Michael Hardner Posted August 26, 2018 Report Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, taxme said: 1. The system"IS" broken. 2. What a stupid reply to the question. 3. You must be a lawyer in your own mind? You appear to support life being complicated where I prefer to make life sweet and simple. 1. I agree but that's not the point I was making. Also I was making it to Argus and he's more than capable of following a thread. 2. You missed the point. See #1. 3. See my reply to Argus. Actually, I prefer to discuss this with him as you are going to bring up tertiary non-issues .... please just follow my discussion with him. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Centerpiece Posted August 26, 2018 Author Report Posted August 26, 2018 I found this article to be a good synopsis of Canada's immigration and why the Asylum mess is causing Canadians to lose patience. Here's a few snippets - it's a nicely written non-partisan article that is worth reading in its entirety: Quote If you want to understand why Canada’s immigration system works, and why its immigration rate has generated so little political backlash despite being so much higher than America’s, take a look at the surprising nuances of Canada’s immigration policy. That policy may be softer-hearted than America’s, but it’s also harder-headed. Surrounding the Canadian welcome mat is a bed of nails.................................... Since the late 1980s, Canada has consistently been a high-immigration country, at least relative to the U.S. As a result, the proportion of Canadians born outside the country hit 21.9 percent in 2016. That same year, America’s foreign-born population was 13.4 percent. That’s a record high for the U.S.—but it’s been 115 years since Canada’s foreign-born population was at such a low level. As Derek Thompson put it in his article analyzing how Canada has escaped the “liberal doom loop,” Canada’s floor is America’s ceiling.............................................. Almost everyone who immigrates to Canada has to first apply from overseas, and before they’re granted entry they’re subjected to extensive vetting by Canadian authorities. Those who make the cut have to wait months or years for their turn in line before being let in. Over the past 20 years, about 5 million immigrants chose Canada. But the vast majority only entered the country after Canada also chose them.................... As for illegal and irregular immigration, Canadian governments from both ends of the political spectrum have worked—quietly—to ensure there is as little of it as possible. The unspoken underpinning of Canada’s otherwise welcoming immigration policy is a giant and assiduously maintained border wall. Wait, what? Yes, Canada has a border wall—in a sense. In fact, it has five of them. Four are geographic, the fifth is bureaucratic. All have been extremely effective in sustaining the legitimacy and popularity of Canada’s immigration policy. Even under the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that bureaucratic wall isn’t coming down. Quite the contrary. In 2012, Canada rejected 18 percent of the more than 1 million foreigners who applied for a visitor’s visa; by 2017, the number of visa applicants had climbed to nearly 2 million, and the rejection rate had risen to 26 percent. In the first three months of this year, it rose again, to 30 percent. Similarly, 33 percent of applicants for a student visa were rejected last year. And more than 75 percent of visa applicants from countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Syria were turned down. The Canadian government’s aim is to discourage anyone from trying to permanently relocate to Canada by anything other than regular, legal means. Yet there’s a place where Canada’s immigration system isn’t working, and from whence a backlash has been building. That place is Roxham Road, a quiet rural street that dead-ends in upstate New York, a few feet from the Canadian border. Over the past 18 months, thousands of people have walked across the frontier from the United States to Canada and claimed asylum. If my country’s pro-immigration consensus is ever to come undone (something I hope can be avoided), this is where it’s going to happen. The whole apparatus of bureaucratic dissuasion can be circumvented by anyone who is already in the U.S. and is willing to simply walk into Canada at any random spot along the world’s longest undefended border. Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944/ 1
taxme Posted August 26, 2018 Report Posted August 26, 2018 33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I agree but that's not the point I was making. Also I was making it to Argus and he's more than capable of following a thread. 2. You missed the point. See #1. 3. See my reply to Argus. Actually, I prefer to discuss this with him as you are going to bring up tertiary non-issues .... please just follow my discussion with him. 1. Ya, you and Argue are like two peas in a pod. Both of you cannot stand anyone who has a different opinion and point of view to yours. I cannot believe that you can be this ridiculous with your reply here. You have gone off topic many times. I think that you should put me on your ignore list like your buddy has done. It would be greatly appreciated if you did. LOL. 2. I always get your point. And most times they look so silly to want to reply too. 3. Well then keep on discussing with him. LOL. I will think about it although most of your discussions with him are boring to say the least. Chuckle-chuckle.
