1 in 4 Canadians want Trump-style travel ban, poll suggests

[minteK917]

Trudeau will last 10 years, anyone thinking otherwise is not Canadian.

1 in 4 is 25%... that means 75% are against it?

Also Iqra is not passing any bills ffs. Its a motion to get the government to issue a statement about a law that existed for decades.

People really should not be doing threads about shit they clearly know nothing about, but then this forum would be empty lol.

[Masark]

Trudeau will last 10 years, anyone thinking otherwise is not Canadian.

Maybe, maybe not. IMO, it really depends on what comes out of the Conservative and NDP leadership conventions.

[minteK917]

Maybe, maybe not. IMO, it really depends on what comes out of the Conservative and NDP leadership conventions.

Nothing will come out of NDP. Ontario and Quebec will vote Liberal. Only chance the conservative has is not any of their possible leader, its Quebec electing bloc instead of Liberal.

[Jaransan]

the recent experiment called Sweden proved otherwise with muslim refugees.

There is a vast difference between a controlled intake of people, and uncontrolled allowance of entry. Its been noted that the woman running the show over in Sweden basically threw all notion of control out the window and just starting taking everyone. Hugely different from canadas policy of accepting families first, prioritizing subgroups that are frequently preyed upon by jihadis, and cherry picking people with job prospects and education. In other words - people who are useful, and kids that can go into our system, get acclimized to the country and make it easier for their families in the future. Like I said. Their are arguments for and against immigration. 'They are 100% criminal terrorists' is not one of them.

[Deletedaccount1]

Nothing will come out of NDP. Ontario and Quebec will vote Liberal. Only chance the conservative has is not any of their possible leader, its Quebec electing bloc instead of Liberal.

Hasn't Trudeau's approval rating gone down lately?

[Sail into the wind]

Well I wonder why we are having less children than we have had in previous generations. There must be a good reason, like say a financial one. Maybe not having as many kids is because the cost of raising more than one or two children is excessive.

We are having less children because we have come to value our individual freedoms above everything else. Yes, kids are tremendously costly, but they are the ones who will build the roads, dams, hospitals and schools of tomorrow, and carry on with the principles and values that this country was founded upon. THAT is what progress really means.

And you know, look at how having too many kids has worked out for China and India, where they have population problems out the wazoo. Indians have been breeding like rabbits for generations and it's no wonder so many people there are poor and unemployed.

Europe and America cannot really be compared in the same sentence. We have been mostly insulated from two world wars, as well as centuries of devastation and slavery. Moreover, China's problem is one of space, not economical growth. Their GDP is growing at three times the rate of the USA, so they will be one of the most powerful economical forces in the world before long. Their policies seem to be working out quite well for them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt.../#551f991d474b

Makes me wonder how immigrants are affording to raise 3 or 4 kids in this day in age when so many of them are working minimum wage jobs in an economy where a house costs over half a million dollars for something to house that family of 6

Prices increase as we lose our purchasing power, and we lost our purchasing power because we gave it to the other countries.

Then there is also the matter of how effective the entertainment industry has become. If you can make the people feel good 24/7, you can get them to do whatever you want, and believe whatever message you send. Why raise a family when you can live in constant bliss? But, this is not a topic that I care to get into on MMOC.

[Jaransan]

Hasn't Trudeau's approval rating gone down lately?

Using my phone so can't easily scrounge up the poll right now, but as of last week 32 odd percent of people prefer him to be our leader, with the next one down being 21 percent (conservatives) and 12 % (NDP) with the remainder being largely apathetic.

[Masark]

Hasn't Trudeau's approval rating gone down lately?

Yes and no.

If an election were held right now, polling says he'd take about 39% of the vote and probably maintain a majority of the House, similar to what he got in the 2015 election.

He was riding a real wave of popularity last year, polling in the high-40s to low-50s, which seems to have faded, but he's still firmly in the lead (Conservatives are at 33%) and he doesn't have to hold an election for another 3 years.

[Tojara]

Canadian terms with a majority government (which is what the current Canadian government is) can go on forever, but must have an election every 5 years. The only way this happens earlier is if there is a non-confidence vote, which typically only happens in a minority government, and generally over a budget issue. Basically, its setup so if the government can't come to terms on some pretty basic shit (like budget) the government folds and an election is caused. I suppose this could technically happen in a majority situation, but it never will.

I actually like term limits. Theoretically though you usually don't have prime ministers in Canada forever, even though you might have the same prime minister for upwards of 10 years. Most 'modern' prime minsters are only in power for about 10 or so years. Given that Canada has 5 year limits as opposed to the Americans 4, that's not really that out of line. The only real exception to this was Trudeau's father like nearly 50 years ago with 15. Beyond that you have some giant terms at the beginning of Canada's creation, and during the whole WW1/WW2 era, but the U.S also had a really long serving president during that time because it was deemed dangerous to change power in the middle of a world crisis (I'd agree).

