Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Resettling Refugees

  1. #1

    Default Resettling Refugees

    After the France attacks, there has been a backlash against immigrants, and in particular, some people have voiced their concerns about bringing refugees into our country (Canada). I thought I'd start a thread about what our respective countries are pledging to provide in refugee assistance, along with discussing the pros, cons, concerns, and whether the goals are feasible.

    The Government of Canada has pledged to bring in 25,000 refugees before the end of December. Our government is working to resettle them into vacant army bases and institutions, sponsorship programs, and working with the private sector. Although this is an enormous project, I have faith in our country's capacity to rise to the challenge. Back in 1976, Canada admitted 5,000 Vietnamese immigrants. In 1979 and 1980, we admitted another 50,000 people from Vietnam, refugees who later became known as the "Boat People," and we helped them settle in Canada.

    The circumstances are much different this time, and citizens are rightfully concerned that security and safety of Canadian citizens must be paramount. There are valid concerns that bringing in so many people in such a short period of time could make us vulnerable to terrorists slipping in through the process. These concerns escalated after a Syrian passport was found lying close to the body of a suicide bomber in the deadly Paris attacks. It has not been determined if the passport is authentic or a forgery. Greek officials said the man linked to the passport entered the country through Leos, which is one of the islands used as a gateway to Europe by refugees fleeing the violence in Syria and Iraq.

    Overall, I have confidence that Canada can achieve its humanitarian goal without compromising the safety of Canadians, due to the intensive screening process.
    • The UNHCR has already triaged the refugees and assessed those that would make ideal candidates for re-settlement. Less than 5 percent of asylum seekers make that initial cut. For these candidates, there is additional security screening so that UN officials can learn their background.
    • Second, Canadian visa officers conduct additional screening and interviews with this group to ensure there is consistency in their cases
    • And third, there is an additional security screening process of the candidates by Canadian security agencies, including CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP.

    The process can be fairly quick, especially with the help of officials working on the ground in refugee camps and in countries where refugees have fled to. The experts and staff working in camps will be able to generally determine which refugees pose a security risk and which don't. When the Syrian civil war began four years ago, the first refugees out of Syria were people who were primarily secular, politically active and pro-democratic. They've now been in the neighbouring countries as refugees for four years. We know who these people are. So it's not really that difficult to identify 25,000 that fit into low-risk security categories.

    Canada has a history of providing humanitarian assistance to refugees. On average, our country resettles approximately 13,000 overseas refugees per year. We have a network of settlement agencies and experienced settlement workers in most of our cities. Canada also has a network of refugee sponsorship groups, many of them church-related, that has been resettling refugees since 1979 through Canada’s Private Sponsorship program. These groups have vast experience at settling refugees. And because of our vast immigrant population, thousands of refugees already have Canadian family members who are begging to sponsor and house them.

    Across Canada, there has been an enormous surge of goodwill from Canadians eager to volunteer, to house, to donate, and help out in whatever way possible. As with the South-east Asian boat people in 1979, this is a very important point in time in Canadian history where, I am confident,we will once again rise to the occasion.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 20-Nov-2015 at 14:56.

  2. #2

    Default

    Not exactly ontopic, but I guess I'd would be quite nice if some oversea countries could take care of some refugees.

    Europe is struggling with it's capacities to take care of that many right now. Germany has even lost track of many refugees there are. Last summer they thought it's going to be around 800 000 by the end of the year. But one month ago it has already been more than 1 million people seeking refuge.

    In general it's just a very big fiasco by now, regarding the whole big picture.

    For the biggest part, people bid them welcome, however, right wing movements also get bigger by the day. Especially due to recent events in Paris, other small occurrences and/or local problems; unfortunality most of the time not due to syrian refugees. Last time it has been a problems with Albanian refugees... but you know, the media prints it, and people believe it, if they want to.
    Which is that kind of thing why all of a sudden refugee camps are on flames (if not set on flames by themselves as it happened in the Netherlands I think?). Fun fact, the individuals being caught, but if they did not hurt someone, are not being punished by now. It's set under "fear of unknown immigrants". But it's still a problem of course.
    To be honest, I guess that's natural partially. So being afraid of those that don't understand the given motherlanguage and usually the whole culture, while trying to establish or hold onto their own "old" one. There may even be some rotten eggs, or in those times shady individuals underneath the mass, which is the problem and the whole point of people being afraid about.

