Why conservatives want tougher laws and less immigration

[Guest Peeves]

Yes, I just saw that in the headline of the Sun article.

A refugee is something different to an immigrant, though. None go through the more rigorous checks that immigrants (who go through the proper channels) do; there isn't the time, I suppose, when the reason the person has arrived in Canada is to flee some dangerous situation (in theory, anyway).

The Roma complained of too many bed bugs as one reason for refugee status. The Israelis applied because they disagreed with Israeli policy (as I recall, The American's because they had objections as soldiers, to US policy--Iraq- Afghanistan as deserters.

Refugees not only cost millions, they stay presently for years of appeals. I think one has been here over 20 years through appeals.

Thousands have been disappearing into the underground, Illegals ordered to leave but never showing up. No follow up on where they are while their cases are pending.

In the USA it numbers in the millions of illegals.

Thankfully our present government is moving to tighten the hearings.

Citizens of Convenience.

Although the term was used by others (such as Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun) earlier during the conflict in Lebanon, it was made most prominent by posts by Garth Turner, a then Conservative MP for Halton, on his blog, and the subsequent reactions. Turner questioned the fairness of paying CAD$75,000 for each evacuee, saying, among other things, "that’s a hell of a lot of money to donate to people who do not live here, don’t pay taxes here, and may never come here again in their lives."[1] The actual cost was about $6,300 for each evacuee ($94 million for 15,000 people).[2]

The National Post has asserted, that of the 15,000 evacuated, about 7,000 may have returned to Lebanon within a month of being evacuated.[3]

[edit] Support of the term

Turner was criticized by some for suggesting that there are two classes of Canadian citizens. Other editorials supported the use of the phrase Canadians of convenience and said many immigrants meet their minimum residence requirement to gain Canadian citizenship (which, since 1977, can essentially never be revoked), leave the country, and only call upon their Canadian citizenship again when in need of the publicly-funded Medicare or emergency evacuation from a war zone.

The Economist noted that "Of the 5.5 million Canadians born abroad, 560,000 declared in the most recent census that they hold passports from another country. "[4]

[edit] Government policy

[Moonbox]

You may still have a capacity to suffer this crap gladly but I'm finding that harder to do all the time. I was just trying lighten things up with a smart-assed crack and you probably just got up on the wrong side of bed.

Fair enough. I have trouble handling it myself, but it's never a good idea to feed into it. First of all, the problem posters will take you 100% serious because that's the way they post. Also, ironically, the posters who would normally listen to what you have to say might not get the joke .

[Guest Peeves]

That's not exactly equivalent to this case highlighting the "laxity of the refugee system" that lets "far too many savages" into this country.

Let's em in then can't get them out or can't find 'em.

Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born in 1943,[1] Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad (محمود محمد عيسى محمد) is a former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who hijacked an El Al aircraft in Greece in 1968. Under orders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the then-25-year-old guerrilla fighter and another man hurled grenades and sprayed the plane with machine-gun fire, killing an Israeli passenger.

Mohammad and his accomplice were arrested at the airport and in 1970 were convicted Mohammad of manslaughter and other charges, sentencing him to 17 years in jail. However, he was freed a few months later after another Palestinian terrorist group hijacked a plane and threatened to kill the passengers unless the government released Mohammad. He later lived in several Arab countries.[1]

In 1987, he applied for residency in Canada while failing to disclose his membership in the PFLP and his criminal history.[2]

When he refused to work for CISC he was deemed inadmissible as a resident of Canada and the government began proceedings to have him deported. However, before he could be deported, he filed a refuge claim and has since been about to avoid deportation for more than 22 years due to appeals and legal maneuvering. He currently lives in Brantford, Ontario with his wife Fadia Khalil. He has three children and two grandchildren.[1][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammad_Issa_Mohammad

[Moonlight Graham]

conservatives are protecting the citizens from the impeding islamic invasion that will soon come to our shores.

we need to remove further restrictions to allow citizens to protect themselves for the time comes. less gun laws and more rights to defend property and persons.

Insane.

[Guest Peeves]

Insane.

Agreed. Though we do have a few that warrant arming ourselves if in their vicinity.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/24/controversial-canadian-muslim-preacher-bilal-philips-deported-from-kenya-over-security-concerns-report/

Controversial Canadian Muslim preacher Bilal Philips deported from Kenya over security concerns: report

Stewart Bell Feb 24, 2012 – 11:19 AM ET

Arne Dedert / AFP / Getty Images

Arne Dedert / AFP / Getty Images

Bilal Philips' writings preach against listening to music, which he compares to a drug, call homosexuality “evil” and claim that AIDS is a form of divine punishment

TORONTO — The controversial Canadian Muslim preacher Bilal Philips has been deported from Kenya due to security concerns, hours after he landed in the country for a speaking tour, Nairobi newspapers are reporting.

