Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's a quote if it's too hard for you to read it: "A family originally from the Russian republic of Chechnya fled the brutal wars in their homeland in the 1990s. They moved to neighboring Russian republics before at last arriving in the United States."
As for his citizenship, I don't really care. What I care about are his roots, and they are clearly Russian.
Maybe you need that history and geography lesson. And a lesson in education before you go mouthing off.
It does not matter whether his family fled from Chechnya and fled to the neighboring republic or not. He was born in independent Kyrgyzstan and is a citizen of it.
Blaming his family's roots and making him a Russian terrorist is a stretch of the truth and nobody is buying it.
And for your information, here is a google search for your perusal
You do leave out the fact that as part of the deal Australia will be taking the same number of central american refugees that otherwise would have been relocated to the USA.
Actually no. According to a Washington Post article I read yesterday: Obama, as a gesture of good friendship and all that, agreed to take in these rejected asylees from Australia while Australia take nothing on. This is the part that infuriated Trump. I would be PO too if I were Trump.
By the end of the day, Trump will have no choice but to honor the agreement, at least publicly. But he will find a way to get around it. That's why the official language from Spicer was something like: "the President intends to honor this agreement". As everyone knows, intention is one thing, action is another.
Alienating one of our closest allies that has fought along side the US in virtually every war is not very smart. Trump needs to abide by Obama's agreement to take in 1200 refugees from Australia, you don't change prior agreements with our allies.
and Trump supports embrace his actions, what a bizarre tribe.
I don't know why Obama and the Australian PM worked surreptitiously and in the last minute to try and push this agreement through when they knew that there was change of guard and Trump was the incoming president. I can see the underhand dealing by Obama, but why was Turnbull in such a rush.
And when it was an initial call and pleasantries were being exchanged why was Turbull trying to remind Trump of this underhanded deal instead of waiting for some time. No wonder Trump lost it. I would too if I had known that my friend mad a unpleasant deal and is now trying to shove it down my throat.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19487
Whilst I agree that the refugee deal seemed grossly unfair, indeed why should America take these people from a massive country like Australia.
However it should not be forgotten that since World War II, Australia has joined in more US wars than any other ally including Britain, which didn't get involved in Vietnam unlike Australia which sent military forces.
It should also be noted that the Australians have always had good relations with the US and are part of the Five Eyes Intelligence Community based on the UKUSA Intelligence Agreement and host a US Spy Base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs and Australia monitors the South Asia and East Asia region.
To upset one of your closest allies is never good, and although I don't agree with the refugee deal, every effort should be made to encourage good relations with important allies like Australia.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-03-2017 at 10:58 AM..
Whilst I agree that the refugee deal seemed grossly unfair, indeed why should America take these people from a massive country like Australia.
However it should not be forgotten that since World War II, Australia has joined in more US wars than any other ally including Britain, which didn't get involved in Vietnam unlike Australia.
It should also be noted that the Australians have always had good relations with the US and are part of the Five Eyes Intelligence Community and host a
Why is it ok for the PM over there to have strict rules but we can't? Any deal made by Obama doesn't have to be honored by Trump and that goes with ANY past and new Presidents. A new CEO doesn't honor deals made by the old CEO if they don't like them. Just because they may have fought in some of the wars doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards and jeopardize our own security.
Australia has a strict policy that they will accept no boat people. US does not have such a policy. Supposedly Australia is intercepting and turning the boats back now, but there are people on the island right now that need to be settled.
Not fair and Trump was po'd about it. But the deal was we would take them.
A deal that Obama made on his way out knowing that it would be a problem. Maybe Australia needed to solve its own problem by making an exception for that group.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.â€"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
Why is it ok for the PM over there to have strict rules but we can't? Any deal made by Obama doesn't have to be honored by Trump and that goes with ANY past and new Presidents. A new CEO doesn't honor deals made by the old CEO if they don't like them. Just because they may have fought in some of the wars doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards and jeopardize our own security.
I don't agree with the Obama refugee deal, however I would take no pleasure in upsetting the Australians if I was the current US Administration.
