So-called refugees crossing Manitoba/American border.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

Why is your assumption less of an assumption than mine?

My assumption is substantiated by facts

[Rue]

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

• No more doctors as Minister of Health
• No more lawyers as Minister of Justice
• No more farmers as Minister of Agriculture
• No more soldiers as Minister of National Defence
• No more bankers as Minister of National Revenue or Minister of Finance
• No more athletes as Minister of Sport

 

Your comment makes no sense and show you don't get it and do not understand what conflict of interest is.

To start with doctors, lawyers, soldiers, bankers and athletes can have conflict of interest in what they do which is precisely why they have professional bodies that regulate what they do and penalize and regulate them with conflict of interest.

So yes any of the above could have a conflict of interest  with their professional designations and their political positions.

The test for conflict will not rest solely on their profession but how they practice it.

Further the analogy that the Minister of Immigration's status as a refugee and Muslim is a professional capacity is nonsense. The standard to test of he has a conflict coming while being a lawyer is not the same as the test for a conflict that comes from his being a Muslim or refugee or Somali.

If I am the Minister of Health and believe addicts should not be given needles and am asked to implement a law to distribute needles yes I would have an appearance of conflict of interest to the public  until I recused myself from the implementation of that law or came out and said I agree with it.

The only way to resolve that actual or appeared conflict would be to state is to openly admit the conflict and state how you will handle it as Minister. Our current Minister and Prime Minister won't acknowledge the Somali and  Muslim dual status of this Minister renders an appearance of expected favourable treatment to Somalis and Muslims and maybe all Africans over others.

The current Minister of Immigration will not recuse himself from dealing with Somali refugees, Somali  illegal immigrants, and Muslim illegal immigrants and as such has the appearance of being conflicted. In law there does not have to be an actiual conflict, just the appearance of one to set of the legal issue as real.

I argue he can not be expected to be neutral when dealing with Muslims, refugees or Somalis until such time as he admits he has an appearance of  conflict of interest with them  and recuses himself from dealing with policies regarding  such illegals. He can't do that because its such an integral part of his job and its precisely why he was hired, to send a signal that a refugee has been put in the position to Judge people claiming to be refugees.

That is no different than appointing someone who is head of a Coal Company the Minister of the Environment.

It is precisely why an aboriginal has never been placed in the Ministry of Indian Affairs. There would be an appearance such a Minister could not be expected to be neutral with his own nation (tribe) or with all aboriginal nations when dealing with the federal government.

A lawyer who  worked as a Mafia lawyer would have a conflict being Minister of Justice passing laws on organized crime.

A soldier as Minister of National Defence would have a conflict of interest if he was known to have worked for a military factory making military weapons that the government will purchase.

Our Foreign Minister who is proud of her Ukrainian heritage most certainly has a conflict dealing with Russia over the Ukrainian issue.

Many people do argue making a banker as Finance Minister is not a good idea because of the bias they would have from the banker perspective. in fact many argue the current Finance Minister was appointed precisely because Trudeau as a left winger thought a banker would be bias and put in a man who became rich selling health and wellness benefit programs. 

As we speak left wing pablum you support Impact claim all of Trump's cabinet picks have conflicts because they are white millionaires and also stated Haper's Ministers were bias because they were rich and white, or does that skip your selective memory.

Trudeau picked women as cabinet Ministers and lent to the appearance he hired them because they were women not because they were qualified because when he was asked why they were picked instead of saying-they were picked on merit, same as the men, why don't you ask me about them-he made the smug comment he did which suggested he hired them to show he was a feminist and was showing they were token appointments hired precisely because they were women and to promote his feminist identity, not that they were promoted based on merit.

The Minister of Justice was hired not because she was a woman or aboriginal but because she is a well respected lawyer. No one asked about her for that very reason. Had she been appointed the Indian Affairs Minister you bet people would have questioned there being an appearance of bias.

Why would I as a Canadian not question the appearance of bias in who is selected? Why does someone being a refugee and Somali and Muslim not merit consideration as lending to conflict?

