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

Mr. Magoo wrote:

At the same time, do you think there's much of an existing Syrian community in Wawa in which to "integrate" new settlers?

As I understand it, Ontario has to pretty much bribe new doctors into practicing in more remote communities -- communities that are ethnically probably not much unlike their own.

Whether they should be all relocated together to form a community or spread out is a whole new debate in itself I think. 

I can't even begin to phathom the difficulties and challenges they'll face but a position of ignorance, I'd say it's better to intrigrate into any community that can support them and their famlies. Wouldn't cramming thousands of them into an area not designed or prepared for it just continue to foster an us and them mentality?

Quote:

Please.  Toronto delights in receiving hundreds of thousands of visitors for Pride Week (just as one example) and I haven't heard of anyone (other than maybe hotels) being overwhelmed by this.  Honestly, a few thousand more people isn't going to be the straw that breaks the TTC's back, or whatever.

Besides emergency care I can't imagine visitors during pride week looking for family doctors and dentists.

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 The more successful this is the more public support there will be for bringing in more. Suggesting to Canadians that this is going to be a financial burden discourages support.

do you think people are stupid and don't realize it's going to be a financial burden?

yup.

I wonder,through all this,where all the compassion and money is for this country's homeless? I guess they'd be better served if they sailed to our shores in boats.

MY point was the Liberals should be reassuring people who might get lost in the shuffle or think they might and who are against it.

their press release today only said not all will be coming before Jan 1.  imv this means they're trying to appease the racists. this is not possible so why bother?! they just gave the racists more room to be racist.

as i said appeasing the racists who will now come up with other excuses.

pookie wrote:

But setting up a refugee vs homelessness struggle is wrong.

I think it's a very good question however I think many are asking the question for the wrong reasons. I have a bunch of friends for example who are championing this "what about our own homeless!" angle but before the refugee issue I never heard them once speak about homelessness. It feels like it's a convienient angle for a many.

quizzical wrote:

 

their press release today only said not all will be coming before Jan 1.  imv this means they're trying to appease the racists. this is not possible so why bother?! they just gave the racists more room to be racist.

I think you're attacking a strawman here a little.  Not everyone who disagreed with bringing in 25'000 refugees in a month is a racist. Lots of people had legitimate concerns with the speed in which the Liberals were trying to acomplish their election promises and the impact it would have on a number of things.

I do agree some people WILL simple come up with other excuses to oppose the incomming refugees.

Not that there's any serious shame in a government adjusting its targets, but it's a little odd the way some(eg. Michael Den Tandt in the Post) have been trying to portray this as a brilliant Liberal "masterstroke".  Going back on a promisr is not usually seen as a success. Though I will admit that "Hey, they looked at the facts, listened to the public, and were smart enough to see what needed to be done" is a clever  effort at spinning straw into gold.  

voice of the damned wrote:

Though I will admit that "Hey, they looked at the facts, listened to the public, and were smart enough to see what needed to be done" is a clever  effort at spinning straw into gold.  

I'm quite surprised he did that but I'm happy. I'd like to think he swallowed his pride and made the adjustment because it's better for everyone involved but the cynic in me thinks it was just for the Liberals own political health.

It doesn't seem lost on everyone that 10'000 refugees by 1 Jan 2016 was what the conservatives promised.

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quote:

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?"

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.

So now that they're [b]not[/b] bringing in 25K refugees before Jan 1st, let's not ridicule one of the only decent and courageous stands the NDP has taken since the election.

A two month extension doesn't change the logic. I don't believe that decency or courage has thing to do with the the NDP's criticism. I think politics has become the NDP's top consideration and it's leading to serious errors. Harper threw bread crumbs at the social conservatives to keep them on board without giving way on the issues that would cause him political problems, abortion and gay marriage. Tactically the NDP is following the same playbook. Throw some crumbs at progressives but keep to the centre on the important topics that impact climate change and income inequality. 

Unionist wrote:

I don't care what the NDP or Mulcair's motivation was for taking the right stand. You seem to think that's all that matters. The Liberals caved in to xenophobic pressures in deciding which kinds of refugees they were going to favour. Not as bad as Harper secretly fast-tracking Christians over Muslims, but still just a difference of degree, not of kind. When Mulcair accidentally takes a stand - and a proper one at that - he should be praised and encouraged. Just as he should be condemned for so many other stands he (and/or the party, hard to tell sometimes) have taken.

Try judging Trudeau on that basis sometime. Like, impartially, and based on whether his stands and actions are principled and proper or not. It can do wonders for one's conscience.

I'm not going to praise paying lip service to the left. Motive matters when judging a person or a political party. The Liberals did not decide on taking in 25K refugees on the basis of morality. It was a caluculated decision based on how it would affect the Liberals electoral prospects. The argument Trudeau is making on the world stage is that it will benefit Canada economically over the long run.

