PDA

View Full Version : Screening of Refugees & Immigrants to the USA



Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 08:47 AM
What vetting, verification, screening and security checks will be in place to ensure that the USA (IE the States) would not be admitting refugees, immigrants and other 'people' that would be a danger to State and National Security?

- Where will they be held pending screening etc?

Or is it to be an open door acceptance with no checks?

Norman Bernstein
11-17-2015, 08:48 AM
Or is it to be an open door acceptance with no checks?


Why did you even say that? You KNOW that isn't even remotely true....

Paul Pless
11-17-2015, 08:57 AM
Of anybody entering the United States through legal means, refugee asylum seekers receive the most scrutiny - more than tourists, more than business travelers. The Syrian refugees that are coming in the next few weeks have been waiting two years to enter the United States. Eighty percent of them are women and children.

Ian McColgin
11-17-2015, 08:57 AM
Stupid. All that energy wasted screening is a brilliant way to make Daesh's current terror tactics work better. The refugees work too hard to get someplace else. The handy recruitment pool for terrorists against the US and Europe is the piles of disaffected, alienated, excluded youth. Like every one of the Paris killers. All French and Belgian. There are some thousands of youth from Europe who have gone to the Middle East out of psychopathic idealism and some of those may come back to kill, but they won't look like refugees. They already have working passports. But most of those would-be warriors cannot get to the Middle East. They can be mobilized via the internet to be random DIY terrorists for whom Daesh can then take credit.

Energy spent in racist screening is like invading Iraq - it's a solution to a different non-problem and a deliberate attempt to undermine our society. It's really playing out the Daesh script and, yes, it appears we are going to be that suicidally stupid.

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 09:05 AM
Stupid. All that energy wasted screening is a brilliant way to make Daesh's current terror tactics work better. The refugees work too hard to get someplace else. The handy recruitment pool for terrorists against the US and Europe is the piles of disaffected, alienated, excluded youth. Like every one of the Paris killers. All French and Belgian. There are some thousands of youth from Europe who have gone to the Middle East out of psychopathic idealism and some of those may come back to kill, but they won't look like refugees. They already have working passports. But most of those would-be warriors cannot get to the Middle East. They can be mobilized via the internet to be random DIY terrorists for whom Daesh can then take credit.

Energy spent in racist screening is like invading Iraq - it's a solution to a different non-problem and a deliberate attempt to undermine our society. It's really playing out the Daesh script and, yes, it appears we are going to be that suicidally stupid.


Why do you refer to 'racist' screening? Surely all potentials would be screened rather on the basis of their race etc.

delecta
11-17-2015, 09:06 AM
Daesh

Why do you use that term as you well know they don't like it?

"The acronym/word was used by ISIS for a certain period of time but is now banned by ISIS, which has threatened to cut the tongue out of people who use the word."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/what_is_daesh_and_what_does_it.html

Better be careful, hard to taste scotch with no tongue. :d

Paul Pless
11-17-2015, 09:08 AM
Better be careful, hard to taste scotch with no tongue. :dnot being able to taste it might improve the experience

delecta
11-17-2015, 09:12 AM
not being able to taste it might improve the experience

Just mix it with milk hehe.

Keith Wilson
11-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Energy spent in racist screening . . . Oy. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif In this case 'racist' is being used as simply an all-purpose insult. There may be bigotry and prejudice involved, but in this case it's cultural and religious, not racist, although it may be just as stupid. Nobody cares what color skin the Syrian refugees have. I'm getting very tired of the tendency on the left toward '60s nostalgia, viewing everything through the lens of the US civil rights movement

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 09:59 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4711645#post4711645)


- Where will they be held pending screening etc?St.Kitts

If the last administration was still in Government I would not be surprised in the slightest. :ycool:

Paul Pless
11-17-2015, 10:02 AM
If the last administration was still in Government I would not be surprised in the slightest. :ycool:are you referring to Bush or Edmund Lawrence?

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 10:09 AM
are you referring to Bush or Edmund Lawrence?Neither, Dr Denzil Douglas and the Labour Party Administration.

