Illegal Border Crossing into Canada - Asylum Seekers

[Jarnhamar]

There's a party being run by Justin Trudeau?

Yeaaaa buddy.

 

[Journeyman]

Words I never thought I'd say:  I found myself agreeing with an opinion article by CBC's Neil Macdonald.  rly:
'Interesting times' indeed.

Maxime Bernier is challenging orthodoxy. He deserves a civil reply: Neil Macdonald

...Bernier 's contention – that identity politics promotes an endless splintering of the polity into ever-narrower shards of cohorts, all of whom believe their ethnicity or religious beliefs or sexuality merit special consideration – is worth discussing. Dismissing Bernier as a nativist, or white nationalist, or simply racist is just more of the reflexive, ad hominem groupthink that's currently so fashionable.

...A lot of Canadians, no doubt, have concerns about the issue that woman raised, whatever her motivation. A reasonable case can be made that Canada 's immigration policies are welcoming and generous, far more so than America's, and should not be ignored. Rather than engage with her, though, Trudeau condescendingly dismissed her as a racist.

It is the Liberal way. If you don't agree with us, we'll smile and explain our policies more slowly, and if after that you still disagree, well, you're a climate change denier, or a racist, or an ideologue not worth the effort of engagement.

The complete article is available HERE

 

[Furniture]

I had just finished reading that article this morning before logging on here, I was also shocked to find myself agreeing with the author as well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Concerned about illegal border crosses?
You're a racist.
Concerned about the cost?
You're un-Canadian.
Don't like the carbon tax?
You're a denier.

:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just curious here, Recceguy. I am not getting the "Moustache Pete" reference. Could you elaborate, please?

I meant the old guard. The Lauretien Elites. The Trudeaus, Raes, Chretians, Mulroneys and Martins. Along with the influence of the Desmarais and Power Corp.

Explanation: When the new American born Mafioso, the 'Young Turks' (Luciano, Genovese, Morello and Capone, etc) wanted to rebuild, try new things and move away from the influence of the old party guys, the old guard, the 'Mustache Petes.' The old guys that immigrated and brought the crime syndicate to the US, didn't like it and tried to stop the youngsters. The Moustache Petes were removed and the Mafia prospered under the Young Turks.

In my context, I simply means the Old Guard, the Laurentien Elites, the Moustache Petes. Move them out and reform the party without their influence. That is all that was meant.

It was a term I grew up hearing when adults were talking about changes at work, in social clubs, committees and, yes, government at election time. "Time to move out the Mustache Pete's and let the Young Turks take over" Common vernacular in everyday speech. Perhaps those days are too far removed for many to remember, if they were even born then.

But at least you asked for an explanation. Whoever complained about it's use, didn't, and I'm sorry they were offended unnecessarily.

 

[Haggis]

But at least you asked for an explanation. Whoever complained about it's use, didn't, and I'm sorry they were offended unnecessarily.

I hope whomever complained didn't have a mustache.  if so, s/he should shave it off.

I grew up alongside some descendants of Montréal's "Young Turks". I remember those terms well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Images
The message is glaring from Sweden’s election result. There is one dominant issue in Europe’s politics at present, and it is immigration. It rules in Italy and Germany. It rules in Hungary and Austria. It rules from Serbia to Scandinavia. It dominates every meeting of the leaders of the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/immigration-europe-sweden-elections-brexit

Canada aims for immigration boost to buttress economy as population ages

Canada will open its doors to a steadily increasing number of immigrants in the next three years in hopes of attracting 1 per cent of its population by 2020, an attempt to buoy the economy as the country faces a growing population of retirees.

The government says the plan will position Canada as a country that welcomes the world, particularly at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to toughen immigration rules in America.

