Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[Addick]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It's no different than the government saying it will reduce the driving age from 16 to 14 because they believe that with the change in times and all the education 14 year olds are now mature enough to drive.

While there are similarities shared between both situations, there are also numerous differences. Mainly, there is much, much more at stake.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Australia requires a VISA for everyone that visits their country except New Zealand. Where is the big up roar? Does it hurt their tourism? No. Once people are aware of the requirement than no big deal.

However, Canadians traveling to Europe are much more likely to visit multiple countries. If visas were required, it would mean numerous applications would have to be filed (extensive time costs) and numerous visa fees would have to be paid (expensive financial costs). Additionally, Canadian studying in Oz are as likely to make simple weekend trips out of the country. Simple weekend trips are much more common in Europe and Canadians studying in Europe would now have to get visas for these once simple trips.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Here we go again. Read back through the thread.... the Canadian government is only RE-INSTATING the requirement that was already in place up to October 2007.

Then why are they getting upset? If it's so reasonable, why is it an issue that the EU is now hearing? If it's so reasonable, why is there retaliation?

Originally Posted by Shawnski

OK, your math sucks. You took the FIRST THREE MONTHS of 2009 to compare to the previous FULL YEAR. Oooopss, eh? And looking at that rate in the first three months, the claimant rate is still escalating.... rapidly. Go back and do the actual math and find that out for yourself if you don't believe me. If 3648 is the "going rate" quarterly, we are now on target for 14592 claimants this year alone.

Yup, the math is off a bit. My bad. The basic idea still holds that there is money that will go missing because of the Visa situation. You can find a flaw in the math - I respect that. You didn't find a flaw in the overall argument. However, part of the problem is that we are doing this all with assumptions - all of us. There are only a few numbers that we all know of as correct.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Secondly, nothing has EASED about travel here from Mexico. It is the same as it has been. The ONLY reason we have seen an increase in Mexican tourists (and the included refugee claimants) is due to the States now requiring visas from Mexicans. Again, get your information straight.

Look at what I said. I did not say EASED, I said EASE. Oooopss, eh? Read any of the articles about Mexican tourism to Canada, and you hear about packages that are being put together for Mexicans, and the tour operators talk about ease. They also talk about it no longer being something they want to do. The fact that American has seen tourists flee to Canada reinforces the fact we will see a negative impact.

Originally Posted by Shawnski

And that is about all you did.

You can make numbers look really good, or really bad. I admitted my numbers are made up. I could have assumed that Mexicans spend $3000 per trip, or that they spend $200 per trip. I could have assumed that the numbers will drop by 2% or that they will drop by 90%. I admit that and agree. That's part of the point. One lost on you apparently.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Addick

While there are similarities shared between both situations, there are also numerous differences. Mainly, there is much, much more at stake.

True, but the underlining similarities are the same.

However, Canadians traveling to Europe are much more likely to visit multiple countries. If visas were required, it would mean numerous applications would have to be filed (extensive time costs) and numerous visa fees would have to be paid (expensive financial costs). Additionally, Canadian studying in Oz are as likely to make simple weekend trips out of the country. Simple weekend trips are much more common in Europe and Canadians studying in Europe would now have to get visas for these once simple trips.

Although my travel in the EU is limited, it would be unlikely to have to obtain a VISA to every country. Would it not be more realistic that one VISA would be accepted by all countries? From what I have seen there are limited to no border control between many of the countries once one lands at a airport.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

True, but the underlining similarities are the same.





Although my travel in the EU is limited, it would be unlikely to have to obtain a VISA to every country. Would it not be more realistic that one VISA would be accepted by all countries? From what I have seen there are limited to no border control between many of the countries once one lands at a airport.

Not everything is realistic. Is it realistic to expect refugees from the Czech Republic? No. Is it realistic that a massive flaw in policy should be so difficult to properly fix? No.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So you don't have me on ignore. Nice to see you are at least able to read the stats and links I have posted.

You kind of proved my point. I make some good points and all you come up with is internet laugh and a joke that really is not funny one bit. Maybe you could address some of the points I made and more people would take your position seriously.

