Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 682

Thread: Refugees for Canada, Alberta and Edmonton?

  1. #201
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    what i did say on both refugees and on military involvement is that we should do both based on their being the right thing for us to do as a country at the time we make the decision/commitment, not based on the decision making some of us feel good or allowing some of us to grandstand.

    and for the record, i believe there is value in both of these areas for symbolic participation, just that we should recognize it as symbolic when that's all it is. as to whether the u.s. really cares whether we're there or not i don't really care, what matters is whether we care whether we're there or not.

    The "right thing" is following international conventions and diplomatic processes, and keeping our soldiers out of harms way until there is a definite need to involve them in combat. We have more of an impact on the goals of this mission providing humanitarian support and training than we do spending billions waiting in line behind the big guys to drop bombs.

    Like it or not, "symbolic participation" is the definition of grandstanding. It is doing something not to make an impact, but to thump our chests and feel good about killing. Waiting in the NATO lineup to drop a bomb once a week is a miserable waste of money and an unacceptable risk to our armed forces. We are better off supporting the other players, which we are very good at.

  2. #202

    Default

    So, from all the posts on this thread, including my own, it seems that any long term refugee policy should really explicitly exclude refugees from current engagements. It's just too risky (politically or security wise) taking in 'allies' and so would need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

    So, what should we be doing about refugees beyond this current hot potato ?

  3. #203
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    what i did say on both refugees and on military involvement is that we should do both based on their being the right thing for us to do as a country at the time we make the decision/commitment, not based on the decision making some of us feel good or allowing some of us to grandstand.

    and for the record, i believe there is value in both of these areas for symbolic participation, just that we should recognize it as symbolic when that's all it is. as to whether the u.s. really cares whether we're there or not i don't really care, what matters is whether we care whether we're there or not.

    The "right thing" is following international conventions and diplomatic processes, and keeping our soldiers out of harms way until there is a definite need to involve them in combat. We have more of an impact on the goals of this mission providing humanitarian support and training than we do spending billions waiting in line behind the big guys to drop bombs.

    Like it or not, "symbolic participation" is the definition of grandstanding. It is doing something not to make an impact, but to thump our chests and feel good about killing. Waiting in the NATO lineup to drop a bomb once a week is a miserable waste of money and an unacceptable risk to our armed forces. We are better off supporting the other players, which we are very good at.
    so by your logic we should take no refugees because doing so in the scheme of things would be only symbolic and we should leave it all those countries more capable of doing the heavy lifting? your missing my point. on both fronts we can participate because we believe it's the right thing or things to do even if the participation level is symbolic. that's not grandstanding. taking 25,000 refugees out of 4,000,000 refugees isn't grandstanding, it's symbolic. bragging about taking 25,000 refugees out of 4,000,009 instead of some fewer number - particularly when they are likely to have a positive long term impact on our country - isn't symbolic, it's grandstanding. and so is "we'll take our share of those 25,000 instead of saying we'll take all 25,000".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  4. #204
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Taking 1 refugee is not symbolic, but yeah, I think we should take far more than 25,000 considering that Canada had a role to play in creating this humanitarian crisis in the first place (yes, the USA should be taking the huge majority of the refugees, as they are largely to blame for the current war).

    The bombing on the other hand, we offer no measurable benefit for. Essentially all of the countries are just queuing up for bombing runs, and they are letting the little guys like us have a swing at it once in a while. Our bomb dollars would be more beneficial to fighting ISIS and assisting our allies if we took a support role. Hence why literally no one in the international community cared whatsoever when Trudeau said he would pull our planes out.

    So to be clear: helping refugees of any number does have an impact, as they have nowhere else to go since other countries aren't pulling their weight. Bombing has no impact, as we do not add any needed resources.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Taking 1 refugee is not symbolic, but yeah, I think we should take far more than 25,000 considering that Canada had a role to play in creating this humanitarian crisis in the first place (yes, the USA should be taking the huge majority of the refugees, as they are largely to blame for the current war).

    The bombing on the other hand, we offer no measurable benefit for. Essentially all of the countries are just queuing up for bombing runs, and they are letting the little guys like us have a swing at it once in a while. Our bomb dollars would be more beneficial to fighting ISIS and assisting our allies if we took a support role. Hence why literally no one in the international community cared whatsoever when Trudeau said he would pull our planes out.

    So to be clear: helping refugees of any number does have an impact, as they have nowhere else to go since other countries aren't pulling their weight. Bombing has no impact, as we do not add any needed resources.
    So you're judging need based on our accountability and not based on refugee need?

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Taking 1 refugee is not symbolic, but yeah, I think we should take far more than 25,000 considering that Canada had a role to play in creating this humanitarian crisis in the first place (yes, the USA should be taking the huge majority of the refugees, as they are largely to blame for the current war).