Argus Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1) You seem to be saying that those who run the system are only capable of acting in self-interest. So why did the system ever work ? Who says that it ever worked? Certainly it didn't used to take multiple years to render a decision. But all that shows is the tremendous effort lawyers had made over the years into making the system as complex and time consuming as possible. More billable hours! I'm quite sure the Charter of Rights has had a tremendously positive impact on lawyers' billable hours! Especially with the advent of political judges like Beverly McLaughlin who saw the role of judges as advocates and activists rather than simply interpreting law. Quote 2) The point is reasonable, but your answer is too reactionary and simple. Why? Because human nature should be ignored? Who is likely to come over here? The Nigerian whose brother in law is sitting in a camp bemoaning his likely expulsion within a week or two, or the Nigerian whose brother in law calls excitedly from Toronto and tells him what a beautiful city it is and how he's been guaranteed by his fellow expatriates that the government will take years to decide his case and even then won't be able to find him to expel him? Quote 3) There might not be an answer, then. If/When the Conservative party wins, I will be sure not to foist easy answers on them where there are complex problems. Because an easy answer that works and works quickly is not nearly as desirable as a complex solution that takes years and decades to unfold? Don't worry. The Tories don't have the balls to use the notwithstanding clause for any reason. Edited August 27, 2018 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 41 minutes ago, Argus said: Because an easy answer that works .... How do you plan to increase the throughput of the system ? Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
turningrite Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I'm confused. I thought we had a justice ministry and a legal system ? I believe the discussion under this topic about the legal system focused specifically on refugee access to funded legal services to facilitate the pursuit of their claims. It's my understanding that legal aid falls under the jurisdiction of and is administered by law societies. At least, I believe that to be the situation here in Ontario. What sort of justice and/or legal reforms would you consider to apply? Argus raised the ability of refugee claimants to obtain services based on the applicability of the Charter. Any reform in this regard would, I believe, likely entail political intervention in the form of the application of the notwithstanding clause rather than justice reform per se. Edited August 27, 2018 by turningrite
Argus Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: How do you plan to increase the throughput of the system ? By eliminating the access asylum seekers have to the Charter, and thus to an endless succession of appeals. In fact, by removing lawyers from the entire system, as much as possible. Let the asylum seeker tell his or her story and provide what evidence he or she has. Let the adjudicators consider where he or she comes from, whether their claim actually merits consideration (Ie whether its truth would allow them asylum under the UN definition), and then whether they're believable and whether further investigation is warranted. A lot of these claims can be tossed out within minutes of a hearing. For example, Haitians don't qualify under the UN definition. They're simply not being persecuted for anything. They're fleeing a shitty country. People fleeing crime are much the same. Most of Nigeria is peaceful, so most Nigerians won't qualify either. And if a Nigerian is free to take a plane to Europe and then get on a plane for the US I think it's fair to reject their claim out of hand since they should have made their claim in Europe or the US first. These are commonsense things which cannot be applied where lawyers are present. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
turningrite Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Argus said: By eliminating the access asylum seekers have to the Charter, and thus to an endless succession of appeals. In fact, by removing lawyers from the entire system, as much as possible. Let the asylum seeker tell his or her story and provide what evidence he or she has. Let the adjudicators consider where he or she comes from, whether their claim actually merits consideration (Ie whether its truth would allow them asylum under the UN definition), and then whether they're believable and whether further investigation is warranted. A lot of these claims can be tossed out within minutes of a hearing. For example, Haitians don't qualify under the UN definition. They're simply not being persecuted for anything. They're fleeing a shitty country. People fleeing crime are much the same. Most of Nigeria is peaceful, so most Nigerians won't qualify either. And if a Nigerian is free to take a plane to Europe and then get on a plane for the US I think it's fair to reject their claim out of hand since they should have made their claim in Europe or the US first. These are commonsense things which cannot be applied where lawyers are present. Your approach here seems to be to transform