Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Entitled refugees? Yes, it seems so. There is an ironic story in the G&M today undoubtedly designed to raise sympathy for the plight of poor refugees trying to find housing in Toronto. It fails badly. The immediate focus, a refugee from Afghanistan, is totally unsympathetic. She whines about her housing and the money she's given and says if she knew things would be like this she'd have stayed in Turkey or back in Afghanistan. Rents are too high here and she isn't being given enough money!

Then there's the Syrian refugee and his wife and five kids. He's thinking of moving, but darn it all, he wants to live around Muslims where his wife and daughter won't be stared at in their hijabs. And another Afghani who came here six years ago and is still living in his subsidized bachelor apartment, only now with a wife and toddler. He's on the list for a bigger place but there's only so much subsidized housing to go around, what with so many new refugees coming in every day.

What an absolute mess the Liberals are creating with mass immigration, huge numbers of refugees, hundreds of thousands of foreign students and hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers, all seeking cheap housing.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-newcomers-to-canada-struggle-amid-torontos-housing-crisis/#comments

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, I don’t want you to hate refugees.  But if somebody expresses a willingness to go back to their country of origin, are they really refugees?  I always thought refugees are suppose to come from rea

Does Prince Harry count as an "entitled refugee"?   Sorry, he was the one that came to mind.   https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-harry-canada-jobs-1.5429202    

Entitled refugees? Yes, it seems so. There is an ironic story in the G&M today undoubtedly designed to raise sympathy for the plight of poor refugees trying to find housing in Toronto. It fails ba

Posted Images

These people should be given the option of a paid ticket back to their home country if they feel like their life would be better there.  I would have no problem using tax money for that kind of thing.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If rent is too high, move to a cheaper city.

Come'on man, that's too logical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 7:29 AM, Argus said:

Entitled refugees? Yes, it seems so. There is an ironic story in the G&M today undoubtedly designed to raise sympathy for the plight of poor refugees trying to find housing in Toronto. It fails badly. The immediate focus, a refugee from Afghanistan, is totally unsympathetic. She whines about her housing and the money she's given and says if she knew things would be like this she'd have stayed in Turkey or back in Afghanistan. Rents are too high here and she isn't being given enough money!

Then there's the Syrian refugee and his wife and five kids. He's thinking of moving, but darn it all, he wants to live around Muslims where his wife and daughter won't be stared at in their hijabs. And another Afghani who came here six years ago and is still living in his subsidized bachelor apartment, only now with a wife and toddler. He's on the list for a bigger place but there's only so much subsidized housing to go around, what with so many new refugees coming in every day.

What an absolute mess the Liberals are creating with mass immigration, huge numbers of refugees, hundreds of thousands of foreign students and hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers, all seeking cheap housing.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-newcomers-to-canada-struggle-amid-torontos-housing-crisis/#comments

Maybe you should go ask the liberals if they really care? :D

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:53 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

If rent is too high, move to a cheaper city.

And guess who will pay for that trip to a cheaper city? I will give you one guess only. Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:17 AM, Shady said:

These people should be given the option of a paid ticket back to their home country if they feel like their life would be better there.  I would have no problem using tax money for that kind of thing.

I like that plan. That would be a lot dam cheaper for the taxpayer's of Canada if the government did just that. Don't like or cannot make it here? Here is a one way plane ticket with lunch included back home compliments of the Canadian taxpayer's. It will again be a waste of taxpayer's tax dollars but in the end the taxpayer may save plenty of tax dollars doing just that. Will work for me. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Argus that's it? You found some ungrateful refugee? And?  What is your point?  exactly?  What does pointing out when an individual is a shmuck, prove anything other than that individual is a shmuck?...if in fact they are actually a shmuck..

Have a nice day and thanks for sharing.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus that's it? You found some ungrateful refugee? And?  What is your point?  exactly?  What does pointing out when an individual is a shmuck, prove anything other than that individual is a shmuck?...if in fact they are actually a shmuck..

Have a nice day and thanks for sharing.

