Canada's Refugee System in Chaos

[turningrite]

19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Refugees don't just emanate from conflict zones tho, they also emanate from despotic tyrannical governments, which, outside the protection of the Americans and their Empire of Liberty, are legion.

Perhaps, but most such migrants, then, likely don't and won't meet the UN "Convention Refugees" definition. Leaving a country governed by a despotic or tyrannical government does not in and of itself confer refugee status. If it did, a large portion of the earth's population would be on the move. In order to tackle the migration crisis, refugee receiving countries should get together and formulate a common refugee policy that's aligned with the UN's 1951 definition and stipulates that the preferred approach is to care for refugees in countries as close as possible to their countries of origin.

Edited January 11, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Perhaps, but most such migrants, then, likely don't and won't meet the UN "Convention Refugees" definition. Leaving a country governed by a despotic or tyrannical government does not in and of itself confer refugee status. If it did, a large portion of the earth's population would be on the move. In order to tackle the migration crisis, refugee receiving countries should get together and formulate a common refugee policy that's aligned with the UN's 1951 definition and stipulates that the preferred approach is to care for refugees in countries as close as possible to their countries of origin.

 

1.3.1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee"

96. A Convention refugee is a person who by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,

(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries, or

(ii) not having a country of nationality, is outside their country of former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

 

Not seeing anything in there that says they must be fleeing conflict zones.  Just says reasonable fear of persecution from where I'm sitting, where are you finding a mandate of conflict refugees only?

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Perhaps, but most such migrants, then, likely don't and won't meet the UN "Convention Refugees" definition. Leaving a country governed by a despotic or tyrannical government does not in and of itself confer refugee status. If it did, a large portion of the earth's population would be on the move.

I was reading an article the other day - I should have reposted it - which polled the residents of half a dozen African countries. Something like half would move to the West if they could. That worked out to about two hundred million people. And that was just half a dozen countries.

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

1.3.1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee"

96. A Convention refugee is a person who by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,

(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries, or

(ii) not having a country of nationality, is outside their country of former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

 

Not seeing anything in there that says they must be fleeing conflict zones.  Just says reasonable fear of persecution from where I'm sitting, where are you finding a mandate of conflict refugees only?

It says fleeing persecution DUE TO a well founded fear of persecution FOR reasons of race, religion, nationality, or member in a particular social group etc.

That means your average Syrian or Iraqi or Afghani doesn't qualify. Nor do Haitians or Dominicans.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Argus

[turningrite]

37 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

1.3.1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 96 - meaning of "Convention refugee"

96. A Convention refugee is a person who by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,

(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries, or

(ii) not having a country of nationality, is outside their country of former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

 

Not seeing anything in there that says they must be fleeing conflict zones.  Just says reasonable fear of persecution from where I'm sitting, where are you finding a mandate of conflict refugees only?

You're citing Canadian legislation (the Immigration and Refugee Act), and our system is in and of itself part of the problem. The context of the 1951 UN definition, of course, was the aftermath of WWII, which saw tens of thousands of displaced persons seeking resettlement. War and civil war have been the primary underlying causes of refugee crises ever since. The reasons that conflict zones are generally interpreted as synonymous with refugee migrations are pretty obvious. Once you get into the realm of considering anybody a refugee simply because they say they are, refugee determination becomes impractical. Anybody coming from a country run by a dictatorship could make a claim of "fear" but is that alone sufficient to render one a refugee? Most would believe it does not. By Western standards, every person living in, say, China, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or Russia, or Iran might be considered a refugee based on self-declaration according to your preferred standard.

In practice, it's the application of a broadened definition that's contributing to the migrant (which is different than refugee) crisis the West is now experiencing. The objective should be to focus on conflict zones and assist conflict refugees as close to their countries of origin to as great a degree as is possible. For every refugee Canada resettles, likely at least a dozen could be adequately maintained in UN-managed camps for the same cost. And the ones who reach our shores on their own are likely among those with the most resources and connections. The West needs to disincentivize irregular migration. It is the humane and civilized approach to take. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

Okay, if you say so,  I guess.

Immigration is frankly not my issue, I don't care, but moreover, if/when the immigrants flood in to overload and collapse the Canadian Socialist Nanny Police State welfare gulag, I will cackle with glee, please do, I'd be happy to be rid of it.  