Trudeau sat in Mosques and shook hands and befriended Imams in Mosques known for their anti-Christian, anti-Semitic beliefs. You bet that triggers a lack of confidence in Judgement. The Member of Parliament from Mississauga he calls his Middle East advisor is an open and blatant anti-Semite why wouldn't I question that pick?

You bet I question his refusal to put Stephane Dion back in the Ministry of the  Environment. Trudeau did not place him their as he asked even though he was the best qualified because Trudeau felt he would make Trudeau look bad pushing Trudeau to prevent the oil pipeline to the US.

Trudeau picks and chooses his Ministers based on his own political interests-why the hell do you assume they can't be questioned.

His Immigration Minister was picked because of his Somali refugee identity and to send the message he is pro refugee. Don't pretend he didn't. That places the whole Immigration Ministry under pressure to be pro refugee, pro illegal immigrant, pro anyone who wants to come to Canada.

Yah you bet appointing the head of McCain's the largest potato farmer in Canada would be a conflict.

Yah you bet putting in an athlete who approves of steroid use as Minister of Sport would be a conflict.

Zip zap and zowee.

Hey where were you by the way when the federal Liberal Party on the candidate floor, issued a campaign not to elect Bob Rae hed of the party because his wife was a Jew and he would be pro Israel. Where were you when the same whisper campaign was said about the current ex NDP leader for refusing to support BDS? Where were you when Harper was accused of being pro Christian and too Christian hmm?

I have made it clear I have nothing at all personally against the Immigration Minister and think he is a decent man. I repeat again there is an appearance he is conflicted precisely because of why he was chosen-his ethnic, refugee and religious status. The same reason they were deliberately picked to be used as a token visible minority status to exploit, is the same reason they also create a conflict.

Its not fair to him. He is going to be made the fall guy when this is all said and done and whether its fair or not he is going to b e blamed for treating Somalis favourably and Muslims favourably, whether its true or not.

Also while we are at it, name me one Jew in his cabinet. Name me one other black man other than the Immigration Minister. Yah I know he couldn't find any. He couldn't find any Japanese, Koreans, and get back to me on Latinos. I think there may be one.

Conflicts? Hey this is the same Justin who flies with a rich boy who gets grants from the government. Him worry about conflicts? Who Justin who said his picks for MP's will be done openly and based on popular grass roots voting? Hah. How about you look who and how he parachutes in his candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Rue

[Peter F]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Now with this thread lingering and Impact trying to act as if he is on higher moral ground as are the others who argue any challenge to illegal migration is racist  I say save the politically correct crap.

No one is challenging or even supporting illegal immigration. That the cops arrest illegal immigrants, put them in cuffs and haul them off is just fine. They're illegally entering the country and so they get arrested. Thats all good. If folks from far flung lands wish to emigrate to Canada then get the paper-work done, get the visa's, make the declarations. 

Nobody is for illegal immigration. Arrest illegal immigrants. If they claim refugee status then hear the claim.  This is how it has been done for years and years and nothing has changed.  I am all for more immigration, not less and so conflict with those who want less immigration and not more.   You accused me of favouring illegal immigration in an earlier post and told me I know nothing about how illegal immigrants live. You missed my point entirely.

 My point was that when the USofA cracks down on illegal immigrants, some of those said illegals, fearing deportation to places they definitely do not want to be, will flee to Canada. This is not rocket science. No tweets required for that to happen. You blame Trudeau as if it was some great secret that Canada accepts immigrants. You seem to think that illegal immigrants will be welcomed with open arms by me and trudeau. They won't. Such illegal entrants will be arrested and probably deported. 

