I Dont Care Where Imigrants Come From

[Leafless]

Charles Anthony

You wrote:

"I believe that Canada will ultimately let in more people who value their freedom to counter any terrorists. However, racism and bigotry does not help and it should be denounced -- whether it is from born-Canadians or immigrants."

Here we go again.

Pulling out the old bigot, racist, hate card.

Objection to the current Muslim associated terrorist problem has nothing to do bigotry, racism or hate.

It has to do with personal values, beliefs of one race imposing imported beliefs on a host country's who's national values conflict dramatically with that of the imported values. Terrorist acts is the common method used by aggressive cultures to force their beliefs on to others.

Sometimes this works as in the case of Quebec and the FLQ who pulled off a similar stunt thus forcing their nationalistic values and lifestyles on the rest of Canada and at the same time forcing Canada to support those beliefs and values.

I believe the Muslims are trying to do the same and that is force the world utilizing fear tactics to forcefully impress their beliefs including here in Canada.

Islam is a very dangerous religion in my estimation as it is not only a religion but a political system in which certain aspects can lie dormant for years but pursued at any particular time as the Muslim population increases to eventually fully installing Islamic beliefs on the host country.

We as Canadians have every right to object to intolerant aggressive Muslims just as we do have the right to object to intolerant and aggressive Quebec nationalism.

[betsy]

The root of the problem lies in the breakdown of our immigration policy.

Are you joking? Root of the problem? What do our immigration policies have to do with riots and demonstrations in front of Danish Embassies because of cartoons?

Betsy, if you don't like Canada's immigration policies, then fine. It is your right to disagree. But don't pretend that changing Canada's immigration policy will solve the problem of fanatical Muslim terrorism. That's like me saying that I think the federal Liberals are crooks and if we arrest them all, that will solve the problem of global warming.

I was referring to the problem here in Canada. That was what was explained by an immigration guy regarding the hardly existing "screening process" (don't know his name), on either Question Period or MDuffy.

The Danish have their own problems....have no idea about their immigration policies though.

[Rue]

Why don't we retitle this thread "PARANOIA!"

A long time ago, like probably twenty five years or more back, I was opposed to immigration, particularly third world immigration. I said that it would inevitably cause all sorts of problems, that people would bring their violence with them, and that with so many being brought in they would eventually come to outnumber us. People accused me of paranoia. Well, in Toronto, the foreign born now outnumber those born in Canada, and the numbers are close to that if not greater in Vancouver, with other cities rising year by year.

Examine the growth of Muslim numbers so far, and where their numbers are predicted to be in thirty years.

Well then imagine how native Canadians feel. I think anyone who is not a native using your logic should leave. I guess I will go to Israel but I know Black Dog will consider that racist of me to say and perhaps feels I should go back to Germany or Russia.

[Argus]

Examine the growth of Muslim numbers so far, and where their numbers are predicted to be in thirty years.

Well then imagine how native Canadians feel. I think anyone who is not a native using your logic should leave. I guess I will go to Israel but I know Black Dog will consider that racist of me to say and perhaps feels I should go back to Germany or Russia.

There is this old cliche again, which one encounters far too often despite the illogic involved.

ONE. Natives are the only true Canadians because, like, they were here first. On the other hand, a Chinese man who stepped off the plane last year and got his citizenship by promising to invest money (which he did by buying a house) has EXACTLY as much right to be here, and to claim citizenship, and to all the rights and prerogatives of a Canadian as I do, no matter how many generations of my family have lived here and contributed to the growth of this country.

TWO: Look at how disastrous, how catastrophic uncontrolled immigration was to the natives. Their culture was destroyed by it and they have been relegated to museum pieces. Therefore, we are under a moral obligation to do the same as they did, and let our culture also be destroyed by uncontrolled immigration.

BTW, I don't think life in Canada is looking too good for Jews when we have millions of Muslims in our midst.

Why do you think French Jews need armed guards in front of every school and temple now?

[gc1765]

There is this old cliche again, which one encounters far too often despite the illogic involved.