Look--I'm not trying to antagonize you. It is true that I was ignoring you for a while--but in my defense, you acted like a giant ######, so you kind of had it coming.

As for the internet laugh, it was backed by a real one. I did think it was pretty funny that you rate your own debating skills so highly that you can honestly imagine someone running away in terror. To bone up on your "skilz" you might look up the following logical fallacies which I've noticed that you are more than commonly prone to:
1. The appeal to authority fallacy (hilariously, sometimes the authority to which you appeal is your own!).
2. The ad hominem fallacy.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4. The fallacy of accident.

In addition, your post above confirms what I suspected all along--that you lack anything like a sense of humour about yourself, which is actually the biggest problem of all. This is after all just internets--there's no reason to go around implying that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, or pretending that somehow only you have access to truth, and we'd all just better listen or the world will come crashing down. Your worldview is just as imperfect as mine--and until you realize that, any debate with you will be a waste of my time and yours.

As for this particular debate--a perfect example of why discussing this with you is pointless is found in your post above this one. You clearly think that the only way to disagree with you is to "ignore the facts"--when in fact, we're both looking at the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions--meaning that we are interpreting them differently. I was a bit puzzled, until I realized the error that you made: you think your arguments are facts!!! The trouble is, they're not. You're as imperfect as everyone else. Your arguments are just arguments, and people can disagree with them without being idiots.

For now, my suggestion is that we agree to disagree. You will obviously never be convinced that this is anything other than a fantastic idea. You claim that I "care a lot" about this issue, when I've made it clear repeatedly that I don't particularly care whether one nation or another needs a visa to come to Canada. What I care about is our nation's reputation abroad and our relations with other countries--and my belief is that this trumps any minor social problems associated with a few thousand refugee claims that could perhaps be addressed another way. You disagree--and that's fine. That doesn't (you won't be surprised to learn) make you an idiot--it just means that you interpret these things differently than I do.

However, the part about Kenney being an idiot is an empirical fact.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

You know IFF, I understand that you are concerned about the optics. I am not as concerned in this case. To me, the more important a decision is, the less the optics are even considered. I won't go into my background, but suffice it to say that I disagree with the current political model of decision making, primary due to the need to be either politically correct or to have good "optics". Perhaps I too am just hamhanded, but I believe in making change work. This "change" with the Czechs didn't work. And the decision with the Mexicans was forced upon us by change in the States.

Good post though, I think we both are looking at a long term solution.

That's a fair point. I guess I'm also concerned about our relations with the EU, and I really feel like what's happening was a very predictable consequence of Minister Kenney's actions. But I take your point otherwise.

[Shawnski]

Knalus, I saw your previous post before you editted it to "nm". You should have stuck with it.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Yup, the math is off a bit. My bad. You can triple the number of "refugees". Still brings it to 3% of Mexicans entering the country.

I hearby nominate you to have your "custom" rank changed to "Failed Grade 10 math".

Tripled? How do get to THAT one? You were told that you provided three months worth of data versus a year (which is twelve months, by the way). Are you really telling us that three times three equals twelve?

I won't even go over the rest. Fail.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Not everything is realistic. Is it realistic to expect refugees from the Czech Republic? No. Is it realistic that a massive flaw in policy should be so difficult to properly fix? No.

Uh yes it is, hence this debate. That's just a plain puzzling comment. Even if you're talking about a few years ago it was a realistic expectation, there's a reason the visa wasn't lifted long ago.

As to the individual visas in Europe, not it's not realistic. It would be virtually impossible to implement, anyone who has travelled in Europe in the last decade knows that. There are no individual checks at each nation, you're checked at entry and that's it. So I guess if your argument is that the EU could go against everything it has developed in terms of free movement and open market (the core tenets of the EU) in order to impose individual nation visas on Canadians, then I guess it's realistic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Look--I'm not trying to antagonize you. It is true that I was ignoring you for a while--but in my defense, you acted like a giant ######, so you kind of had it coming.