You know this, because you told me all about illegal immigrants living in squalor. Not immigrants living in squalor. But illegal immigrants living in squalor.  The illegality of them being in the country results in the squalid conditions in which they live. And you don't like that, naturally, so think we should have less illegal immigration (as if there was some policy in place for how many illegal immigrants we allow in the country alongside how many legal immigrants we take in!).   Unfortunately, how many illegal immigrants enter this country is not up to us or Trudeau's iPhone but entirely up to how many folks decide to enter Canada illegally.  To take one further whack at the dead horse; Trudeau's tweet has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and it makes no rational sense to blame him for illegal immigration.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

You put someone in the Ministry in charge of this subject who has a conflict like a Somali refugee who is now the Minister I would say the same about myself if I was offered the job. I don't see how as a son of a refugee like myself  no different than this new Minister of Immigration could be expected to be neutral with such a sensitive issue and remain unconflicted about my people or his coming across the boarder. I

I did not realize that the minister of immigration sits on refugee boards. ... thats for good reason too, since he doesn't sit on refugee boards. I have not heard that refugee boards were tossed when Trudeau tweeted what he tweeted. I am quite sure that they are still in place and functioning. I am quite sure that the immigration minister does not yet sit on these boards and hear claims.  In order for your Conflicting Intersest claim to be true there must be some indication that the minister would be in conflict with his duties. So far the only thing you have proffered is that , 1. He is a refugee himself and 2. He is Somali.   This seems to mean that since he is a refugee he, the minister, will be sympathetic to illegal immigrants making refugee claims. I would agree with you if he sat on refugee boards, or reviewed the decisions of refugee boards and had the power to over-ride or reverse decisions of those boards He does not have such powers. The government can certainly challenge the decision of a refugee board but that challenge is done through the federal courts - not by ministerial waves of the hand.  See the case of Ms Harvey who fled florida after being found guilty of rape in that state, entered and resided in Canada illegally then, when finally picked up by the RCMP claimed protected status. The Minister of immigration (RtHon Jason Kenney I believe) at that time was appalled at the decision appealed  to the federal court for them to decide wether the boards decision was correct or not.

The minister simply could not overide the boards decision on his own simply because he wanted to.

As for point 2. He's a Somali therefore he must favour Somali refugees. The answer is the same as above; It's not up to him to decide. Its up to the refugee board to decide. 

Therefore I say there is no conflict with the Right Honourable Ahmed Hussen being immigration minister. 

[Rue]

13 hours ago, Peter F said:

No one is challenging or even supporting illegal immigration. That the cops arrest illegal immigrants, put them in cuffs and haul them off is just fine. They're illegally entering the country and so they get arrested. Thats all good. If folks from far flung lands wish to emigrate to Canada then get the paper-work done, get the visa's, make the declarations. 

Nobody is for illegal immigration. Arrest illegal immigrants. If they claim refugee status then hear the claim.  This is how it has been done for years and years and nothing has changed.  I am all for more immigration, not less and so conflict with those who want less immigration and not more.   You accused me of favouring illegal immigration in an earlier post and told me I know nothing about how illegal immigrants live. You missed my point entirely.

 My point was that when the USofA cracks down on illegal immigrants, some of those said illegals, fearing deportation to places they definitely do not want to be, will flee to Canada. This is not rocket science. No tweets required for that to happen. You blame Trudeau as if it was some great secret that Canada accepts immigrants. You seem to think that illegal immigrants will be welcomed with open arms by me and trudeau. They won't. Such illegal entrants will be arrested and probably deported. 

You know this, because you told me all about illegal immigrants living in squalor. Not immigrants living in squalor. But illegal immigrants living in squalor.  The illegality of them being in the country results in the squalid conditions in which they live. And you don't like that, naturally, so think we should have less illegal immigration (as if there was some policy in place for how many illegal immigrants we allow in the country alongside how many legal immigrants we take in!).   Unfortunately, how many illegal immigrants enter this country is not up to us or Trudeau's iPhone but entirely up to how many folks decide to enter Canada illegally.  To take one further whack at the dead horse; Trudeau's tweet has nothing to do with illegal immigrants and it makes no rational sense to blame him for illegal immigration.

