Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 672

Thread: Refugees for Canada, Alberta and Edmonton?

  1. #1

    Default Refugees for Canada, Alberta and Edmonton?

    Your thoughts on bringing more refugees to Canada please.

    Should we bring in more, fewer, the same? (A long term commitment since there is a permanent ongoing need, or just on an exceptional basis such as when the populous's emotions drive the process, or other criteria?)

    How should we look after them properly? (Set up camps, rapidly integrate, etc?)

    How should we pay for them, initially? (Raise the GST, personal corporate taxes, property taxes, cut to other services, etc?)

    Which refugees are 'acceptable' to Canadians and which are not?

    How do get them to a point where they feel they are fully integrated, contributing and welcome members of our society?

    ... Other aspects?



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2015 at 08:35 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    There is a rally/vigil planned for Tues. Sept. 8, 6:30pm at the Legislature. No One Is Illegal is organizing.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There is a rally/vigil planned for Tues. Sept. 8, 6:30pm at the Legislature. No One Is Illegal is organizing.
    Maybe this notice deserves its own thread. And your thoughts per the thread's questions?

  4. #4

    Default

    If we're there bombing, we should be taking in a lot more refugees. And quickly.

  5. #5
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,077

    Default

    I don't really want to comment on Canada's refugee and immigration policy per se but I find it incredibly sad that the Syrian refugee problem is being presented with outrage based on that policy and by politicizing that outrage in the middle of an election campaign.

    Where was that outrage and media exposure on the Syrian policy and circumstances in the middle east that created - and continues to create - hundreds of thousands of refugees a year while killing hundreds of thousands of others every year for the past 5 years?

    Where was that outrage and media exposure for the previous 48 years of "emergency rule" with draconian powers of arrest and detention?

    Where was that outrage and media exposure for the 15 years of military coups and revolutions in Syria prior to that?

    Is Canada's refugee and immigration policy what it could or even what it should be? No, it is not. It is woefully short in many areas and there is much to be improved on and much more we should do.

    But is Canada's refugee and immigration policy at fault for the Syrian refugee problem? Canada's refugee and immigration policy isn't a drop in the bucket toward causing or towards solving the Syrian refugee problem.

    And all of the current political rhetoric and posturing not only does nothing towards contributing to a real solution to the real problem, it many ways it perpetuates the real problem by not even paying attention to it.
    Last edited by kcantor; 05-09-2015 at 02:58 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,155

    Default

    From what Top_Dawg has seen, the typical immigrant's disposition towards immigration can be summed up as:

    Once I'm in - fuq the rest. Slam the door shut !


  7. #7
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    365

    Default

    ^^ Agree.......

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There is a rally/vigil planned for Tues. Sept. 8, 6:30pm at the Legislature. No One Is Illegal is organizing.
    No One Is Illegal should be at the border to welcome the Westboro Baptists the next time they try to enter for the purpose of picketing funerals.

  9. #9
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There is a rally/vigil planned for Tues. Sept. 8, 6:30pm at the Legislature. No One Is Illegal is organizing.
    interestingly enough, none of these refugees are illegal in syria...

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If we're there bombing, we should be taking in a lot more refugees. And quickly.
    it took seven decades for syria for amass the current total of syrian refugees on top of those syrians who were slaughtered before they had a chance to become refugees. our relatively recent support towards eliminating some of the root problems syria has not is not what created their refugee problem. should we be doing more to alleviate it? probably. but your outrage towards canada's role is misdirected. and directing towards the americans and the israelis would be equally misdirected. syria's first coups predates the state of israel by more than twice as long as canada's recent involvement.
    outrage is certainly warranted today and is probably long overdue but it should be directed towards those responsible, not those trying to help.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  10. #10

    Default

    Yeah, dropping bombs on people is really helping. We should be doing more of that.

    The main problem is ISIS, a creation of the invasion of Iraq and the disbanding of the military and the banning of Ba'ath party members from serving in the government in any form. If the west had done this in Germany after WW II, preventing anyone who held membership in the Nazi party, usually for self preservation, Europe would probably look a lot like the Middle East does now.

    We're also guilty of supporting coups in various countries, Egypt most recently (although our government did issue a mile tut-tut when it happened). We're quite happy supporting totalitarian regimes, Saudi Arabia springs to mind, so long as they pay lip service to some sort of shared value and agree to buy our military exports.

    Your claim that the Americans are free of any and all blame for what's happening in the region is laughable. Makes me wonder how much of your stock portfolio is made up of defence contractors. Sales are booming.

    Harper's making all sorts of claims about how much we're doing to alleviate the refugee crisis, the vast majority of which are being debunked almost as soon as he utters them.


    How does Canada stack up when it comes to refugees?

    A Conservative spokesperson referred to UNHCR statistics on resettled refugees that say Canada took in 12,300 resettled refugees — about one in 10 of all the refugees referred for resettlement in 2014.

    It sounds good. But that’s a tiny proportion of the world’s refugee population: less than 1 per cent, actually.

    “Resettled refugees” only refers to refugees transferred from an asylum country to another country that has agreed to take them.

    Most refugees don’t get that lucky: They flee their homes and end up anywhere that will take them. Many remain displaced within their home country; others make it elsewhere, and countries have a legal obligation to people seeking asylum within their borders.

    If you look at all refugees, Canada ranks 41st in the world, with 4.2 per 1,000 inhabitants. That’s far behind not only Lebanon and Jordan, but Sweden and Malta as well:



    http://globalnews.ca/news/2203652/re...-things-wrong/

  11. #11

    Default

    The Syria refugee problem raised the whole refugee immigration issue was the catalyst for this thread but I was hoping to get into deeper thought on the actual issue of bringing people into Canada and not discussing foreign relations, wars, history, etc.

    So, from the posts above should I surmise that there isn't much interest in stepping up to the plate and actually taking in people in trouble from other countries/former countries/etc.

  12. #12

    Default

    We should be bringing people here and THEN doing the processing. And we should be brining in a LOT more than we are and the government should be the ones stepping up to the plate in this instead of relying on private sponsors. Yes, private sponsorship is part of it but it takes them time to get everything in place. The government is able to react much faster, if they want to, which the current administration apparently doesn't.

    More refugees in neighbouring countries puts more pressure on them in what already a very serious situation. If we're taking part militarily, we should be leading the way in dealing with the consequences instead of standing around like Ken suggests and pointing fingers at Assad or ISIS or whatever. The refugees don't care right now about who's fault it is. They're more concerned with getting to safety where somebody, regardless of who, isn't bombing them.

    The Syrian refugee crisis, in four maps and charts
    Updated by Zack Beauchamp on September 5, 2015, 12:30 p.m. ET






    http://www.vox.com/2015/9/5/9265621/...refugee-charts

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,077

    Default

    i see you're as good as ever at taking things out of context, twisting reality to support your own preconceived views and attributig words and thoughts to others that aren't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yeah, dropping bombs on people is really helping. We should be doing more of that.

    The main problem is ISIS, a creation of the invasion of Iraq and the disbanding of the military and the banning of Ba'ath party members from serving in the government in any form. If the west had done this in Germany after WW II, preventing anyone who held membership in the Nazi party, usually for self preservation, Europe would probably look a lot like the Middle East does now.
    this would be the ba'ath party overthrown and banned in 2011? the same ba'ath party that led such a peaceful and democratic syria for the previous 41 years?

    We're also guilty of supporting coups in various countries, Egypt most recently (although our government did issue a mile tut-tut when it happened). We're quite happy supporting totalitarian regimes, Saudi Arabia springs to mind, so long as they pay lip service to some sort of shared value and agree to buy our military exports.

    Your claim that the Americans are free of any and all blame for what's happening in the region is laughable. Makes me wonder how much of your stock portfolio is made up of defence contractors. Sales are booming.
    i made no such claim. but regardless of the blame you want to atttibute to the americans, it still does nothing to absolve syria of any blame whatsoever to what has and continues to take place in syria.

    and your insinuation that my opinions are based on supporting the value of a stock portfolio made up of defense contractors is nothing short of disgusting.

    although that's not the first time you have ventured in to that arena is it?