I'll just buy my healthcare in the free market, from either the Americans and/or the Swiss

/shrugs

[Zeitgeist]

23 hours ago, turningrite said:

You're citing Canadian legislation (the Immigration and Refugee Act), and our system is in and of itself part of the problem. The context of the 1951 UN definition, of course, was the aftermath of WWII, which saw tens of thousands of displaced persons seeking resettlement. War and civil war have been the primary underlying causes of refugee crises ever since. The reasons that conflict zones are generally interpreted as synonymous with refugee migrations are pretty obvious. Once you get into the realm of considering anybody a refugee simply because they say they are, refugee determination becomes impractical. Anybody coming from a country run by a dictatorship could make a claim of "fear" but is that alone sufficient to render one a refugee? Most would believe it does not. By Western standards, every person living in, say, China, or Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, or Russia, or Iran might be considered a refugee based on self-declaration according to your preferred standard.

In practice, it's the application of a broadened definition that's contributing to the migrant (which is different than refugee) crisis the West is now experiencing. The objective should be to focus on conflict zones and assist conflict refugees as close to their countries of origin to as great a degree as is possible. For every refugee Canada resettles, likely at least a dozen could be adequately maintained in UN-managed camps for the same cost. And the ones who reach our shores on their own are likely among those with the most resources and connections. The West needs to disincentivize irregular migration. It is the humane and civilized approach to take. 

I wonder what would happen if we said, Anyone who wants to be here, come (after screening for criminal or terrorist background of course).  I think it would look like a more populous Canada of a century ago.  Even with crooks it would eventually turn into a large Australia.  Of course I don’t want to give up our current immigration filters, but my point is, it wouldn’t make as much difference as you might think.  People generally make the effort to emigrate because they’re motivated to build a new life.  Immigration built this great country and will continue to do so whatever right wing xenophobic nonsense people on here want to spew.  

[Centerpiece]

We have now taken in a teenage Saudi who has renounced Islam. That was the basis of her refugee claim. Now that the precedent is set, does this mean Canada is now welcoming anyone who renounces Islam? That won't play well with Trudeau's Islamic voter base, eh?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I wonder what would happen if we said, Anyone who wants to be here, come (after screening for criminal or terrorist background of course).  I think it would look like a more populous Canada of a century ago

If you mean a country without a social welfare system, then yeah, probably.

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

.  Even with crooks it would eventually turn into a large Australia.

A large Indo-Chinese-Arabic Australia.

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Of course I don’t want to give up our current immigration filters, but my point is, it wouldn’t make as much difference as you might think. 

Yes, it actually would.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

We have now taken in a teenage Saudi who has renounced Islam. That was the basis of her refugee claim. Now that the precedent is set, does this mean Canada is now welcoming anyone who renounces Islam? That won't play well with Trudeau's Islamic voter base, eh?

I hope more follow in her footsteps. 

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I wonder what would happen if we said, Anyone who wants to be here, come (after screening for criminal or terrorist background of course).  I think it would look like a more populous Canada of a century ago.  Even with crooks it would eventually turn into a large Australia.  Of course I don’t want to give up our current immigration filters, but my point is, it wouldn’t make as much difference as you might think.  People generally make the effort to emigrate because they’re motivated to build a new life.  Immigration built this great country and will continue to do so whatever right wing xenophobic nonsense people on here want to spew.  

The last round of Syrians that arrived here due to one of Justin's Campaign promises, raised the issue of the lack of screening, for several reasons, one was a lot of the persons that applied did not have any paper work, claimed it was lost or stolen...they were stilled screened and a lot accepted, second how does one check sources or do criminal back ground checks in a country that is mostly war torn where records were lost, or nobody is working the records office do to the war...unless they had a criminal record in another nation or inter pol it makes these checks impossible….Yet our government has gone on record and told Canadians that all these checks were done, nobody slipped through....

US government just released this tidbit, Canada is looking at excepting more than a million in the upcoming years, more like in the next 3 to 4 years...How reliable is this info, it is in the Liberal web site, it is also stated by our immigration minster, and a matter of public record.....here is another tidbit, the majority of Canadians want to reduce immigration numbers....i'm pretty sure that includes a lot of liberals and I'm pretty sure that does not make them Xenophobic right wingers....of course I could be wrong, as I think most liberals are just confused and lost people, that should be reeducated for national security reasons...and cons should be given tax rebates for doing this reeducating in their basements....just turn in an ear at the local RCMP station , along with a statement of converting to the conservative side....but thats just me...

Immigration has built this country, But when was the last time we seen numbers that the Liberal government plan on , in the next 4 years....well over a million ….shit do we even have that many hotels suits....Maybe we should be questioning the reason we can't sit down and discuss this matter with out threats of taking you guys down into our basements........

 

 

[turningrite]

17 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

We have now taken in a teenage Saudi who has renounced Islam. That was the basis of her refugee claim. Now that the precedent is set, does this mean Canada is now welcoming anyone who renounces Islam? That won't play well with Trudeau's Islamic voter base, eh?

