Turnbull, Trump confirm deal to resettle Manus, Nauru island refugees (Australian refugee deal)

news.com.au ^ | 29th January 2017 | Annika Smethurst

[naturalman1975]

REFUGEES from Manus Island and Nauru will be resettled in the United States, despite moves by US President Donald Trump to suspend his country’s refugee program for 120 days.

Mr Trump vowed to honour the agreement reached between Australia and the previous US administrations during a 25-miute phone call with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today, the first since his inauguration.

The one-off refugee resettlement deal seemed unlikely to go ahead after US President this week followed through on his election promise by placing a four-month suspension on allowing refugees into the United States.

[naturalman1975]

I have said on a number of occasions here that I suspect the refugees that the US has agreed to take from Australian camps on Manus Island and Nauru are Christians - a lot of people have been assuming right from the start that they were likely to be Muslims.

While it is true that Muslims constitute the largest religious group seeking asylum in Australia, there is a significant minority of Christians among such people, especially Christians from the Middle East - and it was always likely that this deal involved that minority.

I suspect that is why President Trump has chosen to go ahead with the deal. These people have been extensively vetted by Australia already, and the United States will vet them again as a further protection.

Australia's immigration policy is officially neutral with regards to religion and so it is very unlikely that an Australian government is going to come out and say publically that these people are Christian, but that does seem likely. I can see no reason at all, for President Trump to honour the deal unless that is the case.

[thinden]

Hope you’re right. O/w. Why won’ aussie take them?.

[aquila48]

My question exactly - if these are Christians and thoroughly vetted why isn’t Australia taking them??

It has even more wide open spaces than we do.

[naturalman1975]

Australia has an absolute policy that nobody who attempts to come to Australia unlawfully by boat will ever be admitted to Australia. There are no exceptions.

The intent behind the policy is twofold - firstly to uphold the basic principle that we decide who comes here to live. Secondly, it's humanitarian - when we have not had this policy in place, many people have died trying to get here - drowning in the ocean between Indonesia and Australia as the small boats they used were not seaworthy enough to make such a journey.

Australia does take refugees - but we take them out of camps overseas after they've applied for asylum and been processed, or in some cases if they enter Australia on a legal visa of some sort, and then claim asylum and are found to have a genuine case.

But you cannot attempt to come here illegally, and ever hope to live here. If you're a genuine refugee - do it legally, do it properly.

Australia attempts to intercept boats on their way here and when we succeed we turn the boats back if it is safe to do so. If it not safe, the people aboard are taken to an offshore camp (commonly either Nauru or Manus Island) for processing. If they are not assessed as a genuine refugee, they will be sent home where possible. If they are assessed as genuine, Australia will try to assist them to be resettled in a third country - but not in Australia. We'll help genuine refugees, but we will not change our policy that if you try to come here illegally by boat, you cannot enter Australia.

These people probably fall into that category. Australia has identified their case as genuine - but they tried to come here illegally. We can't send them home because they are in genuine danger. But they can't come here.

[pepsionice]

Australia has probably the most developed immigration program ever conceived.

You apply from your home country and demonstrate that you speak English, your life is free of crime or convictions, and that you have a craft/degree that can be used. In other words...once approved, you fly in, get the visa, relax over the weekend, and go to work on Monday. No one pays your welfare check or waits six months for the visa to be approved.

If you want to play the no passport game, show no past records, or have only skills to flip burgers....then Australia is the last place on Earth to consider sneaking into. All they will do is ship you to Manus and you remain there until you convince your old country to accept you back.

[naturalman1975]

See my reply to thinden (I didn’t see your post before I posted it or I’d have tagged you in it).

[piasa]

From what I’ve read they appear to be Muslims from Myanmar. the Nauru Islanders finally got fed up with them after one of the “refugees” raped a local girl.

[naturalman1975]

This poster probably explains this part of the policy better than the poster I originally posted:

If you get on a boat without a visa, you will not end up in Australia.
Any vessel attempting to illegally to enter Australia will be intercepted and safely removed beyond Australian waters.
The rules apply to everyone; families, children, unaccompanied children, educated and skilled.
No matter who you are, or where you come from, you will not make Australia home.

These policies save lives and secure our borders.

We are generous to genuine immigrants including genuine refugees who come here according to the rules.

But they must follow the rules to come here.

[naturalman1975]

Some of the refugees on Nauru are Muslims. Not all of the refugees on Nauru are Muslims.

I am 99% sure the ones Australia has asked the US to take are not Muslims. I am even more sure that if they were, President Trump would not be saying yes.

