News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

I love it. He won't explain it, and the more he doesn't, the more ridiculous he looks. We all know roughly what it means, but it's against the needs and wishes of Northerners.

It's like farm labour jobs. The locals don't want to do it. So what are you going to do? Ban temporary immigrant labourers?
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canadas-temporary-foreign-worker-programs/

Ford's stuck in his own rut, and his rear end is spinning...better watch he doesn't cook his tranny....and no, I won't explain that! lol...
 
And ironically, it can even resonate among, well, certain of the new-Canadian immigrant class. To whom DoFo strikes a "*you're* good; it's those *after* you who aren't" note.
Yes, some (actually most) new-Canadian immigrants are upset that they waited a long time to enter the country according to the rules and some who are breaking the law are now welcomed with open arms.

The nerve of Ford appealing to people who think the law should be followed.
 
There are a lot of signs for the PC candidate in Scarborough-Agincourt. I haven't seen many where I live though.
 
The nerve of Ford appealing to people who think the law should be followed.
There's absolutely no indication of that being what Ford is referring to. Not to mention that's a federal issue, not that such technicalities register on Ford's limited dashboard...

Here's what was stated, exactly, and since Ford won't explain what he meant, perhaps you'd explain what is "illegal" in any way in any aspect of this, or are you to Ford as Cohen is to Trump?
[...]
The three leaders were asked whether they would support a northern-Ontario-focused immigration nominee pilot program, which would let businesses in the north sponsor immigrants to come work there specifically (similar programs have been implemented in other provinces).

Wynne and Horwath both said they would support a pilot, and Horwath explicitly committed to expanding the program if the pilot were to show positive results.

Doug Ford’s answer, meanwhile: “I’d be more than happy to sit down and talk to the folks and look at a pilot project. But number one, I’m a pretty generous guy — I’m taking care of our own first. Once we take care of our own, once we exhaust every single avenue and don’t have anyone that can fill a job, then I’d be open to that.”

The answer was predictably populist, but even if Ford didn’t realize it, it also ran directly counter to his repeated claim that he — and only he — is the one listening to the north.

Northern and rural leaders haven’t been shy about this: they want more immigrants. Towns and cities across the region are trying to lure new Canadians with different tools and levers (The Agenda covered these efforts recently), and a nominee program would be a new tool in their toolbox.[...]
https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/doug-fords-odd-take-on-immigration-in-the-north

Misrepresent it all you like, you just compound the mess coming out of Ford's tailpipe...

Here's the blurb for The Agenda's link above:
The Agenda with Steve Paikin
A Northern and Rural Appeal to Newcomers
Late last year, the Canadian government pledged to welcome one million immigrants over the next three years. However, if trends continue, only a small number of them will choose to live in rural or northern Ontario. Meanwhile, these areas, with aging populations and large gaps in their labour forces, are desperate for newcomers. The Agenda discusses how to attract newcomers to settle outside Ontario's urban centres.
Episode:
Attracting Newcomers to Rural Ontario; Christian Cool?

Paikin features the Mayor of Sault St Marie and other noted professionals.

upload_2018-5-12_22-25-54.png



Some folks have an odd concept of "the law". But then again, Ford doesn't even know how the difference between "flaw" and "law". It is a bit challenging for some it seems.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-5-12_22-16-54.png
    upload_2018-5-12_22-16-54.png
    213.2 KB · Views: 185
  • upload_2018-5-12_22-25-54.png
    upload_2018-5-12_22-25-54.png
    220.2 KB · Views: 311
Last edited:
There's absolutely no indication of that being what Ford is referring to. Not to mention that's a federal issue, not that such technicalities register on Ford's limited dashboard...
Asylum-seekers will be fast-tracked to Ontario starting next week
A spokesperson for Ontario Immigration Minister Laura Albanese said the province is working with Ottawa and Quebec, but that it was too early to comment on details of how and where asylum-seekers might be transferred to Ontario.
Sound like an Ontario issue.