If we are going to be honest lets be honest. I never once called you stupid, moron, or dumb. Yet multiple times you suggested that I did such a thing or implied such a thing. Specifically, my second post when I ask "what is it with you". It was a legitimate question. In no way did I intend to slander you or imply that you were stupid or a moron. It was a fair question, when many stats had been provided to you and you either misread them or just didn't under stand them. You were comparing total immigration to refugees. You were trying to suggest that a new layer of government would need to be formed, when that is not the case. You tried to deflect Canada's issue to an American issue that was much worse. You make a statement about how it wont help because we don't share a border with Mexico. Another poster shows you how it will make a difference. You didn't care to address their concerns when they brought it to your attention. You compare US non-documented visitors to Canada's situation which is not what we were talking about. God only knows how many undocumented visitors are in Canada. After all this I don't think the question "what's with you?" should be deemed "being a giant ######".

You say that I was acting like a giant ######. Four other CP posters agreed with my second post, if I was a ###### I am sure they wouldnot have agree with it. Yet you make some snide comments yourself.

Such as...

Well, I hope you'll forgive me for not finding those facts, or their source (in an 800 word piece that likely reproduces nearly verbatim the minister's own press release OR the numbers

there's nothing that makes these two countries special other than the fact that Jason Kenney threw a couple of darts at a map on his wall. The man does not "have balls." He's a mental midget.

You know this is wrong yet you throw it out because of your hatred for Kenny.

3. All the ######y comments like "what is with you?" are pretty unhelpful. I don't agree with you--it doesn't make me a moron. At least I'm not making up imaginary costs on the basis of my billion friends in the foreign service

All the ######y comments? I made one comment that you took offence to that was borderline at best a negative comment. You state that I am making up imaginary costs. I stated from the get go where my costs came from. In no way did I try to mislead anyone, yet you try to infer that I did. In fact, many of my numbers were correct and I provided multiple resources to back them up, not once did you acknowledge that fact or make a statement to retract your first post that I MADE UP the numbers.

As for the internet laugh, it was backed by a real one. I did think it was pretty funny that you rate your own debating skills so highly that you can honestly imagine someone running away in terror.

It seems that you ike to try and make assumptions on what people are really thinking. Can you please show me where I even came close to protraying myself as some debate champion that knowone can dare challange. I didn't, I simple questioned why you wouldn't respond to the multiple posts myself and others made that contradicted your statements. Yes, you did respond to some people, but you never responded to the posts regarding your false or inacurate statements.

To bone up on your "skilz" you might look up the following logical fallacies which I've noticed that you are more than commonly prone to:
1. The appeal to authority fallacy (hilariously, sometimes the authority to which you appeal is your own!).
2. The ad hominem fallacy.
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
4. The fallacy of accident.

Wow. Instead of actually debating the points, you try and muttle the waters with meaningless fluff trying to make it appear that you are some great academic. Talk about calling the kettle black.

1. The ad hominem fallacy. - was it not you that attacked the idea because of the person who it came from, Mr. Jason Kenny? Was it not you that attacked my numbers just because I was the one who provided them?
2. The ad ignorantiam
3. The ad misericordiam
4. The ad nauseam

Among others. Lets not try and blow a bunch of fancy words around because it is not helpful. Just debate the issues, which quite frankly, you have not. You don't address any of the facts, only what you think will happen and how Canada should behave internationally.

In addition, your post above confirms what I suspected all along--that you lack anything like a sense of humour about yourself, which is actually the biggest problem of all. This is after all just internets--there's no reason to go around implying that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, or pretending that somehow only you have access to truth, and we'd all just better listen or the world will come crashing down. Your worldview is just as imperfect as mine--and until you realize that, any debate with you will be a waste of my time and yours.

Wow, just wow. Again, you suggest that I have been calling people idiots, yet not once have a said that. You suggest that I potray myself as some all knowing being who simple states something and expects all to believe. I guess all the links and stats I provided mean nothing. Also, regardless if you like it or not, I do have some experience with this, and just because you don't like that, doesn't mean my experiences and knowledge are meaningless and worthless.

We most certainly have different world views because of the lives we have led, but not once did I say everyone must agree with me or else. In fact, some of the people that actually debated the issue brought up good alternatives that I agreed with.

