Hal 9000

Good point except; There isn't a big movement to slaughter people in the name of the old testament. Nobody is beheading people for being non-believers except radical muslims. Nobody is burying teenage girls up to their shoulders and stoning them to death except muslims. If a Christian refuses to bake a cake for a homo couple, good grief - all hell breaks loose and the left are calling out all christianity for being intolerant bigots. Islamists are slaughtering innocent people left and right and it's "oh yeah, its just a few bad eggs", "Islam is the religion of peace". lets not compare the Bible or even the Torah to the quran

It seems that we have intertwined "white privilege" with "microagressions"...Interesting. It does fit though because, I rarely get offended by anything. However, when I hear about white privilege, I do get offended. It bugs the hell out of me that there is even a remote suggestion that I didn't get what I have through hard work. Both my wife and I had extremely unsupportive parents, and found ways to work full time and further our educations at the same time. Get married, buy a house, have kids, cars etc., and we did it without white privilege. Yes, I get offended when I hear that term, because it diminishes everything I've worked for...

And your current ideology supersedes law, equality and morality if you support Islam.

You know what, you won't believe anything you see, read or witness yourself. You people will pick apart the source no matter who it is...well, unless maybe it's from the Huffington Post. If you don't like the source, maybe you should do a little research. You people will buy into global warming without a shred of evidence, but you'll defend these people all day long regardless of how many terrorist attacks happen each week.

I've seen the interview with the CSIS dude, he is saying all the right things, but he doesn't look at all convinced. Look at the interviews of people who are not directly under Trudeau's orders and what they say - quite a different story. You're being manipulated!

No they haven't.

Normally that might be the case, but the minute these people arrive and are signed in, they are gonna be Canadians. As Canadians, they'll get welfare until the day the die if they choose and they won't be made to repay anything because they will be full on Canadians. I could be wrong, but if they do in fact become full on Canadians, there will be no requirement to do anything or be accountable for anything.

I wonder if the gov't will tell us how many they turned away - if any.

Wow, I know a mexican with a great job that has been fighting to stay here for 2 years and another guy who has a russian wife who've been trying to get her here for 1.5 years - with no luck yet.

The first 2 or 3 times I thought he was saying "whore", but watching the video a little closer, and listening to his other words, I'm convinced that what he has is a type of Microglossia which is a speech impediment caused by an enlarged tongue. You can see it clearly when he uses S words.

WoW, Is it true that they become permanent resident upon arrival? I must not be reading that right.

Is there any publication that you'll believe, because I'm pretty sure your intent will be to rip the article's origin?

Very few of us are against helping refugees - I'm not, but i sure do want to make sure that they are in fact refugees. With the intelligence given, I can't believe that we'd take any group at face value when we know that 15-20% are possible terrorists. If one pedophile moves into a town, everyone freaks out. What if you knew 15-20% of the new inhabitants were known pedophiles and rapists? Would you want to know who they were? Would you want them weeded out? I bet you would. Actually, Rape and child molestation is part of Isis' MO.

Exactly, as I said earlier, we'll be taking the UN's word on who we should take - essentially, "Here Canada, these ones are yours". The UN is on their own agenda, and in my opinion, don't recognize terrorism the same way western cultures do.

What stats are you questioning?

Why? If you disagree with the comparison, show where it differs.