    One of the biggest problems is that their documents are shady at best. Most of the time they don't even have a valid pass... and so, well it's a reason to be afraid of course.
    Asylum applications and integration measurements are being shortened and kinda quick by now, which is necessary at this point, since they still take way too long. However, it's another problem in this regard by the lack of data and not knowing who you actually give citizenship and therefore all possible rights, hence a chance to attack anything anywhere.

    Regarding the fear of muslims: A lot of Syrians are actually christians, which we should not forget I think. They're afraid by themselves being sorted to... well very religious individuals who recite the Qur'an at night in refuge camps (no offense... so different strokes for different folks). They want to get away from this, as also they wouldn't want to see our countries being attacked in any possible way. One big reaction to the events of Paris has actually been, that they thought they fled this terror... while they did not, like it seems.

    In the end we're a democratic countries, while of course being obliged to help people at need, hence refugees. So it is simply the right thing to do, or isn't it? It's being human.
    However, we're not getting conquered in any way. People have to adjust to our culture. Hence Saudia Arabia sending a message like they would give europe hundreds of mosques for free is something that can't be taken serious, or can it?
    Most women are actually very happy being able to come to somewhat civilized countries where any kind of "middle-east abuse" is simply punishable by law, so it will be punished - nothing more and nothing less. If necessary by sending some individuals back home again. Which however doesn't happen too often, due to our general politeness, but it still happens. As example, 18000 have been sent out of germany alone this year, from around 50k that should have, but ended up in certain integration programms or similar; In the end they're being helped and being watched over.


    Perhaps we get some housing problems in the short run, such as Sweden does encounter right now. Maybe we even get some rotten eggs and have to sort them out, while being alert for terrorists anyway. But a backlash against every immigrant is just plain wrong. We would seek refuge too if it would be necessary, wouldn't we? At least if we would not be able to fight against the evil we may face.

  3. #3

    Default

    This is such a "volatile" subject, which makes it hard to really get a factual understanding.

    From the pass: I remember the arguments about the Vietnamese refugee being" the VC" coming to our country. It was never shown to be the case.

    "All Muslims are terrorist".
    Again I only know a hand full of Muslims that I have meet and talked to. The thing I got right off was that they said" I do not know what Koran they read but it is not the one I read".

    True Muslims live in peace with Allah and do no harm to there fellow man. The radical extremist use God as a justification for their own means.

    The thing is that the Christians can be shown in the same light. I live my life to be an example of Gods renewing light. Yet I see other examples of people that make everyone "Evil" if they do not follow their way of life. If you do not follow there way then "you are not going to be saved ".

    I had an eye opening situation last spring at a multicultural night when I young lady started to cry looking at my coin collection, because she never seen a coin from her homeland until that night.
    As she told her story I could never relate or understand the things she had gone through of being gotten out of bed in the night and running for her life ahead of the "Army" that was killing anyone who was not "on there side".

    Therefore I see this as woman, children and hopefully some intact families that are running from religious fanatics that want to kill them because they will not let them be in charge and decide who will live or die.

    I also have several friends in the medical corps that talk about families over see that are a mother and small children with no teenage or older mails because they where killed for not following the local regimes rules.

    Let these people in and help them out. Or are we any better then the other people that are trying to kill them?

    Just my thoughts.

    Egor
    Last edited by egor; 22-Nov-2015 at 03:52.

  4. #4

    Default

    Bringing in Syrian refugees on purpose is like having unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen.

    If you really think your government can screen out the wannabe terrorists, I've got a pair of towers to sell you at a bargain price.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    Across Canada, there has been an enormous surge of goodwill from Canadians eager to volunteer, to house, to donate, and help out in whatever way possible. As with the South-east Asian boat people in 1979, this is a very important point in time in Canadian history where, I am confident,we will once again rise to the occasion.
    Out of curiousity, how much funding are the groups you work with and for giving up in order to support the refugee screening and influx?

