Why the hell has US agreed to take in migrants whom Australia is keeping at Nauru?

[Derec]

Including migrants from places where there is no war, like Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Bangladesh?

The deal relates to 1,250 refugees held in Australia’s offshore detention camps on Nauru and Manus Island, including many from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq. The refugees, some of whom are stateless, have spent years languishing in the offshore detention camps, which the United Nations has repeatedly criticised as cruel and illegal. The refugees are unable to go home, but cannot come to Australia – even when their right to protection as refugees is confirmed – because they travelled to Australia by boat. The vast majority of those in Australia’s offshore detention regime have been confirmed to have a valid claim to refugee status, meaning they are legally owed Australia’s protection. On Nauru, 983 of the 1,200 refugee status determinations were positive, while 217 were negative.

Determined by whom exactly? How does somebody from a non-war country like Iran or Sri Lanka get considered a "refugee"? And many of these countries have very radical Muslims.
I have posted this before, but it bears repeating over and over again.

82% of Bangladeshi Muslims support Shariah, and 84% of Pakistani Muslims do.
It is foolish to let these people immigrate, unless it is determined that they do not harbor fundamentalist Islamic views, which only a small minority don't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It is foolish to let these people immigrate, unless it is determined that they do not harbor fundamentalist Islamic views, which only a small minority don't.

and yet somehow you are not Islamophobic?

You do realize that there is a draft Executive Order giving fundamentalist Christians the right to refuse service and public benefits to specific groups of people, which BTW includes you, and you are worried about a small number of migrants.

 

[aeebee50]

That was just Obama and his raiders agreeing to let them in.

 

[Derec]

and yet somehow you are not Islamophobic?

Indeed. Being against immigration by fundamentalist Muslims is not Islamophobia. It's common sense. Especially when these migrants are not bona fide refugees.

Now, I am not advocating a blanket ban on Muslim immigration. But we need to realize that Muslims in certain parts of the world are mostly fundamentalist and thus a large majority of them should not be eligible to immigrate into the West, because they are incompatible with out values. Those who are not fundamentalist are welcome, but they are a small minority is these parts of the world.

You do realize that there is a draft Executive Order giving fundamentalist Christians the right to refuse service and public benefits to specific groups of people, which BTW includes you, and you are worried about a small number of migrants.

Why can't one be against both? Is there some rule that one can only be against one kind of fundamentalism? Do Democrats/the Left have some sort of fundamentalism envy that makes them embrace fundamentalist Islam because Republicans have the fundy Christians?

 

[KeepTalking]

How does somebody from a non-war country like Iran or Sri Lanka get considered a "refugee"? And many of these countries have very radical Muslims.

Perhaps they become refugees as a result of not being very radical Muslims, or not Muslims at all. Political persecution is also a reason why people become refugees, Iran is a Theocracy, and Sri Lanka has only recently put down insurrection by the Tamil Tigers.

82% of Bangladeshi Muslims support Shariah, and 84% of Pakistani Muslims do.

Bangladesh has a population of approximately 150 million people, 18% of 150,000,000 is just slightly larger than 1,200.

Pakistan has a population of over 200 million, 16% of 200,000,000 is also a bit larger than 1,200.

It is foolish to let these people immigrate, unless it is determined that they do not harbor fundamentalist Islamic views, which only a small minority don't.

So, you would require a religious test before allowing immigration into the USA? I think there is a document that has been floating around for at least a couple hundred years that prohibits such a thing in the USA, it's called "The Constitution", or something. If I recall correctly, some people in the USA feel that it is a fairly important document.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since the US now wont accept them, I think the best thing is to send the immigrants to Germany

 

[Trausti]

Since the US now wont accept them, I think the best thing is to send the immigrants to Germany

Or send them back to where they came from. Of the origin countries, only one is actually engaged in a war - Iraq; but that's limited to the West/Northwest. The rest is fine. These are economic migrants. No one has a "right" to move to a Western country.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since the US now wont accept them, I think the best thing is to send the immigrants to Germany

Or send them back to where they came from. Of the origin countries, only one is actually engaged in a war - Iraq; but that's limited to the West/Northwest. The rest is fine. yese are economic migrants. No one has a "right" to move to a Western country.

