Dutch lawmaker tells migrants not to come to Netherlands

[NeverSure]

I thought the thread was about Dutch anti-Islam opposition lawmaker Geert Wilders telling migrants to not come to the country. I find that interesting and will follow the best I can to see if anything comes of it.

Edited April 25, 2015 by NeverSure

[meltingpot2015]

The Dutch Opposition lawmaker and the the Australian government are saying the same thing ....we don't need any more boat arrivals. Simple.

Edited April 25, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[Bwanatickey]

In North Africa the once booming tourist industry created the building of luxury hotels on the Mediterranean Africa coast.

These hotels are empty of package holiday makers.

Funny how these charitable Arabs don't house them in the empty hotel rooms.

[meltingpot2015]

This particular Dutch Opposition Lawmaker has found the policies of the current Australian Government attractive. Says a lot about the Australian Government's policies.

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Once something is started it becomes extraordinarily difficult to reverse it. The policy takes a trajectory and return to base is tedious at best, impossible at worst.

What the OP dosen't say is, why is Tony Abbott saying Europe should follow his lead?. For the benefit of Europe or for the Benefit of saying "Oh!, look, our policies have been adopted in Europe". What he has ended-up showing is that, yes!, his policies do appeal in Europe, but in this instance to the party that this Dutch Opposition Lawmaker belongs to.

What this Dutch Opposition lawmaker does not recognize is that the Australian Policy ("If you come to Australia by Boat as an asylum seeker, you will not be resettled in Australia) is not targeted towards all immigrants, it's targeted towards asylum seekers (be they economic migrants or refugees).

Edited April 25, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[simple1]

If the UNHCR goes to Tony and says it is illegal, I hope he invites them to resettle the entire 17 million or so illegal would be immigrants in their own towns.

Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? Ban Ki Moon is just a joke running round the world wringing his hands at the latest outbreak of violence.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Off topic. UNHCR has already stated Oz asylum / refugee policy does not comply. However, the previous Oz Immi Minister made it clear during Parliamentry Question Time that as a matter of policy Oz is no longer bound to the UN Convention for Refugees, only Oz border control / Immi legislation.

Off topic: So, the Australian Minister for Border Protection is no longer Scott Morrison?. I remember he once made a Freudian slip (a Gaffe) live on TV. He called Operation Sovereign Borders, Operation Sovereign Murders!.

Anyway, when you are signatory to a convention, you cannot just pick and choose when you are part of it depending on which way the wind blows. It has knock-on effects on how Australia is seen in the international community. Within Australia, it may not be enough just for the Minister to announce that "we are no longer bound by the UN Convention for Refugees".

By the way, the High Court of Australia once ruled that Scott Morrison's Cap (limit) on Refugee Protection Visas (for boat arrivals) was invalid:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-rules-against-scott-morrisons-refugee-protection-visa-cap-20140620-3ajpx.html

Current Immi Minister is Peter Dutton who has been caught out lying about conditions in Cambodia. You may be interested in the following.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-22/nauru-refugees-who-resist-resettlement-to-get-less-help-dutton/6413366

Agree with your observation about knock on effects. With the distinct trend to the far right how many really care? Just on TV there are many who applaud the far right, don’t believe they fully understand the longer term threat to our societies. The internal Islamic extremist threat to Western nations will eventually be overcome & can be acheived by democractic governments. IMO if they gain power, the death and destruction will be greater to remove far right dictatorships from our nations.

[meltingpot2015]

Every Dutch person knows about Anne Frank.

Ironically, one of the party polices of this opposition Dutch lawmaker is: severe punishment for violence against Jews and LGBT community persons.

Is he serious?, LGBT, Jew, or whatever, PEOPLE arn't stupid.

Edited April 26, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[boomerangutang]

In North Africa the once booming tourist industry created the building of luxury hotels on the Mediterranean Africa coast.

These hotels are empty of package holiday makers.

Funny how these charitable Arabs don't house them in the empty hotel rooms.