the determination process from a legal into a bureaucratic one, and that might in fact provide an effective solution of sorts, at least pertaining to the claims of migrants who are from relatively peaceful countries. But I suspect that many of these migrants could be fairly easily denied entry and/or status from the get-go, according to the opinion of a law professor, Michael Barutciski, who wrote a piece for the National Post several weeks ago noting that the Trudeau government is exaggerating Canada's obligations under international law where these migrants are concerned. The missing element appears to be more a lack of political will on the part of the federal government than a lack of possible solutions. The influx allows Trudeau to play the role of diversity Santa Claus while foisting the costs on already burdened provincial governments. Trudeau seldom seems interested in the concerns of Canadian taxpayers. Such concerns are left to those below his pay grade and lofty pedigree, apparently. Edited August 27, 2018 by turningrite
Michael Hardner Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 6 hours ago, Argus said: By eliminating the access asylum seekers have to the Charter, and thus to an endless succession of appeals. I And how long will it take the supreme court case to remove those rights, to get through the system ? How can you be so precise with your timelines ? Are you perhaps overconfident. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: And how long will it take the supreme court case to remove those rights, to get through the system ? How can you be so precise with your timelines ? Are you perhaps overconfident. The supreme court can stick its collective heads up its collective asses. They'd have no say if the legislation was passed under the notwithstanding clause. And of course I can't be precise on immediate timelines, but I would ensure that the system was wound and got enough resources to the point those timeliness of reasonably prompt hearings, appeals and then deportations were met. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Argus said: 1. The supreme court can stick its collective heads up its collective asses. 2. They'd have no say if the legislation was passed under the notwithstanding clause. 3. And of course I can't be precise on immediate timelines.. 1. OK THEN ! Great plan, Argus. 2. Notwithstanding is supposed to be used sparingly and temporarily. Maybe this applies but there would be a long process, whether your call to embed cranial into anal is adhered to or not. 3. I thought you were, but ok. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted August 27, 2018 Report Posted August 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. OK THEN ! Great plan, Argus. 2. Notwithstanding is supposed to be used sparingly and temporarily. Maybe this applies but there would be a long process, whether your call to embed cranial into anal is adhered to or not. It can be used as often as a government wants to. If it's got the balls to do so. I have no confidence an Andrew Scheer government would have the necessary spine, never mind balls, to dare such a thing. But if anyone can think of another way out other than getting tough I don't know what it would be. And a law passed under the notwithstanding clause it is valid for, I believe, 5 years before having to be passed again. It's not a long process. You simply pass a bill as normal but use the notwithstanding clause. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
turningrite Posted August 28, 2018 Report Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/26/2018 at 3:59 PM, Centerpiece said: I found this article to be a good synopsis of Canada's immigration and why the Asylum mess is causing Canadians to lose patience. Here's a few snippets - it's a nicely written non-partisan article that is worth reading in its entirety: I wondered about the background of the article's author, Tony Keller, as I couldn't find any reference to it in the Atlantic piece? An internet search suggests that he may be a G&M editorial writer, but I'm not certain of this. In any case, the Atlantic article is illustrative of the generally rosy elite corporate-political consensus view of Canadian immigration and it reiterates assumptions that simply may not be true at this point in time if public opinion is taken into account, particularly where the author states: "If my country’s pro-immigration consensus is ever to come undone (something I hope can be avoided), this is where it’s going to happen. The whole apparatus of bureaucratic dissuasion can be circumvented by anyone who is already in the U.S. and is willing to simply walk into Canada at any random spot along the world’s longest undefended border." Recent polling suggests this "consensus" does not hold among the general population, almost half of whom believe general immigration levels are too high. The illegal/irregular refugee issue may have led to greater scrutiny of the entire immigration system, but I suspect discontent has been increasing for quite some time. The corporate elite and its political servants have an interest in maintaining high immigration levels. Ordinary people, not so much. This is not merely about fixing the migrant issue at the Quebec/U.S. border. A much more complex set of concerns is in play here.