The plan is to bring in 310,000 new permanent residents in 2018, 330,000 in 2019 and 340,000 in 2020 – an increase from the Liberal government's trend the past two years of 300,000 immigrants.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-admit-40000-more-immigrants-a-year-by-2020-under-liberals-new-three-year-plan/article36800775/

There are about 31 abortions per 100 live births: roughly 330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. About half of the abortions are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.
In 2003, 103,768 abortions were recorded in Canada, about 15.2 per thousand women. The number appears to be declining by about 1% per year. There are about 39,000 abortions each year in Ontario, delivered in 76 hospitals and 6 clinics.
An exception is Quebec, where abortion rates are among the highest in the Western world.  From 17,000 abortions per annum in 1978, they rose to 29,000 in 1998, and 31,000 in 2002, or a rate of 38 per 100 births.

http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/abortion_e.htm

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

The message of this book still holds today: The earth’s interlocking resources – the global system of nature in which we all live – probably cannot support present rates of economic and population growth much beyond the year 2100, if that long, even with advanced technology. In the summer of 1970, an international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of continued worldwide growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet-population increase,

https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/

What would the country look like if:

1 The country had adopted a non-judgemental policy that encouraged young women to be able to keep their children and live the lives they wanted.

2 We had not bought into the Club of Rome catastrophism of 1971 and had instead leveled out the fertility rate at 2.5 children per woman - the level that had already been achieved by the introduction of the pill?

Apparently only the OECD got the message.  The rest of the world, not so much.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I keep hearing how no one is having kids and we need immigration to survive as a country.

Maybe if we weren't paying taxes out of our asses we'd be having more kids. Kids are expensive.
On top of all the taxes I pay, and taxes ON taxes, I can pay up to $1100 a month in child care.

Maybe if we stoped paying so much taxes Canadians could afford to have more children. You know instead of inviting an exodus of immigrants here and using taxes to set them up.

In addition I read Canada lost 50'000 jobs last month and the cities our refugees/illegal immigrants are going to are saying they can't handle anymore.

Liberals want to add another million or so more? What could go wrong.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I keep hearing how no one is having kids and we need immigration to survive as a country.

Maybe if we weren't paying taxes out of our asses we'd be having more kids. Kids are expensive.
On top of all the taxes I pay, and taxes ON taxes, I can pay up to $1100 a month in child care.

Maybe if we stoped paying so much taxes Canadians could afford to have more children. You know instead of inviting an exodus of immigrants here and using taxes to set them up.

In addition I read Canada lost 50'000 jobs last month and the cities our refugees/illegal immigrants are going to are saying they can't handle anymore.

Liberals want to add another million or so more? What could go wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Kirkhill]

A couple of interesting articles this Sunday:  One is an interview of Francis Fukuyama by Andrew Coyne and the other is a piece by Daniel Hannan.  Both speak to a theme I have been picking up on, that the current malaise is tied to the loss of understanding of the importance of the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment.  Personally I believe that is in large part due to the tendency of the Enlightened to be desirous of demonstrating their Tolerance by not criticizing those unfortunate enough to have not had the benefit of growing up in Enlightened Nations.  Now we are back to where we started, believing that there are Truths that define our Liberal religion and not understanding that the Enlightenment was the explicit rejection of the existence of Truths.

Daniel Hannan: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/09/15/protected-challenged-students-have-turned-backs-enlightenment/

.....We are turning our backs on the central idea of the Enlightenment. Over the past four centuries, at least in the West, we have absorbed a set of precepts that do not come naturally. We have taught ourselves that someone can disagree with us without being wicked; that people whose ways seem strange might yet possess wisdom; that we don’t know everything, and that listening to new ideas broadens our understanding.

This last idea – the recognition of our ignorance – is the foundation of modern science. For thousands of years, our ancestors believed that all truth was contained somewhere, usually in a sacred book. Only very recently have we reached the view that letting different ideas jostle is the best way to improve our knowledge.


In 1644, John Milton advanced a revolutionary argument: “A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.”

Milton would immediately have recognised what is happening in our leading universities. Certain ideas are sacralised, lifted out of the field of rational enquiry. Four hundred years ago, heresy meant challenging the teaching of the Church. Today, it means questioning the received dogmas on diversity and equality.
(Edit- And, I would argue, heresy applies equally in modern science with the demand for theories to be "settled".)

We are abandoning the empiricism and tolerance that underpin the Enlightenment, and returning to the older notion of judging an idea on the basis of whether the speaker is from our own tribe – though “tribe” is now defined by political and cultural affinities.

Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/victims-virtues-and-the-fight-for-liberal-democracy-andrew-coyne-in-conversation-with-francis-fukuyama

Andrew Coyne: The core insight of your book is that the identity politics of the left, the populist nationalism of the right, Islamism, even Trump himself, all are driven by a demand for dignity, a demand for recognition and respect. But why are all of these happening now?

Francis Fukuyama: I think these movements have been triggered by economic developments, globalization. This neo-liberal period of increasing flows of goods, services, trade, investment, has benefited a small number of people but left quite a few behind. But it’s not just de-industrialization and offshoring of jobs — I think it’s also the physical movement of people, really extraordinary levels of foreign-born people moving into Western Europe and the United States. I think a combination of the insecurity caused by economic disruption plus rather rapid cultural change is what’s triggered the demand for recognition. And that was there to be exploited by opportunistic politicians.

..... Fukuyama: identity politics can also lead to a kind of fragmentation, a challenge to some pretty basic Enlightenment values of the universality of human rights, of the individual as the building block of society.

It can. Here’s a concrete example: Martin Luther King basically said, “Black people are just like white people. We want the same rights. We don’t want anything special. We just want to be treated as Americans are supposed to be treated.” But in certain interpretations of the black power movement, that shifted over into saying, “No, actually black people are not just like white people. We have our own culture, we have our own values. We have a separate way of living. And that’s what we want to have respected.” Then it gets translated to a lot of different groups. The problem is that a lot of those groups are defined by biology, or characteristics you’re born with and you don’t have very much choice over — like the religion that you grew up in. So in a certain sense, that returns us to this pre-liberal notion that we’re actually all different from each other in fundamental ways.

Coyne: I’m struck by how often what’s called “diversity” is, on closer inspection, more about emphasizing the sameness of individuals within a group, about conformity.

Fukuyama: This is another problem with certain interpretations of identity politics. Where you say that, because you’re born into a certain group that experience then determines what you’re going to think about politics, about culture, about a whole range of things. That’s a misunderstanding about how people are, they are actually capable of rising above these given identities and thinking for themselves.

Coyne: You place a fairly heavy premium on the idea of rebuilding national identity. But you are referring to a particular type of national identity — what we often call civic nationalism, versus ethnic or cultural nationalism.

Fukuyama: Right. In Europe, you have a number of countries that define citizenship in ethnic terms. I don’t think that’s an acceptable way for a de facto multicultural society to think of itself. You need an identity that is not based on ethnicity, not based on religion, but is based on shared political values. So in the United States, this is a belief in the constitution, a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the principle of human equality. You’ve got to get that civic understanding of nationalism.  (Edit - Values are beliefs - so shared political values are shared political beliefs - Party replaces Church - Politics becomes Religion - Funnily enough Religion became Politics)

Coyne: And yet you say that’s not enough (civic nationalism) , there’s got to be something more. What is the more you think is needed?

Fukuyama: I think the thicker cultures are, the more binding they are. So I think that there are other kinds of positive virtues that you need to cultivate. A sense of civic obligation, for example, which is why I’m in favor of something like national service — this idea that, as a citizen of a democratic society, you’re not just a rights bearer that is constantly getting stuff from the government, you’re also somebody that actively has to contribute.

Coyne: How do you manage the trick of of cultivating this kind of nationalism but not becoming exclusionary, or unwilling to cooperate with other countries — especially as so many of the issues we face are global.

Fukuyama: International cooperation still has to be based on nations. The nation still provides this one characteristic that is not shared by either sub-national or supranational organizations, which is that it can legitimately use force to uphold laws, to protect citizens. So it’s very important to hold on to that. But that doesn’t mean that nations can’t voluntarily cooperate with one another. In fact, the global economy wouldn’t work if it didn’t have this whole layer of all sorts of international agreements and organizations. I don’t think you have to give up vital aspects of sovereignty to deal with the kinds of problems created by globalization.

International:  Between nations.  You can't have international cooperation without nations.

Ultimately the discussion can be boiled down the issue of coercion. 

The lazy man's solution to a problem is to efficiently impose a solution:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  The efficient bureaucrat evaluating and deciding ability and need.

