Another Tamil ship on its way to our shores
- Thread starter DurkaDurka
- Start date
I actually agree with that!
I know I wouldn't. It would be a waste of munitions. All you need to dispatch puppies or kittens, is a burlap sack and a big rock.
Especially since "Kemo" is a Blaxican.
In actually money to you personally maybe a dollar or two. Until Canada smartens up with it's attitude toward illegal immigrants it's going to cost us. By the same token I couldn't refuse sick mistreated people help when they are in need. The perpetrators of all this nonsense should be made to "walk the plank". Same with dope smugglers. :lol:
You better get drinkin'....we're gunna need to recycle a few tetra's to come up with a quart mil a pop for each refugee/year, for at least the next 4 to 5 years.
Exactly so. Sort of quixotic in a dubious way the outrage expressed about the cost of providing a safe haven to less than five hundred refugees from a war zone including women and children, compared to the millions Canadians were, willingly or not, required to spend on the G20 booze, banquets, limousines, security, the best complete and exclusive medical staff on 24 hr stand-by, hotel suites, gifts.... Let alone the costs than ran into the millions also for the Queen's visit, complete with her large regal, aristo entourage, all receiving the very best at the colonials/Canadian tax payers expense - she doesn't contribute a dime. Can't have the corgies eating plebian dog food! Lawks!
LOL I shall inform the "Tonto" who told me that was how it was spelt. Ok, wrong spelling - appropriately used though IMO. <chuckle>
____________________
That's how "growth" works. There is no debit side. It will all be listed as growth.
That how capitalism works though. The is no debit issued for cutting down a tree, taking a fish or mining gold or social programs. EVERYTHING gets posted as growth.
Well then we need to modify capitalism so it records trees, fish, minerals/resources social programs in the negative and stop govt from taking loans on immigrants.
As I see it our first big mistake was allowing Columbus to dock his rat infested boats land here and land his disease riddled crew touch our soil. It has been down hill ever since.
It would since the plight of First Nations and Native Americans is a completely different topic altogether.
Quote from today's news:
Instead, a navy vessel smoothly escorted the freighter to dock near Victoria on Friday, ushering passengers to shore for investigation and to assist them with their health and safety needs, even while Ottawa maintained some of them were "suspected human smugglers and terrorists."
The next home for most of the 490 people will be in Vancouver-area detention centres to await scrutiny on their identities for national security reasons.
Migration experts say sending the ship away would have violated international law, and that's why Ottawa now appears to be seeking other channels to prevent further ships setting their sights here.
Still, those options are limited.
Even if blocking a ship's entry was permitted, there'd be other factors to consider, said Scott Watson, assistant professor of international relations at the University of Victoria.
"Let's say if they didn't have enough fuel, or if there was not enough food or water on board," he said. "At some point there is a moral or ethical responsibility to say we can't simply send them away."
Canada is obliged to not return people to their home country if they face persecution there under an agreement signed in the 1970s that's set out in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The decision came in the aftermath of the Second World War, a result of the consequences faced by thousands of Jewish people who tried to flee Germany but were refused entry by other countries.
Far more asylum seekers actually arrive in Canada by plane and land-crossing each year to claim refugee status than by perilous sea journey, but they don't usually turn up on the public radar, Watson said.
"There's certainly that dramatic fashion about a boat arrival that seems to stir up a dramatic response in the way that other types of arrivals simply don't," he said of the public's current opinionated reaction, with some people bluntly suggesting the migrants aren't wanted here.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has repeatedly said those among the group found guilty of criminal acts will be prosecuted. But he hasn't elaborated on how the government will deploy a preventative crackdown — one aimed at human smuggling.
Instead, a navy vessel smoothly escorted the freighter to dock near Victoria on Friday, ushering passengers to shore for investigation and to assist them with their health and safety needs, even while Ottawa maintained some of them were "suspected human smugglers and terrorists."
The next home for most of the 490 people will be in Vancouver-area detention centres to await scrutiny on their identities for national security reasons.
Migration experts say sending the ship away would have violated international law, and that's why Ottawa now appears to be seeking other channels to prevent further ships setting their sights here.
Still, those options are limited.
Even if blocking a ship's entry was permitted, there'd be other factors to consider, said Scott Watson, assistant professor of international relations at the University of Victoria.
"Let's say if they didn't have enough fuel, or if there was not enough food or water on board," he said. "At some point there is a moral or ethical responsibility to say we can't simply send them away."
Canada is obliged to not return people to their home country if they face persecution there under an agreement signed in the 1970s that's set out in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The decision came in the aftermath of the Second World War, a result of the consequences faced by thousands of Jewish people who tried to flee Germany but were refused entry by other countries.
Far more asylum seekers actually arrive in Canada by plane and land-crossing each year to claim refugee status than by perilous sea journey, but they don't usually turn up on the public radar, Watson said.
"There's certainly that dramatic fashion about a boat arrival that seems to stir up a dramatic response in the way that other types of arrivals simply don't," he said of the public's current opinionated reaction, with some people bluntly suggesting the migrants aren't wanted here.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has repeatedly said those among the group found guilty of criminal acts will be prosecuted. But he hasn't elaborated on how the government will deploy a preventative crackdown — one aimed at human smuggling.
Not to mention that the Europeans were probably pissed off at him too, when he brought back Syphillus, the clap and a few other unsavory critters. :lol::lol::lol::lol:
The difference being, at the border, turning them back, isn't seen as being as tyrannical, fascist, cruel, draconian, or "dramatic".
And lets not forget the big old sticky fact that walking up to a Canadian Border guard and saying, "I'd like to apply for refugee status" isn't illegal. While sailing into our territorial waters with the intent to circumvent legal entry, is.
Are you aware of what "under the radar" means? Look it up, you may find that it explains why there isn't a reaction from the masses.
Last edited:
According to media reports each passenger paid $45,000 for the ride on the ship.
The Canadian government allowed them in and the big question we have to ask did our government accept a kickback for jumping to the front or was it just compassionate reasons
The Canadian government allowed them in and the big question we have to ask did our government accept a kickback for jumping to the front or was it just compassionate reasons
If it was a Liberal Gov't in power would they be accepting kickbacks? I suspect the answer here would be the same. :smile::smile: