How should the Canadian government handle Donald Trump?

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
How should the Canadian government handle Donald Trump?

===

Regions: 
Mighty Middle

Thomas Mulcair said in Question Period today

"Liberals are continuing to deny American immigration policies have a direct impact on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to Trump's Muslim Ban."

Was the wrong approach used on Monday?

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Thomas Mulcair said in Question Period today

"Liberals are continuing to deny American immigration policies have a direct impact on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to Trump's Muslim Ban."

Was the wrong approach used on Monday?

It is difficult to know what was said when this is not all public.

I think managing Trump is a fine line for Canada and there is more than one approach. I would not criticize Mulcair for this question.

What we do know is the third country process for refugees remains in effect. That does not seem realistic. I recognize the concern as a small country (pop) beside a large country with the potential for large numbers of refugees coming but in light of the Trump actions Canada can do better than it has.

So while I cannot say the wrong approach to Trump was taken on Monday, I am concerned that the wrong apporach to refugees from the US is being taken.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So while I cannot say the wrong approach to Trump was taken on Monday, I am concerned that the wrong apporach to refugees from the US is being taken.

Mulcair also said today in QP

"Why is this Liberal government turning a blind eye to these obviously discriminatory and hateful US immigration policies."

quizzical

because Justin got to sit beside Ivanka and all those other women looking like Prince Charming?

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
"Liberals are continuing to deny American immigration policies have a direct impact on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to Trump's Muslim Ban."

Was the wrong approach used on Monday?

Well, I'm not sure that (basically) complaining that "now YOUR Muslims are OUR Muslims, so knock it off!" would really be a win.

If the government wants to wade in chest deep and criticize the ban on obvious ethical and humanitarian grounds then that's great.  But I don't know to what degree "this affects CANADA too!" can really be made to fly.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
"Liberals are continuing to deny American immigration policies have a direct impact on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to Trump's Muslim Ban."

Was the wrong approach used on Monday?

Well, I'm not sure that (basically) complaining that "now YOUR Muslims are OUR Muslims, so knock it off!" would really be a win.

If the government wants to wade in chest deep and criticize the ban on obvious ethical and humanitarian grounds then that's great.  But I don't know to what degree "this affects CANADA too!" can really be made to fly.

It really does not need to "fly" but it sure does affect Canadians.

Canadian citizens are also in family units with residents.

The orders are being not just being followed to the letter but the obvious spirit of a Muslim Ban. Canadian enterprises, academic institutions and families are already affected.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So while I cannot say the wrong approach to Trump was taken on Monday, I am concerned that the wrong apporach to refugees from the US is being taken.

Mulcair also said today in QP

"Why is this Liberal government turning a blind eye to these obviously discriminatory and hateful US immigration policies."

As I said, by leaving in place the third country rule that is exactly what they are doing.

I am sure if the Liberals wanted to they could advance some kind of argument for their position but they are not. They are turning a blind eye just as Mulcair said and functionning as if nothing had changed in the US for these refugees.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
They are turning a blind eye just as Mulcair said and functionning as if nothing had changed in the US for these refugees.

Do you mean that when they cross the border into Canada, in contravention of the Safe Third Countries Agreement, we've been turning them back?  Because I've been reading about this happening out west, and it sounds like we actually aren't.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
They are turning a blind eye just as Mulcair said and functionning as if nothing had changed in the US for these refugees.

Do you mean that when they cross the border into Canada, in contravention of the Safe Third Countries Agreement, we've been turning them back?  Because I've been reading about this happening out west, and it sounds like we actually aren't.

Sorry that is not the way it works.

If they get into Canada illegally they can apply for status here under the agreement but due to this agreement they cannot do it at the border so they risk their lives to sneak in. Without this agreement they could show up at a land border and apply for refugee status. As it is they risk death in sub zero weather to get into Canada and then apply (usually after being arrested).

quizzical

and losing extremities

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If they get into Canada illegally they can apply for status here under the agreement but due to this agreement they cannot do it at the border so they risk their lives to sneak in. Without this agreement they could show up at a land border and apply for refugee status.

Well, maybe we need to read "The Art of The Deal".  Because that really doesn't make any sense at all.

We agree to NOT take in refugees passing through the U.S., unless they can do so illegally, in which case we'll accept them.  And presumably the U.S. is fine with this, so long as it's done illegally.  As if they were welcoming those refugees anyway, which I guess we're sort of stealing from them, and that's the problem.

I have to guess this is an agreement that we asked for, not them, so if we're willing to overlook it, I'd be really curious to hear what their problem is with that.

Conversely, if it's CANADA that has a problem with it, what with all the new refugees and such, I'd be really curious to hear how abolishing this agreement is going to make for FEWER refugees.

Mighty Middle

MP Jenny Kwan says she expects her PM (Trudeau) to stand up to Trump for his discriminatory immigration policies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBs-kYyvTJc

MP Sheila Malcolmson says Trudeau should of denounced Trump sexism and mysogyny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqi0Rm-Now

MP Niki Ashton finds it strange Trudeau would have a women's roundtable with someone like Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wift6R7R4-M

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

and losing extremities

Any links to that happening? 