  5. #5

    Default

    I feel that there is an un-needed backlash due to the attacks on France. We can always try to screen people and attempt to limit terrorism, but the truth is, there is no way to fully stop it. There is no "safety".

    I feel we should help those in need. Like Egor said, a vast majority of these people are women, children, and families just trying to find safety from a group of extremists who would otherwise kill them for absolutely no reason. If our countries, as the US has done, passes bills to block incoming refugees entirely, than we are no better than the terrorists who are killing those refugees off.

    If anything can be proven by the attacks in France is that nowhere is really safe. Not to mention, there may be quite a few extremists not on any watch lists, which means one could be sitting on the plane heading anywhere right now, completely unchecked. They can slip in regardless of if we help out the refugees or not.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Bringing in Syrian refugees on purpose is like having unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen.

    If you really think your government can screen out the wannabe terrorists, I've got a pair of towers to sell you at a bargain price.
    Oh please.

    Getting into the US as a refugee right now is an 18-month screening process. It involves handing over every piece of documentation you can possibly possess and being interviewed apart and together with any other family/travelers you came with at least a half-dozen times by people who are trained to catch fraud. The process consults heavily with intelligence agencies to see if they can find anything amiss or in their databases about someone seeking asylum. At any point, they can just tell an asylum-seeker "no".

    The whole process is incredibly paranoid about exactly the scenario of accidentally letting someone with bad intentions through. It is neither the quickest nor easiest way for a terrorist to enter the country by a mile - officials are far more concerned about somebody with a Western passport just coming through via the normal visitor routes. Notably, everyone involved in the Paris attacks appears to have been an EU citizen.

    Comparing any of this to 9/11 is ridiculous. Those people were mostly Saudis and they entered on normal tourist visas.




    Overwhlemingly, Syrian refugees are just ordinary families who are fleeing for their lives. They typically have job skills and had livelihoods before everything went to hell. We should be racing to receive as many of them as possible because it's a long-term economic windfall to do so, not to mention the ethically right thing to do.
    Last edited by Fruitkitty; 21-Nov-2015 at 00:36.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Bringing in Syrian refugees on purpose is like having unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen.
    So we should close the borders, send them all back to Syria, bomb the hell out of the country and hope they all just die... I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, buuuut... seriously... :-/



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Out of curiousity, how much funding are the groups you work with and for giving up in order to support the refugee screening and influx?
    Why do you see refugees as less deserving than anyone else? Are they not human or something? Again... it's hard to avoid Godwin... :-/

    Housing your share of refugees would be a tiny cost in comparison to the insane number of trillions of dollars that have been spent bombing the Middle East for years on end... and the huge amount of money that's been spent buying firearms and explosives for our "best friend of the moment".

    Hang on... weren't you arguing in support of "Christian values" a while back? Have you changed your mind?

  8. #8

    Default

    I have mixed feelings over this, but the U. S. is the big melting pot. The only people who didn't immigrate into the U. S. are my dad's side of the family: native Americans. Of course, it doesn't take a good memory to recall the Boston massacre, perpetrated by immigrants. They came to this country, happy to be here, but then they found it hard to find employment. They lived in a tenement and little by little, people such as myself became their enemy. My dad's side of the family would have taken their scalps before they had the opportunity to make their pressure cooker bombs, one which killed a young boy.

    Living in the South, we are a bit different from the citizens of France. We have permits to carry concealed weapons, so maybe we are a bit safer, but not by much. The thing is, there will always be evil people. Some will come from other countries, but most will be home grown. It's why we pay taxes so that our government can hunt them down before they have a chance to harm others. At least we hope that happens. But in reality, the worst atrocities in the U. S. have been caused by our own people, whether they were school shooting, malls or movie theaters. One is never truly safe.

    I think my biggest concern is that the refugees should fight for their country rather than flee it. Other countries can't always be their "fail safe". Freedom has always come at a dear price, the price of blood. We paid it in 1776 and again in 1942, to name two examples.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    Living in the South, we are a bit different from the citizens of France. We have permits to carry concealed weapons, so maybe we are a bit safer...
    Safer? Eeek! More guns = more shootings! Anyway, I'm not entirely sure, but I read that France has fairly lax gun laws (for Europe). I'm not sure of the details...



