Are the refugees being brought to Canada going to camp out with the rest of our homeless or are they going to get special treatment?

Of course they are not going to camp out with our homeless, the ones for which we have not shown enough concern or compassion to make sure that they have indeed homes, however modest and basic! The billions that have been spent by us in the Middle East on peace making efforts should have been invested in our own citizens here, as there is NO evidence of any real peace over there! Sad, but true.

Very frustrating, isn’t it? Especially since the result was 99% predictable!

My parents were refugees, they came to this country after the second world war and were welcomed with open arms. What has happened to our country to make people like Dumbfounded and PrinceGeorge so bitter?

One thing, axman, is that after the Second World War there was an economic boom in Canada (and the USA) that lasted throughout most of the 1950’s as we first provided much of the materials needed by the war ravaged countries of Europe to rebuild, and later, re-armed to face the threat of Communism. That required a lot of workers, and ones willing to go (or ‘forced’ to go by the government of the day), to where they were needed. We are no longer enjoying that same kind of “seller’s market” for all our exports we did back then. And there has been, and continues to be, a lot of labour displacement in favour of automation and technological advancement since then. So I don’t think we can really blame Prince George or Dumbfounded and others for questioning why we should suddenly be so concerned about Syrian refugees when we have so many of our own people who are regressing economically through no fault of their own capable of correction en masse.

I’m actually all for helping refugees, but only woman, children and elderly. I sincerely believe that young able bodied men should stay behind and help fight for their country. That’s what true citizens do. My father, uncles, grandfathers all faught for this country during WW2, and I can’t believe I would abandon my country if war erupted here.
I work with many Europeans and they’ve stated that they can’t believe the large amount of 20-30 year old men that are running to Europe. I just don’t get it.
We’re a multi cultural country with a very long history of helping those in need. That’s the kind of morals that helped build this country and I’d hate to see us lose sight of that, but let’s help those that are also trying to help themselves. I think that stands true with everyone.
Yes, what is going on in the Middle East is horrific and scary, but if your a young man healthy and in good condition you should really be trying to save that country no matter how low the odds appear.
Fight for your country and try to save your homes and your culture. Make it safe again even if that only seems like a dream today.
That’s the way I see it.

I think every able bodied young woman should do the same thing. This is after all, the 21st century.

I agree with BAWS. The young men should defiantly not get priority no matter their circumstance.

Countries like Canada that provide shelter for their women and children in time of war should be able to count on those men as intermediaries in stabilizing a ‘just peace’ in their country when it comes, and come it will… soon as the ‘West’ gets the politicians straightened out on this issue.

The children I think should be our priority because they are the most innocent and had no part in making the situation that it is today. Orphans should be at the top of the list… followed by women with young children averaging under 10. Adults are most always stuck in their ways.

We should be looking to help the children as the most vulnerable, the most easily assimilated, and after acclimatizing to our education system will have the most to contribute to both countries over their lifetimes.

More young families to any community would be a boon. It helps to secure education funding, health care funding, and infrastructure funding to our community that is projected years into the future.

Those with hard core ideological beliefs should be weeded out, and it doesn’t take long until most of the young men of fighting age would be weeded out on that criteria alone.

It should just be common sense, but we see so much of that lacking these days at all levels in an age of special interest funded partisanship.

Thank you axman for having a heart! The rest of you should be ashamed.

When its federal funding there is no reason why it can not be considered ‘social credit’ in growing the economy, considering the monetary supply is and should be considered independent of the system of taxation when it comes to providing growth to the economic base as it was prior to the 1970’s when Canada had actual real growth.

No country should be paying interest on national infrastructure build out and other one time costs that are designed to grow the economic base of a country in tandem with its growth in monetary supply.

Taxation should be as it was prior to the 1970’s and only be for specific operational costs and services and not for the interest on social credit for growing the economy like the major projects that built this country. If we could get back to that then taking in refugees wouldn’t be such a big issue in terms of financial costs, but would rather be an issue of social integration alone.

As for the issue for the homeless, its a legitimate concern and goes back to the federal government allowing the housing market to become a ponzi scheme, as well as a failure to invest in social housing because of its recent relation to interest costs. A cost that was absorbed by the monetary supply when it was a federal priority in years past and not tied to a legacy of interest indebtitute.

Just for your consideration.

