Huge influx of migrants is blamed for an expected ONE BILLION EURO shortfall in the German health service by 2017

Germany’s health service is facing a massive deficit due to migrant costs
It is unable to cope with treatment required for its ballooning population
By 2017, the health service is expected to face a one billion euro shortfall
By Corey Charlton for MailOnline
Published: 15:31, 17 February 2016 |

The German health service is facing a billion-euro deficit as it struggles to cope with the influx of more than a million asylum seekers who arrived last year.

Although the German government pays a lump sum to the country’s health insurance companies every time they treat an asylum seeker, this apparently does not even cover half the cost.

Currently the amount is £70 per person, but research over costs of treating asylum seekers in Hamburg has revealed it needs to be at least between £140 and £155.

The German health service is facing a billion euro deficit due to the influx of healthcare needed for its booming migrant population. Pictured are a group of refugees in Berlin queuing for their registration papers

The deficit means that per refugee there is a deficit of around £78 a month, which is £935 per year.

For every 100,000 asylum seekers, this means a shortfall of £93million per year.

According to the latest figures, this year alone the total deficit is expected to be several hundred million euros and by next year and it will rise to over £779million as more become eligible for health service treatment.

If the country’s finance minister Wolfgang Schauble refuses to use taxpayer money to bail out the health service, it will mean the deficit needs to be paid by German workers through their health insurance contributions.

The government currently pays £10.9billion a year to the health service, and in 2017 it will be £11.2billion.

Asylum seekers which come into the country have to wait 15 months and then get the same rights to health service treatment as a German worker.

Because asylum seekers who usually do not speak German or have any sk**ls are believed to be unlikely to work in Germany, they will also end up taking unemployment benefits known as Hartz IV.

That means that the money for their health insurance will also be paid by the government (taxpayers).

Japan is not open or accepting to immigrants and the country has a very low immigrant population. Japan has started to loosen up on its migration policies, which naturally will cause an increase in crime and other social and security problems to the country.

According to the Japanese Ministry of Justice, the number of foreign residents (excluding i*****l i*******ts and short-term foreign visitors staying less than 90 days in Japan) was more than 2.23 million at the end of 2015. With an estimated population of 127.11 million in 2015 the resident foreign population in Japan amounts to approximately 1.75% of the total population.

And although Japan’s immigration statistics are very small, they already feel the brunt of crimes originating with those who have made their way into the country. And as usual, Muslims dominate the crime statistics amongst migrants.

Corporate America is Allowing Sharia to Creep In

Muslims make up only one percent of the population, but file 40% of workplace discrimination complaints.


Islamic terror attacks have taken the world by storm the last several months. From Orlando and Istanbul, to Karrada and Nice, these and many other attacks have made fearful citizens eager to avoid becoming a target of Muslim radicals. Instead of seeing the need to get tough with jihadism, some individuals see it as a time to make frightened concessions to the Muslim community. These individuals tend to blame the political environment and the rhetoric of people like Republican p**********l nominee Donald Trump for the alleged hostility from Muslims. Carol Hymowitz and Jeff Green wrote an article for Bloomberg about corporate America’s response titled The Rise of Muslim-Friendly Workplaces in Corporate America. Even though the authors say the motivations for the more Muslim-friendly working environment are principled, they allude to the pragmatism that undergirds much of the business world.

Even outside of fear of drawing an Islamist attack, avoiding conflict with Muslim employees affects both the company’s ‘inclusive’ image, and its liability to lawsuits by activist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). When special interest activist groups put pressure on businesses to give into their demands businesses often (depending on the issue/s) concede rather than face bad publicity. Businesses placating to Muslim demands is one of the objectives of the Hamas-affiliated CAIR. Masquerading as a civil liberties organization for Muslims, CAIR, as mentioned in the video, pressures businesses into accommodating the most trivial of Muslim practices advocated for in sharia law.

