Hudson Jones

When someone who is not a Canadian citizen is charged with a criminal offence, immigration officials will be notified. You could lose your permanent resident status and you could be deported to your country of origin if you are convicted of a serious crime. A crime is serious if: the maximum sentence you could get is 10 or more years in prison (even if you get a shorter sentence), or the sentence that you do get is more than six months in prison.

Sounds like you're too drinking the Trump coolaid. Trump' has had a lot of failures and this administration is on the list of many failures. Trump Airlines -- Failed Trump Casinos -- Failed Trump Mortgage -- Failed Trump University -- Failed Trump Vodka -- Failed China Connection -- Failed Bankruptcies -- Four of them Remind me again, what makes him such a winner, besides him continuously telling the world that he is? Here are some charts that show that Trump's performance has not made any real change in the US economy or it is just following Obama's performance: this downward trend began during President Barack Obama's time in office. When Mr Obama left the White House, unemployment was 4.8%. Following the global economic crash, the labour force participation rate in the US fell dramatically and now stands at 63%. It has remained stable since Mr Trump was elected.

Trump's strategy is to collapse the Iranian gov. Iran's strategy is to wait out the Trump presidency. IF both strategies are viable, the question is: Will Trump be impeached before Iran's gov collapses, or will Iran collapse first? If the former starts become true, will Netanyahu start a war?

This is what you're trying to justify. Thumbs up, buddy. 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

The potential bombing of NAFTA doesn't have anything to do with Trudeau. I never voted for Trudeau and will never vote for him. But c'mon. Stop being one of those people who tries to fault EVERYTHING on Trudeau. Trump is trying to bully people into accepting whatever he wants. He's not even consulting with the States to see how a change in NAFTA could effect him. He's all hot air. That's all he is. After all of this hot air and stage acting, he'll end up making a couple minor changes and then call it a win. There are too many states that need NAFTA to continue as it is. Their number one partner in trade is Canada and there is the reliance on immigration to fill skilled position that they're not able to find any Americans to do. Yes. Bankers and energy companies who lobby not only Trudeau, but also they did with Harper and they do with Trump. Find it in yourself to look at the system and not at individuals. EVERY one of these politicians (Trudeau/Trump/Harper) have learned to accept the system, in order to be able to continue to stay in power. It's oil prices. Canada's economy, at least compared to the Harper., is actually doing better. Unemployment rate? What you can argue is federal spending, where Trudeau has set records. But this was not done secretly or without notice. He ran on increasing spending. I may not agree with it, but he ran on a platform where he said he is going to increase spending, including money towards infrastructure: But then again, Trudeau's spending is not much different than Harper's. Important to note that Trudeau is spending during a time where the economy is doing well, where Harper had to deal with the world economic down turn. That said, Harper's last few years included some of the highest spending anyway: With the Liberals planning to spend $8,337 per person in 2017, the government of Justin Trudeau is close to breaking the all-time record for per-capita federal expenditures, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute. The number one spot, however, remains Stephen Harper. The Conservative leader hit a per-Canadian total of $8,375 in 2009 when he was overseeing spending increases intended to counteract the effects of the global recession. Note that liberal's spending, Chretien!

And then... You're a superstar!

Trump can't just kill NAFTA. It's not that simple. El Presidente doesn't have that much power. Mexico might be agreeing to some concessions, but Canada does have an upper hand. Canada has the U.S. states on its side, as there are numerous states who disagree with Trump on making any changes to the trade agreement. The usual people here, who blame stepping on dog shit on Trudeau, want to blame Trump's style of so-called negotiation, on Trudeau. Kind of like the hissy fit by Saudi Arabia showed, when Canada made a comment like they usually do about human rights. The usual suspects blamed Trudeau for S.A.'s hissy fit. Trump believes he has the upper hand in all of these agreements. To a point, he does. However, now he is trying to bully his way through agreements, treaties and foreign policy without really looking at the big picture. Have you asked yourself, what has Trump accomplished with his style so far? Take North Korea for example: Is North Korea disarmed? Not really. Is it going that way? Not really. Does Trump even have a plan or an agreement in place? Not really. What about the backlash Trump has received for his work permit and immigration stance? When you have an overwhelmingly number of tech workers from outside of U.S. Trump is all huff and puff, and the idiots fall for it. What do the experts say about the potential of NAFTA being canceled? Here is Phil Levy, senior economist for trade on President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers: It took Congress to pass NAFTA and it should take Congress to kill NAFTA. These agreements are not treaties, but rather international deals that only come into effect when Congress passes “implementing legislation.” As things stand, there is some ambiguity, because the agreement itself allows for countries to withdraw, and the president would be the one to initiate such a withdrawal. But a president should not be able to revoke a law unilaterally. Further, the Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Congress could pass new legislation clarifying this constitutional assignment of responsibilities. One might expect the White House to oppose any diminution of its power, but we’ve already seen Congress overcome such reluctance in the case of sanctions on Russia. To do it here would require some bipartisan understanding of the damage NAFTA withdrawal would do. Here is Rob Scott, director of trade and manufacturing, Economic Policy Institute: Trump can withdraw from parts of NAFTA without the consent of Congress, but it would have limited effects on trade or investment with Mexico or Canada. The NAFTA Implementation Act, which cannot be revoked without the consent of Congress, says that if a country ceases to be a NAFTA partner, then tariff provisions of the agreement — rules that say that internationally traded goods are free from border taxes — will cease to be in effect. However, many other aspects of NAFTA would remain in effect, including provisions on government procurement, labor, and environmental conditions, services trade, and arbitration proceedings. Also, if NAFTA were revoked, the president would be free to raise tariffs, but only to levels agreed to under the World Trade Organization — the so-called most-favored-nation rates. Under those rates, tariffs on imported goods are only 2.7 percent for the United States, 4.6 percent for Mexico, and 2.4 percent for Canada. While noticeable, these tariffs would not cause large initial trade disruptions.

