Up to 2,300 Syrian refugees expected in Calgary over the next six to eight weeks

[Igottago]

That is good information. Thanks.

[FlamesAddiction]

You have to think that a lot of the refugees will be children as well, whom you don't really have to screen that heavily once the parents are screened.

A large number of the original refugees were Syrian Christians. Not that they still don't need to be screened for various reasons, but at the very least you can write off ISIS affiliation with those ones, which seems to be the biggest fear being spread right now.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

...
I would like to know if there is a "cost" undertaking. I poked around the internet but couldn't find a source for you claim. I am also wondering, if it did cost "a billion dollars" what is the estimated monetary contribution to this country by those people(s).

Obviously, there is a cost undertaking. However; the answer to "how much does it really cost?" question has been evaded by both conservative and liberal governments for decades. In the early 90's, I recall a really angry editorial opinion piece in either Globe or National Post questioning the economic benefits of immigration, in general, and refugee acceptance, in particular. The writer was mainly concerned about how closely this information is guarded for the general public to make an informed opinion on the matter.

Nothing changed since. There is likely some degree of difficulty in estimating this amount but it is not impossible to do it based on known costs incurred to support of the refugees, say, in the past 20 years. The key difference between legal immigrants' and refugees' support systems in Canada is that refugees and their families are entitled to and receive welfare support services throughout a very long time (could be a lifetime, but I am not 100% sure ). They do receive welfare benefits that include, for example, dental and prescription eyeglasses, training and education assistance, daycare etc. They also receive direct financial assistance. Sponsored immigrants receive none of that. Calculating and publishing the amount of benefits received by an average refugee should not be such a big deal. Yet, it's been kept a secret.

[Slava]

http://www.thebeaverton.com/national...n-saskatchewan

[PsYcNeT]

Someone should tell all them white women to address these declining birthrates, then we wouldn't even need immigrants or refugees.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by JD

Haha, that worked pretty well in Israel didnt it! Lets put another one in the Middle East!

I only meant until they could return home, or is the Syrian war going to last forever.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Slava

http://www.thebeaverton.com/national...n-saskatchewan

Its funny, but fake news.

Generally i agree with Brad, his constituents are worried and there is no reason to question his motives. Should we question Justin's motives, ie are they looking to just pad the liberal voter's list with new immigrants?

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Its funny, but fake news.

Generally i agree with Brad, his constituents are worried and there is no reason to question his motives. Should we question Justin's motives, ie are they looking to just pad the liberal voter's list with new immigrants?

I'm not much of a political guru, or follow this whole refugee thing all that closely - but I am with Wall on this. It does seem like a huge number in a very short period of time to have these refugees brought into Canada. I think, and hope, that is what Wall is questioning here - can it still be done effectively in such a short time frame? Now Wall would know far more on the process than myself, but the fact that he is raising concern to the process leaves me somewhat concerned as well.

I understand and support bringing refugees to Canada, and I even support them coming here on our dollars for a period of time. But if it is going to happen in the time frame noted, can Trudeau please just re-assure others in power that protocol will be followed. Maybe he has, maybe there is no concern at all, and this is attainable. But it just feels like a new leader in power trying to fulfill a commitment he announced during an election campaign.

Show Canada we have no reason to be concerned, show Canada there will be no shortcuts made - and I have a hard time believing that any reasonable thinking Canadian will take a stance against this.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Generally i agree with Brad, his constituents are worried and there is no reason to question his motives.

I think the fact that he's doing it in the immediate aftermath of an event causes me to question his motives. I mean where was his concern a week ago? He's tastelessly exploiting a tragedy.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/16/premi...dvocacy-group/

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Should we question Justin's motives, ie are they looking to just pad the liberal voter's list with new immigrants?

See... here's the thing. Regardless of the motives of either, one plan swiftly alleviates the suffering of a vulnerable group while the other delays it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Should we question Justin's motives, ie are they looking to just pad the liberal voter's list with new immigrants?

I'm pretty sure that isn't the reason:

There are three things political observers from other countries find surprising about Stephen Harper’s party.

The first is that the Conservatives became a preferred party of immigrants and of many racial and religious minorities. In the 2011 federal election, the Tories attracted 42 per cent of the vote from foreign-born Canadians, higher than their 37-per-cent share among native-born Canadians. The Tories’ share of the racial-minority vote rose from 9 per cent in 2000 to a substantial 31 per cent in 2011. This shift was the result of tight control of the party’s more intolerant fringe and hard campaign work in immigrant ridings. It provoked centre-right parties in Britain, Germany and elsewhere to study and imitate the Harper approach to diversity.

The second is that after accomplishing this, Mr. Harper’s party has run a 2015 campaign built on ethnic and religious distrust, fear and divisiveness. By turning a non-existent issue – involving a miniscule subgroup, women who wear the niqab – into a major campaign issue, and by tying immigration and terrorism policies together rhetorically, the Conservatives have stoked anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.

That leads to the third surprise: This does not appear to have cost the Conservatives support among immigrants and members of most minorities.

I checked this with Peter Loewen, a specialist in public-opinion analytics at the University of Toronto’s department of political science. He is one of the operators of localparliament.ca, an online portal that tracks the voting intentions of 11,442 eligible and likely voters across Canada. While the survey’s big-picture forecasts are subject to the distortions and biases of online polling (and use algorithms to correct for these), it shines at providing a uniquely large-sample, daily breakdown of intention by immigration status.

