Illegal immigration because of climate issues

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Yikes

This is going to be huge in the years/decades to come. What we are seeing now might just be the start, think I might go outside and kiss Canadian soil.

you're really on a roll starting threads on topics that already exist.
what's up with that?

We already have a climate change thread, we already have a car thread and we have a motorbike thread. not sure if you've started any others yet today.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

you're really on a roll starting threads on topics that already exist.
what's up with that?

We already have a climate change thread, we already have a car thread and we have a motorbike thread. not sure if you've started any others yet today.

New and dumb I guess? Just finished a contract, have some time and thoughts.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by activeStick

The US will come for our resources one day, but we'll be long gone by then (though CP will still be around, I bet!). And Canada will also basically give it to them since we won't be able to stop them.

Wouldn't it literally be cheaper at that point to desalinate seawater than to wage a war?

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It's Canada. Privacy hedge.

Hahaaaa...no kidding. A good neighbour fence.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Wouldn't it literally be cheaper at that point to desalinate seawater than to wage a war?

Desalinating seawater destroys the surrounding ocean with the release of salt and byproduct. It's become a problem in countries that use it. Technology could advance, of course.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Desalinating seawater destroys the surrounding ocean with the release of salt and byproduct. It's become a problem in countries that use it. Technology could advance, of course.

Invading a country destroys a few things too.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Invading a country destroys a few things too.

But usually not your things.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Invading a country destroys a few things too.

The USA crossing into Canada would be about the same as when the Germans invaded Denmark during WWII...not a whole lot happened. They just walked in.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Invading a country destroys a few things too.

It's going to be incredibly easy for America to take over. Probably be positioned to Canadians by the PM as something that makes sense for Canada and that we're also benefactors some how. There won't be any resistance.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's going to be incredibly easy for America to take over. Probably be positioned to Canadians by the PM as something that makes sense for Canada and that we're also benefactors some how. There won't be any resistance.

I will resist.

[djsFlames]

A wall manned with bears!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Yikes

The USA crossing into Canada would be about the same as when the Germans invaded Denmark during WWII...not a whole lot happened. They just walked in.

Or like invading the British invasion of Iceland in 1940, followed by an occupation with Canadian and American forces. I don't think a single shot was fired. Iceland was just kind of like, yeah, I guess this is happening.

The idea that the U.S. would ever forcefully invade and occupy Canada is pretty absurd in my opinion. It would be much more cost effective to make deals for whatever they want and Canada would not be in a position to say no.

As far as illegal immigration goes, Canada is not an easy place to get to. Canada will be under pressure to take the overflow from places like Europe and the U.S., but they will be coming in legally. Canada just needs to be smart by not continuing to overcrowd a small number of cities, but spread it out.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Or like invading the British invasion of Iceland in 1940, followed by an occupation with Canadian and American forces. I don't think a single shot was fired. Iceland was just kind of like, yeah, I guess this is happening.

The idea that the U.S. would ever forcefully invade and occupy Canada is pretty absurd in my opinion. It would be much more cost effective to make deals for whatever they want and Canada would not be in a position to say no.

As far as illegal immigration goes Canada is not an easy place to get to. Canada will be under pressure to take the overflow from places like Europe and the U.S., but they will be coming in legally. Canada just needs to be smart by not continuing to overcrowd a small number of cities, but spread it out.

I think the illegals coming into Canada will continue to flow through the USA and you are right, we are not easy to get to. I would think that Mexico, Central and South America will continue to see exodus and if the USA is not friendly, they will find their way here. That along with the overload you mentioned.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's going to be incredibly easy for America to take over. Probably be positioned to Canadians by the PM as something that makes sense for Canada and that we're also benefactors some how. There won't be any resistance.

The U.S. is very good at clandestine operations that determine the outcome of elections around the world. Some world leaders already are likely American agents. Even China has been caught with agents being elected into the parliaments of foreign countries. I believe there was one in Australia not that long ago. That doesn't even include the ones that were not elected, but placed by force.

I can see a "Manchurian Candidate" situation where an American regime covertly funds a "pro-union" candidate in Canada and uses the democratic process to create a puppet government.