It's fashionable to blame that on Trudeau, but our dollar follows oil prices.

True. His handling of the situation, where the woman was shouting was not so good. At least we can give him some credit, if Trudeau were to be compared to the last prime minister. The last prime minister barely made any public appearances and limited questions to media that supported him or even paid his party. He never did any town hall meetings like Trudeau has and Trudeau has not engaged in muzzling government workers, like the scientists who weren't happy with Harper's policies. But yeah, who cares what Harper did and the fact that you supported him, let's continue with the double standards.

I see that you're getting defensive when it gets pointed out that you support Netanyahu, another animal. This might be a new concept to you, but just because I don't support Netanyahu and Israel's violations of international law, it doesn't mean that I support others that do. It's okay to be against all of these animals, instead of selectively pick and choose, like you do.

The unemployment rate has not changed much. There is the up and down, but at around 6%, we're doing pretty well to historical numbers. No there aren't that many refugees coming in, compared to the population and the rest of the immigrants. It's a drop in the bucket. You're getting hysterical over nothing. Here is our immigration rate, which has been below 1% of population for a long time. The number of immigrants coming in has been around 250,000 and currently sits at 300,000 (this includes the refugees): You should go look at jobbank.gc.ca. Companies, specifically in the tech, engineering and health industries cannot find workers. Just because your cousin Joe is unemployed, it doesn't mean that he can get a job in the oil fields in Alberta. You need to stop being so emotional and start looking at the information that is right in front of you before you begin to have strong opinions. Bringing families into through immigration is NOT easy. If you care to know more, go look at the immigration page and see the process that it involves. For example, Canada does not allow more than 10,000 parents/grandparents through the family sponsorship into the country per year. You also cannot sponsor your cousin, uncle, aunt, etc. The percentage of unemployed has not changed much when you look at the percentage. I recommend that you go with more than just feelings. We should cut down on military spending and put that money towards Canadians. Contrary to what you have in your head, immigrants are not a contributor to our debt and spending. In fact, research after research has shown that after the first year in Canada, immigrants become an asset after they get going.

Trump continues to suck up just fine to Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson, the Israel First donor! You're just fine with him sucking up to and colluding with these (your) animals, of course.

The Social Justice Warriors do mysteriously forget the parallels between Obama and Trump's policies. That's for sure. One difference between Trump's policy when it came to"separating children from parents" is that Obama only did it in particular circumstances, like for example, if a parent was carrying drugs. Under Trump, every family was separated.

