Our new Syrian refugee immigrants.

[Argus]

Lawyers aren't making a lot of money from refugees, who are almost always quite poor.

Since the Bertha Wilson decision, refugee claimants get free legal aid. YOU are paying for it. It costs an average of $4,100 to process each claim but that does not include the cost of the legal aid to the refugee - or of course, the cost of paying for their food, clothing, medical care and housing while in Canada. The total is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 per refugee. That's to process a claim. After that there can be continuing costs to support the refugee in Canada, perhaps for many years.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

I wonder if the government took a poll on how many refugees a year should Canada take in with a count beginning from zero and say a count up to 5,000. I would be interested to know what the numbers would be acceptable to most Canadians.

They did. I remember a poll last year around the election season. For Syrian refugees, those Canadians polled supported closer to around 10,000 refugees coming into Canada in the last quarter of 2015, closer to the CPC target rather than the Liberals target of 20k and no even close to the NDP target of 40k.

But those are only for Syrian refugees, which I'm sure Canadians and westerners are more conservative about considering fears over bringing in jihadists, especially considering we're at war with ISIS in that country. Which makes sense. But then is that fair to the legit Syrians who are fleeing the same extremists we're trying to defeat?

Also why put a limit of 5000 on your hypothetical poll?

[Moonlight Graham]

Since the Bertha Wilson decision, refugee claimants get free legal aid. YOU are paying for it. It costs an average of $4,100 to process each claim but that does not include the cost of the legal aid to the refugee - or of course, the cost of paying for their food, clothing, medical care and housing while in Canada. The total is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 per refugee. That's to process a claim. After that there can be continuing costs to support the refugee in Canada, perhaps for many years.

Link to support those #'s?

[Argus]

Link to support those #'s?

Well, this is from a few years back. No doubt the cost to process them has risen since them. But what do you imagine it costs to feed, clothe, house and give medical care to third world refugees who, for the most part, don't speak English/French and have no citeable modern job skills? Besides which, they're not allowed to work until their claim is heard, which averages more than a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/flight-to-canada-the-refugee-process-1.889045

Edited May 24, 2016 by Argus

[taxme]

They did. I remember a poll last year around the election season. For Syrian refugees, those Canadians polled supported closer to around 10,000 refugees coming into Canada in the last quarter of 2015, closer to the CPC target rather than the Liberals target of 20k and no even close to the NDP target of 40k.

But those are only for Syrian refugees, which I'm sure Canadians and westerners are more conservative about considering fears over bringing in jihadists, especially considering we're at war with ISIS in that country. Which makes sense. But then is that fair to the legit Syrians who are fleeing the same extremists we're trying to defeat?

Also why put a limit of 5000 on your hypothetical poll?

And why not 5,000? Personally, I would prefer a lot less. But as a taxpayer, it is my tax dollars that are being used here on refugees who do not deserve it. If you want to allow more refugees into Canada then you and others who want them here can pay for them. And don't try to shove them on to the taxpayers if you don't want to pay for them anymore. I pay more taxes than you can shake a stick at, and I am fed up with it. We allow enough legal immigrants into this country every year. I wonder how many of them will end up on the dole after they are here for awhile? Once accepted they get to stay here forever.

That poll was most likely done by the media. And when a poll is taken, what kinds of questions are being asked of the people? Are they asking soft questions like are you in favor of allowing and helping poor starving and in danger families of refugees in from worn torn countries? Or are they asking real questions like are you willing to fork out hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to look after and take care of refugees for now or maybe forever?

Polls are nonsense because it all depends on who is taking that poll. Is the pollsters asking fair common sense questions or emotional ones to favor the response that they want.

[taxme]

Since the Bertha Wilson decision, refugee claimants get free legal aid. YOU are paying for it. It costs an average of $4,100 to process each claim but that does not include the cost of the legal aid to the refugee - or of course, the cost of paying for their food, clothing, medical care and housing while in Canada. The total is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 per refugee. That's to process a claim. After that there can be continuing costs to support the refugee in Canada, perhaps for many years.

Politicians will tell us that they have no money for infrastructure, seniors, vets or MRI's. But suddenly like magic they have millions of tax dollars to be thrown away on refugees and continue to send millions of tax dollars in foreign-aid to other countries for their infrastructures and it's people.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, this is from a few years back. No doubt the cost to process them has risen since them. But what do you imagine it costs to feed, clothe, house and give medical care to third world refugees who, for the most part, don't speak English/French and have no citeable modern job skills? Besides which, they're not allowed to work until their claim is heard, which averages more than a year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/flight-to-canada-the-refugee-process-1.889045

Thanks Argus that looks like an interesting link, I'll give it a read.

