A moratorium on immigration and refugee intake from terrorist-exporting countrie

[reilly]

The London Free Press published an opinion column linking the supposed threat of domestic terrorism to the migration of immigrants and refugees to Canada. "Tens of thousands of immigrants and refugee applicants from terrorist-exporting countries" enter Canada each year, the article said, "without proper screening." The author went on to underline the fact that "20,000 immigrants have entered Canada from the terrorist-beset Afghanistan-Pakistan region alone since 2001."
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Leishman_Rory/2006/06/20/1642455.html

When is the government going to consider a moratorium on immigration and refugee intake from terrorist-exporting countries? Is this only possible with a Conservative majority? Why didn't the Liberal government implement a moratorium before committing troops to Afghanistan?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're kidding, right? What would be your reason for stopping people from fleeing terrorism and intolerance?

 

[George Wallace]

That is a rather ineffective method.  How do you distinguish, and how often would you distinguish, what countries are terrorist-exporting countries?  Would it not be easier and cover a wider spectrum if they were to screen out persons with 'radical religious' beliefs that run contrary to our beliefs?  That would not restrict people of other faiths and more moderate beliefs that may be fleeing 'Fundamentalist Rule' in those so called terrorist-exporting countries.  It would also catch 'Radicals' who may be entering Canada from other 'Accredited States'/the back door.

 

[reilly]

You're kidding, right? What would be your reason for stopping people from fleeing terrorism and intolerance?

Perhaps we should have continued immigration from Germany during WWII. That would have made just as much sense.

 

[scoutfinch]

Chances are the vast majority of people fleeing as refugees from those countries "exporting terrorism" are fleeing because the government is violent with respect to domestic politics as well.  I don't know about you but my forebearers fled Scotland under duress because of their own violent political activity.... by virtue of your theory, they would have been barred from coming to Canada despite the fact that their real beef was only with the repressive forces in Scotland. 

Time to get off your racist high horse and check in with reality for a bit, reilly.

 

[cplcaldwell]

When is the government going to consider a moratorium on immigration and refugee intake from terrorist-exporting countries?

The day before I go to the New Zealand High Commission to file for emigration.

Is this only possible with a Conservative majority?

Fuck, I hope not, that will leave me only with the NDP to vote for

Why didn't the Liberal government implement a moratorium before committing troops to Afghanistan?

They are (IMHO) stupid, not brain dead.

 

[reilly]

Time to get off your racist high horse and check in with reality for a bit, reilly.

You are quick to play the "racist" card. What comments indicate racism on my behalf. Have I said to stop immigration from Turkey, South or Central America, or African. I've never been a racist nor will I ever be. Freedom of speech as long as the person holds your opinion. Right!

 

[cplcaldwell]

reilly: I think the problem with the moratorium idea is first and foremost that it is politically untenable. Right now Canada is trying to re-define itself in many ways.

Next, as I tried, perhaps too sarcastically to illustrate above, it's not really the Canadian way to do things.

Okay okay, everybody wait before piling on... give me a minute....

We are trying to prove (to ourselves) that we are the 'huggable' multi-cultural society yet we are realizing and trying to 're-prove' to ourselves that we are part of a western alliance that prizes democracy and the rule of law above all else.

Part of the rule of law seems, I think, to preclude moratoriums on one group or another because of racial or national identifications.

So it's a bit of a quandary, Pakistani's or young males or Muslims? Who to exclude? Exclude young Muslim Pakistani males? Well then by logic (which I think is part of the Rule of Law: Scoutfinch correct me) why not exclude young Christian Pakistani Males?

Someone once said that "democracy is tough, it takes a lot of work", my point to the moratorium argument is that it is the easy way out.

We need to ensure safe immigration, but at what cost?

(Yeeesshhhh I just sounded like Lloyd Axworthy there )

Anyway this sent to George Wallace by PM, if he wishes to re-open, can we all ditch the ad hominems?

 

[scoutfinch]

I think the natural question to be asked is why would any pakistani's be seeking refugee status?

 

[paracowboy]

When is the government going to consider a moratorium on immigration and refugee intake from terrorist-exporting countries?

I dunno, the day before I take up arms against it?

 

[reilly]

I think the problem with the moratorium idea is first and foremost that it is politically untenable. Right now Canada is trying to re-define itself in many ways. We need to ensure safe immigration, but at what cost?

Perhaps it is untenable. The problem is that it is difficult to parse Islam into the "Religious" and "Political" components because of the integration of political and religious philosophies into a "Unified belief theory". We have every right and even obligation to examine the political agenda, but Muslims have every right to observe the religious aspects, namely prayer and giving to the poor, etc.