As for the Australians they are no chmps either, and have been an outstanding allies to the US, even fighting in the Vietnam Wat alongside the US and that shouldn't be forgotten.
I don't know why Obama and the Australian PM worked surreptitiously and in the last minute to try and push this agreement through when they knew that there was change of guard and Trump was the incoming president. I can see the underhand dealing by Obama, but why was Turnbull in such a rush.
And when it was an initial call and pleasantries were being exchanged why was Turbull trying to remind Trump of this underhanded deal instead of waiting for some time. No wonder Trump lost it. I would too if I had known that my friend mad a unpleasant deal and is now trying to shove it down my throat.
The rush is they are under pressure to get those people out of the poor conditions where they are being held. Australia not an option, they are hardline they will not take them in. Pushing it through gives them leverage. "See? We agreed, and we are good allies to you so, so you HAVE to....." But Trump doesn't operate like that, and this Turnbull guy should have known that. Leaders must be aware by now it is not a good strategy to bully Mr. Trump unlike the former wuss in chief and his apology tour mentality.
There was a long thread on this that has been closed.
Briefly, the 1,250 migrants are eligible for and have been granted refugee status. So no deportation. However, they did not apply or were admitted under the Australian refugee *program.* Rather, they are part of the boat flotilla who travelled overland, many through Bangladesh then set off from Indonesia. The human traffickers in those seas make the ones in the Mediterranean look like the Red Cross and substantial numbers were brutally treated or killed.
Desperate to stop the trafficking, Australia instituted a hard-line policy that even IF deemed eligible for refugee status none of the boat refugees would be settled in Australia. Instead the government paid for them to be housed primarily in Papua New Guinea, a true h*ll hole. Some have been there for years. Several months ago PNG ruled that their status was unconstitutional (lack of freedom of movement) and told Australia to remove them.
Not wanting to in any way encourage the restart of the boat fleet, Australia and the US agreed to a "swap" of refugees. We were helping out an old ally. The US would take 1,250 of these refugees only after vetting to our satisfaction while Australia would admit some (an equal number ?) that would otherwise have been sent to the US (from Costa Rica).
Whew ... It had all been worked out until it blew up this week. This may just be a blip on the screen here but it is a major issue right now for the Australians.
Several reasons why this is an interesting topic. Earlier, in *this* thread I briefly summarized information from another thread (much of it based on consistent news reporting), but appreciate that folks can't read thru every post. I'll quote myself.
Spent a few minutes googling some more ... there are references in both the US (including Breibart) and Australian press using identical language probably originating from a wire service to an "original deal" that "included Australia accepting U.S.-held refugees in Costa Rica, who had been fleeing violence in South America and were previously turned away from the United States border while seeking asylum."
Australia agreed to participate in the US-led effort in September but the Obama administration did not announce its agreement to take Australian-held refugees in the PNG and other island nations until after the election. Neither country would have wanted to see the deal be used as an enticement for traffickers to again lure migrants to boats.
Beginning in November, US Homeland Security started extensive vetting of any refugees to whom the US would offer resettlement. (As with refugees proposed by the UN, the US is never forced to accept ANY refugee under any agreement that does not meet standards.) So the process had begun ... but with the election, a priority for the Turnbull government was to confirm with the Trump Administration that it would continue.
For Australia, the status of these refugees is a political firestorm and a key issue in recent elections - NOT because the refugees are particularly undesirable but because they are the remnant of the boat flotilla. Australia has been caught between defending the poor offshore living conditions and "giving in" which again would become a selling point for traffickers to again lure migrants onto boats.
Australia DOES accept refugees from the Middle East but through the UN program - not those who tried to reach Australia using traffickers.
The recent blow-up is a major issue in the Australian press that Turnbull opponents are using to portray the prime minister as weak (Turnbull supporters are indignant) in the face of what they consider to be less than stellar treatment from Trump during the phone call. Some Australians guess that Trump will honor the deal then turn around and admit no refugees saying that vetting "standards" could not be met for any.
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-03-2017 at 12:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
