Yzermandius19

You could get all the interviews you wanted, and the results wouldn't be that different than they are now. The current problems you see, are not because of a lack of interviews or background checks. There are not big dividends to be gained here, the impacts will be barely noticeable.

Well that's just captain obvious shit then, doesn't even need to be stated. It's easier to find more good apples in better orchards ain't really insightful in any way, no one is going to disagree with that.

No they wouldn't have, not with a "Canadian values" interview they couldn't. Your faith in the government to solve problems easily is misguided.

If you think the 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped if they were just given a values test, you are so deluded it's comical.

Many immigrant groups have lower unemployment rates than Canadian born or American born, both in Canada and America. Those who do better are helped by a points system, not using blanket stereotypes about immigrants from certain regions in the world to disqualify anyone who is a member of a group who performs lower on average. This is why Trump wants a points system, less bad apples getting in just because they are related to someone who lives in America. You are pushing for less merit based immigration, and yet you think the result will be more meritocratic if the system isn't based on merit, but on a silly values test that has nothing to do with merit? Good luck with that. Disqualifying all the good apples from poorly performing regions results in a worse good apple to bad apple ratio than letting in all the good apples from poorly performing regions. Disqualifying as many bad apples regardless of region, results in a better good apple to bad apple ratio than letting in everyone from highly performing regions. You want a system that disqualifies all the good apples from poorly performing regions, and qualifies all the bad apples from highly performing regions, you are going to make the very problem you decry, letting in too many bad apples and not enough good ones, worse with your proposed solution.

A majority immigrate under the points system. Our immigrants perform better than Canadians all the time. Cherry picking a group that does poorly compared to those born in Canada doesn't mean all immigrants who qualify under the points system do worse than Canadians. Those who qualify under the points system do better. Refugees do not qualify under the points system, stop lumping all legal immigrants in with refugees and pretend they are the same. There are plenty of people from groups who do poorly that do great in Canada, and vice versa, painting with a broad brush results in more bad apples not less.

Public housing is filled with plenty of non-immigrants too, and plenty of wanted posters as well. Nothing false about it.

Trump wants merit based immigration, not ban all non-whites.

We are capable of discerning which individual is going to be best, within reason. Merit based immigration is infinitely better than letting in all the bad apples from a region just because the average person from that region does better than most who immigrate to Canada.

If you think documents are less reliable than interviews, because people can forge documents, that ignores that people can lie during interviews far easier than they can forge documents. Most who immigrate here, do so under a points system, and it's a system that works infinitely better than values test interviews. You might catch a handful of idiots who didn't prepare for the test and know nothing about Canadian values, any competent terrorists can easily avoid being caught by interviews and lie their way through them.

Those who reject "Canadian values" can simply pretend to endorse them. Your system will not screen out anyone who prepared for the values test and is willing to lie, it comes nowhere close to even addressing the issue.

Turns out that any competent terrorist knows how to give answers that mask the fact that they are a terrorist. Who knew? Those who know that interviews and/or values tests don't solve all immigration problems, they knew. Those who don't think the government simply caring enough about the problem would fix the issue, they knew.

There are no interview screening processes that weed out criminals very well, it has nothing to do with will, and everything to do with the ability to screen people with interviews not being a good way to catch those breaking the law. Why do you have such faith in interviews to spot bad applicants? Do you think no employers ever made a mistake hiring someone who had a great interview and was a bad employee, or rejected someone who had a bad interview but would have been a great employee? Because that happens all the time, expecting the immigrant screening process to not make any of those mistakes is laughable. Has nothing to do with will whatsoever, interviews just ain't as useful of a tool as you seem to believe. The government not caring enough is not even close to problem here, throwing more money at the problem isn't going to solve it, nor is employing a values test. You may want there to be an easy quick fix that simply requires the will to do it and the problem will be solved, but that is naive wishful thinking.

If you think interviews are a great way to spot potential terrorists, I've got a bridge to sell you. You might screen out some dumb terrorists that way, but any terrorist who isn't a complete moron knows how to lie.

