Trudeau abandons refugee pledge.

[cmdrjones]

Source for the dates? Neither was in the article I posted, or anything else I recall reading.

I am glad if their is a definite deadline, and if its so soon, though I am still concerned that people brought in next year may be taken out of next year's refugee numbers. I hope that's not the case.

And frankly, Canada is a rich nation of over 30 million. I don't see why this is that hard. If it was 25,000 of our people who had to be resettled, I expect their'd be more of an effort to find a way.

And if it is impossible, Trudeau shouldn't have promised to do it.

"Our people"??? what kind of nativist nonsense is this? What do you mean "our people"!??! isn't Canada a nation of IDEAS?! You'd think you had insufficient faith in the efficacy of Magic Canadian Dirt! (TM) Heretic!

Canadians. As in, those holding Canadian citizenship under their very much civic rather than ethnic conception of nationalism. You self-fellating troglodyte. If something bad were to happen to Canada (I dont know, a heretofore undiscovered super volcano in the Yukon that rendered much of canada uninhabitable due to ashfall) the US et al would bend over backwards to help resettle the population

So you DO believe in magic dirt? Ah well, isn't that nice? If the US doesn't, (many do BTW) or if some other nation didn't hold the same beliefs (such as any in the Middle East, would you expect them to do the same?

And also, if you support the importation of "Syrian" refugees, would you likewise support vetting them? Would you support the removal of any and all from the imporation process who hold strongly anti-semitic views?

Would you expect those holding anti-semitic views to be a small, medium or large contingent of said "Syrian" refugees?

[Simon_Jester]

I have a question:

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

Sure, the refugees might be a bigger security threat on a percentage basis, but they're being admitted in tiny tiny numbers. Which is a bigger threat: one percent of 25000 refugees, or 0.01% of thirty-five million citizens?

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a question:

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

Sure, the refugees might be a bigger security threat on a percentage basis, but they're being admitted in tiny tiny numbers. Which is a bigger threat: one percent of 25000 refugees, or 0.01% of thirty-five million citizens?

Its a fair point in theory, though in practice I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to deport our own citizens just for having an offensive ideology. As it should be.

I don't think anyone should be barred from a country just for being prejudiced. Way too broad, open to abuse, and precedent setting regarding freedom of expression in general. Now, barring someone for actual acts, of course.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

[Purple]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

I am genuinely shocked anyone can seriously say that. That's just not how it works on so many levels. People who are born in your country and are citizens are your people. Your country has an obligation to them by virtue of that citizenship. You don't just throw out your own people like that. These migrants meanwhile are not your citizens and thus your country has no such obligation.

[Jub]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

I am genuinely shocked anyone can seriously say that. That's just not how it works on so many levels. People who are born in your country and are citizens are your people. Your country has an obligation to them by virtue of that citizenship. You don't just throw out your own people like that. These migrants meanwhile are not your citizens and thus your country has no such obligation.

Why shouldn't it work this way?

-----

For context, I don't support the concept of nations as they currently exist. Countries are lines on a map, backed by guns and money, and too often the concept of nations serves only to exclude and harm others while benefitting a select few. The idea of a nation existing as a closed entity is starting to feel as outdated as kingdoms and monarchies were in the early 20th century.

Given the global nature of the job market. I don't see how national borders and restrictions on movement between nations are any different than USSR style controlled movement within a nation. People should be free to move and settle where they will. Nations should share funds and ensure a fair standard of living for all of humanity. Disputes should be decided by a tribunal and if that fails a UN extra-national task force should step in as the sole military option.

Sure, this isn't how things work and it isn't likely that they'll work this way in the foreseeable future, but when you see the world as a connected entity the lines between citizen and outsider drop away.

[Purple]

For context, I don't support the concept of nations as they currently exist.

Than there is really nothing for me to discuss with you because the one fundamental thing I am working off is that nations as they currently exist currently exist and that the world works the way it works as opposed to some other way.

[Jub]

For context, I don't support the concept of nations as they currently exist.

Than there is really nothing for me to discuss with you because the one fundamental thing I am working off is that nations as they currently exist currently exist and that the world works the way it works as opposed to some other way.

