So should we accept more refugees due to world crisis?

Sal

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 29, 2007
17,135
33
48


The world is in the midst of a refugee crisis — the likes of which we haven't seen since the second World War.


That's the message in a new report from the United Nations that asks developed countries like Canada to welcome more of the world's displaced families.


The report, released in conjunction with International Refugee Day, claims that, thanks to crises in parts of the Middle East and Africa, 51.2 million people were forcibly displaced at the end of 2013, fully 6 million more than the 45.2 million reported in 2012.


"The international community has to overcome its differences and find solutions to the conflicts of today in South Sudan, Syria, Central African Republic and elsewhere," UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres said in a statement.
"Non-traditional donors need to step up alongside traditional donors. As many people are forcibly displaced today as the entire populations of medium-to-large countries such as Colombia or Spain, South Africa or South Korea."





Historically, Canada has been one of the most generous countries in the world in accepting refugees for permanent residency and citizenship.


2013 was no different.
"During the year, a total of 98,400 refugees were admitted by 21 resettlement countries, according to government statistics," notes the report.


"These included the United States of America (66,200), Australia (13,200), Canada (12,200), Sweden (1,900), and the United Kingdom (970)."


Most recently, these countries have resettled 6,500 Bhutanese refugees, about 18,000 Iraqis and are in the midst of resettling more than 1,100 Syrians.


Regardless, opposition parties and groups like Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees continue to complain that Canada isn't doing enough — especially for the 9 million plus Syrian refugees.





Recently, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander incorrectly claimed that Canada is “at the top of the list” in terms of welcoming Syrian refugees globally. Thus far, the Government has set a target of only 1,300 refugees, and is relying on private individuals to sponsor 1,100 of those," Liberal MP Marc Garneau penned in a March 2014 op-ed.


[ Related: Syrian refugees: Canada urged to take in 10,000 by 2016 ]
"By contrast, other countries, such as Sweden, are doing more. Sweden already has welcomed over 14,000 refugees, and has given them permanent status.
"Ultimately, Canada has an opportunity to demonstrate once again its leadership and its generosity, as it did in the 1970s, when we accepted thousands of Ismaili Muslim refugees and helped them to begin new lives in our country, to which they have made an important contribution."


Asylum Claims
No discussion of refugee policy would be complete without touching on the subject of asylum claims.
In addition to government-assisted or privately sponsored refugees, there are thousands of individuals who come to Canada each year seeking asylum.


While asylum claims in the EU and Australia are ballooning, those types of refugee claims in this country are actually dropping.

The government says the drop is a result of their pro-active measures to tackle the problem of fraudulent claims.


Since 2011, the Harper government has made significant changes to the refugee act, speeding up processing times and placing restrictions on claimants from countries unlikely to produce legitimate refugees. Asylum seekers from countries designated as "safe" — countries that generally do not produce refugees, which respect human rights and offer state protections — are now processed (and often rejected) on an accelerated basis.


The Tories also restricted claimants' health benefits leaving some refugees with only "urgent health care" and others with care only if they have a disease that would be a risk to the public.


While refugee advocates continue to call the measures unfair, the government justified the changes by citing reports about applicants — primarily from Hungary and Mexico — who came to Canada solely for the purpose of "exploiting" social assistance and health benefits.


[ Watch: Montreal students honour Refugee Day through rap ]


In 2012, then-immigration minister Jason Kenney touted statistics, obtained by Postmedia News, which stated that between Jan. 17 and Dec. 31, 2011, "8,819 Mexicans racked up nearly $7 million in health care costs under the Interim Federal Health Program." To add insult to injury, 5,068 refugee applications from Mexico were either rejected, withdrawn or abandoned in 2011.




What do you think: In light of the UN's new report, should Canada accept more refugees?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
"That's the message in a new report from the United Nations that asks developed countries like Canada to welcome more of the world's displaced families."

How about the UN do it's damned job and deal/solve these crises instead of just perpetually relocating people 1/2 way around the globe
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
We in Canada cannot solve all the world's ills. For if we tried, there would be seven billion Canadians and the rest of the world would be empty.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I think assistance yes allowing them access to Canada just because the are
refugees no. We end up bringing people here without properly screening them
It happens over and over again. Vietnam, places in Africa, unrest in Europe,
especially in the fifties and in Serbia etc some years ago.
I am not opposed to immigration that is different than a refugee situation.
We bring people into the Canadian family all the time who are qualified and qualified
should not be automatic like they are a refugee that is not a qualification its a
special privilege granted and that should not be an excuse to let anyone in.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Personally I'd rather see them brought in and take the monies pledged by the nation for help redirected to help them here. The only reason, and it's not much of a reason, to not open the doors and help out those in real need is the excessive burden it does place on society, so reallocating those funds into helping refugees come into Canada only makes sense.

But the bottom line is you have to treat human beings like human beings and try to remember that we're human too and should act accordingly.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Personally I'd rather see them brought in and take the monies pledged by the nation for help redirected to help them here. The only reason, and it's not much of a reason, to not open the doors and help out those in real need is the excessive burden it does place on society, so reallocating those funds into helping refugees come into Canada only makes sense.

But the bottom line is you have to treat human beings like human beings and try to remember that we're human too and should act accordingly.
50 Million displaced- The developed countries could take them all in.
In less than a year there will be 50 Million more.
Now I am not saying we do not help them.
But that is the reality and until they factors that cause this are addressed it will continue to worsen.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Absolutely NO !!

Shocker!

50 Million displaced- The developed countries could take them all in.
In less than a year there will be 50 Million more.
Now I am not saying we do not help them.
But that is the reality and until they factors that cause this are addressed it will continue to worsen.

No doubt it's not a one solution problem. Most things aren't, as the saying goes "Give a man a fish and he'll eat tonight, teach a man to fish and he'll eat every night." (Or words to that effect.)

But you don't let the guy starve until he catches that first fish. You need a balanced approach. And when things hit a crisis level, as they do, you need to be prepared to stretch a little on both approaches.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Bingo... and 50 million after that.

What does that really change though? No one nation is helping them all anyway, does it make it pointless to help 5,000 or 25,000 or 50,000 or whatever the number?

What if it was a catastrophic natural disaster, would the numbers make a difference then?

I'm just trying to make sense of it all. For example, if one as an individual has the capacity to help two people, say after a tornado or something, then if 100 people are in need, should we not extend that help to 2 of them? Do we, as individuals, not have a duty to help out another human being and, if so, don't have that same duty collectively?

you should leave their fingers intact...just a suggestion

Good point, helps in moat digging.