This is true but some are purposely fusing illegal and legal immigration. The West has always had immigration but not in such unprecedented numbers. In the UK we have run out of government housing, hospitals, schools and so forth.

 

[Trausti]

Or send them back to where they came from. Of the origin countries, only one is actually engaged in a war - Iraq; but that's limited to the West/Northwest. The rest is fine. yese are economic migrants. No one has a "right" to move to a Western country.

This is true but some are purposely fusing illegal and legal immigration. The West has always had immigration but not in such unprecedented numbers. In the UK we have run out of government housing, hospitals, schools and so forth.

Right. And Western countries, like all sovereign nations, should get to decide who enters and the process for that immigration. Why is it the obligation of Western countries and taxpayers to save everyone else?

 

[Trausti]

And it is, as Trump described it, a "dumb deal." The US is to "swap" economic migrants from Central America for Australia's economic migrants from Asia. What the hell is the point of that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since the US now wont accept them, I think the best thing is to send the immigrants to Germany

Or Eastern Ukraine. As the "rebel" movement grows and looks to displace the Ukranian Government, there should be room for the immigrants there.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps they become refugees as a result of not being very radical Muslims, or not Muslims at all. Political persecution is also a reason why people become refugees, Iran is a Theocracy,

Sure. Perhaps. But you don't think we should check and only let in those to whom this applies.

and Sri Lanka has only recently put down insurrection by the Tamil Tigers.

So these Sri Lankan "refugees" could be insurrectionists fleeing from being held accountable for their rebellion? What would prevent them from continuing their insurrection once they get here? After all, US is not friendly to Marxism either.

Bangladesh has a population of approximately 150 million people, 18% of 150,000,000 is just slightly larger than 1,200.
Pakistan has a population of over 200 million, 16% of 200,000,000 is also a bit larger than 1,200.

82% of 150,000,000 is more than 12% of 150,000,000. If you take these migrants (not refugees!) as they come, you are much more likely to take in fundamentalists. Mind you, your claim is that the constitution prohibits checking if they are fundametalists. So we'd have to take all of them, and vast majority are fundamentalists.

So, you would require a religious test before allowing immigration into the USA? I think there is a document that has been floating around for at least a couple hundred years that prohibits such a thing in the USA, it's called "The Constitution", or something. If I recall correctly, some people in the USA feel that it is a fairly important document.

The constitution does not prohibit restrictions on immigration based on political views. Islamism is a political position, make no mistake about it.

 

[laughing dog]

Are the OP questions serious or is this just another example of boring xenophobia? I ask this because it is clear Trump is going to cancel this deal, so the "concerns" are moot.

 

[Derec]

Are the OP questions serious or is this just another example of boring xenophobia?

Why do you think US should take migrants that Australians do not want?

Is is xenophobic to think that there should be any restrictions to immigration to the US? Should we just take anybody who wants to come here, no matter what?

By the way, the fakefugees of Nauru in 2013 staged a riot that caused $60 million in damages. They would fit well with the #nodapl, #BLM, anti-Milo and inauguration protesters in the US I guess.

 

[laughing dog]

Are the OP questions serious or is this just another example of boring xenophobia?

Why do you think US should take migrants that Australians do not want?

Is is xenophobic to think that there should be any restrictions to immigration to the US? Should we just take anybody who wants to come here, no matter what?

By the way, the fakefugees of Nauru in 2013 staged a riot that caused $50 million in damages. They would fit well with the #nodapl, #BLM, anti-Milo and inauguration protesters in the US I guess.

I see. The OP is just a platform for babbling xenophobia.

 

[Derec]

I see. The OP is just a platform for babbling xenophobia.

To you any restrictions on immigration are "xenophobia".

Again, why should US take in migrants (mostly economic migrants) whom Australia doesn't want?

 

[Trausti]

I see. The OP is just a platform for babbling xenophobia.

To you any restrictions on immigration are "xenophobia".

Again, why should US take in migrants (mostly economic migrants) whom Australia doesn't want?

And look at all the other countries in that part of the world. Why don't they step up?

 

[laughing dog]

I see. The OP is just a platform for babbling xenophobia.

To you any restrictions on immigration are "xenophobia".

Straw man

Again, why should US take in migrants (mostly economic migrants) whom Australia doesn't want?