Mulcair's position is also about electoral politics not morality. Praising him for it won't cause him to lean farther left. It will cause him to consider small symbolic gestures sufficient to appease the more progressive supporters so they don't vote against him at the leadership convention.

swallow wrote:

Unionist, I agree of course. Mulcair was at his very best in taking this principled, courageous stand.

But I am curious - what principled, courageous stands has Mulcair taken other than this one, since the election? I'd be surprised but delighted to learn of others! 

By the way: 

Quote:

A gay Syrian refugee living in Vancouver says is he concerned Canada’s plan to prioritize refugee status for single men only if they identify as gay, bisexual or transgender could cause more problems for an already vulnerable group.

“If I was a refugee in a camp at the moment and I went out and went to the Canadian embassy and applied for refugee status, that’s basically outing myself to the whole refugee camp,” Danny Ramadan told Metro. “[That would] be putting myself in extreme danger.”

[url=http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/11/25/gay-syrian-man-in-bc-s... Syrian man in Vancouver speaks out[/url]

Trudeau has already stated that we will accept single men who are at specific risk because they are gay or for any other reason. The instructions to the UN were to refer the most vulnerable to us. Generally speaking healthy young men are not part of that group so in general "the most vulnerable" is women and children but there are exceptions, being gay is one of them.

From November 23rd

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.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/gay-men-will-be-included-among-...

Pondering wrote:

 

Trudeau has already stated that we will accept single men who are at specific risk because they are gay or for any other reason.

Serious question here, what stops every single male who wants to become a refugee in Canada from simply claiming to be gay?

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has already stated that we will accept single men who are at specific risk because they are gay or for any other reason. The instructions to the UN were to refer the most vulnerable to us. Generally speaking healthy young men are not part of that group so in general "the most vulnerable" is women and children but there are exceptions, being gay is one of them.

Trudeau's position - which you apparently agree with - is as fearmongering and xenophobic and stereotyping as Harper's secret procedure (revealed last month) to prioritize "more vulnerable" Christians and Yazidis. You should seriously reflect on how you could support such a disgusting view.

As to swallow's question about Mulcair: I'm not aware of a single courageous or progressive word that has escaped his mouth since the election, with the exception of his criticism of Trudeau's opportunistic shift on refugee "selection". Knowing Mulcair and the NDP, I fully expect them to dial back on this too.

Specifically, I haven't yet heard Mulcair (or anyone in the NDP) demand that the murder of foreigners by CF-18s be stopped immediately. They're not even capable of holding Trudeau to account on one of his promises, never mind their own position.

Unionist wrote:

Trudeau's position - which you apparently agree with - is as fearmongering and xenophobic and stereotyping as Harper's secret procedure (revealed last month) to prioritize "more vulnerable" Christians and Yazidis. You should seriously reflect on how you could support such a disgusting view.

It turns out that the selections are being made by the UNHCR who were told to pick the most vulnerable refugees. Naturally that means women, children, and families with children so they are the dominant demographic. The UNHCR also priorizes men in fear for the lives for a particular reason, like being gay.

I read a story of a woman who visited a refugee camp and mothers were wrapping their babies in plastic to keep them dry. There is no school for the children and some have been there for years. Single men are the least vulnerable to violence and illnesses that can be fatal for infants and young children. We are accepting orphans who are also more vulnerable than single men. Single able-bodied men with no particular risk factors are unfortunately but necessarily at the bottom of the list because they are the least vulnerable by far. 

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Trudeau's position - which you apparently agree with - is as fearmongering and xenophobic and stereotyping as Harper's secret procedure (revealed last month) to prioritize "more vulnerable" Christians and Yazidis. You should seriously reflect on how you could support such a disgusting view.

It turns out that the selections are being made by the UNHCR who were told to pick the most vulnerable refugees. Naturally that means women, children, and families with children so they are the dominant demographic. The UNHCR also priorizes men in fear for the lives for a particular reason, like being gay.

I read a story of a woman who visited a refugee camp and mothers were wrapping their babies in plastic to keep them dry. There is no school for the children and some have been there for years. Single men are the least vulnerable to violence and illnesses that can be fatal for infants and young children. We are accepting orphans who are also more vulnerable than single men. Single able-bodied men with no particular risk factors are unfortunately but necessarily at the bottom of the list because they are the least vulnerable by far. 

So, are you retracting your earlier claim that the exclusion of single men was, indeed, a bow to public opinion(rather than to UN criteria)...?

QUOTE: "Focusing on bringing in families and women with children does help to calm fears..."

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Trudeau's position - which you apparently agree with - is as fearmongering and xenophobic and stereotyping as Harper's secret procedure (revealed last month) to prioritize "more vulnerable" Christians and Yazidis. You should seriously reflect on how you could support such a disgusting view.