If you think better interviews is going to fix this issue, you have way too much faith in interviews to weed out bad applicants. There is no screening process which will eliminate all the bad apples, it is wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Misplaced faith in the immigrant screening process, especially in cultural values tests, is leading to some silly conclusions about how easy it is to fix problems with immigration, many around here want there to be an easy answer, but there isn't. Canada already has merit based immigration, and refugees are not a large proportion of immigrants to the country, we have a better screening process than most and already take more the good apples and less of the bad apples, it's not like no one in Canada has thought of trying to take in more good immigrants and less bad immigrants, that's already in place and has been for quite a while. People who think that any bad apples getting through is just a sign that they haven't come up with a better screening process are fooling themselves, thinking the government is capable of doing something that it will never achieve or come close to achieving.

He mentioned reasons that weren't solely to his political benefit as well. It is not a crime to want Biden investigated. There is nothing wrong with it, Biden running for office does not make him immune from Trump wanting him investigated. If running for office prevented investigation of the candidate, than investigating Trump would have been illegal, that's not how it works. You don't have him publicly telling everyone he wanted Biden investigated only because he was running against him in 2020, and for no other reason, you are mindreading and twisting his words to believe what you want to believe. Funny how you only believe Trump when he says something that you think makes him look bad, then there is no reason to interpret what he said to not be what you thought he said, and if he says something that you think makes him look good, then we shouldn't believe a word he says because he's a notorious liar. Cherrypicking Partisan Hackery.

They don't his motives were most didn't even talk to Trump about it, and those that did said Trump said his motives were different than what the witness thought they were. Mindreading by people who don't know what Trump motives are isn't proof of a crime, that's grasping at straws to pretend you have any relevant evidence.

Biden running for office does not preclude him from being investigated, Trump potentially gaining from it doesn't make it illegal. Whether he did it partially for partisan reasons or not isn't relevant to whether or not he should be impeached. Lots of presidents do partisan things all the time that serve their own interests in foreign policy, but they don't get impeached over it, because that's their prerogative, and you don't go around crying that they be impeached for it. You only want that kind of conduct to be impeachable when Trump does it, when anyone else does it you ignore it or create excuses for why it's different when other POTUS's do it. The entire basis for you're belief that Trump did something wrong is that you don't trust his motives because he could gain from making a foreign policy decision, and you don't know his motives, you are attempting to read his mind quite poorly and think that is enough evidence to impeach. You can be suspicious of his motives all you want, that doesn't mean you being suspicious means he should be impeached. Throwing stones from a glass house, that's what you're doing.

People can write negative news about them regardless of their location. This theory that moving will free them from the negative press in of course nonsense, it will in fact result in the opposite, Streisand Effect.

It's not the Senate's job to the do the House's job for them.

Simpson was not welcome into the royal family to the point that the King abdicated the throne. Has nothing to do with race, assuming an American not being welcome in the royal family can only be about race is to deny history, so no need to jump to that assumption just because Markle ain't 100% white. The level of vitriol she has received can not be solely attributable to race, the theory that only someone who is partially black would be treated in such a way is flat out not true. The UK press is also far more woke than it is racist against half blacks, so I mean, the only people being fooled by this racist angle are those who were prone to seeing racism under every rock anyway. They are far more likely to praise her diverse racial heritage than condemn her for it, the racism angle is just obvious SJW bait, to make more SJW's who like Markle feel she is a victim, and blame those in society who think differently than them for that victimization.

There isn't going to be white knight candidate to save the Democrats. It's fun to imagine such a scenario, but the likelihood of it happening is essentially non-existent. Don't get your hopes up, if that was going to happen, it would have happened already. Bloomberg already tried it, and all it's done is suppress Biden's competition.

It's for the Democrat nomination, not the Presidential election. I have money on Trump to win in 2020 as well.

Most of those who did know, didn't like her, and it wasn't because she was black, because she wasn't. There are many things to not like about Markle that have nothing to do with her race or skin color, so assuming it's totally a race thing, is just lefty brainwashing. Just because someone who isn't white catches some flak from the British press does not mean the only reason for that is their race, stop assuming that it is.

Funny thing is that throughout history the "society" getting off the throat of individual that has contributed to human success.