CITIZEN_2015

.Those who CHOSE to come here and expect to be accommodated will be best accommodated in their home country.

Should we have to accommodate? Can we accommodate if it is practical? No we don't have to because when they completed their application form to come here they knew exactly where they are coming to. How far do we go with accommodating. Should we also accommodate a ban on alcohol, closing bars, lashing, polygamy, mandatory hejab,........if we accommodate segregation why not the rest?

I didn't defend de-segregation of public bathrooms. I said this is not same as segregating schools, parks, streets, pools. And I never pleased transgendered people just supporting their rights to be treated equal by public in a civilized nation that most of its citizens are civilized and I support their equal rights.

We segregate based on sex!!!!!. If you are referring to public bathrooms this is not the same as segregating streets, schools, swimming pools, buses.

I have been saying it all along. Canada must change its immigration selection criteria. Selection should not only be based on money and skills but also adaptability and adaptability must take at least as much points as wealth and skills do if not a lot more. Europe is in trouble now (France, Germany, Britain in particular). Do you wish to see the same in Canada in a few decades? And it will UNLESS we start selecting people and select those who in addition to contributing positively to Canada with their investment and skills and tax dollars they would pay over decades but MORE importantly select those who also believe in Canadian values of EQUALITY (of Gender) and respect for other cultures and religions. All past and present governments have been ignoring what Canadians want on immigration which is selectivity but also a reduction in numbers such that this country of only 30 million can absorb.

We are talking about 2016 because it is 2016. You are still living in the past Impact. And two wrongs don't make it right either. And yes we are talking about those who (after a long process) willingly chose to come to Europe and North America (and I assume they do so because they are not happy where they are right?) and then try to change our way of life. Here we have mixed gender swimming pools, mix schools, mix buses, night clubs, beaches where ladies wear bikinis (so London Mayor can f**k himself or go to hell), strip bars, dating, sex ...........because we live life. Those who don't like it then they should go back where they prefer living life like death.

Or better even those very small minority don't come here at all. They know exactly what Canada stands for and how Canadian culture is and then they decide to come here and still keep their way of living or worse a tiny minority trying to impose their culture upon others. You want to feel at home then go back home if you have issues with those at home already.

This post is so false and shortsighted. I know of refugees from China (in late 80"s and early 90"s) and Iran (in the 80"s) who were accepted as immigrants and who were university/college students at the time but not feeling safe to return home and hence granted immigration status then and who are now in high ranking positions and long time tax payers like engineers, doctors, teachers/professors,...etc. Painting all refugees with same brush as bathroom cleaners demonstrates clearly lack of wisdom and knowledge to say the least.

Immigration pays off in the long term. Those who come as refugees though initially may need assistance but eventually (some sooner than others) would become tax payers for years and decades. Spend, buy houses, cars, and clothing and stimulate growth. Those majority who come as immigrants will start contributing much sooner. Doctors help Canadian sick, teachers and professors help Canadian children, others open shops, restaurants hire Canadians or pay taxes to help our social programs, and the story goes on for all other professions. So we have to use some intelligence and look into a broader picture rather than labeling all immigrants as helpless illiterate refugees who will be a burden on Canadian taxpayers. Suggesting that our immigration number must be a statistical equation of employment level for a month or two or even a year is very short sighted and not practical. that said I think our immigration level is way too high (recession or not) and Canada may not be able to absorb some 250,000 immigrants each year (for a country of 33 million only). I would encourage setting the level to 150,000 and more selective as who we let in. That said I agree there are some immigrants (as well as some Canadian born) who will be a burden forever or engage in criminal activities or refuse to accept the tolerant liberal values of most Canadians. Those who fall into this categories must be refused or deported unconditionally as soon as they fail to prove that they are worthy of living in this society (i.e. first criminal record must be followed by deportation). Also I agree that immigrants from certain parts of the world mainly middle east and Africa must prove that they accept and respect the values mentioned above. We can't ban immigrants based on where they are born but rather assess them individually by some means so that extremists and militants and those who don't believe in respect of all religions and equality of gender will not enter this country at the first place (and I don't know how as I am not an immigration expert).

In return Israel looks after America"s interest in the region so it is not exactly a handout. Some do this for free (Saudi Arabia) and some for money.