It shows that, as of Wednesday, non-immigrant Canadians have a predicted likelihood of voting Conservative of 27 per cent, while foreign-born Canadians have a likelihood of 34 per cent – a statistically significant 7-point difference recorded well after the Tories’ tilt toward ugly ethno-politics.

More significantly, Dr. Loewen told me, “there is no evidence that immigrants are becoming less likely to vote Tory as the campaign goes on. In fact, if anything, the opposite appears true.”

By turning sharply toward anti-immigrant messaging, the Conservatives didn’t lose, and might even have gained, support among immigrants. What gives?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle26749675/

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

I'm not much of a political guru, or follow this whole refugee thing all that closely - but I am with Wall on this. It does seem like a huge number in a very short period of time to have these refugees brought into Canada. I think, and hope, that is what Wall is questioning here - can it still be done effectively in such a short time frame? Now Wall would know far more on the process than myself, but the fact that he is raising concern to the process leaves me somewhat concerned as well.

I understand and support bringing refugees to Canada, and I even support them coming here on our dollars for a period of time. But if it is going to happen in the time frame noted, can Trudeau please just re-assure others in power that protocol will be followed. Maybe he has, maybe there is no concern at all, and this is attainable. But it just feels like a new leader in power trying to fulfill a commitment he announced during an election campaign.

Show Canada we have no reason to be concerned, show Canada there will be no shortcuts made - and I have a hard time believing that any reasonable thinking Canadian will take a stance against this.

How do you know the proper protocols aren't being followed? You are no political guru and you really haven't followed the whole refugee thing very closely.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Its funny, but fake news.

Generally i agree with Brad, his constituents are worried and there is no reason to question his motives. Should we question Justin's motives, ie are they looking to just pad the liberal voter's list with new immigrants?

I know it's fake, but I just thought the situation could use a little levity.

Really given the latest info though, maybe we should be halting Belgians from entry to Canada? Sounds like the plan was masterminded there and something like 7/8 attackers were Europeans.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I think the fact that he's doing it in the immediate aftermath of an event causes me to question his motives. I mean where was his concern a week ago? He's tastelessly exploiting a tragedy.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/16/premi...dvocacy-group/



See... here's the thing. Regardless of the motives of either, one plan swiftly alleviates the suffering of a vulnerable group while the other delays it.

Is it political when said event is what makes it a concern?

Like a bunch of kids drowning in a city pool all of a sudden and the local mayor declaring "we should make sure all city pools are safe and close the pools until we have done some due diligence".

Clearly something like that would warrant questioning the mayors motives. It's an obvious ploy for votes vs. some evidence (kids drowning) that might indicate there could be bigger concerns and maybe pools should be investigated. I wouldn't trust that mayor either. . .

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

You have to think that a lot of the refugees will be children as well, whom you don't really have to screen that heavily once the parents are screened.

That's just what the terrorists want you to think.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's just what the terrorists want you to think.

Baby Faced Midgets

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How do you know the proper protocols aren't being followed? You are no political guru and you really haven't followed the whole refugee thing very closely.

I don't know, and as both you and I have stated, I haven't really followed much of the refugee situation closely. But when a leader of a province raises a flag, it does lead the casual observer to follow suit. Like I said in my previous post, it does seem like a large number in a very short time frame to push through the screening process. Maybe it is nothing, maybe it is something. I guess at the end of the day, you just have hope it is properly handled by the people that are in power to make these types of decisions.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How do you know the proper protocols aren't being followed? You are no political guru and you really haven't followed the whole refugee thing very closely.

This is what I don't get. Do people honestly think the government is just going to let in 25k refugees if they can't get the proper screening done?

"Sir, we can't confirm the background of hundreds of these refugees."

"God damn it, man, let them through! We have a quota to reach!"

Is this seriously a realistic scenario that people see happening?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

I don't know, and as both you and I have stated, I haven't really followed much of the refugee situation closely. But when a leader of a province raises a flag, it does lead the casual observer to follow suit. Like I said in my previous post, it does seem like a large number in a very short time frame to push through the screening process. Maybe it is nothing, maybe it is something. I guess at the end of the day, you just have hope it is properly handled by the people that are in power to make these types of decisions.

But, and no offence, that type of letter by Mr Wall, whips up the great unwashed/uneducated masses (I include my self in that group).

As I stated earlier, it stinks (to me) of political grandstanding.

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But, and no offence, that type of letter by Mr Wall, whips up the great unwashed/uneducated masses (I include my self in that group).

As I stated earlier, it stinks (to me) of political grandstanding.

And that is fine, if it is just "political grandstanding" it should be fairly easy to Trudeau to alleviate Wall's concerns, no? Again, just a casual observer with news clippings as information, trying to gather what is actually going on

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is what I don't get. Do people honestly think the government is just going to let in 25k refugees if they can't get the proper screening done?

"Sir, we can't confirm the background of hundreds of these refugees."

"God damn it, man, let them through! We have a quota to reach!"

Is this seriously a realistic scenario that people see happening?

You're right. How stupid of anyone to ask the question.

Anyway, I'd assume there will be some throw backs so finding 25k keepers would likely take way more applicants and way more screening than just the first 25k. It's a challenge for the Americans to take 10k by Christmas. I'm willing to trust the government with this but I'm also willing to hold them 100% accountable if it goes wrong.