There are many issues that relate to the wealth/poor divide which are odd, in this context. For example, there's the Palestinian issue which has been problematic for decades, yet what are wealthy Arab countries doing to assist the Palestinians, besides wanting the destruction of Israel? The Saudis, and other principalities on the Arabian peninsula have many very rich people, some of them dollar billionaires. What are they doing to assist their dirt-poor brethren? It looks like: NOTHING. And why aren't Muslim migrants trying to get to fellow Muslim countries for succor? I think the answer is evident in their actions. Muslim refugees want to get to Christian countries because that's where they get compassion, welfare hand-outs, non-Sharia Law, job prospects, allowance to think freely, and some degree of acceptance from neighbors - such things which are in short supply (on non-existent) in their fellow Muslim countries. For that matter, why don't migrants try going to Turkey? That's a mostly Muslim country in the European sphere.

From all appearances, Muslim migrants are trying to get away from the constrictions of Islam and Sharia Law. They're speaking with their feet and their meager life savings. In sum, it's a million votes against the mean-spirited belief system they're required to adhere to.

[thaibeachlovers]

If the UNHCR goes to Tony and says it is illegal, I hope he invites them to resettle the entire 17 million or so illegal would be immigrants in their own towns.

Does anyone take the UN seriously anymore? Ban Ki Moon is just a joke running round the world wringing his hands at the latest outbreak of violence.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Off topic. UNHCR has already stated Oz asylum / refugee policy does not comply. However, the previous Oz Immi Minister made it clear during Parliamentry Question Time that as a matter of policy Oz is no longer bound to the UN Convention for Refugees, only Oz border control / Immi legislation.

Off topic: So, the Australian Minister for Border Protection is no longer Scott Morrison?. I remember he once made a Freudian slip (a Gaffe) live on TV. He called Operation Sovereign Borders, Operation Sovereign Murders!.

Anyway, when you are signatory to a convention, you cannot just pick and choose when you are part of it depending on which way the wind blows. It has knock-on effects on how Australia is seen in the international community. Within Australia, it may not be enough just for the Minister to announce that "we are no longer bound by the UN Convention for Refugees".

By the way, the High Court of Australia once ruled that Scott Morrison's Cap (limit) on Refugee Protection Visas (for boat arrivals) was invalid:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-rules-against-scott-morrisons-refugee-protection-visa-cap-20140620-3ajpx.html

Current Immi Minister is Peter Dutton who has been caught out lying about conditions in Cambodia. You may be interested in the following.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-22/nauru-refugees-who-resist-resettlement-to-get-less-help-dutton/6413366

Agree with your observation about knock on effects. With the distinct trend to the far right how many really care? Just on TV there are many who applaud the far right, don’t believe they fully understand the longer term threat to our societies. The internal Islamic extremist threat to Western nations will eventually be overcome & can be acheived by democractic governments. IMO if they gain power, the death and destruction will be greater to remove far right dictatorships from our nations.

The internal Islamic extremist threat to Western nations will eventually be overcome & can be acheived by democractic governments

Seriously? .

[meltingpot2015]

According to the Global Peace Index (GPI) Iceland, Denmark, Austria, and New Zealand are the most peaceful.

Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Iraq are the least peaceful.

[NeverSure]

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba wasn't established by the Bush administration.

It is the oldest overseas US naval base - established in 1903. The land is leased from the Cuban Government and it will not be closed down any time soon. It is a very strategic location. Link

The US has many more overseas naval bases it could use including the remote Diego Garcia which actually isn't far from Australia in global terms.

Gitmo's purpose is for the naval base and not detaining would-be immigrants.

[simple1]

Posts removed to enable reply.

Off topic. UNHCR has already stated Oz asylum / refugee policy does not comply. However, the previous Oz Immi Minister made it clear during Parliamentry Question Time that as a matter of policy Oz is no longer bound to the UN Convention for Refugees, only Oz border control / Immi legislation.