“We had to turn him away because he easily mobilizes people using his controversial teachings wherever he goes,” said Njiru Mwaniki, chief of the Anti-Terrorism Police. “This is dangerous to our country.”

The police chief said Mr. Philips “has been in terror circles,” the Nation reported. The Standard quoted a senior immigration official involved in the deportation, who said, “He is not wanted here because he may poison our youth through his controversial preaching.”

He was deported on Wednesday.

[bleeding heart]

Do you actually remember the party in power in Canada in 2001?

Well, sure I do. And, as is perfectly and unambiguously obvious from the remark to which I directly responded (in fact, quoted) my remark had nothing whatever to do with the Government of Canada, and everything to do with (small 'c') conservatives.

After regaling us with fantasies about the moral superiority of (small'c') conservatives, here was what Argus said:

By the way, some of the 911 bombers enjoyed themselves at a strip club the night before running an airplane into the world trade center in the name of "Allah".

I wasn't talking about the Conservative Party, but rather conservatives.

So was Argus.

I was only pointing out the obvious; in a post about the moral superiority of conservatives, he happened to mention the criminal degeneracy of some conservatives.

Or perhaps you two think that the ultra-conservatives are actually lefties?

[Moonlight Graham]

Agreed. Though we do have a few that warrant arming ourselves if in their vicinity.

There should be a lot more stun-type non-lethal weapons in use. What is the point in shooting someone with a lethal bullet in self-defense? Why should a police carry a lethal weapon in their day-to-day dealings?

[Guest Derek L]

There should be a lot more stun-type non-lethal weapons in use. What is the point in shooting someone with a lethal bullet in self-defense? Why should a police carry a lethal weapon in their day-to-day dealings?

Stopping power. Tasers, pepper spray, bean bags, rubber bullets or even rock salt have nowhere near the same ability to incapacitate a person as a hollow point.

[Argus]

Yes, I just saw that in the headline of the Sun article.

A refugee is something different to an immigrant, though. None go through the more rigorous checks that immigrants (who go through the proper channels) do; there isn't the time, I suppose, when the reason the person has arrived in Canada is to flee some dangerous situation (in theory, anyway).

The problem is that we have (unlike other nations) basically imposed a system whereby once you're accepted as a refugee you're virtually certain to stay here the rest of your life, and virtually certain to be given citizenship within a few years. And we've done this with very, very few actual checks into the background, truthfulness, or even sanity of the individuals concerned.

[Argus]

For someone that's so smart, you dive head-first into hyperbole when it comes to any discussion about immigration. I would ask you what proportion of immigrants are "savages" and how you define savage, but I know it's pointless. You'll just say "even 1 savage is too many," then either make a definition of savage that's so broad it's meaningless, or come up with an agreeable definition, but ignore the fact that hardly any immigrants fit it.

Given my level of tolerance for people who hold stupid opinions, including stupid religious or cultural beliefs is, I think you will agree, notably on the low end of the spectrum, my definition of savages is probably somewhat broader than that of others.

I include in it anyone with medieval cultural/religious practices and beliefs on what others can and cannot do, and similarly medieval laws and punishments they desire to have imposed upon them. That includes anyone who believes in suicide bombing or jihad or terrorism, anyone who believes in some sort of world wide caliphate, anyone whose resort to violence is generally among the first, rather than the last responses to those who offend them, and anyone who spouts conspiracy theories about the world trade centre and a Jewish banking cabal running the world. You will have noted my discomfort around Muslims. I question the century people live in when they freely admit they govern their entire life around a particular religious belief, and that they think society should likewise be run according to the tenets of that religion - for everyone.

And before you point out there are crazy people here who believe in conspiracy theories, do you think we should be importing more of such people?

[Argus]

Yeah....those guys sure show us the high standards self-imposed by conservatives, don't they?

Don't mistake religious wackos for conservatives. They are not. There might be a similarity between some of their beliefs and some of the beliefs of tradition minded conservatives, but that's about it.

[Argus]

That's not exactly equivalent to this case highlighting the "laxity of the refugee system" that lets "far too many savages" into this country.