I prefer the Canadian system though because while I admire the fact that congress/senate can stop the president from doing stupid shit, or vice versa. It's also annoying that you have to deal with absolutely nothing happening for nearly 4 years. In Canada if you have a majority shit can just happen, but if you have a minority you can't effectively hold the budget as ransom as a political weapon hoping to get what you want. You can in Canada to a degree, but if you try to pull that shit the other parties can come together, deny your budget and force an election. Canadians don't mind voting once and awhile, but if you keep causing elections over and over again you run a real risk of getting voted out.

On topic, that's only 1 in 4. The only people around here that don't want refugees (in my neck of the woods) are those who don't even know what a refugee is, or those from Alberta. Most people that I know from Alberta blame everything on refugees or the current Liberal federal government because oil tanked nearly two years ago and just in the last year they are feeling the repercussions of it. Trudeau isn't perfect, but to blame him entirely on Alberta's oil woes on the world market isn't really fair. But try explaining that to people who enjoyed 25-30 dollar an hour jobs in the oil fields with no prior experience, that have no idea that Canada alone doesn't dictate what world oil prices are. It's impossible.

I doubt Trudeau will be voted out. He might not have a majority government in the next election though. At the very least it would be a minority government and they would just have to work with the NDP more. I highly doubt (historically looking at Canadian politics) that we are going to jump right back into a conservative minority or majority government either. Although stranger things have happened, the U.S did elect Trump lol.

[Raelbo]

Everyone is a proponent of refugees should take one of them into their home and then we can see how much everyone likes the idea after some get the good and others get the ugly.

This is absolutely nonsensical. If your logic held true then everyone who is an opponent of refugees should take a real citizen into their home.

[Wyrt]

This is absolutely nonsensical. If your logic held true then everyone who is an opponent of refugees should take a real citizen into their home.

They don't. Other states ship their homeless people out to my state to make it my state's problem because they don't want to deal with it.

[minteK917]

Hasn't Trudeau's approval rating gone down lately?

It's exactly the same as Harper and Chretien, bet how long they stayed in?

[Rennadrel]

Hasn't Trudeau's approval rating gone down lately?

Yes, it's tanked because of the unnecessary carbon taxes levied on Canadians.

[minteK917]

Yes, it's tanked because of the unnecessary carbon taxes levied on Canadians.

Lol his approval rate hasent tanked in any way he has exactly what every majority government had after same period. He still polls has winning with a majority seats. His performance is exacly that of everyone that last 10 years or more.

[zhero]

This is stupid. We NEED immigration, refugees, tourism and all that stuff - our fertility rates have been steadily decreasing. We are currently at 1.59 babies per woman, which means for every two monkeys getting together and conceiving a little brat, only one and a half chimpanzee comes out of the cradle.

The conservative solution to this is to try and bring back the large, ten-plus seat family tables of old and reproduce like mad rabbits, but they are losing the battle. The liberal solution is to import the babies of another culture, and hope that we can eventually turn into some kind of ethnic melting pot where everyone is equal, which is the only possible solution in an era where globalisation has won.

I hope those 1 in 4 Canadians are having unprotected sex like there is no tomorrow, because depopulation is real and it's coming to your neighborhood this summer.

you really don't need any of that. when the economy declines, the people will have less things and devices to distract them, leaving them to return to their more basic activities to kill time, baby making.

[kamuimac]

People are afraid of change, I think. If they just got to know the refugees, they wouldn't be so concerned. And let's face it, terrorism is a legit concern these days.

This is another thing that could get Trudeau booted out of office, refugees and ignoring the impact of globalization on his fellow countrymen.





http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syri...rump-1.3988716

A "significant segment" of Canadians say Canada's 2017 refugee target of 40,000 is too high, while one in four Canadians wants the Liberal government to impose its own Trump-style travel ban.

Those are just two of the findings in a new Angus Reid Institute poll that looked at Canadians' attitudes toward the federal government's handling of refugees.

"We tend to, when we are looking at numbers, look at the majority view. But the fact that one in four Canadians are of the mind that we should be looking to our own travel ban is significant and is part of a red flag that is starting to emerge in terms of refugee policy," said Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute.

Overall, 47 per cent of Canadians surveyed said Canada is taking in the right number of refugees. But 11 per cent say 40,000 is too low and Canada should take in more, while 41 per cent say the 2017 target is too high and that we should not be taking in any more refugees.

Kurl told CBC News that "41 per cent is not the majority voice but it is a significant segment of the population that is actually saying our targets for 2017 are too high and that, I think, adds to a level of anxiety for those folks.

"Certainly in terms of that 'too many, too few' debate, a lot more people think it's too many than too few," she said.

Canada choosing 'the opposite approach' on refugees, immigration
Liberals reaffirm commitment to bring Yazidi refugees to Canada
Government still has to convince Canadians to embrace refugees
The survey also asked Canadians about the federal government's decision not to alter its own immigration policy to match that of U.S. President Donald Trump's after he rolled out his travel ban.