    The bombing on the other hand, we offer no measurable benefit for. Essentially all of the countries are just queuing up for bombing runs, and they are letting the little guys like us have a swing at it once in a while. Our bomb dollars would be more beneficial to fighting ISIS and assisting our allies if we took a support role. Hence why literally no one in the international community cared whatsoever when Trudeau said he would pull our planes out.

    So to be clear: helping refugees of any number does have an impact, as they have nowhere else to go since other countries aren't pulling their weight. Bombing has no impact, as we do not add any needed resources.
    So you're judging need based on our accountability and not based on refugee need?
    It should be both. Someone like US who have the lion's share for this mess should be taking in much more then they have or pledged to. Their cowboy approach to world politics during the Bush era is largely responsible for the rise of Deash. Now they want to do the same with Iran.

  7. #207
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post

    It should be both. Someone like US who have the lion's share for this mess should be taking in much more then they have or pledged to. Their cowboy approach to world politics during the Bush era is largely responsible for the rise of Deash. Now they want to do the same with Iran.
    Exactly. A genuinely felt, humanitarian intervention is the ideal, but where that is not forthcoming, the "if you break it you own it" metaphor should indeed apply.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  8. #208
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    I look at this way, in addition to basic human compassion, the small number of true extremists at the core of Daesh rely on the more moderate Muslims to be driven into their camp. If we welcome refugees with a safe place to live, Daesh loses.

    Islamic State has frequently said one of its goals is to stop refugees from fleeing Syria by any means possible, and tells refugees they are committing "a major dangerous sin" by attempting to flee the war and entering countries where they will be assimilated or integrated into "Christianity, atheism or liberalism."

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

  9. #209

    Default

    ^I don't think that is a reason to not do a proper secuirty vet on all applications outside of Canada, like some Provinces are asking for (three now - BC, Sasketchewan, and Quebec). I don't get the rush to do this by Dec 31, other than, its a political feather in Trudeaus cap to do it on mass, rather than do it properly.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I don't think that is a reason to not do a proper secuirty vet on all applications outside of Canada, like some Provinces are asking for (three now - BC, Sasketchewan, and Quebec). I don't get the rush to do this by Dec 31, other than, its a political feather in Trudeaus cap to do it on mass, rather than do it properly.
    If Trudeau backed down on his plan in anyway now, for some reason I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the very same people demanding that change would then jump up and say Trudeau doesn't keep his promises, or some other criticism of his capabilities.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If Trudeau backed down on his plan in anyway now, for some reason I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the very same people demanding that change would then jump up and say Trudeau doesn't keep his promises, or some other criticism of his capabilities.
    He said something foolish re the timing during the election campaign, he is the PM now, he has to do the right thing, and can still keep the spirit of his promise (albeit over a responsible time period). Nobody keeps all their election promises made during a campaign exactly as said, he was elected to lead / make decisions. Rushing this to prove a political point is stupid.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If Trudeau backed down on his plan in anyway now, for some reason I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the very same people demanding that change would then jump up and say Trudeau doesn't keep his promises, or some other criticism of his capabilities.
    He said something foolish re the timing during the election campaign, he is the PM now, he has to do the right thing, and can still keep the spirit of his promise (albeit over a responsible time period). Nobody keeps all their election promises made during a campaign exactly as said, he was elected to lead / make decisions. Rushing this to prove a political point is stupid.
    Not sure if it was foolish but agree on the concept of making intelligent decisions. However, idiots looking to gain political points would nonetheless conveniently forget their own base fears and turn on Trudeau for agreeing with them.

  13. #213
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I don't think that is a reason to not do a proper secuirty vet on all applications outside of Canada, like some Provinces are asking for (three now - BC, Sasketchewan, and Quebec). I don't get the rush to do this by Dec 31, other than, its a political feather in Trudeaus cap to do it on mass, rather than do it properly.
    I don't see it as a feather though, I just don't.

  14. #214
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Thing is I haven't heard anyone directly familiar with the refugee process say there's a problem. There are some politicians complaining because it appeals to their base but that's about it.

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

  15. #215

    Default

    ^Three provinces who will be providing social services, isn't anyone?

  16. #216
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    I thought Brad Wall was complaining about security clearances not numbers? People who've actually worked in immigration don't believe there is a security concern and, I may be wrong, but Brad Wall isn't an immigration expert.

    I can see some concern over the overall logistics of processing this many people in such a short time and I agree with that, but the idea there is any significant security concern is unfounded.

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

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Three provinces who will be providing social services, isn't anyone?
    Three provinces who with TAXPAYERS money will be providing social services.
    On another note, I heard on one of the TV stations (so much coverage can't remember which one) that Canada will likely take the most vulnerable and needy refugees. Single mothers, fathers, orphans the elderly and infirm.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  18. #218
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.