[JohnnyB]

Climate change brought on mostly by the industrialized nations wreaks havoc globally with suffering mostly accrued in poorer, less industrialized nations that have larger populations and less wealth or resources to deal with changes. When people from these places that are directly suffering the consequences of disaster wrought via the activities of industrialized nations seek to find refuge in places with better resources, they're identified as threats or criminals and further persecuted and their suffering is made that much more intense. Meanwhile, in the industrialized nations people are upset about having to accept reductions in quality of life that are not insubstantial, but are really nothing in comparison to those suffered by the vast majority of the world's population. Those with resources continue to fight over or club together for the accumulation of more resources, at the further expense of those without resources, all the while celebrating their own societal superiority as self-evident in their higher standard of living and relative absence of suffering. Rather than make substantial sacrifices in quality of life, industrialized nations regard the problems of populations displaced by climate emergencies as tragic but intractable problems that at best can only be contained. Most of the world's people suffer. Their governments, now in disarray, are exploited by those nations with relative stability and power in order to extract more valuable resources from them to further fuel the needs and wants of the richer and more stable nations.

I'm not sure if that's a description of a dystopian future, or the present.

[Icantwhisper]

I would be way more worried about corporations such as Nestle than I would be concerned about an individual country such as the US taking our water.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Climate change brought on mostly by the industrialized nations wreaks havoc globally with suffering mostly accrued in poorer, less industrialized nations that have larger populations and less wealth or resources to deal with changes. When people from these places that are directly suffering the consequences of disaster wrought via the activities of industrialized nations seek to find refuge in places with better resources, they're identified as threats or criminals and further persecuted and their suffering is made that much more intense. Meanwhile, in the industrialized nations people are upset about having to accept reductions in quality of life that are not insubstantial, but are really nothing in comparison to those suffered by the vast majority of the world's population. Those with resources continue to fight over or club together for the accumulation of more resources, at the further expense of those without resources, all the while celebrating their own societal superiority as self-evident in their higher standard of living and relative absence of suffering. Rather than make substantial sacrifices in quality of life, industrialized nations regard the problems of populations displaced by climate emergencies as tragic but intractable problems that at best can only be contained. Most of the world's people suffer. Their governments, now in disarray, are exploited by those nations with relative stability and power in order to extract more valuable resources from them to further fuel the needs and wants of the richer and more stable nations.

I'm not sure if that's a description of a dystopian future, or the present.

Yup. During the last climate meeting, the West continued to push other developing nations to lower their emissions all while we mostly missed all our targets.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Yup. During the last climate meeting, the West continued to push other developing nations to lower their emissions all while we mostly missed all our targets.

But isn't that push/argument largely about the use of coal for energy?

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Climate change brought on mostly by the industrialized nations wreaks havoc globally with suffering mostly accrued in poorer, less industrialized nations that have larger populations and less wealth or resources to deal with changes. When people from these places that are directly suffering the consequences of disaster wrought via the activities of industrialized nations seek to find refuge in places with better resources, they're identified as threats or criminals and further persecuted and their suffering is made that much more intense. Meanwhile, in the industrialized nations people are upset about having to accept reductions in quality of life that are not insubstantial, but are really nothing in comparison to those suffered by the vast majority of the world's population. Those with resources continue to fight over or club together for the accumulation of more resources, at the further expense of those without resources, all the while celebrating their own societal superiority as self-evident in their higher standard of living and relative absence of suffering. Rather than make substantial sacrifices in quality of life, industrialized nations regard the problems of populations displaced by climate emergencies as tragic but intractable problems that at best can only be contained. Most of the world's people suffer. Their governments, now in disarray, are exploited by those nations with relative stability and power in order to extract more valuable resources from them to further fuel the needs and wants of the richer and more stable nations.

I'm not sure if that's a description of a dystopian future, or the present.

Good post.

I really, really, Really don't like the framing of climate refugees as "illegal immigrants". That's the kind of talk that fascist ideologues will no doubt use in the coming years when more and more of the world's territory becomes uninhabitable. It's not hard to look at the rise of right wing nationalism in Europe as a backlash to the Syrian refugee crisis and then extrapolate that to a much larger scale when imagining just how many people will be displaced by sea level rise and rising temperatures.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

A wall manned with bears!

With bees in their mouths!