Trudeau invites refugees to Canada, taunts Trump

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

We'll see what those allies think of his 'signalling' if Trump gets pissy on us and says "Given all the foreigners pouring into Canada from Asia and the middle east which they don't even check out at all, I think it's important we strengthen security on our northern border!"

Sometimes the economy is less important than allowing reprehensible ideas to go unchallenged.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Smallc

[Argus]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Well, just answer the question.  Where does it say that in the Constitution? Is it in the Constitution?  Yes or no.

I'll answer it for you.  IT'S NOT!

It's not in the constitution, but the judges would read it in. You can't interfere with someone's religion in Canada.

That does not mean you can't make a judgement about what kind of person would make the best immigrants to Canada and apply that against foreign religious fanatics with hostile cultures who would be very poor at adapting and integrating here.

[Smallc]

Just now, Argus said:

It's not in the constitution, but the judges would read it in. You can't interfere with someone's religion in Canada.

So, it is in the constitution, then.

[Argus]

Just now, Smallc said:

Sometimes doing the right thing is more important than allowing reprehensible ideas to go unchallenged.

Especially if your livelihood isn't threatened by it, right?

A brave man will stand up to a raging bull to protect a child from being trampled, but only an idiot will do that to protect some flowers, especially when they're not even their flowers.

[Argus]

Just now, Smallc said:

So, it is in the constitution, then.

You will not find anywhere that I ever said the courts would permit it, even during the debate about niquabs.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You will not find anywhere that I ever said the courts would permit it, even during the debate about niquabs.

That's because it's in the constitution.

[Smallc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Especially if your livelihood isn't threatened by it, right?

A brave man will stand up to a raging bull to protect a child from being trampled, but only an idiot will do that to protect some flowers, especially when they're not even their flowers.

It was the right thing to do.  That's more important.

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It was the right thing to do.  That's more important.

Exactly.   I'd rather be ethical and humane than materially blessed.  

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's because it's in the constitution.

The constitution says whatever the lawyers appointed to the supreme court say it does. If all the SC judges died overnight and a guy like Trump appointed their successors the constitution would soon say entirely different things.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Exactly.   I'd rather be ethical and humane than materially blessed.  

Especially since you can be noble and yet not have YOUR livelihood threatened.

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It was the right thing to do.  That's more important.

Banning trade with China and Russia would be the right thing to do. I don't see many people rushing to support the idea.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

Especially since you can be noble and yet not have YOUR livelihood threatened.

What am I misunderstanding, exactly?   I thought the concern here was that Trudeau would annoy Trump and that could result in some kind of economic fall-out in Canada.   Since I work in Canada I am affected by Canada's economic situation; if it's negatively affected by actions of the US, why wouldn't I be affected?     

[Argus]

Just now, dialamah said:

What am I misunderstanding, exactly?   I thought the concern here was that Trudeau would annoy Trump and that could result in some kind of economic fall-out in Canada.   Since I work in Canada I am affected by Canada's economic situation; if it's negatively affected by actions of the US, why wouldn't I be affected?     

The people who would be affected are those whose jobs depend on trade with the US. Clearly yours wouldn't be or you'd be a lot less noble.

As for the economic situation, none of you on the other side of this issue have ever shown the slightest concern for the state of our economy or how much in debt we are. In fact, as Trudeau supporters you're cheerleaders for ever more debt.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Banning trade with China and Russia would be the right thing to do. I don't see many people rushing to support the idea.

That isn't under discussion in this thread is it, so why bring it up?     But yeah, I'd support banning trade with countries that do not have human rights as a priority, including places like Saudi.  I suspect there'd be an awful lot of countries we'd not be doing trade with, so under those circumstances, I'd expect our current consumer lifestyle to be restrained, even drastically.   

[Smallc]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

Banning trade with China and Russia would be the right thing to do. I don't see many people rushing to support the idea.

Who is banning trade with the US?

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Who is banning trade with the US?