Some folks have an odd concept of "the law". But then again, Ford doesn't even know how the difference between "flaw" and "law". It is a bit challenging for some it seems.
Illegal usually means against the law.
31680728_1264953963637080_3759368823896014848_n.jpg
 
Sound like an Ontario issue.
No it doesn't, it isn't, and your sense of awareness is par with Ford's. You'd think the "Government of Canada" on the signs would give a hint, but hey...Perhaps you need a dictionary as to what "sponsor" means?

spon·sor
ˈspänsər/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person or organization that provides funds for a project or activity carried out by another, in particular.

  2. 2.
    a person who introduces and supports a proposal for legislation.
    "a leading sponsor of the bill"

verb
  1. 1.
    provide funds for (a project or activity or the person carrying it out).
    "Joe is being sponsored by his church"
    synonyms: finance, put up the money for, fund, subsidize, back, promote, support, contribute to, be a patron of, guarantee, underwrite; More

  2. 2.
    introduce and support (a proposal) in a legislative assembly.
    "Senator Hardin sponsored the bill"
Immigration is the *sole* competence of the Federal Government, and "Asylum" is distinct from "Immigration". Both, however, are the sole jurisdiction of the Feds.

Not that some do now, or ever will know the difference. Or care...
Illegal usually means against the law.
Jesse Beatson and Kylie Sier, Osgoode Hall Law School
We are concerned about a recent spike in the use of the term “illegal” to characterize asylum seekers crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

One newspaper speaks of “illegal migrants” while others focus on “illegal border crossers.” An editorial from a prominent national paper asks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “yield to Tory measures” by tightening the border. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen recently said that he has “no qualms about using the term [illegal].” As MPs Jenny Kwan and Gary Anandasangaree have both argued, word choice is important and the term “illegal” is harmful.

“Irregular” is used by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to describe border crossings “between ports of entry.” This is not about people trying to sneak across the border undetected, but about the right to seek asylum from persecution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects this right. Importantly, the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to which Canada is a signatory and which are incorporated into Canadian law, both recognize that refugee claimants should not be penalized for irregular entry to seek refuge.

Many news pieces that talk about “illegal migrants” or “illegal border crossing” fail to mention an important context - the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States. The agreement, which came into effect in 2004, requires Canada to send refugees back to the U.S. if they come to an official port of entry in all but a few circumstances. This agreement only applies to refugee claims made at official border points, and is premised on the assumption that the U.S. is a country that protects the rights of refugee claimants. Given the current Trump administration’s anti-refugee and anti-Muslim policies, there is good reason to think the U.S. is not currently a safe place of return.

Applying the term “illegal border crossing” to refugees is based on a misconception. Irregular entry is not an offence in the Criminal Code, and should not be labelled as such. The language of illegality also tends to violate the presumption of innocence. This is a principle that should inform ethical journalism.
[...]
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...res-nothing-illegal-about-asylum-seekers.html
 
Last edited:
Nice try, but it isn't about asylum seekers next week. It's about the need to attract legal immigrants to the north, which has been going on for awhile. I suppose the need to lie so bluntly is indicative of something.

AoD
I'm actually loving this, because the more Ford opens his mouth, the more shit comes out...and then his gullible golly-gooks swear: "That's perfume, not rank feces. I know, because the Sun told me".

Meantime, most know the distinctive smell for what it is. *Anything but Ford!*
 
Burloak is sadly not a Conservative thinker.

I'm not meaning to get into personal diatribes and apologize in advance if it seems that way.

But I am rather tired and disheartened by posters who are either truly obtuse or willfully misleading in their posts, repeatedly.

@AlvinofDiaspar and @steveintoronto have appropriately called this out.
 
Doug has shown an inability to know exactly what matters are municipal, provincial and federal. He also doesn't know how a bill becomes law.
 

Back
Top