Canada: We'll resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I think it has to do with shipping an handling. It weird cause I think who ever makes these prices tries to balance these things out, might be pretty cheap to have a house an such there, but sending goods all the way up probably how they make their taxes.

I find it quite hypocritical for Canada to accept refuges when any criminal arrest or conviction from US persons is a reason to deny entry, EVEN FOR A WEEKEND VISIT. I bolded the especially offensive part of the Canadian info which is extremely hypocritical:

If you have any criminal record at all; a bounced check, a fishing violation, uttering a death threat, a poaching charge, even simple possession of a small amount of weed, you might not be admitted to Canada. Your DUI also doesn't have to be alcohol related in order for the border to deny entry for criminality. People are frequently charged with driving while intoxicated because they were on prescription medication such as pain killers or medical marijuana. You can be charged for driving under the influence of drugs regardless of whether or not the drug is legal. Even if you have been prescribed medicine by a doctor, if the substance "could affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person as to impair" you can't be operating a motor vehicle while on it or else you can get a DUI and no longer be welcome in Canada. If you were charged with boating under the influence of alcohol, or even some obscure charge such as operating a motorized lawn mower while intoxicated, your ability to travel to Canada can also be effected.

[SNIP]

Other common reasons are no proof of income, no proof of employment, no proof of sufficient funds, no proof of residency in USA, no proof of ties to USA, and no international health insurance. To avoid being denied entry into Canada for ‘not enough ties to home country’, it’s important to bring supporting documentation to prove you do in fact have ties to your home country such as family, a house or apartment (mortgage or lease), enrollment in a school, or a job. To avoid being denied entry for not enough funds, ensure that you have enough money in your bank account to sustain yourself for the entire duration of your trip (and bring supporting documents, or have the ability to log into your online bank account on your mobile phone). Having insufficient funds is one of the more frequent reasons why people are denied entry into Canada, so it’s very important for people to take extra steps to be able to prove they can afford their trip, and obviously the longer the scheduled visit the more money an individual will be required to have. Even if you will be "getting paid" or "receiving money" in the near future, if your bank account is depleted when you attempt to cross the border you risk being refused entry. It might sound ridiculous that Canada requires residents of a country as rich as the United States to prove they can afford a trip, but the Canadian government is trying to prevent certain foreigners from entering the country that they deem are likely to either work illegally or strain the country’s social programs (such as homeless or unemployed Americans attracted to Canada's socialism and oil money). It's also important to have health insurance coverage valid in Canada (also called Canadian travel insurance) before attempting to visit Canada, and border officers will often ask about this. A lot of traditional American health insurance plans do not cover out of country medical expenses, and if you don’t have a MasterCard or VISA credit card that offers emergency medical coverage you might have to purchase insurance before visiting Canada (especially if you're a senior).

www.canadaduientrylaw.com...

Also see this link for more confirmation of the above. help.cbp.gov...

In every country, the word "refugee" seems to have privileges that were once only afforded to diplomats and high ranking officials from other countries.

Also, many Canadians are already un happy about Islam:

But in the rest of Canada, where 46 per cent held an unfavorable view of Islam in 2009, that figure has risen sharply to 54 per cent this year.
www.macleans.ca...

Oh, that was in 2013. I can only imagine how it is now.....or will be.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Did the refugees commit crimes? I'm thinking the Canadian govt will check that out.
I have no problem with a country doing background checks before admission of refugees or immigrants.

You're sourcing "canada dui entry law"? That's relevant to...which refugees again?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

We DO have some screwed up laws. My mother(CDN citizen) can't get a visa to travel to England.... where she was born. That was under the last government though so we'll see.

a reply to: intrepid

Weird. Thanks for expounding.
Why did they deny it? (and who denied it? England?)

a reply to: intrepid

Don't hold your breath Intrepid.
Trudeau and his cabinet and civil servants are too busy dealing with his pet projects to change their tack anytime soon.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: intrepid

Weird. Thanks for expounding.
Why did they deny it? (and who denied it? England?)

No. Our gov. I know. It makes no sense.

a reply to: intrepid

Hmmmm. Mucho strange.

originally posted by: Cynic
a reply to: intrepid

Don't hold your breath Intrepid.
Trudeau and his cabinet and civil servants are too busy dealing with his pet projects to change their tack anytime soon.

Can we wait until he has more days in office than he has years on the planet? Any bitching about him now is partisan BS. He's had the time to nothing yet. Even this is a ways from implementation.

a reply to: intrepid

I am not partisan at all, let alone spouting BS
He has already back tracked in his promise to bring 25,000 refugees into the country by year end.
The main reason for doing so is not logistics as being touted in the media. That is secondary.
He is simply transferring 3/5 of the first year cost of 200 million into 2016
Sorry, but it really is that simple.

originally posted by: Cynic
a reply to: intrepid

I am not partisan at all, let alone spouting BS
He has already back tracked in his promise to bring 25,000 refugees into the country by year end.
The main reason for doing so is not logistics as being touted in the media. That is secondary.
He is simply transferring 3/5 of the first year cost of 200 million into 2016
Sorry, but it really is that simple.

Did you get that from the Sun? You DO know that the fiscal year for the gov't is Apr. 1st to Mar. 31. This fiscal year is three quarter done.

ETA: And can they do anything about the current budget anyways? That's a gov't commitment.... one they didn't make.

a reply to: Cynic

He has no credible education to run a lemonade stand let alone the country.

Usually the biggest crooks have the higher levels of education . Think Mulroney and his brown bagging out of New York . Think Jim Prentice and the corporate revolving doors to the former Harper Govt and you will see the picture .

I am FULLY aware of the budget year.
The cost to resettle these people WILL be put off until early Spring.
Count on it.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Cynic

He has no credible education to run a lemonade stand let alone the country.

Usually the biggest crooks have the higher levels of education . Think Mulroney and his brown bagging out of New York . Think Jim Prentice and the corporate revolving doors to the former Harper Govt and you will see the picture .

Think Paul Martin when he raped EI in a feeble attempt to balance the books - it didn't work.
Think Jean Chretien and the Sponsorship Scandal.
Think Trudeau senior who introduced a Gas Tax well in excess of what Joe Clark proposed.
Thanks for the memories.

a reply to: Cynic

We could go back and forth with many vivid past memories and all it will prove is that politicians or at least some of them will milk the system for all they can get away with . Even a million dollar Gazibo ....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If we're taking in the 25,000 refugees in the way that's been described in your OP, I have absolutely no problem with it.

So long as the vulnerable (families, women, children, elderly) fill the spots first and foremost... while single unattached males get held back for stricter background checks before even being considered, IF any spots are left.

I welcome these people with open arms and hope they're able to eke out a better life for themselves here, free from danger and persecution.

I have nothing but respect for good honest hardworking people who are willing to take the risk of relocating their families to a world that's alien to them.

Imagine relocating to a country barely being able to speak the language, and not knowing if you're going to make a success of it or not ? That's what our ancestors did... with each generation adapting a little better as time goes on.



I wish them all luck on their new adventure here in the Great White North.

a reply to: Cynic

What's that got to do with the topic?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ok, fair enough.
Even a residence next to a golf course....

a reply to: CranialSponge

Really glad you posted here - was thinking about you when I made the OP.
Thanks.

Everything.
You asked, if I knew what cycle the budget ran in.
I told you that I knew.
The costs will be put off until then, it has little to do with proper vetting of these people, just dollars and cents.