I was pointing out there is a limit to your 'do the right thing' attitude.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Argus

[drummindiver]

20 hours ago, Smallc said:

It doesn't matter - he's still banned (his diplomatic passport may allow him entry).

Hyperbole. One country mentioned in EO. CNN says 7 countries,  the EO does not.MSM lying again.http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html

 

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Fuck this.  Only cowards duck and cover when bullies pick on the helpless.   Trudeau should stand up for those who are suffering, and so should every other leader and every other decent human being.

 

How about ef Trudeau,  the man who got our own ban in place? Although I personally agree with it.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-19.45/page-1.html

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

We will have to wait until Trump divests his business interests in Canada first. As far as it is known, the seven countries you can't say on television have no Trump business interests.

See comment above.

The 7 countries targeted were picked by Obama years ago and have nothing to do with the Donalds business for you conspiracy nuts.And btw, were y'all screaming when Obama did this but for longer in 2011?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/muslim-ban-hypocrisy-left-said-nothing-when-obama-also-halted-visas/news-story/17c901096824ecd0a2e3a4d1e5ded377

Edited January 29, 2017 by drummindiver

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

How about ef Trudeau,  the man who got our own ban in place? Although I personally agree with it.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-19.45/page-1.html

 

The difference between these is that the law you cited is people that are known or suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity are prevented from traveling, while Trump's ban applies to people who have done nothing wrong being restricted from entering a country where they may have lived for years, or may even hold citizenship.   YUUGE difference.

 

[Smallc]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

I was pointing out there is a limit to your 'do the right thing' attitude.

Of course there are.  I don't want Trudeau to openly criticize Trump, only to offer contrast for the world.

[Smallc]

16 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Hyperbole. One country mentioned in EO. CNN says 7 countries,  the EO does not.MSM lying again.http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html

Yes, everyone is just making up the 7 countries.

[drummindiver]

24 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Yes, everyone is just making up the 7 countries.

Read the damn thing for yourself.

[drummindiver]

31 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The difference between these is that the law you cited is people that are known or suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity are prevented from traveling, while Trump's ban applies to people who have done nothing wrong being restricted from entering a country where they may have lived for years, or may even hold citizenship.   YUUGE difference.

 

Literally the same thing. And you are spouting hyperbole.  No one is being denied entry to a country they've lived. Fear mongering bs.

[Smallc]

14 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Read the damn thing for yourself.

Is Sean Spicer lying again?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316733-spicer-obama-administration-originally-flagged-7-countries

[dialamah]

47 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Literally the same thing. And you are spouting hyperbole.  No one is being denied entry to a country they've lived. Fear mongering bs.

 

 

No, not since the judge stayed the order.  Still, a university professor who lived and worked in the US and a five-year-old boy who was born in the States were 'detained' as a result of the ban.   Those were only a couple I saw on the livestream I watched last night and I'm sure there were many more that I didn't hear about.   

In addition, if people hold dual citizenship - US and a banned country for example - the order blocks their entry.   Perhaps that is the case with the professor who was denied re-entry.    

https://news.vice.com/story/trump-refugee-ban-protests

Quote

The State Department also said dual citizens of those countries, including those with U.S. passports, were banned as well.

 

 

Whether the order intended to include those people, but now they're backtracking or it was an error in the first place, I don't know.    But it's not fear mongering; people who have lived and worked in the US for many years, who called the US their home, were denied entry.  

The people who are affected by Trump's ban are not specifically suspected of terrorist activities; the people targetted in the Canadian law on "Terrorist Travel" are.   There's a huge difference between the two laws.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The difference between these is that the law you cited is people that are known or suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity are prevented from traveling, while Trump's ban applies to people who have done nothing wrong being restricted from entering a country where they may have lived for years, or may even hold citizenship.   YUUGE difference.

That's been clarified. It doesn't affect those with green cards. It mostly affects people from failed states where the government has only partial control and where the people who are traveling could be almost anyone. The exception is Iran, but I suppose you could make the case that a self-declared enemy of the US which sponsors terrorism can be treated differently if the Americans choose to do so.