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

[poochy]

Making stuff up? My own ETA at the end my post mentioned the 2008 visit to a mosque.

And I told you I'm done discussing things with you because your tone is condescending and you can't make your argument without bringing me and my character into it.

O I read it, but you wrote it, you can change it later if you wish but this quote

"Notice how inclusive Trudeau has been with the Muslim community, making sure to let them know that he does not paint them all with the same brush? Harper never did anything like that out of fear of his base (or perhaps his own personal inclinations) and he ended up alienating a very important aspect in fighting terrorism - and that's the participation of moderate Muslims."

Is all yours, and you didnt change it, maybe you should try getting your news from something other than that rag, the tyee.

Sorry about the condecension, but I wont pretend that what you wrote wasn't silly, when it is easily proven to be.

[BC_chick]

Context, poochy, context. We're talking about 2015 election, not 2008.

[BC_chick]

You may prove to be right - but keep in mind that Trudeau has never been in power so it's easy to sound "inclusive". He has a track record of being impulsive so let's see how inclusive he is when events overtake him and the pressure is on. As Mr. Spock once said on Star Trek: "After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.

True, I can't argue with this.

[poochy]

Context, poochy, context. We're talking about 2015 election, not 2008.

"Notice how inclusive Trudeau has been with the Muslim community, making sure to let them know that he does not paint them all with the same brush? Harper never did anything like that out of fear of his base (or perhaps his own personal inclinations) and he ended up alienating a very important aspect in fighting terrorism - and that's the participation of moderate Muslims."

Your Words.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-invites-muslim-families-to-24-sussex-to-break-the-ramadan-fast/article25088630/

Something no other PM had done, but of course when it's Justin he does it becuase he really, really cares, and Harper, well, just trying to get elected. Or maybe the truth is somehwere in between and painting the soon to be former PM as a racist or xenophobe while splashing some of that paint on his suppporters is a ridiculous thing to do, but if you are going to do it anyway, maybe you should at least not make demonstrably false statements when doing it. Heaven forbid if someone doesn't just play nice and let you do it.

[BC_chick]

Congrats on staying on topic of 2015, not 2008. Finally, you managed to stay current - excellent find! K, you convinced me.

Poor Harper, so wrongfully maligned after all that niceness he showed toward the Muslim community. That whole niqab thing right at election time? I'm sure it was nothing. Ex CSIS analysts saying he strained relations with Muslims jeapordizing our safety? Oh but look at where it's reported, the Tyee (and CBC and CTV etc etc) so it means nothing. Peter McKay saying the party should be inclusive? I'm sure he wasn't talking about Muslim. Diane Finley? Same thing. Globe and Mail? Socialist rag.

Everyone is just lying. Only poochy knows best.

Edited October 27, 2015 by BC_chick

[hitops]

It seems he was only 'at war' for 10 years of his life, so for about 50 years he wasn't at war. It seems war happened more because he and his followers were persecuted to the point where in order to survive, they began raiding caravans, which led to retaliation, which led to more retaliation, which led to war. Or something like that.

In any case, it seems doubtful that prophet Muhammed was anything like ISIS. ISIS has nothing to do with what Islam teaches as a religion, just as people who commit mass murders "because God told them to" have anything to do with what Christianity teaches.

I'd like that to be true, but it is simply not. He was not at war when he had little influence and power. As soon as he was powerful enough, he was at war for the duration of his life, and so were his immediate followers (including with each other after his death). It does not surprise me that many groups follow that example today. This is quite in contrast to Christianity, where the faith was basically marginalized and docile for hundreds of years until it became institutionalized into the state power structure of Rome, at which point it became politically expedient to be one, and thus the usual corruption story etc.

Mohammed told his followed that most people in hell are women because they did not obey their husbands. He advocated warfare against all unbelievers. He proposed any non-believer in Muslim lands either convert or pay a tax. The essence of his message was that Muslims are superior, and naturally justified in ruling and oppressing non-Muslims. Jesus could not be a more starkly contrasting figure (I'm assuming we are calling Jesus the 'founder' of Christianity). Confucius as another example who's messaging does not lead adherents today to violence, generally. Mohammed is a unique figure and the fact that 95%+ of religiously-motivated deaths today are at the hands of his followers is consistent with the religious text and his life, not despite it.

Edited October 27, 2015 by hitops

[WestCanMan]

That number is a drop in the puddle compared to what European nations are dealing with.

And the Tories didn't even keep their small commitment... that was one of the problems with the CPC... the bold-faced lies and the pandering to their anti-migrant base.

Theres nothing wrong with being anti-immigrant when the migrants are predominantly from an area with one of the major problem religions of the world, ie Muslim or Jewish. It's not just a theory that all those guys put their imaginary friends well ahead of living breathing human beings and that's going back long before 1949.