    Harper's making all sorts of claims about how much we're doing to alleviate the refugee crisis, the vast majority of which are being debunked almost as soon as he utters them.
    ...
    debunked or not and valid or not, you're still talking about canada's alleviating the refugee crisis as being the solution. except that while alleviation is laudable, it is not a solution. there will never be a solution as long as refugees are still fleeing from or being forced from their own homes in their own country. and as long as those refugees can walk from syria to jordan or lebanon or turkey and are separated from canada by an ocean, that is likely to be a bigger barrier than any policy in determining where refugees fleeing on foot are likely to end up.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i see you're as good as ever at taking things out of context, twisting reality to support your own preconceived views and attributig words and thoughts to others that aren't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yeah, dropping bombs on people is really helping. We should be doing more of that.

    The main problem is ISIS, a creation of the invasion of Iraq and the disbanding of the military and the banning of Ba'ath party members from serving in the government in any form. If the west had done this in Germany after WW II, preventing anyone who held membership in the Nazi party, usually for self preservation, Europe would probably look a lot like the Middle East does now.
    this would be the ba'ath party overthrown and banned in 2011? the same ba'ath party that led such a peaceful and democratic syria for the previous 41 years?

    We're also guilty of supporting coups in various countries, Egypt most recently (although our government did issue a mile tut-tut when it happened). We're quite happy supporting totalitarian regimes, Saudi Arabia springs to mind, so long as they pay lip service to some sort of shared value and agree to buy our military exports.

    Your claim that the Americans are free of any and all blame for what's happening in the region is laughable. Makes me wonder how much of your stock portfolio is made up of defence contractors. Sales are booming.
    i made no such claim. but regardless of the blame you want to atttibute to the americans, it still does nothing to absolve syria of any blame whatsoever to what has and continues to take place in syria.

    and your insinuation that my opinions are based on supporting the value of a stock portfolio made up of defense contractors is nothing short of disgusting.

    although that's not the first time you have ventured in to that arena is it?

    Harper's making all sorts of claims about how much we're doing to alleviate the refugee crisis, the vast majority of which are being debunked almost as soon as he utters them.
    ...
    debunked or not and valid or not, you're still talking about canada's alleviating the refugee crisis as being the solution. except that while alleviation is laudable, it is not a solution. there will never be a solution as long as refugees are still fleeing from or being forced from their own homes in their own country. and as long as those refugees can walk from syria to jordan or lebanon or turkey and are separated from canada by an ocean, that is likely to be a bigger barrier than any policy in determining where refugees fleeing on foot are likely to end up.
    So, neither of you want any refugees accepted into Canada when we're either not involved or not responsible for a conflict?

  15. #15
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...

    So, neither of you want any refugees accepted into Canada when we're either not involved or not responsible for a conflict?
    no, thats not what i said either in my last post where i said "alleviation is laudable" even if not a solution or previously where i said "there is much to be improved on and much more that we should do" when talking about our refugee and immigration policy.

    please note the "should", not "could", in the above statement before wrongly assuming i am not in favour of more refugees.

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...

    So, neither of you want any refugees accepted into Canada when we're either not involved or not responsible for a conflict?
    ...

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.

    Not all built it, but many arrived here... and the native population also built this country (why they are always left out of all such comments is beyond me).




    "by 1871 the Irish were the largest ethnic group in every large town and city of Canada, with the exceptions of Montréal and Québec City." (See below)





    Irish Canadians - The Canadian Encyclopedia

    "The Great Famine of the late 1840s drove 1.5 to 2 million destitute Irish out of Ireland, and hundreds of thousands came to British North America. This wave was so dramatic that most Canadians erroneously think of 1847 as the time "when the Irish came." The famine immigrants tended to remain in the towns and cities, and by 1871 the Irish were the largest ethnic group in every large town and city of Canada, with the exceptions of Montréal and Québec City.

    The "Famine Irish," who supplied a mass of cheap labour that helped fuel the economic expansion of the 1850s and 1860s, were not well received. They were poor and the dominant society resented them..."

    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/irish/


    Last edited by KC; 05-09-2015 at 07:11 PM.

  17. #17

    Default

    No, I want refugees. However, when we're directly involved in the conflict, we should nt only be taking extraordinary steps to take more, we should also be doing it faster. It's the Pottery Barn rules "You broke it, you bought it". Seeing as Syria and ISIS and the other groups involved aren't doing much, if anything, to resolve the situation doesn't let us off the hook.

    We got involved, however obliquely despite what Chretien claimed, in the invasion of Iraq. That put's part of the match that lit this regional powder keg in our hands. We weren't involved in Vietnam and yet we did much more for the boat people than we are doing for the Syrians and others refugees in the Middle East.

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.
    Nice of you to play the "What's in it for us" card, Ken. If refugees and immigrant's hadn't played a part in building our country, would that let us off the hook? I'll wait while you run a cost/benefit analysis.

    We should be having the CF's AirBuses flying regular trips bring people over. Harper can make a "surprise" trip over there to visit the troops. It would have been nice if he brought some back with him.

    According to the Harper Government, the cost of the military mission will exceed over half a billion dollars in the next few months. Do you think we've spent anywhere near that much on the refugees?

    Ottawa says Islamic State mission cost to reach $528-million by next March

    The cost to Canada of waging war against Islamic State militants will exceed half a billion dollars by early next year, the government says.

    On Monday Prime Minister Stephen Harper used his Commons majority to extend Canada’s combat mission by 12 months and expand air strikes to Syria.

    Two days later, the full cost of the war started to emerge. Defence Minister Jason Kenney revealed Wednesday that Canada will spend about $406-million to extend the mission to the end of March, 2016; added to the bill for the first six months of the conflict, which Mr. Kenney has said is at least $122-million, the price tag has risen to $528-million.

    A large portion of this is for the air strikes and sorties flown by Canadian fighter jets as well as two surveillance planes and a refuelling aircraft.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle23745051/
    So far, humanitarian aid is less than 1/5th what the military mission has cost, and that's only if you include Iraq. Remove that and we're spending ten times as much on the military action.

    NGOs warn against linking Canada’s Islamic State military mission to aid

    As Ottawa prepares to spend half a billion dollars on the military mission against Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq by next year, non-governmental organizations are struggling to meet the basic needs of millions of people in the region. Canadian funding for humanitarian assistance has made a difference, but as the conflict in Syria enters its fifth year, organizations working in the region say far more help will be needed.

    ---

    Nearly four million people have fled Syria since the conflict began several years ago. Many are living in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, placing additional strains on government services. Inside Syria the situation is even more severe: Some 7.6 million people have been forced from their homes but remain in that country, where humanitarian agencies are often unable to reach them; more than 200,000 people have died in the violence.

    So far this year, Canada has offered about $50-million to the crisis, which is being directed to aid organizations helping people affected by the Syrian conflict. The government also committed $40-million to aid programs in Iraq in January, in addition to funding provided in earlier years.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle23794296/

  18. #18
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    ...

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.
    Nice of you to play the "What's in it for us" card, Ken. If refugees and immigrant's hadn't played a part in building our country, would that let us off the hook? I'll wait while you run a cost/benefit analysis.

    ...
    who said this was a "what's in it for us" card or equation that should be the only thing forming our decisions? not me.

    "this country" includes our first nations and all past and present and future refugees and immigrants that live in it. and being healthy emotionally, cultually and economically is essential for eveyone who lives here regardless of when or how they arrived and isn't subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

    have we managed that yet? no. although we are better at it than just about anywhere else in the world. should getting there still be the end goal? yes. now twist that to your heart's content...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  19. #19

    Default

    "An election is no time to discuss serious issues..."
    - Kim Campbell

    Sure, it's shameful how the death of one little boy has become a proxy for a long running outrage. Sure, pox on all your federal partisan houses for using this grievous circumstance as an opportunity for gain.

    But it happened, citizens are moved, moved to action (hopefully) and it's about time this sham of a federal election campaign became meaningful.

    Harper has been undermining immigrant and refugee services since he took office.

  20. #20

    Default

    Sorry, this is too difficult. Why don't you go drown somewhere?

    Even when they're privately sponsored, Harper's preferred method of dealing with refugees, his government turns people away.

    Alan Kurdi drowned off the shores of Turkey. His family was trying to reach Canada

    Tima, a Vancouver hairdresser who emigrated to Canada more than 20 years ago, said Abdullah and Rehan Kurdi and their two boys were the subject of a “G5” privately sponsored refugee application that the ministry of citizenship and immigration rejected in June, owing to the complexities involved in refugee applications from Turkey.

    Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander could not be reached for comment, but Port Moody – Coquitlam NDP MP Fin Donnelly said he’d hand-delivered the Kurdis’ file to Alexander earlier this year.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ors_picks=true
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 05-09-2015 at 10:37 PM.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    ...

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.
    Nice of you to play the "What's in it for us" card, Ken. If refugees and immigrant's hadn't played a part in building our country, would that let us off the hook? I'll wait while you run a cost/benefit analysis.

    ...
    who said this was a "what's in it for us" card or equation that should be the only thing forming our decisions? not me.

    "this country" includes our first nations and all past and present and future refugees and immigrants that live in it. and being healthy emotionally, cultually and economically is essential for eveyone who lives here regardless of when or how they arrived and isn't subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

    have we managed that yet? no. although we are better at it than just about anywhere else in the world. should getting there still be the end goal? yes. now twist that to your heart's content...
    Didn't say that you said it was the only thing Ken. Nice misdirection though.

    Harper has claimed we're #1 per capita in the world in accepting refugees. Not even close. We're #41 and dropping.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...t/p103/a238272

    Last edited by kkozoriz; 05-09-2015 at 10:40 PM.

  22. #22

    Default

    And the mess is the fault of Harper's own making.


    Conservative government’s rule overhaul blamed for Syrian refugee backlog

    The Conservative government imposed a new rule for potential refugees in 2012 — a change refugee groups say is the reason so few Syrians have made it to Canadian soil.

    The rule also appears to have played a key role in the government’s refusal to allow a B.C. woman, Tima Kurdi, to privately sponsor her brother, Mohammed Kurdi and his family.

    ---

    Immigration Minister Chris Alexander all but confirmed that the government rejected Kurdi’s application because of the rule. “It was returned to the applicant with a request for additional documentation, in this case, a confirmation of a refugee convention status as determined by the UN High Commission for Refugees,” Alexander said.

    His office did not respond to interview requests Friday.

    Syrian Canadian Council spokesman Faisal Alazem described the requirement as a “barrier” for private sponsorship “since only a very small portion of refugees have been recognized by the UNHCR.”

    The minister does have the ability to waive the requirement for groups of applicants. Alboim said Lifeline Syria sent Alexander two letters asking him to make an exception for Syrians. Other groups say they have done the same.

    “He’s aware. The department’s aware. We have received no formal replies from the minister,” Alboim said.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...efugee-backlog

  23. #23
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post

    Harper has been undermining immigrant and refugee services since he took office.
    Harpers government actually streamlined the immigration process in 2008 making it easier to immigrate here and find meaningful employment. Less qualified doctors working as cab drivers and so on.

    In 1990 the conservative government raised the immigration limit to 250,000. Every year since it has exceeded that number more times than not. A couple of times in the late 90s it dropped below the 200,000 mark. Im sure Harper had something to do with that - right?

    Regarding the Current refugee crisis from syria. Its like anything - you cant just treat the symptoms. Youve got to deal with the root cause. Yes, lets take more refugees but should still be done in a measured and responsible manner.

  24. #24
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    ...

    refugees and immigrants built this country and are key to keeping it a healthy one emotionally and culturally as well as economically.
    Nice of you to play the "What's in it for us" card, Ken. If refugees and immigrant's hadn't played a part in building our country, would that let us off the hook? I'll wait while you run a cost/benefit analysis.

    ...
    who said this was a "what's in it for us" card or equation that should be the only thing forming our decisions? not me.

    "this country" includes our first nations and all past and present and future refugees and immigrants that live in it. and being healthy emotionally, cultually and economically is essential for eveyone who lives here regardless of when or how they arrived and isn't subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

    have we managed that yet? no. although we are better at it than just about anywhere else in the world. should getting there still be the end goal? yes. now twist that to your heart's content...
    Didn't say that you said it was the only thing Ken. Nice misdirection though.

    Harper has claimed we're #1 per capita in the world in accepting refugees. Not even close. We're #41 and dropping.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...t/p103/a238272


    A quick scanning of that list reveals that most of the top 40 are countries that border regions where wars or conflicts are currently or previously taking place. Or bordering countries governed by ruthless warlords and dictators. Good on Norway,Sweden and Switzerland though where their populations have remained relatively stagnant compared to here. Canada aint no slouch.

  25. #25

    Default

    The government in 1990 was a Progressive Conservative one, not to be confused with our current Conservative government, which is basically a re-branded Reform party and is quite dismissive of the term Progressive Conservative as shown in comments by Stephen Harper:

    From a speech to the Council for National Policy, a conservative American lobby group, June 1997

    Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron.

    But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.


    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper
    You can hardly compare the two parties, for they are actually two different parties.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post


    A quick scanning of that list reveals that most of the top 40 are countries that border regions where wars or conflicts are currently or previously taking place. Or bordering countries governed by ruthless warlords and dictators. Good on Norway,Sweden and Switzerland though where their populations have remained relatively stagnant compared to here. Canada aint no slouch.
    Not that many years ago, Canada was #5 per capita in accepting refugees. A drop of 36 places sounds like quite a fair bit of slouching. BTW, Canada is ranked #37 by world population, so there's a number of countries with populations less than ours that are taking many more refugees.

    One thing we're getting better at is helping to create refugees and send them into those neighbouring countries. Except in the ones with dictators that we like, of course.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-09-2015 at 03:26 AM.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Your thoughts on bringing more refugees to Canada please.

    Should we bring in more, fewer, the same? (A long term commitment since there is a permanent ongoing need, or just on an exceptional basis such as when the populous's emotions drive the process, or other criteria?)

    How should we look after them properly? (Set up camps, rapidly integrate, etc?)

    How should we pay for them, initially? (Raise the GST, personal corporate taxes, property taxes, cut to other services, etc?)

    Which refugees are 'acceptable' to Canadians and which are not?

    How do get them to a point where they feel they are fully integrated, contributing and welcome members of our society?

    ... Other aspects?



    ~
    Hilarious isn't it. I should have left off the "other aspects..." point because that's all that's getting discussed. (History lessons and politicing) Except for the point that if we're involved in a conflict we should accept more refugees.

    Here's possibly were truly religious people excell compared to fake religious people and atheists. Actual actionable thought and not ideological debate and other nonscience...

    Pope tells Europe's churches to host refugees - CNN.com
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/06/europe...igrant-crisis/



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 06-09-2015 at 09:14 AM.

  28. #28
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?

  29. #29
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    "An election is no time to discuss serious issues..."
    - Kim Campbell

    Sure, it's shameful how the death of one little boy has become a proxy for a long running outrage. Sure, pox on all your federal partisan houses for using this grievous circumstance as an opportunity for gain.

    But it happened, citizens are moved, moved to action (hopefully) and it's about time this sham of a federal election campaign became meaningful.

    Harper has been undermining immigrant and refugee services since he took office.
    Really? You wouldn't know it walking certain parts of our city.

  30. #30

    Default

    Simple fact is, you or your ancestors are or were refugees or economic migrants.

    I will not mince words. The more you grump about bringing them in, the bigger piece of ordure you are.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Simple fact is, you or your ancestors are or were refugees or economic migrants.

    I will not mince words. The more you grump about bringing them in, the bigger piece of ordure you are.
    And that pretty much applies to the entire population of the planet. Everyone's ancestors at some point moved about in order to survive and/or thrive.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?
    Interesting question. I believe they have.


    Don't expect a simple table here but instead, crappy, useless, time wasting web design here. Still, note the numbers...

    Ten Largest Refugee Camps - WSJ
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...52742703621858


    Where Are the 50 Most Populous Refugee Camps? | Innovation | Smithsonian
    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innova...mps-180947916/

    9 Massive Refugee Camps That Are Home to Nearly 1.5 Million People
    http://gizmodo.com/9-massive-refugee...mil-1252638977



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 06-09-2015 at 12:28 PM.

  33. #33
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The rich Muslim country ntries are mostly very small and often have significantly more guest workers than citizens. They are understandably fearful of being overwhelmed by newcomers and are extremely resistant to welcoming anyone permanently. Many are providing some financial support to turkey, Jordan and Lebanon in dealing with refugees in camps, and that's all they'll do.

