taxme Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 So, we are going to have 25,000 - 50,000 Syrian refugees coming to Canada in the next year or so. The cost according to the CBC will be approx. 100 million Canadian tax dollars to feed,clothe,house, and for other expenses. They will take a toll on our medical and social services. Why is this happening? Who asked the Canadian taxpayer if they wanted them here? No one. We are just told by our politically correct pro-multicultural politicians that this will be so, dam the money, and dam what the taxpayer thinks. These so-called refugees are criminals. The reason I call them criminals is that they entered another country illegally therefore making them criminal illegals.And now these criminals are coming to Canada and will be treated like VIP's and better than our own people. Our present day immigration policy needs an overhaul. We are allowing to many legal and illegal immigrants into Canada, around 300,000 - 400,000 every year, and many are ending up on welfare, aid that should be going to our own Canadians, many who live in poverty,kids going to school hungry, and our veterans who are treated worse than these illegals are. It is time for a moratorium on immigration until Canada can get the 2 million unemployed Canadians back to work. Our politicans should think about Canada and Canadians first, not the rest of the world first. Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 $100,000,000 is only $4,000 each (based on 25k). That'll barely cover the costs to get them here. I think the actual cost will be much much higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) What a ridiculous bunch of comments! Let's see, let me drop a bomb on your neighborhood and see if you don't put your tail between your legs and run for cover whichever direction you can. And oh, there is a border so I guess I'll just hang around and wait for the next volley. Edited February 17, 2016 by Charles Anthony excessive quoting; deleted re-copied [Opening Post] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Delivery Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Another mess created by American foreign policy that we have to pay for, yet I have to sympathize for the Syrian refugees. They are homeless by no fault of their own, and helping them with humanitarian support is the right thing to do.Maybe a temporary home with guaranteed repatriation might be the way to go? Hopefully CSIS will CAREFULLY screen every refugee whose feet touch Canadian soil before they actually do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 $100,000,000 is only $4,000 each (based on 25k). That'll barely cover the costs to get them here. I think the actual cost will be much much higher. Billions and billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 What a ridiculous bunch of comments! Let's see, let me drop a bomb on your neighborhood and see if you don't put your tail between your legs and run for cover whichever direction you can. And oh, there is a border so I guess I'll just hang around and wait for the next volley. So we should let in five hundred million people who are under threat of wars around the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Well, we could try standing in the way of our allies and tell them to stop sending weapons and reasons to use them into places that refugees are coming from. Of course we'd have to stop doing that ourselves if we expected to be taken seriously. In the meantime we deserve what we get. The fact what we're getting really pisses off the sorts of people who think interfering in the ME region is a good idea actually cheers me up. I hope the refugees move next door to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Well, we could try standing in the way of our allies and tell them to stop sending weapons and reasons to use them into places that refugees are coming from. Of course we'd have to stop doing that ourselves if we expected to be taken seriously. Ya think ? No more big fat APC contract for the Saudis ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Ya think ? No more big fat APC contract for the Saudis ?I don't think a lot of countries have been invaded with APC's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) So we should let in five hundred million people who are under threat of wars around the world?Why not a gajillion people? Are there no official documented numbers to use here? Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 I don't think a lot of countries have been invaded with APC's.Their purpose is to keep the oppressed from overthrowing their oppressors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 So we should let in five hundred million people who are under threat of wars around the world? I don't think you could call Syrian's as being under the "threat of war". Seen any pictures of downtown Allepo lately? That ain't no threat, that's war, and it's been going on for 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Taxme asked, "Who asked the Canadian taxpayer if they wanted them here?" The Government did. It was called an election. The Liberals said, 'If you want 25, 000 Syrian refugees to come to Canada, elect us.' We elected them. Edited February 17, 2016 by Queenmandy85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) Interesting argument should we or should we not? On one hand we have many people homeless and desperate trying to survive in the cold (Syrian refugees) and on the other hand we also have many homeless people right here and who are born here and are sleeping in the cold (if you don't believe me take a walk in downtown Montreal in a cold winter night). Not to mention many more having difficulties to bring food to their tables or pay for a roof over their heads and struggling to pay their bill. Not to mention the unemployed and sick and elderly without proper health care or food or medicine or shelter or heat. So what is it going to be.. Not our problem let the needy overseas die in cold because they are not born here (or they are Arabs or Muslims so why we care?) and take care of our own first? Or on other extreme lets bring all those refugees here (say over a million like Germany did?) and create even more problems for ourselves since most are people with completely different culture not to mention a tiny minority who disgraced their own, that is all of those people who went on rampage in Cologne Germany attacking innocent defenseless women in New Years celebrations or harassing them in swimming pool taking advantage of the liberal society these monsters were provided by the west. The compromise is likely the best