Sunday, March 23, 2008

The Golden Opportunity?

Election readiness aside, Harper's Conservatives may have just handed the Liberals a golden opportunity if they want it. More opinion is coming out against the Conservatives proposed changes to immigration:
Members of some of Canada's largest immigrant communities say plans to give the Immigration Minister more power to decide who gets to stay are misguided and they are urging the Dion Liberals to vote against the proposals, even if it means plunging the country into an election.

Victor Wong, the executive director of the Chinese Canadian National Council. "“The Liberals have been promoting themselves as the party of immigration and they have so many seats in the urban areas where they draw heavy support from the immigrant communities … I think they should listen to their constituencies.”

And the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants said in an e-mail last week that “responding to Canada's economic needs should not compromise Canada's vision to build this country through the settlement and integration of immigrants as fully equal participants in society.”

Immigration is a bread and butter issue for many Liberals, anything that elevates a perceived Liberal defence of that tradition is something which could solidify support and motivate. On the flip side, abstaining on these immigration changes, and you send another message to key constituents that you are weak, ineffective advocates.

Politically speaking, taking a stand on this issue is a no lose proposition for the Liberals. A fairly simple frame, a not quite ready Liberal Party decides to draw a line in the sand, based on a principle they must defend. On the ground, you would effectively inspire, demonstrate the stakes, firm up any potential erosion (talking to you Jason Kenney). The Conservatives effectively allow you to champion an issue, they have allowed you to bring out the "anti-immigration" card. You can argue the details, but the soundbite is priceless, and I guarantee it wouldn't be the Liberals on the defensive.

Eventually, the Liberals have to take a stand. In the words of everybody's polling guru:
"What it does is that it validates perceptions that Stéphane Dion is weak or that the Liberals are afraid to have an election. In a way, it validates the messaging that the Conservatives are trying to put out there in regards to Stéphane Dion and the Liberals. Every time the Liberals abstain from a particular confidence measure vote, the question becomes, what won't they abstain from? What is the breaking point for the Liberals?

Nik Nanos

In so many ways, this is clearly the breaking point. To my mind, the Conservatives may have miscalculated, slipping these changes in, thinking the Liberals too weak to make a fuss. When you think about, the Conservatives arrogance may just be a gift here, provided you still have some spine. Even if you subscribe to Rae's "strategic patience", calling an election on this issue is a move worthy of any quality chess opening.

39 comments:

Tomm said...

Steve,

You quoted from the G&M:

"...Members of some of Canada's largest immigrant communities say plans to give the Immigration Minister more power to decide who gets to stay are misguided and they are urging the Dion Liberals to vote against the proposals, even if it means plunging the country into an election."

I can't believe you are serious about this. After the LPC settles on the environment, after Afghanistan is settled, after the budget (including McTeague's poison pill) is settled, after the crime bills are settled; you are asking the LPC to bring down the government over the Immigration Minister getting more authority to select immigrants?

I don't think so.

Firstly 90% of Canadian's would see this as a vexatious and spurious reason.

Secondly, 80% of the remainder would agree that the Immigration Minister has good reason to want/need extra authority to cause que jump.

Thirdly, I thought the LPC was in the toilet financially and organizationally. Shouldn't they look for a popular reason to cause an election?

What precisely is it that the LPC fears here? Racism? Religious zealotry?


Whatever is the "fear" (read: hidden agenda), please speak into the microphone. As they say, that dog won't hunt.

Tomm

Steve V said...

Tomm

If you think 80% of Canadians would agree with the minister, you should get out more, seriously.

This is an attack on Chretien's legacy, so yes, Canadians would buy a line in the sand here.

I'm looking at this politically, and you citing all the things that the Liberals let pass. What you have to do is look at this issue, in the context of AFTER letting all those things pass (which is why I quote Nanos). IMHO, you need a way out of this cycle, and this provides the political cover to do so. I'm sorry, I just don't see the downside.

Tomm said...

Steve,

That dog won't hunt.

But just out of curiosity, what is it about the Immigration Minister having more authority that the Executive Director of the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and yourself, that is so egregious that it should bring down parliament?

Tomm

Steve V said...

"That dog won't hunt"

But Tomm, you say that about everything.