  34. #34

    Default

    Why isn't the Immigration minister using their power to grant waivers to the red tape that they themselves have put in place?

    Refugee crisis: Pope appeals to European parishes to take in 1 family each

    Pope Francis has called on every European parish and religious community to take in one migrant family each, in a gesture of solidarity he said would start in the tiny Vatican state where he lives.

    "I appeal to the parishes, the religious communities, the monasteries and sanctuaries of all Europe to ... take in one
    family of refugees," he said after his Sunday address in Vatican City.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/refugee...peal-1.3217455

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Simple fact is, you or your ancestors are or were refugees or economic migrants.
    So? What of it? Some people STILL complain about my ancestors coming here centuries ago.

  36. #36
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The government in 1990 was a Progressive Conservative one, not to be confused with our current Conservative government, which is basically a re-branded Reform party and is quite dismissive of the term Progressive Conservative as shown in comments by Stephen Harper:

    From a speech to the Council for National Policy, a conservative American lobby group, June 1997

    Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron.

    But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.


    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper
    You can hardly compare the two parties, for they are actually two different parties.

    Who's comparing the parties?

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?
    It's pretty low to bring religion into this crisis. As mentioned already, the biggest refugee camps for Syrians are in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon so that should answer your question.

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post


    A quick scanning of that list reveals that most of the top 40 are countries that border regions where wars or conflicts are currently or previously taking place. Or bordering countries governed by ruthless warlords and dictators. Good on Norway,Sweden and Switzerland though where their populations have remained relatively stagnant compared to here. Canada aint no slouch.
    Not that many years ago, Canada was #5 per capita in accepting refugees. A drop of 36 places sounds like quite a fair bit of slouching. BTW, Canada is ranked #37 by world population, so there's a number of countries with populations less than ours that are taking many more refugees.

    One thing we're getting better at is helping to create refugees and send them into those neighbouring countries. Except in the ones with dictators that we like, of course.

    The point is that i don't think that is a list you want us to be at or near the top of - do we? As i mentioned, a vast majority of the countries ahead of us have had refugees pouring into them from neighbouring regions due to war, conflict, genocide, famine, etc. Its not like they all have the abilities to build walls across their borders to keep the refugees out.

    I'm sure if there was a messy civil war going on down in the US then Canada would instantly shoot to the top of that list as there would be no way we could possibly keep the millions from seeking refuge here.

    There's a pretty hefty price to pay on the social fabric by having an uncontrollable inflow of refugees.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?
    It's pretty low to bring religion into this crisis. As mentioned already, the biggest refugee camps for Syrians are in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon so that should answer your question.
    And I was hoping to discuss issues beyond this "crisis". Looking at the numbers, there might be a lot of justification to relieve pressure on other long established refugee camps by bringing in refugees from Africa and letting the Syrian refugees get established in Europe and the Middle East.

    Religion though seems to be a significant issue no matter where people come from since predudices exist here and will almost certainly clash with predudices imported with refugees.

    If someone, anyone, would read my original posting I hope that they will see that this discussion was to be about overall refugee policy, and not limited to this crisis because, by nature, people's current religious predudices will distort the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Your thoughts on bringing more refugees to Canada please.

    Should we bring in more, fewer, the same? (A long term commitment since there is a permanent ongoing need, or just on an exceptional basis such as when the populous's emotions drive the process, or other criteria?)

    How should we look after them properly? (Set up camps, rapidly integrate, etc?)

    How should we pay for them, initially? (Raise the GST, personal corporate taxes, property taxes, cut to other services, etc?)

    Which refugees are 'acceptable' to Canadians and which are not?

    How do get them to a point where they feel they are fully integrated, contributing and welcome members of our society?

    ... Other aspects?



    ~
    Last edited by KC; 06-09-2015 at 03:29 PM.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post


    A quick scanning of that list reveals that most of the top 40 are countries that border regions where wars or conflicts are currently or previously taking place. Or bordering countries governed by ruthless warlords and dictators. Good on Norway,Sweden and Switzerland though where their populations have remained relatively stagnant compared to here. Canada aint no slouch.
    Not that many years ago, Canada was #5 per capita in accepting refugees. A drop of 36 places sounds like quite a fair bit of slouching. BTW, Canada is ranked #37 by world population, so there's a number of countries with populations less than ours that are taking many more refugees.

    One thing we're getting better at is helping to create refugees and send them into those neighbouring countries. Except in the ones with dictators that we like, of course.

    The point is that i don't think that is a list you want us to be at or near the top of - do we? As i mentioned, a vast majority of the countries ahead of us have had refugees pouring into them from neighbouring regions due to war, conflict, genocide, famine, etc. Its not like they all have the abilities to build walls across their borders to keep the refugees out.

    I'm sure if there was a messy civil war going on down in the US then Canada would instantly shoot to the top of that list as there would be no way we could possibly keep the millions from seeking refuge here.

    There's a pretty hefty price to pay on the social fabric by having an uncontrollable inflow of refugees.
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?
    It's pretty low to bring religion into this crisis. As mentioned already, the biggest refugee camps for Syrians are in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon so that should answer your question.
    Huh? religion? wth? I was asking why Dubai etc. haven't taken in ONE refugee

  41. #41
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    There is a rally/vigil planned for Tues. Sept. 8, 6:30pm at the Legislature. No One Is Illegal is organizing.
    They had a mighty 100 in Calgary show up

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Huh? religion? wth? I was asking why Dubai etc. haven't taken in ONE refugee
    Dubai doesn't have to take in a single refugee. For that matter, neither does Austria and Germany, who are taking them in. They had nothing to do with creating the refugee crisis.

    The countries that have a responsibility to take in refugees are Canada, US, UK. The enthusiastic bombers. The ones who created the refugee crisis.

    At this point the decision to start all the wars we did may as well have been not only justified but mandatory on whatever reasons you wish for -- economic, political, civilizational, moral, let it be divine. The fact is that for better or worse we created the chaos that led to the refugees. They are ours.

    And supporters of the bombing campaign have not only a national but a PERSONAL responsibility to shelter refugees.

    You cheered their creation. And yet you won't help them?!!
    Last edited by AShetsen; 06-09-2015 at 08:23 PM.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post

    Huh? religion? wth? I was asking why Dubai etc. haven't taken in ONE refugee
    Neither has Israel, a country that shares a border with Syria.

    Netanyahu Rejects Calls for Israel to Accept Syrian Refugees

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rejected calls from opposition politicians for Israel to accept refugees from Syria, saying that Israel was “a very small country that lacks demographic and geographic depth.” He also said that plans to construct a fence along the eastern border with Jordan would go ahead.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/wo...gees.html?_r=0
    The Palestinian Authority is willing to accept the Palestinian/Syrian refugees that are currently in refugee camps in Syria but Netanyahu won't allow it.

    Netanyahu Rejects Calls for Israel to Accept Syrian Refugees

    President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority on Saturday instructed the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations to act to bring Palestinian refugees now fleeing the war in Syria to the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

    The presidency has asked the United Nations, the European Union and other players to press Israel to allow Palestinian refugees in, according to Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency. The Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-rule in some areas of the West Bank, but Israel controls the borders and entry points to the territory.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/wo...gees.html?_r=0
    So, according to Netanyahu, Israel is too small to accept a couple of thousand refugees but after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, he publicly called on all European Jews to move to Israel. Somehow 1.5 million European Jews will take up less space than a couple of thousand Syrians.

    Meanwhile, 1.7 million Palestinians in the West bank are willing to take in half a million refugees from Syria despite having a lower standard of living that Israel.

    Netanyahu is willing to take in refugees provided they're the right kind of refugees.

    However, the opposition is calling him out.

    Other members of the opposition had joined Mr. Herzog’s call to take in refugees, including Zehava Galon, the leader of the left-wing Meretz party, and Elazar Stern, a legislator from the centrist Yesh Atid party. Mr. Stern invoked a gesture made by Menachem Begin, the former Likud Party leader, who, as prime minister in the late 1970s, welcomed several hundred Vietnamese boat people to Israel and granted them Israeli citizenship.