Centerpiece Posted September 12, 2018 Author Report Posted September 12, 2018 How is this not a crisis? And the cost? Forget about the bureaucratic cost for a second.....if we use an estimate of $200 per day for basic food and lodging - that's $192 million for every month (for 32000) that they stay in Canada. We're talking billions - and the number of "asylum seekers" is still growing. It appears that many of the deported were the easy ones - 116 were US citizens. Quote Canadian border agency has deported 398 ‘illegal migrants’ out of 32,000 Nearly 400 people who crossed the U.S. border illegally for asylum in Canada have been deported since authorities began tracking irregular migration in April of last year. That number is a small fraction of the 32,173 so-called “irregular migrants” who came through unguarded land borders from the United States during the period ending in late August. Most are still waiting for their asylum claims to be heard. Of the 398 failed refugee claimants Canada has deported, 146 were sent back to the U.S., where 116 of them have citizenship, according to data provided to the Star by the Canada Border Services Agency. The rest were deported to 53 countries, with most sent to Haiti (53), Colombia (24), Turkey (19) or Iraq (15). The deportees, 48 of whom were under the age of 17, included 238 males and 160 females, said the border enforcement agency. Link: https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/09/07/canadian-border-agency-has-deported-398-illegal-migrants-out-of-32000.html
turningrite Posted September 12, 2018 Report Posted September 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Centerpiece said: How is this not a crisis? And the cost? Forget about the bureaucratic cost for a second.....if we use an estimate of $200 per day for basic food and lodging - that's $192 million for every month (for 32000) that they stay in Canada. We're talking billions - and the number of "asylum seekers" is still growing. It appears that many of the deported were the easy ones - 116 were US citizens. I believe many of the U.S. citizens are in fact children born in the U.S. to some of the claimants. In any case, your point is well taken. There's a good article in today's G&M that demonstrates the abysmal inadequacy of our refugee determination bureaucracy. Reportedly, over the past 19 months this bureaucracy has cleared only about one in six of the almost 30 thousand claims filed by those who've "irregularly" walked into Canada at the Quebec-U.S. border. At this rate, and assuming that no new arrivals enter the system, the backlog will take 7 to 8 years to clear! Wow! https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-asylum-seeker-surge-at-quebec-border-choking-canadas-refugee-system/
Hates politicians Posted September 13, 2018 Report Posted September 13, 2018 They're not seeking asylum they already had that in the u.s they are entering the country illegaly, period they need to be stopped and any that get through jailed and deported. 1
taxme Posted September 15, 2018 Report Posted September 15, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 6:45 AM, Centerpiece said: Definition of "crisis": 1) A time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger 2) A time when a difficult or important decision must be made If the illegal border crossings are not a crisis, what is? It's not about compassion, it's not about racism - it's not even about money. It's about competently managing our borders and reserving capacity - or increasing it - for those devastated souls who truly seek asylum and want to come to Canada. We need to do our share but the days of the Federal Government dumping refugees on Provinces after one year must end. There needs to be a coordinated, longer term program to help integrate true refugee families. And there needs to be an accelerated screening/evaluation process that leads to speedy acceptance or removal. It's called a strategy - followed by a plan - followed by operational competence. Times have changed - we need our government to change with them. Link: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadas-backlogged-asylum-system-is-not-sustainable-immigration-minister-says-in-leaked-letter I just learned something that the leftist liberal Canadian media have not told the Canadian taxpayer's yet. According to Ezra Levant of website The Rebel and thru Ezra's obtaining thru the access to information he found out that Trudeau is giving each legal and illegal refugee $50,000 dollars a year from our tax dollars to help the refugees to live and get by and started in Canada. The reason that this has not been made public to the Canadian taxpayer's is because Trudeau has ordered his bureaucrats not to report this and keep it a big secret from we the people. And that is not including what they receive from our healthcare, dental and other social benefits. I don't know what to say anymore except that Canadians better start getting their shit together and start to demand that this misuse and theft of taxpayer's tax dollars needs to come to an end. There are Canadians on pension who come nowhere close to getting $50,000 dollars a year in pensions. Deplorable and disgusting and the Canadian taxpayer's are being forced to pay for this total bull chit. Think about this when some of you are on the way to work Monday morning.
taxme Posted September 15, 2018 Report Posted September 15, 2018 On 9/12/2018 at 6:44 PM, Hates politicians said: They're not seeking asylum they already had that in the u.s they are entering the country illegaly, period they need to be stopped and any that get through jailed and deported. In Mexico any illegals found in that country are thrown in jail and then turfed out of the country. No money and no benefits for them like we the Canadian taxpayer's are forced to have to do which is give them money and benefits while they are here and trying to fight deportation. These so called asylum seekers will fly from some country into America and then head for Canada. What a deal for them, eh? Not such a great deal for the taxpaying Canadians.
