Canada denying asylum seekers into Canada.

[Zeta333]

Uh...the most violent and extremist of Americans aren't coming to Canada. Why would they? They run the show here.

- - - Updated - - -



I just politely ask for evidence, but I guess saying that is easier than actually addressing arguments in good faith.

- - - Updated - - -



This is the mantra of a spoiled brat.

- - - Updated - - -



You said a country could decide who lives there for any reason whatsoever. I say that dangerous white nationalists should be exiled to make us all safer. Why do YOU get to decide who lives where, but I don't?

so im spoiled when your the one stomping your foot saying you demand to come into the country. do you go up to rich people and demand that they buy you shit since they can afford it, thats what your doing here.

[Kiri]

On a more genereral note to this thread:
It's not that I don't feel sorry for the people of the third world, being born in shitholes with Sharia law and social control, but they have to figure out something for themselves really. I am not a supporter of Universal Human Rights, because it has become clear to me that most countries which benefit from these, have never done anything in good intention to spread or promote said human rights (looking at you, Syria!!). Basically, human rights is like socialism to me, it sounds nice and appealing enough if one feels gullible for a moment, but once it starts being realized, other people's money will start to come up short ;-). Citizen rights and privileges is another matter (which I fully support), as that can be adjusted to the needs and desires of a specific culture and people. For instance, in Dubai you have the citizen right of taking dhimmies as slaves, to live by Sharia code or get murdered and to wrap up your wife in a bag. In Singapore, you have the right to earn alot of money and consume, but otherwise shut up and certainly the right to not ever smoke a weedpipe.
And in Canada, the US or some European countries, one is blessed with more rights than anywhere else.

I should like to remind the IMO very left-leaning MMO-C forum, that it wasn't always so in the Western world.
Even in Europe at the end of the 18 hundreds, people lived on just a few dollars a day and infant mortality frequencies were to be meassured in hundreds per 1000 infants (that's not counting the large fraction of children who died before adulthood). In all honestly, we probably were not much better off than todays Syria pre 2010, Egypt for Jordan. And if one required social aid, many citizen rights such as the right to vote or mange your own life, were abolished and they had to live in crappy government institutions called 'Fattiggaarden' in Denmark, a prison for all intents and purposes. And the working class got to work 70 hours a week in shitty factories with air polluted by small uncombusted coal-particles. Life in Europe was shitty and humiliating to most people back then.
But in Europe we did at least have a christian, progressive culture under the rule of law along with a developed academic system which allowed us to, eventually, after two world wars (and damn nearly a third one) to create a rather peaceful and prosperous society that is, understandably, the envy of the world.

Point is, the average person in the third world today is not that much poorer than we Europeans were in the 1800s. Their cultures, however, are far more backwards. But that is not my problem as a European, I want them to do something nice for their children instead of just making more of them..
It's not too high a demand, really.

There are some problems with what you are presenting here. First, Europe did not do all of this on its own. Without US military and financial intervention, we would not be where we are right now, as they made sure that christian and progressive leaders even had a chance to form Europe.
Second, even the things that we did build were partly built on the backs of the very third world you speak of. European colonialism and influence has stymied the development there and still has effects today. Heck, we even drew borders there that are still in place today without any regard for stability or representation. We can't at the same time claim superiority due to the achievements of our forefathers and ignore the negative parts.

Of course, none of that makes the it any better that a country follows Shariah law today. It would be preferable if the people there managed to create change, of course, which is why I personally am not for random migration from there. However, you also seem to extend this to Syria, which is currently an effective war zone. The people there are not fleeing bad living conditions, they are fleeing war. That is why I am for giving them refuge as long as it is sustainable. The same can be seen in part with the seekers referenced in this thread. Haiti is still in crisis, going back there is still dangerous. So I do see merit in allowing them to stay in the US. A person's life, no matter where they were born, is always more important than some economic strain.

Which brings me to your argument regarding human rights. First off, comparing those to socialism seems wrong. Human rights are successfully realized in many western countries, while socialism is not (I am inferring here that you mean extreme socialism such as communism. Otherwise, socialism is, in part, present in pretty much all western countries.). Again, the costs incurred by people like you and me of promoting human rights is negligible, especially compared to the potential gains for those who suffer under a lack of those. Plus, we Europeans have not even gone a hundred years without some of us spitting on the human rights of other Europeans, so again our moral high ground is not as steady as one would think it is.

[Sama-81]

There is no Shengen area in North America. People can't cross the border between USA and Canada as they want, not even Canadian or American citizen. You still need a passport.