    Ministers from Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party and some coalition partners backed Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments against opening Israel’s gates to even a limited number of refugees, as did the leader of Yesh Atid, Yair Lapid.

    Yisrael Katz, a Likud minister, suggested that Mr. Herzog should “at least” offer to host the refugees in his own home, following the example of the prime minister of Finland. “But in principle I think this is a strange, mistaken proposal,” he said of Mr. Herzog’s call. “Israel must not get involved in what is happening is Syria. We are not a European country. We are too close.”

    Mr. Herzog replied to his critics with a post on Facebook on Sunday, writing, “You have forgotten what it is to be Jews. Refugees. Persecuted.” Calling again for Israel to take in a limited number of refugees who would be vetted, he added that Mr. Begin “must be turning in his grave.”
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-09-2015 at 09:24 PM.

  44. #44
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Thumbs down

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...-train-tracks/ You would think they would be more greatful.As for Israel, yes they should take them in, as long as they are screened. But once again, why aren't the rich Arab countries taking them in. Nobody seems to know why.

  45. #45
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    "An election is no time to discuss serious issues..."
    - Kim Campbell

    Sure, it's shameful how the death of one little boy has become a proxy for a long running outrage. Sure, pox on all your federal partisan houses for using this grievous circumstance as an opportunity for gain.

    But it happened, citizens are moved, moved to action (hopefully) and it's about time this sham of a federal election campaign became meaningful.

    Harper has been undermining immigrant and refugee services since he took office.
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Huh? religion? wth? I was asking why Dubai etc. haven't taken in ONE refugee
    Dubai doesn't have to take in a single refugee. For that matter, neither does Austria and Germany, who are taking them in. They had nothing to do with creating the refugee crisis.

    The countries that have a responsibility to take in refugees are Canada, US, UK. The enthusiastic bombers. The ones who created the refugee crisis.

    At this point the decision to start all the wars we did may as well have been not only justified but mandatory on whatever reasons you wish for -- economic, political, civilizational, moral, let it be divine. The fact is that for better or worse we created the chaos that led to the refugees. They are ours.

    And supporters of the bombing campaign have not only a national but a PERSONAL responsibility to shelter refugees.

    You cheered their creation. And yet you won't help them?!!
    It should of been women and children. first, I see an awful lot of able bodied men and boys!

  46. #46

    Default

    Yeah, because that's the best thing for a refugee family. Let's split them up and send the boys and men off to fight the war without any equipment or training. Who needs a CF-18 anyway? Just give them a .22 and send them to the front.

  47. #47

    Default

    ^so what do you propose? Just let ISIS take over the whole Middle East, continuing to rape and murder? Without the military action people won't even survive to be refugees. I think canada can and should take more refugees, but that's a global issue not just related to the horrors going on in one part of the world.

  48. #48

    Default

    We;re stuck in a no win situation. The invasion of Iraq helped create ISIS. Since we had a part in that, we have a responsibility to help solve it. However, more military action creates more refugees but also more radicals who see the west bombing their countries. The more we try to "help", the deeper the hole we dig. But, the governments in the area are so weakened and destabilized that they can't bring back order by themselves.

    On top of all that, go a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, we'll soon be looking at a war with Iran that will make the invasion of Iraq look like a Sunday picnic. And if Harper gets back in next month, we'll be right there alongside the Americans. making things even worse.

    Faced with the lesser of two evils, I'd tend to agree with Gwynn Dyer. We're bulls in a China shop, trying to put things back together and only causing more damage each time we move. ISIS is not going to take over the whole Middle East. The countries there won't allow it and will eventually come together to fight them. Even Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, three countries with considerable animosity towards each other are cooperating against ISIS. We're simply giving the terrorists a convenient figurehead for recruitment.

    Gwynne Dyer explains why terrorism is overblown and why Islamists want western countries to attack the Islamic State

    "The scale of the terrorism is tiny compared to its presence in the media," Dyer continued. "Really, we should, as much as possible, ignore it. We certainly don't need to overreact by sending troops to the Middle East or aircraft to do God knows what in terms of useful activity. It's just dumb."

    In fact, according to Dyer, if western countries expand their bombing campaigns against ISIS into Syria, it will only make the Islamic State stronger.

    That's because it will reinforce ISIS's message that western infidels are attacking and killing Muslims. Dyer said that this provides a perfect recruiting tool to attract more desperate people to join their cause.

    The former instructor at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (where British officers are trained to lead soldiers) described this as "political jujitsu". And he said this is why ISIS releases grisly, well-edited videos showing westerners being beheaded.

    "You poke the bear," Dyer said, "and the bear comes down and attacks not just you, but everybody around you and people you've never met—and drives some of those people into the revolutionaries' arms."

    http://www.straight.com/news/420321/...tern-countries
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 07-09-2015 at 01:11 PM.

  49. #49
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    I would still fight iSIS on their land, than on ours. I want to see these refugees vetted well, I put nothing by ISIS, they will use this to gain access to our country. Am I fearful? no, am I angry? yes. these same countries called us Satan, they yelled for the west to die. Now they want to live in harmony here, it wont happen.

  50. #50

    Default

    Perhaps they wouldn't be calling us Satan if we didn't continually stick our noses into their counties and bomb them. Just a possibility. As far as them calling for us to die, we've done a much better job of actually killing them than the terrorist groups have managed to kill us.

    Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present)

    Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.[1] These numbers do not include those who have died in Pakistan.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civili...#8211;present)
    And in Iraq

    Casualties of the Iraq War

    Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...f_the_Iraq_War
    Add to that the millions who have had to flee the fighting and the destruction of their countries and you're still confused as to where ISIS is getting their recruits?

    "Let's keep bombing them until they stop hating us." is the Conservative manta and it's not working. So, of course, those on the right conclude that the reason it's not working is because we're not bombing them enough.

  51. #51
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Perhaps they wouldn't be calling us Satan if we didn't continually stick our noses into their counties and bomb them. Just a possibility. As far as them calling for us to die, we've done a much better job of actually killing them than the terrorist groups have managed to kill us.
    What utter BS. I cant believe you post such rubbish, let alone believe it.smh

  52. #52

    Default

    Yeah, bombing people is a well known method of making new friends. Kill their kids or parents and it's an extra bonus. Ranks right up there with invasion on the "How to make friends and influence people" scale.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Perhaps they wouldn't be calling us Satan if we didn't continually stick our noses into their counties and bomb them. Just a possibility. As far as them calling for us to die, we've done a much better job of actually killing them than the terrorist groups have managed to kill us.
    What utter BS. I cant believe you post such rubbish, let alone believe it.smh
    He has a point that the instability of Iraq caused ISIS to rise. There were no influential extremist groups in Iraq before Bush and cronies decided to invade for the now missing WMDs. A look through history indicates that we have a role to play in destabilizing the region either through colonial occupation in the 1800s or supporting dictatorships in the latter part of the 1900s.

    Does this put those countries off the hook? No.
    But denying our role in this mess is unacceptable.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post


    A quick scanning of that list reveals that most of the top 40 are countries that border regions where wars or conflicts are currently or previously taking place. Or bordering countries governed by ruthless warlords and dictators. Good on Norway,Sweden and Switzerland though where their populations have remained relatively stagnant compared to here. Canada aint no slouch.
    Not that many years ago, Canada was #5 per capita in accepting refugees. A drop of 36 places sounds like quite a fair bit of slouching. BTW, Canada is ranked #37 by world population, so there's a number of countries with populations less than ours that are taking many more refugees.

    One thing we're getting better at is helping to create refugees and send them into those neighbouring countries. Except in the ones with dictators that we like, of course.

    The point is that i don't think that is a list you want us to be at or near the top of - do we? As i mentioned, a vast majority of the countries ahead of us have had refugees pouring into them from neighbouring regions due to war, conflict, genocide, famine, etc. Its not like they all have the abilities to build walls across their borders to keep the refugees out.

    I'm sure if there was a messy civil war going on down in the US then Canada would instantly shoot to the top of that list as there would be no way we could possibly keep the millions from seeking refuge here.

    There's a pretty hefty price to pay on the social fabric by having an uncontrollable inflow of refugees.
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Why don't the reach Muslim countries take anyone in?
    You would think they would want to help out.

