.

[scribblet]

What kind of red tape are we talking about, it all over the media, even become a talking point from the opposition leaders.....so what is classified as red tape....if it was doing back ground checks, criminal record checks, past employment records, skills or education then i'm for it.....making sure we don't just open the flood gates hear onlt to find out later, one of these syrians was a member of a death squad, or terrorists......making sure we get the people we are looking for.....before we invest in them for not only their future but ours as well....

As for the pictures.....like Justin said you don't get compassionate over night....like they all did....even justin.... there is a system already in place, if it is red tape or delaying measures then i would agree with you, but if it is for security then i understand.....

That's the question isn't it, do the other leaders want our normal processing and criminal/background checks suspended to let them all in no questions asked - that's extremely problematic.

There's some pictures towards the bottom of this giving a good idea of the sheer migrant numbers involved - just how does any country process that many and ensure that criminals and terrorists are not part of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219553/Terrible-fate-tiny-boy-symbolises-desperation-thousands-Body-drowned-Syrian-refugee-washed-Turkish-beach-family-tried-reach-Europe.html

[cybercoma]

Black Dog your response to me saying no one came on this thread and blamed Harper for this crisis is typical. The entire point of the thread started by Cyber was to blame Harper, specifically posts 1,5,7,11,12,14,16,26,41.

Why do you constantly mischaracterize my arguments?

[scribblet]

Black Dog your response to me saying no one came on this thread and blamed Harper for this crisis is typical. The entire point of the thread started by Cyber was to blame Harper, specifically posts 1,5,7,11,12,14,16,26,41.

Turning this issue into a partisan issue to piss on Harper was precisely the point of the thread and precisely why I challenged it.

As for Big Guy's reference to Jewish refugees he again exemplifies why I find anything he presents on this board a farse.

-------------------------

Israel was created precisely because the world turned its back on Jewish refugees and would have nothing to do with them with the exception of the US, France and Argentina.

Well said Rue but the issue of values and customs is an issue no one wants to talk about. As someone else said, I'd be pretty scared if I thought 800,000 religious conservatives where to come here. Prior to this no one wanted to talk about the African Muslim migrants invading Europe, there have been pictures in a camp where they rioted because someone supposedly tore a Koran.

This whole thing started with the media and the opposition using the little boy's death to smear Harper and the gov't, prior to that no one gave a sh.t or made it into an election issue.

[Hudson Jones]

This whole thing started with the media and the opposition using the little boy's death to smear Harper and the gov't, prior to that no one gave a sh.t or made it into an election issue.

Wrong.

Refugees and the Syrian refugees have been talked about plenty. Here is the immigration minister echoing what you just said and then getting his ass handed to him with facts:

[Big Guy]

If our government now says we should accept 10,000 refugees from Syria should we then accept 20,000 Palestinians?

There are almost twice the number of Palestinians as a result of Israeli policy as there are Syrian refugees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

[scribblet]

Wrong.

Refugees and the Syrian refugees have been talked about plenty. Here is the immigration minister echoing what you just said and then getting his ass handed to him with facts:

That was Sept. 2nd, it wasn't until the media started spreading lies about the refugee application that people started getting worked up. It was then everyone jumped on the band wagon in order to denigrate the gov't, no other reason. They didn't care about the millions of black migrants trekking across Europe, I didn't see any cries to take any of them in.

So how many refugees should we accept and how will we process them and get them all here. I expect you will be willing to sponsor at least one family, surely.

[Spiderfish]

Thank you... But you missed the point a bit...

I don't think anyone can blame anyone in gov't for what happens to individual refugees, as tragic as their circumstances are. It's the inaction up until something tragic happens that is the problem.

The complete ineptitude and inaction of the entire process. It took pictures of a little dead boy to get the Minister to go to Ottawa to "deal with the issue". And he blames the media for not putting it in the headlines. This Minister has been a complete joke on this file.

No...I get the point, in bold dramatic fashion.

It is funny though, that it also took these same pictures of the little dead boy to move the opposition to tears, declaring their outrage over the lack of progress on the issue, and these same pictures that moved Trudeau to judgmental, hypocritical scorn, declaring that " you don't get to suddenly discover compassion in the middle of an election campaign. You either have it or you don't."

Before these pictures....crickets....from all corners.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I agree with Army Guy that some red tape is necessary. Remember with Cuban refugees and what followed was a crime spree in Southern US. Castro sent many criminals among them and many innocent American murdered, raped and robbed, They must be processed and if passed then allowed to enter Canada. I also like to say that we take those who can already speak one of the official languages and good skills so that they can more likely join the workforce and start positive contributions in Canada as soon as possible rather than joining the social programs and ask for handouts or social housing (first few months is acceptable).

