Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
Wake up America. Obama duped you before when selling you ObamaCare and how his administration was going to be the most Transparent. you take anything he says today and it could be our own destruction.
this article is A look at our future?
SNIP;
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives November 27, 2015
If you cross the border illegally in most countries you are going to jail for a long time. You are beaten, raped, tortured, you may not be heard from again, and you may be treated as a spy; in the U.S. you may be caught, released, if you are lucky, or deported to come back again.
If you cross into Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, you are going to receive the following: social insurance, mobile phones loaded with free cards, free health care, spending money, free housing, free language classes, free transportation passes on buses, metro, and trains, free child care, supplements for every child, free legal assistance in deportation cases, no personal responsibility for anything, and more rights than citizens.
On June 14, 1985 five countries, Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed an agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg to gradually abolish border checks at their common borders. At that time, there were ten members of the European Economic Community but only five chose to sign this agreement.
“Measures proposed included reduced speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints” and visa policies were “harmonized.”
The Schengen Agreement (SA), fully operational in 1995 only between the signatories, was incorporated into the European Union law in 1999 via the Amsterdam Treaty. Two members chose to opt out: the United Kingdom and Ireland.
SA currently includes 26 European countries, covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 1,664,911 square miles.
The Schengen Agreement is the enabler that facilitated the European Invasion by able-bodied “refugees,” 20-40 year old men supposedly from Syria and a few women and children, who are really looking for better economic opportunities away from tribal wars in the areas in which they live. Instead of staying to make their countries better, they flee to specific countries like Germany and Sweden that have more generous welfare systems.
Why is Saudi Arabia not taking in 3 million refugees to fill up the empty, air-conditioned tents in the desert? They can certainly afford it and it is the brotherly and humane thing to do. Unless there is an ulterior motive, one called hijrah.
Leaving a war zone to a neighboring country makes one a refugee. But the moment one steps out of one safe country and enters another safe country, one becomes an immigrant. Looking for a better place to live does not make one a refugee. And paying coyotes thousands of dollars, crossing illegally into many countries, with fake passports, makes one an illegal alien and a criminal.
The Guardian reported that these global “refugees” are now taking “long detours through Latin America to reach the U.S.” Five Syrian men had been detained in Honduras with fake Greek passports and eight Syrians turned themselves in at the Texas-Mexico border the week before in a sinister development that does not bode well for the United States. Migrants from Nepal, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Pakistan are joining “the flood of Central American migrants seeking refuge from violence” and the generous American welfare system.
According to the ˆ, Colombian investigators found that the trek from Asia or Africa to the U.S. via Latin America can cost upwards of $12,000. The five Syrians had passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, and Costa Rica before they were detained in Honduras. The Guardian cites Ecuador as having removed visa requirements for all nationalities and it thus became a major point of crossing for all traffickers. Is Ecuador accepting refugees? No, they just drop them at the border.
Our regime’s policy, to “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” is what we must do because “slamming the door in their faces would be betrayal of our values,” got an interesting response from Mark Krikorian – “Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong.”
His argument had nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to adequately screen “refugees” from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan because there are no databases to compare these refugees to. Even if we could somehow keep out the terrorists and only admit peaceful Muslims, “the goal is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available.”
Quoting the Center for Immigration Studies, Kirkorian said that “it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East.” The five-year cost of resettling one refugee is $64,000 while the U.N. indicated that a five-year cost for the same refugee in their native region cost $5,300.
Kirkorian said that “each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money.” The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “reports a $2.5 billion funding shortfall in caring for Syrian refugees in the Middle East.”
Can we and should we do both? As much as we are humanitarians and we like to help our peaceful fellow men, resources are finite and we should help our own poor citizens, our veterans, and our elderly first.