Because we made a deal to take them in. Duh.

If you are asking why did we make the deal, educate yourself about the deal (https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/02/qa-what-is-the-australian-refugee-deal-and-why-has-it-angered-trump) and , if it is not obvious to you that it was, at the least, a humanitarian gesture consistent with international law, ask away.

But, as long as we are asking questions, why are you and others like you, so upset about taking in a maximum 1,250 vetted refugees who have been illegally held (by international law) in limbo for years?

 

[KeepTalking]

Sure. Perhaps. But you don't think we should check and only let in those to whom this applies.

Yes, I think we should check and only allow in those who are legitimate refugees. What makes you think this has not, or will not, be(en) done.

and Sri Lanka has only recently put down insurrection by the Tamil Tigers.

So these Sri Lankan "refugees" could be insurrectionists fleeing from being held accountable for their rebellion?

They could also simply be family members or acquaintances of the insurrectionists swept up in the aftermath of the civil war by the government. A government, which I note, has been accused by Human Rights Watch of rape, torture, and murder of those suspected former insurrectionists while they were being "rehabilitated".

What would prevent them from continuing their insurrection once they get here? After all, US is not friendly to Marxism either.

If they were not insurrectionists to begin with, but were targeted for "rehabilitation" by the government anyway, they would be unlikely to continue an insurrection in which they never participated.

Bangladesh has a population of approximately 150 million people, 18% of 150,000,000 is just slightly larger than 1,200.
Pakistan has a population of over 200 million, 16% of 200,000,000 is also a bit larger than 1,200.

82% of 150,000,000 is more than 12% of 150,000,000. If you take these migrants (not refugees!) as they come, you are much more likely to take in fundamentalists.

Who says we would be taking them as they come? The article you quoted notes that 217 of them have been identified as having no valid refugee claim, the rest have been positively identified as having a valid refugee claim. It seems they are being vetted, and the USA would not be taking those who are not valid refugees.

Mind you, your claim is that the constitution prohibits checking if they are fundametalists. So we'd have to take all of them, and vast majority are fundamentalists.

Yes, determining if they are fundamentalists would be a religious test, so it would not be allowed as far as I can tell. There are plenty of Christian fundamentalists in the USA, my family tree is full of them. Fundamentalist != terrorist.

So, you would require a religious test before allowing immigration into the USA? I think there is a document that has been floating around for at least a couple hundred years that prohibits such a thing in the USA, it's called "The Constitution", or something. If I recall correctly, some people in the USA feel that it is a fairly important document.

The constitution does not prohibit restrictions on immigration based on political views. Islamism is a political position, make no mistake about it.

Feel free to whack away at that strawman as much as you would like, as it does not represent any argument I have put forward in this thread.

 

[SimpleDon]

Your prejudices are getting the better of you. This is why it is so hard for a bigot to try to use logic and to present a logical argument.

Most of us here are atheists. This pretty much presupposes going in that we atheists don't see anything logical about using religion as a basis for governing, beyond the common moralizing in all religions, thou shall not steal or kill, etc. This is especially true of the problem you keep bringing up about the evils of sharia law and the problem of fundamentalism.

But this is a problem with any religion's fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists included. They are a much larger threat to the nation because they are a much larger group and have much more political power because they are an integral part of movement conservatism and the now ruling Republican party.

But their influence has largely been minimal so far because we are a sectarian society.

This is our protection against the adoption of sharia law. Or from the much more numerous christian fundamentalists and their reactionary beliefs. . Rather than continuing to obsess over this fixation with these few immigrants your time could be much more productively spent making sure that we shore up and strengthen the sectarian nature of our society. The best way to do this is to work against the conservatives in the Republican party and its christian fundamentalists

I do agree that we should only allow people to immigrate here who are willing to become Americans and to fit into our society. This hasn't been a problem with the millions of immigrants who came here and who stayed here before now. If nothing else, the first generation born here are Americans and do fit in.

America has always been about many different people all becoming Americans with the pretty much the same principles guiding them. Even with the current partisan divide Americans have an amazingly narrow political spectrum, with a broad agreement on principles, compared to an typical European country.


Your "they aren't refugees if they aren't escaping from a war" won't go down to well in southern Florida with all of the Cuban refugees.