This would be like Stephen Harper pledging to take 1000 refugees.
How would that go down with our media?
As contrasted with the Canadian refugee frenzy, Americans are not going nuts trying to outdo each other on taking in Syrian refugees. Here's another example with Dana Loesch and Megyn Kelly:
8 comments:
I think many who want more refugees believe Canada should have the highest intake of any country so because we are taking in less than Germany they are unhappy forgetting there are good reasons Germany has a higher intake than us never mind on a per capita basis we would need 350,000 a year which no party is stupid enough to advocate. The fact we are one of the highest per capita is not good enough for some In addition I think the risks need to be weighed too and just because the Hungarian refugees in 1956 or Vietnamese Boat People in 1979 worked out well doesn't mean this will. Neither belonged to a religion where a sizeable minority were hostile to our values and wanted to see us converted to their religion. This maybe politically incorrect, but some cultures assimilate better than others. In France, the Vietnamese are often held up as model immigrants in terms of assimilating whereas amongst the Muslim community it is a much different story. In addition some who want to see Sharia Law in Europe are taking advantage of this to try and storm Europe to increase their numbers. We absolutely should take in Syrian refugees including Muslim ones, but lets be selective.
I would rather we go to refugee camps and choose from there as well as prioritize women, children, and families as opposed to single young men.
Obama and Harper are useless.
Frankly, this whole "crisis" doesn't pass the smell test for me. We have a dishonest utterly corrupt agenda driven Media Party bullying the Conservatives and Canadians into compliance, no need to bully the opposition as they and the Media are on the same side. Since when does the Media dictate immigration and refugee policy that is largely fueled by emotions and dubious self righteousness? Now I'm not trying to imply that there is no "crisis" what so ever, there is, but why is it Canadas responsibility to unquestionably and recklessly accept thousands of young middle eastern men with selfie sticks, capri pants and hair gel from a part of the world that is savage and primitive and constantly embroiled in tribal warfare. Obarry will get a free pass from the "progressive" Media as he always does, which of course is suspicious in and of itself, but it looks to me that the Canadian Media are the primary, if not the exclusive advocates of foreign invasion primarily as a tool to unduly influence the election. The Media Party doesn't care one bit about that poor drowned child, or the facts surrounding his death nor do they care about the Syrians in general or the past slaughter of Christians and Muslims, so why is the Media out of the blue pushing this specious and suspect agenda in the middle of an election campaign? Because of a staged photo of a drowned child? Sorry, but to me this whole Media driven scenario is suspect and it sets off my bullshit meter big time.
There have been a lot of people questioning why other Muslim countries are refusing to step up and help their fellow Muslims during this so called "crisis". Where are the Saudis for instance, why don't they take in these mostly Muslim young men invading Europe? Now we hear that the uber rich Sharia living Saudis are setting up a fund to pay for more than 200 Mosques to be built in Germany... This is an invasion, the whole thing stinks.
Lawrence Solomon's column in today's FP does a great job of linking the M.E. mess with Obama's 2009 apology tour and his promotion of the "Arab Spring" that immediately followed.
JR - I think the US decision to invade Iraq in the first place was a bad idea. Saddam Hussein was a repressive and brutal regime, but at least he kept the three warring factions (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias) from fighting as well as it seems in much of the Middle East it's a choice between a strong armed brutal but somewhat secular leader or the Islamists. Other than Turkey if you can even consider it Middle East, none has had a liberal democracy ever and in the case of Turkey under Erdogan they are moving away from that to a more Islamic country.
I also think that the Scheghen Agreement which abolished border controls never been implemented in Europe, the refugee flow would be much less. That would mean only reaching the Mediterranean countries, it would be very difficult to reach the Northern European ones who have better benefits and are more likely to accept one. The fact one can travel from Italy to Sweden without having to show your passport once definitely makes trying to illegally enter Europe quite tempting. It seems the idea of abolishing border controls was an ill thought out idea much like the Euro.
"... the US decision to invade Iraq in the first place was a bad idea"
Could be, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. When that decision was made American fears of more 9/11-like attacks were still front of mind and Iraq was a legitimate concern (bad intelligence notwithstanding).
As for the migrant problem, I agree that every reasonable effort should be made to address it. But I also think that it is vital to stop the flood of refugees and that will require militarily stopping those who are creating that flood.
There are about 4 million refugees now. There are 36 million Iraqi's and 18 million Syrians to feed an on-going flood. There is no way for the West to accommodate such numbers without irreparably harming its economies, its societies and its security (not necessarily in that order).
JR - I agree the West cannot absorb all the refugees although I am not sure there is any easy solution. In some ways I would rather just let the people of Syria and Iraq fight things out themselves as this seems to be tribal warfare that has gone on for centuries and no matter what we do there, things turn bad.
As for Iraq War, the Bush administration had planned it all along and 9/11 just made it easier to sell. In the case of the UK, Tony Blair was apparently very hawkish and thus it was easy to convince him on the merits of war. As for other countries endorsing or not, I think there were a variety of factors although in the case of Canada, Chretien being whom he was all along saw too many holes in the argument and thus choose not to go on his gut instinct knowing at best Canada would have a marginal contribution and the fact there was a real risk things could turn out badly like they did.
Post a Comment