This is what we should be doing as well and it has begun with the Trump Administration restrictions on migration to America from certain regions of the world.
I would be completely cheering for Australia if what Miranda Devine says is really happening, however, Australia is dumping those rejected asylum seekers (mostly Muslims) on US towns and cities (with the Trump Administration’s full cooperation), so I’m feeling less enthusiastic about this news (any news telling the UN to take a hike!) than I normally would.***
Columnist Devine tells UN to butt out of Australia immigration policy, here at the Daily Telegraph (hope you don’t get the paywall):
THE United Nations refugee agency was at it again last week pointlessly complaining about Australia’s sovereign right to secure its borders.
At a special press conference in Geneva, the UNHCR demanded the Australian government “live up to its responsibilities and urgently find humane and appropriate solutions” on Manus Island.
This is the organisation which runs refugee camps in the Middle East which are supposed to be for all persecuted, displaced people but which, for some reason, are almost entirely populated by Muslims.
By the way, almost all Syrian refugees admitted to the US in Obama’s last years in office were Muslims and we heard the same thing: the UN was picking our refugees and they were picking from their camps, thus mostly Muslims were being resettled.
It’s a curious demographic imbalance when Christians and other religious minorities are effectively being ethnically cleansed from the region, yet are not safe in UN camps because they are persecuted there by the same people who drove them out of their homes — that is if they weren’t crucified, beheaded or turned into sex slaves first.
But the UN turns a blind eye to the missing Christians on its books, declaring the imbalance a mystery, while attempting to shame countries like Australia to “do more”.
The New York Times reported these numbers as “Australia’s Immoral Preference for Christian Refugees”, with an opinion column arguing that “Selecting refugees based on their spiritual beliefs is a form of state-supported prejudice that secular societies like Australia have a moral obligation to reject.”
I didn’t see that New York Times piece, but they show their ignorance because I will bet a buck that the NYT cheered (or at least didn’t say anything about “state-supported prejudice”) when the US opened its doors to Russian Jews (calling them refugees), by the tens of thousands, a few decades ago.
And, I doubt they ever editorialized against the Lautenberg Amendment, here.
What about the UN’s apparent discrimination against Christians in its refugee camps? If the UN wants to claim the moral high ground, it should get its own house in order first.
***And, go here for my large archive on the Australia “dumb” deal.