I did not realize that the minister of immigration sits on refugee boards. ... thats for good reason too, since he doesn't sit on refugee boards. I have not heard that refugee boards were tossed when Trudeau tweeted what he tweeted. I am quite sure that they are still in place and functioning. I am quite sure that the immigration minister does not yet sit on these boards and hear claims.  In order for your Conflicting Intersest claim to be true there must be some indication that the minister would be in conflict with his duties. So far the only thing you have proffered is that , 1. He is a refugee himself and 2. He is Somali.   This seems to mean that since he is a refugee he, the minister, will be sympathetic to illegal immigrants making refugee claims. I would agree with you if he sat on refugee boards, or reviewed the decisions of refugee boards and had the power to over-ride or reverse decisions of those boards He does not have such powers. The government can certainly challenge the decision of a refugee board but that challenge is done through the federal courts - not by ministerial waves of the hand.  See the case of Ms Harvey who fled florida after being found guilty of rape in that state, entered and resided in Canada illegally then, when finally picked up by the RCMP claimed protected status. The Minister of immigration (RtHon Jason Kenney I believe) at that time was appalled at the decision appealed  to the federal court for them to decide wether the boards decision was correct or not.

The minister simply could not overide the boards decision on his own simply because he wanted to.

As for point 2. He's a Somali therefore he must favour Somali refugees. The answer is the same as above; It's not up to him to decide. Its up to the refugee board to decide. 

Therefore I say there is no conflict with the Right Honourable Ahmed Hussen being immigration minister. 

  The Minister of Immigration has sufficient legal power NOT sitting on a refugee board to determine who stays in the country even when found not be a refugee and he has the power at anytime on humanitarian grounds to keep people in Canada and make them automatic citizens. That said, the very appearance of him being in the Ministry he is in with his specific status sends a message of apprehension of bias.

I am not going to belabour the point because you clearly don't understand the legal concept of what a conflict of interest. Please find out on your own, I also did not state all illegal immigrants live in squalor nor did I suggest immigrants and illegal immigrants may not be equally as poor Its not what I said and your attempt to misrepresent it as what I said is absurd. The difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one is not based on their being poor and for you to suggest it should be or I said it is , are both nonsensical.

Trudeau's comments you claim had nothing to do with illegal immigrants. You say so because that's the interpretation you chose.His comments were sufficiently wide open and feel good that illegal immigrants have now been told just like the feel good comments from sanctuary Mayors that Canada will welcome illegals.

Your spin that's not what he said is hilarious. If someone makes a sufficiently vague comment of course it will be misconstrued. It was a direct response to Trump as to illegals and the crack down on illegals. It was in direct response to that. Furthermore, have you heard your Prime Minister or Immigration Minister acknowledge that illegals should not be able to jump the line. Have either side illegals  threaten to bring down by undermining the entire immigration and refugee process? Have you? Of course not. Neither  Trudeau or his Minister will ever use the world illegal immigrant and say they can't be allowed to push the line.  Its politics. They won't say it because they believe it will make them mean and bad and not be able to get votes in the ethnic communities they think they pander to.

Now you want to pretend Trudeau is against illegal immigrants breaking the system and didn't make his comments in direct response to Trump, go pretend.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, ?Impact said:

• No more doctors as Minister of Health
• No more lawyers as Minister of Justice
• No more farmers as Minister of Agriculture
• No more soldiers as Minister of National Defence
• No more bankers as Minister of National Revenue or Minister of Finance
• No more athletes as Minister of Sport

Those comparisons fail, of course. There is no conflict in a doctor being minister of health or a lawyer being minister of justice. But in this situation we have a foreign born person with deep ties to his ethnic group - which is made up almost entirely of refugees, and growing largely by the influx of new refugees. It is in their interest, the interest of the Somalian community in Canada, to have the most refugees approved as possible, to approve as many family immigrants from Somalia as possible. But that is not what is in Canada's interest. You can be sure the Somali community, and the African immigrant community in particular, will expect his favour. They will think of him as 'their' guy, and his re-election depends, to some extent, on his contacts in the ethnic immigrant community of Toronto where he holds his seat. If he can't show he is acting for them, by getting more of their people into Canada, they may well turn on him.

 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Peter F said:

I did not realize that the minister of immigration sits on refugee boards. ... thats for good reason too, since he doesn't sit on refugee boards. I have not heard that refugee boards were tossed when Trudeau tweeted what he tweeted. I am quite sure that they are still in place and functioning. I am quite sure that the immigration minister does not yet sit on these boards and hear claims.