Indeed. However, as we ourselves readily have proven, while you can not prevent citizens from one EU-country to enter another, you certainly can prevent those that are not from doing so. Barring citizens from a group of other countries as well, that ultimately play absolutely zero role in regards to the topic at hand. And that is, quite obviously, the only thing that matters in this context, actual citizens has no bearing what-so-ever on that. Sure, you obviously can not do so for as long as you wish, but as we again have proven ourselves, you certainly can for more or less as long as it really matters.

So, within the context, the difference is far from big enough to hinder a comparison between the two situations.

- - - Updated - - -

There are some problems with what you are presenting here. First, Europe did not do all of this on its own. Without US military and financial intervention, we would not be where we are right now, as they made sure that christian and progressive leaders even had a chance to form Europe.
Second, even the things that we did build were partly built on the backs of the very third world you speak of. European colonialism and influence has stymied the development there and still has effects today. Heck, we even drew borders there that are still in place today without any regard for stability or representation. We can't at the same time claim superiority due to the achievements of our forefathers and ignore the negative parts.

As for Europe as a whole, you of course have a very valid point. However, it is worth to point out that there certainly are a number of European countries that can 'claim superiority' in this context if they so wish, a number of the most socially advanced ones to boot, since they have accomplished what they have done more or less entirely without involving the third world, no colonization, no slavery (or absolutely miniscule involvement). Of course the greater scheme of Europe itself has had an effect on them, but certainly not anywhere near enough to sully their history by mere association.

[Kiri]

Indeed. However, as we ourselves readily have proven, while you can not prevent citizens from one EU-country to enter another, you certainly can prevent those that are not from doing so. Barring citizens from a group of other countries as well, that ultimately play absolutely zero role in regards to the topic at hand. And that is, quite obviously, the only thing that matters in this context, actual citizens has no bearing what-so-ever on that. Sure, you obviously can not do so for as long as you wish, but as we again have proven ourselves, you certainly can for more or less as long as it really matters.

So, within the context, the difference is far from big enough to hinder a comparison between the two situations.

- - - Updated - - -



As for Europe as a whole, you of course have a very valid point. However, it is worth to point out that there certainly are a number of European countries that can 'claim superiority' in this context if they so wish, a number of the most socially advanced ones to boot, since they have accomplished what they have done more or less entirely without involving the third world, no colonization, no slavery (or absolutely miniscule involvement). Of course the greater scheme of Europe itself has had an effect on them, but certainly not anywhere near enough to sully their history by association.

True, true. But this person was talking about the development of Europe as a whole, so I did as well. I mean disentangling the spillover effects here would be nigh-impossible anyway. Even European countries not involved in colonization still benefited from it, both due to trade with those that did it and due to at least a temporary stop to wars in Europe propped up by great powers directing their attention outwards.
I did want to put the focus on the fact that the development of those nations was stymied, less that Europe benefited from it. Sorry if I did not make that clear. The post I quoted made it sound as if Europe picked itself up by its bootstraps and became successful unlike third world countries, which is what I criticized.

[Darkeon]

What's wrong with Canada? Aren't they the bastion of virtue some MMOC poster and mods want me to believe, after all?

[Deleted]

The EU has some specific regulations about that stuff, and leaving Italy for, say, Germany isn't a problem if Germany is fine with taking them in, which they have been.

If they weren't, the EU already requires that they stay in the first nation that granted them asylum, so I don't see what your complaint is.

The EU doesn't require such thing. Only that the country of first entry is the one to do the paperwork, nothing else.
Once in, they can move around wherever they please.

If you're turning them back to the country they're fleeing, which is war-torn or where they face persecution, yeah. If they've already been granted asylum someplace, that's no longer at issue and your point stops making sense.

The issue, as it was during the crisis, was that they were traversing safe places. And often had been granted asylum there (like Turkey) but their papers were mysteriously gone. The situation in OP is no different in that regard: it's only different in that the country they're traversing, the US, is already prosperous.
Pretending "turning back" to mean back to, say, Syria was, and still is, political exploitative garbage.
Granted the EU has the resources to host plenty of them. But it was a time for moral grandstanding, and narrative building, where one side was full of hate, and the other full of shit.

[Rennadrel]

The people who are trying to claim refugee status in Canada are not real refugees. In particular the Haitians coming from the US, are just people who were in the US following the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 whose refugee/asylum status has ended and they couldn't be bothered to get citizenship, so now they think they can come here illegally because Trump has not renewed their refugee status and will have them deported. So now it's on our dime to deport these illegal immigrants.

- - - Updated - - -

What's wrong with Canada? Aren't they the bastion of virtue some MMOC poster and mods want me to believe, after all?