Centerpiece Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Posted September 16, 2018 4 hours ago, taxme said: I just learned something that the leftist liberal Canadian media have not told the Canadian taxpayer's yet. According to Ezra Levant of website The Rebel and thru Ezra's obtaining thru the access to information he found out that Trudeau is giving each legal and illegal refugee $50,000 dollars a year from our tax dollars to help the refugees to live and get by and started in Canada. The reason that this has not been made public to the Canadian taxpayer's is because Trudeau has ordered his bureaucrats not to report this and keep it a big secret from we the people. And that is not including what they receive from our healthcare, dental and other social benefits. I don't know what to say anymore except that Canadians better start getting their shit together and start to demand that this misuse and theft of taxpayer's tax dollars needs to come to an end. There are Canadians on pension who come nowhere close to getting $50,000 dollars a year in pensions. Deplorable and disgusting and the Canadian taxpayer's are being forced to pay for this total bull chit. Think about this when some of you are on the way to work Monday morning. In a previous post, I calculated that it was probably about $200 a day for food and lodging - that's about $6000 a month or $72,000 a year for each. So $50K would be a "bargain". Most will be here for years until they are finally deported.....and then a good number will be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. $$$$$$. Crazy stuff.
Zeitgeist Posted September 16, 2018 Report Posted September 16, 2018 39 minutes ago, Centerpiece said: In a previous post, I calculated that it was probably about $200 a day for food and lodging - that's about $6000 a month or $72,000 a year for each. So $50K would be a "bargain". Most will be here for years until they are finally deported.....and then a good number will be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. $$$$$$. Crazy stuff. I think that most amounts of foreign aid should be set based on the government matching donations from the public, so that the government doesn't do giveaways of taxpayers' money without the support of the people. This worked well in support of the tsunami victims. Did Canadians elect Trudeau knowing he would deploy tax revenues the way he has? Thinking back to the "boat people" of the 70's from Vietnam, Canada has a tradition of welcoming refugees. Legitimate refugees need support. So the next questions are, What constitutes legitimate refugees? What is reasonable support? I'm not sure most Canadians have grappled with these questions or asked how the government decided the answers to these questions. I know I didn't.
Centerpiece Posted September 16, 2018 Author Report Posted September 16, 2018 9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said: I think that most amounts of foreign aid should be set based on the government matching donations from the public, so that the government doesn't do giveaways of taxpayers' money without the support of the people. This worked well in support of the tsunami victims. Did Canadians elect Trudeau knowing he would deploy tax revenues the way he has? Thinking back to the "boat people" of the 70's from Vietnam, Canada has a tradition of welcoming refugees. Legitimate refugees need support. So the next questions are, What constitutes legitimate refugees? What is reasonable support? I'm not sure most Canadians have grappled with these questions or asked how the government decided the answers to these questions. I know I didn't. Very rational thinking. Frustratingly, in today's "progressive" climate - amplified by media like the CBC and The Star - any such questions are immediately shouted down with accusations of being "un-Canadian" and often, racist.
