[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Is this a more appropriate response?  You be the judge.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2674906104/

It's a good speech.  His naive voters will be easily convinced and those who can't even name the party in power will think these ideas make sense.  Others, less naive people, will remember what Muclair said about the crisis in the middle-east: "Not our problem".

And then, for those who are really not naive and have a superior intelligence that pushes them to question everything leftist politician says, they will dig out info about Turkey's refugees.  They live in camps with worst conditions than Palestinian refugees, tensions run high with the locals, violence is endemic.  Is that really what Mulcair wants for Canada?  Refugee camps in Halifax and Gaspé?  Misery all accross the board as we lack resources to properly integrate these people in our economy?

Harper has the best plan to solve the problem: defeat ISIS.  Canada has already taken in a lot of refugees and we are doing everything we can.  Refugees requires resurces, lots of them. Vietnamese boat people totalled a little under a million.  There's much more Syrian refugees than this, and it's only Syria.

If we don't find a way to fight ISIS, then there are 17 million Syrians to relocate, 33 million Irakis and many people from the neighbouring countries to relocate as the war expands.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure I follow your logic.  There are poorly run refugee camps in Turkey and therefore if Canada allows more refugees to come we will have poorly run refugee camps here?  I think not.  If one looks at our track record of accepting refugees on an emergency basis we have done very well.  Think about how the Vietnam boatpeople were taken in during the late 70s and the Asian population in Uganda when they were expelled from that country.  I am not sure why we can't/won't do the same thing now.

And frankly, if that is really the only answer the Conservatives have that would be problematic for them in this election.

[viper37]

I am not sure I follow your logic.  There are poorly run refugee camps in Turkey and therefore if Canada allows more refugees to come we will have poorly run refugee camps here?  I think not.  If one looks at our track record of accepting refugees on an emergency basis we have done very well.  Think about how the Vietnam boatpeople were taken in during the late 70s and the Asian population in Uganda when they were expelled from that country.  I am not sure why we can't/won't do the same thing now.

And frankly, if that is really the only answer the Conservatives have that would be problematic for them in this election.

There's a limit to how many refugees a country can process, otherwise, they end up in camps, like the refugees in Turkey.
Wether you call it camp or ghetto, it's the same.

We need to process these people, evaluate their status, why are they asking for refuge here:
- Are they former Syrian agents who fear retribution?
- Are they terrorist trying to infiltrate our countries?
- Are they criminals who feel persecution for whatever reasons?
- Are they legitimate refugees?

And then we need to find them lodging & food.  And we need to assess their abilities with the languages of the land, english&french, depending on where they are settled.  A Syrian refugee speaking Arab&French in downtown Toronto has limited chances of finding work, even if he was a doctor in his country.  A Syrian refuguee speaking Arab&English in Gaspé has zero chances of finding work in an area plagued with 20%+ unemployement rate.
Once we know their fluency in any of our language, we can evaluate their education and help them overcome administrative hurdles, if any, to find work.  If they don't speak our languages, we can teach them, but we require resources, on top of their basic needs.
The children need to be assessed for school, see where they can fit.
We will need to extend social benefits to them for a while, for as long as we need to until we can settle them properly.

I'm all for welcoming refugees, heck, I'd even hire some if I could, but that would be impossible, even if they are the best Syrian construction worker who speak a perfect French.  Union rules being as they are, and having already tried with a Cuban immigrant, that's just impossible, unless he retrain at a professional high school.

What I'm saying is massively granting asylum to boatloads of people requires resources we simply don't have.  Human & financial resources.  If we hire more bureaucrats now to process them faster, we will need to keep these people on the payroll for the next 40 years and pay their pension plan.

We have granted asylum to over 21 000 Irakis between 2009 and 2014, that's a lot of people.  Just for one country.  There is immigration from many other countries too, many places in the world are at war.
To make a real difference, we'd need to accept 200 000 refugees per year.  200 000 people unable to find work, every year, for as long as there are conflicts.  200 000 out of 16 million+ refugees worldwide.

That's just too much, realistically speaking.

Think about how the Vietnam boatpeople were taken in during the late 70s and the Asian population in Uganda when they were expelled from that country.  I am not sure why we can't/won't do the same thing now.

Numbers.  Vietnam boat people, that was 800 000 people in US&Canada over 20 years.  With Syria alone, we're talking that number right now.

[crazy canuck]

Actually we took the boat people arrived in their greatest numbers over a short period of time.  In the case of the Ugandan refugees, they had to be processed in under 40 days because of the limited time period they had before they were expelled from Uganda.

We have the ability to make this go faster.  I have not heard a good explanation from the government why measures have not been put in place to expedite the process for the very limited number the government has agreed to take. 

What I'm saying is massively granting asylum to boatloads of people requires resources we simply don't have.  Human & financial resources.  If we hire more bureaucrats now to process them faster, we will need to keep these people on the payroll for the next 40 years and pay their pension plan

The government has the ability to shift resources to meet a crisis and if they don't have enough resources they can hire term employees.

[Barrister]

In other news, the Wildrose Party won the by-election in Prentice's old seat.