Let them all sort their nasty business over there before they apply to get in here. I'm happy to take in any other religion, or to wait another 2,000 years or so.

[scribblet]

People are not inhumane, racist or xenophobic for recognizing that taking in huge numbers of migrants would place great strain and pressure on our health systems, housing and schools. These are genuine and responsible concerns, as is the concern or culture class which will be inevitable.

[dre]

People are not inhumane, racist or xenophobic for recognizing that taking in huge numbers of migrants would place great strain and pressure on our health systems, housing and schools. These are genuine and responsible concerns, as is the concern or culture class which will be inevitable.

Yes an that strain on healthcare, housing and schools is what causes us to build new clinics, new houses, and new schools.

Its called a growth economy. The government will allow enough immigrants in to maintain a slow growth in population (about 2%) no matter how much you complain about it, because if they didnt you would complain way more about other things (the resulting recession).

[Argus]

Yes an that strain on healthcare, housing and schools is what causes us to build new clinics, new houses, and new schools.

Paid for by whom?

[dre]

The houses are paid for by developers in the realestate market who see an opportunity on the supply side of the demand for housing. The government gets a big piece of this through fees, property taxes, consumption taxes, income taxes, etc. Most other Canadians benefit from this as well, because growth in the realestate sector back-stops home equity which is used to back the consumption of pretty much anything else. As population grows, you also have new businesses springing up that provide the myriad of goods and services that people need to live.

Schools and healthcare are paid for by the government, but government revenues increase in a growth economy as well because everyone involved is paying taxes on consumption and most are paying taxes on income.

If the government was to allow the population to stagnate we would immediately find ourselves in a deep long recession. Supply would overtake demand in the real-estate market VERY quickly and the Harper Housing Bubble would burst and most of the home equity that Canadians consider "savings" would evaporate. Once THAT happens the banks will stop extending credit to all these people and they will have to stop buying couches, coffee tables, automobiles, homes, and everything else.

Banks, businesses, governments, and most property owners all know this so theres virtually zero chance any government would do that whether they are conservative or liberal.

And your question in itself demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how the economy works. You ask "who will pay for it"... Canadian currency will pay for it, and the amount of currency in the economy is based completely on the demand for credit. The supply of money grows WITH the population.

Edited October 29, 2015 by dre

[WestCanMan]

The houses are paid for by developers in the realestate market who see an opportunity on the supply side of the demand for housing. The government gets a big piece of this through fees, property taxes, consumption taxes, income taxes, etc. Most other Canadians benefit from this as well, because growth in the realestate sector back-stops home equity which is used to back the consumption of pretty much anything else. As population grows, you also have new businesses springing up that provide the myriad of goods and services that people need to live.

Schools and healthcare are paid for by the government, but government revenues increase in a growth economy as well because everyone involved is paying taxes on consumption and most are paying taxes on income.

If the government was to allow the population to stagnate we would immediately find ourselves in a deep long recession. Supply would overtake demand in the real-estate market VERY quickly and the Harper Housing Bubble would burst and most of the home equity that Canadians consider "savings" would evaporate. Once THAT happens the banks will stop extending credit to all these people and they will have to stop buying couches, coffee tables, automobiles, homes, and everything else.

Banks, businesses, governments, and most property owners all know this so theres virtually zero chance any government would do that whether they are conservative or liberal.

And your question in itself demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how the economy works. You ask "who will pay for it"... Canadian currency will pay for it, and the amount of currency in the economy is based completely on the demand for credit. The supply of money grows WITH the population.

Theres a big difference between immigrants with money pumping up the economy and immigrants going straight to the welfare system and draining it. I find it really ironic that you just called someone fundamentally ignorant after all the ludicrous things you just said.

[dre]

Just because some new immigrants collect welfare does not necessarily mean they are draining our economy. They need a place to live, which means they contribute to the demand for housing, which as I said before backs a lot of the rest of the economy. They spend almost every dollar on consumption, so they pay consumption taxes, and support our consumption based services sector economy. And they will have children here, and second generation immigrants are some of the best performing citizens that Canada has from an economic perspective.

That does not mean that we should let in scores of welfare recipients, and we don't. If you compare our immigrants with those of our peer nations ours are highly educated, motivated, and productive, and are employed at a rate that's within a point or two of native born Canadians.

[Bonam]

Yes an that strain on healthcare, housing and schools is what causes us to build new clinics, new houses, and new schools.

Its called a growth economy. The government will allow enough immigrants in to maintain a slow growth in population (about 2%) no matter how much you complain about it, because if they didnt you would complain way more about other things (the resulting recession).

