?Impact

That is a good question that should be examined. I am not promoting it, I am asking for accountability. Without accountability we cannot make any proper evaluation.

It is our legal obligation. I agree our moral obligation seems like it should be higher to those who line up, but our legal obligation is still there. The moral obligation is much more complex, because if we do not accept them (subject to proper vetting) then we are giving tacit approval to other countries, like those on the front lines, not to accept refugees either.

Something all religions do is tell you how to live your life. Christians invaded North America and told the natives how to live their life.

There is a difference between defending, and taking offensive actions. Jumping too quick to offensive actions leads to massive global destabilization, as history in this and many other cases has proven.

Yes, proper vetting and screening is a challenge. We need to balance that with our moral and legal obligations.

Let`s not confuse immigration policy with refugees, they are completely different issues. We have an immigration policy based on what will benefit the monied interests who pay the economists and other pundits who lobby (and bribe) our elected officials to set it. Our refugee policy however is based on moral and legal obligations.

Refugees fleeing from other countries often arrive in waves because they come from the place that is currently experiencing the most trouble in the world. There are times in history where many areas of the world are experiencing trouble concurrently, and we get refugees from multiple places. Often these refugees arrive with very little fiscal resources, and need to learn things like local languages in order to fit into their new community and earn a descent wage. They will congregate together for mutual support, and often in sections of town that have lower rents and consequently are less well maintained. That is what we refer to as ghettos. It is more about circumstance, and not discrimination. As the refugees integrate into the local community, and begin to earn better incomes they will try and improve their lot. Often they will move out into more affluent neighborhoods and a new generation of refugees from other parts of the world will move into the lower rent district. That is why the ghettos change character over time. Sometimes people will stay in the lower rent district, and use their financial resources to improve them and they become trendy for you well off white people to move in and gentrify them.

As I pointed out in a recent status message, the new member George56 was member #90,000. I now see the count has been updated to be total members 90,001 yet George56 remains the newest member. It appears the total member count is bogus. Now it appears we have a new member `hot enough`, so maybe things are sortof ok, just not updated concurrently on the home page. Welcome hot enough.

Perhaps because they have a well defined methodology they employ to determine the bias, perhaps because they call out bias all across the board.

Don't forget that spin offs (schism) occur regularly, but instead of with the big bosses consent they can go against it. Also note that the big boss has remained silent for many hundreds of years. In some companies there is a board of directors (College of Cardinals) that elect a single general manager (Pope), while other companies have a multitude of self-proclaimed general managers trying to pull the strings in all sorts of different directions.

It was a tweet, not an international protocol. It was clarifying that Canada doesn't discriminate based on faith, something you seem to miss in your description. While you are out playing amateur lawyer, I suggest you parse 'welcome'.

Yes, any nation but Saudi Arabia - the one country that was most responsible for terrorist acts. Oil money speaks louder than truth. Are you still going on about Dahir Adan? He became an American Citizen in 2008. The Somali community denounced his act. Stop pretending this was an attack by Somalia, it was a homegrown attack - period, end of discussion.

Sad, but true. Partisan politics is nothing more than professional team sports.

...and the nation to the trash heap

What is most astounding is that almost 80% of Republics are proud of Trump - that says a whole lot there.

Yes, you need the right equipment for the mission. A bombing mission for a fixed structure like a bridge would be far, far cheaper with unmanned technology and no loss of men or additional material.

Some costs will be similar, but others are way out of whack. There is a significant cost saving per operating hour of the Tucano over the F-35. ...and not I am not claiming they can support the same role

Were they fired upon by other aircraft, or did they fire on other aircraft during these sorties?

When was the last actual air to air combat a Canadian Forces fighter was involved in?

I can tell you I was not there. I was against Afghanistan from long before, but yes there were all sorts of calls for bombing those goat herders back to the 7th century. Like I do today, I was then trying to voice an opposition to those vocal masses. Trenton/Bellville is a military town, so it is hard to say how representative those voices were of mainstream Canadians compared to the family & close neighbours to those who were being sent on a mission and expressing their direct support. It is always hard to tell the mainstream opinion from the vocal masses, and we don't get asked in this pseudo democracy we run under. I don't know what polling was done in the early days, I know that there were a lot of polls around 2008 timeframe that showed Canadians against the mission, where Americans didn't really turn until 2014 or so. A big part of the problem was the statements coming out of the Whitehouse that Americans and Canadians alike bought into. Remember the perception was we were going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden.

The safe third country agreement is about each country accepting back foreigners that attempt to cross at official border crossings. Yes, perhaps it could be extended to cover illegal crossings, but that would be up to the Americans to agree to accept them back and the same for us. Certainly it is worth exploring some more with the Americans. I agree that putting more resources to clearing cases faster sounds like a good solution. I haven't heard if it has been tried, and what the challenges would be.

If they are not US citizens, we cannot send them back to the US. Deporting them to their home countries is part of the process. If you have specific suggestions to streamline that process, then make them. I think you are well aware of the issues, they have been discussed many times.

Photo-op?