solution. That is to take a modest number (to me 25000 sounds a fair share) and be selective as who we are admitting (that is check them out thoroughly) so I think that the Liberal government has hit a good balance not to show the world that we are uncaring and at the same time live up to our international obligations (btw, none of the Arab states lived to their obligations and refuse to help out their own brothers and sisters but we are better than them right? We don't want to be at the same level as the corrupts regimes of Saudi or the Arab States of Persian Gulf right?). Believe it or not refugees or not we will still have homeless and poor people at home. We had them before and we will have them after. So lets live up to our international obligations and at the time of slow economic growth like now lets reduce immigrants to 150,000 and concentrate on European immigrants who most of them are adopted to western culture or those in the third world selectively chosen based on their skills and adaptability. My 2 cents. Edited February 17, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 My issue is one of pure numbers. I believe we have too many people in Canada. I would like to see the population reduced to 12 million. OTOH, we need immigration. The compromise should be to allow only enough newcomers that would still permit the population to decline slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Taxme asked, "Who asked the Canadian taxpayer if they wanted them here?" The Government did. It was called an election. The Liberals said, 'If you want 25, 000 Syrian refugees to come to Canada, elect us.' We elected them. You answered your own question lol. So this means we wanted to have them here right? Because when they made this promise their number started moving up and we elected them to a majority knowing that they would do this right? My issue is one of pure numbers. I believe we have too many people in Canada. I would like to see the population reduced to 12 million. OTOH, we need immigration. The compromise should be to allow only enough newcomers that would still permit the population to decline slowly. Not sure if you are serious but we are a VAST country with Vast resources and can have 10 times the population we have now and become an economic and if we wish a military power and instead you wish to reduce 30 million to 12 million!!!!?? For what reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I don't think you could call Syrian's as being under the "threat of war". Seen any pictures of downtown Allepo lately? That ain't no threat, that's war, and it's been going on for 5 years. So does that mean we should allow all 22 million of them here? Plus the 32 odd million Iraqis and the 22 million yemenis and all the 11 million in south sudan and the millions more in other war zones? Refugee status is supposed to be for individuals, not entire populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Not sure if you are serious but we are a VAST country with Vast resources and can have 10 times the population we have now and become an economic and if we wish a military power and instead you wish to reduce 30 million to 12 million!!!!?? For what reason? This is nonsense, of course. Most of this country's geographical territory is arctic tundra. That's why almost all us live in a narrow strip within 100 miles of the US border. The more people who come here, the more crowded and polluted that narrow strip is. You may think Pakistan and Bangladesh are wonderful places to live because of their large populations but most of us would disagree. Edited February 18, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 So does that mean we should allow all 22 million of them here? Plus the 32 odd million Iraqis and the 22 million yemenis and all the 11 million in south sudan and the millions more in other war zones? Refugee status is supposed to be for individuals, not entire populations. It's fun to watch you pull these wild numbers out of your ...whatever. We are actually talking 25k that the government has committed to, after that it is up to individuals/groups to decide if they want to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 It's fun to watch you pull these wild numbers out of your ...whatever. We are actually talking 25k that the government has committed to, after that it is up to individuals/groups to decide if they want to help. I'm wondering what the justification is. You're expressing outrage anyone is questioning why this is being done, given the war there. Clearly that ought to mean you feel all Syrians should be free to come here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm wondering what the justification is. You're expressing outrage anyone is questioning why this is being done, given the war there. Clearly that ought to mean you feel all Syrians should be free to come here. And clearly that's simply another wild assumption. Do you throw darts or something? I think the outrage is all yours, what I am expressing is a thing called humanitarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 And clearly that's simply another wild assumption. Do you throw darts or something? I think the outrage is all yours, what I am expressing is a thing called humanitarianism. You feel like being a humanitarian for 25,000 Syrians? Why only 25,000? Why not 250,000? You don't care about leaving the rest to die there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 You feel like being a humanitarian for 25,000 Syrians? Why only 25,000? Why not 250,000? You don't care about leaving the rest to die there? Here's a little math lesson for you, we are 1 country, there are a lot more countries on this planet. Therefore we aren't expected to take the whole problem on by our self. But if you like to throw wild numbers around, just throw on a bunch more zeros and carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I think our guilt meter is set at 25,000 at the moment. Harper's guilt meter was only at 10,000. That rate jumped to 25,000 with the photo of the dead child and Harper was too slow to react so he was ousted. Every now and then a news story pops up and it increases a little. One more displeasing photo could bump our guilt level to 50,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 It's fun to watch you pull these wild numbers out of your ...whatever. We are actually talking 25k that the government has committed to, after that it is up to individuals/groups to decide if they want to help.People make up wild and exaggerated claims when their arguments sound bloody ridiculous against the truth. 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.