I do not have a problem with immigration. There must be some standards though. Immigrants should be young and healthy. They must be willing to integrate (not be assimilated). Preference should be given to people that already have learned one of the two official languages. Applicants should have skills that the country requires. Proper security checks MUST be done.

A start might be to immediately deport any Immigrants/refuges convicted of contravening the Criminal Code.  Remember Ahmed Ressam, who was caught bringing explosives into Port Angeles, Washington. He was convicted of theft in Montreal but was not deported and instead received a Canadian passport by forging a Quebec baptismal certificate.

 

[scoutfinch]

... he got the passport because the birth certificate said he was born in Quebec.  What do you suggest?  That we refuse passports to *people like him* even if they have documentation that says they are Canadian? :

 

[Cloud Cover]

I do not have a problem with immigration. There must be some standards though.

Immigrants should be young and healthy.

Discrimination on the basis of age and medical status?

They must be willing to integrate (not be assimilated).

Discrimination on race, creed, religion?

Preference should be given to people that already have learned one of the two official languages.

Discrimination on the basis of language?

Applicants should have skills that the country requires.

Discrimination on the basis of trade or practice.

Proper security checks MUST be done.

Agreed.

We're not in the business of building a super race of people in Canada. That would just be ... wrong.    

 

[cplcaldwell]

I think it is diffcult to parse religious and political beliefs in Islam. I think that is difficult with many religions.

But I think it is not an easily sustainable task to regard Islam as a monolith.

Your point about standards is, I think a good one, but what standards? Does Canada need Professional Engineers or guys who will politely get me my pack of smokes when I go to the milk store? And if we need Professional Engineers is it productive to bring in the Engineer and tell him he can't bring Granny (from the old country) over, thus de-valuing his quality of life?

Proper Security Checks MUST BE DONE. Really this is the crux of the article isn't it? But I think my argument is that it is a better solution for us to spend the money on the security checks than to put a moratorium on immigration.

Any way a few thoughts...

 

[reilly]

... he got the passport because the birth certificate said he was born in Quebec.  What do you suggest?  That we refuse passports to *people like him* even if they have documentation that says they are Canadian? :

I suggest we properly screen applicants. It's not difficult to verify the legitimacy of a birth certificate.

When I talk to people that refuse to acknowledge that we are at war and then I see responses like this, it's just another reminder of what kind of role apathy and ignorance play in this conflict. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans, Canadians and Europeans that will never pull their heads out of the sand and this is how terrorists thrive.

Leon Mugesera, is another example. He is the former Rwandan Hutu politician who influenced the violence that killed an estimated 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu in 1994. His actions were a crime against humanity. It's comforting that he has been in Canada for years and was only just recently ordered deported.

Perhaps it is too late to do anything: Omar Khadr who killed an American medic in a firefight in Afghanistan was a Toronto-born terrorist.

 

[RecDiver]

Discrimination on the basis of age and medical status?
Discrimination on race, creed, religion?
Discrimination on the basis of language?
Discrimination on the basis of trade or practice.

FYI... Current immigration rules determine admissibility by Medical status, Language Skills and Trade.

Without shutting down Special Interest Groups (which deliver votes), the system can never be effectively 'fixed'. And words like discrimination and politically correctness should be declassified and removed from everyday language, as for the most part they are used for conveniences. (In my not-so-humble opinion!).

However, the 'family class' should really be looked at seriously to eliminate or apply same stringent (!) rules to it. Interviews should look at 'adoptability'.

As a first generation immigrant, I see my Canada (or view from Scarborough) is changing for the worse. At times, I don't know if I am walking at downtown Baghdad or A'tan or wherever.

We have accepted to live and adapt to the lowest common denominator and that's not a good thing.

 

[Cloud Cover]

FYI... Current immigration rules determine admissibility by Medical status, Language Skills and Trade.

even better- that takes all those arguments both for and against off the table.

That leaves us with what? Security and background checks?

 

[cplcaldwell]

even better- that takes all those arguments both for and against off the table.

That leaves us with what? Security and background checks?

Damme, now there's nothing left to argue about....time for a smoke

 

[reilly]

Let's heat this up... :rage:

The avoidance of security checks for expediency is the problem. The ability to conduct proper security checks under the current system does not exist. For that reason a moratorium on immigration from terrorist-exporting contries becomes the only viable, real world solution. Surely the real answer is to admit no one unless they are duly processed. Improving the system is essential, but what do we do in the meantime. Doing nothing is an inevitable prelude to terrorism.

 

[scoutfinch]

The avoidance of security checks for expediency is the problem. The ability to conduct proper security checks under the current system does not exist. For that reason a moratorium on immigration from terrorist-exporting contries becomes the only viable, real world solution.

No.  You are making mile-wide leaps in logic solely to *prove* your own point.