America and Australia swapping asylum seekers

Filed under "S" for stupidity? "Under an arrangement signed by both countries, Australia will have the right to send to the U.S. for resettlement asylum seekers who try to reach Australia by boat, and in exchange the U.S. will ask Australia to consider resettling asylum seekers, including Cubans and Haitians currently being held at Guantanamo Bay." seattlepi.com

The point of this new agreement, as I understand it, is to protect the borders of both America and Australia. Again, if I understand it correctly, this would be very dangerous for America, possibly letting in more potential terrorists.

The Australian government says this unprecedented arrangement "will ensure the integrity of the international system of protection and the integrity of Australia's borders is maintained, by providing protection to those who need it."

Australia has been taking a harsh stance on asylum seekers since 2001, when it determined that any unauthorized arrivals into Australia by boat would be sent to offshore processing centers such as the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru or to Christmas Island, located off Australia's Northwest coast. The idea behind the policy is to deter people smugglers, who are very active in nearby Indonesia.

But this deal with the U.S. might in fact substantially undermine Australian Prime Minister John Howard's popular policy. The opposition Australian Labor Party's spokesman on migration, Tony Burke, observed this week that the "plan has the very real potential to increase the number of boats coming to Australia. If you're in one of the refugee camps around the world, there is no more attractive destination than to think you can get a ticket to the United States of America."

"What John Howard's doing is saying to people around the world, if you want to get to the United States, the way to do it is hop on a boat and go to Christmas Island," Burke says.

No doubt it will also cut the other way. For some asylum seekers languishing in U.S. detention centers, Australia might also be just as attractive a destination for them as the United States, given that both countries are wealthy, democratic and multicultural. (spi.com)

The loudest voices against this arrangement seem to be coming from the human rights folks, rather than those concerned about homeland security. Typical.

On another 'human rights' note, Amnesty International is upset about executions in Iraq, "270 people have been sentenced to death since mid-2004 and at least 100 of them have been executed. Only China, Iran and Pakistan used the death penalty more frequently." (BBC) Um, maybe the punishment fit the crime? Is it possible that Amnesty International is against all capital punishment?

Others posting on immigration:
How to Pay for Services Stolen by Illegals? Seize Money Being Sent to Mexico! , John W. Lillpop (satire)

Solving the Illegal Immigration Dilemma, The Patriot

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration
(CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.**

Comments

[Debbie]

Butch you have a great weekend also.

Ted, I'll check out the article.

[Ted]

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2239477.smil

How about the Irish illegals?

Here is an interview that Bill O'Reilly did on Irish Television. In it,the interviewer mentions how the families of illegal Irish Immigrants can't visit home because if they do, they won't be let back in.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2239477.smil

I wish O'Reilly had stated the obvious to that interviewer. Why should illegal Irish immigrants expect to be able to travel back and forth between Ireland and the United States when by definition they aren't supposed to be in the United States to begin with?

[Butch]

Have a great weekend Debbie!

[Debbie]

Storm I read what human rights groups said. I don't know all the details, so I don't know if any human rights are at risk or not. You know how the human rights groups are, they get upset over everything. You put a pair of panties on a terrorist's head, and human rights groups get all upset.

My concern here is an open door for terrorists.

[StormWarning]

Whether "S" is for stupid or not, I'll bet that this one will eventually disappear from view, and won't happen...and won't be commented upon when reversed.

Human Rights Watch has already come out against it, "Refugees are human beings, not products that countries can broker and trade. The United States and Australia have signed a deal that bargains with lives and flouts international law."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/18/usint15736.htm

Do you think HRW came down on the "right" side of this issue?

[Layla]

Hi Debbie! I have been so busy the last couple days I am just now catching up and getting my breathe!

Good post, good find. You are right to file this under "S" for "stupid." This is the most ridiculous nonsense I have yet to read to date.

What are they thinking - oh let me rephrase that, they are not thinking.

Guess they are on "stupid pills" because this makes absolutely no sense at all.

God! What is next hun?

Have a great weekend Debbie!