ONE. Natives are the only true Canadians because, like, they were here first. On the other hand, a Chinese man who stepped off the plane last year and got his citizenship by promising to invest money (which he did by buying a house) has EXACTLY as much right to be here, and to claim citizenship, and to all the rights and prerogatives of a Canadian as I do, no matter how many generations of my family have lived here and contributed to the growth of this country.

I think you are the one using faulty logic. You seem to believe that it was ok for Natives to let your family come here (wherever they are from and whenever they came) but now that you're here we must stop letting people in. Where is the logic in that?

[Rue]

We are mixing a lot of issues. I think the one people are trying to zero in on without trying to be racist or exclusive against any particular group is the question of whether an immigration policy that is not selective as to people's views works.

The arguement I am hearing is that if immigration policy doesn't inunciated some sort of criteria for selection and just accepts everyone with their views face value, this can be a disaster recipe. I believe that is really the pt. Besty is making.

If we for example, take in people who do not believe in democracy and believe in secular fundamentalism and non separation of state from religion and who believe women are inferior and should be covered from head to toe, etc., this could spell disaster in terms of taking in people who are not interested in assimilating and adapting Canadian values. They are bound to come into conflict with the prevailing beliefs of society, "feel alienated" and then perhaps use it as a pretense to engage in terrorism and violence.

So how does one argue this without sounding racist? Well most of you have. It only becomes unfair if you make sweeping generalized statements. If you say ALL Muslims are a problem then it becomes problematic. However if you refrain from stating its ALL Muslims, but argue it is a problem taking in Muslims not because they are Muslim but because some of them use their religion to be intolerant of other people's views, then the arguement remains valid because you are not singling out Muslims but framing it as a problem all relgions that are fundamentalist and extreme have.

I think the care we should take is in explaining it is not the religion that gives us the problem -it is in fact the method by which humans interperate ANY religion literally and fundamentally that causes the problems and in that sense I would argue a fundamentalist Muslim is as equal a pain in the ass in a pluralistic democracy as is any other fundamentalist orthodox extremist from Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

So the issue we need to focus in on is a valid one-and we need to ask-is it realistic to think you can build a vision of Canada being democractic and pluralistic if you tell people becoming citizens that its o.k. for them to be secular, view other religions as imperfect and view women as inferior, etc. and that it is o.k. they can bring their hatred to Canada and expect others to back them up when they express their hatred.

See to me, I know extreme fundamentalist Muslims who come to Canada and express open contempt for Jews and Christians and any other non Muslims as infidels and yes that worries men. But I also know many moderate Muslims, especially some frombelieve it or not Algeria, Morrocco, Iran, Albania and Serbia and they are not the stereotype Muslims many of you think they are. They are very liberal and tolerant and cool about stuff and are critical thinkers and do not adhere to a strict fundamentalist dogma and they are to Islam what say United Church people are to Christianity if I may use that anology. They want to live in peace and I can and do engage in dialogue with them in regards to the Middle East and no we do not hate each other or want to kill each other. Canada has given us the wonderful opportunity of being able to live in peace and yet celebrate each others religious differences. That is bloody fantastic! Mu ancestors dreamed of a country where the police would not arrest them because they were Jews. They dreamed of a country where the police helped you when you were in trouble and where you could go pray in a synagogue and not worry about being killed or shot or spit on.

I live in a country that millions dreamed of and died for. How can I not be eternally grateful?

O.k. so maybe I am a bleeding heart, but I really do believe most Canadians feel that way to including Muslims.

Yes there are fundamentalist Muslims who come to Canada and do not believe in our way of doing things and yes we all have the right to criticize them but its not because they are Muslim - its because they choose to interperate Islam in the manner they do. I could just as easily use the Koran to preach peace as these fundamentalists use it to preach intolerance. So yes criticize them but please remember its not their religion, its how they are choosing to practice their religion.

Getting back to the point many of you are trying to make, I agree it is unrealistic to think Canada can be all things to all people if we do not tolerate and respect each other. You can not build a vision in Canada that treats everyone as equals if citizens you take in do not feel they are equals and in fact feel they are superior or better then others.

So should we require anyone and not just Muslims to swear an oath that they believe in certain fundamental principles and spell it out that if they accept being Canadian they must reject the concept of secularism or exlusivity and understand religion and state will remain seperate?

That becomes the question. How to you spell out and apply this kind of concept?

