Annoucement for new changes might be delayed - More refugees are coming?

[not-easy]

You are still not showing me where's the fine prints and which treaties say that members of the UN have the OBLIGATION to take in the refugees. I don't see China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Mexico or Sealand to receive any refugees yet, are they gong to be sanctioned ?

And I LOL'd at the religious reasons for the gulf countries. I guess we can use religious reasons to ban all the immigrants now? Do you know this is also a legit religion?

A logical argument is considered ad hominem it is used to attack the other poster to promote my argument. I did not attack anyone personally, just asked a question in a separate post.

No need to show any proof, Canadian culture has in itself to help refugees and it has been doing so for a long time. Just to accommodate the emergencies in Syria a higher priority is given to them. In these situations rest of the classifications like economic and family class tend to suffer and that is okay. If you are impatient and do not really think from your heart that they should be given importance, you are not the type of immigrant the country wants and you should look to migrate elsewhere there is only focus on money.

 

[mf4361]

You are still not showing me where's the fine prints and which treaties say that members of the UN have the OBLIGATION to take in the refugees. I don't see China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Mexico or Sealand to receive any refugees yet, are they gong to be sanctioned ?

And I LOL'd at the religious reasons for the gulf countries. I guess we can use religious reasons to ban all the immigrants now? Do you know this is also a legit religion?

A logical argument is considered ad hominem it is used to attack the other poster to promote my argument. I did not attack anyone personally, just asked a question in a separate post.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx
Article 35
1. The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.

---

China's latest commitment to accept refugees. Not specifically Syrian refugees, just refugees.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-migrants-china-idUSKCN11P1KR
Although they probably have more political, human right and religious dissidents they've detained, executed or exiled than Syrians being taken in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
India, Pakistan are not parties of the refugee act. Sealand is not UN member nor recognized as a state (See Micronations)

---

Watch the Kurzgesagt video on why Saudi, Oman unwilling to take in Syrians. Also consider they are not democratic states, they are theocratic states instead

---

You have tried to nullified the argument by attacking on the sympathy of people under PNP nomination and have ITA, assuming them not willing to sacrifice the chance of PR and have longer waiting time.

Besides, Refugee intake plan in 2016 is around 25,000. Economic migrant plan in 2016 is 10 times more than that. Hence your sympathy to PR applicants affected by slower process is nullified

--- Footnote 1
I normally don't like CNN, but this is pretty good on the right and obligations of refugees
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/world/refugee-obligation/

--- Footnote 2
Flying spaghetti Monster was a satire to creationism, that the responsibility to proof bears on creationists, not those who are arguing against. It's not meant to be a religion in the first place, though the argument was so popular that people take it a few steps further. (And consider the laws on incorporating a church in USA is incredibly loose)

 

[hamzakhobza]

hahaha ok sure! Easy to screw over everyone else in the immigration process when yours is done, no?

Mine is not done, and I would gladly give my place to save someone's life.

 

[Alexios07]

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx
Article 35
1. The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.

You are mistakenly the obligation in the article 35. There is no set quota for Canada or any countries to receive the Syrian refugees, and the UN does not have the power to enforce anything.

We already did our MORAL OBLIGATION to receive the 25,000 Syrian refugees in 2015.

Remember that when the Conservatives were still in power, they only announced to receive about 10,000 by 2017.

These extra "economic refugees", according to Mr.McCallum are here for economic reasons:

He expects the bulk of those refugees to be "economic refugees," people who could help Canada's demographics and labour shortage problems.

Which doesn't make any economic senses at all when we have hundreds of thousands FSW and CEC and other low skilled applicants are in the backlog waiting to contribute to the Canadian economy right the moment they set foot in Canada, not having to go through any ESL classes or waiting for government housing.

You and other people are acting like I am the only one that agaisnt this proposal by Trudeau. No, I am not. This idea is also challenged by the Canadian Parliament and Liberal party's members. Does this mean they are not true Canadians?

It's also funny that those Gulf Countries don't allow the "poor" Syrian refugees in because they afraid of ISIS, but somehow Western nations are completely ok.

--- Footnote 2
Flying spaghetti Monster was a satire to creationism, that the responsibility to proof bears on creationists, not those who are arguing against. It's not meant to be a religion in the first place, though the argument was so popular that people take it a few steps further. (And consider the laws on incorporating a church in USA is incredibly loose)

Doesn't matter, it's still recognized as a legit religion, and who are we that not allow those people to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Satan (Church of Satan). My point is, using religious as the main reason to do something is a silly idea, especially in the 21st century.

