Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

Smallc · November 18, 2015

They might have been "citizens" of France or Belgium....but why do you think Hollande immediately said that France will introduce legislation to strip French citizenship from terrorists who have a second citizenship? Think about it.

Because he's trying to save his political bacon?

PIK · November 18, 2015

Marcus the boat people were Asian. Asians will no religious hang-ups and very hard working people. It is Islam it self that is the problem.

marcus · November 18, 2015

Marcus the boat people were Asian. Asians will no religious hang-ups and very hard working people. It is Islam it self that is the problem.

Not really. I think your way of thinking is the problem.

We have over 1 million Muslims in Canada and we seem to be doing pretty good with them here. I have Muslim co-workers who are smart, successful and great contributors to our society. If we were to compare, from looking at your English and grammar skills, they're also better in English than you are. My children go to elementary school and they are friends with children who come from Muslim families. They are people just like anyone else.

I am curious. Was it an experience you had? Was it your parents? Is it pure ignorance? A combination? I am curious as to why you are a bigot and hold onto these misguided and hateful ideas.

Wilber · November 19, 2015

Because he's trying to save his political bacon?

You think dual citizens who are prepared to terrorize and murder other French citizens are worthy of French citizenship?

Smallc · November 19, 2015

You think dual citizens who are prepared to terrorize and murder other French citizens are worthy of French citizenship?

I think when you start to draw lines like that, you can come to justify any line.

It's also worth noting that they are no more or less worthy than murderers who have citizenship of France only.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Smallc

notca · November 19, 2015

They might have been "citizens" of France or Belgium....but why do you think Hollande immediately said that France will introduce legislation to strip French citizenship from terrorists who have a second citizenship? Think about it.

They may be citizens but they are probably the offspring of Muslim immigrants who have passed on the militant ways of Muslims.

I think Hollande is right to strip them of their French citizenship. Anyone who thinks fighting with ISIS is a good thing should be stripped of his citizenship and sent to wherever he can find an ISIS stronghold. Any country would do well to take that path.

Our PM is wrong to say that 'a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian' regardless. Canadians who have traitorous intentions against Canada are not equal to the average Canadian and don't deserve their citizenship. That is only common sense.

Keepitsimple · November 19, 2015

I think when you start to draw lines like that, you can come to justify any line.

It's also worth noting that they are no more or less worthy than murderers who have citizenship of France only.

That's where your argument goes off the rails - and why I said "think about it". Hollande's call for stripping citizenship from dual nationals is quite simple. The terrorist "citizens" of France and Belgium clearly came from the Middle East at some point prior to obtaining their citizenship. These people were pre-disposed to hate and extremism - and yes, they are Muslims steeped in the vile radicalism of a perverted form of Islam. Did they obtain their citizenship to ultimately sow havoc in their welcoming country? There's a good chance they did.

Why is that different than regular citizens who commit murder? Because they fraudulently obtained their citizenship is as good a reason as any.

Smallc · November 19, 2015

Why is that different than regular citizens who commit murder? Because they fraudulently obtained their citizenship is as good a reason as any.

Are there not dual citizens, born in France?

further, if we're using motivation as a reason for stripping citizenship, how far do we go with this? Where is the line next drawn? What about a home grown terrorist, as many of these were? Are they somehow more worth of French citizenship?

I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. I am against useless laws.

Keepitsimple · November 19, 2015

Are there not dual citizens, born in France?

further, if we're using motivation as a reason for stripping citizenship, how far do we go with this? Where is the line next drawn? What about a home grown terrorist, as many of these were? Are they somehow more worth of French citizenship?

I'm not a terrorist sympathizer. I am against useless laws.

Do you have a cite that says many of these terrorists were "home-grown" - born in France or Belgium?

Smallc · November 19, 2015

Do you have a cite that says many of these terrorists were "home-grown" - born in France or Belgium?

At least one of the murderers was a Frenchman with a criminal record. The Charlie Hebdo killers were French, too.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1117-bowen-why-france-terrorism-20151117-story.html

Many may be the wrong word. Not sure yet.

capricorn · November 19, 2015

Hollande's call for stripping citizenship from dual nationals is quite simple. The terrorist "citizens" of France and Belgium clearly came from the Middle East at some point prior to obtaining their citizenship. These people were pre-disposed to hate and extremism - and yes, they are Muslims steeped in the vile radicalism of a perverted form of Islam. Did they obtain their citizenship to ultimately sow havoc in their welcoming country? There's a good chance they did.

Along the same thinking, even though Syrian refugees are initially security cleared to come here, what's to say some in that group won't become radicalized after they have settled here? In spite of our best efforts, it's impossible to achieve 100% success in keeping hateful extremists out of Canada.

Keepitsimple · November 19, 2015

At least one of the murderers was a Frenchman with a criminal record. The Charlie Hebdo killers were French, too.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1117-bowen-why-france-terrorism-20151117-story.html

Many may be the wrong word. Not sure yet.