My only arguement is this - I have no problem with anyone saying immigration policy must spell out a vision it wants its citizens to pursue as long as it does it equally to everyone regardless of where they come from.

Will Muslims assimiliate in Canada?

Well I am not sure, you will have to ask them whether they are willing to alter or amend certain precepts. Some will not. Then the question is do we exclude those that will not just as we would exclude those who would not from every other group?

I personally have a problem with anyone whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian what-ever, if they feel they can come to Canada and feel they are superior to other Canadians and can impose secularism and concepts that contradict our basic precepts of democracy. That however is a political issue.

Do we look at the States and adapt a more melting pot approach or do we remain as we are trying to be everything for everybody thereby exposing ourself to extremists and terrorists....that is the question and I think there is no black and white answer and all of us regardless of where we are from need to work on what we think being Canadian is and start putting that before anything else.

Now is it possible we can have a society that tolerates fundamenalists? Of course. Does anyone feel endangered by say Amish or Orthodox Jews (unless of course you are dumb enough to drive up Bathurst Street in Toronto-I am joking), of course not. If people want to be fundamentalist in religious belief it isn't a problem if they are not violent and are willing to live in peace with everyone else.

For those that do not, yes Canada is now growing up. It has realized it can't be everythingt o everybody and it can't be the good guy all the time.

So the question is how to we build a vision and balance that with tolerance and respect?

[Leafless]

Argus

You wrote:

"Natives are the only true Canadians because, like, they were here first."

That's the definiton of an 'aboriginal' which they are.

If we are born in Canada we are considered 'native Canadians.'

[Black Dog]

BTW, I don't think life in Canada is looking too good for Jews when we have millions of Muslims in our midst.

Why do you think French Jews need armed guards in front of every school and temple now?

Because G-d knows there was no anti-Semetism in Europe before the Muslims arrived....

August has come the closest to nailing it here. We can tweak the immigration system, mess around with mulitculturalism till the cow's come home, but it won't get to the bottom of Muslim radicalism.

[mikedavid00]

BTW, I don't think life in Canada is looking too good for Jews when we have millions of Muslims in our midst.

Why do you think French Jews need armed guards in front of every school and temple now?

Because G-d knows there was no anti-Semetism in Europe before the Muslims arrived....

August has come the closest to nailing it here. We can tweak the immigration system, mess around with mulitculturalism till the cow's come home, but it won't get to the bottom of Muslim radicalism.

Exactly.

It's not the job or the role of the Canadian gov't or our tax dollars to explore why there is Islamic extermism over seas or here in Canada. We know it's here, we know it's there.

I can't say this enough and not one person seems to understand:

Coming... to... Canada.. is... a... privilage - not... a... right.

Just like cross boarder shopping. The US has a right to do as they wish which inconviences all of us.

We should have the right to refuse whoever we chose coming into our land.

Of course all this could be avoided if we only let peoople in on work permits for jobs that employers can't find employees for. (certain types of researchers, etc.)

But that would be too American and might cause Canadians to get high paying jobs in fields that they actually went to school for.

[mikedavid00]

Why don't we retitle this thread "PARANOIA!"

A long time ago, like probably twenty five years or more back, I was opposed to immigration, particularly third world immigration. I said that it would inevitably cause all sorts of problems, that people would bring their violence with them, and that with so many being brought in they would eventually come to outnumber us. People accused me of paranoia. Well, in Toronto, the foreign born now outnumber those born in Canada, and the numbers are close to that if not greater in Vancouver, with other cities rising year by year.

Examine the growth of Muslim numbers so far, and where their numbers are predicted to be in thirty years.

I agree. I live in it.

Even if they aren't a majority, their policical represenation is of their own.

For isntance, West Mississauga is not +50 Islamic. So how is it that most running Candidates are Islamic?

(I of course know the answer to this and there is a crisis in our party membership system which is seing to it that minorities are representing majorities:

"Toronto, Canada - Monday, December 19, 2005 - On December 2, the Liberal candidate for Mississauga-Erindale, Omar Alghabra, made his victory speech after winning the nomination. In that speech, he reportedly exhorted his audience, "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won! ... Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics". - this guy was the guy who one my riding.

