Americas opinion on Canada accepting 25000 refugees

[bimmette]

Originally Posted by C5driver

Evaluate the Chinese "refugees" in 1997(?) that changed the landscape of the Vancouver/Richmond area.

Can you see this level of regional economic growth and prosperity with any other refugee group? Will their culture and religion allow assimilation or does it encourage isolationism?

While this area has economically prospered, the locals largely resent the immigrants as they have not assimilated well. But you can't really compare these groups.
I don't like how quickly this plan is supposed to take place, but I also don't agree with some of the blanket statements being made here about not allowing all Muslims. We are a nation of immigrants after all.

[C5driver]

Originally Posted by bimmette

While this area has economically prospered, the locals largely resent the immigrants as they have not assimilated well.

Same here in SoCal. The Asians here are, for the most part, insular. They tend to stay among themselves (Monterey Park/Alhambra/San Marino/Arcadia, etc...) and when the do venture out, are generally less likely to integrate into the community.

There is less of a resentment towards the Asians than say Hispanics, since they are typically more likely to contribute to economic growth, rather than drawing down on public resources.

Originally Posted by bimmette

But you can't really compare these groups.

You can compare any one group with another, and in this case, it's a valid contrast. When Asians don't assimilate, it's due more to culture and less for religious reasons. For Muslims, it may be both.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by bimmette

While this area has economically prospered, the locals largely resent the immigrants as they have not assimilated well. But you can't really compare these groups.
I don't like how quickly this plan is supposed to take place, but I also don't agree with some of the blanket statements being made here about not allowing all Muslims. We are a nation of immigrants after all.

There is a huge difference between refugee and immigrant. An immigrant wants to move to and live in a new country. Where as refugees may not have this ambition and therefore are even less likely to assimilate while also having a much higher probability of being indignant or even resentful of their situation.

For me personally, given that the group's minority's clear propensity for violent action, i'm disinclined to acquiesce to their request for asylum. Though it may sound like an easy decision, its not for me. I'd much rather assist these people in any way possible. But the realist in me causes me to process the what if's and decide whether or not the what if's are worth it. With my limited knowledge of the situation, I think we can do more for them by providing humanitarian aid for them in their country, while simultaneously participating in a world effort to stabilize the region.

[P1]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I don't social media but apparently it's a shit storm of unfriending today over the differing opinions.

I just want to know two things.

Are all the other muslim countries in the region taking in "refuges"? And if they aren't, are all the social justice warriors unfriended all the other muslim countries as well?

They are not...

http://www.newsweek.com/why-arent-gu...efugees-370189

[roastbeef]

[Inspired]

Why don't these refugee go to another Muslim country like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar? They have lots of money, have the same culture and religion. Yet, they purposely choose a western country like America.

Do you guys have such short memory? Remember after 9/11, Syrians were celebrating on the street and burned American flags.

[TomHudson]

It's true that immigrants, and refugees are insular and stay within their own communities here in Canada. What I've experienced is that the second-generation, because of their integration in the education system, tend to be more adaptive to Canadian lifestyle.

In the company I work for we have people from all parts of the world, and I find that their children are very involved in typical Canadian lifestyle activities.

Of course we have to do our due diligence in the vetting immigrants and refugees, but I believe that these groups as a whole I just try to create a better life for their children. We are also a large country with a small population and unfortunately or fortunately we need immigration to build that economy. Having said that, we need to choose the people that can fill that need and in the locations that require it

[RABAUKE]

The question of why other muslim countries aren't excepting these refugees is among other elephants, the elephant in the room? I'd like to see the leaders of the west asking this question before we start risking our security by bringing in refugees that aren't wanted in other muslim countries.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

The question of why other muslim countries aren't excepting these refugees is among other elephants, the elephant in the room? I'd like to see the leaders of the west asking this question before we start risking our security by bringing in refugees that aren't wanted in other muslim countries.

This issue has been a long standing one that no one has the guts to address with the wealthy Middle Eastern countries. Just look at the Palestinian issue. The only Middle Eastern country which has actually helped with refugees from any conflict is Jordan.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

This issue has been a long standing one that no one has the guts to address with the wealthy Middle Eastern countries. Just look at the Palestinian issue. The only Middle Eastern country which has actually helped with refugees from any conflict is Jordan.

True help is hard to find and who is to say what helps them now will not be their detriment later.......people/governments tend to only want to help when they get something out of it....so that begs the question you raised be answered.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

You guys picked Beiber as your PM???

Sure, you should let a bunch of refugees, whom I'm sure will ALL have lots a winter wear, come into your country.

Actually, we elected a snowboard instructor, I think Beiber is more qualified......