So you're saying the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has no say in the rules for how these boards operate or on who sits on the boards? He has no power to decide who gets to come to or who stays in Canada?

 

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Argus

[-TSS-]

If only the EU obeyed its own rules and applied the Dublin-rule this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen about refugees travelling through countless countries until they find the one they prefer the most.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎04 at 7:03 PM, -TSS- said:

If only the EU obeyed its own rules and applied the Dublin-rule this kind of nonsense wouldn't happen about refugees travelling through countless countries until they find the one they prefer the most.

Correct and probably given geographic consideration, Greece, Portugal/Spain, certain Italian Islands would bare 95% of migrants coming in from Africa. Germany chose to issue an edict saying they would take so many Syrians in which triggered a wave of desperate economic migrants from other countries to follow. It opened the flod gates. In fact Europe provides a classic example of a well intended attempt to take in refugees creating a tidal wave of economic migrants.

Here is the sad reality. A major famine has gripped once again major portions of Nigeria, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Kenya and Sudan. Then we have a constant flow of people trying to get away from madness in Congo and Zimbabwe and the economic limitations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Chad, Niger, Dahomey. We have people fleeing on-going tribal wars in Mali, Malawi, Rwanda, Ivory Coast, Liberia. We have huge pockets of desertification across the Arab world and on into the predominantly Muslim regions of Russia and China. A mix of draught and growing desertification and water shortage is causing huge movements of population not just in all these contries but China, India, Pakistan.

People have put a blind eye to the climate changes causing huge movements of population looking for food and water. Earthquakes and floods and volcanoes have some consequence but the vast majority of movement is from desertification and draught.

When you take maps of most of the conflict zones you will see political conflict sites and sites with shortages of water not surprisingly over-lap.

Now here in Canada we've always taken fresh water, and sheer space of empty land and natural resources for granted. We've tahen that for granted.

The people of countries with desert and lack of water, see Canada now as a necessity and not so much a chosen preference. People know it has water, food, and a social system that gives people both not to mention free medical care. For the majority of the world free medicare, shelter and welare and other benefits, which is what Trudeau and sanctuary Mayors and many politicians appear to be offering is a flame to moths. They will come just as a hungry man smells an apple pie on someone's window will and heads towards it.

Our politicians live in a bubble. They don't live in a world of poverty, desperation or lack of work. All such things are a given to Trudeau, Mayor Tory, both trust fund boys from old establishment money. They talk a big talk about accommodation. Its what arm-chair millionaire liberals do. Its not their money. Look at Wynne in Ontario. Ooopsy she dumped a hydro tax on people that can't pay it, no problem. she'll just tack her insane hydro bills to future debt the entire province will have to pay for the next 300 or so years.

We have Trudeau running up huge debts irrresponsibly because his sole concern is the next 5-10 years of getting relected until he retire son fat pensions and trust funds while  we tax paying shmucks worry about it.

The sad reality is we can't accommodate the poor of the world on an unlimited basis without collapsing our own system unless we do it privately.

The people who think we should take anyone in who is poor, think this way because its not their own money paying for the poor.

I know people who sponsor people privately. Private sponsors I respect. They put their money where their mouths are and they set specific limits to who they can help without demanding unrealistic amounts of government spending. They pay privately. Good for them. If people are concerned about the poor, then sponsor someone privately.

I have always said the best way to help the poor is through churches,  charities, and private sponsors, not the government. They set realistic limits as to  how many they can help and on what scale.

This chaos where we just let people flood in is nonsensical and it will have to be stopped and sadly it will be in a way where the very same bleeding heart liberals will side with Trudeau when he lowers the boom.

See we've elived through this crap before. The same Pierre Trudeau who claimed to be a leftist and supporter of the downtrodden and marched with picketers at strikes in  he late 50's wearing a cashmere sweater wrapped around is neck and wearing sandles and called himself a socialist and in favour of the workers, less than 10 years later invoked the War Measures Act arresting thousands upon thousands of leftists in Canada overnight while Robert Stanfield was laughed at for warning Trudeau was acting as a fascist.

