Civis Romanus sum
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Civis Romanus sum
-
-
Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach.
I would agree with this. They want to pretend to be doing something so they don't have to worry about what's going on afterward.
-
what a mind-numbing stoopid post!
.
Mr Harper was pointing out earlier that those piously claiming to feel the need to help the crisis by bringing in 25,000 refugees are accomplishing almost nothing given the scale of the problem. What really needs to be done is to resolve the instability of the area, which is something the New Democrats and Liberals show no interest in being involved in. So your reply is not only rude but completely wrong. We can't bring in any significant number so anything we do in terms of absorbing refugees is just window dressing, and has no real impact. It might make us feel good but we're really not doing anything of substance.
-
You say that like its a bad thing, when it actually coincides with new laws that drastically reduce claims from safe countries......under the old system, we received more claims from EU countries than Asian and African countries combined!!! Ironically, with recent events, under the old system, the #1 source country for claims was Hungry.....
Gypsies.
-
in terms of keeping threads more focused, let me place the same post here I just made in another concurrent running thread... just to give proper perspective to that failed Harper Conservative refugee policy:
in 5 short years... Harper has driven Canada from 5th to 15th place in the list of countries receiving refugees - UNHCR Asylum Trends: you're welcome.
You act like being higher on the list offers up some kind of benefit to Canada. Canada is far away. Obivously we're going to be lower on the list than countries which are right next door to war zones. We're also a relatively small country, population wise. Harper's refugee changes have been quite successful in lowering the number of phony refugees. Before him we used to accept almost everyone who showed up at an airport. That led to people bypassing the immigration system since this was so much faster, and simply telling stories to immigration, stories immigration consultants and lawyers often helped them concoct.
-
As I said above, the NDP will certainly welcome the fresh interest in the issue, it will no doubt aid in their tireless and selfless effort to lead the way in raising awareness of an issue that has gone under the radar of so many for so long. Maybe now we can take action and stop Harper and his government from treating refugees with the cynicism equivalent to "drowning them with his boot on their heads as they gasp for air."
That is a more than slightly disgusting attempt to blame Harper for the actions of other people. Harper bears not one slight degree of guilt for the drowning deaths of refugees.
-
The problem has been the Harper government's changes in the number of refugee applicants that we take in now. He has reduced this number and has made it much more difficult to apply.
We were getting a lot of phoney refugees. And the refugees in Turkey have lots of time to apply since they're safe there. They don't need to risk their families lives by getting into overcrowded boats to go to Europe.
-
I pointed you to several reports on the economic impact of immigration.
the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small,
-
Oh, you didn't hear? We're now going to accept 20,000 refugees according to the Tories. Though numbers don't mean a damn thing to these people, since they've changed the number 3 times in 12 months.
As long as they take their time and sort out the Christians I'm fine with that. I don't mind if we take in a bunch of Christians. They will become integrated into Canada.
-
If our government now says we should accept 10,000 refugees from Syria should we then accept 20,000 Palestinians?
There are almost twice the number of Palestinians as a result of Israeli policy as there are Syrian refugees.
There are twice as many Palestinian refugees because of Arab policy. What would you do if we brought Syrians here and stuck them in refugee camps and kept them there for 70 years? Would that be okay with you? Most of those 'palestinians' in Arab countries have never been to the Palestinian territories. They were born in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, but they have no right to be citizens there.
-
Well said Rue but the issue of values and customs is an issue no one wants to talk about. As someone else said, I'd be pretty scared if I thought 800,000 religious conservatives where to come here. Prior to this no one wanted to talk about the African Muslim migrants invading Europe, there have been pictures in a camp where they rioted because someone supposedly tore a Koran.
They have riots in the UK and France, and even Sweden. The Swedes have been moronic and have been bringing in tens of thousands of Muslims. The result of putting together Swedish girls with Muslim men who think you're a whore if you show your ankle is they have the highest rape rate on earth.
-
From your quote.
It called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large.
These people seem to think it's okay to make Canada an overpopulated hellhole of 100 million people, with huge cities crowding out farmland and forests in order to benefit the foreigners we bring in. In other words, they think the immigration system is a giant world welfare program designed to help other people.
So what's in it for us? Massive traffic jams. Huge pollution problems. Chaotic cultural problems and violence. And we're supposed to do this why exactly?
-
I enjoyed this little gem.
Yes, Harper and his government are metaphorically/rhetorically drowning refugees with their lack of action. Very dramatic, and descriptive...well done.
Does it matter if the claim is nonsensical?
-
For starters I'd like to see us accept that human beings are fleeing the ME in the first place because of all the weapons and reasons to use them the world including us, has been flooding the region with the last 100 years or more.