To the rest, if we opened our borders and said all refugees and immigrants in the US can come to Canada how would we manage the numbers? That would probably take up all our refugee and immigrant quota, maybe for years to come. Already from what I have read our welcoming of Syrian refugees meant others have had to wait longer or be rejected. Personally if we are going to increase acceptance of refugees I think we should take them out of camps where people are living in desperate conditions far worse and more dangerous than any in the US. 

The NDP is grandstanding. If Mulcair were PM he would not lift the safe 3rd country agreement either. 

quizzical
Mighty Middle

The Conservatives have an opposition motion today to Motion 103 (to study Islamaphoboia) by asking it to be broadened and renamed Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination.

NDP is participating in the debate by asking again why PM Trudeau will not stand up to Donald Trump with his Islamaphobia.

btw the NDP is supporting BOTH motions.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Send in CSIS to put cyanide in his coffee. Done.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

Conversely, if it's CANADA that has a problem with it, what with all the new refugees and such, I'd be really curious to hear how abolishing this agreement is going to make for FEWER refugees.

Fewer refugees -- or fewer allowed here?

The first is laudible the second not so much.

The point of this is that when they cross into Canada they cannot be admitted back to the US. If they are in the US already Canada does not ahve to accept them.

More logical than you are making out. The problem is it is not humane.

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

NDP is participating in the debate by asking again why PM Trudeau will not stand up to Donald Trump with his Islamaphobia.

What exactly does the NDP want Trudeau to do about Trump's Islamaphobia?

Mighty Middle

voice of the damned wrote:

What exactly does the NDP want Trudeau to do about Trump's Islamaphobia?

Jenny Kwan said she teaches her children to stand up to bullies. And that is what Trudeau needs to do with Trump. Stand up to him in regards to his Islamaphobia, to his face.

voice of the damned

Mighty Middle wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

What exactly does the NDP want Trudeau to do about Trump's Islamaphobia?

Jenny Kwan said she teaches her children to stand up to bullies. And that is what Trudeau needs to do with Trump. Stand up to him in regards to his Islamaphobia, to his face.

Okay. And if Trump, as seems likely, just ignores what Trudeau says, then what?

 

 

 

Mighty Middle

voice of the damned wrote:

Okay. And if Trump, as seems likely, just ignores what Trudeau says, then what?

At least you made the effort to stand up to Trump (to his face) and denounce his sexism and Islamaphobia, which would send a mesaage to the world. That is what the NDP expects.

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Okay. And if Trump, as seems likely, just ignores what Trudeau says, then what?

At least you made the effort to stand up to Trump (to his face) and denounce his sexism and Islamaphobia, which would send a mesaage to the world. That is what the NDP expects.

Oprah interviewed a KKK member and maintained civility.

What Trudeau says to Trump publically can hurt Canadian workers a great deal, can throw thousands out of work. I guess the NDP doesn't give a shit about Canadian jobs.

The NDP's desire to debate internal US policy in the Canadian Parliament illustrates why the NDP won't be able to win a federal election under their current strategists and that if they do it will be under neoliberal economic policy. The NDP uses dog whistles just like the Conservatives. To shore up the base. Give them just enough to keep them onside while ignoring CETA and pipelines.

quizzical

pondering's posts = Liberals are worried

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering's posts = Liberals are worried

Post 292 http://rabble.ca/comment/1598861#comment-1598861

quizzical posts = vacuous spam

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

pondering's posts = Liberals are worried

They should be --

They came to power with the following support in addition to their core:

-- Environmentalists

-- Indigenous peoples

-- People who had not voted previously -- youth or those who felt their vote would not count.

-- NDP voters who thought Trudeua sounded more progressive than Mulcair

They betrayed Indigenopus people and those who wanted the electoral system to be meaningful (presumably many of those who voted for Trudeau who did not vote previously). They proved that they were the same old bait and switch party and are not that progressive.

Unless they can get the Indigenous, environmental, progressive, and those who want a better system out, they are screwed.

If they come out at all, it may be to vote against Trudeau.

To make matters worse, the broken promise also means that Trudeau will be personally resoponsible (he said it was his call) if Canada gives a false majority to a right wing Conservative. His pleas to NDP voters will only remind them of his betrayals.

If either the NDP or the CPC increase their support with a new leader, they are behind.

They should be afraid.

The only thing that can save them now is if the Conservatives pick a leader who is rejected, perhaps based on the bedlam coming from the US and Trump.

Mighty Middle

I truly believe the majority of Canadians voted for Trudeau not because of his policies. But because he was well positioned to get rid of Harper. I think Canadians were so sick of Harper they voted for the party that was best to get rid of him.

If Mulcair & NDP were leading in the polls at the end of the campaign, we would have a NDP government in Ottawa.