For example, defending Muslim taxi drivers that refuse service to individuals with seeing-eye dogs because dog saliva is considered unclean or impure in Islam. In addition, dogs get blamed for repelling angels, annulling prayers, and other stigmas that are inherent in Islamic texts, such as:

Narrated Abu Talha: The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house witch [sic] has either a dog or a picture in it.” –Sahih Bukhari 4.54.539

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.” –Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490

The authors in the Bloomberg article reveal information that shows the strength of Muslim activism in trying to t***sform America through litigation – especially that of the workplace to become more sharia compliant. The Bloomberg article states:

While people who practice Islam make up only about 1 percent of the U.S. population, some 40 percent of religion-based workplace complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission last year were related to Muslims. The agency has pursued a wide range of disputes, including whether Muslims can be fired for refusing to handle pork or alcohol at work. In many instances, the courts have said they cannot.

It’s shocking that such a small fraction of the U.S. population are exerting so outsized an influence. What should businesses do – cater to Muslim religious demands in order to avoid complaints? The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states, “An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.” Furthermore, trying to pacify sharia compliant Muslims is useless, since sharia is an all-encompassing ideology that dictates not just clothing and diet but includes rules for speech, prayer, banking, commerce, etc. The Bloomberg article gives a short list of how some companies are furthering this gradual sharia agenda:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. provides t***sportation to mosques, and other places of worship, for employees in offices not big enough to have prayer rooms. Alcohol wasn’t served at a recent party at a New York architecture firm because a new staff member who’s [sic] Muslim wouldn’t feel comfortable attending if it were, according to the office manager, asking not to be named because he’s not authorized to speak publicly about the firm. At Accenture Plc, the corporate calendar is organized to prevent events from conflicting with Muslim holidays, as well as those of other faiths.

In addition, “[o]ne goal of the Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield Q&A session in Newark last year was to dispel concerns that Islam is a dangerous faith[.]” Since, when did it become the job of a health insurance network to advocate for Islamic apologetics? Is that not the job of clerics and believers of the faith? For that matter, when did employers become a free taxi service to the local “place of worship”?

We have seen accommodations for Muslim employees played out in businesses such as prayer rooms, prayer breaks, reassignments when faced with pork and alcohol products, permitting Islamic clothing and facial hair, and in many other areas. Some U.S. companies are willing to go to outstanding lengths to appease one percent of the U.S. population because some Muslim activists shout the loudest. Corporate America needs to say “No!” to more sharia.

Mollie, all very true! CAIR, which is also considered a terrorist organization, seems to have tremendous influence with him. Funny, I have many Muslim friends, and they all v**ed for Trump. We will see!

Sign:

Is this the kind of crap we have to look forward to?

AN Afghan migrant has admitted the rape and murder of a medical student, who also worked voluntarily at a refugee centre.
Maria Ladenburger, the daughter of a high-ranking EU official, was returning from a party in the university city of Freiburg in Germany when she was assaulted on a cycle path.She was raped and then drowned before her body was found in the River Dreisam.The shocking incident happened on October 16 but details have only been released after an arrest on Friday.The suspect, an Afghan migrant, was caught after police found DNA on a scarf near the path.
The scarf reportedly belonged to Maria.

They also found a strand of hair on a nearby blackberry bush.

Officers then trawled CCTV to see find people with a similar hairstyle, which led them to the suspect.

Following his arrest the suspect, aged 17, pleaded guilty to the attack and will be sentenced next year.

The unnamed migrant arrived in Germany last year as an unaccompanied minor and lived with a local family in the city.

Maria Ladenburger, daughter of an EU official daughter, was murdered
Ms Ladenburger reportedly worked in her spare time helping out in refugee homes in Freiburg.But it is unclear whether she ever met her murderer before he took her life.The dead girl’s father is Dr. Clemens Ladenburger, a lawyer who works as the right hand man to the legal director of the European Commission.
On October 26 he and his wife Frederika placed a memorial notice for Maria in the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper.