No, and quite frankly, Canadian citizens don't want illegals in our country. They should be and will be deported back to Haiti because they are falsely claiming refugee status because they don't want to be deported, but they are fools if they think we are going to let them lie in order to not be sent home. What a waste of our tax money.

[Twix]

Deport them to Haiti.. these people were in the USA.. they're not refugees. I hope they all get rejected for refugee status.

[Pengekaer]

Plus, we Europeans have not even gone a hundred years without some of us spitting on the human rights of other Europeans, so again our moral high ground is not as steady as one would think it is.

I never claimed that.

Without US military and financial intervention, we would not be where we are right now, as they made sure that christian and progressive leaders even had a chance to form Europe.

Yes yes, and without the Germans following their leaders to very gates of Hell, we would have never needed American support.
The Marshall Aid was a major aid, no doubt, but Europe's full recovery was inevitable, though the Marshall plan speeded it up some years. Also, America may contributed with the marshal plan, but they sure took something as well; many of Germany's best scientists (and at the time, the world's best). I don't blame the Americans for it though, they sacrificed alot in the war, so them wanting some war spoils is only to be expected.

Second, even the things that we did build were partly built on the backs of the very third world you speak of.

Not at all. The third world did supply some cheap cotton, cheap spices, gold and coffee beans, but it at best boosted the economy. Doesn't change that it was my ancestors that build our continent, not the ancestors of the third world.
In support of this, countries that never had any colonies (Czech republic, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland) are doing every bit as well as the rest of Europe and always have (Switzerland and Sweden were among the wealthiest nations, even at the turn to the 19th century) but they never engaged in colonialism. It was mostly a German, Belgian, Dutch and French/British thing.
Denmark too, never had any colonies of value. We did have the Virgin Islands and Greenland - Greenland has never been anything but an expense and the Virgin Islands was worth so little to us we basically sold it to the US for like no money at all.
And still, Denmark was also among the wealthier nations in Europe in the latter half of the 19th century, even though we never anything significant from colonialism. Their wealth contribution just wasn't all that significant, because they were hugely expensive to keep as well.
It's a trend throughout the entire OECD that former colonial powers are not wealthier, nor were at any time recently, than powers without colonies.

The people there are not fleeing bad living conditions, they are fleeing war.

And next to none of the refugees that has come to Denmark has returned home when the war in their respective countries ended. That is why this argument is illegitimate to me. The ruling class of my country used this argument for so damn long "they're fleeing war", but it never mattered to said ruling class that the wars in Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Lebanon and Somalia ended long ago.
All the people from said countries came as war refugees, but they were in fact permanent migrants.
The Vietnamese who came after the commies won were legitimate refugees because many of them were catholics, which the commies wanted to wipe out. They literally had no future in Vietnam. But, if all refugees were like the Vietnamese, I wouldn't have bothered to engage in this conversation. I admit.

[Kraenen]

I'm sorry but your last sentence sounds as hateful as Donald trump. Both countries are rich enough and have enough space to take in a lot more than they do now. We were lucky enough to be born into such great countries, we didn't earn it. We should be helping these people. Not throwing them away

Stating that entering a country isn't a right, and that people generally don't newcomers to be illegal is nothing close to hateful.

[Ozyorkbourne]

I agree with you, however it becomes difficult when the illegal immigrants destroy all their identification so you don't know where to send them back to.

- - - Updated - - -

Just use darts and a map of Africa/Middle East.

[Rennadrel]

Yep, Canada is blessed by its geography ;-) Nobody, or at least close to nobody, comes directly to Canada. They'd have to get a seaworthy supertanker ship for that.
That is why a guy like Trudeau won't mean complete disaster to you people, he can only mess up so much since there's no corridor from the third world to Canada. A Trudeau in Europe, the closest we had being mr. Reinfeldt, is a much more scary prospect here. ;-)

I'd like to see you protect that border though, it might be easy being surrounded by water on two sides, the Arctic to the north and America to the south, but that southern border is impossible to keep secure. The borders between Canada and the USA is 8,800 Km long, I'd love to see anyone try and secure it from both sides, it's pretty much impossible without a massive budget.

[Pengekaer]

I'd like to see you protect that border though, it might be easy being surrounded by water on two sides, the Arctic to the north and America to the south, but that southern border is impossible to keep secure. The borders between Canada and the USA is 8,800 Km long, I'd love to see anyone try and secure it from both sides, it's pretty much impossible without a massive budget.

The water is damn cold (noone will sail to Canada in makeshift boats) and the US is the only region close with a high population, so that's a defense on its own. People going into Canada won't use the whole border though, what's the point getting stuck in a wilderness where it's 30 degrees celsius below 0?
Some illegals might diffuse from the US into Canada, yes, but its nowhere near what Italy, Turkey or Greece is facing. Nor will it be anytime soon.

