I think that this will alleviate the concerns that many had around the logistics and security of the previous timeline. Do another poll of the country in a week and I'd say that you'll find the vast majority of people are supportive. Not all the people voicing concerns were advocating closing the border, they just wanted a more realistic timeline and clarity on what's happening and I think the government has provided that in the last few days.
Pretty much everybody I saw or read about in Canada were legitimately concerned and brought up reasonable points about how the government wasn't giving details, muzzling and not listening to people in the process, and blindly locked into an artificial date for whatever reason.
I'm glad our government thought the process through, listened to the experts that their artificial deadline wasn't realistic, that they're still going to meet their target and commitment in a reasonable short time, and responded to the concerns of the Canadian public. Frankly, they should have done it sooner. It's damn good we're going to be able to bring in 25,000 refugees - we're damn blessed to be in a situation to be able to do it. Perhaps once we fulfill this commitment, we can look and evaluate to see if we can expand the program and the refugee numbers.
The instant banshee wails of "you're a racist", "you hate muslims", "Brad Wall is a ######bag" were GD embarrassing. Sane, rational Canadians bringing up legitimate concerns doesn't equate to burning muslims at the stake or slamming our borders shut. Nobody legitimate in Canada is a Donald Trump. Hell, I probably lean heavily to the social warrior/wizard side way more often than not, but we don't need to be like this:
According to this article, the previous quoted figure of $1.2 billion is about double the actual cost, which is reported to be $678 million over six years.
A briefing on the plan held on Tuesday afternoon also walked through an aggressive security screening process, no doubt meant to dissuade such fears, which have led to a political dogfight south of the border, between the White House and the states.
In order to qualify to be resettled in Canada, the would-be refugee needs to be a Syrian citizen — or a former citizen — living in Turkey, Lebanon, or Jordan. From there, they will need to qualify for refugee status from, and be screened by, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.
From there, the Canadian officials will contact prospective refugees via text message to invite them to apply. If they want to resettle to Canada, they will go through interviews with visa officers, be submitted to health and identity tests, and face a round of biometric checks before being put on a flight.
Upon landing in Canada, the refugees will go through one more round of security checks and health tests, before being dispatched to their new home.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Trudeau did want to start bringing in refugees in the middle of the campaign. So based on this timeline 25000 was possible if they started ramping up the day the kid died and it became an election issue.
What I will give Trudeua credit is that by pushing the impossible we increased how fast we could bring them in. 25000 3-4 months is 6-8 times the rate of refugees coming in then previously. I don't think you get to that point by asking how fast can we bring refugees in. As a management tactic to improve performance in can be used occasionally but is effective in getting things done faster
In an article I read yesterday it says that the government is only sponsoring 15,000, and the rest are privately sponsored. So 1.2 billion might not be far off if the government actually sponsored all 25,000.
I think it's pretty pathetic to make it seem like they were bringing in and paying for 25,000 when it's actually 15,000, they wanted to make it seem like they were doing it all but they're not and a large chunk are being brought in privately.
In an article I read yesterday it says that the government is only sponsoring 15,000, and the rest are privately sponsored. So 1.2 billion might not be far off if the government actually sponsored all 25,000.
I think it's pretty pathetic to make it seem like they were bringing in and paying for 25,000 when it's actually 15,000, they wanted to make it seem like they were doing it all but they're not and a large chunk are being brought in privately.
The government is bringing in 25,000 in addition to the 10,000 private sponsorships. In addition, even the VOR refugees get some up front government assistance, which should be factored into the cost.
The government is bringing in 25,000 in addition to the 10,000 private sponsorships. In addition, even the VOR refugees get some up front government assistance, which should be factored into the cost.
that's not what this article says feel free to correct me
The Liberal election platform had also said that the government would sponsor all 25,000 Syrian refugees. However, government officials who presented the resettlement plan in a technical briefing (they cannot be named under government policy), said the government would sponsor only 15,000, with the remainder being privately sponsored.
Pretty much everybody I saw or read about in Canada were legitimately concerned and brought up reasonable points about how the government wasn't giving details, muzzling and not listening to people in the process, and blindly locked into an artificial date for whatever reason.
I'm glad our government thought the process through, listened to the experts that their artificial deadline wasn't realistic, that they're still going to meet their target and commitment in a reasonable short time, and responded to the concerns of the Canadian public. Frankly, they should have done it sooner. It's damn good we're going to be able to bring in 25,000 refugees - we're damn blessed to be in a situation to be able to do it. Perhaps once we fulfill this commitment, we can look and evaluate to see if we can expand the program and the refugee numbers.