Economics and political correctness don't go hand in hand, like at all.

 

[mf4361]

You are mistakenly the obligation in the article 35. There is no set quota for Canada or any countries to receive the Syrian refugees, and the UN does not have the power to enforce anything.

We already did our MORAL OBLIGATION to receive the 25,000 Syrian refugees in 2015.

Remember that when the Conservatives were still in power, they only announced to receive about 10,000 by 2017.

These extra "economic refugees", according to Mr.McCallum are here for economic reasons:

Which doesn't make any economic senses at all when we have hundreds of thousands FSW and CEC and other low skilled applicants are in the backlog waiting to contribute to the Canadian economy right the moment they set foot in Canada, not having to go through any ESL classes or waiting for government housing.

You and other people are acting like I am the only one that agaisnt this proposal by Trudeau. No, I am not. This idea is also challenged by the Canadian Parliament and Liberal party's members. Does this mean they are not true Canadians?

It's also funny that those Gulf Countries don't allow the "poor" Syrian refugees in because they afraid of ISIS, but somehow Western nations are completely ok.

Doesn't matter, it's still recognized as a legit religion, and who are we that not allow those people to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Satan (Church of Satan). My point is, using religious as the main reason to do something is a silly idea, especially in the 21st century.

Economics and political correctness don't go hand in hand, like at all.

So you are now changing the argument from whether Canada should take refugee, to the number of refugees Canada should take.
Then I would agree UN has no control over and is more of a political discussion within the parliament, and trying to change people's ideology in such discussion is 10/10 futile.

With the plurality of votes to the Liberal in the last election, who suggests the most generous number of intake numbers, it is sensible to say Canadians are proud of humanitarian and compassionate efforts in refugees resettlement.

Refugees provides economic benefits to Canada doesn't make them economic migrants. They are still coming to Canada on humanitarian grounds. Remember people selected to come to Canada are mostly from refugees camp in countries neighboring Syria and are screened by IRCC and UNHCR to be genuinely displaced by war and torture. As oppose to economic migrants who does not meet the definition of refugee.

From the history of Vietnam boat people crisis and Hungarian civil war, the economic benefits of refugees and their descendants are proven. Sure, there are short term social costs in resettlement but long term benefits are real, especially natural birthrate in Canada is low and trending lower (like most other developed countries)

---

Come back to the real world, the middle east society is actually torn apart by religion segregation and political struggle. People who live in the area are innocent and deserve some help

Nothing against you being NIMBY and say "screw them I'm fine here". Just remember you are not the one with power

 

[luv2read90]

Economics and political correctness don't go hand in hand, like at all.

At the end of the day, even if you do create your 'facts' to support your selfish arguments, at least you are honest. Honest with yourself, disregarding whether or not you are liked. It's just how you feel and you are free to express it. That's what countries like Canada, Australia and the USA are all about.

And your wish is to live there, you will fit right in Alexios07.

 

[mf4361]

At the end of the day, even if you do create your 'facts' to support your selfish arguments, at least you are honest. Honest with yourself, disregarding whether or not you are liked. It's just how you feel and you are free to express it. That's what countries like Canada, Australia and the USA are all about.

And your wish is to live there, you will fit right in Alexios07.

Actually, USA is very reluctant to help in this crisis, and will probably get worse after the election.

 

[mead]

@mf4361 just curious which country ru from?

 

[Alexios07]

So you are now changing the argument from whether Canada should take refugee, to the number of refugees Canada should take.
Then I would agree UN has no control over and is more of a political discussion within the parliament, and trying to change people's ideology in such discussion is 10/10 futile.

With the plurality of votes to the Liberal in the last election, who suggests the most generous number of intake numbers, it is sensible to say Canadians are proud of humanitarian and compassionate efforts in refugees resettlement.

Refugees provides economic benefits to Canada doesn't make them economic migrants. They are still coming to Canada on humanitarian grounds. Remember people selected to come to Canada are mostly from refugees camp in countries neighboring Syria and are screened by IRCC and UNHCR to be genuinely displaced by war and torture. As oppose to economic migrants who does not meet the definition of refugee.

From the history of Vietnam boat people crisis and Hungarian civil war, the economic benefits of refugees and their descendants are proven. Sure, there are short term social costs in resettlement but long term benefits are real, especially natural birthrate in Canada is low and trending lower (like most other developed countries)

---

Come back to the real world, the middle east society is actually torn apart by religion segregation and political struggle. People who live in the area are innocent and deserve some help

Nothing against you being NIMBY and say "screw them I'm fine here". Just remember you are not the one with power

I'm not changing my argument. I'm saying that by not loving the refugees doesn't make anyone less Canadians, like Stephen Harper and his Party in 2015, for example. They were not overly so fond of the Syrian refugees like the Liberals.

You cannot say all Canadians want to receive as many refugees as the Liberals, since they only won 40% of all votes in 2015 and everyone knows that the first-past-the-post voting system is way oudated. Even the young Trudeau is seeking to replace it.

Yes, I'm not rejecting that economic refugees will eventually contribute to the Canadian economy, but why do we need to spend money and wait for them to get ready while we already tons of people who will start working right at the moment they set foot to Canada (FSWs)?

If Canadians are so in love with receiving more refugees then why McCallum is having trouble selling the ideas to his colleagues and the Parliament? Do you guys even read the article I posted in the first post? and stop acting like I'm the only man in Canada that don't want to receive more refugees.

"If you spend more money bringing in more immigrants you have less money for other things. That's one factor," McCallum told CBC Radio's The House host Chris Hall when asked about trying to pitch his new targets to his colleagues.

"Generally they seem to be on the same page, but Parliament hasn't yet gone back and we're going to have more discussion about this."

McCallum said some of the internal rumblings are also about how to sell Canadians on the idea that more immigration is good for the country. The immigration, refugees and citizenship minister spent the summer hosting immigration consultations in Canadian cities.

Don't know why you use the term NIMBY here? Not even sure if you know what it is.

At the end of the day, even if you do create your 'facts' to support your selfish arguments, at least you are honest. Honest with yourself, disregarding whether or not you are liked. It's just how you feel and you are free to express it. That's what countries like Canada, Australia and the USA are all about.

And your wish is to live there, you will fit right in Alexios07.

Did I ever make up facts to support my arguments? Last time I check this is still a free country, so who are you that can call my argument "selfish"?

You guys keep saying my idea is unCanadian, but the fact you don't like any opposite idea is very unCandian itself.

 

[LokiJr01]

I don't know the point of this thread anymore. I initially thought this would be more of an informative one, but it's now it's just arguments and sarcasm bound hehe

 

[luv2read90]

I don't know the point of this thread anymore. I initially thought this would be more of an informative one, but it's now it's just arguments and sarcasm bound hehe

Yea it's become pretty silly.... you should read my post. I never said you were unCanadian. I said the opposite actually, no worries... you win. Enjoy your fascist thread Alexios07.

 

[rabzodemorayh]

sheesh...can someone turn the temperature down?

it's true that not all Canadians want as many refugees as Trudeau does...and it's true that it's not fair to expect only Canada to take care of the mess...many gulf countries should be doing much more, in fact some shouldn't have played a negative role to begin with...sigh...

 

[thestunner316]

i'm not sure how i stumbled onto this thread... lol.. too much bad blood here... reminds me of a satrical story i saw recently where the govt/large corporation is responsible for dividing 20 cookies, they keep 19 for themselves and tells the citizen - be careful, that immigrant will take the 20th one.... holds true in most countries around the world.

alexios - man you should stick with your numbers and stats related posts, they are extremely informative and i look forward to seeing more and more from you.
any idea btw when this mid year report will be available? The PNP ones....

 

[johnjkjk]

McCallum did not mean that these refugees are economic migrants, but that they are refugees who rather than being an economic burden on society, will be able to "help Canada's demographics and labour shortage problems." This is clear from the context and usage of quotations in the article and is obvious to a native English language speaker.

On the subject of refugees, whilst commendable, Canada has it's own state-sponsored refugee crisis in the form of native peoples, many of whom have no running water, face daily persecution and have the highest child suicide rates in the world, all stemming from historical and ongoing abuse caused by the Canadian Government. It's ultimately a tad glib to ignore domestic problems whilst promoting human rights elsewhere in the world. Of course it would be ideal if both can be achieved.