 

 

Several individuals are cited in the article.  Not just one.  Regardless, I put most of the blame on the federal government.  They arrange for people to come, without giving a care how things go after they get here, or how it impacts certain industries like housing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, can somebody explain to new immigrants that Canada is a very big country, and that you’re allowed to live in other places than just Toronto and Vancouver.  It might help with housing costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

edited

Let's get real. The point of this thread is a shmuck is a shmuck unless of course he/she is a refugee shmuck  then it means we can use that shmuckiness to make negative assumptions about the entire refugee determination system and other refugees.

 I can see deficiencies in how refugees are defined and/or processed. Yes I get it.  The refugee system should  screen out terrorists, criminals, human rights violators, false claimants I get that...but do  you want to  tell me how the subjective shmuck qualities of the people you mentioned create characteristics that can be screened out? If so how? NO ONE HAS.

If all  anyone has are  subjective anecdotes of a few shmucks acting like shmucks , what do you want me to say?  How does that establish a basis to shut down or LIMIT the entire system because of these shmucks?  Please explain.

Does anyone have anything to offer other than to point out negative qualities about specific  refugees and then automatically conclude it means other refugees neeed to be limited?

 

Edited by Rue
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has to be a limit on the number of refugees and a limited time for financial support. After a year or two all financial support must end and if they are not happy a free ticket back home should be purchased for them. They are so many legitimate easily adoptable immigrants in Eastern Europe and South America why is that Canada is admitting so many unadoptable immigrants whose beliefs and lifestyles are so different? Here we respect women, accept diversity, respect freedom of speech and choice, respect human rights. Refuse those who do not believe in same values.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rue said:

Let's be real Shade.

A shmuck is a shmuck unless of course its a refugee shmuck  then the point of such threads is to make negative assumptions about the refugee determination system  based on this shmuck behavior.

You really thing the shmucks  I do not deny exist are relevant let alone helpful in reforming the  refugee determination system's deficiencies? If so explain.I am all ears.

 I can see deficiencies in how refugees are defined, processed, but  to tell me there is a deficiency in that the system because it failed to make  sure all refugees are not shmucks makes no sense to me.

Yes I get it,. The refugee system should  screen out terrorists, criminals, human rights violators, false claimants I get that...but do  you want to  tell me how the subjective shmuck qualities of the people you mentioned warrant let alone create characteristics that can be screened out? 

If all  anyone has are  subjective anecdotes of a few shmucks acting like shmucks , what do you want me to say-shut down the entire system because of these shmucks?  Using that criteria there should be zero immigrants and refugees and for that matter no one visiting Canada and why stop there.. I think we should start rounding up Canadians who are shmucks?

Oh come on now. The matter was brought up because its supposed to show refugees are ungrateful shmucks because these few mentioned are shmucks.

Yes refugees can be shmucks, have body odour, not wash regularly, remain unemployed, have sex with their cousins, not speak English, have dirty beards, scream, drink, beat their wives, make many babies,  hate me for being Jewish, hate women, gays, eat strange smelly food.  Now what? Deport them?

Should we round them all up? You tell me.

It is  easy to speak negatively about people. I get that. Now what. What is the  alternative? 

Does anyone have anything to offer other than to point out the negative qualities of others in such discussions?

How do such discussions do anything other than incite hate or resentment or other negative thoughts?

Do you want me to hate refugees? Do you want the refugee system shit down? What exactly?

If the sole purpose of the thread is to tell me certain refugees have body odour, thank you but then if the persons complaining about the body odour also smell then all I ask is you give some thought to the odour one points out and ask, does it just come from the refugee because the last time I looked lots of people do not wash in Canada who were born here.

 

No, I don’t want you to hate refugees.  But if somebody expresses a willingness to go back to their country of origin, are they really refugees?  I always thought refugees are suppose to come from really terrible situations.  Not situations that they’d think about going back to because things aren’t as good as they thought in their new western country home.

Regardless, the answer is probably that we should narrow our focus, as well as limit the number of people we accept, if our system can’t handle the volume.  Which it obviously can’t.  We already have many Canadians born here that are struggling to pay rent, etc.  We don’t need to import more.  I always thought imports were suppose to be of things we don’t or can’t produce.  After all, we don’t import maple syrup and poutine. :)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

There has to be a limit on the number of refugees and a limited time for financial support. After a year or two all financial support must end and if they are not happy a free ticket back home should be purchased for them. They are so many legitimate easily adoptable immigrants in Eastern Europe and South America why is that Canada is admitting so many unadoptable immigrants whose beliefs and lifestyles are so different? Here we respect women, accept diversity, respect freedom of speech and choice, respect human rights. Refuse those who do not believe in same values mostly from Middle East and North Africa.

