tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post4469228471040489876..comments2023-10-22T09:18:16.885-04:00Comments on Far and Wide: The Golden Opportunity?Steve Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-26504546699523996912008-03-27T03:44:00.000-04:002008-03-27T03:44:00.000-04:00>>>>> Taking in more refugees than European countr...>>>>> Taking in more refugees than European countries is bad because it costs us money.<BR/><BR/>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”. <BR/><BR/>>>>>>frankly I am tired of this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Believe me. The feeling is mutual.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-83622299814347295662008-03-27T00:20:00.000-04:002008-03-27T00:20:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-71104237929986295632008-03-26T18:32:00.000-04:002008-03-26T18:32:00.000-04:00Koby - You have made your point.You are not at all...Koby - You have made your point.<BR/><BR/>You are not at all convincing, but I understand.<BR/><BR/>Taking in more refugees than European countries is bad because it costs us money.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Carry on.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-47614320602383963292008-03-26T17:40:00.000-04:002008-03-26T17:40:00.000-04:00First, “other western countries” is not logically ...First, “other western countries” is not logically the same as “any other western country” <BR/><BR/>>>>> Where do you get your information about humanitarian cases not being included in Canadian refugee cases?<BR/><BR/>The category is left blank. Since 2002 Canada began accepting humanitarian cases. http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/resources/statistics/facts2006 <BR/> <BR/>>>> And can you please answer the question about why this makes it too expensive.<BR/><BR/>I did not say it is too expensive. I said it costs money. <BR/><BR/>>>>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Oh yeah I forget about this little gem. <BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>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:”Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-84781662283502637872008-03-26T09:48:00.000-04:002008-03-26T09:48:00.000-04:00kobyHere is the point I was responding to:"What th...koby<BR/><BR/>Here is the point I was responding to:<BR/><BR/>"What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you."<BR/><BR/>Where do you get your information about humanitarian cases not being included in Canadian refugee cases?<BR/><BR/>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.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-8264757207298926542008-03-26T04:05:00.000-04:002008-03-26T04:05:00.000-04:00>>>>>> It seems we are NOT settling more refugees ...>>>>>> It seems we are NOT settling more refugees than any other western country.<BR/><BR/>It seems you misread what I said yet again. Let us review. <BR/><BR/>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.”<BR/><BR/>Now, do you want me to start listing out how refugee cases each Western country accepts to prove the accuracy of what I said? <BR/><BR/>It seems I might have do just that <BR/><BR/>US 23,296<BR/>Switzerland 12,545<BR/>Canada 9252 <BR/>UK 8675<BR/>Sweden 7094<BR/>Netherlands 6389<BR/>Italy 6372<BR/>Austria 4972<BR/>Belgium 2399<BR/>Norway 2210<BR/>Germany 1568<BR/>Australia 1296<BR/>Finland 656<BR/>Ireland 648<BR/>Japan 516<BR/>Czech 378 <BR/>Spain 337<BR/>Denmark 201<BR/>New Zealand 147<BR/>Greece 128 <BR/>Portugal 30<BR/> <BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>>>>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>>>>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-58997043671464646132008-03-26T00:46:00.000-04:002008-03-26T00:46:00.000-04:00By the way, this quote is from the UN site linked ...By the way, this quote is from the UN site linked to earlier:<BR/><BR/>"Some 196,000 asylum-seekers were recognized as refugees or given a <BR/>complementary form of protection in the course of 2006. In Europe, 33,200 asylum- <BR/>seekers were granted individual refugee status under the 1951 Convention, and <BR/>another 38,000 were eligible for a complementary form of protection. While the latter <BR/>figure was almost identical with that of 2005, the former decreased by a striking 34 <BR/>per cent compared to the year before. It is believed that stricter asylum policies <BR/>across Europe in combination with fewer asylum applications being lodged are the <BR/>main reasons for this decrease. Africa was the second largest region in terms of the <BR/>number of asylum-seekers being recognized in 2006 (53,800), followed by Asia <BR/>(33,500), and North America (32,500). <BR/> <BR/>On a global level, the United States of America recognized the largest number of <BR/>asylum-seekers (23,300 during the US Fiscal Year), followed by Kenya (22,900), <BR/>Thailand (16,300), Switzerland (12,500), and France (11,800)."<BR/><BR/>It seems we are NOT settling more refugees than any other western country.<BR/><BR/>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.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-75727345130194345602008-03-26T00:00:00.000-04:002008-03-26T00:00:00.000-04:00OK - so now refugees and immigrants are different?...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>Even if you had proven we take more, you certainly have not proven that it is too expensive for us to do so.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-86672635629564584442008-03-25T14:21:00.000-04:002008-03-25T14:21:00.000-04:00>>>> Frankly I do not read your link the same way...>>>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>>>> 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?<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>We are talking about Canada sponsoring refugees. Sponsoring refugees costs money.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-88485338923571901102008-03-25T09:31:00.000-04:002008-03-25T09:31:00.000-04:00"What the fact that I do not think Canada should b..."What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you."<BR/><BR/>I am just wondering on what you base your opinion when you say "too many".<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-32782676317545141892008-03-25T02:16:00.000-04:002008-03-25T02:16:00.000-04:00>>>>>> Doesn't it seem odd, that a legitimate refo...>>>>>> 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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>Gayle. What the fact that I do not think Canada should be paying to settle more refugees than other Western countries eludes you.