It's intellectually dishonest not to examine options outside of the accepted societal norms. If viewed from an outside perspective there is no difference between a human born in China and one born in the United States. In that context it makes sense that if you keep people out for a reason you should also seek to remove people with those same traits.

[Purple]

It's intellectually dishonest not to examine options outside of the accepted societal norms. If viewed from an outside perspective there is no difference between a human born in China and one born in the United States. In that context it makes sense that if you keep people out for a reason you should also seek to remove people with those same traits.

I just really don't want to have a debate with you over our visions of how society is supposed to look like. That's all. I know you basically reject the notion of the modern nation state and everything that goes with it. We had that discussion before. And you know well that not only do I not subscribe to your views but the exact opposite. I support the things you reject and feel that ultimately the one and only purpose of a country and its government is to advance the interests, security and living standard of its own citizens. And that every other consideration is secondary at best and often nonexistent.

So really, our views are so incompatible that there is no point in the two of us having this argument as it'll just go back and forth until one or both of us are exhausted.

[Grumman]

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

No, because it should be pretty obvious that allowing nations to send their citizens into exile is a bad thing in and of itself, while refusing entry to foreigners merely fails to mitigate bad things caused by other countries to people who are not your nation's responsibility the same way its own residents are.

Sure, the refugees might be a bigger security threat on a percentage basis, but they're being admitted in tiny tiny numbers. Which is a bigger threat: one percent of 25000 refugees, or 0.01% of thirty-five million citizens?

The former. The alternative is obviously absurd - if John Q. Asshole murders 100 people, while everyone who isn't John Q. Asshole murders 200 people, then John Q. Asshole's per capita murder rate obviously makes him the bigger threat whom it is more important to control, even though his actions are smaller in pure numbers.

[Tribble]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

I'm pretty sure the Harper government passed a law broad enough to do that. Anyone who is eligible for dual citizenship and deemed by the government to be a "threat to Canada" can be stripped of their citizenship and deported to the other country. Even if they were born here and do not currently hold dual citizenship. Of course the chance of that law holding up to a constitutional challenge is slim to none.

[Simon_Jester]

I am genuinely shocked anyone can seriously say that. That's just not how it works on so many levels. People who are born in your country and are citizens are your people. Your country has an obligation to them by virtue of that citizenship. You don't just throw out your own people like that. These migrants meanwhile are not your citizens and thus your country has no such obligation.

My argument is one of consistency. Once we start banning immigrants because of loathsome political views, how do we justify NOT deporting citizens because of equally loathsome views?

Or worse yet, more loathsome views.

If there is a cutoff point, beyond which we say "your opinions are so rotten you can never enter our country," then there has to be some other cutoff point beyond which you would say "your opinions are so rotten you must leave and never return."

But there is, for civilized nations these days, NOT a second cutoff like that. You can theoretically get deported for a short list of actions, but you can't lose your citizenship for having the wrong opinion even if it's a horrible opinion.

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

No, because it should be pretty obvious that allowing nations to send their citizens into exile is a bad thing in and of itself, while refusing entry to foreigners merely fails to mitigate bad things caused by other countries to people who are not your nation's responsibility the same way its own residents are.

I would argue that such a policy is hypocritical.

Sure, the refugees might be a bigger security threat on a percentage basis, but they're being admitted in tiny tiny numbers. Which is a bigger threat: one percent of 25000 refugees, or 0.01% of thirty-five million citizens?

The former. The alternative is obviously absurd - if John Q. Asshole murders 100 people, while everyone who isn't John Q. Asshole murders 200 people, then John Q. Asshole's per capita murder rate obviously makes him the bigger threat whom it is more important to control, even though his actions are smaller in pure numbers.

Thing is, John Q. Asshole is one man, easily restrained once we locate and arrest him.

If we enacted a massive federal manhunt for John, though, while not even trying to punish or prevent other murders, that would suggest hypocrisy. One could look at us and say "murder is okay, unless you're John, in which case it isn't."

In real life that doesn't normally apply in countries that abide by the rule of law- but it would in this hypothetical case. Because in real life we DO punish other murderers, even if we don't work as hard to catch them as we would to catch John who killed 100 people.

