If we can drop bombs, we can lift people
Thursday, November 19, 2015 @ 3:45 AM
By Bill Phillips
Prince George-Peace River-Northern Rockies MP Bob Zimmer has called on the Liberal government to slow its intake of Syrian refugees.
With Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise of the country taking 25,000 refugees by the New Year, it’s unlikely the government will meet the target anyway. It should be pointed out that Zimmer is not calling for Canada to refuse refugees or even lower the number we’re going to take, but simply slow the intake.
It’s regrettable that public discussion over refugees, particularly in light of the attacks in Paris last week, seems to focus on extremes. Some seem to think that we’re simply going to put a bunch of Syrians on a plane, land it at YXS, and then wish the refugees a good life as they depart. That sentiment has spawned the xenophobic idiocy such as exemplified in the online petition calling for a ban on settling refugees in northeastern B.C.
What a load of crap.
What we need is a reasonable approach that is removed from politics.
Trudeau wants to relocate 25,000 refugees here by the end of the year. A laudable goal and the mark of a compassionate leader. The mark of a better leader will be to ensure that processes to get them here aren’t unduly rushed simply so he can boast that he fulfilled a campaign promise.
That will serve no one … not the country and likely not legitimate refugees seeking a better life.
We (I’m referring to the West, because no one other than the West is willing to deal with refugees) should first try to remove refugees from danger. Whether they’re coming out of Syria, Iraq or Sierra Leone, the first goal should be to get them out of imminent danger. Granted, that’s easier said than done when thousands of refugees are on the march.
Once the immediate danger is over, we should work on resettling them. We can expedite that process while not sacrificing the checks and balances required to ensure refugees are legitimate. That takes money, but this is a crisis situation. If we can afford to bomb targets in Syria and Iraq and/or train Kurdish troops, then we can afford to put a few more people on the file of helping those displaced by the conflict.
Is there anything wrong with getting refugees here and then holding them until they are properly processed? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we set refugees free in the country without oversight, and yet that seems to be a hysterical fear of some.
Is it too much, perhaps, to fingerprint refugees coming to this country and then run those fingerprints against those of known or suspected terrorists before settling them here? Would that allay fears that terrorists might be sneaking in?
There is nothing wrong with Canada accepting 25,000 refugees, or more. Let’s just do it right.
Bill Phillips is a freelance columnist living in Prince George. He was the winner of the 2009 Best Editorial award at the British Columbia/Yukon Community Newspaper Association’s Ma Murray awards, in 2007 he won the association’s Best Columnist award. In 2004, he placed third in the Canadian Community Newspaper best columnist category and, in 2003, placed second. He can be reached at billphillips1@mac.com
Comments
We will see how they treat the ride over here. Hopefully we don’t get the European experience for our honeymoon with Syrians.
I suspect 20% will bolt for the American boarder by foot no matter where in the country they are settled, and this will cause issues with the Americans, as well as a dilemma for Canada what to do with them when they are returned.
What most all Canadians expect is a professional process in approving the right mix of refugees with the lowest risk to Canada. Some don’t think the government is up to the challenge, and others think the best way to help refugees is to solve the issues that cause them to flee their homes.
I think a good start would be an official condemnation of the countries that enable the proxy war in Syria. Why hasn’t countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, and Israel been call out. They all should be read the riot act by the international community on their involvement in this mess. If the west has allies like that, then we will have no hope ever finding peace from that part of the world.
I agree. No matter how many refugees we take the problem in their homeland will still exist. The problem needs to be resolved there.
I’ll consider it a ‘crisis’ when Japan, China, Russia and the rest of the middle east get involved in taking people. Until then, it’s all propaganda, driven by the corrupt Associated Press and the UN
Saudi Arabia has bombed ISIS along side the US since 2014. They have taken in over 500,000 refugees and have provided schooling for 100,000 children as has Lebanon. The Saudi govt has said in 5 years they have hosted 2.5 million refugees. The Gulf States are not included when the UN High Commission on Refugees lists the registered refugees because they don’t register refugees with the UNHCR. That does not mean they haven’t taken any.
I see Gitterdun has just googled ‘how many refugees has saudi arabia taken’ and pasted quotes from the top hits, which are totally inaccurate btw. Saudi Arabia has actually taken in ZERO refugees / migrants. Iraq has taken over 240k, Egypt 130k… but thanks for playing ‘google’.
They have contributed money and military aid
Eagleone:-“I think a good start would be an official condemnation of the countries that enable the proxy war in Syria. Why hasn’t countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, and Israel been call out. They all should be read the riot act by the international community on their involvement in this mess. ”
=========================================================================
I’m sure an ‘official condemnation’ from Canada would engender nothing more than disinterested hilarity in all of those places. And elsewhere. Especially with another Trudeau as our fearless leader. As would one from that useless organisation we’ve long put such false hopes in, the United Nations (so called). You have, and are going to continue to have, these kinds of ‘proxy wars’, (which are arguably better than another full blown ‘world’ one ~ though its good, in a way, that we’re prepping for that, with the ‘live fire’ exercises are Forces have recently been involved in). You have them because of the current need for every industrialised country to get rid of its otherwise unpurchasable surplus production. That’s what you get when you allow politicians to tell you that what you crave more than anything are ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’. War allows you to waste on a grand scale, and get away with it. This keeps people ’employed’, making still more to be wasted. And then re-creating what’s been destroyed, or will be, there or elsewhere, ad infinitum. Even the admission of refugees will create employment. They have to be fed, clothed, and sheltered, and educated, and medicated, and entertained. And they won’t be engaged in any of that for quite some time after they’ve arrived here. By then, there’ll be another war somewhere, and the process can be repeated. On a larger scale if necessary. Don’t expect Trudeau to do anything about any of that. He works for the same debt dealers that wax fat on it.