One country has finally learned that having a flow of Muslim immigrants creates problems. No, not just problems, horrific crimes.
Along with the introduction of Islam into European countries comes a drastic increase in rape, child molestation, murder, violence, and protests, all justifiable in the Quran and Hadith.
Jihadists, collectively known as mujahideen, implement terror cells and patrol the streets of commandeered zones to enforce Islamic Sharia law.
Norway has experienced the horrors of Islamic integration, and rather than appease Muslims for fear of being politically incorrect, they acted.
According to The Local, a record number of immigrants, namely Muslims, have been deported from Norway, beginning last year. With the deportation comes a dramatic decrease in crime, much to the delight of overwhelmed law enforcement.

Around 5,198 foreign citizens were expelled from Norway in 2013:

“It is the highest number we’ve had ever,” Frode Forfang, head of the Directorate of Immigration (UDI), told NRK. “We believe that one reason for the increase is that the police have become more conscious of using deportation as a tool to fight crime.”
Nigerian citizens topped the list of those expelled for committing crimes, with 232 citizens expelled as a punishment in 2013, followed by Afghan citizens with 136 expelled as a punishment, and 76 Moroccans expelled as a punishment.
Afghan citizens topped the list of those expelled for violating the Immigration Act, with 380 expelled for this reason, followed by Iraqi citizens, 234 were expelled for violating the act.

We applaud Norway for refusing to allow liberals to shame them into keeping criminal offenders within their borders. Perhaps we can be brave enough to do the same.

Be ashamed of what iBear? Can you be more specific. Wanting the most vulnerable to receive help over that of able bodied fighting age men is something to be ashamed of?

I think you will find you are in a minority if that is the specific you are arguing.

axman:”What has happened to our country to make people like Dumbfounded and PrinceGeorge so bitter?”

You misinterpreted what I was saying! I DO NOT want anybody to be homeless! If every Canadian had a home to come home to, the “camp out with the rest of our homeless” would not be a question that had to be asked!

Far from being bitter I am welcoming refugees and I am NOT objecting to assist them with our tax money and even personally!

I also should have mentioned the 148 brave Canadians who lost their lives there and many who were wounded and the many who are now suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and even some lack of support from the government.

If Germany with less than three times the population of Canada takes 900,000 refugees Canada should step up and take 300,000.

What Syria needs most is a solution to the violence.

Air dropping more weapons and ammunition into the fight is not the answer. Obama is right off his rocker in his Syria approach, and Canada and the rest of NATO would be wise to reign him in as much as we can and let theAmericans walk alone on their policy of funding the ‘moderate rebels’ aka the ‘al nusura front’ which is nothing more than a break away of isis and would surely bring them to power should Assad ever get toppled.

Obama ups the anti on the fight this last week by introducing American special forces into the fight, which will bring them into direct conflict with Russia. The Russians claimed that America has allowed Saudi Arabia to release shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles to their Sunni allies in Syria aka isis. The Americans claim only their special forces will have these weapons…. I think we see the early results of Obama’s policy in regards to air access denial with the downing the Russian civilian airliner.

The solution to me is simple.

We know a few things about this conflict that are certain.

#1 We know that the Sunni population will never again be governed by a Shia majority; and trying to impose Baghdad and Damascus on the Sunni population will only prolong this fight, so long as the Gulf theocracies have oil.

#2 The more these people are divided, the more they will fight and cause strife around the world. The old British partition of the Ottoman Empire was designed on divide and conquer; and not on a stable society. This needs to be redressed if they are to ever live in peace.

#3 This divided landscape invites the power politics of the neighboring countries of Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Iran… all of which have totalitarian tendencies, very little respect for human dignity, and no qualms about creating a situation like isis Syria to promote their own partisan interests.

So I think it is incumbent on the world powers to enable a new political entity that can be built on the ashes of those former states that will respect the right to self determination of regional governments as states of a larger encompassing federal nation. A new nation that is balanced for ethnic interests, democracy, and has the sole monopoly on weapons of war as well as the national army.

I would propose a nation that includes all of present day Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon; with Beirut as its capital. America, the UN, the EU, and Russia would all have to come down hard on the regional third rate powers to ensure they go along and assist in the transformation.

With provinces or states of the new entity equally balanced in a Senate… and allowed sovereignty over social, health, and local resource issues… but not allowed any army of their own… only a state or provincial police force with the weapons of norm for a regional police force. All weapons of war would fold into the national army or be destroyed through international bombing that would continue until all weapons are in safe hands.

Meanwhile until and even after peace a caretaker administration would make the decisions at the national level for those that are not represented due to conflict and violence in their areas. A national government might have half of its democratic votes in the hands of the international caretaker administration until the country is on its feet.

The lines are already for the most part drawn. The populations balance themselves in a larger entity.