But when it comes to anti-Semitic Syrians, IF we're doing this kind of ideological background check, THEN the argument becomes true. We are literally saying "any amount of anti-Semitic views are okay, as long as you aren't a Muslim Syrian, in which case we want you to stay out of our country."

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

I'm pretty sure the Harper government passed a law broad enough to do that. Anyone who is eligible for dual citizenship and deemed by the government to be a "threat to Canada" can be stripped of their citizenship and deported to the other country. Even if they were born here and do not currently hold dual citizenship. Of course the chance of that law holding up to a constitutional challenge is slim to none.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. This type of action, of stripping or denying citizenship on ideological grounds, is NOT compatible with the constitutional values of modern society.

[Purple]

My argument is one of consistency. Once we start banning immigrants because of loathsome political views, how do we justify NOT deporting citizens because of equally loathsome views?

Or worse yet, more loathsome views.

I understand what your argument is. I just think it is flawed by virtue of ignoring the most important tenant of any society. That being that a society has a duty toward its citizens that it does not have toward foreigners. From my perspective you are doing the equivalent of arguing that traffic jams should not be a thing because people can just jump out the window and fly to work every day and in doing so making the tacit assumption that gravity does not exist.

[cmdrjones]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

The problem with this approach is that those ideas you have described would have to be specifically prohibited by the legal framework of said country, so you can piss away freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc etc.... kinda what we've BEEN doing. The difference between a citizen with those ideas and a refugee is that one is a citizen (a person that the government has a specific obligations too) and the other is not (a person that the government has limited and possibly VERY specific obligations too, often through international treaties). To conflate them without altering any laws in the normal fashion would be VERY VERY bad and pretty much destroy the concept of citizenship.... hey, wait a minute....

[cmdrjones]

Well, my point was directed at the people who want to do background searches of the refugees to 'prove' they don't harbor unacceptable opinions or values. If we're going to bar refugees from our country who think women should be subordinate to men and that Jews are minions of evil, then logically we should be trying to deport citizens of our country who believe those same things. Odds are, the lunatics born in our country are going to be more of a problem than the lunatics among the refugees are. Because even assuming we admit huge numbers of refugees they won't be more than a few percent of the total population.

I am genuinely shocked anyone can seriously say that. That's just not how it works on so many levels. People who are born in your country and are citizens are your people. Your country has an obligation to them by virtue of that citizenship. You don't just throw out your own people like that. These migrants meanwhile are not your citizens and thus your country has no such obligation.

Why shouldn't it work this way?

-----

For context, I don't support the concept of nations as they currently exist. Countries are lines on a map, backed by guns and money, and too often the concept of nations serves only to exclude and harm others while benefitting a select few. The idea of a nation existing as a closed entity is starting to feel as outdated as kingdoms and monarchies were in the early 20th century.

Given the global nature of the job market. I don't see how national borders and restrictions on movement between nations are any different than USSR style controlled movement within a nation. People should be free to move and settle where they will. Nations should share funds and ensure a fair standard of living for all of humanity. Disputes should be decided by a tribunal and if that fails a UN extra-national task force should step in as the sole military option.

Sure, this isn't how things work and it isn't likely that they'll work this way in the foreseeable future, but when you see the world as a connected entity the lines between citizen and outsider drop away.

Jub.... to answer your question as succinctly as possible: It doesn't work that way because very few people are #1 intellecually capable of understanding the world working as you describe #2 would give a shit if you DID sit them down and go over it with them #3 are hardwired to feel loyalty to family/religion, clan, nation, allies, etc generally in that order, and most importantly, #4 societies that do NOT believe in your commie bafflegab are FAR more likely to outfight, outlast, overrun and obliterate you as the evolutionary dead ends that you are.... the genes don't care son, they just want to get into the future....

[Grumman]

If it is a top priority to make sure that no refugees who have anti-semitic opinions enter Canada...

Doesn't it follow that Canada (and other nations) should be deporting any of their own citizens who have anti-semitic opinions? Because if we're going to express such tremendous security concerns over the refugees, doesn't that mean we also need to vet our own citizens?