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Maybe you shouldn't ask the country that rounded up anyone of Japanese decent during WW2 and shoved them into internment camps....

It surprises me that now with the refugees fleeing in search of a better life, people are concentred about security here within the USA. The irony is that no one here mentioned safety and security when police where being shot dead for doing their job, when mass shootings occur on a monthly basis, and with right wing home grown terror on the rise.

The reason why they are not moving to Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries in that area is that for instance Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest rights violators in the Middle East. Who would want to live in a country with religious police, beheadings, vast corruption, and the fact it is literally impossible to acquire citizenship in SA or even UAE.

Of the 750,000 refugees that have come to the USA since 9/11 how many have been charged with domestic terrorism?

It saddens me to see people are so against refugees here in the USA when all these people want is a better chance of life for themselves and their children. We are a country that was established by refugees fleeing religious persecution in Britain. We are a country that says we value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet I already see politicians saying they will deny refugees into their respective towns / communities (which FYI is illegal they have no authority to do so, only the president does). I have already come across posts on Facebook of individuals here in the USA that are stating they will begin to carry in order to protect themselves against the refugees...

You simply can't pick and choose when you want to value human life.

I don't know whats worse the fact that politicians are using the tragedy in Paris / Beirut to push their own agenda such as shutting down Mosques in the USA (which is illegal within itself) or the fact that weapons manufacturers have had their stocks soar as a result of the tragedy?

[Axius]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Maybe you shouldn't ask the country that rounded up anyone of Japanese decent during WW2 and shoved them into internment camps....

It surprises me that now with the refugees fleeing in search of a better life, people are concentred about security here within the USA. The irony is that no one here mentioned safety and security when police where being shot dead for doing their job, when mass shootings occur on a monthly basis, and with right wing home grown terror on the rise.

The reason why they are not moving to Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries in that area is that for instance Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest rights violators in the Middle East. Who would want to live in a country with religious police, beheadings, vast corruption, and the fact it is literally impossible to acquire citizenship in SA or even UAE.

Of the 750,000 refugees that have come to the USA since 9/11 how many have been charged with domestic terrorism?

It saddens me to see people are so against refugees here in the USA when all these people want is a better chance of life for themselves and their children. We are a country that was established by refugees fleeing religious persecution in Britain. We are a country that says we value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet I already see politicians saying they will deny refugees into their respective towns / communities (which FYI is illegal they have no authority to do so, only the president does). I have already come across posts on Facebook of individuals here in the USA that are stating they will begin to carry in order to protect themselves against the refugees...

You simply can't pick and choose when you want to value human life.

I don't know whats worse the fact that politicians are using the tragedy in Paris / Beirut to push their own agenda such as shutting down Mosques in the USA (which is illegal within itself) or the fact that weapons manufacturers have had their stocks soar as a result of the tragedy?

While there may not have been any direct "terrorist" attacks since 9/11, stories were popping up all the time from back in my home town (which has a huge Muslim population and Muslim operated businesses) of people that were sending funds to ISIS and the Taliban even earlier.

With everything that's going on, it's a double edged sword. You keep your own people safe that are already integrated in the system, that have a fear of being attacked going to buy groceries, OR, you allow more refugees into your country, some of which could be falsified and terrorists trying to infiltrate by hiding in the shadows, and then setting up shop in the US waiting orders for say a couple months, to strap up and detonate at another large gathering.

You have to understand the two sides in all of this, it's hard to decipher what is the most logical and humanistic option to take. Provide better safety of your own people, or help new people who are struggling with possible ramifications. My personal opinion would be not to take anyone in right now, due to the amount of flaws in the current system. I absolutely feel terrible for victims of war, but at the same point in time, we need to protect our own people from what seems like a very easy inherent threat.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by Axius

While there may not have been any direct "terrorist" attacks since 9/11, stories were popping up all the time from back in my home town (which has a huge Muslim population and Muslim operated businesses) of people that were sending funds to ISIS and the Taliban even earlier.

With everything that's going on, it's a double edged sword. You keep your own people safe that are already integrated in the system, that have a fear of being attacked going to buy groceries, OR, you allow more refugees into your country, some of which could be falsified and terrorists trying to infiltrate by hiding in the shadows, and then setting up shop in the US waiting orders for say a couple months, to strap up and detonate at another large gathering.

You have to understand the two sides in all of this, it's hard to decipher what is the most logical and humanistic option to take. Provide better safety of your own people, or help new people who are struggling with possible ramifications. My personal opinion would be not to take anyone in right now, due to the amount of flaws in the current system. I absolutely feel terrible for victims of war, but at the same point in time, we need to protect our own people from what seems like a very easy inherent threat.