 You simply established my point that some of you wish to make conclusions as to how criteria for refugee or immigration determination should be constructed based on subjective anecdotes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shady said:

No, I don’t want you to hate refugees.  But if somebody expresses a willingness to go back to their country of origin, are they really refugees?  I always thought refugees are suppose to come from really terrible situations.  Not situations that they’d think about going back to because things aren’t as good as they thought in their new western country home.

Regardless, the answer is probably that we should narrow our focus, as well as limit the number of people we accept, if our system can’t handle the volume.  Which it obviously can’t.  We already have many Canadians born here that are struggling to pay rent, etc.  We don’t need to import more.  I always thought imports were suppose to be of things we don’t or can’t produce.  After all, we don’t import maple syrup and poutine. :)

See my response to Citizen and I shortened and edited my initial response as I did NOT intend to suggest you, Argus,  or anyone they hate anyone I am only meaning to debate the issue  and specifically the criteria to use to define or limit refugees or immigrants which I have as yet to read from anyone. Everyone says we need to limit, but not what criteria we use to limit and how they are able to conclude from subjective anecdotes of specific individual behaviour this justifies limiting refugees at ANY level.

Where is the cause and effect analysis of an individual acting like a shmuck to the conclusions being arrived at? To me it is illogical to make assumptions as to an entire subject category based on the behavior of a few without someone showing me their basis of extrapolation.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shady said:

Several individuals are cited in the article.  Not just one.  Regardless, I put most of the blame on the federal government.  They arrange for people to come, without giving a care how things go after they get here, or how it impacts certain industries like housing.

If anyone needs to be laid off in this land of immigration madness, it should be our federal politicians. Trudeau brings in refugees by the planeloads and allows more illegal so called refugees to cross into Canada illegally and appears to not give a bloody dam about the consequences. Canadians are being forced to fork out hundreds of billions of their tax dollars tevery year to now be blown on people who should not be here at all in the first place.

Immigration/refugees has to be the #1 topic to talk about here in Canada. But our politicians and their lackey leftist liberal media will always try to make sure that does not happen, and they both will try to make it appear as though all new immigrants and refugees are just doing dandy here in Canada. More immigration will only mean more problems. But ask any politician if they really care? All one will get from them is that the more immigrants immigrating to Canada the better Canada will become. I say bull chit to that bull chit. My opinion. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rue said:

 You simply established my point that some of you wish to make conclusions as to how criteria for refugee or immigration determination should be constructed based on subjective anecdotes.

 

Respect for women and diversity and respect for freedom of speech and choice is not subjective anecdotes but criteria that any democracy expects of its citizens and those are do not believe must not be accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxme you agenda is zero immigration. You are a Christian Identity racist. You have admitted believing in the following criteria:

https://www.equip.org/article/christian-identity-a-christian-religion-for-white-racists/

You are exactly the point of why I say to people in such debates, if they are not careful to use objective criteria, there becomes a very fine line from their positions and yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rue said:

 Everyone says we need to limit, but not what criteria we use to limit and how they are able to conclude from subjective anecdotes of specific individual behaviour this justifies limiting refugees at ANY level.

 

150,000 annual limit on immigrants and 15000 annual limit on refugees. Immigration officers can be trained properly to determine during interview. 

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Respect for women and diversity and respect for freedom of speech and choice is not subjective anecdotes but criteria that any democracy expects of its citizens and those are do not believe must not be accepted.

Interesting but that was not what was brought up on this thread.

The issues you now bring up are thoughts. How do you plan to monitor and measure the thoughts of others in your immigration and refugee determination system. Its easy to say what you did but how would you put it in practice? 

