Ihave read the comments of barry h and concur and only wish I had the time to produce such a logical and articulate comment.
With reference to comments by Mr Black re Sweden I would suggest you read the article “Refugees Sweden Feels The Strain” in Bloomberg Business Week The Year Ahead 2016 at p38 wherein it states “inter alia” that by next year it (Sweden )will end a policy of automatically granting permanent residency to most refugees and outlines the various problems it is causing
Thanks to you and Barry for your comments. I do not think we would be wise to emulate Sweden and Germany and perhaps should have said so. I just wanted to emphasize that we are not the most generous supporter of refugees.
The world has changed. The immigrant/ refugee of today is different from those that came through the immigration process of the 1800’s up to the first half of the 1900’s. The expectations, the beliefs and the values of those wanting to immigrant to a foreign country are dramatically different. Like it or not often those expectations and values are strongly influenced by their past. That becomes a serious problem when the immigrant does not understand the cultural, political and legal systems they want to enter.
The vast majority of Canadians are open to immigration. However Canadians have concerns and they are correct in expressing them. That is who we really are!!!! When those concerns are expressed it is absolutely wrong to question the values, history, beliefs of Canadians. Unfortunately the government response to those concerns is to raise patriotic, racist, and trust us issues.
The security issue often gets expressed as a physical security issue. I believe that is often a simplistic expression of the concern. The overall issue is—- the security of our core values and beliefs.
For instance, we believe in democracy, where our elected officials make our laws. Those laws are supreme, they apply to everyone. There are groups who believe “their God” makes the laws under which they live. That is a very significant difference in core values and beliefs. Belgium is a classic example of where that difference is being lived out. It is projected that within 15 years Belgium will have a majority of its population living in enclaves governed by laws established “by God”. (it is currently 40%). The police do not enter those communities today.
So when we evaluate immigrants for entry into Canada should we be understanding their core values and beliefs? Who makes their laws, do women have equal rights, does Israel have a right to exist, do all religions exist equally, what is their desire to integrate into Canadian society and so on.
Is it wrong for Canadians to expect their government ensure those they are admitting to Canada come to share and live within our core values and beliefs. I think not.
Bill, you mention the generosity of the governments of Germany and Sweden. I am not sure the citizens of those countries would agree that it was generosity as much as stupidity. They had no plan and their numbers have overwhelmed. In fact both countries have implemented stronger border controls. Germany , where Merkel said this can only work if the immigrants disperse throughout Germany and integrate into German society, has seen just the opposite. Enclaves have been quickly established, immigrants who come with serious medical problems have demanded attention and moved into hospitals. Female nurses are insulted and assaulted. In Sweden a major city has become the residence of choice. Their services have been overwhelmed. Unemployment. in that area, is over 50%.
So when Canadians have been told, by their government, we are bringing 25000 in a very short period of time, and by the way we have no plan as to how we are going to assess the immigrants’ core values, we have no plan to address their medical problems, we have no plan to address their education needs, we have no plan to insure long term integration into Canadian society, we have no idea how we will provide them with employment, should Canadians express doubts and concerns. Of course we should!
We are and should be a generous country. But to do so without recognizing and addressing the pitfalls and the factors that have lead to failure in countries such as Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden would be a recipe for another failure where nobody wins. These issues cannot be addressed in 8 weeks.
That is what happens when political promises supersede common sense.
Someone once said “those who ignore history are bound/ doomed to repeat it”
It appears to me that you are using “refugee” and “immigrant” interchangeably and I submit they are not
The immigrants from Europe after 1945 came after the conflict was ended and not as refugees during the conflict.
You argument respecting banning of guns because of deaths in the US is rather specious and could be equally applied to the banning of motor vehicles which cause about 35000 deaths a year in US if I correctly recall
Apples are apples
Ihave read the comments of barry h and concur and only wish I had the time to produce such a logical and articulate comment.