Syria is 60% Sunni, but run by a 20% Shia minority… this is a recipe for perpetual war. .

Iraq is 60% Shia, and maybe 20% Sunni, with the rest Kurds, Yazidi, and Christians in the North.

Lebanon is nearly a third Shia, a third Sunni, and a third Christian and Druze. Of all three states Lebanon is the most advanced in balancing minority rights in an effort to all live together and get along after their brutal history in the 80’s.

Syria, could have a Shia state in the West under the governance of the Assad regime, Aleppo could finally have independence as a sovereign state and the largest population center in former Syria, the East of the country could become a Sunni state. The Aleppo province and the Eastern Sunni province could have their national votes and administration held in caretaker mode by the international community until the social development for democracy can take root.

Iraq, could have the Kurds in the North finally having their sovereignty as a multi ethnic independent state, the Sunni’s in Anbar and western Iraq, the Shia of Baghdad, and the South of Iraq could all form regional governments.

Lebanon would stay as a single state, but Beruit could be given a national capital status like Washington DC in America.

A much larger nation able to defend its interests in a pariah of a region, yet decentralized enough to allow the state type regions to rebuild in their own interest would bring a framework for a lasting peace.

Canada could be a leader breaking from the pack and mediating a bold framework for peace. Canada could provide qualified unbiased administrators for the international caretaker mode of government with other nations contributing in areas where they too can assist. Maybe have a 20-year sunset clause on the caretaker mode… not much different than Hong Kong when the British played that role prior to the Chinese takeover.

Successful refugees would then have an avenue to contribute the successful administration of a caretaker force enabling the transition to democracy at the sunset of their mandate.

If all else fails having international agreement on the removal of weapons of war from the region would make the region livable so they can look forward to a future and building their lives in a much safer region.

The need to become refugees in a country with long winters would loose its appeal and nations throughout the world would have gratitude for that.

Posted on Sunday, November 1, 2015 @ 4:36 PM by axman with a score of 0
My parents were refugees, they came to this country after the second world war and were welcomed with open arms. What has happened to our country to make people like Dumbfounded and PrinceGeorge so bitter?
***************

Bitter? LOL!

Refugees or the illegal migrants from Turkey? Why not help a local family, would that be too much to ask? Have any of you seen a reserve? The refugee camps are 5 Star campgrounds compared to where our natives reside.

Amazing how the CBC has influenced so many, with a few pictures. Maybe they should cover some local issues, instead of their Muslim based agenda.

Eagleone, I propose that whatever they do over there is their own business. People are running for their lives to avoid becoming victims of cluster bombs, barrel bombs and mustard gas.

Obama admitted the other day that the USA involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq (America’s longest wars!) have been unsuccessful. The whole area is a boiling cauldron of warring factions and there is no end in sight.

Let’s just help as many refugees as we can and stay out of that mess.

Eagleone wrote:-“When its federal funding there is no reason why it can not be considered ‘social credit’ in growing the economy, considering the monetary supply is and should be considered independent of the system of taxation when it comes to providing growth to the economic base as it was prior to the 1970’s when Canada had actual real growth. ”
=========================================================================

That only works, (and not all that well), when the country has a favourable balance of trade, Eagle. There is a myth that prior to 1974 the government of Canada used the Bank of Canada to finance itself ‘interest free’. It didn’t quite happen that way. The Bank of Canada’s role was to be the government’s fiscal agent in the marketing of government debt issues. This involved the Bank taking up debt issues as necessary, (mainly as existing debt issues matured, and were ‘paid off’ by rolling them over into new debt issues), and then marketing them as broadly as possible at the most propitious time to get a better interest rate for the government than might be possible if the government had to do its own debt marketing.

While the Bank of Canada COULD finance the government ‘interest free’ such a move would be inflationary, and make it difficult to determine the exchange rate for the Canadian dollar with the currencies of other countries. The central banks of other countries we trade with would be loathe to hold Canadian dollars in the foreign exchange reserves if the government could just order the Bank of Canada to create more of them every time it wanted to pay for something. We’d end up like Zimbabwe.

Assuming your view of could includes uncontrolled monetary inflation. If it had a limit like 2% of GDP, then it could easily be factored into foreign exchange considerations and if it was self paying in the way of better infrastructure or ways that have proven growth that pays for the monetary inflation then it should have little effect on the foreign exchange rates… other than international banksters wanting to control money supply for their own gain and profits.

If the central bank of Canada has a mandate to keep inflation below 2%… then how is that any different than mandating social credit (federal interest free spending) does not go above 2%.