I am with Harper on immigration and I think that the 250,000 we take every year for a country of only 32 million, we do our share and more. The incomers should be selected and must pass background checks and with no criminal records and with good skills and speak the language. I am also with Harper that the root of problem which is war and poverty should be addressed rather than just bringing refugees to Canada. We should look after the interest of Canada not Syria.

Also as I said oil rich Sheikhs must be pressured into doing their part and take a large portion of these refugees especially those who don't speak any foreign language or with no skills. After all they are their brothers and sisters who as I said can settle easy in those states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Arab Emirates and Qatar. They should be politically and economically sanctioned if they refuse though I see that it is very unlikely as these corrupt Sheikhs are almost all US puppets!!!!.

[Army Guy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

Thanks.

[Evening Star]

That was Sept. 2nd, it wasn't until the media started spreading lies about the refugee application that people started getting worked up. It was then everyone jumped on the band wagon in order to denigrate the gov't, no other reason. They didn't care about the millions of black migrants trekking across Europe, I didn't see any cries to take any of them in.

So how many refugees should we accept and how will we process them and get them all here. I expect you will be willing to sponsor at least one family, surely.

Did you watch the clip? Alexander said the same thing that you are saying here and Barton and Opposition MPs listed many previous instances where it had been brought up, both in the media and in the House.

[Evening Star]

The article in the OP is from July.

[cybercoma]

If our government now says we should accept 10,000 refugees from Syria should we then accept 20,000 Palestinians?

There are almost twice the number of Palestinians as a result of Israeli policy as there are Syrian refugees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

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.

[cybercoma]

The article in the OP is from July.

It sure is. Don't mind scribblet. She missed that point.

[Army Guy]

Cybercoma:

I see you don't understand, not only how social assistance works, but how immigrants affect unemployment rates. The truth is that they don't. They're sponsored and they tend to add to the economy, not take away from it.

I read your source, and still can not find how they are sponsored, other than from the government. i find it hard to see where the benefit of immigrants come in...

It is useful to put the figure of $6,051 for the average, annual, per-capita fiscal transfers from all Canadians to recent immigrants in perspective. First, if the average immigrant pays taxes and receives benefits for 45 years between his or her arrival and end of life, every recent immigrant benefits from transfers worth $272,295, disregarding all effects of discounting and inflation. Second, during the 18-year period from 1987 to 2004, a total of 3.9 million immigrants arrived in Canada according to the administrative data collected by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2010). In the fiscal year 2006, they would have imposed a cost of $23.6 billion on Canadians if none of the immigrants had

emigrated or died. However, because of emigration and mortality, of those 3.9 million immigrants only 2.7 million still remained in Canada according to the 2006 Census, a representative sample of which is found in the PUMF database used in the basic calculation of costs above.11 The annual fiscal subsidies to these remaining immigrants in 2006 were $16.3 billion.1

Is this the sponsorship you are talking about...granted these are in 2006 dollar costs, and we have since added millions more to these numbers....Sorry could not find the latest figures....

Immigrants and their offspring will eventually repay the fiscal transfers they received This view is based on the notion that immigrants will repay the transfers they have received once they are fully integrated into the economy and they and their children earn wages that are high enough. Clearly, the truth of this notion depends on how well the new Canadians and their children will do economically in the future. If, in the future, the average incomes of these immigrants only just reach the average income of all Canadians, there will be no repayment of the transfers since as a group they will only pay taxes that match the benefits they receive. Immigrants will repay the transfers only if they eventually earn significantly more than average incomes for a period in their lives long enough to repay the earlier costs incurred on them. Unfortunately, the available empirical evidence suggests that recent immigrants are not even closing the income gap with non-immigrants (Picot and Sweetman, 2005; Picot, 2008), a far cry from earning incomes above average.1

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf

From your orginal link....

Then there is this statement, which contradicts your early statement. That these investments we make in Immigrants may not be paying off even in future generations....Perhaps i'm not reading enough into it.....can you point me in the right direction.....

[cybercoma]

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

[Army Guy]

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

Please be patient with me as immigration is not a strong point, I thank you for the reports, but within your sources they seem to contradict themselves...

one is saying immigrants are good over all for Canada, another says we spend over 25 bil a year on immigrants and will never see a positive return on that investment.....I'm just to find out what is there thinking behind saying that immigrants are good...both fiscally and population wise....and why are they pushing that Canada would be better off with 100 million , than with just say our current 40 million, as they are assuming that they will all be paying taxes similar to avg Canadians, and yet all your sources have disproved that theory....