When you read about how he actually got his nominatiton to head the party, you'd be amazed.

Make what you will out of that. Our own political system.

the question is, where is this heading?

Or are we going to continually put our heads back in the sand and not admit we have a problem.

[Argus]

There is this old cliche again, which one encounters far too often despite the illogic involved.

ONE. Natives are the only true Canadians because, like, they were here first. On the other hand, a Chinese man who stepped off the plane last year and got his citizenship by promising to invest money (which he did by buying a house) has EXACTLY as much right to be here, and to claim citizenship, and to all the rights and prerogatives of a Canadian as I do, no matter how many generations of my family have lived here and contributed to the growth of this country.

I think you are the one using faulty logic. You seem to believe that it was ok for Natives to let your family come here (wherever they are from and whenever they came) but now that you're here we must stop letting people in. Where is the logic in that?

The natives were short-sighted and stupid. Okay? You're suggesting that we now have a moral obligation to also be short-sighted and stupid because we benefitted from their mistakes?

How about we learn from their mistakes instead and protect our culture and value system?

[Argus]

BTW, I don't think life in Canada is looking too good for Jews when we have millions of Muslims in our midst.

Why do you think French Jews need armed guards in front of every school and temple now?

Because G-d knows there was no anti-Semetism in Europe before the Muslims arrived....

Don't be smug about it. Yes, there has always been anti-semitism, but Jews didn't need armed guards before every school and synagogue in the sixties, seventies and eighties. The rise in anti-semitic violence in France has coincided with the increase and radicalism of the Muslim population. And there seems little likelihood that a similar rise of Islam in Canada will not similarly cause a rise in anti-semitic violence within Canada. We've already seen one Jewish school firebombed, and that's with 1/10th the Muslim population there will be within the next thirty years.

The Muslim population is doubling or tripling every decade. Without changes to current trends there'll be 1 million Muslims in Canada by 2010 or so, 2 million by 2020, and 4 million by 2030 - that's only 25 years away.

[Argus]

So how does one argue this without sounding racist? Well most of you have. It only becomes unfair if you make sweeping generalized statements. If you say ALL Muslims are a problem then it becomes problematic.

Look, no one is suggesting all Muslims are dangerous. However, the Muslim population includes many very conservative religious people. When you let in 100,000 Muslims you're going to get thirty or forty thousand who like the idea of Sharia law, and who think all western women are whores. You're going to get a thousand or so who support terrorism, who fiercely hate infidels and especially those they think are disrespectful to Islam, and among them are going to be a few dozen - or more - who seriously contemplate commiting violence. There's no easy way around that.

Some of you seem to be operating under the bellief we are somehow obligated to accept masses of Muslims and not discriminate becuase, well, "most of them" are okay. But that just isn't good enough. If you find out that a small percentage of a certain brand of refrigerators has a tendency to set fire to the houses, are you going to buy that brand because, statistically, most of them are okay? Why should you, when other refrigerators do not come with the same danger?

We are under no obligation to accept anyone to Canada as an immigrant. We don't have to care about discriminating for good reason. If I were in charge of our immigration system I would have a sweeping statistical study in place judging the success in Canada of every group of immigrants by age, by educational level, by career, by race, by nationality, by language, by religion, by geographical grouping or tribe or whatever have you. The success of those groups would be judged by number of those which needed to claim welfare, unemployment, health care benefits, by salary level, by crime level, you name it.

And I would turn immigration away from those groups on the bottom of the list.

Because immigration is there to benefit us alone. We should not care if it is unfair to poorly educated, left handed mule skinners of Spanish descent now living in Paragua. Hey, they just scored well below right handed Japanese electronics engineers from Okinawa.

[gc1765]

Some of you seem to be operating under the bellief we are somehow obligated to accept masses of Muslims and not discriminate becuase, well, "most of them" are okay. But that just isn't good enough. If you find out that a small percentage of a certain brand of refrigerators has a tendency to set fire to the houses, are you going to buy that brand because, statistically, most of them are okay? Why should you, when other refrigerators do not come with the same danger?

As I've mentioned previously, there is not one race or religion of people who do not have some violent members, at least not as far as I know. So using your refrigerator analogy, what happens when a small percentage of all refrigerator brands set fire to the house? Do you not buy any refrigerator at all, even if you need one?