Trudeau and Canada must do everything they can to bring as many Yazidi girls who are falling victims to terrorists and as fast as possible.

though in short term there will be some pain and economic slow down as economic uncertainly and falling currency will cause all these but In the long term Britain would do fine. They survived for centuries before joining EU without the EU. In fact Britain was economically much stronger prior. I have family in England too and they all voted for leave.

It may not be too bad for Britain to leave. Immigration is a concern for many British citizens. The face of the country has changed compared to 70's and 80's and not necessarily for better and with so many eastern European countries joining EU with free passports to travel and remain in the UK it got worse recently. The British currency and economy will fall for a little while and after a while they will adjust. The Scots maybe tempted to vote for independence but when it comes to it they would again realize that staying in the UK would benefit them more than leaving.

Yes trade would benefit Canada and Canadians but the question is AT WHAT COST??.

That is why we must remind the government of Canada what Canada traditionally stands for and what their duties are. Staring with this forum (which I hope they read) and writing to our MPs and whatever else s practical.

No priority and practicality count. Yazidi girls qualify for both.

Before it was First Nation girls were of equal priority (to be brought in to Canada and once you found out how ridiculous you sound then you change the target to African girls!!!!! Are you trying to sabotage the efforts to help Yazidi girls? I have already answered your question. There are millions needing help. We cannot help them all or take them all. We have to prioritize. In my view Yezidi girls have the highest priority and the leader of the opposition agrees with me and for the reasons I stated. They are about 400,000 Yazidis half of them females. It is practical to bring them over. How many African girls are in Africa? Are they being burned alive or targeted for their race? You want me to open a thread asking Canada to bring over all African girls into Canada?

Again you don't make sense at all. I am asking that Canada known for its passion and care in the world for helping those who meed most and are potential victims to help them re-settle in a safe place like Canada. There are millions and I understand we can't take them all and help them all. But we can help some even some portion would be great. Canada needs to prioritize and I say (and Rona Ambrose agrees with me) that based on what I have read Yezidi girls are a high priority because they are targeted by terrorists for their race and religion and gender.

Yes I did and you are correct. I don't understand Trudeau really. He is supposed to be a feminist and here we have minority defenseless girls are being raped and killed every day and he doesn't even acknowledge it is genocide and doesn't appear to raise a finger to bring them over and yet he publicize bringing some 25000 adult capable Syrians. He has a wife and daughter and he is supposedly a feminist. He should have sympathy for these innocent girls and drop everything and do his best to bring them over.

First nations girls are already in Canada!!!! You want me to ask Canada to bring them over!!!!! I can't understand you. So what are we debating here. I say there are some girls being targeted for their religion and race and burned alive by terrorists and we should help them by bringing them over and asking well off Canadians to sponsor them to rescue them from the rapists and murders and you are saying we should not and we should let them being raped and killed because this may have happened with First Nations girls in Canada. Do I get it right??

So there are defenseless girls all over the world whose land has been captured/occupied by terrorists and mass murderers who are targeted for their religion and race by hateful extremists who believe raping a non-muslim will land them in heaven and who are forced into sexual slavery who will be burned alive if they refuse???. I asked you again when did I asked for Canada's intervention anywhere in any of my posts?

You could have at least read the post above yours. I asked that Canada take some defenseless girls in need of help. What is got to do with the dead babies in incubator lies told by BUSH the senior or when did I ask for intervention!!!!!. Did Canada intervene in Syria when they took 25000 refugees? Have you forgotten to take your medication or something? I am amazed by the extend of distortion of what I say and ask.

Please read the first post and the attached links.

No I am suggesting to admit Yazidi girls who are victims to sex slavery (or in danger of becoming one) NOT all Iraqi refugees. Not sure why you are twisting what I say. It is not helpful.

No I think the situation was different with Saddam as one of his colleague dictators from Baath party would have replaced him the same way that he replaced Albakr when he died two decades earlier. Yes I voted Trudeau because of many good policies that he promised and he has lived up to them and I am still happy with him and will vote for him again if elections held today. His government in general. Compare to corrupt scandalist government of Harper is A+ and he and his government are doing great. One case among hundreds other policies don't change my vote. However, that doesn't mean that I won't criticize him if he does wrong and in this case he is wrong. Instead of giving priority to some mid-east refugees with most of them having a totally different culture than most of Canadians he must give priority to these defenseless women who are being or will be sex slaves NOW before it is too late