About 1,200 Afghani, Iraqi and Iranian refugees\u2014currently housed in terrible conditions on islands near Australia\u2014are supposed to come, over time, to the US, under an agreement signed by Barack Obama and Australia\u2019s prime minister Malcom Turnbull. But Donald Trump doesn\u2019t want them. Yesterday, he called the deal \u201cdumb,\u201d and says he will refuse to accept any of the refugees who come from countries banned by his Jan. 27 executive order.<\/p>\n

So, who are these refugees? First of all, they are not \u201cillegal immigrants,\u201d as Trump labeled them during his disastrous phone call with Turnbull.\u00a0 This Washington Post article<\/a> helps clarify what\u2019s really going on:<\/p>\n

The measure was necessary because of Australia’s draconian immigration policies.\u00a0Asylum seekers who reach the country by boat are never settled in Australia proper. Instead, they’re sent to Nauru or Papua New Guinea\u2019s Manus Island<\/a>\u00a0for “offshore processing.” Right now, there are about 2,000 people between the two islands, including many children. The vast majority come from Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.\u00a0Many were transported to Australia by smugglers across a treacherous sea route hundreds of miles long. (At least 1,200 people have died trying to make the trip, one study found.)<\/p>\n

After arrival, the migrants are thoroughly vetted; about 80 percent of those people are legitimate refugees, according to the Australian government<\/a>. And most have been <\/a>at a camp for more than a year, living in an immigration limbo. They are unable to leave their camps but also forbidden from settling for good.<\/p>\n

Critics say that this amounts to indefinite and illegal detention; several reports have documented widespread abuse and mistreatment.\u00a0Last year, a U.N. committee report<\/a> found multiple cases of “attempted suicide, self-immolation, acts of self-harm and depression” among children who had lived in prolonged “detention-like conditions.”<\/p>\n

Australia has a very tough stance on refugees. Despite the inhumane conditions at the island detention facilities, the Australian government has remained \u201cresolutely unwilling to resettle refugees in Australia.\u201d<\/p>\n

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull campaigned in 2013 on a vow to “stop the boats.” His posters bore slogans like, “No Way: You will not make Australia home.” Instead, his government looked to other countries willing to accept the refugees. And they didn’t have much luck until the United States stepped in. America has already begun their own vetting on the refugees that they will resettle. Several told CNN that they had already had one round of interviews with American officials.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So, what was in \u201cthe worst deal ever,\u201d anyway?<\/p>\n

The Guardian<\/a> explains:<\/p>\n

In November the US agreed to take an undisclosed number of refugees from Australia\u2019s offshore detention regime<\/a>. The resettlement option was only to be available for detainees who had been found to be refugees (under the refugee convention). Others who were assessed and found not to be entitled to protection would not be deemed eligible. Applicants were to be interviewed twice by US officials before being resettled, in a process that was to take between six and 12 months. If a refugee missed out on US resettlement, the existing options of Papua New Guinea and Cambodia were still available.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As the Telegraph reported:<\/p>\n

It has never been clear whether Australia offered anything in return for Washington\u2019s concession. There has been speculation that Australia could take asylum seekers who arrive in the US, or that Canberra may have volunteered to send extra troops to Iraq or to conduct a freedom of navigation exercise patrol near Chinese-claimed territories in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

Others suggested that Australia, which already hosts American troops and has followed the US into each of its wars since Second World War,\u00a0offered nothing as part of the deal \u2013 and that it was this element which infuriated Mr Trump.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Then, during his first ever contact with Turnbull, Trump belligerently accused the Australian prime minister of \u201cseeking to export the next Boston bombers.\u201d And when he essentially hung up on Turnbull, he also disconnected from the island-bound refugees whose conditions, said a United Nations psychiatrist, are \u201cakin to torture.\u201d<\/p>\n

No one is certain about what will happen to the refugee deal forged between Obama and Turnbull. It looks as though the Bannon-Trump presidency is on course to channel the hard-line, anti-refugee stance of Australia\u2019s Turnbull. But there\u2019s also talk that Bannon-Trump might honor the deal. Unfortunately, in the Bannon-Trump era of lies and alternative facts, it depends on what the meaning of \u201chonor\u201d is. The Guardian puts it this way:<\/p>\n

\u201c Trump could still honour the deal but simply accept none of the refugees <\/a>who apply.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

About 1,200 Afghani, Iraqi and Iranian refugees\u2014currently housed in terrible conditions on islands near Australia\u2014are supposed to come, over time, to the US, under<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":36209,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1606,384,2921,2826,779],"tags":[2922,2577],"yoast_head":"\n