THREE archbishops from war-torn Iraq and Syria have been refused permission to enter the UK despite being invited to London to meet Prince Charles.
By Caroline Wheeler, Exclusive, The Express, December 4, 2016:

The Christians, including the Archbishop of Mosul, were told there was “no room at the inn” by the Home Office when they applied for visas to attend the consecration of the UK’s first Syriac Orthodox Cathedral.
Last night the decision was described as “unbelievable” by critics who pointed out that extreme Islamic leaders had been allowed visas.

The Prince of Wales addressed the congregation at St Thomas Cathedral in London last week, while both the Queen and the Prime Minister sent personal messages of congratulations.
Prince Charles, who has previously described the persecution of the Christians in the Middle East as a “tragedy”, used his address to highlight the suffering of Syrian Christians.But the welcome did not extend to Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf, the Archbishop of Mosul, nor to Timothius Mousa Shamani, the Archbishop of St Matthew’s, which covers the Nineveh valley in northern Iraq, who were refused UK visas to attend the event on November 24.The UK also refused to grant a visa to Archbishop Selwanos Boutros Alnemeh, the Archbishop of Homs and Hama in Syria.

Prince Charles described the persecution of Christians in the Middle East as a ‘tragedy’
In his case the British embassy told him that it would not waiver from its policy of not granting visas to anyone in Syria.The men were also told they were denied entry because they did not have enough money to support themselves and they might not leave the UK.Last night the leader of the UK’s Syriac Orthodox Christians Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod condemned the decision.
He said: “These are men who have pressing pastoral responsibilities as Christian areas held by IS are liberated.
We cannot understand why Britain is treating Christians in this way

“That is why we cannot understand why Britain is treating Christians in this way?”Dr Martin Parsons, head of research at the Barnabas Fund, an aid agency which has helped more than 8,000 Christians escape persecution at the hands of IS, said: “It’s unbelievable that these persecuted Christians who come from the cradle of Christianity are being told there is no room at the inn, when the UK is offering a welcome to Islamists who persecute Christians.”

Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly incited violence against Egyptian Christians
The Home Office recently issued guidance stating that there should be a presumption that senior members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood should be granted asylum in the UK – despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly incited violence against Egyptian Christians.Dr Parsons also claims that visas were granted in July to two Pakistani Islamic leaders who have called for the k*****g of Christians accused of blasphemy.He said: “There is a serious systemic problem when Islamist leaders who advocate persecution of Christians are given the green light telling them that their applications for UK visas will be looked on favourably, while visas for short pastoral visits to the UK are denied to Christian leaders whose churches are facing genocide.

Donald Trump faces a massive campaign from the media to take down his presidency, before he even takes the White House, the latest of which came from the New York Times in the form of a book review.
The New York Times, in its end-of-year review of the best books of 2016, suggested a tome about Adolf Hitler’s rise to power – a recommendation that on surface, would seem no big deal, save for the inclusion of one curious word: “timely.”

What exactly is so timely about a book on Hitler?

Here’s a thought: It’s post-Donald Trump win of the White House, and those on the left see the billionaire businessman as little more than an American Hitler.

Has the left not learned a thing from Trump’s win?

Mediaite’s Lindsey Ellefson picked up on the odd phrasing, which read in the New York Times: “Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939. By Volker Ullrich. T***slated by Jefferson Chase. (Knopf, $40.) The first volume of a timely new biography focuses on Hitler the man, seeing him as a consummate tactician and an actor aware of his audience.”

Ellefson then wrote, in Mediaite:

“A book about Adolf Hitler‘s rise to power made the list, which is unsurprising. People love a good history lesson. But one word is slipped in the blurb that makes this especially interesting. What, exactly, is ‘timely’ about a genocidal, bigoted dictator’s rise to power…?

“A book about Adolf Hitler‘s rise to power made the list, which is unsurprising. People love a good history lesson. But one word is slipped in the blurb that makes this especially interesting. What, exactly, is “timely” about a genocidal, bigoted dictator’s rise to power…?

“Wait, it isn’t a reference to the e******n of Donald Trump, is it?”
Ellefson then goes on to cite the alt-right’s support of Trump – though Trump neither sought nor welcomed such endorsements.