It is in that I was complaining about our lax judicial system as well. The range of sentencing mention in this case is appallingly low.

[-TSS-]

America as a continent has the lowest proportion of muslims living on it even though even on your continent their share of the population has increased but it is still significantly lower than in Europe, Africa and Asia.

In Europe many doom-mongerers say that countries like Sweden, Holland or even the UK could be by the year 2050 having muslims as the majority of their population. That could indeed be the case if the current trend of immigration and birth-rates of immigrants continues. However, if out of the population of the UK of 60m people 2.5m are muslims it is a bit difficult to believe that would turn into a majority in 40 years time.

[Argus]

no, the agenda driven OP presumes upon an outright failure of the refugee system... I've read that the (refugee) family has assimilated quite well and that 4 of the offenders brothers/sisters are attending Canadian universities.

Are they paying their own tuition? I'm guessing not.

My acquaintance with the refugee system comes mainly from my former home of some twenty years, while seeing the area taken over by a variety of refugees, mostly Somalian, and the immense rise in crime, violence and commensurate plunging property values which ensued. What had been a comfortably lower middle class neighborhood became a slum which required its own police substation. The local high school required direct intervention by the school board to change the rules to ban "white flight" because no white families were willing to send their kids there. At least not for long. The local mall basically shut down. And the entire development wound up being sold at a loss by its landlord. During my acquaintance I saw and heard nothing about them but various criminal schemes to defraud welfare, to defraud CPP, to defraud businesses, and to steal anything not bolted down (and plenty that was). So that is where my opinion is coming from.

And of course, the bleeding hearts that let them into this country didn't live in my neighborhood. They lived in much better neighborhoods where none of the refugees were ever seen. Convenient.

[Argus]

So do you have some evidence to show these people commit crimes in higher numbers than native born Canadians?

As I'm quite sure you're aware, liberals have banned all such statistics for fear it would incite 'hatred' against various identifiable groups. That in itself makes it pretty damned obvious you know very well what such statistics would show. But never mind, you'll dismiss everything else as anecdotal, so you can sit smug and content in any stated position about their level of crime.

[Argus]

If you're out of the country for any longer than 6 months (duration depending on your province), you need to wait 3-6 months (again, duration depending on your province) to get healthcare coverage. The only exception is refugees that have sustained injuries in war-torn areas or fleeing dangerous situations. We provide healthcare for them for humanitarian reasons. So can you explain what "Canadians of convenience" are?

That would be all those Hong Kong people who pretended to become Canadians, invested a nominal sum (usually by buying a house and then renting it out) and then moved back to Hong Kong with their passport, just in case they needed it. It would also include all those people who came here to have their baby, then moved back to India or wherever, knowing they can use their child's Canadian passport as a bargaining chip in their eventual marriage. It would include anyone who gets citizenship so as to be covered by our social systems then moves back 'home'. That also includes a number of 'canadians' collecting GST and child benefits while living in Lebanon and elsewhere.

[Argus]

The question was about "certain immigrants" different than "others" - i.e. other immigrants.

That's completely beside the point. My point is that people who oppose Muslim immigration do so on the basis that that religion's adherents are inflexible and will never loosen their ties to their religion. As such, this example disproves that theory.

The 9/11 terrorists were ostensibly supposed to be deceiving others with this behavior weren't they ?

There is a disconnection between the morality so many Muslim men impose on Muslim women, and their own actions, especially with regard to women and sex. If you know any young women, for example, ask them about how Muslim men act in clubs and bars. Look into the "riots" in Australia a few years back, where white gangs chased Muslims off beaches. Look at the behaviour of Muslim men towards women in Scandinavia and France. Women are expected to be utterly chaste and modest. Men, not so much. They can whore around all they want, and since so many of them consider non-Muslim women to be, essentially, whores, they pursue them with an unrestrained sense of entitlement. I find nothing at all unusual in Muslim men willing to die in Jihad against the West being gleeful visitors at strip clubs and bars. And I don't think that was done, in the case of the 911 bombers, as any kind of cover.

[Argus]

That's probably because this thread is about policy, not about sympathizing with victims of crime.

Start a thread that describes these victims if you like.

This thread is based on a sense of outrage that we let people like this into Canada to murder Canadians. Nor is this a case in isolation. I've seen far too many of these third world rabble committing acts of violence like this, and like many Canadians I always wonder "Why the hell are we letting these people in in the first place?"

[Argus]

"like him" meaning what ? Immigrants ?