No, because it should be pretty obvious that allowing nations to send their citizens into exile is a bad thing in and of itself, while refusing entry to foreigners merely fails to mitigate bad things caused by other countries to people who are not your nation's responsibility the same way its own residents are.

I would argue that such a policy is hypocritical.

Is it hypocritical for the United States to not allow the population of France to vote in US elections? If not, why is it so hard to understand that a nation can owe rights to its own citizens that it does not owe to citizens of other nations?

[Grumman]

Double post, sorry.

[ray245]

Universal humanism is without a doubt a nice idea, but the problem for us is that the current global society isn't really set up to handle the application of such ideas.

The concept of nation states still has its uses in trying to help a large segment of the world's population. It acts as a means of conflict resolution between different communities. The failure of a state government to protect minorities is a pretty good reason why new nation states are constantly being formed, or why we such independence movements today.

The fact of the matter is there is no global state or government that have the ability to police and enforce international laws means that abolishing nations states would only open up more potential for abuse. As history have shown, people don't even need to have nation-states to oppress and exploit others.

Nation-states acts as regulating means over powerful communities and ensure that the weaker communities aren't simply trampled over. Do you know why Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are so fucked up today? In part this is due to the fact that there is no nation state that effectively enforce peace among diverse population.

It's crazy to hear people calling for the abolishment of the nation state where we have yet to be able to create any sort of alternative organisation that could effectively regulate peace and enforce a fair and equal law in its absence. You guys are almost just as bad as the people who are calling for the removal of dictators without having any plans as to how to rebuild a government in its aftermaths.


Sometimes people's head are stuck in idealism that they could not see any practical problems that could arose as a result. It's the kind of mentality that enabled the Iraq War to take place.

[The Romulan Republic]

A couple of positive developments for refugees of late, to counterbalance the concerning developments.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/refugees ... -1.2678993

Health Minister Jane Philpott says Syrian refugees with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis will not be denied entry to Canada.
Philpott told CTV’s Question Period that Syrian refugees bound for Canada who are found to have infectious diseases may face delayed entry until they are healthy enough to enter the country, but won’t be turned away.
“We would make sure they get appropriate treatment. It would not lead to a denial as a cause in itself of being able to be accepted as a refugee to Canada, but it may delay somebody’s travel,” said Philpott.
RELATED STORIES
Canadian doctors to provide Syrian refugees with much-needed health care
Photo of drowned Syrian boy galvanized Canadians: refugee expert
Majority support refugees plan, oppose pulling fighter jets: Nanos survey
PHOTOS
Philpott
Health Minister Jane Philpott speaks with CTV's Question Period on Nov. 29, 2015.
Savage
Halifax Mayor Mike Savage speaks with CTV's Question Period on Nov. 29, 2015.
Berry Vrbanovic
Kitchener Mayor Berry Vrbanovic speaks with CTV's Question Period on Nov. 29, 2015.
“And, of course, as people arrive in Canada, there will be further screening and we’ll make sure that everyone is healthy.”
Philpott, who worked as a medical doctor before entering politics, emphasized that most of the infectious diseases that Syrian refugees could have are “quite treatable.”
The minister said all Syrian refugees will undergo an “international medical examination” before travelling to Canada so that the government is fully aware of their health condition before entering the country. Officials will be looking for physical as well as mental health problems, according to Philpott. She said the government will make sure that the healthcare system is prepared to offer counselling services to Syrian refugees who need it.
“These people have experienced the very difficult circumstances of conflict in Syria,” said Philpott. “Having said that, my suspicion is that these people are incredibly resilient and courageous folk who have managed to endure these circumstances and we will be impressed by their resilience.”
As the government prepares to welcome tens of thousands Syrian refugees, Canada is facing a major family doctor shortage. According to Statistics Canada, 14.9 per cent of Canadians 12 or older -- about 4.5 million people -- did not have a regular doctor in 2014.
While Philpott admitted that the Canadian healthcare system is already stretched, she said believes it can handle the arrival of Syrian refugees. She said she has been “overwhelmed” by expressions of interest from healthcare providers and other Canadians to help refugees.
Speaking to Question Period, Halifax Mayor Mike Savage also acknowledged that municipal social systems are under pressure, but said that the resettlement of 25,000 refugees spread across the country is “manageable.” He emphasized the fact that no community will ever be 100 per cent ready for the arrival of hundreds or thousands of refugees, and that now is the time to act.
“I think this is something that is going to pay off, not only from a humanitarian and compassionate point of view but from a growth point of view within our communities, and I think most people understand that,” said Savage.
Despite the community will, Savage admits there are still questions about how the municipalities are going to pay for the influx of Syrian refugees.
“I think we need to know certainly where the money is going to come from, what money is available. I fully expect that provinces and also municipalities will have to look at their own budgets,” he said.
Both Savage and Kitchener Mayor Berry Vrbanovic said their communities are developing plans to address any areas of concern as the refugees begin to arrive. According to Vrbanovic, that could be as early as next month for Kitchener.
“My understanding is, at least in the December numbers, we’re likely to see more of the privately sponsored ones (refugees) coming forward.”
Vrbonovic will head to Ottawa this week for a forum at Rideau Hall on welcoming Syrian refugees. Gov. Gen. David Johnston will host the meeting on Tuesday with more than 100 leaders from the public and private sectors, as well as representatives from civil society, to “strengthen our national response to the Syrian crisis.”
Vrbanoic hopes the meeting will allow leaders to share ideas on how they can support Syrian refugees arriving in their communities.
“I think what we want to do is hear what are some of the best practice ideas from some of the other municipalities and community organizations from across the country, so we can adopt those and not reinvent the wheel.”
Last week, the Trudeau government revealed that it will not meet its deadline to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by New Year’s Day. Rather, the Liberals expect 10,000 to arrive by Dec. 31, with 15,000 more landing in January and February, and at least an additional 10,000 later in 2016. That makes for a minimum total of 35,000 Syrian refugees.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... ogram.html

