.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Oh, you didn't hear? We're now going to accept 20,000 refugees according to the Tories. Though numbers don't mean a damn thing to these people, since they've changed the number 3 times in 12 months.

As long as they take their time and sort out the Christians I'm fine with that. I don't mind if we take in a bunch of Christians. They will become integrated into Canada.

[scribblet]

I suppose we should just invade Turkey, put them on planes and bring them all here without due process.

The manufactured ‘crisis’ over the tragic drowning of a Syrian boy is incredible. Those demanding that Canada to “do something immediately’ are unreasonable. Who decreed that we are responsible for the world’s bloodthirsty dictatorships, terrorists and tyrannies? We have committed air support and now ground troops to help combat ISIS terrorism and have provided generous humanitarian aid to the victims of warfare in the Middle East.

The weeping and wailing about our ‘need’ to bring thousands of refugees to our shores are made without any concern over how we deal with them when they arrive or the potential effects of unregulated mass immigration. UNICEF estimates that there are over 11,650,000 displaced persons and refugees in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. That is more than the combined populations of Metropolitan Toronto and Metropolitan Montreal.

How do the social and mainstream media ninnies clamoring for us to open the doors wide to these hapless people expect to clothe, feed and shelter these refugees? They have to learn a new language, adapt new laws, develop working skills, find employment and become productive citizens. That is not going to happen overnight or without massive government aid and inevitably higher taxes. Adding a few million people to our welfare rolls overnight is not without repercussions. We do not have the social services or infrastructure to deal with a massive influx of refugees. Aiding refugees does not entail joining them in poverty.

[cybercoma]

We didn't create this problem. To be technical, the problem existed long before the US got involved even.

How can you say that? The United States and CIA have been involved in Middle East and Asian conflicts since well before you were born.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I pointed you to several reports on the economic impact of immigration.

the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small,

[Civis Romanus sum]

The problem has been the Harper government's changes in the number of refugee applicants that we take in now. He has reduced this number and has made it much more difficult to apply.

We were getting a lot of phoney refugees. And the refugees in Turkey have lots of time to apply since they're safe there. They don't need to risk their families lives by getting into overcrowded boats to go to Europe.

[Army Guy]

the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small,

It has also been pointed out by the fraser institute that those investments are never recovered..

[Civis Romanus sum]

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."

That is a more than slightly disgusting attempt to blame Harper for the actions of other people. Harper bears not one slight degree of guilt for the drowning deaths of refugees.

[Civis Romanus sum]

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.

You act like being higher on the list offers up some kind of benefit to Canada. Canada is far away. Obivously we're going to be lower on the list than countries which are right next door to war zones. We're also a relatively small country, population wise. Harper's refugee changes have been quite successful in lowering the number of phony refugees. Before him we used to accept almost everyone who showed up at an airport. That led to people bypassing the immigration system since this was so much faster, and simply telling stories to immigration, stories immigration consultants and lawyers often helped them concoct.

[Civis Romanus sum]

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.....

Gypsies.

[cybercoma]

I don't condone that action. The area was always a powder keg waiting for someone to drop a match.

It only seems that way because the US, UK, and Soviet Union had been undermining democracy there for so long. It wasn't always this way. The Cold War set in motion what we see today.

[Civis Romanus sum]

what a mind-numbing stoopid post!

.

Mr Harper was pointing out earlier that those piously claiming to feel the need to help the crisis by bringing in 25,000 refugees are accomplishing almost nothing given the scale of the problem. What really needs to be done is to resolve the instability of the area, which is something the New Democrats and Liberals show no interest in being involved in. So your reply is not only rude but completely wrong. We can't bring in any significant number so anything we do in terms of absorbing refugees is just window dressing, and has no real impact. It might make us feel good but we're really not doing anything of substance.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[waldo]

We were getting a lot of phoney refugees.

how much is "a lot"? First the "fiscal restraint" thingee got floated as an excuse for the significantly reduced Harper Conservative number... then it was the D2.0 deflection/distraction over "safe countries"... then it was the Roma's fault... and now an even broader excuse from you! Is there any degree of accountability... of responsibility... Harper has in this failure? Any?

on that phony talking point concerning "taxpayer costs", of the current meager number of refugees coming to Canada, 60% are privately sponsored... only 40% of that meager number are being "sponsored" by the Harper Conservative government! #failedTalkingPoint

[Civis Romanus sum]

Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach.