As for this particular debate--a perfect example of why discussing this with you is pointless is found in your post above this one. You clearly think that the only way to disagree with you is to "ignore the facts"--when in fact, we're both looking at the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions--meaning that we are interpreting them differently. I was a bit puzzled, until I realized the error that you made: you think your arguments are facts!!! The trouble is, they're not. You're as imperfect as everyone else. Your arguments are just arguments, and people can disagree with them without being idiots.

Again the idiot comment. You were not looking at the facts. You mis quoted the facts. The fact is there are almost 10,000 ref claimants from mexico last year yet you try and say that there are only 5500, even after I corrected you in the fact that there were 5500 determinations, not claimants. Please see my other posts to show where you mis-interpreted the other facts or just ignored them.

For now, my suggestion is that we agree to disagree. You will obviously never be convinced that this is anything other than a fantastic idea. You claim that I "care a lot" about this issue, when I've made it clear repeatedly that I don't particularly care whether one nation or another needs a visa to come to Canada.

Well you do care about the issue, you may not care about one nation needing a VISA or not, they are two seperate issues.

What I care about is our nation's reputation abroad and our relations with other countries--and my belief is that this trumps any minor social problems associated with a few thousand refugee claims that could perhaps be addressed another way. You disagree--and that's fine. That doesn't (you won't be surprised to learn) make you an idiot--it just means that you interpret these things differently than I do.

And again, the idiot comment. If you read my posts you would realize that I agreed with you that there needs to be real and substantial change to the refugee system.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Jolinar, if I'm being completely honest I'm just not very interested in a discussion with you. It's not that I don't care about the facts that you are presenting. I'm just frankly bored by the way every post is about bluster for you. It's just not very interesting to discuss issues with people who think every argument is about being right and scoring points. So if I don't respond to you any more, I hope you won't take it personally. If you're wondering why I'm not responding to things you say, it's because I'm not reading your posts at all. In any case, further hijacking of the thread for this vendetta that you apparently think we have would be very silly.

EDIT: I just want to clarify that I'm not pretending to be an angel here. To the extent that I've participated in points scoring and bluster myself, I regret that. I just think it's time it stopped and we got on with a productive discussion. If you're interested in doing that, I'm fine with that too--but I'm not going to play the "I'm right on the internet game." I'm getting a little too old for that sort of nonsense.

[OilersBaby]

Didnt read the whole thread so dont know if its been said already, but the US needs to adopt this same requirement! Im all about immigration but I have issues with this in California!

[HOZ]

Sorry,

This is a systematic problem that needs to be solved and this VISA solution is a bandaid/ temporary solution.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Some very impressive math--except for two things:

1. By your own admission, you made all the numbers up.
2. It's not 10,000. It's 5500. Weren't you accusing me of not reading the numbers a while ago? Apparently you're the one who didn't read them. So, even if your numbers are correct (And they look pretty outlandish to me...) go ahead and cut them in half.
3. All the ######y comments like "what is with you?" are pretty unhelpful. I don't agree with you--it doesn't make me a moron. At least I'm not making up imaginary costs on the basis of my billion friends in the foreign service.
4. Have you met Jason Kenney? Let's just say this: Kenney's lucky Rob Anders is in the same caucus with him--it means he can be guaranteed that at all caucus meetings there will be a dumber person in the room.
5. If you don't think adding a visa requirement for a nation that didn't have one before (keeping in mind that this will apply not only to asylum seekers but all travelers with Mexican citizenship) adds a layer of bureaucracy, then you have no idea how government works. There's a very simple principle that you should keep in mind: programs with simple, universal application cost very little money. Programs that identify and target subgroups, or apply rules unevenly on the basis of complex regulations are generally very expensive.

Sorry to bring back old wounds but I just thought that I would post this.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...28?hub=QPeriod

This is telling me that Canada, with the highest number of asylum claims in the developed world, has become a destination of choice for false refugee claimants and it's simply burdening the system," Kenney said. "Each one of those claims can cost us as much as $50,000 and four-and-a-half years before they even exhaust all of the appeals under the current, totally dysfunctional system."

Since you were the one that didn't believe the numbers I was throwing around. I was in the ball park.

Anyhow, carry on.