Tomm said...

Steve,

"that dog won't hunt"

I kinda like it. Sounds a little good'ole boy. Makes we want to pour myself a bourbon and talk gaters, and rasslin'.

Tomm

janfromthebruce said...

But, but, I thought Stephane Dion said, "that he won't bring down the government because 'we know the Canadian people do not want an election now.'"

I think the public will see through this thinly veiled pretense. One can't go around the country repeatedly saying this, while giving a pass on the environment, the budget, the crime bill, the precious lib private member's bill, and than turn around and make a stand here.

But go ahead, make our day.

That said, I think that Harper Cons are quite dispicable putting this inside the budget bill, the one that Dion said he would pass, because its got good stuff the libs like.

Reminds of the bad old Harris days in Ontario - a huge bill packed full of obnoxious stuff.

Playing both sides of the fence is never good.

Steve V said...

"I think the public will see through this thinly veiled pretense."

Ya, just like Jack's motion on the environment. So principled that. LOL.

Jay said...

Not principled, Steve? In clear terms, Layton's motion declared the House had lost confidence in the Cons' failed environmental policies. If the Liberals are acting on principle, they'd support it. Instead, they rubber-stamp Harper's agenda because the timing isn't optimal for Lib election planning. And you project "unprincipled" on the guy who's taking principled stands (where "principled" doesn't mean "good for Liberals").

It's the kind of principled stand we need to see again here. And I think you're right, Steve, to flag these slippery-slope immigration proposals as something progressives should tackle hard and head-on. I hope the Liberals find enough spine to join the fight -- and good for you for laying down that challenge.

James Curran said...

So I guess Jan, Thomm, and Jay all agree that the minister should just be able to pick and choose who comes into the country?

Throw this in with Helena's cocktail party and bam. ka-pow. boing. This dog WILL hunt. And this dog will fight.

Tomm said...

James,

You're darn tootin!

Diane Finley can just pick all those thyroid sufferers and move them to the front of the line. Helena can party til she pukes! Being a CPC cabinet minister is no stop fun, just like the old days under Chretien when the expense account was meant to be maxed out. Harper should take a walk in the snow, over to the GGs house.

Actually James, it seems like I can pitch'em, but you gotta be ready to catch'em.

The Minister has rules by which they have to deal with the immigration backlog. My understanding (from QP today) is that the new legislation would loosen up how the Minister is allowed to handle his/her portfolio. I've asked Steve without getting an answer, how about yourself. Maybe you know a good answer. What is so evil about loosening up these rules that would make a good liberal like you be willing to bring down this government?

If you think that dog'll hunt, then fill your boots!

Tomm

James Curran said...

What is she? God? She picks number 712,543 over number 3? Seems open to corruption to me.

Tomm said...

James,

Its already open to corruption. In fact, its already corrupt. They are talking about 25% of the half million backlogged applicants being either duplicates or bogus.

We need to clean the system up and sweep out the corners.

We have needs for people in Fort MacMurray not Oshawa. We have needs for masons, not cooks. We need young families willing to build a new life.

We need to give our Minister some discretion.

If this sounds like a sales pitch, its not meant to be, its just meant to show that this is something that may be part of a solution to our immigration problems, not a reason to bring down this government.

Tomm

Koby said...

The immigration system needs to be tweaked. Canada lets in way too many refuges, there should be more of an emphasis placed on ones one’s ability to speak either English or French or both, it is patently absurd to allow someone to sponsor their grandparents or really anyone over 65 and there is no reason to give a 49 year old the same number of credits for age as 25 year old. That said, giving the minister “discretion” to disallow people who qualify according to the precepts already set down is not a step in the right direction. One of the main advantages of the point system is that it gives would be applicants a very good idea as to whether they qualify or not. It allows them to plan. Leaving open the possibility that they could meet all the necessary requirements, but still be denied is not going to help Canada attract the best of the best. These people have other options and are going to go where they are assured of getting in. Ministerial discretion only makes sense if what the minister is cable of doing is not rejecting qualified applicants, but rather allows her to admit applicants that do not meet current qualifications but are urgently needed. Of course, it is all fine and dandy to say the Conservatives are anxious to let in people capable of filling various kinds of jobs. However, the fact that the Conservatives continue to cut the service and staff at Canadian embassies and consulates speaks and are reducing the number of people Canada lets in speaks louder. There needs to be a bigger presence in places such as Rio, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Cairo, Nairobi, Kiev, Mumbai etc. Furthermore, if Canada wants more nurses or oil workers or engineers, or what have you, it is going to have to go to the universities and training centers and go get them.

