Donald Trump says he loves Australia

news.com.au ^ | 3rd February 2017 | Peter Mitchell

[naturalman1975]

US President Donald Trump is still talking tough about allies but instead of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in his sights, he is turning up the heat on Barack Obama for negotiating the Manus Island and Nauru refugee deal.

Mr Trump said on Thursday he loves Australia and will honour the deal struck by his predecessor but only refugees who pass extreme vetting will be allowed into the US.

"If a previous administration does something you have to respect that but you can also say 'Why are we doing this?'" Mr Trump, speaking to reporters before a meeting at the White House with US steelworkers, said.

Mr Trump questioned the refugee agreement in his blunt, exclamation-laden style on Twitter on Wednesday night when he described it as "a dumb deal!"

This was after the Washington Post reported what was allegedly a volatile weekend phone call between Mr Trump and Mr Turnbull.

The article, Mr Trump's reported treatment of Mr Turnbull and more inflammatory comments at a Washington DC prayer breakfast on Thursday morning about Australia and other allies had some analysts predicting the strong alliance could be damaged.

Later in the day Mr Trump eased his rhetoric about Australia.

"I have a lot of respect for Australia," he said at the steelworkers' meeting.

"I love Australia as a country but I have a problem where for whatever reason president Obama said they were going to take probably well over 1000 illegal immigrants who were in prisons."

Mr Trump said the initial potential number of refugees could be 1250 but questioned whether it "could be 2000, could be more than that and I said 'Why? Why are we doing this?'"

[Defiant]

Why on earth would we take them? I thought we were setting up safe zones in the middle east for them. That’s where they should go.

[naturalman1975]

Is the new PM leftist?

He's best described as a centrist leading a moderately conservative party. He's from the left hand edge of the Liberal Party, but calling him a leftist probably goes a little too far. What he is, though, is timid. He won't stand up for anything. He just wants to be popular - and it isn't working. :)

I see the problem with the Muslim boat people the same as or illegal alien issues on our southern border.

It really is important to understand that there is no actual reason to think these people are Muslim and very good reasons to think they are not. People seem to just be assuming 'refugee = Muslim'. In actual fact, there are large numbers of refugees who are Christians fleeing Muslim oppression, and these people probably include a lot of those. It won't be said openly because of legal and political issues in Australia (the left here - and more significantly the High Court - would go bananas is anybody officially said we were classifying refugees by religion and treating them differently on that basis).

[naturalman1975]

since Australia is rejecting them why isn’t the UN and the lefties in Ausie screaming bloody H ???

They are.

[naturalman1975]

Calling these places prisons isn’t strictly accurate. They are immigration detention centres.

[tophat9000]

. But the reason why Australia is refusing to allow these people entry to Australia is very specific and relates to one particular issue only that does not apply to the United States. I don’t think that’s very well understood in the US.

This is a very specific circumstance.

---

No offense but that’s rather cryptic what I mean what ...are these refugees afraid of animals with belly pockets as not being halal? ... they can’t deal with with summer in December?, They can’t live too near the South Pole?,they get giant/continent Island fever?... they get moldy when they get “Do” on their “Didgery”?

What possible characteristics would these refugees have that would make them unacceptable to Australia but acceptable to the US

[cmomm44]

It is called-—Being Smart——GO Donald, GO

[Lopeover]

Not buying they are Christians from Indonesia! Especially when there is proof that Obama Really would not agree to Christian refugees!

If you doubt - put this theory to work: Results prove actual intention!

[Castigar]

Just take them and drop them off in Canada. Trudeau already said he would take refugees we don’t want!

[naturalman1975]

Australia should figure out which country they are from and put them in boats in international waters just outside their country of origin’s waters.

We actually do precisely that under current policies.

Unfortunately these people were let in when the previous Labor government softened our policies. That's what created the mess.

I don't think America should take these people - it has no obligation to clean up an Australian mess - but the situation is not one the current Australian government created either. John Howard solved this issue back around 2001 - and then we got a Labor government again that didn't like being nasty - and so opened the floodgates of unlawful arrivals again.

[naturalman1975]

What possible characteristics would these refugees have that would make them unacceptable to Australia but acceptable to the US

The way they arrived in Australia. That they attempted to enter Australia illegally by boat. And that doesn't apply to the US because these people have never attempted to enter the US.

I do have a few minutes now to do the copy and pasting, so here is the explanation of the policy. I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but it can at least be explained.

If you get on a boat without a visa, you will not end up in Australia.
Any vessel attempting to illegally 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.

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. The policy that these people, no matter what their status, will never get into Australia, is the only thing that has proven to successfully deter these people from risking their lives. Unfortunately, the previous Labor government softened the policy for a few years, leading to a renewed influx, which is why we have people on Manus and Nauru now. Reintroducing the policy stopped the boats again, but we still have the people who came under Labor to deal with.