Off topic: So, the Australian Minister for Border Protection is no longer Scott Morrison?. I remember he once made a Freudian slip (a Gaffe) live on TV. He called Operation Sovereign Borders, Operation Sovereign Murders!.

Anyway, when you are signatory to a convention, you cannot just pick and choose when you are part of it depending on which way the wind blows. It has knock-on effects on how Australia is seen in the international community. Within Australia, it may not be enough just for the Minister to announce that "we are no longer bound by the UN Convention for Refugees".

By the way, the High Court of Australia once ruled that Scott Morrison's Cap (limit) on Refugee Protection Visas (for boat arrivals) was invalid:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-rules-against-scott-morrisons-refugee-protection-visa-cap-20140620-3ajpx.html

Current Immi Minister is Peter Dutton who has been caught out lying about conditions in Cambodia. You may be interested in the following.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-22/nauru-refugees-who-resist-resettlement-to-get-less-help-dutton/6413366

Agree with your observation about knock on effects. With the distinct trend to the far right how many really care? Just on TV there are many who applaud the far right, don’t believe they fully understand the longer term threat to our societies. The internal Islamic extremist threat to Western nations will eventually be overcome & can be acheived by democractic governments. IMO if they gain power, the death and destruction will be greater to remove far right dictatorships from our nations.

The internal Islamic extremist threat to Western nations will eventually be overcome & can be acheived by democractic governments

Seriously? .

Yes

[Steely Dan]

Every Dutch person knows about Anne Frank.

Ironically, one of the party polices of this opposition Dutch lawmaker is: severe punishment for violence against Jews and LGBT community persons.

Is he serious?, LGBT, Jew, or whatever, PEOPLE arn't stupid.

I suggest you read what Geert Wilders wrote about his travels to Israel and Egypt where he compared and contacted the state of the world's only Jewish nation to her Arab neighbor. Most of the antiSemitism in Europe comes from Muslim immigrants, this is an indisputable fact. To try and conflate antiSemitism with so called Islamophobia is a liberal multiculturalist attempt to muddy the waters. There is no far right bogeyman, or at least nothing remotely on the scale of the progressive left wing alliance with Islamofascists.

[Steely Dan]

Wilders does have a point, indeed as well as stopping new enrichers arriving steps should be taken to kick out the vermin who have already arrived.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/04/25/amsterdam-96-year-old-healthy-grandmother-brutally-assassinated-in-the-street-after-being-stabbed-by-an-iraqi-muslim-illegal-alien/

[steven100]

This particular Dutch Opposition Lawmaker has found the policies of the current Australian Government attractive. Says a lot about the Australian Government's policies.

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Once something is started it becomes extraordinarily difficult to reverse it. The policy takes a trajectory and return to base is tedious at best, impossible at worst.

What the OP dosen't say is, why is Tony Abbott saying Europe should follow his lead?. For the benefit of Europe or for the Benefit of saying "Oh!, look, our policies have been adopted in Europe". What he has ended-up showing is that, yes!, his policies do appeal in Europe, but in this instance to the party that this Dutch Opposition Lawmaker belongs to.

What this Dutch Opposition lawmaker does not recognize is that the Australian Policy ("If you come to Australia by Boat as an asylum seeker, you will not be resettled in Australia) is not targeted towards all immigrants, it's targeted towards asylum seekers (be they economic migrants or refugees).

Incorrect again !! ....... Australia's policy on illegal immigrants and as part of ' stop the boats ' campaign has worked and continues to work to deter the scum of people smugglers and illegal immigrants arriving by boat.

[JockPieandBeans]

It appears that Australia's policy on Illegal Immigrants by sea are a roaring success.

If, however, Europe wants to stop the drownings in the Mediterranean but does not want open borders, Mr Downer says, then it will have to turn boats back.