As the federal government ramps up efforts to take in thousands of Syrian refugees, Ottawa has confirmed it will not ask displaced migrants from the war-torn country to pay back the cost of bringing them to Canada.
In response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, last week the Liberal government announced plans to welcome 25,000 refugees from Syria by the end of February, and at least 10,000 more by the end of 2016.
Normally, if refugees can’t afford the necessary transportation or medical screening to come to Canada, they are offered a loan under the federal immigration loans program, and required to pay it back with interest. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the loans can be up to $10,000 per family.
In an email to the Star on Sunday, Line Patry, a spokeswoman for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said the government had decided to waive the loans for incoming Syrian refugees because the humanitarian situation in that country is so dire. A civil war that has raged there since 2011 has displaced more than 4 million people.
“Many refugees fleeing Syria have lost everything they had and will not have any financial resources for some time,” Patry explained. “Canada is upholding its humanitarian tradition by offering help and protection to those most in need. This includes waiving the issuance and repayment of immigration loans.”
Patry did not say how much forgoing the loans would cost the government. The Liberals have said they will spend up to $678 million over six years on the Syrian resettlement effort.
A family of Syrian refugees are interviewed by authorities in hope of being approved for passage to Canada at a refugee processing centre in Amman, Jordan, on Sunday.
POOL / REUTERS

A family of Syrian refugees are interviewed by authorities in hope of being approved for passage to Canada at a refugee processing centre in Amman, Jordan, on Sunday.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said the Liberals haven’t provided enough financial details about their plan for her to say whether her party would support waiving the payments for Syrians. But she noted that the Conservatives have consistently backed the loan program because it has a high rate of repayment.
“Our caucus position remains that we’re supportive of the program as it is, because it’s worked for several decades,” said Rempel, the MP for Calgary Nose Hill.
Janet Dench, the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, welcomed the government’s decision to waive the loans for Syrians, but said she hoped it “will be just a first step toward exempting all refugees.”
For years, advocates have campaigned to eliminate the loan program altogether. According to Dench, the debt can be “devastating” for families starting from scratch in a new country, and compromises their ability to integrate into Canadian society by making it harder to invest in things like their children’s education.
Dench also rejected the idea that Syrians deserve preferential treatment because they’re financially worse off than refugees from other countries. “The situation for other refugees is just as dramatic,” she said.