Regardless, the larger story is this: The media is not honest. And the left-leaning media will use every trick at its disposal – even using something as tame as its book review section – to discredit Trump’s presidency, even before it starts.

President Obama’s days in the White House are short now, but that hasn’t slowed his t*****rous acts of sabotage. He means for us to suffer his presidency long after he’s gone.

The Obama administration announced that 175 immigrants were approved for citizenship even though their names were not being run through a basic FBI name-check database.

NOT EVEN BASIC VETTING
Homeland Security officials blamed “computer code” for the problem, which affected about 15,000 applications. These left-wing clowns are responsible for our safety?

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FAILS TO CHECK IMMIGRANTS AGAINST FBI DATABASES, APPROVES CITIZENSHIP
By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Sunday, December 4, 2016


Some 175 immigrants were approved for citizenship even though their names weren’t properly run through the FBI’s name-check databases, potentially missing red f**gs that may have disqualified them from naturalization, the Obama administration admitted this weekend.

Homeland Security officials blamed computer code for the problem, which affected about 15,000 applications in total.

The problem was significant enough that the government halted all naturalization ceremonies already in the pipeline and banned U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers from approving new citizenship applications beginning on Nov. 29, when officials acknowledged the problem in an internal email that was later obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

In the internal email, Daniel M. Renaud, associate director at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ordered all officers “not to approve or oath any naturalization cases in ELIS,” referring to the Electronic Immigration System that serves as the case management system for processing applications.

“At this point we are not confident that proper FBI Name Checks have been run on certain ELIS cases. At this point we are uncertain of the scope of the problem,” he wrote.

It was another embarrassing black eye for USCIS, which earlier this year admitted it had granted citizenship to hundreds of criminals who should have been barred but who escaped notice because the agency wasn’t properly checking their fingerprints. Tens of thousands of fingerprints remain in paper files, and the agency was only checking electronic records, an internal audit said.

Mr. Goodlatte said he was stunned that USCIS didn’t notify him, as the chairman of the committee that oversees the agency, of the new problem. He only learned about it after a source provided him with Mr. Renaud’s internal email.

Homeland Security said the problem arose as part of the ongoing push to digital processing of citizenship applications.

Some 15,000 applications were affected, including about 175 people who had their applications approved despite not having an accurate name check, the department said. Those persons have all had their names resubmitted to the FBI for an update.

FBI name checks are a critical part of the application process, giving immigration officers a look at potential criminal histories or other national security red f**gs that would make someone ineligible for citizenship.

Mr. Goodlatte demanded USCIS detail when it discovered the problem and how many cases were affected, and said the agency should take steps to strip citizenship from anyone who shouldn’t have been approved.

Homeland Security spokesman Aaron Rodriguez said the department will respond directly to Mr. Goodlatte, but insisted officials take the background process seriously.

The spokesman said FBI name checks are one of a number of steps in the process, each aimed at weeding out bad citizenship applications. But Mr. Rodriguez said the name checks are a critical part of the process, and must be completed before someone is cleared to come in for a naturalization interview.

“Naturalization applications represent a significant portion of USCIS’ caseload, and as with any major system change, some challenges were expected as we moved to electronic processing of the N-400. We will continue to employ multiple quality controls to ensure the integrity of the naturalization process,” the spokesman said.

In his email to employees, Mr. Renaud said officers were allowed to continue conducting citizenship interviews but could not issue a final approval. In emergency cases where the case must be decided or an oath administered, he said, officers needed to get written confirmation from a regional office that the FBI information in the system was correct.
In the internal email, Daniel M. Renaud, associate director at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ordered all officers “not to approve or oath any naturalization cases in ELIS,” referring to the Electronic Immigration System that serves as the case management system for processing applications.

“At this point we are not confident that proper FBI Name Checks have been run on certain ELIS cases. At this point we are uncertain of the scope of the problem,” he wrote.