[Moonlight Graham]

That poll was most likely done by the media. And when a poll is taken, what kinds of questions are being asked of the people? Are they asking soft questions like are you in favor of allowing and helping poor starving and in danger families of refugees in from worn torn countries? Or are they asking real questions like are you willing to fork out hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to look after and take care of refugees for now or maybe forever?

Polls are nonsense because it all depends on who is taking that poll. Is the pollsters asking fair common sense questions or emotional ones to favor the response that they want.

Well judge for yourself. Here's a recent poll done this year by Angus Reid. A link to the actual poll is included in the article: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-dont-want-to-take-in-more-than-25000-syrian-refugees-new-poll

More than 70 per cent of Canadians don’t support the federal government taking in more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, according to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute. Two in five respondents think Canada should stop taking in Syrian refugees immediately.

As of Tuesday, more than 21,000 refugees had arrived in Canada, according to the government’s website. The government is working to meet its target of 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February.

Immigration Minister John McCallum recently promised the Liberals would exceed their original commitment and accept a total of between 35,000 and 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. The Angus Reid poll suggests this is at odds with what the majority of Canadians want.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[waldo]

Well judge for yourself. Here's a recent poll done this year by Angus Reid.

yet another poll from a closed online forum requiring a registration process to join (Angus Reid Forum)... "Earn from $1 to $5 Survey Dollars for each survey you complete." These types of polls need greater scrutiny.

a most recent poll from Nanos Polling:

(These observations are based on an RDD dual frame (land and cell lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between April 28th to May 3rd, 2016 as part of an omnibus survey. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,000 Canadians is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20)

- Support high for resettling more than 26,000 refugees – Six in ten Canadians say that they either support (36%) or somewhat support (24%) the federal government’s decision to resettle more than 26,000 Syrian refugees. Just over a third oppose (22%) or somewhat oppose (15%) this decision, while three per cent are unsure.

- Support high for prioritizing the resettlement of 10,000 privately sponsored refugees – Approximately two thirds of Canadians support (35%) or somewhat support (29%) the federal government’s recently announced plan to prioritize 10,000 privately-sponsored Syrian refugee applications, while nearly a third oppose (18%) or somewhat oppose (12%) it. Five per cent said they were unsure about the plan.

.

[G Huxley]

Nietzsche, you've come back to the dead!"

hehe yeah, I think Nietzsche was right on.

Btw, Christian morality also built the West."

I disagree. The west was built by the Greco-Romans, Celts, Germans, Slavic peoples, Iberian people etc.

Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire.

Remember that. If our morality was for everyone to praise selfishness"

I'm not praising selfishness. I can't stand it when the right attempts to co-opt Nietzsche by trying to make him appear to validate their economic model despite the fact that Nietzsche says almost nothing if anything about economics in all his writings.

I'm praising the ability of a people to defend itself and to maintain itself.

"and praise the strong for its own sake we'd still be a totalitarian monarchy, and a human rights nightmare like most of the non-West."

I'm not simply praising strength for its own sake either. The problem is that those who hold strength as the supreme value usually manage to turn it into weakness by using it without intelligence.

Yes we've increasingly started to take it to an illogical extreme in some cases, but...be good to each other, it's called "civilization" aka "being civilized"."

Civilization is not civilized and humanity is not humane.

I am not saying to be bad to others. I am saying that we should defend our nation and its environment from being overrun by others (who utilize kindness to do so).

"Taking in refugees has nothing to do with what refugees will do to benefit the host country. "

That's the problem.

"It has to do with helping other people who are fleeing war, risk of death, or inhuman cruelty etc."

I don't have a problem with that, provided we return them to their homeland after and provided they repay us for our service. Otherwise we are being taken advantage of and being invaded.

"I have good friends whose families came here as refugees. They are contributing members to Canada and upstanding citizens. I'm glad they aren't in a third world commie prison being whipped and beaten."

That may be so, but the problem is that the more people we let in the more we destroy the environment and debase our country.