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. That's the message.

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 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.

None of this means that the US should take these people. America is under no obligation to do so, or to help Australia find a place to send these people. But I think people need to understand the situation. These people are genuine refugees who have already been subjected to pretty considerable vetting to ensure they are genuine refugees and they are unlikely to be dangerous. Australia is not seeking to send dangerous people to the United States. It's not a hostile act.

President Trump has already said he intends to allow a certain number of genuine refugees to enter the United States each year, after extreme vetting to make sure they are not a threat to the United States. These people have already been through years of such vetting by Australia and been found to be clean. And the US is free to (and presumably will) vet them again. That's a large part of the reason why the deal may seem attractive enough to the US for the new administration to go through with it. You're not likely to get 'better' refugees from anywhere, and you're still taking thousands.

The only issue is that these people tried to get into Australia by boat without a visa, and Australia will not make an exception to our policy on that, no matter how worthy the person of help is in any other way.

Under international law a genuine refugee is able to apply for asylum in a safe country. They are not supposed to be able to cherry pick what country that is. And that is the difference. These people tried to cherry pick Australia. And that's why we won't take them here.

[Flick Lives]

Good analysis

[naturalman1975]

They are not Christians from Indonesia. But some of them are definitely Christians from Iran.

As I say, Australia won’t officially say this openly, so I can’t say everything I want to on this. It’s annoying. But the idea that these people are Muslims - that’s just people making assumptions. And they are wrong assumptions.

[silverleaf]

I think you nailed it.

And for those toads like McCain and Ryan who are trying to kiss Australia’s aXX, they ought to be asking the questions:

“Mr. Turnbull, you knew Obama was a lame duck leaving office in 48 hours. and YOU KNEW the reasons you weren’t admitting these people to your country were probably the SAME reasons Americans don’t want them in our country - so why did you work with Obama to stick it to the USA? Is that what FRIENDS do to FRIENDS?”

[naturalman1975]

There is a degree of truth in that, but that’s why the deal has always been stated very clearly to be a one off deal which will not be repeated.

That normally wouldn’t necessarily mean much, but in the current circumstances, that does make sense. We only have these people to deal with because Labor softened the policies surrounding boat arrivals between 2007 and 2012 - these people are a legacy of that decision. Now Labor has accepted that the offshore detention policies that worked (and reintroduced them in 2013), that’s unlikely to happen again. The boats have been stopped again and they should stay stopped, meaning we’ll only ever have a handful of these people to deal with again, not thousands.

[conservative98]

Just take them and drop them off in Canada. Trudeau already said he would take refugees we don’t want!

---

That’s a fantastic idea! Send it to Trump.

[silverleaf]

and yet Australia worked out a deal with a very lame duck POTS to send them to the US

Which the same anti-American POTUS had just denied Cubans who made it to the US - with a unilateral undebated policy change about “wet foot, dry foot”- for decades if they made it here onto land, they go to stay

This was not a friendly act by Australia
Self serving perhaps, but not friendly
and WTH did the US get out of it?
More welfare clients?

I think that’s what rubbed Trump the wrong way
Another “deal” that does nothing but stick it to the US

I hope 10,000 Timorese and Indonesians head to Oz by boat.
I guarantee Trump wont take them

[naturalman1975]

At the time the deal was initially made, it was meant to have been completed last year while Obama was in office. It’s Americans who have dragged it out so it has become a problem for President Trump - not Australians.

And if I could discuss things... OK, I’ll go a little further than I should. There are reasons why this deal seemed attractive to the US. After Obama said America would specifically take in refugees from Syria (and that was his decision) the issue arose of how to ensure that people taken in were unlikely to be a threat to the United States. In that context, the fact that Australia has several hundred Syrian Christian refugees sitting in Manus and Nauru who have already been extensively vetted and found to be genuine and not dangerous that they are trying to resettle in a third country...

That’s all I can say. It’s probably more than I should say.

[BushCountry]

And why aren’t people rioting in the streets, burning Australian flags, destroying business property, etc...? Australia’s wall of water is inhumane. Trump tries to stop refugees he is a monster, Australia does it and its cute, adorable, and practical.

We don’t have a wall of water, but plenty of deaths, human trafficking, drugs, and rape trees. The Austrian policy you shown could be the exactly the same for the USA’s with a few minor words substituted (desert for water, boats for trains). Especially the part about the last leader being soft.

[Lopeover]

Oh so between the Islamic countries they staged the boat ride...

Isn’t there an Islamic term for this type of invasion?

[naturalman1975]

And why aren’t people rioting in the streets, burning Australian flags, destroying business property, etc...?

They do. The fact your media doesn't show it because Australia really isn't that important a country doesn't mean it isn't happening.

To be fair, we don't seem to get the really extreme riots you do - but flag burnings and demonstrations are bloody common.