The instant banshee wails of "you're a racist", "you hate muslims", "Brad Wall is a ######bag" were GD embarrassing. Sane, rational Canadians bringing up legitimate concerns doesn't equate to burning muslims at the stake or slamming our borders shut. Nobody legitimate in Canada is a Donald Trump. Hell, I probably lean heavily to the social warrior/wizard side way more often than not, but we don't need to be like this:
Spoiler!
I am not sure if the Liberal photo was for me or not. I have only made about 3-4 posts on CP with my political affiliations, but they aren't Liberal.
I am not sure these types of posts count as "reasonable & concerned"
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
So we can somehow afford to take in 25,000 refugees, but we can't take care of the tens of thousands of Canadians that need help? Why do these folks take priority over those already here who need help?
And the issues Europe is now facing are not minor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yanda
I wish there was another way we could help these people without taking on refuges. With the pipeline being cancelled this could really negatively impact us, as much as I do want to help them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagger
At what point does admitting refugees stop being the right thing to do? Do we let them all in? Do we let 50/100/500k in? As we have abundant space, and a willingness to dip further into debt, why stop at 25,000?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironhorse
They had best not turn into some of those ungrateful refugees they are now seeing in Europe; demanding nicer housing, protesting the food isn't good enough, demanding televisions, cash, etc.
Furthermore, the have you read any comments on articles that appear online? I would not suggest that not all Canadian's response have been measured. There has been plenty of information about the process, yet people still trot out the same concerns about ISIS infiltrators.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
I am not sure these types of posts count as "reasonable & concerned"
So I looked at these to see if they have any reasonableness or express genuine concerns.
The first does. It expresses a preference for domestic spending over spending on people from outside the country and recognizes perceived problems faced in Europe about which the poster is concerned.
The second, I don't see what the pipeline has to do with it, but it's not unreasonable to think about whether there are other ways we could help these people. Probably not productive, though.
Third one - the question of why 25,000, specifically, is fair enough. I also asked whether there was a way to spend more efficiently to allow a greater volume of refugees at a lower cost per person - we might end up giving them less of a soft landing here, but there's a worthwhile discussion to be had as to whether assistance for people to get them on their feet once here should be prioritized over getting more of them out of a situation where they could die.
I'm not aware of the last one being an accurate representation of any refugees in Europe, so absent some basis I guess I'll concede that one. But I don't get why you thought the first three posts "didn't count" as reasonable perspectives.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So I looked at these to see if they have any reasonableness or express genuine concerns.
The first does. It expresses a preference for domestic spending over spending on people from outside the country and recognizes perceived problems faced in Europe about which the poster is concerned.
The second, I don't see what the pipeline has to do with it, but it's not unreasonable to think about whether there are other ways we could help these people. Probably not productive, though.
Third one - the question of why 25,000, specifically, is fair enough. I also asked whether there was a way to spend more efficiently to allow a greater volume of refugees at a lower cost per person - we might end up giving them less of a soft landing here, but there's a worthwhile discussion to be had as to whether assistance for people to get them on their feet once here should be prioritized over getting more of them out of a situation where they could die.
I'm not aware of the last one being an accurate representation of any refugees in Europe, so absent some basis I guess I'll concede that one. But I don't get why you thought the first three posts "didn't count" as reasonable perspectives.
Corsi, my point is that much of the response has been disingenuous, IMO.
Suddenly people are concerned about Canada's homeless or treatment of vets. I don't recall too many threads being start on CP with the Title: "How do we stop Homelessness in Canada" or "Lets start a campaign to get better treatment of Canadian Vets" or "The need to help Aboriginal Communities".
If these were such pressing concerns/issues where have they been for the past year, 2 years, 5 years.....
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Pretty much everybody I saw or read about in Canada were legitimately concerned and brought up reasonable points about how the government wasn't giving details, muzzling and not listening to people in the process, and blindly locked into an artificial date for whatever reason.
I'm glad our government thought the process through, listened to the experts that their artificial deadline wasn't realistic, that they're still going to meet their target and commitment in a reasonable short time, and responded to the concerns of the Canadian public. Frankly, they should have done it sooner. It's damn good we're going to be able to bring in 25,000 refugees - we're damn blessed to be in a situation to be able to do it. Perhaps once we fulfill this commitment, we can look and evaluate to see if we can expand the program and the refugee numbers.
The instant banshee wails of "you're a racist", "you hate muslims", "Brad Wall is a ######bag" were GD embarrassing. Sane, rational Canadians bringing up legitimate concerns doesn't equate to burning muslims at the stake or slamming our borders shut.
Being sane or giving off the air of rationality does not preclude one from xenophobia and racism. Painting a picture of the majority just being "good ole boys" meaning well is misleading, you know that.
