Lance Goodall 20 June 2016
A bombshell report is out that since the deadly Islamic attack on Sunday in Orlando, Florida, President Barack Obama’s federal government has allowed 441 Syrian Islamic refugees into America.
That means there are hundreds of refugees who haven’t had background checks and could be linked to radical Islamic groups and now have just entered within the past two days.
As Breitbart reports:
In the days since an Islamic radical murdered 49 people at an Orlando gay bar, the Obama Administration has admitted hundreds more Syrian refugees to the United States, including placing dozens in Florida.
According to State Department data, since June 12, 441 Syrian refugees have been resettled in communities across the U.S. Just five of the recent arrivals are Christian the rest are Muslim, including 434 Sunni Muslims and one identified as simply “Moslem.” One is listed as having “no religion.”
The 441 new arrivals have been resettled across 26 states, with Illinois (60), Florida (49), and Arizona (38) taking in the most Syrian refugees over that four-day timeframe.
Of the 49 new Syrian refugees resettled in Florida since the attack, 10 have been resettled in the greater Orlando area — with five resettled in Orlando proper and five resettled in Kissimmee. The rest of the refugees settled in Florida were placed in Clearwater (six), Delray Beach (five), Miami (five), Pensacola (five), Tampa (18).
Florida Gov. Rick Scott says he is opposed to resetting Syrian refugees in his state amid ongoing vetting concerns. Tuesday, following the attack, Scott expressed frustration that the administration is refusing to share information about the Syrians placed in his state.
The Atlantic did a recent piece on Australia’s immigration policy;
Australia’s refugee policy has been a test in how a country balances the rights of the world’s dispossessed with its own right to determine who enters. And it was one year, 2001, that Australia set itself apart, and one incident, the “Tampa affair,” that brought its policy to the fore. It was an election year in Australia, and Prime Minister John Howard’s Liberal Party, which holds a conservative ideology, was trailing in the polls. But on the policy-launch day of his election campaign, Howard made his stance on immigration clear: “We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.” His ideas on immigration shaded him a strong leader and is credited in part with his party’s election victory that November.
To be sure, it’s not that Australia has an issue with refugees––in fact, it has agreed to resettle 12,000 Syrians, atop the refugees it typically takes through its Humanitarian Programme. It granted 13,800 refugee visas between 2013 and 2014, and 20,000 between 2012 and 2013.
But the arrivals by sea seem to prompt anger. One reason for this could be that migrants and refugees who try to reach Australia by sea are, in fact, coming illegally. Those that are being resettled through its Humanitarian Programme, meanwhile, are registered refugees being accepted under Australia’s international obligations. The two main parties also contend that its policies deter human-smuggling.
The problem seems only to be when Australia discusses migration by boats, said António Guterres, the former UNHCR Commissioner, “and there, of course, we enter into a very, very, very dramatic thing. I think it is a kind of collective sociological and psychological question. They receive, I think, 180,000 migrants in a year. If you come to Australia in a different way, it’s fine but if they come in a boat it is like something strange happens to their minds.”
The graphic below shows a pictorial representation of the current Migration Programme and the historical trend.
The purpose of migration is to build the economy, shape society, support the labour market and reunite family.
Of people migrating to Australia, 68 per cent are skilled migrants and 32 per cent are from family visa streams. This is further broken down to:
- Skill: 38 per cent employer sponsored, 34 per cent skilled independent, 22 per cent state, territory and regional nominated and 6 per cent business
- Family: 79 per cent partner, 14 per cent parent, 6 per cent child and 1 per cent other.
The migration programme size and composition is flexible and changes over time, from a smaller programme with mostly family migrants in 1993-94 to a larger programme with more skilled migrants in 2013-14. Planning levels are set by the government each year and the size and composition changes to meet the social and economic needs of Australia. Full statistics and further details are available.
Fact sheet – Australia’s Migration Programme
Migration to Australia since federation: a guide to the statistics (330KB PDF)
Fact sheet – Migration Programme planning levels
So when an email popped in my inbox yesterday it got the mind thinking. The following is an outline of what is already happening;
I knew that any refugee with a health problem (most from war zones ‘apparently’ have PTSD) qualified immediately for Disability Pension (DSP), instead of having to meet the stricter residency rules applying to normal migrants. But I had no idea about the sheer size of the payments they receive.
And the Greens want to open the floodgates and let ‘em all in?? Even the loony left of the ALP want to double our intake.
While China, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia etc. all take approximately zero…….And Aussies are racist, eh?
THIS IS AUSTRALIA:
From John Glover
We sat in the sun at Coffs Harbour, CBD mall last Thursday, having a coffee before browsing the now weekly fresh food growers market. The number of well dressed African couples with children were enjoying the same atmosphere. I needed to walk over to the Palm Centre chemist to get Shirley one of her prescriptions. I stood 3rd in one line of a four abreast line with others waiting to be served, it was truly a spot the Aussie group, just me and two others. When the well dressed tall African man in front of me handed over his prescription it was promptly filled. The shop assistant advised the man that it cost $32.20.
He looked at her in surprise and said, “but we don’t pay”.
After the attendant asked for evidence of why, the man pulled out two reasons, the first was his families Australia Residency Card, and the second was his personal Federal Government Pensioner card.
The attendant took both back to the owner/chemist, I stood there watching the chemist make a call.
A few minutes later the attendant returned and told the man the cost was reduced to $9.40, his response was “but we don’t pay”, to which the attendant said but this prescription is not made out to you, it’s made out to your wife.
The man then went into a “but she not speak with you”.
By now myself and others behind me were getting impatient. Then the man pulled out his MasterCard and paid the $9.40 for what would have cost $32.20 had it been mine. This man was early 30’s, 6′ tall, well dressed in a suit – yet he had an Australia Pension Card that neither myself or my wife will ever qualify for.
Whilst Australia may one day gain from the guy’s adult aged children, they too will cost all tax payers on top of their parents until they finish school, are funded through university, and maybe one day get a tax paying job.
The above is a real life and true account of a single event that unfolded on just one sunny Thursday in my home town.
Now read on!
Open the attoo, it’s a photo of a centrelink document,
THIS IS FROM CENTRELINK (A government agency)
Aged Pensioner vs. Refugee funding