Zicutake USA Comment | Search Articles

#History (Education) #Satellite report #Arkansas #Tech #Poker #Language and Life #Critics Cinema #Scientific #Hollywood #Future #Conspiracy #Curiosity #Washington
 Smiley face
 SYFY TV online Free


[Calculate SHA256 hash]
 Smiley face
 Smiley face Encryption Text and HTML
Aspect Ratio Calculator
[HTML color codes]
 Smiley face Conversion to JavaScript
[download YouTube videos in MP4, FLV, 3GP, and many more formats]

 Smiley face Mining Satoshi | Payment speed

 Smiley face
Online BitTorrent Magnet Link Generator




EU trying (in vain?) to get new agreement on migrant redistribution in Europe; fear increase in populism

Posted: 27 Apr 2018 07:00 AM PDT

"If we don't get a deal by the summer we will lose credibility vis-à-vis public opinion and we cannot afford that because it would fuel support for populist and extremist parties across the country."

(Unnamed diplomat from a frontline country)


Politico Europe is reporting that the European Union is working to get in place (by June) a new plan to redistribute migrants from frontline countries, but those frontline countries are not happy.

Invasion of Europe news….

Of course no where is it mentioned that they must first stop the boats arriving from North Africa (European equivalent of BUILD THE WALL)!



African migrants sit on deck of Armed Forces of Malta patrol boat as it arrives at AFM Maritime Squadron base in Valletta's Marsamxett Harbour

Ferrying them in! (Note masks and gloves)



The political fight over migration is roaring back to life.

Five EU countries that sit on the bloc's external borders are bucking a proposed overhaul of asylum rules, putting in peril efforts to strike a deal by June's summit of European leaders.

The pushback from Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus and Malta — laid out in a three-page position paper obtained by POLITICO — comes as Bulgaria, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, is pushing a proposal aimed at revising the so-called Dublin Regulation and ending one of the bloc's most bitter policy fights.

In efforts to keep the Visegrad countries onboard, the frontline states (in the draft proposal) would get the brunt of a provision which, in the draft, says migrants must stay where they landed FOR up to TEN YEARS!

Their hard position comes on top of the longstanding opposition by the Visegrad countries — Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia — to any effort by Brussels to force countries to accept refugees, or to set new restrictions on how asylum seekers might be returned to the first EU country they entered.

The Bulgarian proposal is pushed by Germany, Sweden and other countries eager to avoid a repeat of the 2015-2016 migration crisis.

It revives the idea of applying mandatory quotas for all EU countries to take a certain number of refugees — which was imposed temporarily during the crisis but fiercely opposed, especially by Hungary and Poland. The EU ended the quota system in September 2017 after transferring fewer than 28,000 refugees, far short of the 160,000 goal. However, the new proposal calls for imposing quotas only if refugee numbers spike, suddenly setting off another crisis.

Under this new system, the EU would push for voluntary "allocations" of refugees from countries that are hardest hit to other willing EU countries, in part by offering financial inducements. The proposal is intended to stifle the complaints of anti-migrant European politicians, but any suggestion of mandatory quotas, even in extreme situations, is likely to be controversial in places like Austria or Poland.

Fear! Austria is set to take the presidency of EU, and the Leftists fear that the new hard line Austrian government will then stymie all efforts to spread the pain more evenly.

"We want a deal by June because the presidency that comes next is Austria, which has extremely conservative views on Dublin and migration and borders," this diplomat said.

"If we don't get a deal by the summer we will lose credibility vis-à-vis public opinion and we cannot afford that because it would fuel support for populist and extremist parties across the country."

More here.

European Lutherans fight against populism and nationalism!

In related news, the Lutheran World Federation is meeting in Berlin next week to map out their social justice strategy and plans to defeat POPULISM.

It is really worth reading the short news story and watching the video, especially if you are of the Lutheran faith.

See my complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ by clicking here.

Does America have a moral obligation to resettle refugees?

Posted: 27 Apr 2018 04:53 AM PDT

That is the question a young opinion writer asks and answers (in the affirmative of course!) in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on the President’s travel ban.