As for the bolded I'd be curious about where that occurred (considering the Liberal government has been strongly opposed to any hint of 'muzzling' experts), or how a new government would collect available information from reputable sources through the noisy mix of rationality and racism and use it to restructure their policy in less than a month.
Corsi, my point is that much of the response has been disingenuous, IMO.
If these were such pressing concerns/issues where have they been for the past year, 2 years, 5 years.....
You might be right, but it's not really very productive to attack motives, first of all. Either it's a good idea or it isn't (I don't think it is) that we should be prioritizing these issues over refugees.
It's entirely possible that a person would reasonably take the position that, "look, until now (or maybe even now), I was opposed to spending a ~$700 million chunk of money helping disadvantaged people. However, if we ARE committed to spending that money, if I'm to treat it like a sunk cost anyway, here's how I think we should spend it".
Second, world events tend to get people thinking about a variety of issues. An attack on Paris gets people thinking about foreign policy all of a sudden. People suddenly care about a ton of different things following a mass shooting. "Maybe we'd be better off intervening in X place" is not suddenly a bad notion just because it was equally good or bad six months ago.
I just don't think suspecting peoples' motivations is relevant or useful, it's wasting mental energy on speculation and mind-reading, and undermines our ability to have a conversation about basically anything.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Being sane or giving off the air of rationality does not preclude one from xenophobia and racism. Painting a picture of the majority just being "good ole boys" meaning well is misleading, you know that.
As for the bolded I'd be curious about where that occurred (considering the Liberal government has been strongly opposed to any hint of 'muzzling' experts), or how a new government would collect available information from reputable sources through the noisy mix of rationality and racism and use it to restructure their policy in less than a month.
Sure. Maybe I'm naïve in believing that Canadians as a majority aren't xenophobic and racist. Canadians raising sane and reasonable discussion points shouldn't at all justify them being painted in that fashion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "good ole boys"? Is that some kind of social commentary term (that I'm obviously oblivious about)?
The original goal had been to begin the airlift by Thursday of this week, but as no charter aircraft have been booked yet, it would now be at least one more week before flights got underway, one of the officials said. When the flights reach their peak next month, about 1,000 refugees will be arriving in Canada every day.
The officials did not want to be identified because diplomats and immigration officers have been told by Ottawa not to speak about the matter, with all requests referred to the government.
“Unfortunately I have nothing to say to you at the moment,” Immigration Canada spokesman Jean-Bruno Villeneuve said in an email from Ottawa, adding that he was unable to confirm any details about the resettlement program.
The UNHCR refused to comment officially about the Canadian-imposed deadline to get the refugees across the Atlantic because “it is a very tricky situation,” one of several UNHCR officials spoken with in Beirut said.
Another UN official gave a bewildered look when asked about the Canadian timeline.
Representatives from Canada and the UN and diplomats from other embassies posted in the region privately expressed grave doubts about whether such a large resettlement project could be completed in a safe and responsible way in such a short time frame.
Independent of each other, several of them said they were surprised and disappointed that the prime minister had not used the terror attacks in Paris and Beirut as justification for slowing the Canadian resettlement program down to a more manageable pace.
None of these officials could remember any country trying to resettle 25,000 refugees in such a short time period, particularly across almost half the world to a country where they will experience a serious winter for the first time in their lives.
Comparisons were drawn with Australia and Britain, where more modest schemes to resettle Syrian refugees were being spread out over between six months and several years largely because of security concerns and logistical hurdles.
The chief concern was whether Canada had given itself enough time for its security teams to conduct the rigorous vetting required to ensure that refugees bound for Canada were not connected to ISIL or other banned terrorist organizations that control parts of Syria. This was particularly important in light of claims in recent days by Syrian-based ISIL that it intends to continue carrying out murderous attacks overseas.
There were also criticisms in Beirut of Ottawa’s plan to conduct some of the security checks once the refugees landed in Canada because if refugees were identified as possible terrorists the accused could spend years fighting deportation in the courts.
Last edited by chemgear; 11-25-2015 at 11:00 AM.
Reason: Additional paragraphs from the article
You might be right, but it's not really very productive to attack motives, first of all. Either it's a good idea or it isn't (I don't think it is) that we should be prioritizing these issues over refugees.
Sure it is.
I, for one, would be fascinated to see how many people who brought up homelessness or veterans know the amount of money that is put into those issues annually.
It's noble that you try to be very pragmatic and strictly logic driven in your formation of argument but can you see how your critique of debate method is no different than the method you're critiquing?
It matters that people use these issues, because the issue becomes: Are they using them for the right reasons?
I gather undercover is a vet. It must be nice so many people suddenly care about vets... unless they don't, and are using the group he's part of to win an argument.
Sure it is. I, for one, would be fascinated to see how many people who brought up homelessness or veterans know the amount of money that is put into those issues annually.