Its what liberals like Trudeau do  They believe the government begins and ends all things. We the individual citizens, don't count.

I argue government makes a mess of too many things. Its time we realize government is full of narrow minded politicians whose motives are self-serving and therefor inherently self-serving and not necessarily in the best interests of the nation.

Trudeau will not make hard decisions that threaten to alienate his potential voters. He will continue to preen and posture like some hemmeroidal ballet dancer before the cameras.

Its all about his photo-op not the people.

Dang I've turned into a Libertarian.

 

[-TSS-]

The best option would be that a country like China colonised Africa and imposed strict one child-rules. The Chinese are immune to be being called fascists or racists.

 

[Rue]

The best option is Canada and the US get on the same track and end this charade that we are "better" or "morally superior" than the US when it comes to taking in illegals. We have the same issues. We may not use the same choice of words but the pith and substance of the issues are the same and how we handle them can't be at cross purposes.

I see no friggin difference in Trump and Trudeau bottom line when it comes to having to face this issue. One is ignorant and blunt about it the other smiles behind phony gritted teeth posing. Either way, limits and structure to what can and can not be accommodated and how to screen and manage it are coming.

[PIK]

We should never ever be accepting refugees from america. They should be stopped at the border, have their health checked and sent back.

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, PIK said:

We should never ever be accepting refugees from america. They should be stopped at the border, have their health checked and sent back.

Canada, along with almost every other nation in the world are signatories to the convention and/or protocol relating to the status of refugees. I suppose what you are saying is we should look at extending our safe third party agreement with the US, and yes that is something we should be exploring. There are however two parties to that agreement.

[eyeball]

It warms my heart every time I hear right-wing conservatives crapping in their pants over this - its my premier reason for encouraging boatload after boatload of more refugees.

19 hours ago, -TSS- said:

The best option would be that a country like China colonised Africa and imposed strict one child-rules. The Chinese are immune to be being called fascists or racists.

 

Yes, lets become more like China, that'll make everything just as right as rain.

[cannuck]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It warms my heart every time I hear right-wing conservatives crapping in their pants over this - its my premier reason for encouraging boatload after boatload of more refugees.

Yes, lets become more like China, that'll make everything just as right as rain.

Since the actual problem over the last century is the 700% increase in population - and China is the ONLY country that has done a bloody thing to check their contribution, this is one instance where we really SHOULD be more like China.

[eyeball]

Want some TP? 2 ply or three?

[?Impact]

There is an article in todays New York Times about the Roxham road crossing, from the perspective of those living on the Champlain, NY side.

[PIK]

Africa is a rich nation, why are we paying the bills?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

There is an article in todays New York Times about the Roxham road crossing, from the perspective of those living on the Champlain, NY side.

We need to build a wall and make the Americans pay for it.

[eyeball]

The least we should do is close our border to any country that's unable to properly vet the people passing through their's.

[?Impact]

Just now, eyeball said:

The least we should do is close our border to any country that's unable to properly vet the people passing through their's.

You mean pull a Trump?

b.t.w. We only have a land border with one other country.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

You mean pull a Trump?

No I mean push Trump's buttons.

Quote

b.t.w. We only have a land border with one other country.

And like everyone else ours is also a border against the whole planet.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No I mean push Trump's buttons.

And like everyone else ours is also a border against the whole planet.

 

Sure is...like this guy deported by Trudeau's Canada....not Trump:

 

Quote

'No idea what I'm going to do,' says man deported to Netherlands after nearly 6 decades in Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/courtenay-resident-deported-to-netherlands-1.4012844

 

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Sure is...like this guy deported by Trudeau's Canada....not Trump:

and you complain about people who overstay by a month or two

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

and you complain about people who overstay by a month or two

 

That's right....deport all their asses....no exceptions....like Trudeau did here.

So kind and empathetic!

Edited March 8, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2017-02-22 at 1:23 AM, eyeball said:

 

 

That's excellent news.

25% of Canadians agree with Trump-style immigrant policies and the sooner we can dilute that number with new-stock Canadians the sooner the old-stock dingbats will fade to even less significance.

So basically you want white people with relatives who built this country to go extinct?