Actually it has zero to do with the fact that we now have “another Trudeau” as a “fearless leader”! Would the other three options (Harper, May, Mulcair) been less or more fearless? I do agree that the military industrial complex thrives on continuous conflict. Somehow the suggestion to beat swords into plowshares hasn’t penetrated into the skulls of the leaders yet…so, what is there to do?
Leroyjenkins maybe you need to remove the “western” filter from your google. They have taken zero of the registered refugees in the EU. Does not mean they have taken noone from Syria into their borders.
“Is there anything wrong with getting refugees here and then holding them until they are properly processed?”
A couple of things. First, the civil liberties union would immediately rush to federal court asking that the “camps” be declared unlawful confinement, a charter violation, and that all being held be released. They have committed no crime that we know of, so we can’t hold them. It’s not like the Chinese who came here illegally and we detained in our jail. These people would have been allowed in. Big difference. The Chinese we could deport because China can give assurance it won’t execute or torture – whether you believe them or not is another matter.
Second, if you did find terrorists among them, you couldn’t deport them now that they are on Canadian soil. We will not deport a person to a country that will execute or torture them (which Syria would), and it’s likely if they came from a refugee camp in another country, that country would refuse to take them back.
This is why I think the composition should be women and children first – just like when a boat sinks. Still a chance of a terrorist slipping through, but I’d say the chance is 100 times less than admitting young males.
And frankly, I’m not all that excited about bringing in the infirm and elderly. Dealing with my own family situation, I am finding the resources for senior citizens with dementia in this country are scarce in deed, and not sure how taxpaying citizens who know need resources, should be expected to share them with refugees. Show me we’re taking care of our current seniors and infirm well, and I’ll change my opinion.
Have we ever seen this much divisiveness in our country?
So much of it could be abated, just by saying “I have listened to the people and I have decided to forego my election promise of 25,000 by year’s end. Instead, we will proceed at a more reasonable pace in order to provide assistance to those that legitimately need assistance, while at the same time doing our absolute best to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians!”
Doesn’t seem like much to ask for, does it? Will it happen? Not very likely!
Well Hart Guy, that would require a Prime Minister who is able to reason “My way isn’t the only way.” Ironically the big knock against Harper is how top down management he was, and now we’ve got the exact same thing just wearing a different pair of shorts. It’s interesting how far we’ve come though.
WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we rounded up Canadian citizens of Japanese heritage and essentially jailed them, stole their property, and took forever to apologize.
Now, an identifiable ethnic/religious group has declared war on Western Values, and all we’re asking is that we know who we’re bringing to our shores and we’re called racists and xenophobes, which I find odd, because many of the Canadians against this, aren’t just ethnic Europeans, they’re Sikh’s, Hindu’s, Blacks, as well. And I notice no one has asked what the First Nations think about all this?
According to an Angus Reid poll, the majority of Canadians oppose Justin’s refugee plan:
“Majority of Canadians oppose Trudeau’s plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees over in just six weeks”
ht tp://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/majority-of-canadians-oppose-trudeaus-plan-to-bring-25000-syrian-refugees-over-in-just-six-weeks-poll
We now have less than six weeks until year’s year!
I just hope we get lucky and win the migrant lotto like the ones that got the most famous of all Syrian migrants . A guy by the name of Steve Jobs . You guys probably have never heard of him .
His father was a Syrian migrant .
Somehow the suggestion to beat swords into plowshares hasn’t penetrated into the skulls of the leaders yet…so, what is there to do?
===================================================
Good one. Canada leads the pack. We have sold $13 billion worth of armoured vehicle to Saudi Arabia.
Cheers
57%
43%
“Good one. Canada leads the pack. We have sold $13 billion worth of armoured vehicle to Saudi Arabia.”
=========================================================================
Making those vehicles involves the kind of ‘high-tech, value-added’ JOBS that so many seem to think we should be basing our whole economy on. Maybe we should have just told the Saudi’s we don’t want their business. We’ll only sell to them things we want to sell to them, take it or leave it. Of course then we’d have no ‘debt-free’ injection of $ 13 billion into our economy, would we? So whatever that amount of dough goes towards making up a shortfall in, the macro-economic one between ‘prices’ (and ‘taxes’) of all the things we need and want, and total ‘incomes’ distributed sufficient enough to pay for them all, would then have to be made up solely through further DEBT. Which, if it’s government debt, as a good deal of it ultimately will be, will NEVER really be repaid. We just get to pay interest on it, forever and ever. I can see Trudeau being all for THAT. His Party is the traditional Party of the ‘debt-dealers’, and anything that increases their hold over the country is what he’s to deliver on.
Comments for this article are closed.