As I said once before, a good place to start recruiting people is the tens of the thousands of foreign students, from ESL on up, who study here every year. The problem is even someone who finshes a PHD here is not guaranteed a spot. If you take your PHD or even an MA here, we should be saying welcome aboard. But alas we are not.

RuralSandi said...

Tomm - this is Canada. We don't drink bourbon, we don't have gators and we try to evolve our brains above that.

There's a pattern here I find disturbing. Immigration Minister and Security Minister having so much control? Stockwell Day (who's a flake) picks and chooses which imprisoned Canadians he will protect on a case by case basis?

Control? Any one else find this pattern disturbing? This has all the earmarks of a dictatorship.

JimmE said...

Um, respectfully; do any of those commenting have any first hand experience with the process? I don't but 2nd hand I have seen the problem seen though the eyes of two friends & my late father. The problem now is not ministerial involvement, the problem is & has always been one of human resources, a large backlog gets larger with additional security checks since 9/11. Trashing the pilot programme run in cooperation with the construction industry means we are still short of many construction trades in Toronto. Folks who might have gained access at the height of the need for their skills may end up here just as the market tanks. As an election issue; I could be convinced as it will only be seen as a backlash in ridings Liberals won't win anyway, and may help win some in some urban western cities.

Gayle said...

This change is wrapped up into the budget implementation bill right? I was of the understandingthe liberals allowed it ot pass first reading, but once it gets into the committee stage there will be debate and proposed amendments, with the idea they may bring the government down over this bill when it comes back to the House.

Tomm and Jan's comments about this not being enough to bring down the government fall flat, as the liberals have always kept open the option of bringing Harper down over this bill (and that will likely be Layton's worst nightmare).

koby. I really donot understand your post. First we are not talking about refugees here, but immigrants. Even if we were talking refugees, your assertion that Canada takes in too many is not borne out by the statistics, that show Canada is not even in the top 10 list of recipient countires:

http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/478cda572.html

As for the points system, a 25 year old and a 45 year old do receive the same number of points:

http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-immigration.html

In my view, the real problem with our refugee system is the lack of resources for refugees to assist them in adapting to their new home. We need to help them integrate so they are not isolated from "mainstream" society. Right now we let the in, give them a home, a couple ESL classes and then wish them "good luck".

The problem with immigration is as jimme says.

As a final point, I would suggest that one reason immigrant communities are concerned about this change is because of the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the conservatives are racist, and that that racism will play a role in determining who gets in and who doesn't.

Our point system is already geared to first world countries. Perhaps the fear is that it will be re-geared to white first world countries.

Kingston said...

Here is my problem with this being an election issue. The vast majority of new Canadians tend to settle in the huge urban areas which are for the most part LPC ridings anyway. How will this change anything in an election. Will we not just end up with more of the same in the seat count. I mean wither the LPC wins by 1000 votes or 12000 in Kingston and a 1000 islands, it is still one seat. Do you really think that it will play in the more rural areas on in the west i.e. Alberta, Manitoba, Sask etc where the majority of Tory support is. What effect will it have in Quebec regarding the Bloc with La Belle Province in the midst of its accommodation debate right now. Will it drive Bloc supporters to the CPC who are basically leading that debate. I think we all agree that the system needs to be cleaned up and re-newed.

Gayle said...

So kingston, you think the election should not be on principle, but rather be timed on when it is most advantageous to the liberals?

In any event, if the liberals force the government to fall over the entire bill, then the election will also be over the RESP bill, and the budget. They can throw the Wheat Board in for good measure.

Jay said...

So I guess Jan, Thomm, and Jay all agree that the minister should just be able to pick and choose who comes into the country?

James? Do you stop reading comments at the first hint of Liberal criticism? Presuming that the poster must be on the other side of every conceivable fence from you?

