It’s CBC so I imagine it must be totally true.
Guardian seems to confirm that this is indeed Canadian policy:
First, reasonable policy? Second, couldn’t Trump have saved himself a lot of trouble by just copying Canada’s policy?
Dunno, have you got anything more recent than 14 months old?
He could have, but that would have missed his point.
This cite says it’s not a total ban, but the priority is women and children:
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/02/18/canadas-dangerous-double-standard-on-syrian-refugees/
But their actual policy in reality, according to the same cite, is to treat refugee single men as security threats.
This cite says, you can be a single man and get refugee status, as long as your gay:
This all seems like classic politics to me. Pat yourself on the back for your generosity while doing as little as possible and taking no chances. Trump could learn a thing or two from this.
Again:
There wouldn’t be other stories unless a change in policy was announced, and I see nothing after Nov 2015.
Right, it’s not like immigration is a worldwide issue with every national policy under scrutiny.
Enjoy 2015.
What the?
The policy prioritizes women and children ahead of single men. As single men are more able to manage life in a refugee camp, escape oppression, less likely to be victimized, etc. Just like women and children get into lifeboats first. How is this hard for you to understand? It’s been reiterated many times here in Canada, and Canadians don’t seem to have a problem comprehending it. Why do you?
Taking no chances? What are you talking about? We took in 30,0000 Syrian refugees the same year y’all slammed the door shut. On carefully vetted people’s with green cards and valid visas, arriving with families and jobs to go to, etc.
Why are you so pissed someone offered a welcome and a place to persons y’all left hanging and in limbo with no where to go? And how exactly are we patting ourselves on the back for this action?
We are just doing what we do, trying to live up to the values we espouse. How is that wrong? Are these actions not fully in keeping with our stated immigration policies and objectives?
What exactly is America trying to do? And why the butthurt that we’re willing to help clean up a mess y’all made? I can assure you our actions are not to win favour, or praise, or make y’all look bad, but simply a response to a deplorable situation for innocent people. How again is that so wrong?
If our actions make you sour, i would suggest it’s solely because your own actions reflect badly on you. Not because we’re doing anything exceptionally praiseworthy.
Then take in more single men.
Exactly. Women have value, men are disposable. Somethings never change.
I don’t know that they consider males less valuable, so much as single males are more likely to be a security threat. And statistically, that’s sound reasoning. While there are female and child terrorists, the overwhelming majority are men, and a large percentage of those men are unmarried(or conversly, have 50 wives).
Shouldn’t you be fixing your own immigration policies before criticizing another nation’s?
Especially since y’all just screwed over many innocent people who went through lengthy waits, paid fees, were vetted and issued visas. Only to be refused or left in limbo!
It may surprise you to know our policies were NOT implemented to win your approval, but to do some good for people who are in a difficult spot.
Clearly, for this, we deserve your judgement and condemnation. Got it!
Well, the point of this thread is to see if maybe it wouldn’t be better to copy Canada’s immigration policy.
Canada also takes in fewer low skill immigrants than we do, preferring professionals and people with needed skills. We should do that too.
Did you miss where we took in 30,000 desperate Syrians? While y’all looked the other way? Do tell, how is that doing as little as possible!
Or taking no chances?
Yeah, you were just asking innocent questions!:dubious::dubious::dubious:
And how on earth do they ascertain someone’s sexual orientation?
They check their iTunes playlist for Barbara Streisand tunes… Duh!!
Make you watch gay porn and see if you get a hard on?
It’s an imperfect compromise between expediency and security. Not perfect. A little discriminatory. Probably better than doing nothing in a humanitarian crisis. Probably kinder than what goes on in some other places.
To the best of my understanding, US asylum policy has resulted in roughly 2% of those Syrians admitted being young, single men. If Canada’s priority is women, children, and families, seems clear that we used to have the same priorities.
A little discriminatory? Not perfect? You shitting me? The militants have used women and children, all the time in the warzones and many have been major supporters of these guys.
Use of female suicide bomber Two female suicide bombers kill at least 30 at Nigerian market | Nigeria | The Guardian
Our old friend; Lela Khaled
Saying we will prefer women is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.