Harper to Bring Home Evacuees on Government Plane

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Oh yeah, that's what we need to strive for. To be just like the US. Let's put a handgun in every home while we're at it and make it too expensive to get sick.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by habernac

so they can shoot people who don't have any idea what sarcasm is.

lol... so like... you?

I was also being sarcastic. Believe me. I'm not that ######ed.



I think.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Agreed, we need more SKILLED immigrants. Not the family re-unification immigrants that are 75 years old and coming to milk the health care system for all its worth.....and let me tell you.....Familiy class immigrants make up the majority of immigration to Canada.

And let me tell you that you are wrong.

As outlined by the Council on Foreign Relations: "between 1990 and 2002, 49 percent of immigrants to Canada were from the economic class, 34 percent were from the family reunification category and 13 percent were humanitarian cases"

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

And let me tell you that you are wrong.

As outlined by the Council on Foreign Relations: "between 1990 and 2002, 49 percent of immigrants to Canada were from the economic class, 34 percent were from the family reunification category and 13 percent were humanitarian cases"

Ok, first off, your numbers are a decade old. There has been a big change in the last 5 years and even with your numbers only 49% are skilled workers, the other 51 are family class, H&C and refugees.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, first off, your numbers are a decade old. There has been a big change in the last 5 years and even with your numbers only 49% are skilled workers, the other 51 are family class, H&C and refugees.

First of all, the numbers are from 1990 to 2002, so they're not a decade old.

Second, you said family class were the majority, which is false -- they were 34%.

Third, you said there has been a shift recently. Hey, you were right! According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in 2005, 156,210 of the total 262,236 immigrants to Canada were from the Economic Class, an increase from 49% to 60%.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mike F

First of all, the numbers are from 1990 to 2002, so they're not a decade old.

Second, you said family class were the majority, which is false -- they were 34%.

Third, you said there has been a shift recently. Hey, you were right! According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in 2005, 156,210 of the total 262,236 immigrants to Canada were from the Economic Class, an increase from 49% to 60%.

An average from 1990-2002.....um that is a decade. But it does look like I am wrong...as of the new data

I still think that nearly half of our immigration of family re-unification is to much unless there could be some guarantee that they can't milk the system once they get here.

[Flame On]

Strange situation. I find myself irked when I see all the people complaining about the conditions of their rescue and the speed. (perhaps they wouldn't have complained if they'd taken an extra two weeks to get cruise lines there). Although I also think this is somewhat media lead. I mean you get off a plane after an arduous trip, where you were affraid for yourself and may continue to be for your loved ones. Suddenly there's a mic in your face asking "what do you think of the reaction from the Canadian government and your conditions?" I bet if they were asked "are you happy to have escaped the danger" first thing, you'd have a different flavor.
However, I'm not with the crowd that wants to cherry pick the immagration rules and allow citizenship on a "where are you now" basis. Afterall if you've got a problem with the details of someone's citizenship, you've really got a problem with the government of Canada and their policy, not the poor bugger sitting in a house on the other side of the world.
Some thoughts.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Strange situation. I find myself irked when I see all the people complaining about the conditions of their rescue and the speed. (perhaps they wouldn't have complained if they'd taken an extra two weeks to get cruise lines there). Although I also think this is somewhat media lead. I mean you get off a plane after an arduous trip, where you were affraid for yourself and may continue to be for your loved ones. Suddenly there's a mic in your face asking "what do you think of the reaction from the Canadian government and your conditions?" I bet if they were asked "are you happy to have escaped the danger" first thing, you'd have a different flavor.
However, I'm not with the crowd that wants to cherry pick the immagration rules and allow citizenship on a "where are you now" basis. Afterall if you've got a problem with the details of someone's citizenship, you've really got a problem with the government of Canada and their policy, not the poor bugger sitting in a house on the other side of the world.
Some thoughts.

I agree with you. My personal opinion is that one should meet a residency obligation inorder to maintain ones citizenship.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree with you. My personal opinion is that one should meet a residency obligation inorder to maintain ones citizenship.

I don't see how you do agree with me. I'm saying you don't get to pick and choose what constitutes citizenship.
What you're saying is what? If you live here you get coverage but not abroad? What if you're studying temporarily over seas? What if you live half the year in one place, half in another? What if you intend to move back? How do you decide that someone's been away from Canada for 3 years is ok but 4 is not? So at 3 years and 364 days you are Canadian but one more day, sorry bud, no more "eh" for you.

[Resolute 14]

I believe he agrees with you in that the problem, if it exists, is with the government policy on immigration, not with the foreign nationals themselves.

Where it appears you two differ is whether this policy should change, and how much.

[browna]

I cannot fathom anyone with an whisper of complaint about the efforts of the government to try and make them feel as secure as possible, as soon as possible, while half a world away.

I would appreicate, not expect, my government doing all they could to remove me and my family from a situation, when I have conciously chosen to live/move travel to a far away foreign country. Its the liability you accept when travelling/living somewhere far away.

Nevermind if I was one of the small percentage of lucky ones to be whisked away on the leader of our country's jet.

Some people should really take a good look in their miro and feel thankful for the country they live in, and the genuine efforts made by fellow citizens to bring them back to this country.

I do think, there is a hint of media trying to play this up. How dare we have a feel good story about a tough situation. How dare the Harper government get uncondtional credit for this gesture, let alone the relief efforts.

I think some in the media are still showing sour grapes about the rap on the wrists for them not being able to be front and centre and film every tear drop of the grieveing families, with the arrival of the killed soliders returning to Canadian soil. This is a cheap way to try and stir something up, so that Harper and his government don't appear to be as noble and classy as the majority see them to be (at least in this particular gesture).

[Flame On]

I don't think there's any conspiracy that the media have got together to try to make the government look bad. Certainly not in a political partisan way.
Where I think it is media lead is in a sensationalistic way, like CNN or something. Whipping up the story or a story within a story.
As far sour grapes for a policy that OF COURSE the media don't like, remember there was a lot of dissension by military families too for that decision, let alone probably a lot of debate in the populace.
As for complaining. I don't think they have grounds to complain, but they have the right being canadian citizens to say anything they want.
Oh and I've got to get one of those miro's someday so I can have a look at myself in it sometime...

[FlamesAddiction]

I have nothing against who they give citizenship to, as long as they are law abiding.

The problem I have is that they let people keep their citizenship indefinitely even after they leave Canada, become citizens of other countries, and never have any intentions of coming back or contributing anything to Canada. It's ridiculous. Not too many countries let people do this.

Why should we be on the hook for looking after people who don't even want anything to with Canada barring some kind of disaster relief?