The long opinion piece in Deseret News by writer Gillian Friedman evoked a largely negative response by readers.  I especially got a chuckle out of this comment:


Screenshot (413)


I’ve snipped the following segments, but although we know the writer sought to answer the question with a resounding YES!, she has some useful historic nuggets buried between her quotes on why (she and all those she interviewed) say we are obligated to welcome the world to America (and pay for it all too).

Deseret News:

Gillian Friedman

Writer Gillian Friedman graduated from Whitman College in 2016 with a B.A. in Race and Ethnic Studies.

WASHINGTON — The first U.S. Supreme Court debate over President Donald Trump's so-called travel ban took place this week, and while justices won’t make a ruling until June, the decision is playing out at a time in which the refugee crisis in one of the impacted countries, Syria, may be getting worse.


While missile strikes may be exacerbating the refugee crisis in Syria, the United States has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees this year, compared to over 15,000 in 2016 and over 3,000 in 2017, according to State Department figures.

All of which leads to a pressing question: what obligation, if any, does America have to refugees fleeing countries where the United States is engaged militarily?

The 'Pottery Barn rule'

There is no legal obligation or provision in international law that requires a country to take in refugees, even in a case of war, says Ryan Crocker, who has served as a U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Lebanon.

But despite the lack of legal obligation, Crocker says that from 1945 onward, America has played a role of "international leadership” in refugee resettlement from countries where U.S. military forces were directly involved.

Me: The solution to that is for the US to stay out of mostly religious squabbles in the Middle East and Africa.  

The Refugee Act of 1980 enlarged upon the 1975 legislation by standardizing resettlement services for all refugees admitted to the United States. This act became the legal basis for today's U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.



9/11 changed how Americans felt about opening our doors wide to the Middle East and Africa


Gillian continues….

The policy remained consistent in its approach until the 9/11 terror attacks, when the refugee program was temporarily suspended, and then reinstated with new security protocols and lower admission rates.

Serena Parekh, associate professor of philosophy at Northeastern University and author of “Refugees and the Ethics of Forced Displacement,” says 9/11 had a profound impact on U.S. attitudes toward refugee resettlement.

Yes, it did. It is when Americans woke up to the fact that migrants from Muslim countries harbored ill-will toward us!

Parekh says that pre-9/11, one of the central tenants of America's approach to refugee resettlement had been the "Pottery Barn rule," referencing a well-known incident in which Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush of the "Pottery Barn rule" before the invasion of Iraq.

"You break it, you bought it," Parekh explains.



Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker lectures us on “who we are” as “nation of immigrants.” 

Crocker says that in recent years, the United States has "sadly disengaged" from a leadership role in refugee resettlement.

"In 2017, we had 3,100 migrants drown in the Mediterranean [Sea]," he says. "How many times can you recall a U.S. Navy vessel sailing to the rescue of a floundering refugee boat? It's a nice round number. Zero."  [What the hell, does he really think that our Navy men and women should be responsible for diverting their mission and plucking Africans from boats and then possibly being responsible for them.  I can see it now—-the illegal migrants would demand asylum in the US—ed]


Crocker says he was one of 50 senior former national security officials to file an amicus brief in support of the state of Hawaii and the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project's lawsuit against the Trump administration in the travel ban case.

Doesn’t it make you sick every time you hear this pablum about “nation of immigrants” and “who we are.” Let’s hope that Crocker’s ilk remain on the fringe of Washington policy maker circles for years to come.

Crocker continues…..

"I firmly believe that we are a nation of immigrants, that's who we are, and it's an obligation for those of us who feel that way to push back against those who try to change who we are as a nation," says Crocker. "No matter how much lipstick you put on it, it is still a highly discriminatory measure based on national origin and religion. And that's why it's in front of the Supreme Court."

There is more.  Looking for something to do?

Send a comment to Deseret News. Click on the op-ed here, see the other comments and then send yours!

And, remember what a rare opportunity the Trump Presidency has given us to rethink this “moral obligation” issue.

Our obligation, as Trump has made clear, is to America First!