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

  19. #219
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Three provinces who will be providing social services, isn't anyone?
    The types who whine about immigrants/refugees would be bumping their gums about this regardless of where they came from. The whole France/passport thing is no more than an excuse to justify their instinctive prejudices and political stance.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  20. #220
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle27264347/

    Interesting.
    From the tone of comments posted on online news articles, public opinion is running strongly against the dovish Liberal plans. “Canada stands with the French people and is now in the process of gathering up all of our unicorns, rainbows and hugs to send to the French people,” said one poster. “Just don’t expect us to do anything, you know, like whip out our F18s or fight for our freedom.” Another wrote: “Good to know the Trudeau government and unmuzzled scientists and first ministers will be heading to Paris at the end of the month to talk about climate change, sunshine and butterflies.”


    Former prime minister Stephen Harper frequently mocked this approach, saying at one campaign stop that “if your policy is humanitarian assistance without military support, all you’re doing is dropping aid on dead people.”



    I remembering him saying that,I agreed!

    With 129 dead in Paris as a result of one of the worst terror outbreaks in decades, the pressure on Mr. Trudeau to change his position will now be enormous.

    Yes, yes it will.

  21. #221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    ^Comment threads are poor judges of overall public opinion although are good judges of who is the loudest in the room. Also, how Canada conducts its military operations with regards to Daesh is a different thread. This one is about accepting refugees which we can do no matter what choices we make for our forces in the Middle East.
    Last edited by Paul Turnbull; 18-11-2015 at 09:54 AM.

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

  22. #222
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    ^Comment threads are poor judges of overall public opinion although are good judges of who is the loudest in the room. Also, how Canada conducts its military operations with regards to Daesh is a different thread. This one is about accepting refugees which we can do not matter what choices we make for our forces in the Middle East.
    There has definitely been a change in public opinion on the topic, but just the same, the majority of the Canadian public still supports bringing in refugees: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote...nada-1.3322934



    Random bolding!

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Some weakening is to be expected but it is pleasing to see overall support only moved from 74 per cent to 69 per cent. It is clearly not the case there is some kind of groundswell of resistance to Syrian refugees.

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

  24. #224

    Default

    ^I don't think anyone is seriously saying, aside from extremists who always hate immigrants, don't take the 25,000. What the concern is, is how can you do a proper security check, outside of Canada (where its much cheaper re legal versus making a mistake in Canada), for 25,000 people, in only a couple of months? Listen to security experts:

    "I'm hoping that we will perhaps decelerate the intake a little bit," said Ray Boisvert, former CSIS assistant director of intelligence.

    While the risk to Canadians is relatively small, within that group of 25,000 people there will be a very small percentage of individuals who would be considered potential threats to security, Boisvert said.

    "There could be people in that flow that might or may not be engineered to be there on behalf of ISIS, but could be very sympathetic and could be highly radicalized," Boisvert said.

    Kyle Matthews, the senior deputy director for the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies at Concordia University, said there's a very small risk to Canadians, but that the government's goal is "very ambitious" with only weeks remaining to screen and process everyone.


    "I'm not too sure that that can be achieved that quickly,' he said. "You have to do it as best as you can as quickly as you can, but you shouldn't cut corners."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syri...nada-1.3323603
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-11-2015 at 11:02 AM.

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.
    Vulnerable groups? Maybe they will all be displaced Christians. Who may possess even more extreme fundamentalist beliefs not suitable in Canada. Oh sorry, we have freedom of religion and expression here.
    Last edited by KC; 18-11-2015 at 12:10 PM.

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    ^Comment threads are poor judges of overall public opinion although are good judges of who is the loudest in the room. Also, how Canada conducts its military operations with regards to Daesh is a different thread. This one is about accepting refugees which we can do no matter what choices we make for our forces in the Middle East.
    And how to develop to longstanding policy around it, how to handle the logistics, how to pay for it on an ongoing one basis...

    No one's commented on my suggestion that maybe a portion off the GST should be assigned to assisting refugee placement and long term integration.
    Last edited by KC; 18-11-2015 at 12:11 PM.

  27. #227
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.
    Vulnerable groups? Maybe they will all be displaced Christians. Who may possess even more extreme fundamentalist beliefs not suitable in Canada. Oh sorry, we have freedom of religion and expression here.
    Um, no. Vulnerable groups in this case means women, children, and injured. I haven't seen anything suggesting decisions will be made on the basis of the applicants religion.

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

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    ^Comment threads are poor judges of overall public opinion although are good judges of who is the loudest in the room. Also, how Canada conducts its military operations with regards to Daesh is a different thread. This one is about accepting refugees which we can do no matter what choices we make for our forces in the Middle East.
    And how to develop to longstanding policy around it, how to handle the logistics, how to pay for it on an ongoing one basis...