U.N. estimates put the number of refugees and displaced people around the world at 60 million. Can we afford social services for the 90 percent of refugees that would receive food stamps, SSI, 75 percent on Medicaid, and other welfare programs when they have little education and earning potential, pay little taxes, and would likely become wards of the state and the counties in which they would be settled?
all of it here:
The Schengen Agreement, Syrian Invasion, and Refugee Resettlement
this article is A look at our future?
SNIP;
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives November 27, 2015
If you cross into Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, you are going to receive the following: social insurance, mobile phones loaded with free cards, free health care, spending money, free housing, free language classes, free transportation passes on buses, metro, and trains, free child care, supplements for every child, free legal assistance in deportation cases, no personal responsibility for anything, and more rights than citizens.
On June 14, 1985 five countries, Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed an agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg to gradually abolish border checks at their common borders. At that time, there were ten members of the European Economic Community but only five chose to sign this agreement.
“Measures proposed included reduced speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints” and visa policies were “harmonized.”
The Schengen Agreement (SA), fully operational in 1995 only between the signatories, was incorporated into the European Union law in 1999 via the Amsterdam Treaty. Two members chose to opt out: the United Kingdom and Ireland.
SA currently includes 26 European countries, covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 1,664,911 square miles.
The Schengen Agreement is the enabler that facilitated the European Invasion by able-bodied “refugees,” 20-40 year old men supposedly from Syria and a few women and children, who are really looking for better economic opportunities away from tribal wars in the areas in which they live. Instead of staying to make their countries better, they flee to specific countries like Germany and Sweden that have more generous welfare systems.
Why is Saudi Arabia not taking in 3 million refugees to fill up the empty, air-conditioned tents in the desert? They can certainly afford it and it is the brotherly and humane thing to do. Unless there is an ulterior motive, one called hijrah.
Leaving a war zone to a neighboring country makes one a refugee. But the moment one steps out of one safe country and enters another safe country, one becomes an immigrant. Looking for a better place to live does not make one a refugee. And paying coyotes thousands of dollars, crossing illegally into many countries, with fake passports, makes one an illegal alien and a criminal.
The Guardian reported that these global “refugees” are now taking “long detours through Latin America to reach the U.S.” Five Syrian men had been detained in Honduras with fake Greek passports and eight Syrians turned themselves in at the Texas-Mexico border the week before in a sinister development that does not bode well for the United States. Migrants from Nepal, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Pakistan are joining “the flood of Central American migrants seeking refuge from violence” and the generous American welfare system.
According to the ˆ, Colombian investigators found that the trek from Asia or Africa to the U.S. via Latin America can cost upwards of $12,000. The five Syrians had passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, and Costa Rica before they were detained in Honduras. The Guardian cites Ecuador as having removed visa requirements for all nationalities and it thus became a major point of crossing for all traffickers. Is Ecuador accepting refugees? No, they just drop them at the border.
Our regime’s policy, to “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” is what we must do because “slamming the door in their faces would be betrayal of our values,” got an interesting response from Mark Krikorian – “Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong.”
His argument had nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to adequately screen “refugees” from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan because there are no databases to compare these refugees to. Even if we could somehow keep out the terrorists and only admit peaceful Muslims, “the goal is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available.”
Quoting the Center for Immigration Studies, Kirkorian said that “it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East.” The five-year cost of resettling one refugee is $64,000 while the U.N. indicated that a five-year cost for the same refugee in their native region cost $5,300.
Kirkorian said that “each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money.” The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “reports a $2.5 billion funding shortfall in caring for Syrian refugees in the Middle East.”
Can we and should we do both? As much as we are humanitarians and we like to help our peaceful fellow men, resources are finite and we should help our own poor citizens, our veterans, and our elderly first.
U.N. estimates put the number of refugees and displaced people around the world at 60 million. Can we afford social services for the 90 percent of refugees that would receive food stamps, SSI, 75 percent on Medicaid, and other welfare programs when they have little education and earning potential, pay little taxes, and would likely become wards of the state and the counties in which they would be settled?
all of it here:
The Schengen Agreement, Syrian Invasion, and Refugee Resettlement
