So should we accept more refugees due to world crisis?


Sal
+1
#1


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 (external - login to view)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 (external - login to view).
"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 (external - login to view) ]
"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 (external - login to view) 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 (external - login to view) ]


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 (external - login to view) in 2011.




What do you think: In light of the UN's new report, should Canada accept more refugees?
 
captain morgan
+7
#2  Top Rated Post
"That's the message in a new report (external - login to view)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
 
Goober
+1
#3
50 Million displaced.
My answer is no.
 
gerryh
#4
a big yes.
 
Sal
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

a big yes.

any restrictions? like placement or health care?
 
lone wolf
+4
#6
Maybe we should take an honest look at how our own are tended first
 
gerryh
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

any restrictions? like placement or health care?

These are refugee's.....no restrictions.
 
Spade
+5
#8
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.
 
Goober
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

a big yes.

How many?
Global refugee total worst since WWII, says UN - The Scotsman (external - login to view)
 
damngrumpy
+1
#10
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
+3
#11
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.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Bring 'em in. We need more diggers for the moat.
 
Goober
+3
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

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.
 
Durry
+2 / -1
#14
Absolutely NO !!
 
SLM
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by DurryView Post

Absolutely NO !!

Shocker!

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

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.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I think assistance yes allowing them access to Canada just because the are
refugees no.


Tea Party

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

50 Million displaced- The developed countries could take them all in.
In less than a year there will be 50 Million more.
.


Bingo... and 50 million after that.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+5
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Tea Party

What an excellent notion! Nothing makes a refugee feel better like a spot of tea and some finger sandwiches.
 
Sal
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

What an excellent notion! Nothing makes a refugee feel better like a spot of tea and some finger sandwiches.

you should leave their fingers intact...just a suggestion
 
SLM
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

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

Good point, helps in moat digging.
 
tay
#20
Why don't we pay them to stay away? It would be cheaper than bringing them here..........














Australian Government offers asylum seekers up to $10,000 to leave Australia






Coalition defends plans to up payments to returning asylum seekers | SBS News (external - login to view)
 
Goober
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Shocker!



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.

Aid dollars - spent in Canada or in the area. More refugees, and such are helped this way than redirecting the funds to Canada.
Another issue on aid dollars are the customs taxes paid upon entry into the affected country. No shxt. It is disgusting.
There are the bribes, regular and routine procedure that aid agencies deal with to get critical aid out of the port, or even unloaded, to then leaving customs after the duties have been paid.
 
Ludlow
+2
#22
I cannot speak for Canadians as I am a US citizen. But concerning this issue, I always remember the poem by Emma Lazarus."The New Colossus". Weren't all of our ancestors immigrants at one time or another? Even native Americans came from another place long ago.
 
Spade
#23
Even the Europeans, Middle, Central, and Far Easterners came from another place long ago.
 
Goober
+3 / -1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Even the Europeans, Middle, Central, and Far Easterners came from another place long ago.

I came from my Mother, where did the rest of you come from.
 
B00Mer
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I came from my Mother, where did the rest of you come from.

...are you sure? She forgot to tell you, that you were adopted, didn't she.
 
gerryh
+2
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I came from my Mother, where did the rest of you come from.


This country was completely built on immigrants and refugees. Or are you saying your mother is that much of a wh ore that we all came from her?
 
B00Mer
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

This country was completely built on immigrants and refugees. Or are you saying your mother is that much of a wh ore that we all came from her?

The son of my daughter is my grand son, and the son of my son, who knows.
 
Nuggler
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

This country was completely built on immigrants and refugees. Or are you saying your mother is that much of a wh ore that we all came from her?

You probably have the inside track on who res
 
gerryh
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

You probably have the inside track on who res


you lookin for your mother? Talk to Goober.
 
Goober
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

This country was completely built on immigrants and refugees. Or are you saying your mother is that much of a wh ore that we all came from her?

You looking for a fight.
Clearly humor is not in you
And Fu ckwad leave my mother out of it.
 
no new posts