Ian McColgin
11-17-2015, 10:17 AM
I agree with the French, with Secretary of State Kerry and with President Obama that Daesh have earned their self-imposed and later (like "Teabagger") rejected when they found they had been a bit clueless in selecting it. Besides, Daesh is much more polite than any other terms I might have.

I am certainly aware that the main difference between Daesh killings of non-combatants and our drone and bomb killings is that we at least claim there's legitimate target and the non-combatants are "colateral damage." For Daesh, non-combatants (many more in Turkey and Lebanon last week than in Paris, by the way and where's the outrage) are the targets.

Perhaps ours is the greater sin because we have higher ideals and we have the ability to do right. But for now, the insult stands.

Keith Wilson
11-17-2015, 10:32 AM
Perhaps ours is the greater sin because we have higher ideals and we have the ability to do right.Eh? The bigotry of low expectations?

I'd call them a lot worse than 'Daesh', but it takes too long to type.

Ian McColgin
11-17-2015, 10:58 AM
You're right Keith. In expecting more from our pluralistic society I do show some disdain for societies that deny rights to women and children, that seek a theocracy, that strive for ideological purity.

Dumah
11-17-2015, 12:20 PM
I believe our retired General, Rick Hillier (sic) had the better idea. Charter passenger vessels to move the refugees here rather than flying in order to buy time to "vet" the claims on an individual basis. This is twofold, in that one has two weeks to check and verify as well as containing any "undesirables" in a contained atmosphere. I strongly suggest the majority of these refugees are genuine but I also feel caution is warranted. Would this not be a reasonable compromise?

Dumah

slug
11-17-2015, 12:38 PM
What vetting, verification, screening and security checks will be in place to ensure that the USA (IE the States) would not be admitting refugees, immigrants and other 'people' that would be a danger to State and National Security?

- Where will they be held pending screening etc?

Or is it to be an open door acceptance with no checks?




My mom used to work in refugee camps, SE asia. For an immigrant or asylum seeker to qualify the sceening was intense.

90 percent of applicants were not who they said they were and were rejected.

Back round checks were long and extensive.

Without bonifide references from a third party the immigrant would be rejected.

I can only assume that the same system is used.

If this is true the immigrants will have been screened using best practise and they are authentic.

LeeG
11-17-2015, 12:49 PM
Why did you even say that? You KNOW that isn't even remotely true....

Recreational trolling, he's just having fun.

slug
11-17-2015, 12:55 PM
Why do you use that term as you well know they don't like it?

"The acronym/word was used by ISIS for a certain period of time but is now banned by ISIS, which has threatened to cut the tongue out of people who use the word."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/what_is_daesh_and_what_does_it.html

Better be careful, hard to taste scotch with no tongue. :d


The liberal media likes the term deash because Islamic is scrubbed. They want you to believe that the radicals are not real Muslims .

Be carefull.

never trust a liberal.

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 01:02 PM
Why did you even say that? You KNOW that isn't even remotely true.... It was put as a third (way out) option.
Who knows with the current administration what will happen. Nobody has declared that it will or will not be.

Guess you don't know the answer to the first two? :rolleyes:

Captain Intrepid
11-17-2015, 01:12 PM
What vetting, verification, screening and security checks will be in place to ensure that the USA (IE the States) would not be admitting refugees, immigrants and other 'people' that would be a danger to State and National Security?

- Where will they be held pending screening etc?

Or is it to be an open door acceptance with no checks?



As I understand it, the refugees are asked "Are you a terrorist?"

If they answer no, they're handed an American flag pin, a yellow magnetic ribbon, an extra large pepperoni pizza, and an AR-15.

LeeG
11-17-2015, 01:27 PM
The liberal media likes the term deash because Islamic is scrubbed. They want you to believe that the radicals are not real Muslims .

Be carefull.

never trust a liberal.

Seriously stupid comment attempting to define the world according to US partisan politics.