    As for Canada, housing has to be in place, where are they all going to live?
    It's pretty low to bring religion into this crisis. As mentioned already, the biggest refugee camps for Syrians are in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon so that should answer your question.
    Huh? religion? wth? I was asking why Dubai etc. haven't taken in ONE refugee
    If you didn't want to bring religion into this why would you mention "Muslim" countries. You could have said neighboring or Middle Eastern countries but you pointed out their religion specifically.

  55. #55

    Default

    So Germany says it could take in 500,000 refugees a year. How would it handle the logistics of doing this?
    Tent camps?

    "At least part of the problem lies in the fact that government officials failed to plan and properly prepare for the current wave. Cities have been complaining since the beginning of 2012 about having too little money available and too little capacity for providing assistance to refugees. Their complaints were either ignored or went unheard. " - 2014

    Germany to Spend $6.6 Billion on 800,000 Refugees and Migrants - NBC News
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/eur...comers-n422811

    Last year...

    Surge In Refugees Catches German Leaders Off Guard - SPIEGEL ONLINE

    ...the subject at hand was much grimmer: packed school gymnasiums, dwellings made out of shipping containers, cots and other logistical aspects of Germany's refugee crisis.

    Part of the job of state interior ministers in Germany is to ensure that refugees who make their way into country are provided with acceptable accommodations. If you travel through Germany's cities, you can often see evidence that state governments haven't been doing their jobs well -- and that they've been overstrained by the sheer number of people seeking assistance, which has risen dramatically for months.
    ...
    The refugees in Germany are fleeing many things: the civil war in Syria, the recent wave of terror in Iraq, torturous regimes but also, in many cases, a life of poverty and no prospects, be it in Africa or as a member of the Roma minority in Serbia.
    ...

    In Munich, the state government even considered the idea of erecting tent camps to provide new arrivals with accommodation. What's happening there is symptomatic of what other municipalities and aid organizations are experiencing: One of Europe's richest countries is proving unable to provide humane accommodations for refugees. At least part of the problem lies in the fact that government officials failed to plan and properly prepare for the current wave. Cities have been complaining since the beginning of 2012 about having too little money available and too little capacity for providing assistance to refugees. Their complaints were either ignored or went unheard.


    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-979633.html
    This year...

    Refugees Find a Mostly Smooth Welcome in Germany - WSJ

    "Refugees who do make it here after long, perilous and costly journeys meet a well-oiled system that gets people off the street and into emergency shelters fast, dispatches them across the country, and cares for their basic needs—a system Berlin would now like to extend to the entire European Union.

    But while it is geared toward humanitarian assistance, migrants and aid workers say the system is struggling to offer newcomers long-term prospects, and it is already straining under the rapidly rising numbers.

    And even as refugees have been welcomed in many towns, in others, particularly in the former Communist East, they have faced hostility and sometimes violent protests. Nightly arson attacks, mainly on empty buildings being converted into shelters, have been a near-daily occurrence this summer. Police said Friday that five people were injured in a fire that broke out overnight at a refugee asylum in the western German town of Heppenheim. ..."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/refugees...any-1441370296

    On another thought. Should Canada be bringing in refugees that have been waiting years in other refugee camps, say in Africa, and letting other countries handle the various current refugee crises (this year, next year, ten years from now...)

    Long term refugees may be facing no hope of a reversal of their situation whereas any present day crisis victims always face some probability that the crisis will abate and they can go home. So are we prepared to just offer temporary sanctuary or do we prefer to offer permanent sanctuary?
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2015 at 11:07 AM.

  56. #56
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Canada needs to do more to take these refugees. We played a role in causing the situation by blindly following the American/British warmongering in the region, and we need to play a role in cleaning it up.

    We also need to pressure greedy Gulf countries that are doing absolutely zero to help their neighbours, and are in some cases actually directly funding the terrorists. It should not matter to us that the American power structure is infatuated with the Sauds and other monarchs. Everyone knows they are to blame, and we should do the right thing as a nation in calling them out.

  57. #57
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    We certainly take more refugees than we have. 100,000 is reasonable. 200,000 is not impossible.

    We could also be doing more to support the nearby countries as they accommodate so many refugees in camps. it wouldn't be unreasonable to spend at least as much on that as on the military campaign. In terms of our military participation, I have no problem with our soldiers providing support to the kurdish military especially on defense, but I would rather see soldiers on the ground protecting Refugee cities than in the air dropping bombs on what we hope are isis bases.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    We certainly take more refugees than we have. 100,000 is reasonable. 200,000 is not impossible.

    We could also be doing more to support the nearby countries as they accommodate so many refugees in camps. it wouldn't be unreasonable to spend at least as much on that as on the military campaign. In terms of our military participation, I have no problem with our soldiers providing support to the kurdish military especially on defense, but I would rather see soldiers on the ground protecting Refugee cities than in the air dropping bombs on what we hope are isis bases.
    100,000 - 200,000 yearly from anywhere on earth, or just those from the Middle East ?

    My view is that Syria is a hot issue today but our long term policy should be determined by some sort of unbiased methodology and that we need a system to make it work well. Though the argument that if we're involved in the conflict then there's some sort of greater responsibility might hold water. Also, the current system seems biased towards those with family here. I wonder what happens to those more on their own such as orphans and remaining members of a family lacking pre-existing ties to Canada.

    Here's a good discussion (link below), inspired by the Syrian issue, but aiming at long term strategies.

    The insurance idea is interesting.

    Can Canada duplicate its boat people rescue with Syrian refugees? | The Toronto Star
    Published on Sep 26 2014
    Peter Goodspeed
    SPECIAL TO THE STAR


    "...
    A core concern is the fact private refugee sponsorships, so successful in the “boat people” crisis, have atrophied and become the preserve of faith-based communities, ethnic and cultural groups.

    They want to expand the base of people involved in sponsorships, creating more opportunities for groups such as book clubs, neighbourhood associations or unions, to become involved.

    Under existing programs, 90 per cent of private sponsorships in Canada are through faith-based groups and involve refugees already in Canada who are trying to bring relatives here.

    The task force’s first report notes that the relatives already in Canada assume responsibility for much, if not all, of the cost as well as human support required, with the sponsors (usually the supporting church groups) acting as passive guarantors.”

    The group called for a separate new family reunification program to allow refugees to reunite with relatives who are overseas and in need of protection. But it also called for the creation of an “insurance” fund to back up refugee reunification sponsorships in cases where a sponsoring family needs temporary financial assistance.

    A reunification program would cost little but, most important, it would free up private sponsorship groups to refocus their attention on new crises like Syria. That could improve the refugee system’s flexibility and make it easier to respond quickly to a crisis. ..."


    http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/..._refugees.html
    Last edited by KC; 08-09-2015 at 03:59 PM.

  59. #59
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The primary goal of our response to any refugee crisis should be to meet immediate needs through camps and other emergency aid, the secondary goal should be to help refugees return home, or at least enable people who have not been displaced to remain. Resettlement should be the last resort.

    In some cases there is no foreseen end to the crisis or regime that forced the refugees to flee. Those cases should be our first priority for resettlement in Canada, and I'm not sure whether Syria currently meets that criteria.
    It's looking more and more like it does, because it's looking more and more like ISIS will be around for more than just a few more years, and the society it's creating seems more and more like it is to muslim states as North Korea is to communist ones.

    And it's pretty much a given that anyone who leaves North Korea is a Legit refugee.

    I'd say likewise with the Caliphate.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    The primary goal of our response to any refugee crisis should be to meet immediate needs through camps and other emergency aid, the secondary goal should be to help refugees return home, or at least enable people who have not been displaced to remain. Resettlement should be the last resort.

    In some cases there is no foreseen end to the crisis or regime that forced the refugees to flee. Those cases should be our first priority for resettlement in Canada, and I'm not sure whether Syria currently meets that criteria.
    It's looking more and more like it does, because it's looking more and more like ISIS will be around for more than just a few more years, and the society it's creating seems more and more like it is to muslim states as North Korea is to communist ones.

    And it's pretty much a given that anyone who leaves North Korea is a Legit refugee.

    I'd say likewise with the Caliphate.
    Yes that raises an interesting issue. If there are problems amongbthe Koreas are we prepared to handle taking in some of their populations? What do we need to do, practically speaking, to be ready for large populations?

