Refugee status accepted on Chinese birth restrictions!

[Scotty]

No it isnt.

The precedent is set , as you say, so how many have applied since? 10,000? 200? None ? I'll take door number 3 please.

The decision was just handed down last week.

The last sentence is just silly hyperbole , par for the course for those who remain xenophobic in the face of reality.

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.

[guyser]

The decision was just handed down last week.

So, the ability to be a refugee has been available for eons. Not to mention the Govt plans on increasing the numbers

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.

No, I mean xenophobes. You write like one, talk like one, so....?

And it isnt tens of thousands, 14,500 this year.

And the fact you don't understand what precedents are is not my issue.

Oh I understand the word alright. I deal with them daily.

If you dont understand the gates have been open for many years and no flood has come, who then doesnt understand?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Guyser2

[Scotty]

So, the ability to be a refugee has been available for eons. Not to mention the Govt plans on increasing the numbers

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.

No, I mean xenophobes. You write like one, talk like one, so....?

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.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Scotty

[dre]

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.

No offense, but your whole line of argument here is completely bogus, and as others pointed out your posts of full of absurd hypbole.

It seems like you dont even know how our refugee system works. You seem to think that the number of people we let in is based on the number of potential refugees. Its not.

The Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program processes an arbitrary number of people. This year it will resettle up to 14,500 people... regardless of how many applications there are, and how many elligible refugees exist in the world. It wou

ld not matter if 1 billion people qualified, or 10 billion people or even 1 trillion people. We would allow the number of refugees we feel we can process.

In 2009 the quota was set at 11,345

In 2010 the quota was 13,180

In 2013 the quota is 14,500

Do you understand now why your argument is completely and utterly bogus?

[-TSS-]

It's the only hope for the survival of the human race that China colonises Africa and enforces such strict rules that the birth-rate of Africa plummets. Cruel as it may sound but that is really the only way to go. Otherwise the world will get suffocated with overpopulation.

[Scotty]

The Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program processes an arbitrary number of people. This year it will resettle up to 14,500 people... regardless of how many applications there are, and how many elligible refugees exist in the world. It wou

ld not matter if 1 billion people qualified, or 10 billion people or even 1 trillion people. We would allow the number of refugees we feel we can process.

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.

[dre]

The number of actual refugee claims accepted is a factor of the number of claims made, and has no set quota.

No this is absolutely and catagorically false. We let in exactly as many refugees as we want to, and this ruling wont do anything what-so-ever to change the ammount of refugees we accept. We will accept no more than 14500 this year... period.

[guyser]

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.

Perhaps you could show us this then? Thanks

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.

I actually agree with you here, except it s less impressive to read.

The ideas some express, couched in terms that (for the rest of us) are for the most part xenophobic and poorly written trying to not make their blatant xenophobia obvious.

They tend to take some ruling from the immigration court and then expand on it and cry out about the millions who could flood our shores next week...ok maybe next month.

Those of that ilk will post inanities (meaning no real basis in truth) such as " 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."...you know , things like that.

[Scotty]

No this is absolutely and catagorically false. We let in exactly as many refugees as we want to, and this ruling wont do anything what-so-ever to change the ammount of refugees we accept. We will accept no more than 14500 this year... period.

In order to be able to say that is true, the government would have to have some means to refuse to accept refugees who arrive here, and who the refugee board grants asylum. It does not, to my knowledge, have any such means. Ie, if there were already 14,500 refugees accepted, and someone gets off a plane and has his case accepted by the refugee board, what does the government do? It can hardly refuse.

[Scotty]

Perhaps you could show us this then? Thanks

I actually agree with you here, except it s less impressive to read.

If you think my text was unimpressive to read you can only imagine how much contempt I feel reading the dreck you are attempting to pass off as clever repartee. However, since life is short, and I don't come here to deal with unpleasant people who don't even have the most rudimentary social skills, I will simply dump you into the ignore file.

[dre]

In order to be able to say that is true, the government would have to have some means to refuse to accept refugees who arrive here, and who the refugee board grants asylum. It does not, to my knowledge, have any such means. Ie, if there were already 14,500 refugees accepted, and someone gets off a plane and has his case accepted by the refugee board, what does the government do? It can hardly refuse.

Yes it absolutely CAN refuse. Again... we have a quota system where the number of refugees we accept is controlled.

This from the immigration canada website...

The Government is increasing the number of refugees and other persons in vulnerable circumstances that this country resettles each year by 20%. By 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees and other vulnerable persons a year.

How many refugees we allow in is a matter of government policy. They increasing the numbers because that what they have decided to do. The idea that we are suddenly going to allow in half a billion chinese women is completely and totally unfounded. We will allow in EXACTLY as many as we decide to.

[The_Squid]

Yes it absolutely CAN refuse. Again... we have a quota system where the number of refugees we accept is controlled.

This from the immigration canada website...

