Search the Community

I was impressed that Ted Cruz voluntarily renounced his Canadian citizenship to show his dedication to representing the United States. I would admire Andrew Scheer if he did the equivalent thing, renouncing his American citizenship to show his dedication to Canada, since he is running for Prime Minister in a few months. This is actually MANDATORY to run for office in Australia, or even to hold citizenship at all in Japan. I think it is important that our political representatives, if not all our citizens, should show their dedication to representing our nation first, and not have backup plans to reside in other nations if things go wrong. The only way I could be wrong about this is if Andrew's dad (deacon James D. Scheer, who was born in the Bronx in New York) immigrated to Canada prior to turning 19, or if he renounced his citizenship prior to Andrew's birth in 1979. Andrew hasn't supplied any evidence either of these things happened (James' older brother died in the Bronx, so the family as a whole never left) so I believe it is reasonable to assume he holds American citizenship by birthright by default.

We the people of Canada DEMAND change in Government. We the people of Canada demand that the government that belongs to us and to whom we lend our democratic power to lead this country and to sit in opposition, change the laws that govern the behaviour of those politicians that take the oath of office. We are tired of the way that parties spend our hard-earned tax dollars on things that do not benefit this country. We are tired of the lies by all parties and we are tired of the personal agendas that you all bring into the house of commons instead of working toward the common goal of bettering this great nation. We are tired of the ethics violations, the misappropriation of money that does not belong to you and the way you spend on other countries while here in Canada our own go without. We are tired of the way Canadians are left out in the cold as soon as you take office and the opposition all of a sudden becomes sanctimonious in the way they say they want to save us. We are tired of the Pandering politicians on all sides. We are tired of the insider trading. We are tired of the wealthy being the ones that you listen to and not us average Canadians because in fact most of you have never worked a solid day in your life. We are Tired of the way that the people we elect as our Members of Parliament stop speaking for us the moment they are told to tow the party line. We are tired of the way the country gets ignored because as soon as you take power and the house sits you then worry about the next election rather than worrying about us the people. We demand change and we have some changes we want: 1. We the people demand, not ask, that recall be brought into law. 2. We the people demand that restricted parliamentary privilege be restricted to times that it is a benefit to the country not the politicians. 3. We demand that under conditions that regular Canadians would lose their jobs that the same apply to politicians in the same fast manor. 4. We demand that if fired there is an end of your pension no if ands or buts. 5. We demand that any financial penalties that politicians receive be proportional to the wages they earn so as to sting them as we the citizens get stung. 6.We the people demand that when a politician ends his term that he not use political influence to enrich himself or family, if they do they are to be prosecuted. 7. We demand that all monies earned by the writing of books or speaking engagements by any serving politician or politician that has served (because they were only in that position to serve the country) should be paid to charity. 8. We demand that any politician caught deliberately lying to the citizens of this country be removed from office immediately. 9. We demand that any politician working against the people of this country be removed from office and if deemed serious enough be charged in a court of law. These demands are put before you by citizens of all political parties, All genders and all races. We the citizens of Canada have had enough of governments dividing the peoples and spending recklessly so as to force our taxes to a level that makes it hard to support our families.

Kellie Leitch, and Argus, have promoted the idea that we should screen immigrants (and refugees) for Canadian Values. I know there are a variety of opinions on what Canadian Values are, but for the purposes of this thread, let’s agree to focus on these four: Religious freedom Equality of women Equal rights for LGBT people Separation of religion and government. How would an effective screening system be developed? What would it include? Many companies use some form of personality or ‘culture’ testing to find the right fit for a position. How effective are they, and could a “Canadian Values" screening test be developed from an already existing corporate test? For the screening test, should an intolerant ‘attitude’ or belief be separated from a willingness to act on that belief, or are they one and the same? Should the economic worth of the applicant be considered so that someone who is more likely to create wealth in Canada is considered more ‘attractive’? If an otherwise attractive applicant fails the screening test, but only by a little, should they be able to access some remedial course in Canadian Values and retake the test? Would the goal be to screen all immigrants (or refugees), or just those from certain parts of the world? Should immigrants and Canadians already living in Canada also be screened to develop a ‘baseline’ to which new arrivals can be compared? Should the screening include temporary workers and students, or even vacationers? What are some of the pitfalls of a 'values screening test'? How could it be designed so that it couldn't be hacked or beaten, thus allowing applicants with un-Canadian values entry? These are the questions I’ve been asking myself as I participate (argue?) in the “Immigration of Religious Fanatics” thread, and I thought it might be interesting to discuss in a more objective manner to see if it does make sense or could be effectively implemented.