Some 57 per cent of Canadians said the federal government made the right call in not following Trump down the rabbit hole, while 18 per cent said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government should have chosen to take in more refugees.

Working hard to fit in

When it comes to whether the government did a good job of resettling refugees, 61 per cent said they either strongly (12 per cent) or moderately (49 per cent) agree that it had. But some 39 per cent of people either moderately (22 per cent) or strongly (17 per cent) disagreed.

Kurl said those surveyed are also split over how well refugees are integrating into Canadian society, and how enthusiastically Canadians are welcoming new arrivals.

A slim majority of (54 per cent) say refugees do not make enough of an effort to fit into mainstream society, while 46 per cent say that they do try hard to fit in.

When the responses are broken down across age groups, it's revealed that the younger the person, the more likely they are to say that refugees are working hard to fit into Canadian society.

For example, 62 per cent of those in the 18-24 age range say refugees are making enough of an effort to fit in, but in the 25-34 age range that drops to 47 per cent.

There is a slight spike among 35-44 year olds where 54 per cent of those asked said refugees are working hard to fit in, but for those who are 45 and older, only one in four said the same thing.

Not so welcome

When it comes to welcoming refugees, 38 per cent said that people in their neighbourhood would not be welcoming to refugee families moving in.

Kurl said the numbers of people showing opposition or dissatisfaction with the refugee resettlement plan may be in a minority but "it's far from a handful of people that can be easily dismissed," she said.

"There are significant segments of folks who are expressing opposition and unease and anxiety to both the numbers, our target levels of 40,000, and then there is a smaller group, but not a fringe group, who are questioning whether we should be taking refugees at all."

The Angus Reid Institute conducted the online survey between Feb. 6-9, 2017, using a random sample of 1,508 adult Canadians who are members of the Angus Reid Forum.

A sample of this size carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

nothign surprising - you can see it clearly in EU now that each developed advanced society have certain percentage of uneducated plebs who will belive in any bs served by hidden neo-nazis type offering them easy solution to their miserable life in form of "lets rob rich people because its unfir they have more then us" , same mechanics apply to immigrants - "how dare those people who are ready to work very hard immigrate to OUR country and threaten our unemployed life from social benefits by showing that there is in fact a lot of work only we are to lazy to take it"

[Donald Hellscream]

Surprise surprise fearmongering is running rampant.

[Jaransan]

Yes, it's tanked because of the unnecessary carbon taxes levied on Canadians.

'Unneccesary'

You know there are these summits major countries attend where they promise to do things that lower carbon emissions right? I know most countries involved basically treat it as a do as I say not as I do sort of deal, but doing something to meet an international commitment is hardly. . . what I would describe as 'Unneccesary'. What's the alternative here really? Tell every company with a carbon foot print to fuck off and leave the country? Besides the carbon tax in Alberta for instance is hardly a big deal. They don't charge a sales, or payroll, or HEALTHCARE tax there. Keeping in mind they still actually BENEFIT from the healthcare system of canada, I don't think taxing 'that thing thats destroying the world slowly' is going to kill the everyone.

For bonus points when you file your tax returns you get a rebate on the Carbon tax that more or less off sets it entirely as long as your a middle or low income household. Basically only even causing an impact on people who it couldn't possibly hurt -anyway-.

[Karfal]

Put another way, 88 or 89 percent of Canadians don't want to increase the rate of refugee influx.

What a bunch of xenophobes, ugh.

Ya look at sweden. Country that had one of the lowest rates or rape to one of the highest? All because of muslim refugees.

Just remember EVERY SINGLE TERRORIST ATTACK proves my point. proves Trump is right. There will continue to be attacks and that 25% will continue to grow.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone is a proponent of refugees should take one of them into their home and then we can see how much everyone likes the idea after some get the good and others get the ugly.

But thats just it liberals wont do that. They want the good hard working americans to suffer with the terrorist while they hide behind their walls and bodyguards with guns.

[Thalassian Bob]

The number of Europeans who appear to agree with a ban similar to the one that Trump proposed is surprising and very interesting. https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/...im-immigration

People looking to solutions like a catch-all ban which lacks the nuance required to properly combat theocratic terror is the result of years of mainstream parties having the opportunity to appear to be tackling the problem of fundamentalism at home and abroad (or at least acknowledging it! Obama and the Voldemort Effect!) but apparently choosing not to for fear of "causing offence".

A ban like the one Trump proposes would see people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar and others barred from entering Western countries but their voices and those of the people like them are some of the most important in this battle of ideas. We need to cooperate with Muslim reformers and ex-Muslims, we need to amplify their voices and their political clout. If they are not even allowed to visit our countries, we cannot cooperate with them and support them as we should.

Support for bans like this is a reaction to the deeply concerning paralysis that mainstream parties suffered on this issue because of multiculturalism and the fear of seeming bigoted. This sentiment did not crop up over night. It's a result of the failure of political correctness to the point of absurdity and cultural relativism.