Wow.....yes everything is not as simple as it seems...it really is a complex issue(big picture)that really can only be made by experts and after much thought and research.
Obviously they have weighed the pros/cons and its tipping in the favour of letting them in.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Maybe you shouldn't ask the country that rounded up anyone of Japanese decent during WW2 and shoved them into internment camps....

It surprises me that now with the refugees fleeing in search of a better life, people are concentred about security here within the USA. The irony is that no one here mentioned safety and security when police where being shot dead for doing their job, when mass shootings occur on a monthly basis, and with right wing home grown terror on the rise.

The reason why they are not moving to Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries in that area is that for instance Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest rights violators in the Middle East. Who would want to live in a country with religious police, beheadings, vast corruption, and the fact it is literally impossible to acquire citizenship in SA or even UAE.

Of the 750,000 refugees that have come to the USA since 9/11 how many have been charged with domestic terrorism?

It saddens me to see people are so against refugees here in the USA when all these people want is a better chance of life for themselves and their children. We are a country that was established by refugees fleeing religious persecution in Britain. We are a country that says we value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet I already see politicians saying they will deny refugees into their respective towns / communities (which FYI is illegal they have no authority to do so, only the president does). I have already come across posts on Facebook of individuals here in the USA that are stating they will begin to carry in order to protect themselves against the refugees...

You simply can't pick and choose when you want to value human life.

I don't know whats worse the fact that politicians are using the tragedy in Paris / Beirut to push their own agenda such as shutting down Mosques in the USA (which is illegal within itself) or the fact that weapons manufacturers have had their stocks soar as a result of the tragedy?

Obviously the number of arrests in a short period based on narrow definitions of "refugee" and "domestic terrorism" are not nearly as meaningful as the number of victims if something occurs. One incident by one person is one too many. Do you remember the Boston Marathon attacks? The perpetrators arrived when their father sought asylum so they are conveniently excluded from the view you are advancing.

Additionally, I'm not sure why there should be a connection between this issue and any other, such as gun control. Whether or not you believe we have a problem with gun control that contributes to mass shootings why would that have any bearing on immigration / refugee policy? Suggesting that we ignore concerns regarding immigration because we have problems with gun control (or any other list of issues) doesn't really resonate with me. One has nothing to do with the other.

The issue is being used by both the left and the right for political purposes, with both pointing to each other as being unreasonable. What else is new? As stated earlier it is not an easy problem to solve and many prefer safety over other helping others on this matter and it is hard to fault them given past incidents here and around the world, as well as statements from ISIS that they plan to infiltrate via the refugee resettlements.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

Of the 750,000 refugees that have come to the USA since 9/11 how many have been charged with domestic terrorism?

It's funny how some of these statements and arguments get recycled throughout the media and the internet...almost as if people of a certain ideology all use the same "sources" for their claims.

The reality is that statement is extremely deceptive and is simply using semantics to make its case. While perhaps true, though I'd be interested in seeing how such a grand statement was fact-checked, the reality is that there have been many terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks on US, and even Canadian, soil by people who were children of or were themselves recent emigrants from countries that are plagued by Islamic extremism:

9/11 attacks:
All foreign born (from countries throughout the Middle East); 15 of them being Saudi's.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/sep...rs-fast-facts/

Lackawanna 7 plot in upstate NY:
All 7 were US citizens from Yemeni families, families that had been in the US for no more than a generation or two.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../profiles.html

Fort Dix Terrorist Plot:
All of the plotters were born outside the US (4 were from Albania, 1 from Turkey, 1 from Jordan) and some of them had come in illegally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050800465.html

Chattanooga shooting from earlier this year:
The shooter had been born in Kuwait and was Jordanian citizen (dual American citizen I believe).
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/us/ten...erve-shooting/

Attempted attack on Muhammad cartoon drawing in Texas:
1 perpetrator was of Pakastani descent (his father had been born in Pakistan) and had spent a good part of his childhood living in Pakistan. 2 of the others were Americans who had significant interactions with Islamic extremists, including ISIS.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/moh...test-shooting/

The Shooting at Canada's Parliament Hill:
The shooter, born in Canada, with a father who had emigrated from Libya.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/can...ament-shooting

Were any of these perpetrators refugees? No, at least not according to the legal status that was assigned to them.

Were they, or their families, all from countries that had varying degrees of exposure to radicalized Islam? Yes.

So to say a country, whether it be Canada or the US, should simply let in thousands of refugees from Syria, the country that is arguably the greatest hotbed of Islamic extremism at this time, with minimal screening and planning does spark some doubts in most peoples' minds, and reasonable doubts at that.

[CANGRKE70]

Wait a minute...I've already seen this episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie...