    No one's commented on my suggestion that maybe a portion off the GST should be assigned to assisting refugee placement and long term integration.
    Allocating pieces of taxes to specific programs isn't particularly efficient as it increases accounting costs. It would also still require pulling money from other programs to be revenue neutral. It's more cost effective to pool government revenue and pay for programs from that revenue without trying to allocate at the collection phase.

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

  29. #229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.
    Vulnerable groups? Maybe they will all be displaced Christians. Who may possess even more extreme fundamentalist beliefs not suitable in Canada. Oh sorry, we have freedom of religion and expression here.
    Um, no. Vulnerable groups in this case means women, children, and injured. I haven't seen anything suggesting decisions will be made on the basis of the applicants religion.
    Well look again, religion does and is playing a part of the refugee process.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ment-1.2870916
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  30. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.
    Vulnerable groups? Maybe they will all be displaced Christians. Who may possess even more extreme fundamentalist beliefs not suitable in Canada. Oh sorry, we have freedom of religion and expression here.
    Um, no. Vulnerable groups in this case means women, children, and injured. I haven't seen anything suggesting decisions will be made on the basis of the applicants religion.
    Well look again, religion does and is playing a part of the refugee process.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ment-1.2870916
    Well, I was just being facetious.

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    ^Comment threads are poor judges of overall public opinion although are good judges of who is the loudest in the room. Also, how Canada conducts its military operations with regards to Daesh is a different thread. This one is about accepting refugees which we can do no matter what choices we make for our forces in the Middle East.
    And how to develop to longstanding policy around it, how to handle the logistics, how to pay for it on an ongoing one basis...

    No one's commented on my suggestion that maybe a portion off the GST should be assigned to assisting refugee placement and long term integration.
    Allocating pieces of taxes to specific programs isn't particularly efficient as it increases accounting costs. It would also still require pulling money from other programs to be revenue neutral. It's more cost effective to pool government revenue and pay for programs from that revenue without trying to allocate at the collection phase.
    However, without a dedicated funding allocation, programs like refugee integration get cut and cut and worse, 'privatized' as in being put in the hands of special interest groups with this or that bias.

    This is pure lay speculation on my part, but right now the whole private sponsorship process seems to me to be potentially rife with bias and favoritism. Do people lacking family or religious or other connections in Canada have a hope of receiving equal and fair treatment in immigrating to Canada?


    As honourable a task these groups are performing, I'd love to see if they are sponsoring refugees without regard to their religious or ethnic backgrounds and only based on need. Also note the lack of funding issue at the heart of the article.

    Canada's refugee sponsorship program under threat
    Sep 22, 2014

    Bureaucratic delays and federal cuts to health coverage are hurting the ability of churches and other groups to bring in refugees under Canada’s renowned private refugee sponsorship program, says a new study.

    Based on a survey of the 85 private groups that have formal refugee sponsorship agreements with Ottawa, recent policy changes appear to threaten the vitality of the sponsorship program launched in 1978 amid an outpouring of public concern over the Southeast Asian “boat people” crisis.

    ...
    After 36 years, churches and others say long waits, health cuts and policy changes are making it hard to continue personalized support for refugees.

    Since 1978, more than 200,000 refugees have come to Canada through the efforts and financial support of faith groups, individuals, and community and ethnic organizations plugged into the program. In 2013 alone, 6,623 privately sponsored refugees were resettled in Canada.

    Seventy-two per cent of the agreement holders are churches or church-connected groups, including Mennonite, Christian Reformed, United, Alliance and Presbyterian denominations.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/immigrat...er_threat.html
    Last edited by KC; 18-11-2015 at 10:35 PM.

  32. #232
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    From what I've read they will be coming from groups already prescreened by the UN, there will be interviews with Immigration before they come, and further screening once they're here. Plus, as Gemini noted, preference will be given to families and vulnerable groups.
    Vulnerable groups? Maybe they will all be displaced Christians. Who may possess even more extreme fundamentalist beliefs not suitable in Canada. Oh sorry, we have freedom of religion and expression here.
    Um, no. Vulnerable groups in this case means women, children, and injured. I haven't seen anything suggesting decisions will be made on the basis of the applicants religion.
    Well look again, religion does and is playing a part of the refugee process.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ment-1.2870916
    This is from 2014. Is there any evidence Trudeau using Harper's selection criteria?

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

  33. #233

    Default

    ^Like I said in my previous post #217, I heard on TV (recently) that they (current government) were looking at religious minorities along with the more vulnerable to be processed first. These minorities tend to have been in the refugee camps the longest and are more likely to suffer more persecution.
    Last edited by Gemini; 19-11-2015 at 01:02 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  34. #234
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Like I said in my previous post #217, I heard on TV (recently) that they (current government) were looking at religious minorities along with the more vulnerable to be processed first. These minorities tend to have been in the refugee camps the longest and are more likely to suffer more persecution.
    This one:

    On another note, I heard on one of the TV stations (so much coverage can't remember which one) that Canada will likely take the most vulnerable and needy refugees. Single mothers, fathers, orphans the elderly and infirm.
    Nothing about religious minorities mentioned there. They might be using religious criteria but I haven't read or heard it reported anywhere. I don't watch TV news so I can't speak to that.