[Scotty]

A much wiser course of action for these countries would be to pressure the people that keep pouring weapons and reasons to use them into the ME region to stop what they're doing.

You know there's no chance of that being successful. Iran is not going to stop funding Shiite groups. Various uber rich types in the gulf countries and Saudi Arabia will not stop funding the others. There are tons of unofficial arms suppliers who can't be stopped. And even if you could you can count on the Russians, Chinese, and even the North Koreans gladly supplying any weapons cold cash can buy.

[Hudson Jones]

That was Sept. 2nd, it wasn't until the media started spreading lies about the refugee application that people started getting worked up. It was then everyone jumped on the band wagon in order to denigrate the gov't, no other reason. They didn't care about the millions of black migrants trekking across Europe, I didn't see any cries to take any of them in.

So how many refugees should we accept and how will we process them and get them all here. I expect you will be willing to sponsor at least one family, surely.

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.

In the case of the aunt of the boy who drowned, she could only apply for one person and not both of her brothers. She ended up applying for one of her brothers (which was ultimately rejected) and could not apply for the other. If Harper had not made changes to the already difficult refugee application system, both brothers could have been privately sponsored by their sister.

What’s more, Chris Alexander, the immigration minister, was personally handed a file by NDP MP Fin Donnelly, which mentioned the urgent need of both families. Alexander ignored the file.

The Alan Kurdi incident has highlighted the Conservative government's terrible refugee track record and despite what the government keeps saying, because of Harper's policies, Canada no longer has the best, or even one of the best refugee programs.

[Hudson Jones]

Before these pictures....crickets....from all corners.

Actually, no.

Both the Liberals and especially the NDP have been riding the Conservative's pretty hard in regards to their handling of refugees and all of the negative changes they have made in the recent years.

[On Guard for Thee]

Did you watch the clip? Alexander said the same thing that you are saying here and Barton and Opposition MPs listed many previous instances where it had been brought up, both in the media and in the House.

And he tried the same crap the next day again on PnP, and then again in an interview on The Current. All to much the same effect.

[Spiderfish]

Actually, no.

Both the Liberals and especially the NDP have been riding the Conservative's pretty hard in regards to their handling of refugees and all of the negative changes they have made in the recent years.

I try to keep up on political issues of the day, but I must admit, I have not heard much of anything at all about the refugee crisis before September 1st.

Regardless, It is front and centre on everyone's radar now. If the Liberal and NDP's relentless and tireless flogging of this important issue month after month, year after long year fell on deaf ears previously, they will be relieved to know that they have everyone's keen ear from here on in. Finally, people will listen to their cries from the wilderness. Thank god they never gave up the fight.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Spiderfish

[Army Guy]

Just a question why is immigration so important to the NDP, and Liberals....and no i am not talking about the current Refugee crises.....

[Accountability Now]

I see you don't understand, not only how social assistance works, but how immigrants affect unemployment rates. The truth is that they don't. They're sponsored and they tend to add to the economy, not take away from it.

They are sponsored for ONE YEAR or until they find a job...whichever is soonest. After that they are part of society where they most certainly do affect unemployment. I guess you didn't read that part

[The_Squid]

No...I get the point, in bold dramatic fashion.

It is funny though, that it also took these same pictures of the little dead boy to move the opposition to tears, declaring their outrage over the lack of progress on the issue, and these same pictures that moved Trudeau to judgmental, hypocritical scorn, declaring that " you don't get to suddenly discover compassion in the middle of an election campaign. You either have it or you don't."

Before these pictures....crickets....from all corners.

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.

[Evening Star]

That was Sept. 2nd, it wasn't until the media started spreading lies about the refugee application that people started getting worked up. It was then everyone jumped on the band wagon in order to denigrate the gov't, no other reason. They didn't care about the millions of black migrants trekking across Europe, I didn't see any cries to take any of them in.

So how many refugees should we accept and how will we process them and get them all here. I expect you will be willing to sponsor at least one family, surely.

From June:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/wednesday-federal-immigration-minister-chris-alexander-shrimp-slave-ship-authentic-rembrandt-and-more-1.2903509/immigration-minister-chris-alexander-on-bill-c-24-syrian-refugees-and-his-hanging-up-on-us-1.2903514