Weapons are freely available throughout the world. Well, except in Canada. The difference between the ME and the rest of the world is the stark, unforgiving cruelty being preached by so many Islamic religious leaders.
-
So I assume those bombs we are now dropping on Syria and Iraq, the bombs we dropped on Libya and our participation in Afghanistan had nothing to do with it? There were no local combatants until we got involved.
Do you believe civil wars can't be vicious and drawn out and can't produce refugees? The west's intervention in Libya ended that struggle without the kind of long, drawn out bloody fighting we're seeing in Syria. It's true the locals then failed to reach any sort of agreement on government and disarming, but that's hardly our fault. Afghanistan was a violent mess for decades before we got there. And Syria's war is being fought largely without western intervention, other than occasional bombing forays against ISIS, and that only because of ISIS invading Iraq.
-
TSX is down 1% today as a result of August's numbers.
The TSX is down because the DOW and S&P are down, as is Europe.
In fact, the jobs numbers have been noted as a pleasant surprise. Economists had predicted a negative figure.
-
There's no threat from "there" and our being there only makes the threat here worse.
There's no immediate threat from there. The intercession is partly humanitarian, a response to the bloody excesses and genocide of ISIS, and partly strategic, in that nobody wants the 'caliphate' to succeed and become a growing bastion of radical Islamic violence. That would eventually threaten us.
-
Jason Kenney is also saying its not their problem,so if its not our problem then why is the Canadian military over there fighting
Its over there fighting so it doesn't become our problem. We prefer to fight our enemies abroad, not wait for them to come here. I consider that quite wise.
-
25,000 doesn't sound so bad, I guess. Will they be spread out across the country, or will they all gravitate to a handful of neighborhoods in the GTA, GVA, and a couple of other major centers?
I doubt you'll see a lot of them in Halifax or Newfoundland, nor will they be heading to the Yukon or Quebec City. They'll be going to Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton, most likely.
The idea of bringing in a bunch of religious conservatives straight out of the third world doesn't sit well with me regardless of the circumstances. It seems pretty much counterproductive to the ideas of social progress that I support.
I have three daughters, and I can tell you that I don't want more tens of thousands of Muslims coming to Canada. We already bring tens of thousands every year, and their attitudes towards women are extremely troubling. Nor have I seen much sign their children, who grow up here, diverge much from those attitudes.
-
Again: they may be out of immediate danger, but it's not sustainable for them or the host countries.
It would certainly be sustainable if we helped the host countries with financial aid. And it would be more sustainable still if those host countries were willing to accept these people into their cities and let them live and work there, the way western nations do.
Let's back it up: what do the Palestinians (most of whom live in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza) have to do with anything?
You provided raw numbers for how many refugees were in certain countries. I pointed out those numbers exceeded the numbers of Syrian refugees the UN has put out, and that much of those raw numbers were because of other refugees, notably Palestinians.
But they (at least large numbers of them) are fleeing death and torture. And even if there was some meaningful distinction, it does change the facts on the ground.
If they're already in a safe third country such as Turkey or Egypt then they're economic migrants, and are actually risking death by crossing to Europe. The more of them we accept, the more of them will come, and the more will die along the way. If you've been watching and reading the coverage you might note how many are trying to head for Sweden. Why? Sweden would seem to be a little known country most would know nothing about. But Sweden has promised to take all Syrian refugees and grant them citizenship. Who wouldn't rather be a citizen of Sweden than of Syria!? War or no war. By making that generous offer the Swedes are actually encouraging people to risk their lives to get to Europe.
-
I'm not sure how the survivorship rules work in this situation if at all.
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/cpp/survivor-pension.shtml
-
I woud be better off investing the money I'm forced to pay into CPP. What a scam.
It is a necessary program, because many people would not save nor would they invest, and if they did invest would likely do so poorly.
-
Addiction treatment? Who needs addiction treatment? You're thinking of the junkies and alcoholics.
Allow me to please clarify. I think the scarcity of addiction treatment is a scandal in our society. And yes, I am thinking of harder drugs and alcoholics. Although it is true I have known 'potheads' who could have used some treatment, as well. I think it would be fitting to use the income from taxing this 'soft' drug to treat the broken lives caused by other drugs, including alcohol.
-
I believe we already take in more immigrants than we can properly resettle and integrate. We take in more under Harper than we did under Chretien, so I'm not sure what exactly people are complaining about. Is it simply that you want us to accept anyone and everyone who wants to live here?
-
So here is the policy I would like to see implemented. We legalize marijuana, tax it, and put all the money gained into addiction treatment.
.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Are you proposing we take in millions?