I said this plan should be tanked. I read Jan slamming Harper's "despicable" way of introducing it. And to those who are backing it here: if you think this plan has merit, let it be debated openly, independently, and not slipped though the backdoor.

On dogs: Maybe try not hunting for a sec and sniff the common ground, James. And seriously, all the best urging your Liberal caucus to make an honest stand this time.

janfromthebruce said...

"Tomm and Jan's comments about this not being enough to bring down the government fall flat, as the liberals have always kept open the option of bringing Harper down over this bill (and that will likely be Layton's worst nightmare)."
Like Jay stated, that is not what I said. Let's bring the immigration piece out of the budget legislation and debate it on its own merits.

And speaking about dog comments, why did Rae suggest that May was a dog? That is so disrespectful. I remember about a year or so ago, when the opposition when nutty when McKay suggested that Belinda was a dog.
Thus let's leave dogs out of the debate here, as all around, it is so demeaning.

On the immigration file, this is what I think.
1. if the bill has merit, it should stand on its own.
2. this is about bringing in "just in time" visiting foreign workers and not about immigration per se.
3. bringing in this non-citizen worker (at minimal cost to the treasury as resources for settlement will not be necessary)will have 2 effects: bring down real wages as more supply means less demand/pressure on increased wages.
4. to piss off the liberals

MississaugaJoan said...

I agree with tomm that:

Calling an election over a minor issue - immigration - when plenty of major issues - Afghanistan, the budget - were bypassed would be political suicide (and not a golden opportunity), and would insure a Conservative majority.

All we can now do is wait until Fall 2009. I am pretty certain that the country will follow the lead of previous Conservative governments here in Canada and the United States, who run on a platform of fiscal responsibility and are nothing but once elected, and once again lead the nation into annual deficits.

Tomm said...

janfromthebruce,

I noticed that to on QP. Rae using May and Layton as the targets of dogs nipping at heals and chasing the care rather than driving it.

The imagery certainly wasn't very respectful.

Tomm

Gayle said...

"But, but, I thought Stephane Dion said, "that he won't bring down the government because 'we know the Canadian people do not want an election now.'"

I think the public will see through this thinly veiled pretense. One can't go around the country repeatedly saying this, while giving a pass on the environment, the budget, the crime bill, the precious lib private member's bill, and than turn around and make a stand here."

I must have misunderstood this comment Jan. Here I thought you meant that Dion could not bring the government down over the immigration bill, after giving a pass on other, seemingly more important bills, but maybe you meant something else...

As for the "dog" comment, you are stretching to even try to equate that with McKay's comment.

Koby said...

Gayle

Refugees are immigrants Gayle. Granted Canada does not house as many refugees Pakistan, or Iran or Sudan or Congo, China, Saudi Arabia, notice something about these countries by the way, but it does house quite a bit, 175,000 +. However what we are talking about is not which country houses the most refugees, but accepting and rejecting refugee claims. And Canada accepts far more refugees claims in absolute terms than most Western countries, and Canada is rare in that it is one the few Western countries that accepts more refugee claims than it rejects. See for yourself http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?id=478ce34a2&tbl=STATISTICS

Gayle said...

koby - your point still eludes me.

On what basis do you determine Canada accepts "too many" refugees?

Steve V said...

koby

Doesn't it seem odd, that a legitimate reform of immigration is attached to a bill at the last minute? If this idea has merit, why then is it introduced in this manner? Seems more to do with political opportunism than a genuine desire to debate immigration reform.


kingston

"Do you really think that it will play in the more rural areas on in the west i.e. Alberta, Manitoba, Sask etc where the majority of Tory support is."

Who cares how it plays there for the Liberals, they have no chance of winning those seats, regardless.

In Quebec, any sense realism says the Liberals need to maintain in the next election, there is absolutely no sense of gaining back lost terrority. If you look at the Liberal stronghold in Quebec, this issue is a net plus.

Möbius said...

This is an attack on Chretien's legacy, so yes, Canadians would buy a line in the sand here.

Chretien's legacy is not the same to you, as it is to me, and many others.

We, as a country, seem to be doing a shitty job of immigration, if the lines are 6 years long. Maybe the LPC should negotiate a reasonable middle ground, perhaps a committee of interested parties, to help reduce the backlog. Of course, the interested parties should not include immigration lawyers.