It was another embarrassing black eye for USCIS, which earlier this year admitted it had granted citizenship to hundreds of criminals who should have been barred but who escaped notice because the agency wasn’t properly checking their fingerprints. Tens of thousands of fingerprints remain in paper files, and the agency was only checking electronic records, an internal audit said.

Mr. Goodlatte said he was stunned that USCIS didn’t notify him, as the chairman of the committee that oversees the agency, of the new problem. He only learned about it after a source provided him with Mr. Renaud’s internal email.

Homeland Security said the problem arose as part of the ongoing push to digital processing of citizenship applications.

Some 15,000 applications were affected, including about 175 people who had their applications approved despite not having an accurate name check, the department said. Those persons have all had their names resubmitted to the FBI for an update.

FBI name checks are a critical part of the application process, giving immigration officers a look at potential criminal histories or other national security red f**gs that would make someone ineligible for citizenship.

Mr. Goodlatte demanded USCIS detail when it discovered the problem and how many cases were affected, and said the agency should take steps to strip citizenship from anyone who shouldn’t have been approved.

Homeland Security spokesman Aaron Rodriguez said the department will respond directly to Mr. Goodlatte, but insisted officials take the background process seriously.

The spokesman said FBI name checks are one of a number of steps in the process, each aimed at weeding out bad citizenship applications. But Mr. Rodriguez said the name checks are a critical part of the process, and must be completed before someone is cleared to come in for a naturalization interview.

“Naturalization applications represent a significant portion of USCIS’ caseload, and as with any major system change, some challenges were expected as we moved to electronic processing of the N-400. We will continue to employ multiple quality controls to ensure the integrity of the naturalization process,” the spokesman said.

In his email to employees, Mr. Renaud said officers were allowed to continue conducting citizenship interviews but could not issue a final approval. In emergency cases where the case must be decided or an oath administered, he said, officers needed to get written confirmation from a regional office that the FBI information in the system was correct.

Obama’s legacy isn’t all that much to brag about. Really, it ushered in the demise of Americans’ freedoms. The only thing Obama was good at was making speeches. He by far was the weakest leader our nation has ever seen.

The numbers and ways this president has failed are numerous. Feckless foreign policy leading to a complete and total meltdown in the middle-east; more debt added than the previous 43 presidents combined; civil unrest resulting in ten r**ts, more than one per year, during his tenure; citizens hunting (and k*****g) police in the streets; lies told in order to pass a piece of legislation bearing his name that collapsed and cost the American taxpayer two trillion dollars.
On and on it goes.
But the true legacy Barack Hussein Obama will be remembered for is his decimation of the Democrat Party. Obama has destroyed Democrats from coast-to-coast in a manner that is astonishing.
Obama’s first midterm e******n (2010) was disastrous for Democrats. With the birth of the Tea Party movement Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, the largest midterm seat change since 1938, and six Senate seats. That year Republicans gained a record pickup of 680 seats in state legislative races, giving R’s control of 26 state legislatures and dropping D’s to just 15 of 50. Republicans also took 11 governorships from the Democrats for a total of 29. 54 incumbents lost re-e******n bids that year, 52 were Democrats.
Next, 2014 midterms. Up for grabs, all 435 House seats, 36 Senate seats, 38 governorships, 46 state legislatures. Though it didn’t seem possible, Democrat defeats in 2010 were dwarfed. Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since 2006, increased an already commanding majority in the House and gained two more governorships.
Things got much worse for Democrats. 2014 saw a sweeping in of the largest Republican majority in nearly a century, 54 seats in the Senate, 247 in the House, 31 governorships, and 68 state legislative chambers. Republicans gained their largest majority in Congress and largest majority of state legislatures since 1928.

Now this is downright funny. They scream for a higher minimum wage, then, when they get it they complain because they make too much money to qualify for the free stuff, go figure. By jacking up minimum wage, Seattle has provided a valuable lesson in liberal economics. The plan has now backfired.

Nora Gibson, executive director of Full Life Care, told Seattle 's KIRO 7 TV she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle 's phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized housing so they have asked that their work hours be reduced to remain eligible for all government subsidies.