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

  35. #235

    Default

    Notley says Calgary, Edmonton among five Alberta cities likely to take refugees

    EDMONTON — Premier Rachel Notley says Calgary and Edmonton are expected to take in the bulk of Syrian refugees coming to Alberta, with the remainder spread out over three other cities — Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, and Red Deer.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...367/story.html
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  36. #236

    Default Cost 1.2 billion over six years

    48,000 dollars per refugee:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...nment-document

    Yet I read some people say we should just open the borders and let in any Syrian who wants to come? I wonder how much good this money could have done, if it had instead been spent on helping people live there, rather than come to Canada?

    I'm a little concerned that refugee applications from other parts of the world, including people in more dire circumstances who have been waiting longer, are going to be delayed by this.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-11-2015 at 08:49 AM.

  37. #237

    Default

    Some interesting points in this article, in the US, it takes 8 weeks to train someone to be able to give the type of security interview the US requires. And it typically takes an applicant 18 to 24 months to pass all the security checks. Yet, we are going to just bring in 25,000 people in 6 weeks, oh, but it will supposedly be just as thorough...

    http://www.thesudburystar.com/2015/1...o-from-trudeau

  38. #238
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Some interesting points in this article, in the US, it takes 8 weeks to train someone to be able to give the type of security interview the US requires. And it typically takes an applicant 18 to 24 months to pass all the security checks. Yet, we are going to just bring in 25,000 people in 6 weeks, oh, but it will supposedly be just as thorough...

    http://www.thesudburystar.com/2015/1...o-from-trudeau
    most of them have already been interviewed and many of them have already been in camps for years after they have "passed" security checks. as we've seen in france and elsewhere - including here - it is how they are treated after they are here that is more important than how much they are inspected and kept waiting before they get here. just compare the plight of muslims in france today who immigrated decades ago and that of the vietnamese boat people who immigrated here at the same time.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #239

    Default

    ^that Canada is more multicultural and accepting than Europe is a big part about why I would never live in Europe again. I remember when I lived in Scandinavia talking to some Palestinians who told me how they couldn't get jobs, weren't accepted. I'm ok with more refugees, and even the cost in fairness is offset over time by the contributions to our society, I'm just not convinced this rush job is the way to go, given Harpers comments on the practicalities. If I'm proven wrong, that will be a good thing, and a credit to Trudeau.

  40. #240
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    I think this is all too rushed, JT has something to prove. He gets to live with this,I didn't vote for this egoistical, naive clown.

  41. #241

    Default

    Refugees are coming into Canada all the time, regardless of the 25,000. Like 250,000 a year. So we all need to just take a breather.
    www.decl.org

  42. #242

    Default

    Its fear and panic steming from attacks that weren't surprising. Worse, politicians are throwing an onus for absolute "perfection" in screening onto the poor people having to perform the screening.

  43. #243
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Refugees are coming into Canada all the time, regardless of the 25,000. Like 250,000 a year. So we all need to just take a breather.
    Canada usually only has about 25,000 refugees per year of which less than half are accepted. The 250,000 you mention is total immigration per year regardless of status.

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

  44. #244
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    If only half of the 25,000 refugees applying to come here are actually accepted, I'd say the screening process is working well despite all these paranoid right wingers on here.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    If only half of the 25,000 refugees applying to come here are actually accepted, I'd say the screening process is working well despite all these paranoid right wingers on here.
    Politicians picked numbers made them public, made them part of several election platforms. The people then voted in full knowledge that this would not be a routine application and screening process.

    So if we normally take in 12,500/yr and so 25,000 every two years based on applications received, then ramping up the effort and doing two years in one should be doable. Moreover, there should be efficiencies that can expedite the whole process when you have so many people from one crisis all being dealt with together.

    Now if people are saying its a logistical impossibility, then where were they when I started this thread to elicit that information at the very start. What can we do and how do we do it?

    Politicians picking numbers out of their butt and presenting them as targets, whether it is 10,000 or 25,000 is nonsensical if no one ever makes any attempt to map out the process and only debates the premise of taking people in without any deeper, actionable thoughts.
    Last edited by KC; 20-11-2015 at 12:03 PM.

  46. #246

    Default

    ^^ I dont think 50,000 people a year apply for refugee status. regardless.

    The USA has just released its study of the 250,000 Iraqis it has taken in... guess what.. no terrorists.