Steve V said...

"Maybe the LPC should negotiate a reasonable middle ground, perhaps a committee of interested parties, to help reduce the backlog."

Sure, and maybe the CPC could develop a real debate, besides burying this little beauty in at the last minute.

On Chretien, I'm talking about Liberals, not the country as a whole, so your "some people didn't agree" line is really irrelevant.

Koby said...

>>>>>> Doesn't it seem odd, that a legitimate reform of immigration is attached to a bill at the last minute? If this idea has merit, why then is it introduced in this manner? Seems more to do with political opportunism than a genuine desire to debate immigration reform.

Oh I agree. If they were truly serious about reducing the backlog they would radically increase staffing levels to whittle it down. It is just that simple. Instead the Conservatives are further reducing funding. Have you ever had the pleasure of dealing with one of Canada’s embassies or consulates abroad on an immigration related issue? It is great fun. I assure you.

This is only going confuse and worry would be applicants. $550 is a lot of money in many countries and the fact that the minister might be able to deny them even if they meet all the requirements is going to discourage people from applying. This is not going to be good for Canada.

Gayle. What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you.

Gayle said...

"What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you."

I am just wondering on what you base your opinion when you say "too many".

Frankly I do not read your link the same way you do, but I note you did not have that link before you made your statement, so it hardly counts.

In any event, just because we may settle more refugees than other countries does not make it "too any". We also have a MUCH lower population and a MUCH larger country, so what is the problem?

Koby said...

>>>> Frankly I do not read your link the same way you do, but I note you did not have that link before you made your statement, so it hardly counts.

That is rich. I had general idea at the outset. You said oh no you are wrong. I checked the figures. And I was right.

>>> In any event, just because we may settle more refugees than other countries does not make it "too any". We also have a MUCH lower population and a MUCH larger country, so what is the problem?

What on earth does having a much lower popoulation and much larger country have to do with anything? I want Canada's immigration numbers to be higher. Much higher. Say 350,000.

We are talking about Canada sponsoring refugees. Sponsoring refugees costs money.

Gayle said...

OK - so now refugees and immigrants are different? Because this started as a post about immigration and you felt the need to make a gratuitous comment about refugees.

But at least now, at long last, you have told me why. I totally disagree with you, but at least you have given a reason for your position.

You have some odd notion that taking in more refugees than some other countries means we are taking too many. (You ignore, by the way, the fact that some other countries re-classify these refugees, which is why I do not read the link the same way you do).

Even if you had proven we take more, you certainly have not proven that it is too expensive for us to do so.

Gayle said...

By the way, this quote is from the UN site linked to earlier:

"Some 196,000 asylum-seekers were recognized as refugees or given a
complementary form of protection in the course of 2006. In Europe, 33,200 asylum-
seekers were granted individual refugee status under the 1951 Convention, and
another 38,000 were eligible for a complementary form of protection. While the latter
figure was almost identical with that of 2005, the former decreased by a striking 34
per cent compared to the year before. It is believed that stricter asylum policies
across Europe in combination with fewer asylum applications being lodged are the
main reasons for this decrease. Africa was the second largest region in terms of the
number of asylum-seekers being recognized in 2006 (53,800), followed by Asia
(33,500), and North America (32,500).

On a global level, the United States of America recognized the largest number of
asylum-seekers (23,300 during the US Fiscal Year), followed by Kenya (22,900),
Thailand (16,300), Switzerland (12,500), and France (11,800)."

It seems we are NOT settling more refugees than any other western country.

Also, the "rejected" statistic you refer to may be artificially inflated in certain countries, as someone may be rejected at one level and then accepted at another. Those individuals will be counted in both columns.

Koby said...

>>>>>> It seems we are NOT settling more refugees than any other western country.

It seems you misread what I said yet again. Let us review.

Koby >>> “And Canada accepts far more refugees claims in absolute terms than most Western countries, and Canada is rare in that it is one the few Western countries that accepts more refugee claims than it rejects.”

Now, do you want me to start listing out how refugee cases each Western country accepts to prove the accuracy of what I said?