Most economists agree some inflation is better for the economy than deflation that devalues the asset supports which underpin debt. The real question is how does Canada maintain the 2% goal and how can that balance be made up.

Twenty five thousand Syrians ! You won’t even notice them . When was the last time you ran into a Vietnamese refugee ? As for economics . Geez us ! They will need at least one of everything . Cha Ching .

One world, one people.

So the consensus here seems to be that we should borrow money from bankers as a country and pay interest for the costs associated with settling refugees and building affordable housing (ie infrastructure)? And that the way to peace is to continue with the bulkanization and proxy war policies in the Middle East?

I just think it should be plainly obvious that this whole war and ‘Arab Spring’ is all orchestrated by international bankers and their proxy forces and unaccountable national security entities.

Why people would favor policies that are the outcomes these people wish to force on us, seems utterly defeatist. Borrow money and pay interest to finance the war and its blow back while central banker families get rich… that’s just digging the debt hole ever deeper and empowering the corpocracy of our democracy.

At this point things are only getting started over there, and unless the world gets some statesmen like they have in Iceland, then we will all suffer far worse than from having undesirable neighbors.

With the 50 American special forces they announced they will be embedding in Syria, I don’t know if those are the announced human shields against Russia, or for Turkey to consider (Kurds are a US ally and Erdogan has a new majority)… either way its a bad sign of much bigger things to come… then add the taking down of a Russian civilian airliner and one has to consider anything could happen in the weeks ahead.

At the end of the day this is just another banker proxy war for resources and strategic land, and one that has huge risks to world peace… massive war crimes and dislocations of people. I don’t think it is in Canada’s interest to go along with their plans in any way… we would be better to walk away then to be part of the crime, but the risk to world peace is so great that surely there is some role Canada can play as an honest broker, and if not Canada than who?

Eagleone:-“So the consensus here seems to be that we should borrow money from bankers as a country and pay interest for the costs associated with settling refugees and building affordable housing (ie infrastructure)?”
=========================================================================================

That is the same thing as doing what you seem to be proposing the Bank of Canada do with its creation of ‘interest free’ money to accomodate the government of Canada’s spending on anything, Eagle. The only difference is that what the government supposedly gets for ‘free’ (interest that it essentially pays itself through its ownership of the Bank of Canada), WE, you and I and everyone else, will only end up paying in increased interest rate charges on EVERY other bank loan.

You are confusing, I believe, the idea that you can have a central bank create money for the government ‘interest free’, which ISN’T ‘social credit’, with the actual Social Credit idea that the central bank could create SOME money for distribution to all of us as CONSUMERS ‘debt free’. There is a real BIG difference.

When we do as you’re proposing there is still a financial ‘cost’ being created, (the infrastructure ~ which has an actual, physical cost), which still has to be liquidated somehow, whether there’s any interest saving to the government or not. In reality, there’s unlikely to be any interest saving overall. To give the government ‘free’ money to spend, supposedly on our behalf, we’ll not only be hit with higher taxes to try to ‘get it back’ and forestall inflation, but the interest rate on all other loans will rise.

Eagleone:-“If the central bank of Canada has a mandate to keep inflation below 2%… then how is that any different than mandating social credit (federal interest free spending) does not go above 2%.”
=========================================================================================

It’s different because you have no way of knowing what the effects of increased government spending are going to be in a ‘normal’ economy. By the time the government’s spending has occurred prices have already risen, and what do you do then? Stop the spending on infrastructure dead in its tracks to forestall further inflation? Hardly a very efficient way to get anything built.
=========================================================================================

Eagleone:-“Most economists agree some inflation is better for the economy than deflation that devalues the asset supports which underpin debt. The real question is how does Canada maintain the 2% goal and how can that balance be made up.”
=======================================================================================
2% a year is 20% in ten years, Eagle. Will increased incomes be sufficient to meet increased prices in ten years time more so by then than they are now? Or will we all just be working with bigger figures, including the ones which relate how much further we’ll then all be in debt? Really, Eagle, as we become ever more efficient at producing just about everything, prices should be FALLING, not rising. But this doesn’t happen, at least not to the full extent it should, does it? Why not? And don’t tell me it’s because of ‘interest’, because it just ain’t so.

Ataloss wrote: “They will need at least one of everything”

Yes, but until we make the one of everything in Canada, the more we buy, the more we give to other parts of the world.

I think it is best if we get rid of everyone in Canada and move them into the battlefields of Syria. Then let us see how many of us will stay behind in the new homeland to defend it if we are supposedly so good at doing that.

When was the last time Canada was invaded? We never even had a 9/11 type of event.