    We must do our part. This is a global crisis and we cant hide behind the fact we enjoy certain geographical jackpots that insulate us from being directly affected.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Refugees are coming into Canada all the time, regardless of the 25,000. Like 250,000 a year. So we all need to just take a breather.
    Canada usually only has about 25,000 refugees per year of which less than half are accepted. The 250,000 you mention is total immigration per year regardless of status.
    Yes, sorry that is what I meant.
    www.decl.org

  48. #248
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Good overview of the numbers:

    Canada's refugees by the numbers: the data

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

  49. #249
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    How is it that there are refugees accepted from the UK, USA, even SWEDEN? Why does a Swedish person become a refugee? Four people accepted from the Netherlands?

    What is going on here? These are highly developed countries with low corruption, high freedom, and high quality of life. I can see it maybe for a LGBT person from the Southern States, but someone from Sweden? What persecution could they possibly have experienced there?

  50. #250
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    I would imagine that those people were only in the US temporarily, and came from a third country originally.

  51. #251

    Default

    Could be from a Witness Protection Program.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  52. #252
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    If only half of the 25,000 refugees applying to come here are actually accepted, I'd say the screening process is working well despite all these paranoid right wingers on here.
    i know many on the "right wing" here and elsewhere who are anything but paranoid and plenty on the "left wing" here and elsewhere who are afraid of their own shadow as well as everyone else's shadow. comments like that only show your own paranoia and prejudice for what they are.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I would imagine that those people were only in the US temporarily, and came from a third country originally.

    The chart doesn't say country of origin, it says "country of alleged persecution".

  54. #254

    Default

    You can screen people until the cows come home but there cannot be any guarantees. Look at the French attacks, or any Daesh attacks. For the better part a lot of those terrorists have been right under peoples noses. They have lived in the countries they have attacked for a few years or in the case of some of them they have been born there. Unfortunately, nothing is going to be fool proof.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  55. #255
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    They have lived in the countries they have attacked for a few years or in the case of some of them they have been born there.
    If you want to actually be accurate, you should have said "in the case of the most recent Paris attacks, all indications are that ALL of the attackers were born in France except for one or two." It's not just "some."

  56. #256

    Default

    ^Are you just being argumentative or anal. You say "all indications are that ALL of the attackers were born in France except for one or two."
    Well if one or two of them were not born in Paris. What basically is the difference from me saying "some of them have been born there" imply some of them were not. Geez, man, get a grip.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  57. #257
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,863

    Default

    Your post implied the opposite: that most of them were foreign born. That's not the case. In an event of this magnitude, small details like that are important.

  58. #258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    They have lived in the countries they have attacked for a few years or in the case of some of them they have been born there.
    If you want to actually be accurate, you should have said "in the case of the most recent Paris attacks, all indications are that ALL of the attackers were born in France except for one or two." It's not just "some."

    "If you want to actually be accurate".

    "If you want to actually be" civil, non-confrontational and non-hostile, "you should have said": "Let me add to that ..." or "Let me add specific detail to that... one or two...".

  59. #259

    Default

    I dare say the all-Canadian bigots and the counter-hatred they inspire are the real problem domestically.

  60. #260

    Default

    ^Well, if you are saying "all Canadians" we can surmise you mean some of them will be Muslim.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  61. #261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini
    They have lived in the countries they have attacked for a few years or in the case of some of them they have been born there.
    If you want to actually be accurate, you should have said "in the case of the most recent Paris attacks, all indications are that ALL of the attackers were born in France except for one or two." It's not just "some."

    "If you want to actually be accurate".

    "If you want to actually be" civil, non-confrontational and non-hostile, "you should have said": "Let me add to that ..." or "Let me add specific detail to that... one or two...".
    We are writing on a forum not a thesis or novel. I think most people knew what I was implying but there is always one....................
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  62. #262
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley, San Tan Valley
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Going to be roughly a $48,000/person investment from our side.

  63. #263
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    If only half of the 25,000 refugees applying to come here are actually accepted, I'd say the screening process is working well despite all these paranoid right wingers on here.
    i know many on the "right wing" here and elsewhere who are anything but paranoid and plenty on the "left wing" here and elsewhere who are afraid of their own shadow as well as everyone else's shadow. comments like that only show your own paranoia and prejudice for what they are.
    What rubbish.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  64. #264
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    If only half of the 25,000 refugees applying to come here are actually accepted, I'd say the screening process is working well despite all these paranoid right wingers on here.
    i know many on the "right wing" here and elsewhere who are anything but paranoid and plenty on the "left wing" here and elsewhere who are afraid of their own shadow as well as everyone else's shadow. comments like that only show your own paranoia and prejudice for what they are.
    What rubbish.
    that's what i said. glad to see you agree...
    Last edited by kcantor; 20-11-2015 at 08:50 PM. Reason: deleted mistaken copy sentence
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    ^Spoken like a 9 year old. It's past your bedtime, mate. ..!..
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  66. #266
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,464

    Default

    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  67. #267
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    Why should we have to deal with other countries problems?

