Posted on 02/02/2017 3:14:52 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Excuse the vanity, but I've been reading about this "deal" entered into apparently by Obama whereby we agreed to accept up to 2000 Australian illegal immigrants/"refugees" into our country, and as far as I know, a deal is defined by a trade of value between two or more parties. So what were we to get in return for accepting these people?
Absolutely. And I do not believe that America should take these people. This is Australia's mess and America has no obligation to help solve it. And I think at the moment securing your borders clearly and unequivocally is very important and there shouldn't be anything that looks like an exception or backing down.
But I just want the decision to be made based on facts and accurate information. That's important. Or at least it should be.
Conservatives should be the rational ones insisting decisions are based on facts. OK, I'd like it if the progressives were rational as well, but that worries me less.
I’ve never liked arguments that run “X is not likely to do Y, so we should assume that X did not do Y.”
I could make the same type of argument to you along the lines of “Obama is quite unlikely to make a deal to take Christians, so we should assume he did not make that kind of deal here with Turnbull.”
I’d rather deal with actual facts. If you have actual personal knowledge that these aren’t Muslims, I would put much more stock in that rather than reasoning that “Trump would be unlikely to take them if they were Muslim, so they must not be Muslim.”
These are people who the Aussie’s would not accept into their country, but Obama would accept into ours. This is just wrong.
They are mostly Muslim men:
I do have personal knowledge about a lot of the people. Names of hundreds of them. I’ve seen detailed files on some.
I haven’t seen a single Muslim among those, and it’s a substantial proportion of the overall number.
I can’t say with absolute certainly there aren’t any Muslims in the group. I would be very surprised if it’s more than a small number, and extremely surprised if any of them were particularly observant (to be fair, some of the Christians don’t seem that observant either - unfortunately the mere fact you were baptised as a child can be enough to expose you to anti-Christian prejudice in these countries).
All of that is the most important reason for my belief. But as I can’t show these documents to anybody, and I don’t expect people to just take my word for it, I’m also trying to use arguments based on logic and reasoning.
They go together.
Really if we and Australia are “trading people” isn’t that human trafficking basically a form of slavery?
He has already stated that he would make exceptions for middle east Christians. The fact that he is upset about this deal, then makes me doubt they are Christians.
Why does Australia refuse to accept them?
I appreciate your perspective. There may be much that we don’t know about this, but I’m curious indeed.
Do you mind if I refer you to a post in another thread? I've wound up posting the explanation of Australia's policy in this case (it does actually make sense) about a dozen times in the last few days and I feel like I'm spamming FreeRepublic at this point.
Short version - Australia has an absolute policy that no person who attempts to come here by boat without a visa will ever be allowed to settle in Australia. No exceptions. Even if it turns out that you're a completely genuine refugee.
Long version - here's a link - Post #16 in this thread, the one with the picture of a poster.
We should keep them in Gitmo, until vetted.
No, not legally, because it is entirely voluntary on their part. In both cases, they are completely free to stay where they are. In Australia’s case, if they refuse this deal, we’d have to continue to try to find them somewhere else to go. I’m not sure what the circumstances are for the US side of things, but it is voluntary to ensure it can’t be construed as human trafficking or slavery.
I have heard this and considering their special situation I agree with them. I am also aware that Australia is very picky who they accept from anywhere. I probably would not qualify for a residence visa, for that matter.
Still, if they don’t want them, I don’t see why we would want them. We also need to tighten up the criteria by which we accept refugees; we ought to be very nearly as restrictive as the Aussies. If in fact these were Christians on the run from Sudan, I would give them a maybe. But I haven’t heard any such thing other than here tonight.
And you probably won't. I shouldn't even really be saying some of what I am saying - I'm not under any prohibitions myself but people I've spoken to are. But I can't stand seeing misinformation being spread either.
Well again what specifically makes these particular refugees unacceptable for Australia to let in?... and why would it make them acceptable for the u.s.?
I thought I gave you a detailed answer to that elsewhere (after you rightly complained that my initial answer which was given in a hurry wasn’t very illuminating). Have you seen it? If so, I don’t that I can add much. If not, I’ll see if I can give you a direct link to it.
I’ll say that whatever their policy on refugees arriving by boat, Australia is a relatively small population and would not be able to receive many non-western immigrants without radically changing their culture. And therefore should not.
We have a larger population but have already received large numbers of non-western immigrants and should now start to re-think this policy. I would give preference to Christians on the run from jihad, if that did prove to be the case. If that were not the case, I’d take up a collection for air-fare back where they came from.
HELLO!!!! WHO didn’t KNOW this????
READ!!!!! They are MUSLIMS!!! YOU KEEP THEM and LET THEM IN YOUR COUNTRY!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.