'Operation Syrian Refugees': Up To 900 A Day To Land in Toronto, Montreal As Early As Dec. 1

alan smithee wrote:

Why is it always Montreal and Toronto?

How about the Quebec regions,the Maritimes,Winnipeg,Regina,Saskatoon,Calgary,Edmonton,Whitehosre,etc...?

Why always concentrate immigration to the same cities? This is a big country with more than enough room for all refugees but spread them out for chrissake.

They will be spread out, Toronto and Montreal are collection points. They will then be spread out to temporary spaces like military bases for processing. From those spots they will be relocated to communities and individual sponsors. 

NDPP wrote:

Understaffed Ottawa Struggles to Deliver Refugee Plan as Trudeau Travels

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/understaffed-government-str...

"It is an enormous amount of pressure for a government to put on itself, at a time it is not entirely clear who behind the scenes is absorbing it."

Sounds like a bit of a mess from that article. 

Well, Trudeau is certainly sticking his neck out for this.  If even one of those refugees so much as sets off a stink bomb at the mall, he'll hear about nothing else until 2019.

We should let France and Russia do the heavy lifting in Syria. We should also align ourselves with Russia and Iran, And as big of a dictator Assad might be,didn't we learn our lesson when Saddam Hussein was toppled?

Sajjan has said that Assad must be stopped. I disagree.

Quote:

Tactically, the best way to screw up IS is to help as many refugees as possible, whether we take them in to Canada or not.

I'm not arguing against treating refugees well, but it's not clear to me why ISIS would give a damn either way.  Isn't anyone who makes it out of Syria someone that ISIS doesn't need to worry about?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Tactically, the best way to screw up IS is to help as many refugees as possible, whether we take them in to Canada or not.

I'm not arguing against treating refugees well, but it's not clear to me why ISIS would give a damn either way.  Isn't anyone who makes it out of Syria someone that ISIS doesn't need to worry about?

ISIS wants them so they can either kills them or put them to work. They also want to demonize the west which is harder to do when we are accepting refugees.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

And anyone who's thinking of leaving Syria has already decided that any country, culturally Muslim or not, has to be better than Syria.

 

There are cases of refugees who are accused of country shopping. They don't feel like the countries they are offered sanctuary in offer them enough money and benefits so they want to go to countries that offer even more.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ok.  My only point is that even those refugees aren't saying "if Canada doesn't treat refugees well then I'm just going to stay here and fight with ISIS.  The best way to poke ISIS in the eye would be to treat me well!"

Not that they would choose to fight with ISIS, they can always be used for practice beheadings. In general, when you are trying to demonize a target, like "the west" it undermines the propaganda if they behave nicely.

Quote:

First because we can and second because it may prompt them to convince their peers, family or friends to not support ISIS.

So you're saying that if their fruit basket is all apples and bananas then they'll e-mail their friends and families and say "support ISIS"?

I think that once you decide to flee ISIS, you probably can't support ISIS.

Amazing amount of bullshit here from expert bullshitters.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

First because we can and second because it may prompt them to convince their peers, family or friends to not support ISIS.

So you're saying that if their fruit basket is all apples and bananas then they'll e-mail their friends and families and say "support ISIS"?

I think that once you decide to flee ISIS, you probably can't support ISIS.

I think many are leaving because of a direct threat from ISIS. I'm guessing some are leaving because of how crappy the living conditions are there and not specifically fleeing ISIS.  There was recently a poll (I know, internet polls) that stated 13% of the refugees polled support ISIS. Even if that number was more accurately 1% then that's still 10'000 per 1 million. 

We have young Canadians going over to support ISIS, RCMP catch some of them and others apparently make it.

[ http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-rcmp-tracked-canadian-girls... ]

It's not a stretch to suggest some of the refugees we take in will turn around and go back there to join ISIS for whatever reason. At a guess the better we treat them the less likely they will go but some will regardless.

Unionist wrote:

Amazing amount of bullshit here from expert bullshitters.

 

In all fairness I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim to be an expert of refugees, Syria or ISIS. "Expert" has really turned into an ambigious term on the internet.  That said most of the "expert" commentary I've read online (that is people with working experience of refugees) has learned towards the notion that taking 25'000 refugees in in one month is too fast.

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau will not brag about the Liberal party or himself, he will give Canadians all the credit and not say a word about Conservatives or the NDP.

Being effective at gaming events from a PR perspective doesn't amount to occupying any sort of moral high ground.  It's a cruel obfuscation of reality to suggest there's a moral imperative at work on the part of any of the establishment's politicians.  It is simply a fact that Canada, through it's belligerent foreign policy that continues unabated from one regime to the next, has contributed to the depopulation of nations and regions in that hemisphere, and the citizens of the imperialist nations underwriting all of the violence keep picking up the corporate tab.

This No Bachelors clause would confirm any suspicions one may have that the refugee policy is being made up on the fly.