It's a term started by Syrian fighters to ridicule and delegitimize IS.

https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

And so if the word is basically 'ISIS', but in Arabic, why are the people it describes in such a fury about it? Because they hear it, quite rightly, as a challenge to their legitimacy: a dismissal of their aspirations to define Islamic practice, to be 'a state for all Muslims’ and – crucially – as a refusal to acknowledge and address them as such. They want to be addressed as exactly what they claim to be, by people so in awe of them that they use the pompous, long and delusional name created by the group, not some funny-sounding made-up word. And here is the very simple key point that has been overlooked in all the anglophone press coverage I’ve seen: in Arabic, acronyms are not anything like as widely used as they are in English, and so arabophones are not as used to hearing them as anglophones are. Thus, the creation and use of a title that stands out as a nonsense neologism for an organisation like this one is inherently funny, disrespectful, and ultimately threatening of the organisation’s status. Khaled al-Haj Salih, the Syrian activist who coined the term back in 2013, says that initially even many of his fellow activists, resisting Daesh alongside him, were shocked by the idea of an Arabic acronym, and he had to justify it to them by referencing the tradition of acronyms being used as names by Palestinian organisations (such as Fatah). So saturated in acronyms are we in English that we struggle to imagine this, but it’s true.

BrianY
11-17-2015, 01:31 PM
The liberal media likes the term deash because Islamic is scrubbed. They want you to believe that the radicals are not real Muslims .

Be carefull.

never trust a liberal.

You are, as usual, totally wrong.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/123909/world-leaders-have-taken-to-calling-isis-daesh-a-word-the-islamic-state-hates



World leaders have taken to calling ISIS “Daesh,” a word the Islamic State hates.Since the attacks in Paris, both John Kerry (http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/10/248677.htm) and François Hollande (http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-attacks-were-an-act-of-war-by-islamic-state-french-president-francois-hollande-says-1447498080?alg=y) have used it. The Kurdish militants battling ISIS in Iraq already use the term regularly, though they risk losing their tongues by uttering it.



Daesh is an acronym. It stands for the Arabic name of the Islamic State: al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. When Jen Percy, a New Republic contributor, went to northern Iraq this year, the Assyrian Christians waging a war against ISIS were calling ISIS troops “Daesh.” In her article for our September issue (https://newrepublic.com/article/122439/war-garden-eden), she called it “a pejorative term for ISIS in Arabic.”


Zeba Khan, writing for the Boston Globe (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html), has explained why “Daesh” could be read as an insult: “Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from ‘to trample down and crush’ to ‘a bigot who imposes his view on others.’”


In light of its more unsavory connotations, ISIS leaders threatened last June “to cut the tongue of anyone who publicly used the acronym Daesh, instead of referring to the group by its full name,” according to the Associated Press (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4570385,00.html).

"Daesh" is an insult, a taunt, a sign of disrespect, a verbal raised middle finger to ISIS. If the "liberal media" has taken to using it, it's NOT because they're trying to disassociate ISIS from Islam. It's a small way of voicing defiance and contempt to ISIS. As such, it makes me wonder why the conservative media aren't using the term.

Keith Wilson
11-17-2015, 01:31 PM
The level of nonsense is getting pretty extreme today. Facts: Here's an article in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21674694-america-should-reclaim-its-role-beacon-those-fleeing-persecution-and-war-yearning?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fyearningto breathefree) detailing exactly how refugees and asylum-seekers are screened. Of all the choices, it's probably the most difficult way to get into the US. The US has taken in 750,000 refugees since 9-11-01. Exactly TWO have been charged with terrorism, and that was for trying to send arms to a group in Iraq. That's 0.00027%

An excerpt:


Refugees apply for resettlement at American embassies or through the United Nations. If they pass that first hurdle, they are screened by outposts of the Department of State all over the world. They undergo investigations of their biography and identity; FBI biometric checks of their fingerprints and photographs; in-person interviews by Department of Homeland Security officers; medical screenings as well as investigations by the National Counter-terrorism Centre and by American and international intelligence agencies. The process may take as long as three years, sometimes longer. No other person entering America is subjected to such a level of scrutiny.