The liberal solution is to let the solution rise to the surface organically:  The individual determines his own abilities and needs and acts accordingly.  And that chaos frightens the heck out of the clerically inclined.  It is not just that they might see themselves as being unnecessary.  It is that the prospect of chaos is frightening. 

Two cultures: one defined by the precise geometry of the Acropolis, the other defined by the fire and ice of Ragnarok.

 

[Rifleman62]

So it continues with the latest stats. The print media is probably close to the same ratio. CNN/MSNBC are all bash Trump. Some will say Trump deserves every bit of the negative news about him. When you are constantly bombarded with negative reports, of course many will believe it. Indoctrination. Meanwhile the US economy is getting stronger.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/media-research-center-abc-cbs-nbc/2018/10/09/id/885591/

MRC Study: 92 Percent of Trump Media Coverage 'Negative' - 9 Oct 18

Broadcast networks hammered President Donald Trump and his administration over the summer — despite a raft of good economic news —  with reports that were 92 percent negative, according to conservative media watchdog study.

The Media Research Center said its study of 1,007 evening news stories on ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1-Sept. 30 revealed the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history, with just 8 percent of the coverage positive.

According to the MRC, here is the top coverage by the networks about the Trump administration over the four-month period:

- Russia collusion investigation, with 342 minutes of air time, 97 percent of which was negative.
- Immigration policies, with 308 minutes of air time, and 94 percent negative coverage.
- The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, with 291 minutes of coverage, 82 percent of which was negative.
- North Korea diplomacy, with 179 minutes of coverage, 90 percent of it negative.
- And U.S. relations with Russia, with 151 minutes of coverage, 99 percent of which was negative.

Meanwhile, the booming economy netted just 14 minutes of airtime with positive coverage, MRC reported.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So it continues with the latest stats. The print media is probably close to the same ratio. CNN/MSNBC are all bash Trump. Some will say Trump deserves every bit of the negative news about him. When you are constantly bombarded with negative reports, of course many will believe it. Indoctrination. Meanwhile the US economy is getting stronger.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/media-research-center-abc-cbs-nbc/2018/10/09/id/885591/

MRC Study: 92 Percent of Trump Media Coverage 'Negative' - 9 Oct 18

Broadcast networks hammered President Donald Trump and his administration over the summer — despite a raft of good economic news —  with reports that were 92 percent negative, according to conservative media watchdog study.

The Media Research Center said its study of 1,007 evening news stories on ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1-Sept. 30 revealed the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history, with just 8 percent of the coverage positive.

According to the MRC, here is the top coverage by the networks about the Trump administration over the four-month period:

- Russia collusion investigation, with 342 minutes of air time, 97 percent of which was negative.
- Immigration policies, with 308 minutes of air time, and 94 percent negative coverage.
- The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, with 291 minutes of coverage, 82 percent of which was negative.
- North Korea diplomacy, with 179 minutes of coverage, 90 percent of it negative.
- And U.S. relations with Russia, with 151 minutes of coverage, 99 percent of which was negative.

Meanwhile, the booming economy netted just 14 minutes of airtime with positive coverage, MRC reported.

Much like here.

It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Looks like almost 40% of the people in shelters in Toronto self-identity as refugee claiments.

With a little help from the Liberal government we can smash those rookie numbers up a few notches I bet.

The city of Toronto is standing by its statistics showing almost 40 per cent of people in shelters are refugee claimants – a number challenged as false by federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen in a continuing spat with his provincial counterpart.

Amid growing tension between Ottawa and the provincial government, Mr. Hussen last week accused Ontario Community and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod, who is responsible for the immigration file, of “fear-mongering” and using the issue of asylum seekers to “demonize people.” He was responding to her criticism of the federal government’s lack of plan for dealing with the influx of people crossing the U.S. border into Canada. In a critical statement, she cited the percentage of refugees occupying shelter spaces in Toronto.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toronto-stands-by-data-showing-almost-40-per-cent-of-people-in/?fbclid=IwAR3va62NSXI28R0k5lkVSPnlXAbf8TYMr3NbBjUpLQXp7oyb3DZXq0JpJ5I