It turns out that the selections are being made by the UNHCR who were told to pick the most vulnerable refugees. Naturally that means women, children, and families with children so they are the dominant demographic. The UNHCR also priorizes men in fear for the lives for a particular reason, like being gay.

I read a story of a woman who visited a refugee camp and mothers were wrapping their babies in plastic to keep them dry. There is no school for the children and some have been there for years. Single men are the least vulnerable to violence and illnesses that can be fatal for infants and young children. We are accepting orphans who are also more vulnerable than single men. Single able-bodied men with no particular risk factors are unfortunately but necessarily at the bottom of the list because they are the least vulnerable by far. 

So, are you retracting your earlier claim that the exclusion of single men was, indeed, a bow to public opinion(rather than to UN criteria)...?

QUOTE: "Focusing on bringing in families and women with children does help to calm fears..."

Since then I found out that the UN is doing the selecting and they were told to choose the most vulnerable. Apparently the CBC recieved the information from a leaked document not from the Liberal government. Single young men can also come in under family reunification and sponsorships.

Just as a guess, I think single young men are in the minority in refugee camps. The large percentage of single young men traveling to Europe are men that would otherwise be in refugee camps.

There is also no denying that security checks are easier with families and children don't need any security checks so the speed with which we are processing people favors those who can pass a security check quickly.

Apparently there are a lot of false documents floating around which I think would be more difficult to acquire for a family and it would be harder for a family to keep their stories consistent.

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I read a story of a woman who visited a refugee camp and mothers were wrapping their babies in plastic to keep them dry. There is no school for the children and some have been there for years. Single men are the least vulnerable to violence and illnesses that can be fatal for infants and young children. We are accepting orphans who are also more vulnerable than single men. Single able-bodied men with no particular risk factors are unfortunately but necessarily at the bottom of the list because they are the least vulnerable by far. 

saying there is no school really doesn't do it for me in this world of home schooling.

in your world of economics trumps all, i am glad to see you rank single able bodied men as the least vulnerable, even though they would be the least drag on the Canadian economy.

They are in a refugee camp. They don't have access to home-schooling materials. They are wrapping babies in plastic.

You clearly have no idea what "my world" is about. In my world suggesting that refugees stuck in camps can home school their children goes well beyond ignorance.

don't wanna know what your world is about. know enough so the mere thought makes me wanna shower.

call me beyond ignorant then. but if i was in a refugee camp with sfa to do i would be teaching my children anyway possible. i wouldn't be having any more unless i was raped and couldn't prevent and even then i would try to prevent.

please provide a link on the babies wrapped in plastic. if they're in a refugee camp they're in tents and where did they get the plastic from to wrap the babies in? seems like a hard commodity to come by in a camp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/26/nada-sidani-syria-petition_n_865...

When Nada Sidani was growing up in Lebanon, she used to wear beautiful textiles tagged, “Made in Syria.” So it was surreal to see Syrian mothers wrapping babies in plastic when she returned to the region a decade after she left, she said.

...

“At the vaccination clinic, the women would wrap their babies in plastic bags because they don’t have the means to keep the baby dry in a tent where the water seeps from the top,” she said in an interview with The Huffington Post Canada.

...

The long-term lack of immunization means infectious diseases — measles, tetanus, and polio — are making a comeback.

“You cannot get [vaccinations] to the people because it’s extremely dangerous. You could lose your life,” Sidani explains.

In the refugee camps, families sometimes live for years in cramped quarters under tents meant for temporary residence. Sidani describes the conditions as “utterly inhumane.”

“How can I describe to you in words the smell of urine and feces,” she said. “How can I describe to you what it means to live 24/7 in temperatures of four to five degrees Celsius — the temperature we use to preserve our meat and cheese in the fridge."

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Trudeau's position - which you apparently agree with - is as fearmongering and xenophobic and stereotyping as Harper's secret procedure (revealed last month) to prioritize "more vulnerable" Christians and Yazidis. You should seriously reflect on how you could support such a disgusting view.

It turns out that the selections are being made by the UNHCR who were told to pick the most vulnerable refugees. Naturally that means women, children, and families with children so they are the dominant demographic. The UNHCR also priorizes men in fear for the lives for a particular reason, like being gay.

I read a story of a woman who visited a refugee camp and mothers were wrapping their babies in plastic to keep them dry. There is no school for the children and some have been there for years. Single men are the least vulnerable to violence and illnesses that can be fatal for infants and young children. We are accepting orphans who are also more vulnerable than single men. Single able-bodied men with no particular risk factors are unfortunately but necessarily at the bottom of the list because they are the least vulnerable by far. 

So, are you retracting your earlier claim that the exclusion of single men was, indeed, a bow to public opinion(rather than to UN criteria)...?

