the situation, what kind of precedent this sets for future refugees interdicted at sea by Australian forces and prevented from entering Australia, and how a similar situation will be prevented in the future.”