PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[TOareaFan]

Wow, they can't ever win can they?

If they didn't ban single men from coming over, people would complain that it is too risky. Now that they suggest a ban on single men to quash fears, people complain.

We get it... people don't want refugees coming over. The government is trying to ease as many fears as possible. Lets not turn everything into a conspiracy now. There's enough of that going around already.

There is a far better, and "western compliant" explanation - in a deck chairs on the Titanic scenario you let the children/women/family/elderly go first. There is no need to work ourselves into a knot over it.

AoD

I certainly was not working myself into a knot over it....was simply questioning the policy decision and how it fit in with the previous "nothing to fear" messages and, further, predicting articles like this.....

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...out-refugees-based-on-gender-but-not-religion

including the words:

This is not to suggest that Canada’s plan to dismiss refugee claims from single men isn’t a prudent one in terms of mitigating risk. It is. (Though at the same time, it’s a pretty glaring admission of the fickle faith the Canadian government has in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ pre-screening process.)

 

[Admiral Beez]

If they didn't ban single men from coming over, people would complain that it is too risky. Now that they suggest a ban on single men to quash fears, people complain.

I think people would complain less if the government was at least consistent on the issue of profiling. If an Arab single male is profiled as being more dangerous and deserving of further screening, why is everyone screened equally at the airport?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Nfitz Law: an UT adage asserting that "As a thread grows longer, the probability of accusations of racism approaches—that is, if a thread (regardless of political topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later Nfitz will label someone he disagrees with a racist.

Perfect, and from what I see here, 100% spot on.

 

[Tewder]

I certainly was not working myself into a knot over it....was simply questioning the policy decision and how it fit in with the previous "nothing to fear" messages and, further, predicting articles like this.....

Has there really ever been a credible 'nothing to fear' message out there though? Even the greatest supporters of admitting refugees acknowledge there are security concerns, not concerns with legitimate refugees themselves but with the potential of ISIS terrorists sneaking in among them. I would agree that the lines of discussion have been shamefully blurred, and both sides/camps of the refugee question have been guilty of this.

 

[ttk77]

And even if some small danger is introduced it doesn't mean we should stop doing what's right.

 

[Skeezix]

Has there really ever been a credible 'nothing to fear' message out there though? Even the greatest supporters of admitting refugees acknowledge there are security concerns, not concerns with legitimate refugees themselves but with the potential of ISIS terrorists sneaking in among them. I would agree that the lines of discussion have been shamefully blurred, and both sides/camps of the refugee question have been guilty of this.

Really? I haven't heard any security or immigration experts place a lot credence on the possibility of "ISIS terrorists sneaking in among them", namely because there significantly easier ways for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate into Canada. There are security concerns with anyone we let into Canada (refugees are no different in that respect), because we could otherwise inadvertently admit someone with a criminal record, a record of human rights abuses, etc., and while we should be on alert for those who might want to do us or others harm, I haven't seen anything (other than bombast from the usual suspects) suggesting that ISIS terrorists are at the top of the list of security concerns.

 

[TOareaFan]

Has there really ever been a credible 'nothing to fear' message out there though? Even the greatest supporters of admitting refugees acknowledge there are security concerns, not concerns with legitimate refugees themselves but with the potential of ISIS terrorists sneaking in among them. I would agree that the lines of discussion have been shamefully blurred, and both sides/camps of the refugee question have been guilty of this.

There certainly was a "nothing to fear because, both, Canada and the UN will have screened these people" and a "nothing to fear as we are taking refugees from camps where they have been for 2+ years....not the migrants to Europe you see on TV" message. What we have now is "nothing to fear because even single men screened by the UN who have been in the camps for 2+ years will not gain access to Canada"....it is a shift for sure.

Appropriate shift? Who knows.......but it is at least an admission that even with dual screening, someone feels that single men are a too much of a risk for the Canadian Government to admit as refugees.

 

[Skeezix]

[...] it is at least an admission that even with dual screening, someone feels that single men are a too much of a risk for the Canadian Government to admit as refugees.

It is an admission that there is a political risk. Haven't seen anything suggesting it's an actual security risk. Post-Paris, they are trying to calm nerves.

 

[TOareaFan]

It is an admission that there is a political risk. Haven't seen anything suggesting it's an actual security risk. Post-Paris, they are trying to calm nerves.

I am calling "bull" on this.....they are weeks into a 4 year mandate.....they have no political risk!

Look, I support (fully) Canada re-settling refugees.....I wonder why anyone would commit to a "25k by end of year" promise but we are certainly capable of doing 25k and more and giving people a bit of hope for a better future.....and, as others have said, if any country knows that refugees can be resettled and become net contributors to a country it is Canada. That does not mean, however, that when a government gives out contradictory messages they should not be pointed out.

Someone has gotten in their ear and told them......if you want to do this many this fast...this is the compromise.

 

[Skeezix]

Seriously? If this goes sideways, there is all the risk in the world. Especially in the climate that now exists given what happened in Paris and other cities. One simply needs to look at the opinion polls (pre-Paris) to see how volatile this issue is and the potential harm it can do to the government, not to mention the distractions and complications it can cause to other parts of their platform. I'm not sure where you get the notion that they have no political risk.

