Rue

I concede your first sentence in the sense that in assessing anyone and how they perform overly relying on one category of reference is not accurate. Many productive people are bastards. In the case of Trump all I will say is there a hell of a lot of more than him being an asshole that gives many people concern about his competency.

No. ..but you choose however to pit these issues against each other on the assumption they compete with each other for the exact same needs. That is not necessarily the case nor does it have to be.

Yes I have. However I also consider that assuming all Muslims want to kill me is not rational. I get the real concerns about economic limitations, security issues, over concentration of new Canadians, assimilation issues, how we define refugees but do not ask me to join frightened people in an imaginary protective bubble you want to create which you believe will make your boogyman go away.

Underneath my giving you a hard time is a lol back. You can not tell in the responses. I am just giving you back as good as you give. Seriously, now, we both agree the US is no innocent virgin and neither is Iran but Iran's Many Ka's and Ko's and their policies are the issue not whether they spell thei r name with an a or an o and as you are well aware there is no correct spelling of either name in English script, its a Farsi name and when we spell it in English it is subject to a spelling someone made up in English. For the sake of clarity let's just call the latest head of the council Ka Ka Head. As for your use of the monetary unit, shekel, I don't give a toman either.

Bull crap. You jumped on the spelling error and that is why I ridiculed it. This is not about how you spell the name. Mine is spelled, HEBE RUE. I know you get it.

Oy that reminds me, I need to shave.

Cannuck I am all ears for coherent reasons as to what criteria should be used to determinate Canada's financial capacity to absorb refugees. Do you have any? Everyone who is quick to say we can't afford or should take in refugees because of our debts never has any criteria or number or any basis for how they determined our deficit prevents taking in ANY refugees or in the alternative a specific number of refugees. Also Cannuck if a refugee would be privately sponsored the Canadian government does not pay for them. This is why I have always argued private sponsored refugees were not and are not the issue. Stephen Harper knew that when he made sure the Syrian refugees he brought in were privately sponsored. My mother privately sponsored a refugee from Uganda and another from Ukraine, because she herself was a refugee. She was about to adopt a refugee child from Vietnam when she got sick and died. So yah I have a bias on this topic. I openly admit mine-how about all the people who have a bias against refugees? Do they hear me saying take in unlimited amounts...don't screen them...no. All I ask is someone discuss this topic with some sort of objective basis for their positions. I concede we need to control and administer whatever immigration programs and refugee programs we have. I have never argued otherwise. However when I hear people make blanket statements tatamount to denying any or all immigrants or refugees or inferring refugees or immigrants don't want to be good Canadians or contribute to Canada what would you like me to say-my families who came here to escape bad things in other countries should have been deported along with the other millions of immigrants who came here from all over and helped build this country and cherish it? What is it once someone is born here the first thing they feel they can do is look down on someone who wasn't? Why? What is it about being born in Canada that some of you think it makes you entitled to say others are less than you? Please tell me because beneath the comments is a thinly layered rejection of people without giving any reason other than generalized ambiguous subjective assumptions with no links to anything objective. Provide the stats that show privately sponsored refugees drain Canada. Please I want to know. Show me anyone. I am telling you do I the son of a refugee sound ungrateful? You all think I have just sucked this country dry? My father was a WW2 veteran and served in the Armed Forces for 20 years? Is he not a Canadian because his parents were immigrants to this country? Are you saying my grandparents did not contribute to the country that took them in? Please tell me. I want to know..how far do any of these assumptions about immigrants or refugees go before some of you ask could your assumptions not necessarily be accurate or justify blanket denials and shut downs of programs? Can anyone on this thread provide any basis for their assumptions or again is this just another piss on refugees/immigrants thread because they don't want to be Canadian which was what the original comment raised?

So compare the US track record's to Iran's. Also tell me would you prefer Iran to the US as your neighbour...see if you want to get into a pissing match of which country is more morally righteous at least do it Z. What next. How about Canada? Because we have phacked up in our country with aboriginals does this mean we have no right to criticize Iran or stop it from financing and inciting terror? Where do you want to go with the comparisons and finger pointing because if you are asking me to accept the argument that the US is immoral and has no right to contain Iranian financed terrorism and human rights violations I call bull crap with utmost respect.

Yah you stepped up to it. You don't even have the integrity to address the issue he discussed and instead puff over a spelling error. What bullshit. Back to the actual topic you won't step into Is the extremist Iranian regime's record since the extremist religious councils took over and which has precipitated the latest response by the US. In your world what it happened in a nacuum? Iran has done nothing to precipitate any responses from people sick and tired of their financing terror world-wide or killing their own citizens? What you are so concerned about how to spell a man man's name you can't step on to the issue? What crap. What sanctimonious crap because you want to sound like you are some righteous Mullah talking down an infidel is it? Hmmm? Here go on step on this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/iran-and-hezbollahs-presence-around-world https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/23/albanian-police-say-iranian-terror-cell-planned-to-attack-exiles https://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-other-terror-front-11568068776 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/01/24/the-iranian-revolution-and-its-legacy-of-terrorism/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/11/revealed-iran-tried-set-terror-cells-central-africa/ Here you want to know how to spell A Khamenei is A T E R R O R I S T.

I deliberately spelled the name wrong and you just bite right on to it showing you were not debating what he said but spelling of a name when you knew damn well who he was referring to. If you need to use a spelling mistake as an excuse to get on your throne then I will sure as hell call you out as a self righteous phony. Deal with the damn issue he was talking about or can you not do that..... Phoney. I am going to spell it Ali Kaphoney.

Hev has a narcissistic personality, dementia , dyslexia neurological deficits causing him to slur his voice and exhibit aphasia. He is not schizophrenic. None of that justifies anything Iran is doing.

Ali Khaimeni. Give your bs lecture a rest. You knew damn well who he was referring to Kack tiss.

As Argus said his China activities are a serious barrier.

Charest is a lawyer for Hua Wei in Canada. That should rule him out.

If I can offer any solace, feel free to blame me. I started it with Moses and his brother Aaron. Its been nothing but problems since then because we had no gps. Regards Zye Honest

Lol, in regards to the last sentence I don't go too far, I usually blame people's parents. Seriously you made the point.

Really. You think so. You think you can tell if someone is lying in an interview....been there done that. I worked in the court system for over 30 years. No lie detector test is accurate, no FBI profiler, no forensic psychiatrist, no police officer I ever knew claimed they could properly detect liars..some are great..but none claim they have never been fooled. It is also extremely naïve to think any legal system can weed out liars let alone people who manipulate interview processes let alone examinations and cross examinations. You however think its possible. You really think in an interview you can ask someone questions to determine if they meet your subjective political correctness profile? As for limits- my argument is not as to limits, but what criteria is to be used to determine those limits. My impression with our immigration policies is that regardless of the party in power immigration policy as to immigration has always linked bringing in economic classes of immigrants based on economic needs and market analysis of those economic needs. Where we have had controversy is with refugees who may have lied to get in using that system knowing they would not qualify under the regular system. It is also my impression the vast majority of Canadians base their impression and assumptions about immigrants on subjective anecdotes not actual objective fact. Most Canadians have no clue as to what the economic class criteria are and how people must show they are qualified for it or what an LMIA is. Not a clue. As for the refugee determination system, I am the first to criticize it, but to stereotype all refugees in a negative way as part of that criticism I do not think is logical, rational or will reform the refugee process. Surely we can do better when creating policies not to base them on subjective negative stereotypes that have never been extrapolated to show any reasonable pattern from which to make an assumption.

Interesting but that was not what was brought up on this thread. The issues you now bring up are thoughts. How do you plan to monitor and measure the thoughts of others in your immigration and refugee determination system. Its easy to say what you did but how would you put it in practice? Every time people come on this board and point out what they do not like in others, they never have a way of showing how they measure it objectively. You just established someone has body odour. Now what. Please explain how you know accurately detect body odour and know exactly where it comes from so that you can isolate it. You have yet to provide anything but subjective anecdotes.

Taxme you agenda is zero immigration. You are a Christian Identity racist. You have admitted believing in the following criteria: https://www.equip.org/article/christian-identity-a-christian-religion-for-white-racists/ You are exactly the point of why I say to people in such debates, if they are not careful to use objective criteria, there becomes a very fine line from their positions and yours.

See my response to Citizen and I shortened and edited my initial response as I did NOT intend to suggest you, Argus, or anyone they hate anyone I am only meaning to debate the issue and specifically the criteria to use to define or limit refugees or immigrants which I have as yet to read from anyone. Everyone says we need to limit, but not what criteria we use to limit and how they are able to conclude from subjective anecdotes of specific individual behaviour this justifies limiting refugees at ANY level. Where is the cause and effect analysis of an individual acting like a shmuck to the conclusions being arrived at? To me it is illogical to make assumptions as to an entire subject category based on the behavior of a few without someone showing me their basis of extrapolation.