Refugee resettlement is the least likely route for potential terrorists, says Kathleen Newland at the Migration Policy Institute, a think-tank. Of the 745,000 refugees resettled since September 11th, only two Iraqis in Kentucky have been arrested on terrorist charges, for aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Asylum-seekers have to navigate through a similar bureaucratic tangle. The decision to grant asylum is made by a Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer. If that officer finds that the applicant did not make his case convincingly, he receives a “Notice of Intent to Deny” (NOID) as long as his immigration status as, say, a tourist or student is still valid. He is then allowed to submit further evidence to bolster his case, though such decisions are rarely reversed. If the applicant’s immigration status is no longer valid, he is placed in deportation proceedings before an immigration court. The applicant then has a second chance to make his case in court while a government lawyer argues that he should be deported. In March this year, USCIS had 82,175 asylum cases pending. Last year each immigration judge handled, on average, 1,500 cases a year, double or even triple the caseload of other judges.

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 01:34 PM
As I understand it, the refugees are asked "Are you a terrorist?"

If they answer no, they're handed an American flag pin, a yellow magnetic ribbon, an extra large pepperoni pizza, and an AR-15. Just a gentle suggestion, mind you, but you might want to check your sources.

Norman Bernstein
11-17-2015, 01:36 PM
Who knows with the current administration what will happen. Nobody has declared that it will or will not be.


Immigrants have always been screened, to a great degree, and are now being screened even more intensively. Suggesting that the administration is not screening is just plain ignorant... or intentionally defamatory... take your pick.

See post #29 for the details, and stop trying to intimate things which any thinking person knows are simply not true.

paulf
11-17-2015, 01:41 PM
That play all the Churches put on every Christmas?

It's about a middle Eastern couple seeking shelter and refuge.

paulf
11-17-2015, 01:43 PM
I did some checking, not one of the terrorists were refugees, they were all Europeans.

paulf
11-17-2015, 01:44 PM
Obama thinks Ron is #1

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 01:50 PM
Immigrants have always been screened, to a great degree, and are now being screened even more intensively. Suggesting that the administration is not screening is just plain ignorant... or intentionally defamatory... take your pick.

See post #29 for the details, and stop trying to intimate things which any thinking person knows are simply not true.

I refer you to the OP which I posted to discuss what extent of screening would be put in place. Suggest one rereads it.

Then in Post #4 Ian McColgin states that screening is stupid "Stupid. All that energy wasted screening is a brilliant way to make Daesh's current terror tactics work better."
and then digresses to "racist screening".

In Post #25 Captain Intrepid give his understanding on the extent of screening.

In post #29 Keith Wilson points out how refugees apply for resettlement at American Embassies or through the United Nations.

None of the above addresses the current huge volume of people (refugees/immigtants/etc) moving across borders in to European countries - in dire need of accommodation now, not in 3 years time - which gives rise to my question in the OP -Where will they be held pending screening etc?

BrianW
11-17-2015, 02:08 PM
You do have a point, that the huge crowds of refugees tracing across eastern Europe certainly have not been screened to the standards Keith outlined.

Quite frankly, it's a great question and one the Obama Administration should be answering proactively in order to defuse resistance to taking in new refugees.

slug
11-17-2015, 02:14 PM
I refer you to the OP which I posted to discuss what extent of screening would be put in place. Suggest one rereads it.

Then in Post #4 Ian McColgin states that screening is stupid "Stupid. All that energy wasted screening is a brilliant way to make Daesh's current terror tactics work better."
and then digresses to "racist screening".

In Post #25 Captain Intrepid give his understanding on the extent of screening.

In post #29 Keith Wilson points out how refugees apply for resettlement at American Embassies or through the United Nations.

None of the above addresses the current huge volume of people (refugees/immigtants/etc) moving across borders in to European countries - in dire need of accommodation now, not in 3 years time - which gives rise to my question in the OP -Where will they be held pending screening etc?






Its a mess. There is now no good solution.

hopefully all the migrants will be rounded up then placed in refugee camps. Once in these camps European screeners will take over, identfy the immigrants , then make recomendations on which immigrants to resettle and which immigrants to send home. This will be a long painful process.

TomF
11-17-2015, 02:17 PM
You do have a point, that the huge crowds of refugees tracing across eastern Europe certainly have not been screened to the standards Keith outlined.

