Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess where at the General Forum; Australia - These peeps are too dangerous. We don't want 'em. Obama - We'll take 'em! 45 days until this ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 04:44 PM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,554
Thanks: 1,966
Thanked 13,208 Times in 8,270 Posts
Default After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess where

Australia - These peeps are too dangerous. We don't want 'em.

Obama - We'll take 'em!

45 days until this abortion of a presidency is over.

After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess where they’re going – TheBlaze

Lawmakers are demanding answers from the White House after President Barack Obama reportedly accepted up to 2,500 refugees from countries with strong terrorism ties in a concealed backroom deal after Australia allegedly refused to relocate the refugees in their country.

The agreement, which was inked in November, was described by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as a “one-off” deal. However, the State Department, for unknown reasons, has reportedly classified the details of the exchange.

What we do know, however, is that the U.S. will be accepting an unknown number of thousands of refugees currently held in offshore detention centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. They’re being held there after Australia “rejected” them.

According to a recent report from Fox Business, the lack of details about the deal have many lawmakers demanding answers from the Obama administration.

In a recent letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) condemned the “concerning situation” for its lack of transparency. They wrote:

First, your departments negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress.

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 of this agreement.

Third, the individuals being 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.

Indeed, the countries of origins of the refugees are national security concerns. They include: Iran, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Sudan — all of which have extremely close ties to terrorism and Islamic extremism. There are refugees who are also considered “stateless,” which again poses a security threat as the vetting process becomes much more difficult for people who lack proper records.

Finally, the congressmen demanded to know why Australia and other countries refused the refugees, what other countries are doing to help, what kind of precedent this sets for future U.S. policy and how the government can avoid this in the future.

According to the letter, the departments offered to brief the congressmen on the deal and why it’s being considered classified by the government. But for Grassley and Goodlatte, that wouldn’t solve the lack-of-transparency issue: “[W]e also firmly believe that the American people should be fully aware of the specific details of this agreement and why it was done in secret,” they wrote.

The concern comes amid the latest lone-wolf terror attack, which took place last Monday at the Ohio State University and was perpetrated by an 18-year-old Somalian refugee student.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 05:01 PM
CindyB's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,623
Thanks: 10,167
Thanked 5,869 Times in 3,620 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Obama really does hate this country doesn't he?

Obama better make sure they get here before 1-20-17 or they ain't coming.
Make sure they get re-settled on Chicago's South Side, maybe they can clean it up there, Rahm sure can't.
__________________
The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-05-2016, 05:03 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,082
Thanks: 7,809
Thanked 7,352 Times in 4,956 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Quote:
Originally Posted by CindyB View Post
Obama really does hate this country doesn't he?

Obama better make sure they get here before 1-20-17 or they ain't coming.
Make sure they get re-settled on Chicago's South Side, maybe they can clean it up there, Rahm sure can't.
That's a great Idea. Or San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 12:57 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,329
Thanks: 725
Thanked 7,097 Times in 5,075 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

I'll bet a million to one all the sanctuary cities are scrambling to accept every single one of those poor, downtrodden, picked on people.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:47 PM
CindyB's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,623
Thanks: 10,167
Thanked 5,869 Times in 3,620 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Isn't California in the process of becoming a "Sanctuary State"?

No more Federal $$$ for California.

Word to the wise, don't sell ANYTHING to the State of CA, you won't get paid.
__________________
The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 11:59 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,118
Thanks: 10,490
Thanked 14,202 Times in 7,719 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Related to the OP, I found this Archived Essay to be interesting

THE ELECTION IS OVER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBAMA ANARCHY IS LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AWAY, SO IT’S TIME TO PASS AROUND THE ESSAY BELOW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW TO VETTE AND DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. TRUMP AND THE NEW CONGRESS SIMPLY NEED TO ENFORCE A LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS!! READ AND PASS ON IF YOU AGREE. AT THE LEAST YOU WILL BE EDUCATED.


Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during the Presidential campaign, one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?



I did not know of this Act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.



Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.



After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims).



The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.



Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.



As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.



Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.



The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."



Who do you suppose last used this process?



Why it was president Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.



But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.



Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.



So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?



Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."



Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be refused immigration to OUR country.


Authenticated at:

Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952

library.uwb.edu

US immigration legislation online : 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration ...
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 12:11 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,082
Thanks: 7,809
Thanked 7,352 Times in 4,956 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Related to the OP, I found this Archived Essay to be interesting

THE ELECTION IS OVER AND THE BEGINNING OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBAMA ANARCHY IS LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AWAY, SO IT’S TIME TO PASS AROUND THE ESSAY BELOW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A LAW TO VETTE AND DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. TRUMP AND THE NEW CONGRESS SIMPLY NEED TO ENFORCE A LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS!! READ AND PASS ON IF YOU AGREE. AT THE LEAST YOU WILL BE EDUCATED.


Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during the Presidential campaign, one of the candidates asked, "Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952?



I did not know of this Act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.



Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.



After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims).



The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.



Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.



As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.



Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.



The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."



Who do you suppose last used this process?



Why it was president Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.



But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.



Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.



So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?



Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."



Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslims should be refused immigration to OUR country.


Authenticated at:

Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1952

library.uwb.edu

US immigration legislation online : 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,

a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration ...
But Franc, it was different with Jimmy, cause he was a beloved Democrat. The lefties never see a 2-way street. They only see the left lane.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 12:29 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,921 Times in 13,936 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Another half baked story. From the blaze. They write a headline, give you limited info and scare the right to death. Turns out they are all between 8 and 12 years old.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 12:47 PM
RedState's Avatar
Somewhat Stable Genius
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 1,267
Thanked 1,750 Times in 1,329 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
Another half baked story. From the blaze. They write a headline, give you limited info and scare the right to death. Turns out they are all between 8 and 12 years old.
Yeap. For the record, the Center for Immigration Studies which is the source of this story is a anti-immigration think tank.

In reality it sounds like this deal is still being negotiated and there's been zero indication from any source that I can find that the refugees wouldn't go through the typical screening process or that this will increase the target number of refugees that the administration has said they would be taking in this year. Also Congress is scheduled to be briefed in a few days.

It also sounds like we'll be sending refugees to Australia in return.
__________________
People have said not to just dismiss the right as stupid, as it's polarizing and you won't get through to them that way, etc. But it's hard to imagine that someone with even average intelligence could be so lacking in self-awareness as they are.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-07-2016, 01:18 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,724
Thanks: 10,549
Thanked 8,580 Times in 5,089 Posts
Default Re: After Australia rejected nearly 2,500 refugees from ‘terrorism hotspots,’ guess w

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedState View Post
Yeap. For the record, the Center for Immigration Studies which is the source of this story is a anti-immigration think tank.

In reality it sounds like this deal is still being negotiated and there's been zero indication from any source that I can find that the refugees wouldn't go through the typical screening process or that this will increase the target number of refugees that the administration has said they would be taking in this year. Also Congress is scheduled to be briefed in a few days.

It also sounds like we'll be sending refugees to Australia in return.
The story is also covered by the AP. Try "Australia refugees coming to US" on Google. Several articles there.

An excerpt:

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The United States has agreed to resettle an unspecified number of refugees languishing in Pacific island camps in a deal that is expected to inspire more asylum seekers to attempt to reach Australia by boat, officials said on Sunday.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would not say whether he had discussed the deal with President-elect Donald Trump during their telephone conversation on Thursday. The Obama administration had agreed to resettle refugees among almost 1,300 asylum seekers held at Australia's expense on the island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. Another 370 who came to Australia for medical treatment then refused to return to the islands would also be eligible.

Article further says Australia is refusing to resettle boat people.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
500, after, australia, from, guess, hotspots, nearly, refugees, rejected, where, ‘terrorism

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0