It seems I might have do just that

US 23,296
Switzerland 12,545
Canada 9252
UK 8675
Sweden 7094
Netherlands 6389
Italy 6372
Austria 4972
Belgium 2399
Norway 2210
Germany 1568
Australia 1296
Finland 656
Ireland 648
Japan 516
Czech 378
Spain 337
Denmark 201
New Zealand 147
Greece 128
Portugal 30

What do you know? Canada is third. What I said was accurate. Now keep in mind, the figures for Europe include both refugees and people let in on humanitarian grounds. The figures for Canada do not. Once you tack those cases on Canada leaps into second place.

>>>> OK - so now refugees and immigrants are different? Because this started as a post about immigration and you felt the need to make a gratuitous comment about refugees.

God! Two points: One, I can assure you Gayle when you look up immigration numbers, refugees are included. http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/resources/statistics/facts2006/overview/03.asp Two, saying that I want to reduce the number of refugees while increasing the number of immigrants is a not contradiction. Indeed, it is no more a contradiction than saying that I want to eat more fruit but eat less apples.

>>>> Also, the "rejected" statistic you refer to may be artificially inflated in certain countries, as someone may be rejected at one level and then accepted at another. Those individuals will be counted in both columns.

Fine. A person may be rejected as refugee and allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds. Keep in mind Humanitarian cases were not included for Canada, but where included for Europe.

Gayle said...

koby

Here is the point I was responding to:

"What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you."

Where do you get your information about humanitarian cases not being included in Canadian refugee cases?

And can you please answer the question about why this makes it too expensive. If it is not too expensive for non western countries to accept more refugees, why is it too expensive for us? This comparison to western countries, which suddenly became your base after looking at the stats, does not make any sense to me, and fails to address the basic point.

Koby said...

First, “other western countries” is not logically the same as “any other western country”

>>>> Where do you get your information about humanitarian cases not being included in Canadian refugee cases?

The category is left blank. Since 2002 Canada began accepting humanitarian cases. http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/resources/statistics/facts2006

>>> And can you please answer the question about why this makes it too expensive.

I did not say it is too expensive. I said it costs money.

>>>> This comparison to western countries, which suddenly became your base after looking at the stats, does not make any sense to me, and fails to address the basic point.

Suddenly became my base? Gayle you have repeatedly misattributed positions to me, you wrongly accuse me of making errors of fact and now you accuse me, without a scintilla of evidence, of moving the goal posts. Do you find such an approach usually leads to constructive debate?

The amount of social services made available to refugees in, oh, Chad as compared to any Western country is not even in the same ballpark and that is why it is common place to talk about Western countries as if they in different category then non Western countries. Lumping Canada in with Chad is daft.

Oh yeah I forget about this little gem.

This is what I said : “and there is no reason to give a 49 year old the same number of credits for age as 25 year old.”

And this is how you responded: “As for the points system, a 25 year old and a 45 year old do receive the same number of points:”

Gayle said...

Koby - You have made your point.

You are not at all convincing, but I understand.

Taking in more refugees than European countries is bad because it costs us money.

Of course we can ignore the fact that refugees eventually find jobs and contribute to our economy, but, hey, I guess if they cost us money up front that is just too bad. God forbid we allow stateless people stay in our wonderful western country, when they can probably find a home in Kenya or Thailand or someplace like that. Let us just bring in all the rich English and French speaking immigrants instead.

I believe you made your first blanket statement about too many refugees without knowing any of the real facts - hence your change from "too many" to "more than western countries" when you realized that other countries take in far more than Canada does. But I do not expect you to admit that.

You also completely missed the point about double counting the rejected category (which has nothing to do with hunatitarian gounds), and your link does not work by the way, but frankly I am tired of this discussion.

Carry on.

Koby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Koby said...

>>>>> Taking in more refugees than European countries is bad because it costs us money.

Let me spell it out for you. Given the numbers other Western countries let in, Canada can safely reduce the number of refugees it lets in and be none the worse for wear politically or diplomatically. Europe can act as cover. Canada is in other words absorbing costs needlessly. It can get away with doing less. It is taking in more than needs to; it is taking in “too many”.

>>>>>frankly I am tired of this discussion.

Believe me. The feeling is mutual.