Spiderfish Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) Not true at all. The NDP has been on the government's case about Syrian refugees for quite some time. In fact, they opposed the military mission in favour of increased humanitarian work. So you're most certainly wrong about how much the NDP has focused on this issue. As I said above, the NDP will certainly welcome the fresh interest in the issue, it will no doubt aid in their tireless and selfless effort to lead the way in raising awareness of an issue that has gone under the radar of so many for so long. Maybe now we can take action and stop Harper and his government from treating refugees with the cynicism equivalent to "drowning them with his boot on their heads as they gasp for air." Edited September 4, 2015 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Not true at all. The NDP has been on the government's case about Syrian refugees for quite some time. In fact, they opposed the military mission in favour of increased humanitarian work. So you're most certainly wrong about how much the NDP has focused on this issue. Why an either/or approach? That is akin to addressing the BC wildfires by providing shelter and aid to those displaced, but then not addressing the cause of the displacement, the fires themselves.............Make no mistake, leaving ISIS unchecked, allowing it to grow throughout the region, will result in millions more displaced or killed prior to the natural cessation of the conflict. The NDP/Liberals/Greens are wrong on this file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 given the chirp, I'll play... claiming a Harper Conservative "commitment" means diddly! Harper also made a much trumpeted "commitment" to resettle Syrian refugees... how has that "commitment" actually translated into real numbers? as Mulcair correctly highlighted, fighting that "root cause" you so readily jump to, had no bearing on the actual numbers of refugees profiled in recent days - it was just another opportunity for HarperTerrorFighter to pump the fear-factor! I think what is lost in this discussion is the difference between refugees and migrants.......in the case of the branded about image of the dead child, what is lost is that said family wasn't fleeing Syria proper, but Turkish refugee camps for "northern Europe", as is the case for the thousands upon thousands fleeing Hungry for more developed European nations. The reason is clear, once processed in a given nation, said nation is now responsible for said refugee unless they were to be returned home.... I don't blame Syrian refugees for wanting to go to a better country, and once free from danger, picking the best of the lot. Likewise in the case of the dead child's family, being ethnic Kurds, I wouldn't fault them for wanting to leave Islamic Turkey......but with that, once free of danger, said refugees then become economic migrants.......... To your point, the figures as of yet are 20000 Iraqis and ~2000 Syrians .........with the Syrian numbers expected grow to 10000 by 2017. As indicated, most of said displaced people have been privately sponsored, of that I'm to assume from families here in Canada and various religious groups. And no, Mulcair is wrong, for said Syrians wouldn't be refugees if their country wasn't embroiled in a civil war.......furthermore, the NDP's plan for 10k refugees by year end, or Trudeau's plan for 25K right away lack detail.......how do their plans ensure we're not bringing in criminals, terrorists etc? How do they pick and choose which refugees deserve entry into Canada the most? How many of said refugees have an existing support network within Canada? etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I think what is lost in this discussion is the difference between refugees and migrants.......in the case of the branded about image of the dead child, what is lost is that said family wasn't fleeing Syria proper, but Turkish refugee camps for "northern Europe", as is the case for the thousands upon thousands fleeing Hungry for more developed European nations. The reason is clear, once processed in a given nation, said nation is now responsible for said refugee unless they were to be returned home.... yes, that certainly has become one of the recent days Harper Conservative supporters favoured talking points - migrants versus refugees! Anything to distract from the failed Harper actions/policy in regards to refugees. Ya ya, migrants make a conscious decision... they're not "real refugees", hey! in terms of keeping threads more focused, let me place the same post here I just made in another concurrent running thread... just to give proper perspective to that failed Harper Conservative refugee policy: You get back to us, buddy, when you can show us a chart of those nations which allow refugees to come and live and work in their cities and get citizenship and the right to vote. I have a feeling almost none of those countries on your list will make the cut. There are millions of Palestinians who have been born in refugee camps which are now cities by any other name, inside the borders of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, who are still not allowed to live or participate in the political and economic life of the nation they were born in. They are not citizens even though sometimes multiple generations were born there. in 5 short years... Harper has driven Canada from 5th to 15th place in the list of countries receiving refugees - UNHCR Asylum Trends: you're welcome. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) yes, that certainly has become one of the recent days Harper Conservative supporters favoured talking points - migrants versus refugees! Anything to distract from the failed Harper actions/policy in regards to refugees. Ya ya, migrants make a conscious decision... they're not "real refugees", hey! in terms of keeping threads more focused, let me place the same post here I just made in another concurrent running thread... just to give proper perspective to that failed Harper Conservative refugee policy: in 5 short years... Harper has driven Canada from 5th to 15th place in the list of countries receiving refugees - UNHCR Asylum Trends: you're welcome. . . One question, how does that make bad policy,when others have posted here the true costs of these policies, In your mind does it make sense in years of fiscal restraint..... How many nations are there in the world any how ? wild guess.... Edited September 5, 2015 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm not a fan of brining people here because they have a bad life. It's much better to provide them with the necessities in their own country, and to do what we can to guarantee their peace and safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 yes, that certainly has become one of the recent days Harper Conservative supporters favoured talking points - migrants versus refugees! Anything to distract from the failed Harper actions/policy in regards to refugees. Ya ya, migrants make a conscious decision... they're not "real refugees", hey! You say that like its a bad thing, when it actually coincides with new laws that drastically reduce claims from safe countries......under the old system, we received more claims from EU countries than Asian and African countries combined!!! Ironically, with recent events, under the old system, the #1 source country for claims was Hungry..