[justcrowing]

So using your refrigerator analogy, what happens when a small percentage of all refrigerator brands set fire to the house? Do you not buy any refrigerator at all, even if you need one?

Nawh, you just go back to using Ice.

[Argus]

Some of you seem to be operating under the bellief we are somehow obligated to accept masses of Muslims and not discriminate becuase, well, "most of them" are okay. But that just isn't good enough. If you find out that a small percentage of a certain brand of refrigerators has a tendency to set fire to the houses, are you going to buy that brand because, statistically, most of them are okay? Why should you, when other refrigerators do not come with the same danger?

As I've mentioned previously, there is not one race or religion of people who do not have some violent members, at least not as far as I know. So using your refrigerator analogy, what happens when a small percentage of all refrigerator brands set fire to the house? Do you not buy any refrigerator at all, even if you need one?

But if .001% of GE fridges catch fire and .002% of Westinghouse fridges catch fire, and 5% of LG fridges catch fire, then I'd assume you would avoid the LG fridges.

[gc1765]

Some of you seem to be operating under the bellief we are somehow obligated to accept masses of Muslims and not discriminate becuase, well, "most of them" are okay. But that just isn't good enough. If you find out that a small percentage of a certain brand of refrigerators has a tendency to set fire to the houses, are you going to buy that brand because, statistically, most of them are okay? Why should you, when other refrigerators do not come with the same danger?

As I've mentioned previously, there is not one race or religion of people who do not have some violent members, at least not as far as I know. So using your refrigerator analogy, what happens when a small percentage of all refrigerator brands set fire to the house? Do you not buy any refrigerator at all, even if you need one?

But if .001% of GE fridges catch fire and .002% of Westinghouse fridges catch fire, and 5% of LG fridges catch fire, then I'd assume you would avoid the LG fridges.

So you are assuming that Muslims are 2,500-5,000 times more likely to commit violent acts than other races/religions? I assume you have some statistics to back up your case??

[Rue]

Arg I know what you are getting at but when you generalize and attribute a negative attribute to all people in a category because of the terrorist acts of a few that is nothing more then discriminating based on stereotypes. It is the act of transferring hatred and fear of terrorism from a few in a group into a negative assumption as to the whole group's behaviour.

If you incorporate such reasoning into policies or doctrines they necessarily become defective and discriminatory and result in oppression and tyranny and the end to democracy which at its pith and substance envisions tolerance of those with different opinions and characteristics.

So Arg I would respond to what you are saying by stating what I really think you are raising is an issue as to security screening. How do you screen persons coming from groups where terrorists come from.

Why don't we then talk about that rather then lumping all Muslims into one category because there are terrorists in their midst.

Why do I worry about it so much? I will tell you why. It wasn't too long ago, say the 30's and 40's when McKenzie King refused to take in Jews because he perceived them all having negative characteristics. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all had immigration policies excluding anyone not white or Christian unless of course they paid a head tax and were willing to build rail-roads.

The problem with an immigration policy that excludes is that someone has to define the rules of exclusion. Who are those people and what criteria do they use?

Usually the people who cry out for exclusionary policies come from cultural groups that are not minorities or who are too removed from the hardship their ancestors fled to appreciate the irony of what they said.

Let me put it in bold human terms. My mother was born in Shaghai, China. Her parents escaped Europe and were able to survive in Shanghai where the Chinese left the Jews alone. Likewise the Japanese went nowhere near the Jews in Shanghai. My mother became a neurologist at a Jesuit medical school because of the sheer volume of Chinese men left on the streets to die from enrve damage because of torture at the hands of the Japanese.

My Grandmother was missed under a pile of dead bodies when her village was arracked and everyone killed during an Easter raid in Poland which resulted from the Passion Play and Priests calling for the death of Jews for killing Christ. My grandfather was shot in his back and left for dead by fellow German soldiers in World War One when they found out he was a Jew. When the Russians found him they sent him to a pow camp in Valdivastock and that is how he heard about Shanghai and that is why he brought his wife there.