Every time people come on this board and point out what they do not like in others, they never have a way of showing how they measure it objectively. You just established someone has body odour. Now what. Please explain how you know accurately detect body odour and know exactly where it comes from so that you can isolate it. You have yet to provide anything but subjective anecdotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

150,000 annual limit on immigrants and 15000 annual limit on refugees. Immigration officers can be trained properly to determine during interview. 

Really. You think so. You think you can tell if someone is lying in an interview....been there done that. I worked in the court system for over 30 years. No lie detector test is accurate, no FBI profiler, no forensic psychiatrist, no police officer I ever knew claimed they could properly detect liars..some are great..but none claim they have never been fooled. It is also extremely naïve to think any legal system can weed out liars let alone people who manipulate interview processes let alone examinations and cross examinations.  You however think its possible. You really think in an interview you can ask someone questions to determine if they meet your subjective political correctness profile?  

As for limits- my argument is not as to limits, but what criteria is to be used to determine those limits.

My impression with our immigration policies is that regardless of the party in power immigration policy as to immigration has always linked bringing in economic classes of immigrants based on economic needs and market analysis of those economic needs.

Where we have had controversy is with refugees who may have lied to get in using that system knowing they would not qualify under the regular system.

It is also my impression the vast majority of Canadians base their impression and assumptions about immigrants on subjective anecdotes not actual objective fact.

Most Canadians have no clue as to what the economic class criteria are and how people must show they are qualified for it or what an LMIA is.  Not a clue.

As for the refugee determination system, I am the first to criticize it, but to stereotype all refugees in a negative way as part of that criticism I do not think is logical, rational or will reform the refugee process. Surely we can do better when creating policies not to base them on subjective negative stereotypes that have never been extrapolated to show any reasonable pattern from which to make an assumption.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shady said:

Several individuals are cited in the article.  Not just one.  Regardless, I put most of the blame on the federal government.  They arrange for people to come, without giving a care how things go after they get here, or how it impacts certain industries like housing.

When you make a refugee claim you can then apply for a work permit.  You can't legally work or get a SIN # without the work permit through IRCC, which usually takes a few months to arrive in the mail after you apply.  Imagine being broke with a family and not able to work for a few months.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

Really. You think so. You think you can tell if someone is lying in an interview....been there done that.

 

No it is not 100% effective but the only other alternative is Argus's proposal of regional limitation like a ban on immigrants/refugees from Middle East and North Africa (India and China included in my book) however, I have not reached that stage yet to accept this as yet because I know a lot of well qualified westernized people from a few countries there who are already adopted to our western democratic values and will be very positive contributors to Canada.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

undoubtedly designed to raise sympathy for the plight of poor refugees

A right wing biased publication

On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

She whines about her housing

She lives in a basement with moist air, a window that can't be opened and with mice.

On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

the money she's given

Didn't see her complain about that. Unless you mean pointing out that her ten year old doesn't have shoes that would keep his feet dry.

On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

but darn it all, he wants to live around Muslims where his wife and daughter won't be stared at in their hijabs.

Mr. Aldroubi noticed others staring uncomfortably at his wife and daughter, the only women in the vicinity wearing hijabs. Friends have advised against the move, warning they might be the only Muslims in their new home.

reduced transit, fewer job opportunities and limited access to the settlement services his family has come to rely on.

On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

six years ago and is still living in his subsidized bachelor apartment, only now with a wife and toddler.

A tiny apartment

On 1/7/2020 at 5:29 PM, Argus said:

there's only so much subsidized housing to go around,

Hell have to wait prolly 7-9 years.

https://precondo.ca/toronto-housing-crisis/

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Marocc said:

A right wing biased publication

She lives in a basement with moist air, a window that can't be opened and with mice.

Didn't see her complain about that. Unless you mean pointing out that her ten year old doesn't have shoes that would keep his feet dry.

Mr. Aldroubi noticed others staring uncomfortably at his wife and daughter, the only women in the vicinity wearing hijabs. Friends have advised against the move, warning they might be the only Muslims in their new home.

reduced transit, fewer job opportunities and limited access to the settlement services his family has come to rely on.

A tiny apartment

Hell have to wait prolly 7-9 years.

https://precondo.ca/toronto-housing-crisis/

The answer to most of this is, don't live in Toronto, one of the most populated, expensive cities in Canada.  It's not rocket science.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...