Quite frankly, it's a great question and one the Obama Administration should be answering proactively in order to defuse resistance to taking in new refugees.Agreed. From what little we have heard so far, Canada's approach under the new Government is to focus on refugees presently in camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, doing the screening there. It also sounds like our Government's focus will be on women and children, both because they're more vulnerable and because they're considered less likely to pose the same security threat as, for instance, unattached young men.

That focus is part of how our new guys are hoping to make good on their commitment to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of December.

slug
11-17-2015, 02:26 PM
Agreed. From what little we have heard so far, Canada's approach under the new Government is to focus on refugees presently in camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, doing the screening there. It also sounds like our Government's focus will be on women and children, both because they're more vulnerable and because they're considered less likely to pose the same security threat as, for instance, unattached young men.

That focus is part of how our new guys are hoping to make good on their commitment to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of December.

women and children ?

Bad news.

Your governments and its screeners only job is to determin which immigrants will rapidly assimilate and contribute to Canadian society.

Ian McColgin
11-17-2015, 02:48 PM
I take seriously Keith's point that the term 'racism' can be slung a bit casually [#13] and that I may at times do just that. I also take more seriously, especially after hearing people shout "towel head" that one can parse distinctions between prejudice against a national origin or a religion and racism as an evasion of the racist content - always remembering that "race is a genetic fiction and "racism" is a profound emotional self-deception. The following linked article is far from perfect but the point is significant. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/antisemitism-is-racism-malky-mackay-david-whelan-mario-balotelli

TomF
11-17-2015, 03:35 PM
women and children ?

Bad news.

Your governments and its screeners only job is to determin which immigrants will rapidly assimilate and contribute to Canadian society.I heartily disagree. My government's job is to fulfill a campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of December. Along with the "niqab" issue, this was a pivotal piece of the election campaign this Fall, which crystallized into a clear choice between two visions of Canada.

Voters decisively chose to return to Canada's traditional policy lenses which calculate our own economic and strategic interest, but periodically over-ride them when compassion demands. We would like to define ourselves as much by Prime Minister Pearson's Nobel prize for "inventing" peace-keeping as by the battle of Vimy. For how we imagine we welcomed "the boat people" of my youth, and for the fact that our top bureaucrats once helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These views were common to the whole spectrum of Canadian public life for most of the 20th Century, for all that nobody only wore white hats.

Most voters felt sick that for a decade, Canada consistently (and sometimes it seemed, vandalously) went the opposite direction. In this election, voters were unambiguous about the part of our nature we want to priorize again. The new Government hasn't got the wiggle-room to not try to express those values, even if ultimately it can't get 25,000 refugees here before New Year's.

Virgin Gal
11-17-2015, 03:49 PM
What vetting, verification, screening and security checks will be in place to ensure that the USA (IE the States) would not be admitting refugees, immigrants and other 'people' that would be a danger to State and National Security?

- Where will they be held pending screening etc?

Or is it to be an open door acceptance with no checks?



They let you, who constantly criticize, and denigrate the country, in to visit your wife in the hospital... I guess there's no real rhyme or reason who they let in. Unless there might be that little compassion for those suffering huddled masses yearning for freedom (or decent, if expensive medical care).

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 04:03 PM
They let you, who constantly criticize, and denigrate the country, in to visit your wife in the hospital... I guess there's no real rhyme or reason who they let in. Unless there might be that little compassion for those suffering huddled masses yearning for freedom (or decent, if expensive medical care).
We had to submit information and obtain permission.
You may or may not have heard of ESTA - an automated system that determines the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP).
Both my wife and I met the criteria for that temporary visit. If we had not we would not have ben allowed to go.
We were not, and are not, persons claiming refugee or immigrant status.
I don't have Obamacare or Medicare, so didn't receive anything for free, there was little compassion their either.
:p

The topic is not on 'temporary visit' by an approved individual, but is in regard to those wanting a permanent move.

delecta
11-17-2015, 04:03 PM
They let you, who constantly criticize, and denigrate the country

Doesn't that sum up most of the posters here?

Reynard38
11-17-2015, 04:10 PM
As I understand it, the refugees are asked "Are you a terrorist?"

If they answer no, they're handed an American flag pin, a yellow magnetic ribbon, an extra large pepperoni pizza, and an AR-15.

you forgot the Bud Light and Toby Keith CD.

