You guessed it! Those Rohingya Boat People are coming to the US!

www.nytimes.com...
The United States is willing to take in Rohingya refugees as part of international efforts to cope with Southeast Asia's stranded boat people, the State Department said Wednesday.
Spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the U.S. is prepared to take a leading role in any multicountry effort, organized by the United Nations refugee agency, to resettle the most vulnerable refugees.

Bend over, here it comes again!!

As official UN refugees, they will be eligible for instant, taxpayer paid housing and welfare money, even as our own homeless get to sleep on concrete. And being illiterate and without skills, they will likely be on welfare for decades.

Now get ready for a flood of more Bangladeshi boat people, who smell an opportunity.

a reply to: starviego

And the Australian prime minister has this to say .

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out resettling any of the thousands of refugees stranded at sea amid the Southeast Asia asylum seeker crisis.

"Nope, nope, nope," Mr Abbott told reporters on Thursday, saying the prospect of resettlement in Western countries would encourage more people to risk their lives on leaky boats.

"If you want to start a new life, you come through the front door, not through the back door," he said.

His view is at odds with the United States, which has vowed to help countries in the region bear the burden and will consider resettlement requests.

Now we cant let them die at sea , but we can put them straight on a boat and send them back . Funny how since we stopped accepting ILLEGAL immigrants the boats have stopped .

originally posted by: hutch622
Now we cant let them die at sea

Sure we can. Action. Consequence.

When you mess with the natural order of things you are asking for trouble.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Star for using the simplest answer.

How would you turn them away, though. Hypothetically?

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Star for using the simplest answer.

How would you turn them away, though. Hypothetically?

Well the situation they currently have is they rescue them and then return them. Don't rescue them. Those that make it return them, those that don't ... action/consequence.

Right now the risk is fairly low and the reward very high. That needs to be shifted to high risk/low reward. We need to take care of our own people and stop hurting ourselves putting others before our own.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: starviego

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out resettling any of the thousands of refugees stranded at sea amid the Southeast Asia asylum seeker crisis.

"Nope, nope, nope," Mr Abbott told reporters on Thursday, saying the prospect of resettlement in Western countries would encourage more people to risk their lives on leaky boats.

"If you want to start a new life, you come through the front door, not through the back door," he said.

His view is at odds with the United States, which has vowed to help countries in the region bear the burden and will consider resettlement requests.

Now we cant let them die at sea , but we can put them straight on a boat and send them back .

Some of those humane charitable values that those so called Christians with a sense of self entitlement tend to have. Screw those UN treaties and responsibilities, right? Just shut the borders down and let the rest of the world deal with it.

Tony Abbots a dimwitted bigot!

Well it's good they are going to a Christian nation like America where they will be welcomed as fellow human beings.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We need to take care of our own people and stop hurting ourselves putting others before our own.

I agree

Unfortunately the words you use=political suicide.

Those things need to be reconciled.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: starviego

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out resettling any of the thousands of refugees stranded at sea amid the Southeast Asia asylum seeker crisis.

"Nope, nope, nope," Mr Abbott told reporters on Thursday, saying the prospect of resettlement in Western countries would encourage more people to risk their lives on leaky boats.

"If you want to start a new life, you come through the front door, not through the back door," he said.

His view is at odds with the United States, which has vowed to help countries in the region bear the burden and will consider resettlement requests.

Now we cant let them die at sea , but we can put them straight on a boat and send them back .

Some of those humane charitable values that those so called Christians with a sense of self entitlement tend to have. Screw those UN treaties and responsibilities, right? Just shut the borders down and let the rest of the world deal with it.

Tony Abbots a dimwitted bigot!

There is no treaty or responsibility. If you feel so strongly about it you be the first to open your house to the refugees.

a reply to: rockintitz

Its not political suicide in Australia apparently. Our current prime minister won the election just by ranting the slogan "I'll stop the boats"!

Meanwhile, since his been in power the unemployment rate just keeps climbing and the cost of living just keeps getting higher. It's almost now impossible for the long-term unemployed to get a 'full time' job atm. Youth unemployment is at like 28% where I live and Abbot refuses to do anything about it.

Oh, but as long as his stopping those boats! Worst prime minister in Australia's history.

Bunch of hicks who voted him in, in the first place.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 typical answer.

most people are not nation states with the resources to help refugees. Surely the richest nations on earth can do something to help. America has acres and acres of land and billions of dollars to help.

Funny the U.S. And other western nations can always find money for bombs and military hard wear but when it comes to humanitRian aid, they have empty pockets and no will

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Yet one more thing Aus and USA have in common, horribly inept leaders.

That doesn't make stopping the boats a bad thing, it does mean doing so does not make him a good leader.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: rockintitz

Its not political suicide in Australia apparently. Our current prime minister won the election just by ranting the slogan "I'll stop the boats"!

Meanwhile, since his been in power the unemployment rate just keeps climbing and the cost of living just keeps getting higher. It's almost now impossible for the long-term unemployed to get a 'full time' job atm. Youth unemployment is at like 28% where I live and Abbot refuses to do anything about it.

Oh, but as long as his stopping those boats! Worst prime minister in Australia's history.

Bunch of hicks who voted him in, in the first place.

You mean to say.. Your government doesn't speak for you?

That's crazy.

Bangladeshi boat people?

Mind of a child.

a reply to: starviego

Good. I hope they have a chance to live productive & peaceful lives, while ensuring a healthy upbringing for their children. May peace be upon them all.

It costs around $10,000 per person to get on these boats.

That is besides the other costs in getting to the debarkation port.

It is very expensive.

Where do these 'refugees' get that money from.

There are only a few ways to get that sort of money. Drug trade / child sex trade / Gun running are all top of the list.

When they get close, they throw their passports overboard in the hope that they can't be identified.

I don't want them in my country. Thanks all the same.

P

a reply to: starviego

I guess most of you have forgotton that your families too where on boats once traveling to a new land. What the hell is the difference...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: starviego

I guess most of you have forgotton that your families too where on boats once traveling to a new land. What the hell is the difference...

There is a big difference to coming in legally or coming in illegally.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
It costs around $10,000 per person to get on these boats.

That is besides the other costs in getting to the debarkation port.

It is very expensive.

Where do these 'refugees' get that money from.

There are only a few ways to get that sort of money. Drug trade / child sex trade / Gun running are all top of the list.

When they get close, they throw their passports overboard in the hope that they can't be identified.

I don't want them in my country. Thanks all the same.

P

Or they get here, take a job away from a citizen, send money home rather than put it into the economy, and then bring relatives over for them to keep draining our economy.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: starviego

I guess most of you have forgotton that your families too where on boats once traveling to a new land. What the hell is the difference...

And once upon a time the King could legally rape any woman on her wedding night. I really don't know what that has to do with the present situation, do you?

What welfare check and free housing did the Pilgrims get?