How many refugees we allow in is a matter of government policy. They increasing the numbers because that what they have decided to do. The idea that we are suddenly going to allow in half a billion chinese women is completely and totally unfounded. We will allow in EXACTLY as many as we decide to.

Don't you love it when someone argues with such vehemence and passion about a topic when they clearly don't understand how it works?

[guyser]

If you think my text was unimpressive to read you can only imagine how much contempt I feel reading the dreck you are attempting to pass off as clever repartee. However, since life is short, and I don't come here to deal with unpleasant people who don't even have the most rudimentary social skills, I will simply dump you into the ignore file.

You do that buttercup since no one , me for sure, has little patience to deal with someone who, on the surface cares so little about refugees and makes up inanities to support their position.

Xenophobic and dumb is what it is.

For instance? This gem from earlier ...

In order to be able to say that is true, the government would have to have some means to refuse to accept refugees who arrive here, and who the refugee board grants asylum. It does not, to my knowledge, have any such means.

So , a 30 second google search would reveal this...

If you are in Canada and have had either a refugee claim or a permanent resident application refused, there may still be options for you.

Canada does not want to send people back to a country where they will be in danger or would face the risk of persecution. It is not guaranteed, however, that an applicant will be found eligible under any of these processes.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/refusals.asp

So if you dont want to be treated like a xenophobe, or just p[lain looney, then learn about what you care so much about (when in fact you dont, you just dont like immigrants pbviously)before you put your foot in the do do.

Capice?

You best dump me in the ignore file, it is embarassing for you.

For more, see dre's post...or squids. Your choice!

[Scotty]

How many refugees we allow in is a matter of government policy. They increasing the numbers because that what they have decided to do. The idea that we are suddenly going to allow in half a billion chinese women is completely and totally unfounded. We will allow in EXACTLY as many as we decide to.

Once again, as I stated, you are not understanding the role of resettlement. Yes, we have a government sponsored resettlement program which selects refugees who are generally in UN recognized refugee camps abroad, for resettlement to Canada. Individuals can also apply from abroad for resettlement. This is one aspect of our refugee system. The other is when applicants come here on their own and apply for refugee status from within Canada. Examine the following CIC site. Note that it is divided into two distinct areas. The first is the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program, which will resettle, as you said, 14,500 refugees. Then, below that is the "In-Canada Asylum Program" which has no set numbers.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp

[Scotty]

Don't you love it when someone argues with such vehemence and passion about a topic when they clearly don't understand how it works?

Sheer irony....

[guyser]

Individuals can also apply from abroad for resettlement. This is one aspect of our refugee system. The other is when applicants come here on their own and apply for refugee status from within Canada. Examine the following CIC site.

First...The 'others' who come here and applly have diminished significantly since Canada put VISA restrictions on certain countries. This means they cannot get here for the most part, thus no app

Second...The other is the restriction that refugees claimants have 15 days to find a lawyer and get the paperwork done. Ergo...few can.

Third...Acceptance rates have dropped dramatically, now down to 28%. Some IRB adjudicators deny every single one of the applicants in front of them, some 10%.

I trust you are now seeing a picture that should in all fairness assuage any fears you may have.

[Dissenter]

Asian countries for Asians.
African countries for Africans.
White countries for everybody!

It is said that there is this RACE problem. It is said that this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of people from the third world and "assimilating" with them.

It is said that the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem, but rather the final solution to the BLACK problem?

How long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I'm a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist, but they're really anti-white.

Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

[jacee]

Disspam?

[guyser]

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I'm a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Oh you poor dear , you being white . The horrors you must suffer day in and day out, like being a lousy dancer due to no rhythm .

An obvious truth would mean anyone could find evidence of a genocide....but one can't , ergo not an obvious truth and in fact and obvious lie.

[Keepitsimple]

My apologies if someone else has posted the National Post version of the Federal Court's decision......but the last line from their article says this:

It is unclear now whether or not Mr. Shen will be required to leave the country, said Mr. Pietrantonio.

I'm sure Mr. Kenney or Mr. Alexander will continue to try to overturn the decision.

Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/20/childless-chinese-woman-granted-canadian-refugee-status-over-that-countrys-one-child-policy/

[Demosthenes26]

It is said that the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

(Insert sarcasm)

Oh us poor white folks being forced to intermarry those non-white folks. Yes clearly this is genocide. Us white folks living in wealth and plently, marrying exotic and foreign peoples... a crime against humanity!

But don't you worry dissenter there are plenty of white countries as who'd agree with you why don't you try eastern Europe?

[jacee]

Dissenter is a good candidate for a great white nation on an iceberg at the north pole.

[bleeding heart]

(Insert sarcasm)

Oh us poor white folks being forced to intermarry those non-white folks. Yes clearly this is genocide. Us white folks living in wealth and plently, marrying exotic and foreign peoples... a crime against humanity!

But don't you worry dissenter there are plenty of white countries as who'd agree with you why don't you try eastern Europe?

That he uses the term "final solution" takes real gumption.