I've not seen any serious commentary suggest that single male refugees present a greater risk than any other refugee. This may very well have been a compromise, but it wasn't done as a result of anything security experts said. This has domestic politics written all over it. The political aspect is obvious, the security aspect not so much.

 

[TOareaFan]

So the political risk is that there could be a security risk and that the security risk will turn into a political risk down the road? I get it...but it sounds like it starts with a security risk. If they were so sure there was no security risk, it could not turn into a political risk...could it?

 

[Skeezix]

No. The political risk is that people are nervous about letting single Arab males into Canada, because that fits the profile they have in their mind of a terrorist. The actual security risk counts for very little versus the perceived security risk. That's why it's a political risk. From an actual security perspective, the link between terrorists and refugees is overblown, and if Daesh actually wanted to infiltrate into this first tranche of 25,000, notwithstanding the fact there are far less cumbersome means of getting their people into Canada, they would happily send a woman or a man with a family. Excluding single males isn't actually making us any safer, but a segment of the population perceives the exclusion of single Muslim males as accomplishing that objective. And if there are further terrorist attacks in Europe or elsewhere, even if they do not have anything to do with Syrian refugees, that segment of the population will not look favourably on the refugee program, or (just as likely) the government.

 

[Tewder]

Really? I haven't heard any security or immigration experts place a lot credence on the possibility of "ISIS terrorists sneaking in among them", namely because there significantly easier ways for ISIS terrorists to infiltrate into Canada. There are security concerns with anyone we let into Canada (refugees are no different in that respect), because we could otherwise inadvertently admit someone with a criminal record, a record of human rights abuses, etc., and while we should be on alert for those who might want to do us or others harm, I haven't seen anything (other than bombast from the usual suspects) suggesting that ISIS terrorists are at the top of the list of security concerns.

You don't believe that our government, security and immigration officials are not concerned about ISIS? I can assure you they are. They are not changing policy because of these concerns but it does inform and guide their processes etc, as it should.

... and the difference with settling Syrian refugees specifically vs 'anyone we let into Canada' is their lack of paperwork and documentation (for obvious reasons), and the inherent challenges to the vetting/checking of these refugees that this poses. I suspect that this is at least one reason that led to a 'families only' policy, an assumption being that ISIS would have difficulty structuring themselves credibly in this way.

We can squabble all day long how credible or not we feel the ISIS threat is, or the ISIS threat with respect to Syrian refugees, but Canadian security officials will not underestimate any potential possibilities. On the contrary, their mandate and responsibility is to anticipate any threats or dangers where the 'average Joe' wouldn't.

 

[Skeezix]

You don't believe that our government, security and immigration officials are not concerned about ISIS? I can assure you they are. They are not changing policy because of these concerns but it does inform and guide their processes etc, as it should.

I never said that.

I can only assume officials are very concerned about ISIS, and should be. What I said is that the "no single men" policy is not part of that security concern, and was plainly done to address political concerns. If they think filtering out single males will alleviate security risk, then we need new security officials.

... and the difference with settling Syrian refugees specifically vs 'anyone we let into Canada' is their lack of paperwork and documentation (for obvious reasons), and the inherent challenges to the vetting/checking of these refugees that this poses. I suspect that this is at least one reason that led to a 'families only' policy, an assumption being that ISIS would have difficulty structuring themselves credibly in this way.

It's not a "families only" policy. It's a "no single straight men" policy. Single women are still eligible (as are gay men, although that is beside the point). And I don't know why you say "ISIS would have difficulty structuring themselves credibly in this way" - they don't need to structure anything. They simply need to have one member of the family who is willing to do their bidding. Or more members of the family - there are family connections among those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing, the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and reportedly the recent Paris attacks (the Abdeslams). There is no evidence to suggest that Daesh will not use women or family members - quite the contrary, in fact. Excluding single men will assist Canada in only one objective -- admitting far fewer single male refugees. That's it. But politically, it plays very well.

We can squabble all day long how credible or not we feel the ISIS threat is, or the ISIS threat with respect to Syrian refugees, but Canadian security officials will not underestimate any potential possibilities. On the contrary, their mandate and responsibility is to anticipate any threats or dangers where the 'average Joe' wouldn't.

Of course. I assume they are doing that. But this policy has nothing to do with that effort. It's plainly for domestic consumption.

I have no doubt that the government will (possibly in today's news conference) make hay of the restriction on single men, and claim it emanates from their strong desire to ensure the safety of all Canadians. But security experts are saying that the link between Daesh and these refugees is seriously overblown. And it doesn't take an expert to realize that, to the extent that such a risk exists, that filtering out single men is a hamfisted and easily overcome security measure. But how convenient that it addresses the public's general profile of terrorists, especially in light of Paris.

 

[Videodrome]

http://www.680news.com/2015/11/24/first-10000-refugees-to-come-by-year-end-more-by-february/

The refugee target by the end of the year has been reduced to 10,000, with the rest to arrive by the end of February of next year. Good move by the new government.