Scotty

Except there was no misconduct. The program was entirely legal, overseen by both judges and congress.

I would have thought the irony was that none of these nations have the slightest respect for freedom of information or the press, and that if Snowden or his local counterpart dared to release government information in any of these countries he'd be buried so deep in their prison system he'd never be seen or heard from again.

You are mistaking the official refugee resettlement programs for the refugee determination system. The former is where the government makes agreements with various UN agencies to take in a certain number of people, as for example, its recent announcement of bringing over something like 1200 Syrians. The number of actual refugee claims accepted is a factor of the number of claims made, and has no set quota.

This is really boring. I can't believe you people and the media are still on this piddling little thing. The CBC all news channel has become the All Duffy channel for the last, what, several months now? Outside the media and the ideologues nobody really cares any more.

You missed his second response.

Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Canada's history with refugees would be aware that the numbers of applicants go up as the standards for acceptance are relaxed. I have noticed, over the years, a certain 'type' who doesn't have the ability to discuss issues like immigration and refugees in any kind of rational or polite fashion, generally because of ignorance and a lack of sophistication. Usually they try to cover their flaws by simply impugning the alleged motivations for the other poster's position. It's rarely impressive to watch.

The decision was just handed down last week. You mean taxpayers, don't you? Us people who will be required to pay all the bills for the tens of thousand of illiterate third world refugees who come here with no educations or job skills. You might have run into a taxpayer a time or two. And the fact you don't understand what precedents are is not my issue.

Not entirely accurate. They said they were gathering meta data of calls which go to or come from foreign stations. Any electronic surveillance of Americans requires a search warrant.

We most certainly do NOT need the growth. Nor is there 'plenty of room' unless you think these people are going to be moving to the frozen tundra.

It's entirely relevant. It's the whole point of this topic. One woman coming here is what's irrelevant. It's the precedent her being allowed in which is what people are discussing. By lowering the bar as much as it has the board and court have pretty much allowed any female of child bearing age in China or the Muslim world free entry into Canada.

No, there isn't. None of these people are moving out into the Tundra. They're moving into the big cities.

In what way was this woman unique as compared to all other young Chinese women? That was the question, not how nasty the Chinese government can be.

The French are never ones to let an opportunity to complain about Americans go by, regardless of how hypocritical they have to be. They even take an invitation to a 4th of July birthday party at the Ambassador's residence to denounce American espionage - only a French newspaper has revealed they do all the same stuff too. Hypocrisy of Hollande's fury over Snowden revelations as it's revealed French intelligence services spy on public's phone calls, emails and social media http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356178/Hollandes-hypocrisy-Edward-Snowden-revelations-revealed-French-intelligence-services-spy-illegally.html

Passed late at night by a few ignorant MPs who had no idea what a Dominion was.

Oh good. Since you clearly have a lot of knowledge, perhaps you'd like to tell me what else was at stake? What was unique about this individual that would not allow some other random woman who wanted more than one child to be accepted into Canada?

To some degree you are correct. However, while people are somewhat tolerant of police zealousness towards violent criminals they are much less so towards the innocent, be it a boy walking down the street, a woman buying water, or people peacefully protesting something.

The security is only perceived, as well.

I suppose this is what's called trolling right? Trying to provoke me into calling you names now so you can then whine about it to the moderator? I'll just put you on my ignore list instead.

What facts have you introduced thus far? Nothing. Just endless complaints. No contribution whatsoever. I've posted several articles which you evidently have been too busy to read or comment on in your zeal to protest that no one is satisfying your earnest desire for information. What are you even doing on this topic given you have nothing to say about it?

There was an article about police militarization in the post you responded to but made no comment on.

It is. The board and courts found it to be sufficient. By that precedent, anyone else facing a similar predicament will also be accepted.

If the standard for qualifying now is simply being from a country where only one child is permitted then we can say virtually all will be accepted.

Perhaps you could read the cite which came with the post you're replying to...

If personality tests can accurately suggest the level of a potential employee's honesty then they can also suggest a personality predisposed towards violence and intolerance, and unwilling to change. That's especially so for those not smart or sophisticated enough to try to fool the tests.