Yes, I've wondered about this as well. I also thought about the Asia Bibi case, where a Christian woman in Pakistan was sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy and the crowds screamed in protest after she was acquitted on appeal. Has she been able to make it to the West? It seemed for a time as though some Western governments were apoplectic about the prospect of infuriating their Muslim minority populations by advocating for Bibi. The case of the Saudi teen is particularly interesting in that media reports indicate that she feared retribution from her family should she return to the KSA. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here but does this set a new standard where fear of family members can be applied to establish a refugee claim?

[turningrite]

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I wonder what would happen if we said, Anyone who wants to be here, come (after screening for criminal or terrorist background of course).  I think it would look like a more populous Canada of a century ago.  Even with crooks it would eventually turn into a large Australia.  Of course I don’t want to give up our current immigration filters, but my point is, it wouldn’t make as much difference as you might think.  People generally make the effort to emigrate because they’re motivated to build a new life.  Immigration built this great country and will continue to do so whatever right wing xenophobic nonsense people on here want to spew.  

The Canada of the early 20th century was mainly an agrarian and pre-modern society. None of the characteristics of modern society that we now characterize as the "welfare state" then existed. Income taxes were not even levied until WWI. As the late American Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted, open borders cannot co-exist with a modern welfare state. So, by all means open the borders, provided you're willing to get rid of public health care, pensions and other social welfare programs, because that's what you're really advocating. Those, including politicians, who promote open borders should be honest about this and Canadian citizens (i.e. voters) should have the opportunity to make this choice rather than have it imposed on them by their busy-body betters.

[Dougie93]

46 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The Canada of the early 20th century was mainly an agrarian and pre-modern society. None of the characteristics of modern society that we now characterize as the "welfare state" then existed. Income taxes were not even levied until WWI. As the late American Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted, open borders cannot co-exist with a modern welfare state. So, by all means open the borders, provided you're willing to get rid of public health care, pensions and other social welfare programs, because that's what you're really advocating. Those, including politicians, who promote open borders should be honest about this and Canadian citizens (i.e. voters) should have the opportunity to make this choice rather than have it imposed on them by their busy-body betters.

Actually, that's not quite what Friedman said, here's what Friedman said;

Quote

"Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California. But nonetheless, we clearly want to move in the direction that you are talking about so this is a question of nitpicking, not of serious objection.

And

Quote

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.

 

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The Canada of the early 20th century was mainly an agrarian and pre-modern society. None of the characteristics of modern society that we now characterize as the "welfare state" then existed. Income taxes were not even levied until WWI. As the late American Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman noted, open borders cannot co-exist with a modern welfare state. So, by all means open the borders, provided you're willing to get rid of public health care, pensions and other social welfare programs, because that's what you're really advocating. Those, including politicians, who promote open borders should be honest about this and Canadian citizens (i.e. voters) should have the opportunity to make this choice rather than have it imposed on them by their busy-body betters.

Not to mention the world is far smaller now, and far easier to get around in. Coming here from another continent used to take enormous effort. Now you just hop on a plane. According to a recent Gallop poll 750 million people would migrate if they could. So what exactly would happen to Canada if we threw open the doors?

 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

Not to mention the world is far smaller now, and far easier to get around in. Coming here from another continent used to take enormous effort. Now you just hop on a plane. According to a recent Gallop poll 750 million people would migrate if they could. So what exactly would happen to Canada if we threw open the doors?

 

It would turn into an economic powerhouse like a Giant Hong Kong,  it simply wouldn't run a nanny socialist welfare state anymore.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It would turn into an economic powerhouse like a Giant Hong Kong,  it simply wouldn't run a nanny socialist welfare state anymore.

Or it would turn into a giant shithouse like Brazil, with massive, violent slums surrounding every city and corrupt police and politicians.

You import tens of millions of third world people who don't speak the language, don't have any skills or education, and you bankrupt the country overnight. And yeah, no 'nanny welfare state', with no public health care, welfare, pogey or pensions - including for ex soldiers.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Or it would turn into a giant shithouse like Brazil, with massive, violent slums surrounding every city and corrupt police and politicians.

You import tens of millions of third world people who don't speak the language, don't have any skills or education, and you bankrupt the country overnight. And yeah, no 'nanny welfare state', with no public health care, welfare, pogey or pensions - including for ex soldiers.

You only turn into a Brazil if you don't have the rule of law, so it's turning into a mini-Brazil now, but not because of the immigrants, rather because the Liberal Party of Canada is the only real state here for all intents and purposes, and it is a mafia state which operates lawlessly.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Actually, that's not quite what Friedman said, here's what Friedman said;

 

1.) Your first Friedman quotation pretty much sums up the conundrum of open borders for Western countries and validates his general assertion that an open immigration policy can't co-exist with the modern welfare state. And he was talking about the U.S. welfare state, which is somewhat more restrictive than the broader models established in Canada or Western Europe.