When he was foreign minister from 1996 until 2007, Mr Downer was fiercely criticised for preventing people reaching Australia by boat. Similar policies are now being implemented with even greater vigour by the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

The policy has had a significant impact. In 2013 some 300 boats with more than 20,000 unauthorised migrants got to Australia. In 2014 just one vessel reached the country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32478378

It is high time that Europe as a collective whole implemented the same policy.

[steven100]

It appears that Australia's policy on Illegal Immigrants by sea are a roaring success.

If, however, Europe wants to stop the drownings in the Mediterranean but does not want open borders, Mr Downer says, then it will have to turn boats back.

When he was foreign minister from 1996 until 2007, Mr Downer was fiercely criticised for preventing people reaching Australia by boat. Similar policies are now being implemented with even greater vigour by the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

The policy has had a significant impact. In 2013 some 300 boats with more than 20,000 unauthorised migrants got to Australia. In 2014 just one vessel reached the country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32478378

It is high time that Europe as a collective whole implemented the same policy.

agree .... As soon as the smugglers realize that it's useless to to try as they will be turned back then people in turn will not pay .... there will be no customers ....

Just start turning a few boats back and see them stop coming ... I would bet on that !!!

[meltingpot2015]

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba wasn't established by the Bush administration.

It is the oldest overseas US naval base - established in 1903. The land is leased from the Cuban Government and it will not be closed down any time soon. It is a very strategic location. Link

The US has many more overseas naval bases it could use including the remote Diego Garcia which actually isn't far from Australia in global terms.

Gitmo's purpose is for the naval base and not detaining would-be immigrants.

I am referring to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, not the naval base. The detention camp was established in 2002, by the Bush Administration. Here is an extract from the link about Guantanamo Bay detention camp:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-bay or GTMO (pronounced 'gitmo'), which fronts on Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. At the time of its establishment in January 2002.....

I have said in my post #64 Australia copied the idea of holding would-be refugees in camps from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp idea. Same, Same, but different. I am talking about holding people in an offshore facility, where jurisdiction becomes questionable. Do they (those held in the camps) have the same rights, as someone would, if held in an onshore facility against torture or degrading treatment for example.

Just to be clear again, it's the Guantanamo bay detention camp I am referring to.

In a book called Access to Asylum by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, there is conclusive evidence that outsourcing (privatization) of services by governments is beneficial in most cases, but one. Guess what this area is: migration control. i.e. detention facilities.

[thaibeachlovers]

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba wasn't established by the Bush administration.

It is the oldest overseas US naval base - established in 1903. The land is leased from the Cuban Government and it will not be closed down any time soon. It is a very strategic location. Link

The US has many more overseas naval bases it could use including the remote Diego Garcia which actually isn't far from Australia in global terms.

Gitmo's purpose is for the naval base and not detaining would-be immigrants.

I am referring to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, not the naval base. The detention camp was established in 2002, by the Bush Administration. Here is an extract from the link about Guantanamo Bay detention camp:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-bay or GTMO (pronounced 'gitmo'), which fronts on Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. At the time of its establishment in January 2002.....

I have said in my post #64 Australia copied the idea of holding would-be refugees in camps from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp idea. Same, Same, but different. I am talking about holding people in an offshore facility, where jurisdiction becomes questionable. Do they (those held in the camps) have the same rights, as someone would, if held in an onshore facility against torture or degrading treatment for example.

Just to be clear again, it's the Guantanamo bay detention camp I am referring to.

In a book called Access to Asylum by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, there is conclusive evidence that outsourcing (privatization) of services by governments is beneficial in most cases, but one. Guess what this area is: migration control. i.e. detention facilities.

After Obama was elected for the first time and said that Gitmo WOULD be closed, I ( like many people ) was very happy. 6 years on and it seems that was just one more lie.

[Prbkk]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

Indonesia did not co-operate at all until it became apparent that their corrupt officials were not going to get any more money from people smugglers as the would-be asylum seekers were all going to be sent to Nauru, PNG ( and now Camodia). If the gravy train hadn't been stopped they would still be sending boatloads from Java enroute to Oz.

[simple1]

Abbott is being disingenuous as Indonesia, under pressure, co-operated with his turn back the boats policy. There is not a functioning government in Libya, the main country for embarkation, with whom to collaborate / negotiate to provide safe passage for returnees

Indonesia did not co-operate at all until it became apparent that their corrupt officials were not going to get any more money from people smugglers as the would-be asylum seekers were all going to be sent to Nauru, PNG ( and now Camodia). If the gravy train hadn't been stopped they would still be sending boatloads from Java enroute to Oz.

I did say 'under pressure'. Indonesia was a transit country & not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees, Why would have the government truly cared about Australian issues as the volume of refugees were a real pain in the neck for the Indo govt.

[meltingpot2015]

There is a wealth of evidence that suggest copying policies like this does not work. Take for example, detention centers for asylum seekers in Australia and offshore, that was copied by the previous Australian labour government from the U.S (offshore detention facility in Guantanomo Bay for War on terror suspects). The current Australian Liberal/National Government is closing-down Asylum Seeker detention facilities. Whereas the U.S president Barrack Obama has been attempting to close down Guantanamo since 2009. Of course, we know it was established during the Bush Administration.

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba wasn't established by the Bush administration.

It is the oldest overseas US naval base - established in 1903. The land is leased from the Cuban Government and it will not be closed down any time soon. It is a very strategic location. Link

The US has many more overseas naval bases it could use including the remote Diego Garcia which actually isn't far from Australia in global terms.

Gitmo's purpose is for the naval base and not detaining would-be immigrants.

I am referring to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, not the naval base. The detention camp was established in 2002, by the Bush Administration. Here is an extract from the link about Guantanamo Bay detention camp:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-bay or GTMO (pronounced 'gitmo'), which fronts on Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. At the time of its establishment in January 2002.....

I have said in my post #64 Australia copied the idea of holding would-be refugees in camps from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp idea. Same, Same, but different. I am talking about holding people in an offshore facility, where jurisdiction becomes questionable. Do they (those held in the camps) have the same rights, as someone would, if held in an onshore facility against torture or degrading treatment for example.

Just to be clear again, it's the Guantanamo bay detention camp I am referring to.

In a book called Access to Asylum by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, there is conclusive evidence that outsourcing (privatization) of services by governments is beneficial in most cases, but one. Guess what this area is: migration control. i.e. detention facilities.

After Obama was elected for the first time and said that Gitmo WOULD be closed, I ( like many people ) was very happy. 6 years on and it seems that was just one more lie.

Obama is facing pressure from Congress, so its stayed open. The Gitmo prisoner numbers have reduced over the years, with many inmates approved for transfer. Please see:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

Even the president of U.S does not have unchecked powers on these issues.

Edited April 29, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[thaibeachlovers]

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba wasn't established by the Bush administration.

It is the oldest overseas US naval base - established in 1903. The land is leased from the Cuban Government and it will not be closed down any time soon. It is a very strategic location. Link

The US has many more overseas naval bases it could use including the remote Diego Garcia which actually isn't far from Australia in global terms.

Gitmo's purpose is for the naval base and not detaining would-be immigrants.

I am referring to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, not the naval base. The detention camp was established in 2002, by the Bush Administration. Here is an extract from the link about Guantanamo Bay detention camp:

The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,[1] also referred to as Guantánamo, G-bay or GTMO (pronounced 'gitmo'), which fronts on Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. At the time of its establishment in January 2002.....

I have said in my post #64 Australia copied the idea of holding would-be refugees in camps from the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp idea. Same, Same, but different. I am talking about holding people in an offshore facility, where jurisdiction becomes questionable. Do they (those held in the camps) have the same rights, as someone would, if held in an onshore facility against torture or degrading treatment for example.

Just to be clear again, it's the Guantanamo bay detention camp I am referring to.