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    The thing is, there will always be evil people. Some will come from other countries, but most will be home grown. It's why we pay taxes so that our government can hunt them down before they have a chance to harm others. At least we hope that happens. But in reality, the worst atrocities in the U. S. have been caused by our own people, whether they were school shooting, malls or movie theaters. One is never truly safe.
    So true. There will always be risks... and I think it's better to take risks by being compassionate than it is to risk inflaming animosity and resentment by failing to take in genuine refugees and leaving them with nowhere to go. We need to be very careful, not reckless with our compassion, but...

    Let's be honest. The whole issue is not that the refugees are Muslim, or might be terrorists; it's that they're poor. And by letting them into our countries, we fear that they might erode our wealth. We forget they are human. We forget that living in a war zone is not their fault (and partly "ours" in the West). And we act as if, because they're on the other side of the world, you can just close your eyes and forget them.

    I dunno... Can't we just kill all this evil shit with kindness? And rainbows? (Okay, okay, no rainbows! People would just argue over which god produced them!)

    I don't want to get all Biblical (as I'm a diehard atheist), but there is some beauty to the Bible and the Qu'ran: the struggles between "good" and "evil"; of "selfishness" vs "compassion"; of loving thy neighbour and all that jazz. The fundamentalists want us to forget that.

    The terrorist attacks in Paris are ISIS' equivalent to George Bush's "Either you're with us... or you're against us." ideology. They want to divide the world into an "Us" and "Them"; where suspicion, intolerance, bigotry and fear drive the disenfranchised towards further fundamentalism.

    Sure, there's a war to fight and possibly (hopefully-well-targeted) bombs to drop. And we need to keep an eye on religion and the way that it can be perverted into fundamentalism. But most people, no matter where they come from or whether they're religious or not are just decent human beings.

    Good people come together and make good stuff happen. And most people are good people. Given the endless military involvement in the Middle East, and the arms trades that have propped up the régimes du jour, we can't just wash our hands of this humanitarian crisis.



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    I think my biggest concern is that the refugees should fight for their country rather than flee it. Other countries can't always be their "fail safe". Freedom has always come at a dear price, the price of blood. We paid it in 1776 and again in 1942, to name two examples.
    I don't think we should force civilians to live in war zones with no way to support themselves or stay safe. It's not their war, it's just a minority of idealistic lunatics who want to play with guns and power, razing the country to the ground. You wouldn't want women, children, the elderly and disabled fighting ISIS as cannon-fodder. Blood may be spilled, but we should seek to minimise it. And we should use trained soldiers with proper equipment to fight ISIS; not destitute refugees.

    Damn. This is weird. Everyone told me you get more right-wing as you get older! Maybe, the more people I meet from various far-flung lands, the more I realise how much we all have in common. :-/

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm very much in favor of letting in Syrian Refugees. The risk of terrorists slipping through the cracks is minuscule, considering how many hoops you have to jump through to get in the country (and that's just how it is now. There's no need for any more hoops just for the sake of calming down paranoid Americans). Nearly everything said about letting in the Syrian Refugees was said about the Jewish Refugees from the 1930s and 1940s. "We might let in terrorists and we can't take that risk!" They had the exact same fear about letting Nazis in and how we can't take that risk.
    CT-A_GcWEAAZnao.jpg

    Going outside the obvious moral reasons of not sending innocent families to die at the hand of terrorists, ISIS benefits when refugees can't get out and wind up stuck in Iraq or Syria. It's easier for them to spread their propaganda if they have them in their state, they get taxes from them, and those refugees, stuck in Syria or Iraq instead of working in the U.S or Europe, are now putting their skills towards ISIS since that's the only way for them to survive. The refugees fleeing freaks ISIS out far more than bombs dropped by the U.S, France, and Russia. Perhaps we shouldn't help ISIS by helping them maintain an audience.
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...rope-caliphate



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    These concerns escalated after a Syrian passport was found lying close to the body of a suicide bomber in the deadly Paris attacks. It has not been determined if the passport is authentic or a forgery.
    Everything I've read so far confirms that the Passport is a forgery.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-d...ttacks/5490090

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.