I would agree with this. They want to pretend to be doing something so they don't have to worry about what's going on afterward.

[Civis Romanus sum]

naive much? While you're claiming to work on those "root causes"... with a few bomb-trucks... how many millions are fleeing?

Are you proposing we take in millions?

[cybercoma]

From your quote.

It called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large.

You know fairly small is still positive benefit, right? That we could be immensely helpful to refugees and immigrants and receive a small economic benefit from doing so. A small benefit is a far cry from the hysterical rambling that followed what I quoted above. And besides you're making claims about what people's wishes and desires are when you know nothing about the refugees individually. Your dystopian hyperbole is nothing more than rhetorical nonsense.

[waldo]

Gypsies.

that sir... that is a slur against the Romani people who consider the label a reflection on their past and present persecution

[cybercoma]

As long as they take their time and sort out the Christians I'm fine with that. I don't mind if we take in a bunch of Christians. They will become integrated into Canada.

If only you were around 150 years ago, so you could complain about how Catholics will never integrate because they only obey the Pope and will have no respect for our laws. Your arguments have been around for hundreds of years and were as meaningless then as they are today.

[cybercoma]

the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small,

As opposed to being negative as you and others claimed.

[cybercoma]

We were getting a lot of phoney refugees.

Cite an official source on that claim.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Pat Carney has suggested we immediately take in 100,000 refugees. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Has Pat Carney volunteered to pay for these people for the rest of their lives, including health care and education?

The cost will be in the billions. How much did she steal while she was in government?

How many Canadian girls will be raped by bringing in a so many people steeped in the culture of vicious gender hatred, who will raise their sons to be the same way? See Sweden for example.

[waldo]

Mr Harper was pointing out earlier that those piously claiming to feel the need to help the crisis by bringing in 25,000 refugees are accomplishing almost nothing given the scale of the problem. What really needs to be done is to resolve the instability of the area, which is something the New Democrats and Liberals show no interest in being involved in. So your reply is not only rude but completely wrong. We can't bring in any significant number so anything we do in terms of absorbing refugees is just window dressing, and has no real impact. It might make us feel good but we're really not doing anything of substance.

if you're going to presume to reply by quoting a post of mine... I suggest you don't (also) fabricate the context! There seems to be a rush of that going on around here! My comment was directly in reply to this statement that I pointedly quoted: "We can't bring them all here, in case you haven't noticed."... which is a stoopid statement to make! Quit making shyte up!

[cybercoma]

It has also been pointed out by the fraser institute that those investments are never recovered..

The Fraser Institute? The same Fraser Institute who consistently puts out reports using piss poor methodologies that wouldn't stand up to academic peer review? I'll take the non-partisan commissioned reports over that garbage, thanks.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Given the very small number of people that will help in percentage terms and the massive cost to Canada's social programs, what makes that a good plan?

I think Army Guy pinned it. These people are wringing their hands with guilt and want to fill the country with Muslims from the third world to feel better. They don't think about what happens weeks, months and years down the road, about the costs in money, the costs in rioting and violence.

[cybercoma]

Mr Harper was pointing out earlier that those piously claiming to feel the need to help the crisis by bringing in 25,000 refugees are accomplishing almost nothing given the scale of the problem.

Then he turned around and said he would bring in 20,000 refugees now. Funny that, eh?

[waldo]

How many Canadian girls will be raped by bringing in a so many people steeped in the culture of vicious gender hatred, who will raise their sons to be the same way? See Sweden for example.

that sir... that is fear-mongering! If you have something to say about Sweden, don't be shy!