I do not care about this - they're either right or wrong. I do care about the amount of money that's put into those issues, whether it's an over or underfunding from an objective sense.
Quote:
It's noble that you try to be very pragmatic and strictly logic driven in your formation of argument but can you see how your critique of debate method is no different than the method you're critiquing?
No, I can't. This statement doesn't make sense to me. Please explain what you mean.
Quote:
It matters that people use these issues, because the issue becomes: Are they using them for the right reasons?
I do think this matters, in the sense that if a person is being intellectually dishonest in this case they're likely to be intellectually dishonest in the future. However, I really need some pretty strong evidence to come to that conclusion (someone presenting a slanted case multiple times despite being confronted with contradictory evidence, for example), and I do not have that here.
So in light of that, the attempt to mind-read people and then immediately discard, without consideration, the points they've raised is simply not productive. Let's consider those points and adopt, modify or discard them as necessary.
It seems that the trope of "well let's spend this on homelessness instead" is a common theme that's been raised - it seems like some people (I'm not sure if you're among them) think that this prevalence is a reason to ignore the suggestion. It's not, it's a reason to formulate a response, which I'd think might be, "we should separately consider whether certain programs to alleviate homelessness should be funded, but this is a good way to spend $700 million regardless", or alternatively, "here is why spending $700 million on this problem is putting the money where it can do the most good".
As you might be able to tell from my views on this and basically every other topic, I'm becoming extremely concerned about the normalization of this technique for hiving off divergent points of view and discarding them without giving them any thought because of the imagined/alleged motives of the person(s) advancing them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I did formulate a response to why the homelessness argument wasn't valid and that was ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
If you think taking on or not taking on 25,000 refugees in Canada/2,000 in alberta is going to change any of that, then you have a surprise coming your way.
Those problems are deep rooted, systematic and societal problems that have a replenishing base. This is an opportunity to provide direct help that should be beneficial for Canada and in turn all of those issues in the long run.
If you don't help with the refugee crisis, then how do you pick which global crisis you do aid? Tsunami relief in Japan? Earthquake in Haiti? Ebola in Africa? Clearly Canada should just ignore all of those world emergencies cause not only do we have all of the problems you just listed at home, but also, unlike the refugee situation, aiding the situations I listed provides ZERO benefit to Canada.
Okay. You did. That was a reasonable response that could be discussed, particularly the sort of game theory-esque nature of "we might need help in the future". If people aren't convinced though, they aren't convinced. It takes some pretty supreme arrogance to suggest, even if you're positive they saw your argument, "if you weren't convinced by what I said you must be a bigot or otherwise have questionable motives".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Okay. You did. That was a reasonable response that could be discussed, particularly the sort of game theory-esque nature of "we might need help in the future". If people aren't convinced though, they aren't convinced. It takes some pretty supreme arrogance to suggest, even if you're positive they saw your argument, "if you weren't convinced by what I said you must be a bigot or otherwise have questionable motives".
It was the lack of response that leads me to questioning the motive. Surely if you really believe in your point, you would defend it?
Some of it might also be because the public has been aware that there are several underfunded issues in Canada that are perennially not made into either political or electoral priorities. When homelessness is raised as an issue, it is almost always on the municipal level, official federal concern leading to any kind of change is almost unheard of. When a politician champions the homeless, or veteran support, or mental health awareness, or conditions on reserves, it is often viewed as 'quaint' or 'nice' by the media, and there is usually no lasting effect to their efforts.
This issue puts a solid number of 25 000 people for Canadians to look at. It's that number, and the set date that incite comparisons.
We have never heard of the federal government saying that they are going to relocate 25 000 homeless people to a place where they will be housed, fed, clothed and given employment, completed in the next 4 months. An announcement like that would blow everyone's mind, because it is an issue that we are all aware of, all of the time, and we are used to zero political will to make it go away, or help the situation.
The comparisons exist because there is political will found for one issue, but not the other, and the issues in question are constant and sparsely attended.
(I'm of the opinion that there would be no transference of funds or resources to another issue. It is refugees, or nothing. Everyone seems content to not care about domestic issues that don't effect them directly.)
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
There are two possibilities: the people you're talking about didn't read your post, or weren't convinced by your post. They aren't required to engage you on your points, if it's the latter. It isn't really a fair response to say, "if you weren't a bigot you'd tell me why you think I'm wrong and your failure to do so convicts you".
There's been a ton of crap in this thread that I've disagreed with an not responded to simply because I wasn't interested in the resulting discussion, or didn't have the energy, and I suspect I'm far more engaged on this topic than the vast majority of people in this country who unfortunately aren't thinking about it beyond a pretty superficial level, as is the case with any political issue.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