The whole argument of "immigrants help prop up the housing market" is not convincing to me, at all. Old wealthy landowners might benefit from it, but the younger generation would benefit a heck of a lot more if housing was more affordable instead.

As for contributing to economic growth... per capita economic growth data in developed nations tracks almost exactly with productivity growth, not with population growth. Earth's population cannot and will not grow forever, in fact, global fertility rates are already just above replacement levels and global population will start to plateau very soon if present demographic trends continue. Therefore, societies will have to find a way to maintain economic growth in the face of steady state or even slowly declining populations. Given that all economies will be facing this challenge over the next several decades, there is no reason not to get an early start.

[marcus]

In 1979 and 1980, Canada let in 50,000 refugees from Vietnam. The sky didn't fall.

[Bonam]

In 1979 and 1980, Canada let in 50,000 refugees from Vietnam. The sky didn't fall.

No one is talking about the sky falling. But thanks for that helpful factoid.

[Moonlight Graham]

Yes an that strain on healthcare, housing and schools is what causes us to build new clinics, new houses, and new schools.

Its called a growth economy. The government will allow enough immigrants in to maintain a slow growth in population (about 2%) no matter how much you complain about it, because if they didnt you would complain way more about other things (the resulting recession).

Refugees are not brought in for economic benefit. They're often poor, and we don't screen them based on what they add to our economy, their assets, or their job skills or education like we do most other immigrants. Bringing in refugees is for humanitarian concern and altruism, not for our economic advantage, let's not kid ourselves. Syrians are poor, before the war average incomes were about $3000 US per year, compared to $50k in Canada. They don't have much to begin with, and considering they abandoned almost all their possessions all they have left is in their bank account, which isn't much.

If we bring in 25k refugees we have to know that we'll need to pay for their housing, food, healthcare, probably schooling for children, and other social assistance costs, plus transportation to get them here, administration costs to get and keep them here etc. I'm okay with bringing in some refugees in a responsible manner, but I think Canada's main focus should be to instead use this money to help regional countries support the 4 million refugees there, build camps in those countries etc. The latter 2 costs I outlined above could be completely avoided so we could help more people with the same # of dollars.

[marcus]

Refugees are not brought in for economic benefit. They're often poor, and we don't screen them based on what they add to our economy, their assets, or their job skills or education like we do most other immigrants. Bringing in refugees is for humanitarian concern and altruism, not for our economic advantage, let's not kid ourselves. Syrians are poor, before the war average incomes were about $3000 US per year, compared to $50k in Canada. They don't have much to begin with, and considering they abandoned almost all their possessions all they have left is in their bank account, which isn't much.

If we bring in 25k refugees we have to know that we'll need to pay for their housing, food, healthcare, probably schooling for children, and other social assistance costs, plus transportation to get them here, administration costs to get and keep them here etc. I'm okay with bringing in some refugees in a responsible manner, but I think Canada's main focus should be to instead use this money to help regional countries support the 4 million refugees there, build camps in those countries etc. The latter 2 costs I outlined above could be completely avoided so we could help more people with the same # of dollars.

Re: Reasons to help them:

Exactly what MG said. Yes, this is a humanitarian effort and not economic. When we spend money to help, let's say, a community that has been ravaged by floods, we're doing it to help them and not our economy.

Re: How to spend money to help them:

Improving refugee camps is only a bandaid. It doesn't resolve the issue that they are still refugees. Canada is economically and geographically capable of taking in 25,000 refugees. It's only a drop in the bucket.

Re: Education level of Syrians:

They actually have a high education rate. This compared to the usual refugees we see in and from Africa and Far East. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/syria_statistics.html#117

[Argus]

Just because some new immigrants collect welfare does not necessarily mean they are draining our economy. They need a place to live, which means they contribute to the demand for housing, which as I said before backs a lot of the rest of the economy.

This is a preposterous argument. Those on welfare do not help the economy, but are a drag on it. The money they spend comes from other people who earned it, and from companies trying to turn a profit. It is not new money in the economy but money redirected to the additional expense of paying for the education, food, housing and medical care of those who contribute nothing.

That is why the Conservatives' attempt to bring over the refugees who are most compatible here and least likely to wind up on long-term welfare, makes so much sense, and Trudeau's hurry-up effort to just grab whoever he can find in a Turkish refugee camp is so amazingly dumb.

[Argus]

Re: Reasons to help them:

Exactly what MG said. Yes, this is a humanitarian effort and not economic.