What a coincidental new development - I don't believe in coincidences, so I'll call bullshit. Just days ago they were saying how hard it will be to do the vetting, now we hear that it's already done - Bullshit! Reuters "Canada's government will inevitably have to cut some corners on security screening to achieve its ambitious goal of bringing in 25,000 Syrian refugees by year-end, said current and former security sources. The plan by newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seeks to complete in six weeks a process that can take up to two years in the United States, where last Friday's attacks in Paris have sparked a political backlash against plans to allow in 10,000 Syrians over the coming year. In Canada, which shares about 5,500 miles (8,850 km) of relatively porous border with the United States, Friday's attacks have prompted calls for Trudeau to push back the Jan. 1 deadline to ensure all the refugees are properly screened. Trudeau has vowed to stick to the plan, reiterating the security of Canadians would be paramount when dealing with the refugees. The Canadian plan will entail background checks that include biometric and fingerprint checks, as well as health assessments. Some screening will have to be done after the refugees arrive in Canada given the short time frame. That could create vulnerabilities, said one recently retired Canadian intelligence official, since a refugee could already be in the country by the time any red flags are raised by the screening. "You can't say that when you cut some corners and speed up the system that it's completely risk-free," said the former official, who has knowledge of the immigration system. Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale told a briefing on Wednesday that he expected the vast majority of the work to be done before refugees arrived in Canada, and he said the intention was for all the database work to be finished. The ex-official said it was unclear if the refugees would immediately be free to settle in Canada or would be detained in some way pending further screening. A current Canadian intelligence official said there was "a clear risk" given the pace at which security screeners would have to work to interview, select and process such a high volume of applicants. Josee Sirois, a spokeswoman for the Public Safety ministry, said that a "thorough" screening process would be in place, but that the vast majority of Syrian refugees "pose little or no risk to Canada." In the United States, two dozen state governors, mostly Republicans, have vowed not to accept any refugees, despite reassurances from the State Department that the immigrants will be rigorously screened to block any potential militants." Rand Beers, former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said that weaker security screening north of the border would be a worry. "There would be a concern for anything that is less than our screening, and even we would say that our screening isn't perfect," he said. CUTTING CORNERS? Canada will primarily focus on families with children under the age of 18 who have been in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, said an intelligence source and a non-government source familiar with deliberations. The first step in the Canadian plan is to select refugees registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), then conduct checks against Interpol, Canadian security and immigration as well as foreign allies' watchlists before issuing permanent or temporary residence permits. Canadian immigration and border agents who have been dispatched to the region, most of them in Beirut, will select the refugees and raise any red flags to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Canada's spy agency for deeper screening. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, who asked Trudeau to suspend the plan on Monday citing security concerns, said the government was moving too quickly and questioned whether normal vetting steps were being skipped. "We're going from years to a couple of months in terms of the wait time or the process," Wall said on CBC TV. The process for screening and admitting refugees into the United States lasts between 18 months and two years. The Department of Homeland Security travels to screen refugees outside the United States and they are only admitted after passing security and health checks. Biographical and biometric data is matched up with any available databases including travel and criminal records to confirm the identity of the applicant. The FBI, Defense Department, State Department and National Counterterrorism Center all work to screen applicants. Canadian Foreign Minister Stephane Dion, asked in Manila whether Washington had expressed security concerns about the plan, said: "Everything that we have heard is that our initiative is welcome and everyone wants to cooperate with this – the United States, but also Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan." Spokespeople at the White House and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A European government source said British security authorities do not regard Syrian refugees as a major source of or cover for terror activities. About 100 Syrian refugees arrived in Scotland on Tuesday. Countries such as Germany and the United States also conduct their own security checks after the UNHCR registers an applicant. "It is a slow process," said a Western diplomat in Beirut, whose country has taken in Syrian refugees. "The UNHCR doesn't do its own security checks." Goodale, Canada's public safety minister, has said there were domestic laws to deal with those who fail the screening process conducted after their arrival in Canada. The process of deporting refugees can be legally difficult and lengthy. The two Canadian intelligence sources said such an outcome posed headaches for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), which would then have to monitor the individuals. "You could end up with CSIS having to place 20 agents tracking him for years to come," said the retired intelligence official. However, CSIS Director Michel Coulombe said at a news conference on Wednesday he was satisfied with the process and confident the measures were "robust." (Additional reporting by Sylvia Westall in Beirut, Mike De Souza in Calgary, David Ljunggren in Manila, Mark Hosenball in Washington, Editing by Stuart Grudgings) Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-france-shooting-canada-idUSKCN0T727520151118#SXWmLf3s3dXHJiE6.99

If we told the black community, we were moving a shitload of people into their community and 15-20% were KKK members, would they be racist for expressing their concerns?

No, because as i said in another thread, Muslims are at a 3% population rate. Historically, groups do not cause trouble until that number hits 4%. At 4% a group will start to push their agenda (such as the UK 5% and Denmark, Norway) , at about 6% they start to demonstrate and possibly riot (Sweden 5.2%, Belgium 6%, France 7.5%), any group that feels marginalized will start to full on revolt at about 10% -

Michael Hardner - "If they become Canadian, how many Canadian casualties would it take for you to say that it wasn't worth it to bring them in ?" Hal - "Your question is basically, what would be an acceptable number of casualties? I'd have to be pretty sick to give a number, but it''s way less than 130." ​The only think you're right about is that zero is a failing mark. It'll never be zero and we know that, i said way less than 130 because I think the question in itself is very poor taste. Would I trade 500 Canadian lives for 25,000 Syrian lives? If I thought it would end there or if I thought it would end a war - who knows! But that wouldn't be the case. Our Military is made up of volunteers and lefties freak out when a couple hundred soldiers die trying to liberate Afghanistan, but seem to not care about potential Canadian civilian deaths.

Which we're not doing - and we won't. What we will do is accept the UN's idea of who is acceptable.

Ok, I'll bite! 25,000 refugees International intel says that 15-20% are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers...so 4-5000 possible undesirables. Because you'll argue the % numbers, lets bring it down to 10%...or even 5%. Ok at 5%, lets assume that 60% of that is sympathizers and 40% actual active terrorists, that gives us a net of 2% people willing to actually go out and bomb something. 2% is equal to 500. 500 terrorists that will recruit others and plot terror attacks in Canada. The average terrorist kills about 8-10 people when he/she pulls of an attack - that equals 4000 people. But if you argue this number, fair enough, lets say each terrorist can kill even 2 people, that still equals 1000 people. Yeah, 1000 is still too high for me. Paris was "merely" 130-140 dead. That's too high for me also. Your question is basically, what would be an acceptable number of casualties? I'd have to be pretty sick to give a number, but it''s way less than 130.

Yeah, and what are the chances of that?

Well yeah, They'll have control of certain regions. They'll have large voting blocks in places like Toronto and Montreal. Much like greater Vancouver has Chinese and east Indian ridings led by Chinese and East Indian candidates (not that theres anything wrong with them), but the point is, like you say - Muslims will will have a bigger and more direct role in Canadian politics.

I assume you meant "refugees". But, Really - "extremely unlikely" - WoW!