Moonbox

and for the last 100+ years we've been the cause of their poverty and suffering???

Man I was going to say the same about you here too...It seemed like everyone was being reasonable and having a good discussion. You don't think the immigration system is borked and full of fraud?

Yeah I would have to agree with that, especially the part about immigration lawyers.

I think it was the Czech Republic and Mexico that we did it too. Regardless, EU members shouldn't have refugees and if they do they should sort it out themselves. As for bogus claims, there are thousands indeed. I read an article where they said almost 60% of claims were withdrawn partway (after they got to Canada and started on social assistance already) or flat out rejected. Those are some pretty bad numbers.

Wyly I like your previous point I think it should be an EU problem to solve for sure, but even then there are still thousands of bogus applicants from other countries that we'll end up supporting on welfare anyways. As for the cost of civil servants vs cost of welfare for refugees, I highly doubt that we have 1 civil servant for every 6-8 refugee claimants. I think this might be a case where more government would actually save money. The thought itself is crazy isn't it .

Oh wow! When was that and how were we supposed to stop it?

Why should it be raised? LoL

Read the whole article. It says at the end that part of the proposal is to eliminate half of the appeal process for claimaints from 'safe' countries. Regardless, it's the provinces who are dangling the carrot in front of these people's faces and they need to make changes too.

The Immigration Minister has put forth a recommendation to change some of the processes for refugee immigration claimants. Mainly it looks like he wants to stem the abuse of the system from bogus refugee claims. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/generous-welfare-lures-dubious-migrants-to-canada-minister-says/article1519393/ There's absolutely no reason a refugee claim should take 4-5 years to process -- especially when we are paying welfare benefits to these people the entire time.

Oooh. I'm interested. Care to elaborate on how Canada's responsible for Haiti being the armpit of this side of the world?

I don't need to explain the difference to you. I wasn't expressing any hidden meanings. My point was that it's easy for people who don't pay taxes to be very liberal with public dollars. I don't agree with either the per vote subsidy or the donation one, but at least someone who is donating money is making a sacrifice from their own wallet.

This is where people kind of get mixed up. If I give away $10, and get $7.50 back, I'm still short $2.50 and I still have to wait for that $7.50 rebate. Also, seeing as though I'm donating for a tax receipt anyways, it's almost certain that I'm a net contributor to federal income which means I'll be one of the people actually paying for that $7.50 subsidy in the first place. Either way, I end up with less money than I started. Like I said before, I'm not necessarily defending the donation subsidy, I'm just saying it's LOT better than the per vote subsidy you get for simply EXISTING as a federal political entity.

case and point.... What are you even talking about???

No. It makes a lot less sense. I'll at least entertain the argument that both should be abolished, but with the per vote subsidy you're not 'donating' anything. The party you vote for gets money for your vote, sure, but the actual subsidy is being paid largely by taxpayers. By taxpayers, I'm talking about the people who actually pay their fair share of taxes, and not lowlifes, students, unemployed etc. Those people are donating MY money and it costs them absolutely nothing to do so. At LEAST with the political donation subsidy your donation is actually from your own pocket and you have to make the effort to actually do it.

Not until whitey is out of Canada

I can only shake my head in wonder at you. If getting to the point for you means frothing at the mouth and spouting MEANINGLESS rhetoric, then you certainly are getting to the point. Unfortunately, getting to the point for most people means dispensing with the pointless rhetoric and actually presenting rational arguments. I'm afraid that's where you clash with the majority of posters here. Speaking of meaningless rhetoric, "Oh hey look! Oleg posted here too!"

It's voluntary because people have to choose whether they're going to contribute in the first place. At the very least, people have to make the decision to contribute their own dollars to the party they chose. They'll be out 25% of what they contribute at the end of the year and they have to make the conscious effort to donate in the first place. The federal voting subsidy, on the other hand, is a tax on the vote itself. The only way to avoid that cost is for me to choose not to vote at all. It's a lot worse. You can't fairly criticize the first without damning the second.

Disregarding whatever biases people may or may not have, however, is there not reason to question this guy's credentials? Trudeau was one of the worst PM's we've ever had for foreign relations. I know it can be popular to intentionally antagonize the Americans like he and Chretien did, but it serves no purpose and only hurts us. He accuses the Conservatives of pandering to the Jewish ethnic community for votes, but as already mentioned it's not even close to the same size as the Islamic community so that's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. It doesn't make sense. He's indicated we should leave Afghanistan immediately, but you would think that a former foreign policy advisor would understand the implications of abandoning your closest allies well before the commitment date you set for yourself. There's also the fact that he was held by Al-Quaeda for 130 days. Perhaps this little tidbit has changed his view of the world a little bit??

Okay...so let me get this straight...it's better to have a mandatory subsidy that every canadian has to pay for instead of a voluntary one??? I'll agree the tax credit is pretty hefty and maybe we could amend or do away with it altogether, but if that's bad, then the actual subsidy should be considered an abomination. Regardless, the taxpayer is choosing where his money is going to go and it's 100% voluntary. The system is so generous that there shouldn't be any need for the direct and automatic subsidy.

I don't expect them to know who our PM is, or who Mexico's president is, or what our capital is or anything like that. Canada is small potatoes in the grang scheme of things. It's pretty sad how smug and indignant most Canadians get when they catch an American who doesn't know these things. August you're right. People only know about things that are relevant to them. On the other hand, elementary level knowledge of world geography and how people live in the rest of the world you would think at SOME POINT would come to them. The sad thing is that there actually ARE a lot of people that think we live in igloos. There are millions in the US that wouldn't be able to point France, Iraq, even China or the Pacific Ocean out on a blank map. I'm not even making that up. It's unbelievable.

Why do you always have to dumb the discussion down with inane rhetoric? Tyrants? Go look up the definition of tyrant and tell me how it applies to Dalton, or Miller or Layton. Liars and morons perhaps...but tyrants? Really?

Sucks to be us doesn't it? Don't you just love Dalton?

I can't think of one. Could you please clarify?

The aide at the very least. The PM as well IF we could find a worthwhile alternative...anywhere...

madmax you've basically explained everything that's wrong with politics...everywhere. From the sound of things it seemed like you were presenting the NDP as a meaningful alternative...but I'm sure that couldn't have been right...