So yep, you're geography does make you very secure.

[Kiri]

Not at all. The third world did supply some cheap cotton, cheap spices, gold and coffee beans, but it at best boosted the economy. Doesn't change that it was my ancestors that build our continent, not the ancestors of the third world.
In support of this, countries that never had any colonies (Czech republic, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland) are doing every bit as well as the rest of Europe and always have (Switzerland and Sweden were among the wealthiest nations, even at the turn to the 19th century) but they never engaged in colonialism. It was mostly a German, Belgian, Dutch and French/British thing.
Denmark too, never had any colonies of value. We did have the Virgin Islands and Greenland - Greenland has never been anything but an expense and the Virgin Islands was worth so little to us we basically sold it to the US for like no money at all.
And still, Denmark was also among the wealthier nations in Europe in the latter half of the 19th century, even though we never anything significant from colonialism. Their wealth contribution just wasn't all that significant, because they were hugely expensive to keep as well.
It's a trend throughout the entire OECD that former colonial powers are not wealthier, nor were at any time recently, than powers without colonies.


And next to none of the refugees that has come to Denmark has returned home when the war in their respective countries ended. That is why this argument is illegitimate to me. The ruling class of my country used this argument for so damn long "they're fleeing war", but it never mattered to said ruling class that the wars in Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Lebanon and Somalia ended long ago.
All the people from said countries came as war refugees, but they were in fact permanent migrants.
The Vietnamese who came after the commies won were legitimate refugees because many of them were catholics, which the commies wanted to wipe out. They literally had no future in Vietnam. But, if all refugees were like the Vietnamese, I wouldn't have bothered to engage in this conversation. I admit.

The point I was making with on the back was that colonization stymied the development in those nations, or even stopped proper nations from forming. It was less that having colonies was necessary for Europe to develop, but that drawing borders on maps to distribute a continent and then some among them had adverse effects on it. Heck, in some parts down there a sentiment against western intervention is what is keeping regressive governments in power in the first place.

As for the refugees, that is not an inherent problem to those but rather a problem with how governments handle them. Syrian refugees for example have no influence on the policies, so why should they be sent back to a warzone now, just because politicians are not able to do it later?

[Deleted]

Tennisace will conveniently ignore this thread

[TheRainman]

Uh...the most violent and extremist of Americans aren't coming to Canada. Why would they? They run the show here.

- - - Updated - - -



I just politely ask for evidence, but I guess saying that is easier than actually addressing arguments in good faith.

- - - Updated - - -



This is the mantra of a spoiled brat.

- - - Updated - - -



You said a country could decide who lives there for any reason whatsoever. I say that dangerous white nationalists should be exiled to make us all safer. Why do YOU get to decide who lives where, but I don't?

No. I said a country could decide who is allowed to cross over into it. Not "who lives there for any reason whatsoever". If you want to have a conversation about something I am all for it, but don't put words into my mouth. Learn to read and we can try again.

[Xargoth6634]

I've always wondered how many many illegal immigrants you refugee apologists believe your country should take. How many should Canada take? There are approx. 65 million displaced people in the world, should Canada take them all? You have room after all...

Yep this. Ship their asses back home.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Having citizenship in both the U.S and Canada yeah uh NO! This isn't an issue of hypocracy this is an issue of not meeting the qualifications to be seen as a refugee.

And as bad as things might be in the U.S nobody is YET specifically being round up and killed or threatened to be, perhaps maybe those being deported back to countries they came from but that is the U.S problem not Canada's.

There is no reason should they face the threat of death they should be deported, which is the primary reason for seeking asylum with the underlined idea vs the practice that you would go back when you could.

Also have a few knuckle heads from the states I have heard who couldn't be bothered to get off their ass and simply vote against the problem we have now thinking Canada is heaven or something. It isn't Canada has as many problems as the U.S and Immigration while kinder towards immigrants you for sure have to go through the process.

1. You get 5 times the social benefits in Canada, 5 times the monthly pay.
2. Free house
3. Free car
4. Weekly visits from a government sex worker
5. Retirement at 24

Who wouldn't want to apply for refugee status in Canada?

Complete and utter horse shit, and yes I have citizenship in both countries by birth and NO that isn't how it works there or here as has been argued in the past.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

ITT: People thinking that claiming asylum is like applying to a safety school for college.

[Freighter]

The point I was making with on the back was that colonization stymied the development in those nations, or even stopped proper nations from forming.

I have my doubts that colonization stops nations from developing. Singapore was colonized and is a global powerhouse today.