No one is suggesting blindly bringing in people. Of course not. That would literally be suicide, however, by dedicating sufficient resources to get the absolutely necessary very thorough vetting done, we can immediately increase the number of people we help without cutting corners on the vetting process.
Prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York, the deadliest airplane based terrorist attach was Air India flight 182. Sikh terrorists from British Columbia blew it up in-flight southwest of Ireland, murdering 329 people, including 268 Canadians. It was the largest mass murder of Canadians ever.
Our present Minister of Defence is a Sikh who emigrated to British Columbia in Canada when he was five, and was fifteen when Air India 182 went down. We are very fortunate to have immigrants of such high calibre, including our Minister of Democratic Institutions, who was a child refugee from Afghanistan. We must do what we can to reduce radicalization, but not at the expense of the multiculturalism that has helped us become a fine country, and not at the expense of ceasing to hold out a helping hand to those in desperate circumstances.
The simple fact is that there are good and evil people from all cultures, so an argument to shut out one culture or another holds for shutting out all people from any culture. Canada has done well in the last half century by accepting immigrants from all cultures. I think we would do very well to continue this way.
A determined “bad apple”–someone who is already essentially aligned with the apocalyptic-jihadi cause–is likely to be able to get in even if you (we, any given country) turn away 100% of refugees. They may have resources.
On the other hand, the act of turning hard against refugees keeps more innocent people in the meat grinder of the former Syria, and inspires greater resentment against the West. What happens when you take desperate people and cut off their choices?
I agree with everything you said, but you’re talking about immigration in general, for which we have high standards. I’ve met quite a few recent immigrants and I’ve been impressed by their work ethic, skills, education, and general character. The problem here is what is essentially a “refugee exemption” where all the normal immigration rules go out the window. This is what concerns me, and it’s no small thing. Immigrants are not immune to criminality and we have no shortage of evidence in ethnically based gang wars, car theft rings, and of course the infamous Toronto 18 terrorism plot. Politically motivated refugee policies like the Mariel boatlift had disastrous impacts especially in Florida that continue to this day.
The numbers we’ve committed to seem huge, and while I’d be the last to suggest we blindly follow US policy on anything, maybe it’s worth a look at how and why the US, with ten times our population, decided they can only admit twice as many refugees as our quota.
Sunshine boy has already deferred the original planned importation of migrants, due to concerns from the health minister, regarding TB. As a result of recent events in France, I would expect that we are going to see lower numbers over all, and in a more measured pace, rather than importing five divisions of syrians all at once.
Not to put a fine point on it, but the next two weeks are really going to be the crunch point for these people.
Uh… what I take from Muffin’s post is that those “high standards” specifically and demonstrably failed to distinguish between the best and the worst of Sikh-Canadians.
Right, and we can expect worse standards vetting refugees from a war zone. They are less likely to have all their proper identification papers and war zones are harder to get background info from.
The risk of a few bad apples getting through, whatever the process, has always, and will always exist. It has zero to do with the numbers involved. Any thinking person can see that.
Should we just stop any refugees coming because we’re afraid? (What are we now, American’s?) Mr Harper did a real fine job of promoting fear, conservatives are all now trembling in their homes. Even though they are as safe today, as they were yesterday.
It’s pointless to waste your energy trying to reassure them. A year from now, no attacks? They’ll still claim it was just dumb luck!
I say, let them tremble in their homes and scream the sky is falling, while Canada demonstrates the bravery to do what is right, even in an increasingly dangerous world. Canadians, conservatives notwithstanding, do not want to give up their humanity for imagined security. Simply to placate those who’ve bought into fear mongering!
Whoa. If you think he’s right, why in the world do you feel the need to attack him? What’s the point of bringing up that his position appears to be different in the past other than to discredit his statement now?
And it’s not surprising at all. Insulting someone by calling them fat is not a female-only thing. Even if CW has some blind spots with women, it doesn’t mean he has the same blind spot with fat people.
wolfpup revealed with his choice of insult that he has a problem with fat people, the same way calling her ignorant indicates he has a problem with ignorant people. That Charlie Wayne called him on it is a good thing, regardless of what he’s said in the past.
It has been my unfortunate experience (I hope that I learned - even though it might have been learning the hard way). When someone makes a mistake, the adult thing to do is to admit it. To apologize. And to promise not to do it again.
I have found that most people are willing to forgive under those circumstances.
My problem with this guy is that instead of doing any of that, he chose to refuse to answer, to evade, to deny, and finally, to try to shift the blame back onto the people who are asking him to explain. IMO, anyone who thinks they can get away with that kind of nonsense is not the sharpest (you can fill in the rest for yourselves).