Keith Wilson
11-17-2015, 04:15 PM
The topic is not on 'temporary visit' by an approved individual . . . But if someone wants to do harm, temporary works every bit as well. Getting in is the only thing that counts. Applying for asylum is one of the most difficult ways to get into the US. Its only real advantage is that you get to stay, which doesn't matter to a would-be terrorist.

And one more time - 750,000 refugees since 2001. TWO charged with terrorism, or 0.00027%

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 04:24 PM
But if someone wants to do harm, temporary works every bit as well. Getting in is the only thing that counts. Applying for asylum is one of the most difficult ways to get into the US. Its only real advantage is that you get to stay, which doesn't matter to a would-be terrorist.

And one more time - 750,000 refugees since 2001. TWO charged with terrorism, or 0.00027%
One does not have to be an 'approved temporary visitor' to do harm. One can be an illegal immigrant, and it would appear that the Mexico/USA border is virtually w-i-d-e open. That is with a separate thread.

Which is why I tried to redirect the discussion back on topic namely :Screening of Refugees & Immigrants to the USA in regard to those wanting a permanent move.

Chris Smith porter maine
11-17-2015, 06:08 PM
Think we should be more worried about screening folks from Nevis-St Kits than Syria, seems anyone can purchase a passport
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-St-Kitts-Nevis-economic-citizen-split-$22.5-million-corruption-payout-21504.html

Rum_Pirate
11-17-2015, 06:32 PM
Think we should be more worried about screening folks from Nevis-St Kits than Syria, seems anyone can purchase a passport
http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-St-Kitts-Nevis-economic-citizen-split-$22.5-million-corruption-payout-21504.html

Erm a bit dated although still apt.

I agree that the screening was suspect, or even probably circumvented in some cases.
However that was under the last Dr Denzil Douglas Government administration, who were ousted in February this year and his and their 'actions' are being investigated.

The present Government administration is currently working with Canada and the USA to set and ensure that standards are upheld.

Have a read here http://oecsbusinessfocus.com/citizenship-by-investment-the-case-of-st-kitts-and-nevis/

(
BY OECSBF (http://oecsbusinessfocus.com/author/oecsbf/)

ST KITTS & NEVIS (http://oecsbusinessfocus.com/category/st-kitts-nevis/)
JULY 24, 2015) :

"the applicants must be subject to due diligence investigations that are carried out by international due diligence providers"

Now you understand my interest in establishing standards etc.



PS Dr. Porter was 59 when he died in a Panamanian hospital on June 30 2015.

BTW Porter was born in Sierra Leone and he is said to have both Canadian and American citizenship, as well as a St Kitts and Nevis passport.

Ian McColgin
11-17-2015, 11:15 PM
Chris has a fair point. It's what already happens to too many Native American, Black, Latino Middle Eastern, and too many other Americans. The way to deal with it is to teach our families and our neighbors what it is to be an American. the way to not deal with it, the way to make things worse, is to deny refuge because the way is challenging.

slug
11-17-2015, 11:16 PM
I heartily disagree. My government's job is to fulfill a campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of December. Along with the "niqab" issue, this was a pivotal piece of the election campaign this Fall, which crystallized into a clear choice between two visions of Canada.

Voters decisively chose to return to Canada's traditional policy lenses which calculate our own economic and strategic interest, but periodically over-ride them when compassion demands. We would like to define ourselves as much by Prime Minister Pearson's Nobel prize for "inventing" peace-keeping as by the battle of Vimy. For how we imagine we welcomed "the boat people" of my youth, and for the fact that our top bureaucrats once helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These views were common to the whole spectrum of Canadian public life for most of the 20th Century, for all that nobody only wore white hats.

Most voters felt sick that for a decade, Canada consistently (and sometimes it seemed, vandalously) went the opposite direction. In this election, voters were unambiguous about the part of our nature we want to priorize again. The new Government hasn't got the wiggle-room to not try to express those values, even if ultimately it can't get 25,000 refugees here before New Year's.