And that is the truly scary part about bringing 25,000 Syrians to Canada in less than two months. Home grown or not, terrorists are almost exclusively from the Middle East. Western society has its fair share of poverty and exclusion - just look at our First Nations people. Yet they do not resort to wanton mayhem and murder, suicide bombs and decapitations. How about the centuries of poverty and exclusion suffered by African-Americans? Yet they do not resort to wanton mayhem and murder, suicide bombs and decapitations. So why do we make excuses for those from the Middle East? They become radicalized because of their pre-disposition to accepting the beliefs of a perverted interpretation of Islam. That is the trigger - and therein will lie the solution.

dialamah · November 19, 2015

Along the same thinking, even though Syrian refugees are initially security cleared to come here, what's to say some in that group won't become radicalized after they have settled here? In spite of our best efforts, it's impossible to achieve 100% success in keeping hateful extremists out of Canada.

People in Canada are already being radicalized, and that to me is a bigger problem than bringing in these refugees. However, the refugees have spent four years in refugee camps as a result of extremism; I would expect they would be much less likely to become radicalized than people already here.

freeloader1969 · November 19, 2015

First post...

Just a plan/thought. How about we help out 25,000 refugees after they've cleared the necessary security checks but when the war in Syria is over and they start rebuilding, we send them back. No citizenship or indefinite stay for any of them. I figure this way, we can say we helped at great cost to the taxpayer and we aren't going to burden our social safety net or medical system over the long term. Thoughts...

Michael Hardner · November 19, 2015

People in Canada are already being radicalized, and that to me is a bigger problem than bringing in these refugees.

If they become Canadian, how many Canadian casualties would it take for you to say that it wasn't worth it to bring them in ?

Michael Hardner · November 19, 2015

Thoughts...

I like new ideas. Has it been done before? Conditional refugee status ?

capricorn · November 19, 2015

First post...

Just a plan/thought. How about we help out 25,000 refugees after they've cleared the necessary security checks but when the war in Syria is over and they start rebuilding, we send them back. No citizenship or indefinite stay for any of them. I figure this way, we can say we helped at great cost to the taxpayer and we aren't going to burden our social safety net or medical system over the long term. Thoughts...

Welcome to MLW freeloader 1969. I like the rationale behind your suggestion. I'm mulling over the impact of such a plan.

Hal 9000 · November 19, 2015

If they become Canadian, how many Canadian casualties would it take for you to say that it wasn't worth it to bring them in ?

Kind of a weird question, but OK. Here's another weird question;

If you allowed 100 people in to your community knowing that 15-20% were pedophiles and rapists, how many child molestations and raped women is acceptable?

capricorn · November 19, 2015

People in Canada are already being radicalized, and that to me is a bigger problem than bringing in these refugees.

I'm having a hard time equating the two together. They're separate matters requiring different measures.

dialamah · November 19, 2015

If they become Canadian, how many Canadian casualties would it take for you to say that it wasn't worth it to bring them in ?

Are you asking me how many Syrian refugees would have to become Canadian, then become radicalized, then begin attacking Canadian targets, before I'd say "No more Syrians"?

I don't know. I am "forced" to accept white males in my country, and they are the largest perpetrators of violence in this country. If I'm going to refuse refugees because they *MIGHT* be violent at some point in the future, perhaps I should also consider refusing to allow white males in this country because they *MIGHT* be violent at some point in the future.

But that's silly, isn't it?

In any case, life is risky, none of us get out of it alive and in the end we only have our humanity to recommend us - whatever our belief in the afterlife is. So I prefer to express compassion for others, and avoid letting my actions and thoughts be dictated by fear.

I notice that Trudeau has eliminated Visa requirements for Mexicans. Personally, I think tourists and other temporary visitors are a more credible threat in regards to bringing in terrorists than are refugees. But people are focused on the refugees, because Daesh told them to be, and so that's where the controversy lies.

dialamah · November 19, 2015

I'm having a hard time equating the two together. They're separate matters requiring different measures.

The post I was responding to suggested that Syrian refugees are more susceptible to radicalism once they arrive in Canada. Since Canadians are already being radicalized, this seems a non-issue to me.

And yeah, in-country radicalization is a separate issue from how we deal with Syrian refugees.

On Guard for Thee · November 19, 2015

. Thoughts...

First of all it seems you're assuming that refugees will continue to be a burden indefinitely. Secondly I doubt our legal system (charter, constitution) will tolerate some sort of multi tiered citizenship application process.

freeloader1969 · November 19, 2015

First of all it seems you're assuming that refugees will continue to be a burden indefinitely. Secondly I doubt our legal system (charter, constitution) will tolerate some sort of multi tiered citizenship application process.

There would be no citizenship application process. The refugees would essentially be "renting" Canada temporarily. If you were successful as a refugee while here, then go back to Syria and apply for immigration back into Canada; after the war is over of course.

dialamah · November 19, 2015

Kind of a weird question, but OK. Here's another weird question;

If you allowed 100 people in to your community knowing that 15-20% were pedophiles and rapists, how many child molestations and raped women is acceptable?

It seems that 30% of all men would rape if they thought they could get away with it and between 6 and 15% of men are already rapists. The vast majority of pedophiles are male, though it's really hard to get an exact percentage of how many are pedophiles out of the entire population. Still this is obviously an unacceptable level of risk for women and children in this country. Can we please get rid of *all men* because 30% of them are potential rapists and an unknown number of them are pedophiles?

Edited November 19, 2015 by dialamah

Michael Hardner · November 19, 2015

In any case, life is risky, none of us get out of it alive and in the end we only have our humanity to recommend us - whatever our belief in the afterlife is.

Good answer. I wonder what others might answer ?