NDP came in second, PCs 3rd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-foothills-byelection-results-1.3213354

[Josephus]

Is this a more appropriate response?  You be the judge.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2674906104/

Harper has the best plan to solve the problem: defeat ISIS.

Agree. There have never been refugees before ISIS and there never will be refugees again after. Makes perfect sense. Even though, I'm not even sure ISIS has anything to do with the majority of these Syrians refugees. There was a civil war there BEFORE ISIS, you know.

[crazy canuck]

In other news, the Wildrose Party won the by-election in Prentice's old seat.

NDP came in second, PCs 3rd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-foothills-byelection-results-1.3213354

I thought of you when I heard that news 

[Barrister]

In other news, the Wildrose Party won the by-election in Prentice's old seat.

NDP came in second, PCs 3rd.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-foothills-byelection-results-1.3213354

I thought of you when I heard that news 

You can't read too much into a by-election, but it's significant for WRP because it's their only seat in either Edmonton or Calgary.  And it shows that while Notley is still popular, the typical "honeymoon" period is already over. 

[viper37]

Actually we took the boat people arrived in their greatest numbers over a short period of time.  In the case of the Ugandan refugees, they had to be processed in under 40 days because of the limited time period they had before they were expelled from Uganda.

These were smaller numbers than what is required for Syria.

And in the case currently occupying our media, it turns out this family never formally applied for refugee status.

The government has the ability to shift resources to meet a crisis

I have yet to see that.  There have been numerous crisis with the indian population, the government has been unable to change anything.  There have been multiple environmental crisis and for the government to fix the, it usually requires that all other priorities be abandonned.  When there was a problem in Megantic in the lower Côte-Nord area, the Côte-Nord was left to itself while the government tried to solve the crisis in Lac Mégantic.  When we have the ice storm of 98, our government shifted its priorities to that.  Everything else was abandonned, everything else took the slow lane.

So, no, I do not believe a government, at present, can shift its priorities while remaining functional in other areas and still make a difference.  I have every confidence the government could shift its priority, but it would not make any effect.

and if they don't have enough resources they can hire term

And after less than 2 years, they become permanent.  No thanks.  Running huge deficits wasn't a problem in the 70s, it is now.

[Barrister]

Running huge deficits wasn't a problem in the 70s, it is now.

[crazy canuck]

Viper, 18000+ boat people were taken in.  We have taken in something like 1500 ME refugees in the past 2 years.  If we even matched the effort we made with the boat people that would be a huge improvement.

[viper37]

Is this a more appropriate response?  You be the judge.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2674906104/

Harper has the best plan to solve the problem: defeat ISIS.

Agree. There have never been refugees before ISIS and there never will be refugees again after. Makes perfect sense. Even though, I'm not even sure ISIS has anything to do with the majority of these Syrians refugees. There was a civil war there BEFORE ISIS, you know.

Good, let's just grand asylum to 50 million people for this year, we'll see next year how it goes

[viper37]

Viper, 18000+ boat people were taken in.  We have taken in something like 1500 ME refugees in the past 2 years.  If we even matched the effort we made with the boat people that would be a huge improvement.

We're talking 23 000 Iraquis so far, 10 000 more Syrians to come, people from East Asia, South America, more Iraquis, plus regular immigration.
There are about 26 million refugees worldwide.

Let's say we wave a magic wand, à la NDP, and we triple our quotas for this year.  Instead of 30 000 people over the next 3 years, we grand asylum to 30 000 people before december 2015.  That's not even really helping with the situation, but let's say we do it, for the sake of feeling good.  If we were to help them, we'd need to grant asylum to 200 000 people per year for the foresseeable future.

How are we gonna do that without putting them in camps?
How do we feed them and with what? Rice bags for everyone of them?
Do we park them all in Southern BC to avoid them freezing to death later this fall?  Do we build insulated camps?  Do we expand our cities capacities with thousands of affordable buildings?
Were do we send people?  If you're refugee in a foreign country, you want to live in the countryside where there's basically no work or you want to take your chances in the city where there's already a group of people from your country?  Where do we "park" them, for lack of a better word?  We create ghettos of cheap housing?
Once they are here, what do we do with them?  Vietnam wasn't at war with Canada, ISIS and Al-Queida are.  Can we sort them all before winter, wich is coming for most of the country, btw?  Make sure there's no terrorist in the group, like war criminals escaping to Canada in WWII?
What kind of work situation are we looking at, how can we help them get the required papers and training within one year, for 30 000 people?  Just consider my situation: even if I wanted to hire a Syrian, I could not.  Even if the Quebec government wanted to do something about it, the unions will not let them do it, and the government will back off.   I suspect we would see similar situation all accross the country if we had massive influx of migrants suddenly.

[crazy canuck]

The same way we dealt with the boat people.  Temporary shelters which were quickly drawn down as communities across the country took them in.  We are not all like Grallon

[viper37]

We are not all like Grallon

No, but he's not alone.  And people like him will need to be contained, while at the same time rooting out criminal elements from the migrant flux.

I think a moderate approach, like the one taken by Harper is preferable to anything Mulcair could propose.  Maybe we could grant asylum to a few thousand more, but nowhere near the 200k to make a difference.