  61. #61
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^While it works well for low numbers, the sponsorship framework may not scale up to the volumes that would be required in the face of a major crisis of that magnitude. Taking in large numbers of people who do not have ties here would require either a more intensive sponsorship (we don't have 100,000 vacant apartments, so in-home billeting might be required) or a more state-driven initiative with actual on-shore refugee camps or camp-like accommodations, with the obvious downside of cost and lead time.

  62. #62

    Default

    Whatever one may think of potential refugees, it is an an absolute certainty that proportionately far fewer of them urinate into coffee cups or simulate orgasm while pranking on the telephone than among our local, all-Canadian population. That is really first-world sophistication at its finest.

  63. #63
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^Who urinated in your corn flakes this morning?

    or maybe the more important question is why are you so determined to **** on everybody?

  64. #64

    Default

    ^I am pissing on no one. Like the refugees, and UNLIKE our all-Canadian governing clique and its supporters -- having come recently to a video-screen near you.

    And since the decision to admit or not to admit refugees is neither political nor economic, but moral -- our moral decision -- it is well to highlight OUR morals (whatever one may think of them) as much as possible.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 08-09-2015 at 06:27 PM.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^While it works well for low numbers, the sponsorship framework may not scale up to the volumes that would be required in the face of a major crisis of that magnitude. Taking in large numbers of people who do not have ties here would require either a more intensive sponsorship (we don't have 100,000 vacant apartments, so in-home billeting might be required) or a more state-driven initiative with actual on-shore refugee camps or camp-like accommodations, with the obvious downside of cost and lead time.
    Western Canada has a lot of experience in constructing camps for oil workers so that might be expertise that could be drawn on.

  66. #66

    Default

    Canada has an ethical obligation to take in more refugees, regardless of whether they are from Syria or not. We are talking about Syrian refugees simply because the crisis in Europe is unfolding before our eyes in the media. This does not make it any less worthy of immediate discussion and action by the Canadian government.

    The fact that it happens during an election campaign means nothing. That is simply circumstance.

    The more immediate issue may be how to help displaced and distressed peoples in the camps in Lebanon and Turkey if the current government can't get it's head around how to take in these refugees. Short and longer term we should and can be doing more to take in refugees around the world based on our historical ability to do so. We're a wealthy, prosperous nation and have a duty to help. Canadians overwhelmingly want to help regardless of political stripes.
    www.decl.org

  67. #67

    Default

    Interesting article here...


    Fortress Europe: How the EU Turns Its Back on Refugees

    By SPIEGEL ONLINE Staff

    Asylum Policy and Treatment of Refugees in the European Union - SPIEGEL ONLINE


    "into the European Union, they often find little compassion. In Greece, they are held in squalid detention camps, while in Italy they often end up on the street. Here is what they face at entry points across the EU."

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-926939.html

  68. #68

    Default

    I hate to post to this thread any mention of the Syrians but it shows some of the considerations for refugees in general.


    Syrian refugees: Philip Ruddock warns against 'ghettoing' as majority of extra 12,000 refugees to resettle in Sydney, Melbourne - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



    "Veteran Liberal MP Philip Ruddock has warned against the "ghettoing" of thousands of Syrian refugees expected to be given new homes in Australia.

    The majority of the 12,000 extra refugees are expected to be resettled in Sydney and Melbourne, where the bulk of Australia's Syrian community lives. ...


    Member for Berowra and former immigration minister Mr Ruddock said deciding where they would live was "very complex" and it was important support services were readily available.

    "Sometimes you need to think about where communities already exist because they can be very important in supporting those who are coming," Mr Ruddock said.

    "You need to look at the way in which you can apply adequate settlement services where they are, you need to look at where the support organisations are.

    "Those are factors that are going to be taken into account. I don't think it's desirable to have people ghettoing, if I can use that term, so distribution of populations is important."

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-1...bourne/6782012

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    From what Top_Dawg has seen, the typical immigrant's disposition towards immigration can be summed up as:

    Once I'm in - fuq the rest. Slam the door shut !


    Again I'm falling off my own path of trying to talk about long term objectives and logistics and financing and not letting a media focused crisis allow current refugees to jump the queue over more deserving refugees, but this seems to confirm Top_Dawg's view...



    MARGARET WENTE
    What Canadians really think about the refugee crisis
    MARGARET WENTE
    The Globe and Mail
    Published Thursday, Sep. 17, 2015


    Rick Hillier is a can-do guy. Canada’s former top military boss says we can bring in 50,000 Syrian refugees – by Christmas. All we need is the will. “First, we can go with children who are orphaned, who’ve lost their moms and dads, who are all alone,” he told the CBC. “Go with young women, older women who are perhaps on their own. Go with single-parent families or go with comprehensive families, and you’re going to have 50,000 refugees in a heartbeat.” Security? It’s a phony issue.

    Retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire says we can take in 70,000, or maybe 90,000. The Syrians, he says, would be a valuable asset for Canada. Security concerns are just a smokescreen for inaction. ..."

    "...most Canadians are happy to let this crisis be someone else’s problem. Sure, we’ll do our bit – so long as it’s a little bit.

    ..."

    "Well, it’s worth noting that Canada stalled for years before taking in the boat people. (For the record, the cold-hearted prime minister at the time was..."


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26387781/


    Last edited by KC; 21-09-2015 at 10:31 PM.

  70. #70
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,155

    Default



    Of course.

    When making public statements all the usual cornholios try so desperately hard to sound so honourable, so virtuous, so righteous, so noble....

    In real life they are everything but.

  71. #71

    Default

    Interesting about Trudeau or his reasoned hesitation.

  72. #72

    Default

    As we discussed - logistical issues

    Logistical cracks emerge in Liberal pledge to settle 25,000 Syrian refugees by end of 2015

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...by-end-of-2015

  73. #73

    Default

    If you wish to have an informed opinion on Canada's refugee policy hop on over to Catholic Social Services where they buddy up Canadians with refugees in the hopes the Canadians would show them the ropes.

    I've been doing that 1 year now, and I frankly I have arrived to the conclusion that they'll go mad here before they integrate.

  74. #74
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Whatever one may think of potential refugees, it is an an absolute certainty that proportionately far fewer of them urinate into coffee cups or simulate orgasm while pranking on the telephone than among our local, all-Canadian population. That is really first-world sophistication at its finest.
    No, they just burn down their accommodations, and complain they are not given enough. If you take refuge in another country at least show some damn manners

  75. #75
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Whatever one may think of potential refugees, it is an an absolute certainty that proportionately far fewer of them urinate into coffee cups or simulate orgasm while pranking on the telephone than among our local, all-Canadian population. That is really first-world sophistication at its finest.


    It's good to be the king.



    "God bless Us, Every One!"
    -Timothy Cratchit
    Last edited by Top_Dawg; 06-11-2015 at 03:44 PM.

  76. #76
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Whatever one may think of potential refugees, it is an an absolute certainty that proportionately far fewer of them urinate into coffee cups or simulate orgasm while pranking on the telephone than among our local, all-Canadian population. That is really first-world sophistication at its finest.
    No, they just burn down their accommodations, and complain they are not given enough. If you take refuge in another country at least show some damn manners
    If you are lucky enough to be born in a first world country at least show some damn class.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  77. #77
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Whatever one may think of potential refugees, it is an an absolute certainty that proportionately far fewer of them urinate into coffee cups or simulate orgasm while pranking on the telephone than among our local, all-Canadian population. That is really first-world sophistication at its finest.
    No, they just burn down their accommodations, and complain they are not given enough. If you take refuge in another country at least show some damn manners
    If you are lucky enough to be born in a first world country at least show some damn class.
    You don't know where I was born, expat!!!

  78. #78
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Hence the conditional "If" at the start of my post.

    Regardless, berating the displaced, who have presumably lost everything, for bad "manners" still shows a lack of class on your part.


    (If I had to guess I'd say you were a middle aged woman, originally from a British speaking country, possibly the UK. )
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    Hence the conditional "If" at the start of my post.

    Regardless, berating the displaced, who have presumably lost everything, for bad "manners" still shows a lack of class on your part.


    (If I had to guess I'd say you were a middle aged woman, originally from a British speaking country, possibly the UK. )
    You mean that hello lady isn't a greeting being made by a guy, as in Hello, Lady.