You simply established my point that some of you wish to make conclusions as to how criteria for refugee or immigration determination should be constructed based on subjective anecdotes.

edited Let's get real. The point of this thread is a shmuck is a shmuck unless of course he/she is a refugee shmuck then it means we can use that shmuckiness to make negative assumptions about the entire refugee determination system and other refugees. I can see deficiencies in how refugees are defined and/or processed. Yes I get it. The refugee system should screen out terrorists, criminals, human rights violators, false claimants I get that...but do you want to tell me how the subjective shmuck qualities of the people you mentioned create characteristics that can be screened out? If so how? NO ONE HAS. If all anyone has are subjective anecdotes of a few shmucks acting like shmucks , what do you want me to say? How does that establish a basis to shut down or LIMIT the entire system because of these shmucks? Please explain. Does anyone have anything to offer other than to point out negative qualities about specific refugees and then automatically conclude it means other refugees neeed to be limited?

In the legal sense,and I use the civil tort of accidental death concept, BOTH Ukrainian Airlines and the Government of Iran, will be found in a civil court, jointly and severally liable for the accidental death of the passengers and employees of Ukrainian airlines on the flight that was shot out of the air. This is because of the concept of sboth absolute liability and joint and several liability. If you are an airline you have NO defence to your plane crashing for ANY reason even in this case because in law, there is such a high standard of responsibility on airlines, it can be argued Ukrainian Airlines not withstanding the airport may have been reopened still should have waited a day or two or knew our ought to have known the risks were higher to fly. Its a very high standard of care that leaves no defence. Even if a Judge might say Iran is 99.99% responsible as long as they find Ukrainian airlines even.01% responsible the class action law suit of relatives of the dead for wrongful death goes after both Iran and the airline. Because of the concept of " joint and several liability " of the claimants can' collect from Iran (which is likely) they can go after Ukrainian airlines for all of the amount of damages from the law suit, and then its up to Ukrainian Airlines to have to go after Iran to recover any damages blamed on Iran. From a layman's perspective it would explain why the pilot and station manager for Ukrainian airlines cleared the flight to go, but from a legal perspective does not relieve the airline from liability exposure. In such cases do not be surprised to see a class action law suit. Its usually first come first served and in this case the first lawyer to file usually runs with the class action law suit. Who is first out of the gate is like vultures rushing to a dead carcass to eat unfortunately. I would think a Canadian law firm is the first out of the gate as most of the passengers were Canadian citizens. The law suit has to be in the jurisdiction of the accident or the jurisdiction of the person being sued. I think there are complicated rules with airline crashes that may permit jurisdiction elsewhere on consent but its probable the law suit has to be filed against Ukrainian airlines in Kiev as Iran would have no court allowing a law suit against them. The Ukrainian government has a vested interest in protecting its only viable airline operation from bankruptcy so from a legal perspective its very very complex as Canada is an ally of Ukraine and on a different level does not want to shut down its airline unintentionally. In terms of going to an international court to condemn Iran it means nothing. Its just words. There would be no binding judgement awarding damages and allowing an enforcement mechanism to collect the damages. So that is it from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, many will argue Iran is culpable because of its immediate connection to the mistake. Morality is a fluid issue. Saying their act is immoral is to believe it was DELIBERATE not accidental because if it was accidental it would not be immoral as there would be no intent to harm the precondition to make it immoral. As for blaming Trump or the US there is no immediate connection to what happened so again to hold them morally responsible would create a leap of assumption that they knew our ought to have known Iran would clear its civilian airspace and then accidentally shoot down a passenger aircraft. The US did not order any passenger jet into the sky and had no control over what Iran did. To say they indirectly caused the result is a faulty moral standard because if that is the case then the same people blaming the US must hold Iran morally responsible for thousands of commands and actions they have undertaken and engaged in during the last 40 years against innocent civilians world-wide which precipitated US counter-actions. Finger pointing is meaningless. It does not bring back the dead.

..and a well spoken humanitarian I would give my last buck to. People like you are genuine. So phack you. Lol!

Phack I sound self righteous today. I do not mean to be.