Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Refugees'.
Found 2 results
Canada has signed many international treaties that accept migration and immigration of all people to be a right and not a privilege. Almost all of our ancestors were immigrants. Yet now we look down upon today's immigrants and deny them the same opportunities our great grandparents had. I think this is a bit shameful and unethical. Even if they create a temporary tax burden, I think skilled and educated immigrants should be granted admission and given one year to prove themselves - sort of "probationary immigration" I guess I would call it. If after one year they cannot be self-sustaining and productive to society, and able to speak English or France, they can be shown the door. My guess is that 80% of these immigrants have value to Canada - even if it is taking the unwanted jobs the rest of us reject. Canada cannot grow to its maximum potential without more people. Just my opinion.
There has been a bit of discussion lately about Canadian terrorists, particularly around whether we should allow dual-citizenship, stop letting in refugees, and/or be more selective about where Canada's immigrants come from. CSIS released a report about Canadian terrorists and the results shatter a lot of the myths that are floating around the forum. A Study of Radicalisation: The Making of Islamists Extremists in Canada Today. The report tells us that terrorists in Canada mostly commit their acts of terror abroad, are almost always born in Canada, rarely are they immigrants, and never have they been refugees. The report goes on further to say that not only are they not immigrants, but they almost never come from marginalized groups and are typically fully integrated into Canada. In other words, they don't come from those immigrant enclaves that struggle or refuse to integrate into Canada. In fact, CSIS says these terrorists are usually "highly integrated into Canadian society." MI5 also conducted a study in Britain that was released recently and found very similar results. MI5's study went further to say that "religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization," which flies in the face of generally accepted forum commentary. What does this tell us at the end of the day? Well, the experience of immigration, immigrant communities, and religion are almost never the source of terrorism here in Canada. People are not bringing extremist ideas with them here, despite popular belief to the contrary. Furthermore, the most religious are the least radicalized. The findings of CSIS (as well as MI5 and some American intelligence experts) has found that Islamic Extremists, who are religious by definition of course, are typically radicalized politically well before they adopt their extreme religion stance. In other words, there is no direct path from being deeply religious to becoming radicalized, rather it seems the radical become deeply religious. What CSIS and others believe these terrorist activities are really about is political motives, territorial claims about securing the "land of Islam." These terrorist activities and their narratives seem to have more in common, at least according to CSIS, with the IRA and FLQ than with Muslim communities around the world.