It doesn't stop at $11/hour. The law puts it up to $15 starting January 1, 2017, they will have to reduce their work hours even more to remain eligible for handouts. Good thing the minimum wage wasn't raised even higher, most would not work at all, they prefer to be spoon fed and remain on the government plantation.

So now workers work fewer hours, but for the same take home pay, business' labor costs increase so prices increase, buyers (workers) pay more and no one is better off.

Remember free market capitalism? Under that system, the harder and smarter you worked, the higher your standard of living. But that was found to result in “income ine******y”, so now we have a system where wealth is bestowed by bureaucrats, and working harder doesn't always make sense.

Anywhere American law and Islamic law conflict, it’s American law that has to give way.

Islamic s*********ts and Muslim Brotherhood organizations like CAIR have once again called upon their running dogs at the Department of Justice, to impose the sharia and usurp American law for Islamic law. The DoJ has become the de facto legal arm of terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood groups in this country. What small town can go up against the U.S. government’s vast resources and endless taxpayer-funded muscle?

In a striking violation of the establishment clause, Obama’s lawless administration is imposing the Shariah nationwide, allowing the rampant construction of rabats and jihad recruitment centers at a time when we should be monitoring the mosques and restricting construction of Muslim Brotherhood beachheads and Islamic State madrassas.

“Justice Dept. sues NJ township for rejecting mosque,” by Kelly Cohen, Washington Examiner, November 22, 2016:

The Justice Department announced on Tuesday it is suing Bernards Township, N.J., because it denied zoning approval for the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge to build a mosque on land it owns.

The township in December unanimously v**ed down the Islamic Society’s application to build a mosque, which the Justice Department says violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

In the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the department said the denial was discriminatory based on the Islamic Society’s members’ religion. The denial imposed a substantial burden on the Islamic Society’s religious exercise, according to the complaint, it said.

The complaint also alleged that the township violated the law “by amending its zoning ordinance in a manner that imposes unreasonable limitations on all religious assemblies.”

According to Justice Department officials, the land where the Islamic Society wanted to build the mosque is located in a zone that permitted construction of places of worship as a matter of right at the time of the zoning request.

“As alleged in the complaint, Bernards Township has treated the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge differently than other houses of worship,” said U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Paul Fishman in a statement. “RLUIPA ensures that municipalities must treat religious land use applications like any other land use application. But here, township officials kept moving the goalposts by using ever-changing local requirements to effectively deny this religious community the same access as other faiths.”…

Many high-ranking government officials are upset over the secret negotiations that many believe will put American citizens in danger – and be unlawful.

“The chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees are demanding the Obama administration provide details of a secret resettlement deal in which the U.S. has agreed to take up to 1,800 mostly Muslim asylum seekers who have been rejected by Australia as i*****l a***ns,” WND reported. “Congress only learned of the deal through media reports two weeks ago and – according to a letter sent to administration officials by [lawmakers] Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) – the deal is not only a matter of grave national security concern, but it could be illegal.”

ABOVE THE LAW

When held up to the U.S. Constitution the lawlessness of the clandestine dealings becomes clear.

“[The deal] amounts to an international treaty that Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated without consulting or notifying Congress, according to Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, according to the letter, sent by [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte on] Nov. 22 to Kerry and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson,” WND’s Leo Hohmann explained.

Inviting danger?

Many of the safety concerns are rooted in the fact that the origins of the rejected Islamic migrants are rooted in the jihadist hotbeds of Iran, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan.

“Nearly 2,500 of them were interdicted off the coast of Australia in 2013, in accordance with that country’s policy of not accepting any of the wave of ‘refugees’ streaming out of the Middle East,” Hohmann pointed out. “Unlike Europe, Australia effectively said ‘no’ to the United Nations’ plan to open up Western democracies for millions of refugees fleeing not only the Syrian civil war, but conflicts in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and even countries like Pakistan that are not at war. Germany alone has accepted 1.5 million Muslim refugees and subjected itself to thousands of sexual assaults on its women and girls.”