It's important to understand what is happening before having an opinion on it - This information shows the similarity and the differences between Obama and Trump when it comes to prosecution of border crossers: Both presidents prosecuted many border crossers. But Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy created family separation. Prosecuting people for illegal entry into the US is not new. Illegal entry and illegal reentry have been the two most commonly prosecuted crimes in federal court for years — often via mass trials that basically prosecuted dozens of people at once. Obama didn’t start this trend, but he certainly continued it. While people charged with illegal entry or reentry made up as much as half of all people prosecuted in federal court in April 2018, they still made up only 10 percent of all people Border Patrol apprehended for crossing into the US between ports of entry. In other words, officials were still deciding not to prosecute a lot of people — or, at least, didn’t have the resources to prosecute a lot of people and so had to be deliberate in deciding who deserved to be prosecuted. As a general rule — though not always — people who said they feared persecution in their home countries and wanted asylum were not prosecuted. Neither were people who came to the US with their children. In April 2018, however, Trump’s Justice Department (led by Jeff Sessions) announced that they would start prosecuting every illegal entry case referred to them by the Department of Homeland Security. And in May 2018, Sessions and the Department of Homeland Security announced that they would start referring everyone who entered illegally for prosecution: “zero tolerance.” The Trump administration isn’t actually prosecuting everyone who crosses the border between ports of entry yet — or even the majority of them. But the implied corollary to the “zero tolerance” policy was that the Trump administration would no longer make decisions about whom to prosecute based on whether someone was seeking asylum — or whether they were a parent. That meant that parents were now being referred into the custody of the Department of Justice — while their children were separated from them and reclassified as “unaccompanied minors.” Trump made separating families a matter of standard practice. Obama did not. It’s not that no family was ever separated at the border under the Obama administration. But former Obama administration officials specify that families were separated only in particular circumstances — for instance, if a father was carrying drugs — that went above and beyond a typical case of illegal entry. We don’t know how often that happened, but we know it was not a widespread or standard practice. Under the Trump administration, though, it became increasingly common. A test of “zero tolerance” along one sector of the border in summer 2017 led to an unknown number of family separations. Seven hundred families were separated between October 2017 and April 2018. From May 7 to June 20, separating a family who had entered between ports of entry was the standard practice of the Trump administration. It was the default. Trump administration officials denied family separation was a “policy” for legalistic reasons, but they affirmed that “zero tolerance” prosecutions were a policy. Until Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday allowing families to be kept together in immigration detention while parents were prosecuted, the administration maintained that separating families was an inevitable outcome of prosecuting parents. Not every family was separated. But dozens of families a day were. At least 2,300 families were separated over those six or so weeks. We don’t know how many families were separated under the Obama administration, but there’s no reason to believe that it numbered in the thousands even over the eight years that Obama was president. Because it simply wasn’t standard practice. Under Trump, it was.

From personal experience, there are so many different Muslims that it's hard to say "it's a Muslim thing". I'm half-Iranian and married to an Iranian. Iranians, in general, are not religious. In Iran itself, once you're indoors, most Iranian women remove their hijab. The older, more traditional Iranians may continue to wear them. But one thing I know is that, indoors, women are not scorned for not wearing the hejab in front of people. I certainly have never heard or noticed any resentment towards Muslim women who don't wear the hejab. However, this could be different for an average Saudi Muslim woman. But I don't know. I'm not immersed in the Saudi culture to know that.

Love this post by Dr. Golbarg Bashi. There are a myriad of problems in Iran and no one knows about them better than those paying the price for trying to eradicate them within Iran. These problems range between extreme poverty, chronic unemployment, suffocating pollution, lack of water, street children, prostitution, political corruption and tyranny, inhuman, degrading treatment and punishment of prisoners, capital punishment, discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, race and overt gender apartheid in family and criminal law. I am aghast at the fact that Orientalism's greatest fascination, preoccupation with women's bodies has become the focus of now progressive media's attention on Iran (even in the age of Trump). Women's right to dress is among the many, many problems facing Iranians once their bellies are full, they are breathing relative fresh air, have access to health care etc etc. And they themselves are fighting for gaining this right among the many others since the mid 19th century CE. So if you think charlatans “fighting” from behind their laptops, funded by the U.S. government, making grand gestures of bravado (oh wow, look at my hair) is something to celebrate, report on…then be my guest. Iranian and American labor unions, women's rights activists, lawyers, millions of girls working the streets in Iran, they all thank you very much. They are surely waiting for you to report on their country in the same outlets that used the legitimate cause of women's rights to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq. They'll be sending their special thanks for the bombs that are yet to liberate them and "re-build" their nation from their ashes, just like in neighboring Iraq...

Happy for the boys! The rescue effort is still underway to save the children trapped in America.

It's fun pointing out hypocrites. What better place to point them out than where they are displaying it?

This is terrible. She is a popular instagram vloger. A beautiful dancer and a talented gymnast. Hopefully this will be more motivation for the people to rise against tyranny. I feel that these extremists are coming close to the end of their power. They're losing control. The boiling point within the Iranian people has been reached!

You don't speak for Iranian people. Majority of Iranians were happy about the nuclear deal.

I think it's a great story and I'm rooting for them personally. This is not about whether or not these kids deserve our attention or empathy. Just like Marcus, I find this so-called empathy you're trying to display here somewhat comedic, considering the ruthless, soulless comments you and others make here. Just look at your Syrians are terrorists comment. Thumbs up buddy!

Nice. Syrians are all terrorists. Capricorn has "liked" your comment. Marcus has a point. You are all hypocrites.

Any idea who John Bolton is? In case you don't know, he is one of the architects of the Iraq war. You are so out to lunch! You are distorting facts! I can't believe you want people to believe that the U.S. is just "giving incentives"! Hilarious! The world would definitely be a much better place if people did not try to cover, excuse and minimize all of the actors involved.

What absolute B.S. Do some research before typing. Stop spreading fake information that occupies your mind.

There is more chance of the Chinese regime being safe, than the U.S. They will use their iron fist to squash any resistance. That said, the U.S. is slowly turning into a banana republic. The middle class is slowly disappearing and the gap continues to grow between the rich and the poor.