My mother's family survived the Japanese and some stuff I will not get into. Then Mao Tse Tung came into power and let them go since my Grandfather saved Chinese from the Japanese.

My mother was a neurologist taught medicine in French with a classification from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of England. The Jesuits had St. Justine Hospital in Montreal and were in desperate need of a pediatric neurologist. So they were only to happy to help her come to Montreal, Quebec. Not withstanding all this, the Canadian government based on its immigration policies in the early 50's tried to deport her. She only stayed because my father was a world war two air force veteran and got a friend whose father was a well known Wasp and Senator to pass a private member's bill!

My mother was typical of many immigrants who come to this country. They had something to contribute and they were bloody grateful to come here and live.

So please don't ask me to advocate draconian laws on immigration. I can't. I wouldn't be alive if I did. On the other hand, I fully understand you arguing there has to be a way to screen criminals, terrorists, pedophiles,etc.

The real issue here is how to do we screen in a way that does not exclude good people who want to come to the country and partake in all it has to offer. That to me is the question.

Look some "Christians" that came to this country have been Nazis and murderers and pedophiles. Do any of you Christians want to be lumped in the same category as them. Do we state all Serbs are evil and to be excluded because some in their midst were terrorists?

Another poster said it, if you start excluding because a group has terrorists in their group, which one does NOT?

Surely screening or criteria for admittance has to be a little more complex then

simply stereotyping and dismissing people en masse.

I think there is a way to screen for terrorists and criminals and that is what we have to focus intelligent discussion around.

We can't let terrorism turn us all into hate mongering, paranoid bigots.

It may be in our zeal to send people away we may by accident cut ourselves off of the discover of a cure for a disease, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

But if .001% of GE fridges catch fire and .002% of Westinghouse fridges catch fire, and 5% of LG fridges catch fire, then I'd assume you would avoid the LG fridges.

To follow your analogy, Argus, you're beginning with an assumption that the brand of fridge is to blame. Perhaps there are only three companies that supply refrigerator motors to all brands and one company is causing all of the problems, or perhaps its the wiring. You've started with the assumption that the brand (ie. religion) is the problem, and that's incorrect.

As far as I know, there's no causitive link between someone's religion and their tendency towards violence.

[Argus]

Arg I know what you are getting at but when you generalize and attribute a negative attribute to all people in a category because of the terrorist acts of a few that is nothing more then discriminating based on stereotypes. It is the act of transferring hatred and fear of terrorism from a few in a group into a negative assumption as to the whole group's behaviour.

I'm okay with that.

The real issue here is how to do we screen in a way that does not exclude good people who want to come to the country and partake in all it has to offer. That to me is the question.

Any immigration policy is going to exclude good people. Let's face facts. We let people in based on their perceived value to Canada. We let them if we think they have skills to contribute, or money to invest. We let them in because they bid more on that Pakistani Canadian girl whose family sent her back to find a husband than the other four of five potential husbands. It isn't a matter of who deserves to come here. It isn't a matter of keeping a door open to provide opportuntiies for the world's downtrodden. That is not the function of our immigration system, nor should it be.

Look some "Christians" that came to this country have been Nazis and murderers and pedophiles. Do any of you Christians want to be lumped in the same category as them.

That's not a real comparison. There are Nazis, murderers and pedophiles, rapists crooks and creeps among all races, all nationalities, all ethnic groups, all religions. But the only group we need to really worry about terrorism from - at least terrorism directed at us - is Muslims. It's also a group which has more than a small number of religious reactionaries. Remember that 40% of Muslims surveyed in Britain wanted Sharia law. That's not a small number, it's not just an occasional tiny minority of wild-eyed nuts. We need to Canadianize Muslims, to get them to see this nation as their own, and stop sending their kids "home" for brides and grooms. We need to get them to stop trying to perpetuate their old bigoted, violent cultures here in Canada. and we can't do that with the tens of thousands coming in from Muslim nations every year.

[justcrowing]

How did the former Canadian Government respond to the hard facts brought to

light by the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service, that more than 50

militant groups such as the Al Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden, Hamas,

Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, Sikh militants, as well as former war criminals

from Rwanda, Bosnia and other genocide bearing countries continue to find

safe haven and carry out their fund raising activities within Canada?