Australian officials never extended the welcome mat to the Muslim migrants attempting to seek asylum in the Land Down Under.

“They were rescued by the Australian coast guard from their unsafe vessels and taken to off-shore camps on the islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, where they have remained ever since,” Hohmann informed.” The United Nations stepped in and is looking for countries that will take the asylum seekers.”

Knowing the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim stance, the U.N. successfully appealed to the U.S. to take in the potentially hostile i*****l a***ns.

“Kerry confirmed he had reached a deal to take an undetermined number of the 2,465 aliens for permanent resettlement in the United States,” WND announced. “Goodlatte and Grassley said they have since found out that up to 1,800 of the boat people could end up being distributed to U.S. cities and towns. But very little information has been released about the aliens – or how many will end up in which American cities.”

The lawmakers asserted in their letter that Kerry and the Obama administration acted above the law and beyond their authority by singlehandedly moving forward with the plan – essentially skirting the system of checks and balances by which they are obligated to abide.

“This situation is concerning for many reasons,” Grassley and Goodlatte’s letter reads. “First, your departments negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress. Such information was not disclosed to Congress during the annual refugee consultation that occurred on September 13, 2016, even though your staff confirmed that the agreement had, at the time, been negotiated ‘for months.’ Second, the agreement and the number of refugees to be resettled has been deemed by your departments as classified, thus the American people are left in the dark as to the rationale for this agreement. Third, the individuals who will be resettled are coming from countries of national security concern. In fact, two of the countries are officially designated by the State Department to be State Sponsors of Terrorism. Finally, it begs the question why Australia and other countries refuse to admit these individuals, what other countries are doing to help alleviate the situation, what kind of precedent this sets for future refugees interdicted at sea by Australian forces and prevented from entering Australia, and how a similar situation will be prevented in the future.”

Blind acceptance

Shocking to both conservatives and liberals alike, the Obama administration went ahead and brokered the deal without knowing what they would get, as information about the incoming Muslim migrants was not sought until after the secretary of state signed the dotted line.

“No details have been released as to how many from each country would be considered for resettlement in the U.S., what cities or states they would be sent to, the breakdown of men, women and children, or the state of their health,” Hohmann stressed. “The U.S. sent teams to begin screening the aliens almost immediately after the deal was brokered by Kerry, according to the letter.”

Tougher under Trump

It is argued by Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran that Congress’ hard stance against the Obama administration – as exhibited in the letter – is a huge indicator that it is being tougher on America’s lax acceptance of refugee. However, she notes that the U.S. shows no indication of being as hard on immigration as Australia.

“There are many important concerns in this letter, but one issue in particular caught my eye – the idea of setting a precedent, which is something I’ve been hammering for years,” Corcoran wrote in her blog.

The refugee watchdog emphasized that agreements like the one Kerry just signed to forward the State Department’s refugee program are by no means uncommon, as the U.S. is in the practice of regularly agreeing to accept migrants –migrants who more security-savvy nations outright reject.

Come on over …

Laying out the welcome mat for potentially dangerous migrants is a policy that the Obama administration has employed for some time.

“[The] U.S. has been accepting illegal African migrants from Malta for years,” Hohmann maintained. “For instance, the U.S. has for years been admitting Libyans and Somalis who arrive on the Mediterranean island of Malta.”

Corcoran says the security issues with accepting these i*****l a***ns are astronomical, insisting that the U.S. should not open its arms to the problems other nations are looking to pawn off on it – as it has done during the last two administrations.

“Surely these people are undocumented with only their personal stories to rely on,” Corcoran contends. “But we have been t***sforming them into refugees and placing them in your American towns ever since the Bush Administration. These are Europe’s i*****l a***ns and not our concern. Just as this new batch is Australia’s problem.”

“Congress and the new president can quickly plug this hole, and we must stop these foolish ‘deals’ wherever they are occurring.”

Of course, a “deal” implies that the United States will get something in exchange.

“But what we get is never clear,” Corcoran said.