You're completely wrong. This has nothing to do with humanitarianism. It's entirely political. If we actually had a humanitarian interest we would put the billions it will cost us to support these people for most of the rest of their lives in Canada to work in helping many many more people in the refugee camps in Turkey. Canada could only take a tiny fraction of the refugees, at huge expense. It would be fare more sensible to help the Turks and Lebanese look after them there.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

This is a preposterous argument. Those on welfare do not help the economy, but are a drag on it.

Imagine how much more of a drag they would be without welfare.

[marcus]

You're completely wrong. This has nothing to do with humanitarianism. It's entirely political.

Canadians made it loud and clear that they want to help the refugees. Loud enough that even Harper made empty promises to bring in more refugees. So if it's political and Trudeau and the Liberals do not have any compassion, it's because most Canadians have that compassion.

If we actually had a humanitarian interest we would put the billions it will cost us

Billions? It's difficult to respond to someone who throws around wild and inaccurate numbers and tries to push them as facts. Try again.

[Moonlight Graham]

You're completely wrong. This has nothing to do with humanitarianism. It's entirely political. If we actually had a humanitarian interest we would put the billions it will cost us to support these people for most of the rest of their lives in Canada to work in helping many many more people in the refugee camps in Turkey. Canada could only take a tiny fraction of the refugees, at huge expense. It would be fare more sensible to help the Turks and Lebanese look after them there.

Well I agree it's political. If there wasn't a popular uproar about this during the election it's very likely this promise would never have been made. And from polls, Canadians want to help the refugees, but most are not in favour of mass refugee settlement in Canada, and Harper's plan (10k refugees over 4 years) was the most popular among polled Canadians:

A new Ipsos poll, conducted Sept. 11-13, found that despite all the bad publicity, nearly four in 10 Canadians (38 per cent) still think the Harper Conservatives would “make the best decision for Canada on the Syrian refugee situation.” Thirty-two per cent named the NDP, and 30 per cent named the Liberals. This doesn’t mean that people want Canada to take in more refugees immediately; a whopping 61 per cent oppose Mr. Trudeau’s proposal to bring in 25,000 refugees by year’s end.

As for security, Canadians flat-out disagreed with the generals, the Ipsos survey found. Seven in 10 (71 per cent) said that “we can’t compromise Canada’s security, and individual Syrian refugees should go through proper screening to make sure they aren’t terrorists even if this slows down their admission to Canada.”

[Moonlight Graham]

The houses are paid for by developers in the realestate market who see an opportunity on the supply side of the demand for housing. The government gets a big piece of this through fees, property taxes, consumption taxes, income taxes, etc. Most other Canadians benefit from this as well, because growth in the realestate sector back-stops home equity which is used to back the consumption of pretty much anything else. As population grows, you also have new businesses springing up that provide the myriad of goods and services that people need to live.

Schools and healthcare are paid for by the government, but government revenues increase in a growth economy as well because everyone involved is paying taxes on consumption and most are paying taxes on income.

Houses aren't paid or by developers, they need to be paid for by whomever buys them from the developers. If this is a poor refugee with little to no assets, they likely aren't buying a house, they're renting an apartment or in community housing I'd imagine. If they don't know english or french, finding a job will be difficult. If they can't support themselves (likely for the first year or more), the gov puts them on social assistance or whatnot & gives them money for housing (and food, clothes). As permanent residents of Canada the day they arrive in Canada by nature of being refugees, they'll already get free healthcare and free school for kids, and language training I'd imagine, and all virtually all the rights/privileges of being a citizen besides voting and a passport.

Yes it will mean an increase in housing development and general economic consumption, but much of this will be subsidized by taxpayers. It would be an investment in future economic growth, but how many years/decades would it take for this investment to actually start being a net gain to tax revenues than a tax cost?

[Argus]

Canadians made it loud and clear that they want to help the refugees.

They made it loud and clear they didn't want the niqab at citizenship ceremonies too. Was Harper's appeal there not political?

Billions? It's difficult to respond to someone who throws around wild and inaccurate numbers and tries to push them as facts. Try again.

Well, I was actually being 'conservative' in figuring the cost would be about $10,000 per person per year. That's a quarter billion in the first year. Some will find low level jobs but likely not high paying enough to be actual taxpayers, so will still be a neat minus on the budget (like the 30% of Canadians who pay no income taxes). Many will never find much, especially if we just grab them at random in order to fulfill Trudeau's political pledge, instead of looking for those with some sort of marketable experience which would allow them to be economically successful in Canada. Most will struggle with the climate and culture and the language and lack of job skills for many years, perhaps all their lives. You yourself posted figures showing only 62% of Syrians attended high school, and I bet that figure is lopsidedly higher around Damascas, where few refugees come from, and lower out in the boonies where the refugees are coming from.

So you tell me how much a guy who might never have attended high school, and has no English or french language skills is going to earn in Canada.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Argus