2.) Again, in noting the benefits of Mexican immigration, Friedman noted that it was only good provided that it remained illegal because these migrants had/have no choice but to work as they're not eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits.

So, nothing you've provided does anything to undermine the position that Canada's welfare state would simply be unsustainable under an open immigration model. This, I believe, is a choice voters rather than the political elites (who are quite good at taking care of their own interests) should get to make. However, honest discussion about such matters is stifled in this country.

[Dougie93]

Just now, turningrite said:

1.) Your first Friedman quotation pretty much sums up the conundrum of open borders for Western countries and validates his general assertion that an open immigration policy can't co-exist with the modern welfare state. And he was talking about the U.S. welfare state, which is somewhat more restrictive than the broader models established in Canada or Western Europe.

2.) Again, in noting the benefits of Mexican immigration, Friedman noted that it was only good provided that it remained illegal because these migrants had/have no choice but to work as they're not eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits.

So, nothing you've provided does anything to undermine the position that Canada's welfare state would simply be unsustainable under an open immigration model. This, I believe, is a choice voters rather than the political elites (who are quite good at taking care of their own interests) should get to make. However, honest discussion about such matters is stifled in this country.

I hope Canada's nanny socialist welfare sate is unsustainable and I am quite confident that it is.

I merely pointed out that Friedman was very pro-immigration, he simply said you have to have a truly free country to make it work, while so long as you cling to a socialist gulag it will break you.

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I hope Canada's nanny socialist welfare sate is unsustainable and I am quite confident that it is.

I merely pointed out that Friedman was very pro-immigration, he simply said you have to have a truly free country to make it work, while so long as you cling to a socialist gulag it will break you.

Well, let our Lib ideologues acknowledge the truth here. Of course Friedman was pro-immigration and against the welfare state. Canadians who believe that the welfare state is sustainable in the context of a large-scale immigration program are dreaming in technicolor.

[Zeitgeist]

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The last round of Syrians that arrived here due to one of Justin's Campaign promises, raised the issue of the lack of screening, for several reasons, one was a lot of the persons that applied did not have any paper work, claimed it was lost or stolen...they were stilled screened and a lot accepted, second how does one check sources or do criminal back ground checks in a country that is mostly war torn where records were lost, or nobody is working the records office do to the war...unless they had a criminal record in another nation or inter pol it makes these checks impossible….Yet our government has gone on record and told Canadians that all these checks were done, nobody slipped through....

US government just released this tidbit, Canada is looking at excepting more than a million in the upcoming years, more like in the next 3 to 4 years...How reliable is this info, it is in the Liberal web site, it is also stated by our immigration minster, and a matter of public record.....here is another tidbit, the majority of Canadians want to reduce immigration numbers....i'm pretty sure that includes a lot of liberals and I'm pretty sure that does not make them Xenophobic right wingers....of course I could be wrong, as I think most liberals are just confused and lost people, that should be reeducated for national security reasons...and cons should be given tax rebates for doing this reeducating in their basements....just turn in an ear at the local RCMP station , along with a statement of converting to the conservative side....but thats just me...

Immigration has built this country, But when was the last time we seen numbers that the Liberal government plan on , in the next 4 years....well over a million ….shit do we even have that many hotels suits....Maybe we should be questioning the reason we can't sit down and discuss this matter with out threats of taking you guys down into our basements........

 

 

Well there are annual immigration targets of around 300000 a year.  Interestingly immigration was down about 50000 in 2017 from 2016. 

What’s also interesting is that immigrants dominate our small businesses.  They’re industrious.  I mean even in the US, what would you do without your Mexican construction workers?   They’re not exactly expensive to pay.  

Edited January 13, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Well, let our Lib ideologues acknowledge the truth here. Of course Friedman was pro-immigration and against the welfare state. Canadians who believe that the welfare state is sustainable in the context of a large-scale immigration program are dreaming in technicolor.

Nothing to be concerned about, market forces will prevail in the end, simply adapt and prepare yourself accordingly within your own affairs as an individual autonomous from the state.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

You only turn into a Brazil if you don't have the rule of law, so it's turning into a mini-Brazil now, but not because of the immigrants, rather because the Liberal Party of Canada is the only real state here for all intents and purposes, and it is a mafia state which operates lawlessly.

Have you spent time here?   It’s nice.  

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Have you spent time here?   It’s nice.  

Brazil is on my personal list of "scheduled" countries which operate without the rule of law and thus I decline to be subject to their jurisdiction, if I need nice weather I just go to Dixie or the Southwest, in the land of the free.