QUOTE: "Focusing on bringing in families and women with children does help to calm fears..."

Since then I found out that the UN is doing the selecting and they were told to choose the most vulnerable. Apparently the CBC recieved the information from a leaked document not from the Liberal government. Single young men can also come in under family reunification and sponsorships.

Yes, I will concur that the rejection of single males probably does fit with the humanitarian criteria laid out by the UN.

But the Liberals seemed pretty content to let the idea float around that they were keeping the bachelors out for security reasons. That was the main media narrative for a while, long enough for the Liberals to issue corrections if they really wanted to.

And as recently as a day or so ago, Rachel Marsden wrote this in her column...

"New Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has decided that his country will accept Syrian refugees, but only women, children and full families. Single, unaccompanied males, who represent a greater security risk, will not be granted asylum in Canada.

By refusing to cater to permissive leftists, Trudeau was able to come up with a sensible immigration policy. It’s a lesson that Europe is learning too late." END QUOTE

Someone should show this to Trudeau, so he can set the record straight: "No, no! I'm actually one of those permissive leftists myself! This No Bachelors policy is all about helping the most vulnerable, not targeting supposed security threats!"

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151129000332

voice of the damned wrote:

They don't explicity say that "a lower security risk" means "not single males", but that's pretty much the general idea afloat in the public consciousness.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1021919[/quote]

Very few women and children are involved in attacks like that which occured in Paris and Daesh is trying to get terrorists into countries like Canada. What do you imagine would happen if a single refugee executed a terrorist act. It wouldn't matter that we are more likely to be attacked by a converted Canadian. Anti-refugee sentiment would rise. Security checks do need to be more extensive for lone young males with no family connections.

Young men being sponsored by Canadians are accepted and they are also accepted from camps as family members.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/exclusive-the-globes-mark-mackinnon-...

Fatima, dressed in a black head-to-toe abaya, looked unimpressed. She and her 18-year-old son Ibrahim have struggled since arriving in Jordan from the shattered city of Homs; like many of those interviewed Friday, she lives in an apartment on the outskirts of Amman, and Ibrahim had to give up school to take a job at a window blinds factory to help pay the rent. But at least in Jordan she understands the language and culture.

Fatima said she had agreed to come for the interview at the urging of her son, who was far keener on trying to make a new life somewhere else. “I know nothing about Canada,” she conceded. “But my only dream in life is a future for my boy. He wants to be a soccer player – I want him to become a doctor.”

She barely smiled when she was handed the treasured “1” at the end of her interview.

It doesn't seem like getting cleared is that ornerous.

One refugee who had no qualms about leaving the Middle East for a new life in Canada was 30-year-old Firas, who has struggled for the past 2 1/2years with the twin challenges of life in exile, and telling his conservative family that he’s gay....

On Friday, he was handed the piece of paper with the little blue “1” on it. He and his 18-year-old brother Mazen, the only member of his family unbothered when Firas announced he was gay, are on the short list to go to Canada.

That's two single young men.

Karen Whiting, a senior protection officer, said that – contrary to some media reports – the Canadian government had given UNHCR no instruction to exclude single men from the process. However, because claimants were being prioritized based on need and vulnerability, few if any unaccompanied men will likely make the refugee agency’s list.

Also on the list will be individuals identified as in need of immediate protection, including some who told the refugee agency they were gay, lesbian or transgender.

I don't believe that it was stoking fears against single young men to tell people that the majority of refugees coming are families and children. Daesh is trying to get fighters into Canada to commit terrorist acts. That's a genuine specific threat that people are afraid of.

are they refugees needing a home in Canada if they have an apartment and jobs? imv NO.

Pondering wrote:

What do you imagine would happen if a single refugee executed a terrorist act.

What would happen if my grandmother had wheels?

When did you stop eating off a knife? 

-

Even to ask questions like "What do you imagine would happen if a single refugee executed a terrorist act" feeds into an atmosphere of anti-refugee paranoia and racism. 

We all know what happens when a man commits a terrorist act. If they are white and Christian or secular, they are a "mental health issue" or a "lone wolf." If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, we need to bomb a country they are not even from. And also, attack some random women wearing scarves or some random Sikh men. 

If we were doing real threat asessment rather than pandering to fear, we'd slap 24-hour surveillance on all American men aged 18-30, because they are the highest risk. But we don't. Why is that? 

quizzical wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 where did they get the plastic from to wrap the babies in? seems like a hard commodity to come by in a camp.

 

had to edit this because the picture was too big.

so those dispensing the water just give the plastic wrap to the the refugees?

I think so yes.  Camps like that generate a lot of garbage daily and it's a real hassel to get rid of it. Refugees taking and using the plastic from pallets of water bottles and food would be a quick and easy way to get rid of the stuff, or at least make it someone elses problem.