Argus Posted September 16, 2018 Report Posted September 16, 2018 20 hours ago, Centerpiece said: In a previous post, I calculated that it was probably about $200 a day for food and lodging - that's about $6000 a month or $72,000 a year for each. So $50K would be a "bargain". Most will be here for years until they are finally deported.....and then a good number will be allowed to stay on compassionate grounds. $$$$$$. Crazy stuff. I think your calculation is a might on the high side. Barring high health care costs, I think it more logical to go with what welfare pays. Mind you, if we're having to stick them in hotel rooms you could very well be correct. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 16, 2018 Report Posted September 16, 2018 10 hours ago, Centerpiece said: Very rational thinking. Frustratingly, in today's "progressive" climate - amplified by media like the CBC and The Star - any such questions are immediately shouted down with accusations of being "un-Canadian" and often, racist. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the tight-knit group of opinion makers in media, academia and politics who basically monopolize the public airwaves in this country, and ordinary Canadians. This tight knit group is all-in on immigration of whatever size and hasn't got the slightest qualms about how they will or won't assimilate or what numbers are coming in, or about any threat to Canada's culture and values. They have no doubt about the economic benefits, which they presume to be splendid, nor the wisdom of our refugee determination system, and no interest in what any of it costs. Canadians as a whole are not anything remotely so sure about any of that. Polls which have come out in recent days have said 49% of Canadians think immigration is too high. 65% feel immigrants are not doing enough to assimilate. About the same percentage are worried about how our cultural values are being changed. And about the same also would like the anti-burka laws Quebec has in their own province. These are not fringe views, but the mainstream media and politicians would have you believe they are. You won't find one single person among them espousing such views. Meanwhile, they deeply respect the NDP, which is at 14.9% in the polls. Nobody calls them fringe, and they're on every political talk show to earnestly state their views. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Centerpiece Posted September 17, 2018 Author Report Posted September 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Argus said: There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the tight-knit group of opinion makers in media, academia and politics who basically monopolize the public airwaves in this country, and ordinary Canadians. This tight knit group is all-in on immigration of whatever size and hasn't got the slightest qualms about how they will or won't assimilate or what numbers are coming in, or about any threat to Canada's culture and values. They have no doubt about the economic benefits, which they presume to be splendid, nor the wisdom of our refugee determination system, and no interest in what any of it costs. Canadians as a whole are not anything remotely so sure about any of that. Polls which have come out in recent days have said 49% of Canadians think immigration is too high. 65% feel immigrants are not doing enough to assimilate. About the same percentage are worried about how our cultural values are being changed. And about the same also would like the anti-burka laws Quebec has in their own province. These are not fringe views, but the mainstream media and politicians would have you believe they are. You won't find one single person among them espousing such views. Meanwhile, they deeply respect the NDP, which is at 14.9% in the polls. Nobody calls them fringe, and they're on every political talk show to earnestly state their views. In political jargon, they might be called "the useful idiots". But seriously - you know - and I know - that what you summarized is the root of the rise of populism and the enabling of Ford-like politicians. People just get sick of the tut-tutting of the elite. I sense a climb towards a tipping point - aided by the arrogance of this current Federal Liberal government.
turningrite Posted September 17, 2018 Report Posted September 17, 2018 16 hours ago, Argus said: There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between the tight-knit group of opinion makers in media, academia and politics who basically monopolize the public airwaves in this country, and ordinary Canadians. This tight knit group is all-in on immigration of whatever size and hasn't got the slightest qualms about how they will or won't assimilate or what numbers are coming in, or about any threat to Canada's culture and values. They have no doubt about the economic benefits, which they presume to be splendid, nor the wisdom of our refugee determination system, and no interest in what any of it costs. Canadians as a whole are not anything remotely so sure about any of that. Polls which have come out in recent days have said 49% of Canadians think immigration is too high. 65% feel immigrants are not doing enough to assimilate. About the same percentage are worried about how our cultural values are being changed. And about the same also would like the anti-burka laws Quebec has in their own province. These are not fringe views, but the mainstream media and politicians would have you believe they are. You won't find one single person among them espousing such views. Meanwhile, they deeply respect the NDP, which is at 14.9% in the polls. Nobody calls them fringe, and they're on every political talk show to earnestly state their views. Of course, Trudeau gets around all this by blithely claiming that Canada is a post-national state/society without a mainstream. Maybe that society's mainstream will wake from its trance and tell the politicians that it actually has valid interests and can't be ignored, insulted and manipulated to serve a narrow set of globalist objectives, as Trudeau would apparently prefer to do. If political populism emerges in Canada, as is happening elsewhere in the West, it will be a result of the tone-deaf insensitivity of our feckless elites, who in my opinion will deserve the dethroning they'll experience.
Recommended Posts