In a book called Access to Asylum by Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, there is conclusive evidence that outsourcing (privatization) of services by governments is beneficial in most cases, but one. Guess what this area is: migration control. i.e. detention facilities.

After Obama was elected for the first time and said that Gitmo WOULD be closed, I ( like many people ) was very happy. 6 years on and it seems that was just one more lie.

Obama is facing pressure from Congress, so its stayed open. The Gitmo prisoner numbers have reduced over the years, with many inmates approved for transfer. Please see:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

Even the president of U.S does not have unchecked powers on these issues.

What pressure? It was a Democrat house majority in both chambers. Had he really wanted to it would have been closed. Or, are you saying the Dems wanted Gitmo to stay open?

[meltingpot2015]

@ThaiBeachLovers:

Below is an extract from the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp:

On 22 January 2009, President Barack Obama issued a request to suspend proceedings at Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility that year.[12][13] On 29 January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[14] On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[15] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15 December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[16]

On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

So, looks like the Dems Assistant leader (Party Whip) was silent on the 20 May 2009 senate vote, or the Dems Senators didn't tow the party line. Do you propose that this should not have happened on that particular vote?.

Same story with Congress, Budget, worries about transferring prisoners to american soil etc. keeps cropping-up, irrespective of party-line. See:

http://www.wfxl.com/news/story.aspx?id=302266

Edited April 29, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[thaibeachlovers]

@ThaiBeachLovers:

Below is an extract from the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp:

On 22 January 2009, President Barack Obama issued a request to suspend proceedings at Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility that year.[12][13] On 29 January 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviewed how the United States brings Guantanamo detainees to trial.[14] On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[15] President Obama issued a Presidential memorandum dated 15 December 2009, ordering Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to be prepared to accept transferred Guantanamo prisoners.[16]

On 20 May 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90–6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

So, looks like the Dems Assistant leader (Party Whip) was silent on the 20 May 2009 senate vote, or the Dems Senators didn't tow the party line. Do you propose that this should not have happened on that particular vote?.

Same story with Congress, Budget, worries about transferring prisoners to american soil etc. keeps cropping-up, irrespective of party-line. See:

http://www.wfxl.com/news/story.aspx?id=302266

I find it hard to believe that the Dems in the senate would not have supported the golden one if he had tried harder to convince them. I think he was more concerned about Obama care and was just giving lip service to Gitmo closure.

I wonder how HRC voted, but she is pretty silent on the issue so far.

Edited April 30, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[davidron]

STOP all this bla bla about Obama, Congress, "dems", liberals, Guantanamo etc etc. This thread is about the Netherlands refusing to welcome seafaring migrants. I just can't understand why Americans do this. They hijack forum threads and discuss their country's affairs as if those of the rest of the planet don't exist! Extremely disrespectful. Gives one an eyesore!

[thaibeachlovers]

STOP all this bla bla about Obama, Congress, "dems", liberals, Guantanamo etc etc. This thread is about the Netherlands refusing to welcome seafaring migrants. I just can't understand why Americans do this. They hijack forum threads and discuss their country's affairs as if those of the rest of the planet don't exist! Extremely disrespectful. Gives one an eyesore!

Because there is only so much one can say about the Netherlands, and putting Obama down is much more interesting.

Actually, it's because that is what happens on forums.

[steven100]

STOP all this bla bla about Obama, Congress, "dems", liberals, Guantanamo etc etc. This thread is about the Netherlands refusing to welcome seafaring migrants. I just can't understand why Americans do this. They hijack forum threads and discuss their country's affairs as if those of the rest of the planet don't exist! Extremely disrespectful. Gives one an eyesore!

Agree .... nothing to do with US or Guantanamo.

This is about the Netherlands ... Wilber having the balls to tell the illegal immigrants to F%*k off as your not welcome.

Good for him.

Stop the Damn boats then the smugglers will not get customers !!

see meltingpot ... it's not rocket science ! haha

[Bwanatickey]

Oh this time next week we will all know the results of the U.K election.