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-17782638715377619232008-03-24T19:06:00.000-04:002008-03-24T19:06:00.000-04:00"Maybe the LPC should negotiate a reasonable middl..."Maybe the LPC should negotiate a reasonable middle ground, perhaps a committee of interested parties, to help reduce the backlog."<BR/><BR/>Sure, and maybe the CPC could develop a real debate, besides burying this little beauty in at the last minute.<BR/><BR/>On Chretien, I'm talking about Liberals, not the country as a whole, so your "some people didn't agree" line is really irrelevant.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-79336686045964576762008-03-24T18:55:00.000-04:002008-03-24T18:55:00.000-04:00This is an attack on Chretien's legacy, so yes, Ca...<I>This is an attack on Chretien's legacy, so yes, Canadians would buy a line in the sand here.</I><BR/><BR/>Chretien's legacy is not the same to you, as it is to me, and many others.<BR/><BR/>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.Möbiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851148006420274055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-69999555004596956212008-03-24T15:57:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:57:00.000-04:00kobyDoesn't it seem odd, that a legitimate reform ...koby<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/>kingston<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>Who cares how it plays there for the Liberals, they have no chance of winning those seats, regardless.<BR/><BR/>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.Steve Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871113039374739208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-24171804805914722602008-03-24T15:16:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:16:00.000-04:00koby - your point still eludes me.On what basis do...koby - your point still eludes me.<BR/><BR/>On what basis do you determine Canada accepts "too many" refugees?Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-22482648162840181242008-03-24T15:03:00.000-04:002008-03-24T15:03:00.000-04:00Gayle Refugees are immigrants Gayle. Granted Can...Gayle <BR/><BR/>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=STATISTICSKobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-30331267118776698512008-03-24T14:41:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:41:00.000-04:00"But, but, I thought Stephane Dion said, "that he ..."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.'"<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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...<BR/><BR/>As for the "dog" comment, you are stretching to even try to equate that with McKay's comment.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-51956818215578092302008-03-24T14:02:00.000-04:002008-03-24T14:02:00.000-04:00janfromthebruce,I noticed that to on QP. Rae usin...janfromthebruce,<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>The imagery certainly wasn't very respectful.<BR/><BR/>TommTommhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072854015300215347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-74510769409613953432008-03-24T13:54:00.000-04:002008-03-24T13:54:00.000-04:00I agree with tomm that:Calling an election over a ...I agree with tomm that:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.MississaugaJoanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07302396652312132141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-84025048699316769602008-03-24T13:44:00.000-04:002008-03-24T13:44:00.000-04:00"Tomm and Jan's comments about this not being enou..."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)."<BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/>Thus let's leave dogs out of the debate here, as all around, it is so demeaning.<BR/><BR/>On the immigration file, this is what I think.<BR/>1. if the bill has merit, it should stand on its own.<BR/>2. this is about bringing in "just in time" visiting foreign workers and not about immigration per se. <BR/>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. <BR/>4. to piss off the liberalssusansmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02573558646874765432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-129239043897564162008-03-24T12:53:00.000-04:002008-03-24T12:53:00.000-04:00So I guess Jan, Thomm, and Jay all agree that the ...<I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>James? Do you stop reading comments at the first hint of Liberal criticism? Presuming that the poster <I>must</I> be on the other side of every conceivable fence from you? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>On dogs: Maybe try <I>not</I> 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.Jaytoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027122148435844420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-87519857532357183092008-03-24T12:04:00.000-04:002008-03-24T12:04:00.000-04:00So kingston, you think the election should not be ...So kingston, you think the election should not be on principle, but rather be timed on when it is most advantageous to the liberals?<BR/><BR/>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.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-87522827193463065922008-03-24T11:23:00.000-04:002008-03-24T11:23:00.000-04:00Here is my problem with this being an election iss...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.Burton, Formerly Kingstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05539157151309542216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-62171223874325909542008-03-24T10:56:00.000-04:002008-03-24T10:56:00.000-04:00This change is wrapped up into the budget implemen...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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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:<BR/><BR/>http://www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/478cda572.html<BR/><BR/>As for the points system, a 25 year old and a 45 year old do receive the same number of points:<BR/><BR/>http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-immigration.html<BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>The problem with immigration is as jimme says.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08112657859825911939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20358187.post-60601380121109662602008-03-24T10:44:00.000-04:002008-03-24T10:44:00.000-04:00Um, respectfully; do any of those commenting have ...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.JimmEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703715618040666970noreply@blogger.com