  80. #80
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Why are they coming here? To change Canada into a muslum country! Why dont they stay on their own country and fight for it? If they abandon their own country, what good are they to use?
    make America GREAT TRUMP!

  81. #81
    C2E Bandwidth Hog
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    29,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Why are they coming here? To change Canada into a muslum country! Why dont they stay on their own country and fight for it? If they abandon their own country, what good are they to use?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Why are they coming here? To change Canada into a muslum country!
    There is a myriad of fatwas prohibiting muslims to move to non-muslim countries for the risk of them losing their faith is too great. Ergo, they are not moving to make you muslim. However, the interaction with you will make their children even more muslim, and there's the rub.

    It's all you bub!

  83. #83
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Why are they coming here? To change Canada into a muslum country! Why dont they stay on their own country and fight for it? If they abandon their own country, what good are they to use?

    I'm more worried about the extremists in our midst. Such as people like you, who openly support designated terrorist groups on the internet.

  84. #84

    Default

    Haven't quite a few, if not the majority of north America's terrorists been home grown and included Christian and white supremist extremists? And go back in time and it was a real mess in the US.

  85. #85
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Thumbs down

    Over 600 million $$ to bring them over, and they may need treatment from psychiatrists and may bring TB with them. Yup, this is good all around

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    If Germany can handle a million we can surely handle 25,000.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    If Germany can handle a million we can surely handle 25,000.
    What has been our annual intake of other immigrants? I'd guess 25k is small in comparison. Same risks. Its interesting how this election pledge must be met (to the point of even meeting a tight deadline) in this particular case, while past election pledges of all kinds have routinely been ignored. Times sure have changed.

    My aim in starting this thread (poorly worded as it was) is to talk about properly dealing with refugees in general, in housing them, integrating them, paying for them, etc. and not so much about the current batch of refugees beyond dealing with the logistics of sudden influxes.

    I'm still not sure if I agree with bringing in Syrian refugees when there are millions of people already in refugee camps that may deserve first consideration, assuming that the Syrians could then take the places that long standing refugees vacate. I'm guessing longstanding refugees are less likely to return to their homelands today, than are the Syrian refugees.

  88. #88
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    I believe current immigration levels for Canada are between 250k to 275k per year, which is actually quite high on a per capita basis. In terms of taking Syrian refugees over others, it's an area where there is a growing crisis as the war is generating refugees faster than the area can handle. Also these aren't replacing other refugees coming to Canada, they're in addition.

    There will definitely be logistical challenges in taking so many at once especially since many of the organizations that handle refugees in Canada have had their funding cut over the last few years. That said, the organizations and the knowledge to handle the logistics do exist. They just need to get ramped up.

    As an aside, I read a piece in The Economist about how Baltimore is trying to get more refugees to help bolster their population.


    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  89. #89

    Default

    I'm quite old enough to remember the racism around the Vietnamese airlift of 1979. A short time later, there was a manslaughter on the High Level Bridge that seemed to justify the hatred of the naysayers. But the refugees settled in, and the hysteria about them being brought in is completely forgotten.

    There will without a doubt be some crime attributed to the Syrians, just as there has been with every identifiable group of outsiders and, um, old stock alike. In the end none of it should or will matter.

  90. #90
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    I know I've heard of a number of Vietnamese families who came then sponsoring Syrian families now.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Over 600 million $$ to bring them over, and they may need treatment from psychiatrists and may bring TB with them. Yup, this is good all around
    Psychiatrists? Why would they need psychiatrists? How traumatizing is it to have your country over run by ISIS and various militias as well as being bombed by various other countries (including us)? Sheesh....

    And congrats on playing the "immigrants will infect us all with diseases: card. You'd think that screening for such things would be part of the whole process.

    Oh wait.....

  92. #92
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    One family in Edmonton( just one ) are a family of 18, what a joke!

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    One family in Edmonton( just one ) are a family of 18, what a joke!
    Not long ago, Canadian families got quite large. I have cousins that formed a family of 11. That side of the family dates back to arriving in Ontario in the 1850s. Maybe not old stock, but not exactly new stock either. Maybe overstocked. (Harper has provided Canadians with endless fun with his stock comment.)

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    I'm quite old enough to remember the racism around the Vietnamese airlift of 1979. A short time later, there was a manslaughter on the High Level Bridge that seemed to justify the hatred of the naysayers. But the refugees settled in, and the hysteria about them being brought in is completely forgotten.

    There will without a doubt be some crime attributed to the Syrians, just as there has been with every identifiable group of outsiders and, um, old stock alike. In the end none of it should or will matter.
    Bang on.

    However, wasn't this behind some of the early gangs that formed in Edmonton. If correct... poor efforts on our part at integration maybe?

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I believe current immigration levels for Canada are between 250k to 275k per year, which is actually quite high on a per capita basis. In terms of taking Syrian refugees over others, it's an area where there is a growing crisis as the war is generating refugees faster than the area can handle. Also these aren't replacing other refugees coming to Canada, they're in addition.

    There will definitely be logistical challenges in taking so many at once especially since many of the organizations that handle refugees in Canada have had their funding cut over the last few years. That said, the organizations and the knowledge to handle the logistics do exist. They just need to get ramped up.

    As an aside, I read a piece in The Economist about how Baltimore is trying to get more refugees to help bolster their population.

    I'm saying one option is to bring 25,000 people out of the refugee camps in Africa and elsewhere and let the Syrians take their place. (Assumes the host countries would accept foreign refugees.) people have been born and grown up in some of these camps. Maybe they deserve first consideration.

  96. #96
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,322

    Default

    ^You also assume that any Syrian refugees already in camps would acquiesce to being shipped to another camp on another continent full of people they have nothing in common with in a country they can not stay in. Generally when refugees leave camps it's to be resettled not just shuffled.

    I did some more hunting for information on how many refugees we generally take in and it appears to be about 25k per year. It looks like around six or seven thousand of those are from Africa and a similar number from the Middle East. Also of note, these are just admissions. Less than half of those admitted with refugee claims are accepted as refugees.

    Syria right now is a special case at the moment as it is generating refugees faster than can be accommodated creating a massive humanitarian crisis. It's also creating a crisis for our allies in Europe as hundreds of thousands of people flee the war and the camps.

    It's not an ideal situation and while taking more people from Africa would likely be more fair it's not more practical.

    PROFILE: Canada's refugees: Where they come from by the numbers

    Making sense of Canada’s refugee and immigration numbers

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  97. #97
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Very few of the African refugee situations have remained stable for long periods. There are places where the refugee flow is the opposite direction that it was just 20 years ago, and camps are less segregated from the general populaton.

    The long term refugees are Palestinians in the middle East who have been kept deliberately stateless for political reasons. If anything that's who we should be trying to help- Palestinians two generations removed from leaving home but maintained as refugees by their neighbours all that time.

    As bad as Syria actually is, I have more hope that it will return to relative stability within 5 years than that Palestinians refugees from almost 50 years ago will be allowed to return or finally settly in their host countries.

  98. #98
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    One family in Edmonton( just one ) are a family of 18, what a joke!
    Most families have 3or 4 children, and the next generation will have 2 just like "normal" Canadians.

    But really, who cares how big their family is when they arrive? That's still 18 of the 25000, and it would be 18 of the 25000 if it were 3 separate families.

    When it comes down to it I don't like it when people have children they can't support either, but in a case where the children pre-existed the inability to provide you really can't find fault.

    Edit: i'm not aware of that specific case, but there are certainly more than a few refugee families who are taking care of orphaned nephews and nieces.
    Last edited by highlander; 13-11-2015 at 10:49 AM.

  99. #99
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    One family in Edmonton( just one ) are a family of 18, what a joke!
    Not long ago, Canadian families got quite large. I have cousins that formed a family of 11. That side of the family dates back to arriving in Ontario in the 1850s. Maybe not old stock, but not exactly new stock either. Maybe overstocked. (Harper has provided Canadians with endless fun with his stock comment.)
    Did they all need free everything, doubtful.BTW if you look it up, Dion and Trudy have both said old stock, not just Harper

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    One family in Edmonton( just one ) are a family of 18, what a joke!
    Think of the monthly family allowance/child tax credit cheques federal and now provincial. Substantial.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •