European Refugee Crisis...

[Madhue]

julie taud, at least she knows whats going on,hope ottawa and some of you on here listen to her
https://www.facebook.com/CTVNewsChannel ... nref=story

wow one has to work hard to find this kind of Dogma, kudos to you for being persistent in your intolerance.

here's the crux of the matter... last year Canada accepted approximately 40,035 Immigrants from the Philippines.

did the system crash? I mean that well above the 25,000 Canada is willing to allow. almost 40,000 from Indian... did the system crash? BTW that's on top of the 40,000 from Philippines... wait a tick!!! Canada also accepted 25,000 Chinese! on top of that! over 16,000 Iranians....

I know what your gonna say ..."What the hell!!! But But they Iz Mooooslems!"


that they are good man that they are...

Canada took in a lot of folks last year and we didn't even flinch, this happened was with Hate-On Harper in power.

http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/immigra ... ntry-2014/

[rustled]

julie taud, at least she knows whats going on,hope ottawa and some of you on here listen to her
https://www.facebook.com/CTVNewsChannel ... nref=story

Wow. Lots to think about there.

Madhue, how long was the process for all the immigrants you mentioned?

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Madhue, how long was the process for all the immigrants you mentioned?

What it comes down to is some posters in one breath say as long as the Syrian refugees are vetted properly I have no problem for them to come to Canada and in the other breath they say we don't want Muslims to come to Canada because of their religion.
And round and round it goes.

[rustled]

Madhue, how long was the process for all the immigrants you mentioned?

What it comes down to is some posters in one breath say as long as the Syrian refugees are vetted properly I have no problem for them to come to Canada and in the other breath they say we don't want Muslims to come to Canada because of their religion.
And round and round it goes.

I see a lot of peoples' posts getting twisted on these threads, and that's not helpful. If we want to stop going round and round and move together along the best possible course of action, we ought to be more thoughtful about what we read and how we respond.

It seems likely the vetting process for people coming from conflict zones (where one group of people are targeting another with violence) or from plague-ridden zones would take longer than the vetting process for people who are fleeing a peaceful area to avoid starvation, or immigrating from a peaceful area to join family here.

If the immigrants Madhue is referencing actually took months and years to vet, as the immigration lawyer in the video "the truth" posted claims is often the case, wouldn't the process of properly vetting this group of immigrants take months and years, too?

Surely the people we have vetting immigrants are already dealing with a full caseload, including people who are still trying desperately to get their families out of danger zones. Should 25,000 people who are already safely in refugee camps and out of harm's way be allowed to jump queue?

[Donald G]

To rustled ...

You have once more described the situation clearly but, as you say, a small number of people continue to attempt to confuse the issue by ignoring the necessity of having though security checks carried out and refuse to acknowledge the time required to complete the checks.

Unfortunately one of the people who refuse to accept reality is the Immigration Minister himself.

[rustled]

We are reasonably asking for reassurance about the timeline. Rex Murphy made a good point about this in his commentary on the National http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/rex-murphy-trudeau-s-refugee-promise-1.3327352. If the government can do this properly before the date they had set during the election campaign, they should be able to explain how this will be managed.

For years, we have heard about the lengthy wait most immigrants, including refugees from terrible circumstances, have endured while trying to emigrate to Canada. We know it's ordinarily a very long process, so it's only reasonable to expect an explanation of how, in this case, proper checks will be performed this quickly, in these numbers, with their country in such chaos (as Rex describes), when it simply isn't doable under ordinary circumstances.

Most of us are not saying "no". We are simply asking for reassurance that the government isn't rushing ahead to meet an artificial and possibly impractical deadline. The 25,000 refugees are now reasonably safe in other countries, so let's do this right.

[rustled]

This is the kind of reassurance we're looking for:

Refugee plan coming Tues.
How the Liberal government intends to bring thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada by year's end will become clear Tuesday with the rollout of the plan for the largest rapid resettlement program in the country's history.
...
"In all cases, I have said the same thing. I have said that, yes, we are determined to bring refugees here quickly, but we are also determined to do it right in terms of security and in terms of health," McCallum said. ...

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-152288-4-.htm#152288

I hope the details released on Tuesday provide the clarity we need. We all want to be confident we are going about this the right way, for everyone involved.

[Donald G]

Unless the refugees have already been cleared, which is very doubtful, Mr McCallum is either seriously out of his knowledge range in saying that the 25,000 refugees can be security cleared and brought to Canada by the end of the year or he is outright lying to the Canadian people.

There is no way in hell that the inquiries, many of which have to be done on the ground in Syria, can be carried out by years end. It is not logistically possible.

The Liberals are putting Liberal politics ahead of the safety of the Canadian people from terrorist or extremist sympathizers being allowed in due to completely inadequate security checks being carried out on the "refugees" being brought into Canada.
All because Trudeau made an irresponsible promise during the election in an effort to get elected. Reality has nothing to do with it.

[Ka-El]

Unfortunately one of the people who refuse to accept reality is the Immigration Minister himself.

How could he possibly be expected to know more than you racist bigots?

[LTD]

being concerned for the well being of myself and my fellow Canadians is not racist or being a bigot its using some fairly basic common sense which doesn't seem to be very common in our govrnment

[Ka-El]

Refusing refugees rooted in more than fear
• by Lance Peverley - Peace Arch News
• posted Nov 19, 2015 at 2:28 PM

They say it’s about our safety.

Yet, somehow, it feels so much more than that.

I agree it should be about keeping us secure. In the weeks ahead, we’re about to invite 25,000 new residents to our country, and little is now known about them other than that their paperwork indicates they’re from Syria.

Most, I presume, have had far greater conflict in their lives than you and I.
Many, I assume, will want to ingratiate themselves with their new neighbours.
And all, I hope, would be welcome.

Hope, however, is a fickle word. Mine was stronger just one week ago. Now, instead of a warm welcome, I’m hearing from my current countrymen more and more complex calculations explaining away why we should deny entry to those seeking refuge from terrorists.

Some bring up their differing faiths and cultures, others bring up our lack of space.
Most, I’m told, are motivated by fear.
My fear is that it is something more sinister.

For those who truly want to reject outright these strangers – but don’t consider yourself xenophobic – I implore you to look a little deeper into your subconscious and ask why.

Perhaps it’s because you fear what you’ve heard about their religious beliefs. If that’s the case, I think I can begin to understand – after all, it’s likely that you and I are not in complete agreement over our religious beliefs either. But I have to wonder if you picked the right society to live in.

To varying degrees across this country, we are multicultural. And no matter which point in your family history the decision was made to move here, our society will evolve – like most developing communities – to become even more multicultural, with or without you.

Perhaps it’s because you fear the terrorists themselves.

In that case, again, I understand. But I have to ask why you think you’re any safer living in your current community, presumably alongside strangers who didn’t arrive with legal refugee status.

Crimes happen, far more in number than our police and courts can adequately deal with. And if you peruse the docket, you’ll indeed find ethnic names – including, most likely, your own ethnicity. Pointedly, if you spot only names of a specific heritage, I’d suggest you’ve programmed your mind to selectively screen what you see.

As for our lack of space, I often think about this argument as I’m driving out of town. Forty minutes in just about any direction, and I see land available – if not prebuilt communities – to house newcomers.

When I think of the committed 25,000, I imagine about 5,000 more than the population of tiny White Rock. Surely we could recreate a community finding six or seven square kilometres somewhere between Tofino and St. John’s. Are we really such a cash-poor country that we can’t create a few even smaller villages on government land?

None of this is to suggest we open our gates en masse to those seeking refuge.

We need a screening process that we literally all can live with. It must be rigorous and potentially uncomfortable for each individual who passes through, no matter how heartless that sounds, particularly given the ages and experiences these victims of warfare have endured leading up to what I hope will find them permanent residence.

It needs to be methodical and comprehensive. And now, in this seemingly smaller terror-filled world – exemplified by last week’s horrific murders in Paris and Beirut – it needs to be matched for anybody of any nationality seeking to come here, whether as a refugee, a landed immigrant or a new Canadian. Anything less would be foolhardy.

But to say ‘no’ at the outset, before any man, woman or child is examined, I question your motive.

Do you really believe that your safety trumps theirs?

Lance Peverley is the editor of Peace Arch News.

[LTD]

take your bleeding heart over there and help them when it comes to spending over a billion of our tax dollars on refugees when we have our own people here that cant get the help they need I have a problem with that . On top of that they want to ship them here as quick as possible not doing the proper security checks that will potentially put Canadians at risk I have a serious problem with that if they cant wait long enough for the proper checks to be done then yes our safety does trump theirs .

[LoneWolf_53]

Unfortunately one of the people who refuse to accept reality is the Immigration Minister himself.

How could he possibly be expected to know more than you racist bigots?

Gee thanks, haven't seen that term used in.........oh...........about an hour. Feel better now?

Feel superior? Or do you just feel like you have the moral high ground?

Got news for you, you don't, you're just another windbag in the minority of Canadians on this topic, but by all means keep posting your labels. There's a few other threads you can post them in too if that's what floats your boat.

Frankly the terms have been so overused of late, they have zero impact, but they do serve to expose the IQ challenged for what they are.

[Ka-El]

... , you're just another windbag in the minority of Canadians on this topic,

Ironically, the government of the day was elected to a majority government by an electorate that knew full well the government's intended mandate on this issue. Thankfully, you bigots don't represent the majority opinion of this country. From what I've seen, you don't even represent the majority opinion of posters on this board. That's a good thing too.

Frankly the terms have been so overused of late, they have zero impact, but they do serve to expose the IQ challenged

Some terms will always have zero impact on some people.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Frankly the terms have been so overused of late, they have zero impact, but they do serve to expose the IQ challenged for what they are.

Yes. The term " bleeding hearts " has been so overused of late, it has zero impact, but it does serve to expose the fear mongers for what they are.