With reference to comments by Mr Black re Sweden I would suggest you read the article “Refugees Sweden Feels The Strain” in Bloomberg Business Week The Year Ahead 2016 at p38 wherein it states “inter alia” that by next year it (Sweden )will end a policy of automatically granting permanent residency to most refugees and outlines the various problems it is causing
Bill F | November 22, 2015 |
Thanks to you and Barry for your comments. I do not think we would be wise to emulate Sweden and Germany and perhaps should have said so. I just wanted to emphasize that we are not the most generous supporter of refugees.
Bill | November 22, 2015 |
The world has changed. The immigrant/ refugee of today is different from those that came through the immigration process of the 1800’s up to the first half of the 1900’s. The expectations, the beliefs and the values of those wanting to immigrant to a foreign country are dramatically different. Like it or not often those expectations and values are strongly influenced by their past. That becomes a serious problem when the immigrant does not understand the cultural, political and legal systems they want to enter.
The vast majority of Canadians are open to immigration. However Canadians have concerns and they are correct in expressing them. That is who we really are!!!! When those concerns are expressed it is absolutely wrong to question the values, history, beliefs of Canadians. Unfortunately the government response to those concerns is to raise patriotic, racist, and trust us issues.
The security issue often gets expressed as a physical security issue. I believe that is often a simplistic expression of the concern. The overall issue is—- the security of our core values and beliefs.
For instance, we believe in democracy, where our elected officials make our laws. Those laws are supreme, they apply to everyone. There are groups who believe “their God” makes the laws under which they live. That is a very significant difference in core values and beliefs. Belgium is a classic example of where that difference is being lived out. It is projected that within 15 years Belgium will have a majority of its population living in enclaves governed by laws established “by God”. (it is currently 40%). The police do not enter those communities today.
So when we evaluate immigrants for entry into Canada should we be understanding their core values and beliefs? Who makes their laws, do women have equal rights, does Israel have a right to exist, do all religions exist equally, what is their desire to integrate into Canadian society and so on.
Is it wrong for Canadians to expect their government ensure those they are admitting to Canada come to share and live within our core values and beliefs. I think not.
Bill, you mention the generosity of the governments of Germany and Sweden. I am not sure the citizens of those countries would agree that it was generosity as much as stupidity. They had no plan and their numbers have overwhelmed. In fact both countries have implemented stronger border controls. Germany , where Merkel said this can only work if the immigrants disperse throughout Germany and integrate into German society, has seen just the opposite. Enclaves have been quickly established, immigrants who come with serious medical problems have demanded attention and moved into hospitals. Female nurses are insulted and assaulted. In Sweden a major city has become the residence of choice. Their services have been overwhelmed. Unemployment. in that area, is over 50%.
So when Canadians have been told, by their government, we are bringing 25000 in a very short period of time, and by the way we have no plan as to how we are going to assess the immigrants’ core values, we have no plan to address their medical problems, we have no plan to address their education needs, we have no plan to insure long term integration into Canadian society, we have no idea how we will provide them with employment, should Canadians express doubts and concerns. Of course we should!
We are and should be a generous country. But to do so without recognizing and addressing the pitfalls and the factors that have lead to failure in countries such as Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden would be a recipe for another failure where nobody wins. These issues cannot be addressed in 8 weeks.
That is what happens when political promises supersede common sense.
Someone once said “those who ignore history are bound/ doomed to repeat it”
Barry H | November 21, 2015 |
I agree and appreciate you writing this.
Bryan | November 20, 2015 |
It appears to me that you are using “refugee” and “immigrant” interchangeably and I submit they are not
The immigrants from Europe after 1945 came after the conflict was ended and not as refugees during the conflict.
You argument respecting banning of guns because of deaths in the US is rather specious and could be equally applied to the banning of motor vehicles which cause about 35000 deaths a year in US if I correctly recall
Apples are apples
Bill | November 20, 2015 |