    Lets concentrate on Canada first. And I should get a say on how and where my tax dollars are spent.
    Stop illegal aliens! Enforce the LAW!

  68. #268
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Maybe we can start by rounding up all of the people who support designated terrorist groups and throw them in jail.

    If you're so concerned, you could probably make it easier by just presenting yourself at the police station to be arrested.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.
    Last edited by KC; 23-11-2015 at 08:05 AM.

  70. #270
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    That's sex discrimination (aka racism) pure and simple.

  72. #272
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    That's sex discrimination (aka racism) pure and simple.
    while both are despicable, sex descrimination isn't racism and occurs within races as much as outside them (sex is not a race). interestingly enough however, the reverse is probably true - racism being an extreme form of discrimination...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    That's sex discrimination (aka racism) pure and simple.
    while both are despicable, sex descrimination isn't racism and occurs within races as much as outside them (sex is not a race). interestingly enough however, the reverse is probably true - racism being an extreme form of discrimination...
    Yeah I know. However racism used to be discrimination based on perceived differences in physical appearance but more recently it's being used for differences based on religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds, etc. So... Why not just call all discrimination where some skin colour differences are present, "racism".

    Note: There have been known to be women and child suicide bombers.
    Last edited by KC; 23-11-2015 at 09:21 AM.

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    Discrimination isn't in and of itself a bad thing. We do it every time we make a choice about anything. What is important with this kind of decision is whether the discrimination is relevant and justified. In this case the discrimination fits the requirements of the program by simplifying the security checks. It's also in line with an old value in our society of helping the most vulnerable first.

    And religious minorities are not the most vulnerable in the war with Daesh. They target Muslims they perceive as apostate (most of them) more than the other religious groups.

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

  75. #275
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    Good!

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    Good!
    You're sexist?

  77. #277
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    Don't you know? It's socially acceptable to be sexist against men. How often does the word misandry get thrown around? Not very often. After all, feminism is alive and well.

    But switch the roles, say something about women and now your misogynist, sexist and police may be involved.

    The double standards make me ill.

  78. #278
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Note: There have been known to be women and child suicide bombers.
    Indeed. Just happened today, even though the link is in Nigeria the Arab world is no stranger to this.

    Girl suicide bombers kill 12 in Nigeria and Cameroon

    MAIDUGURI, Nigeria -- Girl suicide bombers killed 12 people over the weekend in Nigeria and Cameroon, officials said Monday of the attackers who were stopped for routine searches. All five bombers also died, but they could have killed many more people.

    Police who blamed Boko Haram said one girl detonated explosives strapped to her body Sunday evening at a military checkpoint guarding an entry to Nigeria's northeastern city of Maiduguri.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/girl-sui...roon-1.2670537

    But we'll penalize the men because, well, they're just men and pretend that women don't strap bombs to themselves because hey, that would be cruel and sexist.
    Last edited by Kitlope; 23-11-2015 at 10:50 AM.

  79. #279

    Default

    Single men. Married men get to come because???? Family unit.

  80. #280

    Default

    ^^you realize those girls were probably kidnapped from schools, raped, and brainwashed, don't you?

    While laws are far from perfect, I don't think, being a guy, we have it that bad (just look at salary levels for example).

  81. #281
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    And that's horsesh1t too, "Oh, I gotta family, I better not go and suicide bomb".

    Yeah, I'm sure those thoughts go through the married man's mind.

  82. #282
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^you realize those girls were probably kidnapped from schools, raped, and brainwashed, don't you?

    While laws are far from perfect, I don't think, being a guy, we have it that bad (just look at salary levels for example).
    You don't know that and neither do I. See - you just proved the point.

    The fact is WOMEN CAN BE SUICIDE BOMBERS too, regardless of their victimization.

  83. #283

    Default

    ^I think its a reasonable bet since Boko Haram has been kidnapping girls from schools. I'd blow myself up too, rather than be with the kidnappers.

  84. #284
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    Blowing themselves up and taking innocents with them. Just because they're girls doesn't make it right.

    And the funny part is here you are making excuses for the women suicide bombers that kill innocents, so why stop there? Lets make up some excuses for the men that suicide bomb and kill innocents. Like the girls, I'm sure they've had a rough life too.

    Sounds like typical White Knighting to me.

    edit: Anyhoo, I'm done with this discussion. Just call me a little skeptical of letting in 25 000 Syrians. That's all.
    Last edited by Kitlope; 23-11-2015 at 11:09 AM.

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^^you realize those girls were probably kidnapped from schools, raped, and brainwashed, don't you?

    While laws are far from perfect, I don't think, being a guy, we have it that bad (just look at salary levels for example).
    As a guy, having it pretty good is not the point. Women are our equals. Does our nation believe that or not?