It all goes back to my question - how do you keep people like him (potential murderers) out of Canada ? More to the point, even: what do we need to do that we're NOT doing now.

We should treat every potential immigrant like we would if we were hiring them for an important job. Why? Because we can't get rid of them while they're here. They'll be here the rest of their lives, for good or ill. So we should damned well make sure we only let in the ones that are going to make decent citizens.

I would pretty much end the business of accepting refugees entirely except in special cases of demonstrated danger. That means that no, sorry, just because you're gay, or a member of a certain religion, or of a certain tribe, or from a country wracked by warfare, or a woman who fears she might have to get genital mutilation, or someone with AIDS who is discriminated against, you'll just have to deal with that elsewhere. And those refugees we do take would have to show they can be trusted to live outside of some sort of guarded complex, would not be eligible for permanent residency, and would be returned home when it was safe to do so. That would mean, as one example, that all the refugees from Lebanon who came here during the civil war would be back home now.

I would insist on background checks and psychological profiles on all prospective permanent residents, and would disallow those with medieval/violent attitudes or beliefs. And yes, I would choose immigrants from nations with a more sophisticated (ie, 21st century) value system ahead of those from a value system which says its acceptable to kill people for not being in your religious group.

[waldo]

Are they paying their own tuition? I'm guessing not.

yes... you are guessing, aren't you?

My acquaintance with the refugee system comes mainly from my former home of some twenty years, while seeing the area taken over by a variety of refugees, mostly Somalian

no problem... your OP article was a convenient vehicle for you to vent your personal anecdotes.

[dre]

As I'm quite sure you're aware, liberals have banned all such statistics for fear it would incite 'hatred' against various identifiable groups. That in itself makes it pretty damned obvious you know very well what such statistics would show. But never mind, you'll dismiss everything else as anecdotal, so you can sit smug and content in any stated position about their level of crime.

Wow, what a spaz. I didnt even take a position I just asked if you had any evidence to support yours. You dont.

And your mumbo jumbo about liberals banning statistics gets you the facepalm of the week award.

Did it even occur to you that you might be able to type something like "Canada Immigrant Crime" in google to get some information? Heres a study on the very first page of results. Read it.

Heres the abstract...

Against the background of the globilization of many sectors of society which has liberalised

the flows of capital, people and trade, the role of the nation state in regulating the movement

of people is examined. The paper then considers the processes of immigration and

integration from a Canadian perspective. The relationships between crime and immigration

are examined overall and within Canada. For Canada, the evidence suggests that

immigrants are much less involved in criminal activity than are those who were born in

Canada. The paper acknowledges that Canadian polices with respect to assimilation, as

opposed to integration, have been failures. The paper goes on to argue that current polices,

as codified in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and The Canadian

Multiculturalism Act, strive for a politics of inclusion and provide an illustration of positive

polices that nation states can follow to facilitate the integration of immigrants into the

larger society.

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/MigrationAndCrime.pdf

The study even mentions YOU!

The connections between migration and crime are very complex

and the topic is also very sensitive politically. Indeed, asserting that there is a strong

connection between crime and immigration is all too often done for political purposes: to

exploit a community's xenophobic fears or to play on a group's natural resistance to cultural

pluralism. Both crime and immigration tend to be perceived as threats and provoke

apprehension. When these two issues are combined they may add up to a powerful cocktail

of fear and irrational responses.

Thats really what we are up against. You make all kinds of claims about immigrants but when youre asked for some evidence to support your claims you balk. Thats because like the study says xenophobia is often based on these common fears, a lot of assumptions, and "conventional wisdom".

So it "feels right" to you to throw immigrants under the bus and to just assume they cause more problems and behave worse than natural Canadian citizens. And once you get THERE, and youve fortified all these assumptions, its natural for you to assume that if there is no evidence around to back up your claims then the evidence MUST be suppressed, since clearly the evidence must exist, because youve already fully accepted that the afformentioned claim is true so how could evidence for it NOT exist?

The "rightness" of the claim are proof that evidence supporting the claim must exist!

Now all we need is an antagonist for your little story to name as the suppressor of all this evidence... queue the GREAT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! Why theyve banned the statistics of course!

Edited April 3, 2012 by dre

[bleeding heart]

Don't mistake religious wackos for conservatives. They are not. There might be a similarity between some of their beliefs and some of the beliefs of tradition minded conservatives, but that's about it.

They are conservatives. They're ultraconservatives.

They're not like you...I absolutely agree.