Sounds like opportunistic politicians looking for votes from knee jerk liberals who cant think straight. The whole Syrian immigrant issue is misguided. Millions and millions of people in the world face stavation or persecution .

are these people worth less than a Syrian ? Do you have some kinda problem with Asian or African immigrants ? What about the million Ukrainians ? You dont like them ? Perhaps they are not the liberal flavour of the month

Keith Wilson
11-18-2015, 08:02 AM
Are these people worth less than a Syrian ? Silly. As I've pointed out, the US government has long, tedious, and bureaucratic procedures for screening and admitting refugees and asylum seekers. These are applied equally to all refugees, according to the law. It is not liberals that have made a stink about Syrian refugees, but conservatives. The US right is currently in one of its periodic spasms of xenophobia, encouraged by opportunistic politicians, particularly one with Very Bad Hair.

PhaseLockedLoop
11-18-2015, 10:25 AM
Oy. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif In this case 'racist' is being used as simply an all-purpose insult. There may be bigotry and prejudice involved, but in this case it's cultural and religious, not racist, although it may be just as stupid. Nobody cares what color skin the Syrian refugees have. I'm getting very tired of the tendency on the left toward '60s nostalgia, viewing everything through the lens of the US civil rights movement

UN definition of racism:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[23]

TomF
11-18-2015, 11:05 AM
Sounds like opportunistic politicians looking for votes from knee jerk liberals who cant think straight. The whole Syrian immigrant issue is misguided. Millions and millions of people in the world face stavation or persecution .

are these people worth less than a Syrian ? Do you have some kinda problem with Asian or African immigrants ? What about the million Ukrainians ? You dont like them ? Perhaps they are not the liberal flavour of the monthSounds like you don't understand Canada.

Our election was about which of 2 competing sets of values Canadians want to ground our policy choices at home and abroad. The refugee issue, like the niqab, long form census, role of the civil service, approach to the environment, and approach to infrastructure spending and taxation ... was the vehicle to express those values. The 25,000 person platform commitment was about accountability - about making good on the values you claim to hold.

Competing on "values" is a pretty new thing in our Federal politics - didn't really become a viable option before angry Western right wingers blew apart the old Progressive Conservative party, and adopted much more contemporary Republican approaches. When Harper re-united the Right, he brought that Republican flavour with him.

Canada tried it on - the Liberal Party had become corrupt. But Harper's more "hardball" values never felt authentic for most Canadians, leading to the strategic voting which turfed him from power. I think that the Conservatives' route back into Government is to revert to their values orientation of 30 years ago, and end the flirtation with neo-con and later Rightisms.

LeeG
11-18-2015, 11:56 AM
I did some checking, not one of the terrorists were refugees, they were all Europeans.

This bit of reality, like conflating nukes with old artillery shells so that WMD can be nearly anything, is easily ignored when people just can't manage to use the grey matter.

This blog article explains some of the changing territory for identifying terrorists.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/11/writing-on-the-wall-the-significance-of-recent-trends-and-patterns-in-jihadi-terrorism.html

Some people cry "racial discrimination" and "ethnic profiling" when they hear targeted surveillance and increased monitoring of certain groups, facilities or web sites. The truth though is that about 30 % of the individuals on the continent's terror watch lists have a fully European (Caucasian) and often domestic background. Another 30 % is made up of European nationals having an immigration background that has nothing to do with the Middle-East or North-Africa. These are mostly second generation immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, but also from the Caribbean or South America, who have been won over by radical Islam through years of indoctrination in desolate suburbs that are now strongholds of Salafi beliefs, or during a prison stay in which they chose to join the most powerful "brotherhood" in European jails, the Islamic radicals. Only 40 % approximately of security risks – depending on the country – have a Middle-Eastern, North African or Asian background.
....
The truth is – sadly for law enforcement – there is no simple profile for singling out dangerous individuals. This is a development that has not made it into the general public's awareness, but anybody sitting on a train and worrying about that suspicious looking Middle-Eastern guy might as well have a good look at the pretty blonde two rows behind him or the neat looking Italian guy in his suit and tie … This simple fact is not a message intended at spreading fear and paranoia. Quite the opposite, when the terrorist could be anybody, it might as well be nobody and there's no reason to single out members of an ethnic or religious group, based on some vague assumptions.