    Moreover, guys over there get beheaded. I'm not sure about the women. That's not having it so good.

    In Canada our values, and constitution, we don't allow for much sex discrimination, but we do allow for more age discrimination.

  86. #286
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    Good!
    You're sexist?
    If you like, or maybe I am a realist. Either way, I still say good!

  87. #287

    Default

    The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185

    I'm not really getting it why Canada is not excepting single males (those without families). There is no compelling reason in their own country for them to stay. If they did stay they are probably looking at years of upheaval or maybe death at the hands of terrorists, or forced to join the terrorists. I am sure they have been thoroughly vetted by the country they are now languishing in. I don't know why Canada thinks they are any less desperate than the rest of the refugees. Maybe it's because I am the mother of a son and would not like this to happen if he was in those circumstances.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  88. #288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    I hope this plan will satisfy everyone's concern for Syrian refugees.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...lies-1.3330185
    Blatant sex and age discrimination! . Goes totally against Canada's values.

    There's possibly more justification for restricting the refugees to just those being persecuted due to membership in minority religions.


    single men aren't allowed for security reasons.
    Good!
    You're sexist?
    If you like, or maybe I am a realist. Either way, I still say good!
    That same 'realist' excuse has kept women from achieving equity and fairness for eons.

  89. #289
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Maybe to be on the safe side, just bring in the children?.. After all, this is an area in which Canada has a proven track record of how well separating youngsters from their parents for "cultural" reasons works.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  90. #290
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    ^ Pretty pithy that, pat.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  91. #291

    Default

    I get point that single males of a certain age are prime targets for terrorist recruiters but the vast majority of these males probably just want a safe place to live in peace. How would a person feel if the terrorists approached them and said if you did not join their cause you would be killed or maimed.
    Let's not forget the biggest death toll has been on the Muslims themselves. The innocent ones are being slaughters and maimed by the Muslim terrorists. Terrorist don't care, they kill first and don't bother asking questions after. Take away their weapons and they are just stone age thinkers with cell phones.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  92. #292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    While I think the measure is unnecessary from security perspective, I can see why they've done it. It's about mediating public sentiment. This way they dampen the criticism of the frightened people while still able to help refugees and keep their election promise. Not ideal, but politics is often a game of compromise.

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

  93. #293
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,170

    Default

    I reluctantly agree with Paul. However, I think it's misguided on the part of the authorities.

    I would hope that one of the goals is that the new citizens have a chance to create a proper new normal as quickly as possible. Having some single men around when we're bringing in single women might help the process along. Also, as dreadful as the fate is for women there, the men have it much worse.

  94. #294
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,366

    Default

    I feel for the families who will be forced to leave their adult sons behind.

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

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    While I think the measure is unnecessary from security perspective, I can see why they've done it. It's about mediating public sentiment. This way they dampen the criticism of the frightened people while still able to help refugees and keep their election promise. Not ideal, but politics is often a game of compromise.
    It's sure is a double edged sword but what they are doing is leaving guys behind who are just going to grow more resentful and disheartened. Being made to stay in holding camps for months on end must be soul destroying.
    When immigrants and refugees settle in new countries usually they start their own social networks. It would be good that maybe some of those single mothers or women had single guys around. They will be guys they have something in common with until they assimilate.
    That's not a bad thing.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  96. #296
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    I feel for the families who will be forced to leave their adult sons behind.
    If they are with a family, they wont be saying anything.

  97. #297

    Default

    Extremely troubling

    Canada refugee program to exclude single men: CBC

    “I was very disappointed,” said Sean Rehaag, associate professor at York University’s law school upon hearing the news. Rehaag says the government should be congratulated on this effort to resettle refugees quickly, but if it is indeed going to exclude unaccompanied men, that would be extrembly troubling for two reasons.

    discriminatory’

    “Quite simply, it’s discriminatory. It discriminates against men. It discriminates against people based on their family status. And international refugee law, international human rights law and Canadian constitutional law all prohibit this kind of discrimination. That’s problematic.” he says.

    Also problematic is the message it sends, he argues. “The message sent by this policy is that young, single, Muslim men are dangerous and that they’re not welcome in Canada. And I think that is extremely, extremely troubling.”

    ...


    http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/11/23/c...ingle-men-cbc/
    Last edited by KC; 23-11-2015 at 11:42 PM.

  98. #298
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,735

    Default

    It's just men. This "issue" will disappear rather quickly.

    Terrorism and all that sort of thing, ya know?

  99. #299
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    great news for single men in canada
    be offended! figure out why later...

  100. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    It's just men. This "issue" will disappear rather quickly.

    Terrorism and all that sort of thing, ya know?
    Yeah I know. That's how we justified locking up the Japanese citizenry. As always, toss the principles and laws aside when you have to, then the populous can appear all indignant and apologetic after the crisis has passed.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 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
  •