Moreover, can it not be argued that Canada’s immigration refugee policies,

which permit unconditional entry into the country of thousands of

undocumented claimants each year, create increased risk to our national

security?

We must consider adapting a tougher and a far more costly approach to the

management of undocumented refugee claimants by detaining a greater number

of such individuals until sufficient and timely security and medical

background verifications can be completed. Under current practice, refugee

claimants are readily admitted (without medical testing) after meeting a

minimal threshold screening process at the port of entry. Security

background checks are only initiated after a refugee claimant has been

approved. In the US and Australia, undocumented asylum seekers are detained

under mandatory legislation. Detention of undocumented refugee claimants

although permissible under existing Canadian law, is rarely used. Proposed

reforms allowing for “front-loaded” security screening of refugee claimants

must be used in tandem with increased detentions for undocumented claimants.

It is at the stage of initial entry where refugee claimants pose the

greatest security risks.

Under current immigration policy, mandatory security background screening is

carried out for individuals seeking permanent entry to Canada. Applicants

for non-immigrant visas seeking admission to visit, study or work in Canada,

are generally not subject to any security background screening. Individuals

from designated countries are required to obtain an entry visa and to

demonstrate as a condition of visa issuance, a likelihood to leave Canada

upon the expiry of the visa. The developments in the United States

would now seem to justify the need to introduce security background

screening measures for selected non-immigrant visa seekers.

[theloniusfleabag]

justcrowing: (or troll, whatever you wish to be called)

http://www.immigration.ca/us/

Plaigiarism is not allowed on this forum.

But, as a partner to one of the greatest economic alliances the world has ever known, and a country whose national security is deeply dependent on the United States, how does the Canadian Government respond to the hard facts brought to light by the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service, that more than 50 militant groups such as the Al Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, Sikh militants, as well as former war criminals from Rwanda, Bosnia and other genocide bearing countries continue to find safe haven and carry out their fund raising activities within Canada? Moreover, can it not be argued that Canada’s immigration refugee policies, which permit unconditional entry into the country of thousands of undocumented claimants each year, create increased risk to our national security?

[justcrowing]

justcrowing: (or troll, whatever you wish to be called)

http://www.immigration.ca/us/

Plaigiarism is not allowed on this forum.

But, as a partner to one of the greatest economic alliances the world has ever known, and a country whose national security is deeply dependent on the United States, how does the Canadian Government respond to the hard facts brought to light by the Canadian Secret Intelligence Service, that more than 50 militant groups such as the Al Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Tamil Tigers, Sikh militants, as well as former war criminals from Rwanda, Bosnia and other genocide bearing countries continue to find safe haven and carry out their fund raising activities within Canada? Moreover, can it not be argued that Canada’s immigration refugee policies, which permit unconditional entry into the country of thousands of undocumented claimants each year, create increased risk to our national security?

So Fleabag do you agree or disagree with the article? Be my guest and tell us how we can allow this as this happened under the noses of the previous government.

No I do not troll, I merely post if and when I choose to - why should that be a problem to you?

[Michael Hardner]

The present government has given many indications that they will continue as the last one did, so we might consider using the term 'the government' instead of 'the previous government'.

[August1991]

So Fleabag do you agree or disagree with the article? Be my guest and tell us how we can allow this as this happened under the noses of the previous government.

No I do not troll, I merely post if and when I choose to - why should that be a problem to you?

That is not the point justcrowing, you posted the material as if it were your own. It's not. Unless Thelonious had noted this, I wouldn't have known.

I have reported your post to the moderator.

----

We let people in based on their perceived value to Canada. We let them if we think they have skills to contribute, or money to invest. We let them in because they bid more on that Pakistani Canadian girl whose family sent her back to find a husband than the other four of five potential husbands. It isn't a matter of who deserves to come here. It isn't a matter of keeping a door open to provide opportuntiies for the world's downtrodden. That is not the function of our immigration system, nor should it be.

I don't think we allow people into Canada based on their perceived value to Canada. In fact, I don't know how we allow people into this country: the process is largely arbitrary at this point.

I started another thread on this issue but I guess this is the place to be. I wanted to separate the issue of worldwide Islamist terrorism from our immigration policies.

Post moved here.