Really I don't care who you bring in as long as they do not pose a security risk to Canadians. I think you need to do your due diligence before just letting anyone in and that takes time.

It's funny how un-muslim Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been in helping people of the same faith...need a soccer stadium built in 100 degree heat...sure come on in...escape war...go fuck yourself in the west!

Now back to Little Mosque on the Prairie...

CBC Television's hit sitcom LITTLE MOSQUE ON THE PRAIRIE is the internationally-acclaimed comedy about Muslims and Christians attempting to live in harmony with each other in the small town of Mercy. And they are about to learn that it isn't as easy as they thought.

The new season of LITTLE MOSQUE ON THE PRAIRIE will come as quite a surprise for many of its fans. The friendly relationship between the Muslims and the Christians will be put to the test when the ambitious new Reverend Thorne takes over Mercy Anglican, and he isn’t keen on sharing his church with a bunch of Islam-y types. Amaar and Reverend Thorne will have to face off in a battle for the hearts and minds of Mercy, and many of the townsfolk will be pulled into the fray. Who will be left standing? And will they be left standing with their dignity in tact?

The affable Reverend Duncan Magee, hilariously played for three seasons by Derek McGrath, has left Mercy to do some good work elsewhere. His replacement, the Reverend William Thorne brings with him an ambition and commitment to his church that leaves little room for opposing viewpoints. If Magee was a bright light in the most loving and accepting Christian tradition, Thorne is less keen on ‘loving thy neighbour...’

The renewed conflict at the core of the new season will bring out the best and the worst in our beloved characters. The challenges will mount in other ways too. Rayyan will have to learn to live as an independent woman after being left at the altar. Sarah’s loyalty to work and family will be tested. Yasir will be torn between his wife and his mother. Baber will have to rise up to be the ultra-conservative Muslim he’s always thought himself to be. And Amaar will have to face the greatest test of all—himself. Oh, and Reverend Thorne.
LITTLE MOSQUE ON THE PRAIRIE is the same funny and heart-warming show it has always been. With a little more edge.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by CANGRKE70

Wait a minute...I've already seen this episode of Little Mosque on the Prairie...

Really I don't care who you bring in as long as they do not pose a security risk to Canadians. I think you need to do your due diligence before just letting anyone in and that takes time.

It's funny how un-muslim Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been in helping people of the same faith...need a soccer stadium built in 100 degree heat...sure come on in...escape war...go fuck yourself in the west!

Now back to Little Mosque on the Prairie...

Good post....I needed that laugh!

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by CANGRKE70

It's funny how un-muslim Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been in helping people of the same faith...need a soccer stadium built in 100 degree heat...sure come on in...escape war...go fuck yourself in the west!

^This!

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain...some of the most oil-rich countries in the world, with some of the wealthiest people in the world...how much are they spending on relocating, housing, feeding, assimilating Syrian refugees?

And why isn't the international community putting more pressure on them to contribute to this issue?

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

It saddens me to see people are so against refugees here in the USA when all these people want is a better chance of life for themselves and their children. We are a country that was established by refugees fleeing religious persecution in Britain. We are a country that says we value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and yet I already see politicians saying they will deny refugees into their respective towns / communities (which FYI is illegal they have no authority to do so, only the president does). I have already come across posts on Facebook of individuals here in the USA that are stating they will begin to carry in order to protect themselves against the refugees...

Ask the Native American's how their "refuge" event turned out for them. Do you think we just came here to this empty land and planted a flag? All of our ancestors who came here as "refuges" nearly made Native American's extinct through disease, rapid procreation, and mass murder based on nothing more than the lack of understanding of their culture.


Leave it to a women to stand up and tell the truth.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

^This!

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain...some of the most oil-rich countries in the world, with some of the wealthiest people in the world...how much are they spending on relocating, housing, feeding, assimilating Syrian refugees?

And why isn't the international community putting more pressure on them to contribute to this issue?

Because they know and aren't bound by political correctness.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

^This!

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain...some of the most oil-rich countries in the world, with some of the wealthiest people in the world...how much are they spending on relocating, housing, feeding, assimilating Syrian refugees?

And why isn't the international community putting more pressure on them to contribute to this issue?

As I said above. The hypocrisy with these wealthy Middle Eastern countries didn't just begin now with the Syrian crisis. It's been a long standing issue going back to the Palestine. No one pressed these wealthy countries to help out then.

The only Middle Eastern country actually helping the Syrians is Jordan. Yet no one talks about providing more aid to Jordan to help those they've already given safe harbor.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-w...oney-runs-low/

There are over 654,000 refugees in Jordan now according to the UN ( http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486566.html ). Sort of pales the numbers being talked about with the various western countries in bringing in refugees.