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 One question, how does that make bad policy,when others have posted here the true costs of these policies, In your mind does it make sense in years of fiscal restraint..... How many nations are there in the world any how ? wild guess.... no guessing required! The UN names 44 countries that resettle refugees. Per the graph I just provided in an earlier post above, in 5 short years, Canada under Harper has dropped from 5th place to 15 place (within that grouping of 44 countries). Such... "fiscal restraint"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I'm not a fan of brining people here because they have a bad life. It's much better to provide them with the necessities in their own country, and to do what we can to guarantee their peace and safety. how's that working out for Iraqis? How many more years required? #BushRegimeChange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 how's that working out for Iraqis? How many more years required? We can't bring them all here, in case you haven't noticed. #BushRegimeChange ummm, what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 You say that like its a bad thing which has nothing to do with my reply focused on your emphasis on "migrants versus refugees"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 We can't bring them all here, in case you haven't noticed. what a mind-numbing stoopid post! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 no guessing required! The UN names 44 countries that resettle refugees. Per the graph I just provided in an earlier post above, in 5 short years, Canada under Harper has dropped from 5th place to 15 place (within that grouping of 44 countries). Such... "fiscal restraint"! Such bad policies, how dare we....slip into the top third.....you still have not answered my question How is it bad policy.....but good policy to allow 25,000 in tomorrow no questions asked.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) what a mind-numbing stoopid post! Really? So you think it's better to let many suffer at the great expense at bringing a few here? I think it's far better to work on root causes at the source, and allow people to live their lives in their own country. People we bring here should make this a better more prosperous place. Us doing our part in the world and that goal don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other. Edited September 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 which has nothing to do with my reply focused on your emphasis on "migrants versus refugees"! No, but to your linking to the declined refugee chart........migrants versus refugees I would feel self explanatory, natural geography.......As to apply for asylum into Canada, it must be done at an embassy (via a CIC rep) or Port of Entry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Such bad policies, how dare we....slip into the top third.....you still have not answered my question How is it bad policy.....but good policy to allow 25,000 in tomorrow no questions asked.... dropping from 5th to 15 place... apologist much, hey! Care to quote/cite where you read anyone speaking to 25,000... TOMORROW... NO QUESTIONS ASKED? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach. I would rather begin spending our promised .07% of GDP on foreign aid tomorrow if it meant an end to the refugee program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Really? So you think it's better to let many suffer at the great expense at bringing a few here? I think it's far better to work on root causes at the source, and allow people to live their lives in their own country. People we bring here should make this a better more prosperous place. Us doing our part int he world and that goal don't have to be mutually exclusive to each other. naive much? While you're claiming to work on those "root causes"... with a few bomb-trucks... how many millions are fleeing? Clearly, your comment, "people we bring here should make this a better more prosperous place' is one for consideration in an IMMIGRATION related thread... not a REFUGEE related thread. You do recognize the distinction - yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach. yet another mind-numbing stoopid post! Why would you sink to this level? Are you so ultra-partisan that any criticism of Harper's failed position on resettling refugees... causes you to reach for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 I would rather begin spending our promised .07% of GDP on foreign aid tomorrow if it meant an end to the refugee program. #compassionateConservatism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 One question, how does that make bad policy,when others have posted here the true costs of these policies, In your mind does it make sense in years of fiscal restraint..... How many nations are there in the world any how ? wild guess.... You seem to have missed the part where the government claims to be doing as much or more than ever for refugees. If only the gov't were as honest as you about the priority of helping people, then at least there could be honest debate about priorities... instead we get gov't speaking points that are blatant lies. If the gov't explained their true priorities we could at least ask the right questions... Tax breaks for people who don't need it versus helping people displaced by a war that we are involved in.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) naive much? While you're claiming to work on those "root causes"... with a few bomb-trucks Where did I say that? Where did I say tat I thought the Conservatives had the plan that I prefer? Sometimes fighting the enemy is necessary. Sometimes it's not the best course. ... how many millions are fleeing? How many can we take in? Clearly, your comment, "people we bring here should make this a better more prosperous place' is one for consideration in an IMMIGRATION related thread... not a REFUGEE related thread. You do recognize the distinction - yes? Clearly I'm saying that we shouldn't take in refugees. Tell me, does talking to everyone like they're idiots make you feel smarter? How about just sticking to the discussion? Edited September 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 #compassionateConservatism #nocomeback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Clearly I'm saying that we shouldn't take in refugees. Say what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.