Whoever wins the election should charge all foreign visitors a $100 entrance tax per every month they remain in Canada unless and until they leave or become a resident. This money could then subsidize our school system which has been getting way too many budget cuts. Our kids need to come first. What say you all?

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.

Canada's christians are not full time Christians. They pretend to be Christians every week when they attend Church service and recite prayers but come Monday they do not live very Chritian like lives. It seems we let our government get away with way too much unethical conduct overseas that is really unChristian like. Ususally Ottawa does whatever Washington dictates with little regards for the blowback to Canada and makes every Canadian Christian look like a hypocrit. The Arar and Khadr cases are just two typical examples,but Immigration policy in general seems anti-christian to me.

Dear Swan, I appreciate your email. However, both my partner and I have waited over five years for the vaguely termed "security background checks" process to end so that we can have some sort of finality in our lives. As far as Immigration Canada is concerned, I would like to point out the following: They have exhibited a carelessness, lack of empathy and incompetence during this whole process. In part, this has can be illustrated with the following examples: a) They called me to tell me that a letter asking me to pick up my permanent resident card was a "mistake" and not to show up for the assigned time. b>They told me in 2011 that my PR card was in the local office and would be in the mail "within a week," only to renege and not even have the common courtesy to explain why. c) A CIC representative told me over the phone that he has no idea what is going on and that there are two filing systems that are overlapping and not synchronized. d) The F.B.I., the California Department of Justice, the Texas Department of Public Safety have all sent letters to CIC vouching for the fact that I do not have any kind of a criminal record. e) I have been a citizen of the United States since 1999, and a resident since 1994. I have NEVER gotten into any kind of legal troubles, neither criminal nor civil. Given all the above, my question is: What possible reason is there for my application being held in limbo, with no information forthcoming, for over five years? As far as Wai Young's local office in her constituency of South Vancouver and your personal conduct is concerned, I would like to point out the following: a) I was severely disappointed that you did not warrant my personal pain and grievance at being treated in such a manner by CIC worthy of any kind of personal attention by Miss Young. b>Miss Young apparently does not think that my wife (a Canadian citizen), or her father (a Canadian citizen) warrant any special attention. We will be sure to tell of our experience with your office to others. My father in law is very well known and influential in the local Sikh community, and he will be sure to give voice to our feelings about Miss Young and her attitude far and wide. c) Your question of whether I had considered giving up a five year old application process to return to the United States was extremely insensitive and callous. d) I understand that Miss Young is an MP for the Conservative party, led by Stephen Harper no less, and that she is not expected to be particularly concerned about immigrant issues. However, given the fact that you are either the child of immigrants as is Miss Young, I found both your attitudes shameful at best and inhumane at worse. e) Next time you ask someone why they don't just drop an application for immigration and return to where they came from, I would ask you to consider the following: 1) It takes a lot of logistical, psychological, financial and personal investment to move from one country to another and wait five years for an immigration application that should normally take no more than two years. 2) It is very hurtful that someone who is supposed to help my family would suggest such a thing, albeit in a polite tone. 3) Immigration policies that are based on and take advantage of the fear and prejudice engendered against one particular ethnicity or religious group set a dangerous precedent that could affect you in the future. One can only imagine what would happen in case of a major conflagration between the United States and China (a very possible scenario in the not too distant future) given Canada standing as a member of NATO. You or your children could very well face the kind of hurtful discrimination that my family has faced under such a scenario. Your smug assumption that you are 'Canadian' enough to treat me in such a manner will come crashing down under such circumstances. Please don't forget that you are the child of an immigrants, and however, 'Canadian' you may perceive yourself, you are only one international incident away from being treated with suspicion for no fault of your own. Sincerely,

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.