Australia Has Refused Entry to 1600-2500 Migrants, Many from Terrorism-Prone Countries, Denying Them Refugee Status;
So Obama, Naturally, Is Going to Take a "Classified" Number of Them Into the US

Um, why?

And what power does he have to do this?

These are people Australia has decided do not warrant refugee status (or what our law would consider asylum). Therefore they have no right to move to Australia. But for a variety of reasons, Australia cannot, or does not want to, send them back, and the "refugees" won't accept offers of resettlement in New Guinea or Cambodia because they’re holding out for a First World country...

Most are from Iran, with smaller numbers from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and elsewhere. I can see why Australia would want this deal; it costs Oz taxpayers $2 billion to run the two island detention facilities and closing them down would rid the government of the headache. But if Australia doesn’t consider them refugees, why should we take them?

... The chairman of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Bob Goodlatte and Chuck Grassley, also want to know why we're doing this, and they wrote to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security asking for details on the secret agreement to bring the illegal aliens here. When Capitol Hill staffers asked the State Department how many such "refugees" would be resettled here under the secret deal, they were told the number was "classified."

Some have noted that when a corporation hands out a big check to a charity, it's the shareholders who actually foot the bill, but it's the CEO who attends the Awards Ceremony and gets toasted by the swells for his generosity.

Liberalism seems to be pretty much built on that type of stolen valor: Obama gets feted for his progressive tears, but it's ordinary Americans who will wind up footing the bill for this.

Mark Krikorian reminds us that the OSU jihadist was a Somali previously settled in Pakistan before being granted refugee status in America.

posted by Ace at 01:46 PM

| Access Comments