Because assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is in fact a risk from Syrian refugees, it's not one that's likely to be eradicated by removing single men from the flow. If ISIS is that desperate to stage attacks in Canada, surely they'll be able to find a few women or married men to carry them out.

My guess is when the Liberals saw that their fast-track plan wasn't a total hit with the public, they figured they needed to do something to make themselves look more hardass, and fixed upon the idea of weeding out single men, just 'cuz that's the general stereotype of a typical terrorist.

brookmere wrote:

If ISIS is that desperate to stage attacks in Canada

They will recruit a local or fly in someone who can visit Canada without any advance clearance.The idea that they would plant sleepers in the refugee population in the remote chance they will get to Canada doesn't make much sense.

One fact that is well established is that young male refugees have a tendency to get involved in gang activities. I think this is more likely what the government is concerned about. Plus just optics, of course.

 

Oh, I agree that terrorist-infitration of the refugee flow is not a likely scenario. But that is the rationale being given for keeping out the bachelors, assuming I understand what it meant by the phrase "ongoing concerns around security".

As for young men joining gangs, well, I'm sure they're a more likely demographic for that than elderly women. But has the Canadian government previously had a policy of keeping bachelors off the refugeee acceptance-list?

I think you're correct that optics is playing a role here, and I'll go even further and say that this is almost if not entirely about optics.

So what do we do? There's no work for them. Again,the welfare state will have to be expanded. If not,then what? I think the Liberals didn't think this through.

Paladin1 wrote:

Instead of herded  them in Toronto and Montreal why not spread their resettlement across all of Canada?  Place them in smaller communities.  Thousands of people popping up over night would really overwealm the medical system wouldn't it?  Or transportation, food banks (as mentioned), grocery stores and what not.

 

 

Precisely my initial point. They should be spread out across the country and they should be integrated into smaller communities instead of major cities.

And as I pointedf out about our current welfare state. Clearly it will have to be expanded,if not.well,does anyone have any better ideas?

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau will not brag about the Liberal party or himself, he will give Canadians all the credit and not say a word about Conservatives or the NDP.

Being effective at gaming events from a PR perspective doesn't amount to occupying any sort of moral high ground.  It's a cruel obfuscation of reality to suggest there's a moral imperative at work on the part of any of the establishment's politicians.  It is simply a fact that Canada, through it's belligerent foreign policy that continues unabated from one regime to the next, has contributed to the depopulation of nations and regions in that hemisphere, and the citizens of the imperialist nations underwriting all of the violence keep picking up the corporate tab.

I wasn't suggesting they are on moral high ground, I'm saying they are politically astute and their opponents, especially the NDP, better catch-up.

This is not politically astute:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-concerned-about-exclusion-of...

"We do not believe it is appropriate to make a vast generalization about a category of refugees and exclude them ahead of any processing because of who they are," Mulcair said in Ottawa on Monday.

"That's simply wrong," he said.

Mulcair said he was worried that "the politics of fear and division" that Canadians saw from the Conservatives during the federal election campaign are resurfacing under the new Liberal government.

"While security concerns remain of vital importance, will a young man who lost both parents be excluded from Canada's refugee program?" said Mulcair "Will a gay man who is escaping persecution be excluded? Will a widower who is fleeing [ISIS] after having seen his family killed be excluded?"

Single young men are over-represented in those heading into Europe because they can more readily endure the hardships of the journey than single women and families. They are also more difficult to screen rapidly.

To accuse the Liberals of "the politics of fear and division" when they are bringing in 25K refugees before Jan 1st. sets up the NDP for ridicule. They appear as though they are just looking for excuses to criticize the Liberals.

The NDP doesn't seem capable of picking the right battles.

uh didn't you hear, 36,000 at least were laid off on the pipelines and Edmonton and Calgary food banks are struggling. there's no work on the pipelines unless your very experienced and well connected.

swallow wrote:

Bad optics, but - just like Trudeau's declaration during one of the debates that "a citizen is a citizen" - the right policy. Nice to see Mulcair takigna  stand on a matter of principle (non-discrimination) and not pure political opportunism. 

Yes, I was very pleased to hear Mulcair take this position.

quizzical wrote:

Quote:

The federal government will include gay men among the Syrian refugees it brings into Canada as part of a plan that puts the focus on accepting women, children and families.

The Citizen has learned that while the Liberal government, because of potential security concerns, will not accept lone males — at least during the first wave of migrants — this approach will come with an important caveat. The government is sensitive to the fact that gay men escaping violence in the region could be persecuted, so they will be permitted to come to Canada.

 

 

But Yazidis, Shiites, and Assyrian Christians are also persecuted by ISIS, and I would assume that that includes the single men among them. So, if we're allowing exemptions for gay men, I don't see any reason not to have them for those minority religious faiths as well.

The government is trying to pander to rednecks and bleeding hearts simulataneously, in a rather inelegant fashion