We’ll try to send the Muslims somewhere else - but we need to resettled the Christians as well. If we can do that more easily and more quickly, we will.

[fluorescence]

It is a refugee exchange and in return Australia is taking from the US refugees from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

[naturalman1975]

Yes - and that’s often how this works. Australia will take some people who have not broken our rules from another country, while they take some of the ones we can’t take because they did violate our policy.

Sometimes we wind up paying countries to take some - but the US doesn’t need that type of money.

[piasa]

Odds are they’re Rohingya Muslims that have been driven out of Burma/Myanmar by the Buddhists...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

The dispute on the ban on immigrants from war zones offers a lot of cover for this administration slipping these muslims in; so long as the liberals howl no one will suspect this “antimuslim” admin opened the gates for these “most persecuted people on earth,” as they are described.

Funny thing is- they’re Sunni but I don’t hear of any Sunni nations volunteering to take them.

[wardaddy]

Creative

Isn’t Nauru like one big phosphate atolll or used to be

I did not know of this situation

Used to be a money hiding place too

[naturalman1975]

Isn’t Nauru like one big phosphate atolll or used to be

Yes, and they were very wealthy - for as long as the phosphate lasted. They knew it wasn't going to last and so they invested money that was intended to maintain their standard of living after the minerals ran out.

Unfortunately it didn't work out for them as planned. Mismanagement of their trust fund basically. They tried becoming a tax haven to raise revenue - it worked to some extent, but not as well as they hoped, and their economy completely tanked.

When, in 2001, Australia decided to adopt its policy of processing unlawful arrivals offshore, we offered Nauru money to let us use their island for that purpose. It's actually a major part of their economy - and for our perspective, we're getting something out of the arrangement (for geographical reasons we really do have to prop them up to some extent - we can't afford for them to become a completely failed state, it wouldn't be good for our national security).

[piasa]

Burma accepts the existence of other muslim groups, like Kamans, as citizens, just not Rohingyas. Maybe it is because of their racial rather than religious differences, I don’t know.
Kurds and palestinians have also taken to sea to get to Australi, and Bangladeshi economic migrants were for a while claiming to be Rohingyas to get asylum.
Nauru also had some Somalis.
I doubt they are Somali Christians.

[piasa]

Could be some Iranians, too, apparently:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/refugees-long-to-be-anywhere-but-nauru/news-story/95c727c529918880696ed9a731777c34

Interesting article. One thing I notice is there seems to be little mention of girls, the boys play on the beach. The boys do this or that. The women wear hijabs, etc.
Sounds more Muslim than Christian or Hindu or anything else, and it sounds like they’re bringing their cult ure with them rather than seeking freedom and assimilation.

[Reno89519]

We should not be taking any of these refugees. If they are not good enough for Australia, they are not good enough for the US. If they are Islamic, send them to Saudi Arabia or Iran. If they are Christian, let another country have them. But NOT the US. Australia has already said No to them, lets back up our ally.

[naturalman1975]

I’m not sure why you think these Muslims are the ones Australia has asked the US to accept. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m getting the feeling that because you know there are Muslims on Manus and Nauru, you are assuming that that is who we are talking about here.

There are also a significant number of Christians refugees in both places, and as I’ve said, I’m fairly sure they are the ones Australia has asked the US to take some of. That’s the only thing that really makes sense to me. Australia wants the US to take some of these people and will have asked the US to take the ones most attractive to the US - not the ones the US is most likely to say no to.

And I really can’t see President Trump continuing to support the agreement under any other circumstances.

[naturalman1975]

You wouldn't be backing up Australia by refusing to take them.

Read through the thread. I've tried to explain the Australian political situation and the specific reasons why Australia will not take these people, that do not apply to other nations.

That doesn't mean the US should take them - America has nothing approaching an obligation to help Australia out in this situation - but the specific reasons Australia will not take them do not really apply to the US - it's about not letting these people choose where they end up, but them having to accept the place of safety offered - which is what refugees are supposed to under international law - they are allowed to ask for asylum in a safe country - they are not supposed to be able to cherry pick which country that is.

[Reno89519]

I am a US citizen, not Australian. NONE OF THESE REFUGEES SHOULD EVER SEE FOOT IN THE US. That Australia rejects them, so should we. Otherwise, are you suggesting a backdoor deal that Australia take anyone we refuse and we take anyone they refuse? I sure hope not. No, send them all home. And if Indonesia won’t take them back, find, join Australia and block them as well. Heck, why isn’t Indonesian not on the proscribed list covered in President Trump’s EO? They should be.