[waldo]

And why not 5,000? Personally, I would prefer a lot less. But as a taxpayer, it is my tax dollars that are being used here on refugees who do not deserve it.

undeserving refugees you say? Oh my! Wait now... you're the guy who put up that false thread title claiming 300,000 more refugees were coming to Canada - that was you, right? Have you finally figured out the distinction between refugees/humanitarian resettlement response and immigrants?

a historical perspective for your edification:

- in the past, Canada has responded to major international crisis by resettling significant numbers of refugees from the related impacted single source country or region: ~38,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956–57, and ~ 70,000 refugees ("boat people") from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between 1975–1980. By the end of 2016 the Canadian government has pledged to resettle a combined 35,000 government and private sponsored Syrian refugees.

- between 1979–2014, Canada admitted ~980,000 refugees... an average of ~27,000 annually. Within that collective there were larger groupings reflecting more localized conflicts/repression/strife; like: 11,000 Czechoslovakians, 7000 Chileans, 7000 Kosovars, 6200 Ugandans, etc..

.

[waldo]

I don't have a problem with that, provided we return them to their homeland after and provided they repay us for our service. Otherwise we are being taken advantage of and being invaded.

That may be so, but the problem is that the more people we let in the more we destroy the environment and debase our country.

"advantage taking refugee invaders destroying the environment and debasing our country"... truly, one of the more azzholey comments around here of late! If nothing else your rationale is worth exploring simply to realize how it is arrived at/shaped:

- advantage over who/what?

- taking from who/what... how and where?

- invaders... clarification please.

- destroying the environment... relative to what reference, how, what environs/ecosystems/etc.

- debasing our country... how?

.

[G Huxley]

There is too much truth in those words for you to fathom.

"- advantage over who/what?"

Canada and its environment.

"taking from who/what... how and where?"

Canada, its people and its environment. The funds it takes for the process, the land that is given away, the resources it takes. The species driven away from their habitats.

Ask yourself this: How many cedar forests are there in Lebanon?

"invaders... clarification please."

If they enter the country and don't leave then they are invading.

"destroying the environment... relative to what reference, how, what environs/ecosystems/etc."

Each human on the earth leads to a massive destruction of the environment, through the massive extraction of resources, taking up of land, wrecking eco-systems etc.

"debasing our country... how?"

The more people in a country per capita the more miserable, polluted and impoverished it becomes. Don't believe me? Go live in Nigeria, Egypt, India or China.

Edited May 24, 2016 by G Huxley

[Big Guy]

Some refugees try to adapt quickly:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/syrian-kids-sing-o-canada-1.3596147

[G Huxley]

Our environment won't.

[taxme]

yet another poll from a closed online forum requiring a registration process to join (Angus Reid Forum)... "Earn from $1 to $5 Survey Dollars for each survey you complete." These types of polls need greater scrutiny.

a most recent poll from Nanos Polling:

(These observations are based on an RDD dual frame (land and cell lines) hybrid telephone and online random survey of 1,000 Canadians, 18 years of age or older, between April 28th to May 3rd, 2016 as part of an omnibus survey. The margin of error for a random survey of 1,000 Canadians is ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20)

- Support high for resettling more than 26,000 refugees – Six in ten Canadians say that they either support (36%) or somewhat support (24%) the federal government’s decision to resettle more than 26,000 Syrian refugees. Just over a third oppose (22%) or somewhat oppose (15%) this decision, while three per cent are unsure.

- Support high for prioritizing the resettlement of 10,000 privately sponsored refugees – Approximately two thirds of Canadians support (35%) or somewhat support (29%) the federal government’s recently announced plan to prioritize 10,000 privately-sponsored Syrian refugee applications, while nearly a third oppose (18%) or somewhat oppose (12%) it. Five per cent said they were unsure about the plan.

.

Geez, I wished they had of asked me. I would have said no to all of them, even the sponsored ones because I believe that some years down the road, probably most of those sponsored will most likely end up on the dole. Just my opinion of course.

"Government "IS" the problem".

[taxme]

Some refugees try to adapt quickly:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/syrian-kids-sing-o-canada-1.3596147

CBC? Questionable.

[taxme]

Our environment won't.

True enough. With all these hundreds of thousands of new refugees,legal and illegal immigrants entering Canada the toll will not only be on the environment but also our medical and social services and infrastructure. One would think that the environmental groups out there who always whine about how the environment is being destroyed would have something to say about the two to three hundred thousand new immigrants coming to Canada every year. This has to be a problem for the environment that they so love to talk about and want to protect. The Canadian population is going up every year, and this has to have some bad effect on the environment? But I suspect that they will be quiet on our immigration policy.