But to say they're not conservatives is to make the word meaningless..

Do you suppose conservatives are so good, that bad guys can't fit the bill?

That's a fantasy.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

That would be all those Hong Kong people who pretended to become Canadians, invested a nominal sum (usually by buying a house and then renting it out) and then moved back to Hong Kong with their passport, just in case they needed it. It would also include all those people who came here to have their baby, then moved back to India or wherever, knowing they can use their child's Canadian passport as a bargaining chip in their eventual marriage. It would include anyone who gets citizenship so as to be covered by our social systems then moves back 'home'. That also includes a number of 'canadians' collecting GST and child benefits while living in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Aside from collecting GST and child benefits while living abroad (I assume they have someone here collecting those cheques at a Canadian mailing address then sending it abroad), I'm not sure how those other situations contradict my point about residency requirements. A friend of mine, born and raised in Canada, lived in Japan for a couple years and came back to Canada. For his job, he needed healthcare coverage when he got back, so he couldn't work for 6 months until he got his OHIP re-instated. Moreover, things like OAS only pertain to Canadian citizens and it's pro-rated depending on the amount of time you spend living in Canada. Are you suggesting that there are many immigrants that come here, get their citizenship, then rent out a home at a Canadian and claim to live here even though they're abroad? The federal government has record of people when they enter and leave the country.

[MACKER]

Why conservatives want tougher laws and less immigration?

because the opposite is where liberals come from?

[cybercoma]

We should treat every potential immigrant like we would if we were hiring them for an important job.

Did you know that interviews may be a horrible predictor of job performance? I imagine similar mechanisms would make it a poor predictor of immigrant "suitability," if you will.

I would pretty much end the business of accepting refugees entirely except in special cases of demonstrated danger. That means that no, sorry, just because you're gay, or a member of a certain religion, or of a certain tribe, or from a country wracked by warfare, or a woman who fears she might have to get genital mutilation, or someone with AIDS who is discriminated against, you'll just have to deal with that elsewhere.

The problem with your thinking here is that we do only allow refugees in cases of demonstrated danger. Those examples you listed were of people that faced serious threats to their lives or well-being in their home countries. In the interest of humanitarian aid, we work with the international community by sharing the burden of accepting refugees. This is not always a unilateral decision. By pulling out of these programs, we place the burden on other countries, which would likely sour our relationships with them.

And those refugees we do take would have to show they can be trusted to live outside of some sort of guarded complex, would not be eligible for permanent residency, and would be returned home when it was safe to do so. That would mean, as one example, that all the refugees from Lebanon who came here during the civil war would be back home now.

There's so much wrong with this.

When someone's life is in danger, especially when it's large groups of people, such as the mass exoduses that have occurred in Africa, you don't have the resources on the ground or the time to engage in a thorough review process to see if each and every individual can "show" that they can be "trusted." The people on the ground handling the refugees in these situations do the best they can with the resources they have.

Once they're in Canada and begin their life anew here with all the opportunities our society affords individuals, it would be quite unfair and inhumane to ship them back to a country going through reconstruction as soon as the bombs stop falling or the bullets stop flying. Most refugees have been through traumatic situations that most Canadians can only imagine from a fictionalized Hollywood perspective. Yet, you would send these people back to the places they suffered? You would take away from them everything they accomplished and built up for themselves in Canada? To what end? It's inhumane and unconscionable.

I would insist on background checks and psychological profiles on all prospective permanent residents, and would disallow those with medieval/violent attitudes or beliefs. And yes, I would choose immigrants from nations with a more sophisticated (ie, 21st century) value system ahead of those from a value system which says its acceptable to kill people for not being in your religious group.

So you go from individual profiles to attributing a nation's politics to individuals. Would you have immigrants do psychological profile tests in a language that they don't understand? You know we did profiles on people here in Canada (BC and AB) between from the 20s until the 70s. You know what we did to people that failed these completely subjective tests? We sterilized them without their consent (AB) or locked them away for the rest of their life unless they consented to being sterilized (BC). My point is that these psychological profiles may not be a reliable determinant of immigrants' "suitability."

Moreover, you're asking that psychology determine the future behaviour of an individual, whether he or she will engage in criminality. If they're high risk, you would sentence refugees to death or torture. We don't even do that to the Paul Bernardos of our society because we believe in higher values. But why stop at refugees? If you want to protect society from "high risk" individuals, why not begin requiring mandatory psychological profiles done on all Canadians and lock them away to save society from the potential harms they might do.