[taxme]

Well judge for yourself. Here's a recent poll done this year by Angus Reid. A link to the actual poll is included in the article: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-dont-want-to-take-in-more-than-25000-syrian-refugees-new-poll

More than 70 per cent of Canadians don’t support the federal government taking in more than 25,000 Syrian refugees, according to a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute. Two in five respondents think Canada should stop taking in Syrian refugees immediately.

As of Tuesday, more than 21,000 refugees had arrived in Canada, according to the government’s website. The government is working to meet its target of 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of February.

Immigration Minister John McCallum recently promised the Liberals would exceed their original commitment and accept a total of between 35,000 and 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016. The Angus Reid poll suggests this is at odds with what the majority of Canadians want.

Just curious. I wonder how many of our illustrious politicians have opened their doors to a Syrian refugee? After all aren't they the ones that keep bringing them in at taxpayer's expense of course, and appear to want to flood Canada with all the refugees of the world that they can squeeze in?

[taxme]

undeserving refugees you say? Oh my! Wait now... you're the guy who put up that false thread title claiming 300,000 more refugees were coming to Canada - that was you, right? Have you finally figured out the distinction between refugees/humanitarian resettlement response and immigrants?

a historical perspective for your edification:

- in the past, Canada has responded to major international crisis by resettling significant numbers of refugees from the related impacted single source country or region: ~38,000 Hungarian refugees in 1956–57, and ~ 70,000 refugees ("boat people") from Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos between 1975–1980. By the end of 2016 the Canadian government has pledged to resettle a combined 35,000 government and private sponsored Syrian refugees.

- between 1979–2014, Canada admitted ~980,000 refugees... an average of ~27,000 annually. Within that collective there were larger groupings reflecting more localized conflicts/repression/strife; like: 11,000 Czechoslovakians, 7000 Chileans, 7000 Kosovars, 6200 Ugandans, etc..

.

I thought that I cleared that up? The reporter had said that there were going to be something like 300,000 new immigrants coming to Canada which I mistook for refugees. That was already cleared up by others, and I ate my words. Clear now?

So, you seem to believe that every time there is some kind of strife in some country from around the world, Canadians have to come to the rescue, and save them from their plight. Well not me. We see massive strikes and demonstrations going on in Europe today but I don't see any massive new immigrants wanting to leave and go else where. They are staying there and fighting for their rights and freedoms, and so should have all those 980,000 refugees you pointed out that came to Canada should have. This refugee stuff is/has cost Canadian taxpayer's billions upon billions to support them. I guess I am just not one of those what one would call a bleeding heart liberal. But that is just me.

[cannuck]

Hey! I got it! Let`s send the refugees out to reserves. Our federal governments of every persuasion seem to want to give Canada to the aboriginals, so let`s REALLY give them a piece of the action. Let THEM take care of the refugees.

[G Huxley]

True enough. With all these hundreds of thousands of new refugees,legal and illegal immigrants entering Canada the toll will not only be on the environment but also our medical and social services and infrastructure. One would think that the environmental groups out there who always whine about how the environment is being destroyed would have something to say about the two to three hundred thousand new immigrants coming to Canada every year. This has to be a problem for the environment that they so love to talk about and want to protect. The Canadian population is going up every year, and this has to have some bad effect on the environment? But I suspect that they will be quiet on our immigration policy.

Exactly. The so called environmentalists are complete hypocrites when it comes to immigration. Even the Green party apparently is pro immigration. How much of a joke is that? Why don't they just be honest and call themselves the humanist-liberal party.

[jbg]

So, you seem to believe that every time there is some kind of strife in some country from around the world, Canadians have to come to the rescue, and save them from their plight. Well not me.

It’s easy for keyboard warriors and politicians to be “Liberal” (pun intended) with other people’s money.

We see massive strikes and demonstrations going on in Europe today but I don't see any massive new immigrants wanting to leave and go elsewhere.

I just spoke yesterday with a German who is about 18 years old working in a local athletics store. His English seemed rather good for a recent immigrant. He said that his parents sent him to an “American school” since “like all Germans, we want to come” to the States.

[The_Squid]

The fact that you gain your understanding about what "all Germans" want from an 18 year old kid working in a shoe store in the USA says a lot.

[Smoke]

The fact that you gain your understanding about what "all Germans" want from an 18 year old kid working in a shoe store in the USA says a lot.

Yes, much better to have liberals tell you.