I agree it won't 'alleviate' security risk, which is why I called it an 'assumption' in my post. It is intended to 'mitigate' security risk, they are profiling here pure and simple.
Yep. And profiling is dumb.
I do agree that there is a political angle here too. Let's call it out, Trudeau is essentially breaking a rather boastful election promise, one that he used as a wedge issue just as surely (and more deftly) as Harper did.
Yes, they broke one element of the promise, by delaying part of the implementation by less than 60 days, in order to respond to address concerns. But the overall promise is still being met, and substantively, Canada is still taking in 25,000 refugees in a relatively short time. It remains an ambitious and rapid response.
The Liberals in opposition consistently called on Canada to do significantly more for Syrian refugees. An opposition party taking a different position than the government of the day, and then campaigning on it, is not a wedge issue. Responding to a humanitarian crisis in what the party believes to be the most humane way possible is not a wedge issue. Anytime a political party takes a position one does not completely like does not make it a wedge issue.
Typically, a wedge issue seeks to highlight/create/enhance discord among the supporters of another party and to draw support away from that party. Even during the election campaign, the promise to bring Syrian refugees was fraught with political risk for the Liberals -- the Tories were not wrong when they concluded that a majority of the electorate preferred a go slow approach, and the Tories' own base was solidily behind that assessment. If this was a wedge issue, it was the worst wedge issue possible. What it did do, however, is reassure Liberal supporters about Trudeau's leadership and willingness to take risks.
In the end though Trudeau will only be achieving the same amount of refugees the Conservatives committed to in the first place
You're joking, right?
... I know, I know, but he is promising more right? Well let's wait and see. One broken promise easily leads to the next, in my experience.
God, yes, Trudeau might once again revamp an aspect of the plan to address concerns and to make sure it is done in the best way. How awful.
I am happy Trudeau has revised his plan though. Politics aside, the 25K by christmas was rash and irresponsible. You cannot convince Canadians that security is a priority all the while insisting on an arbitrary deadline.
Yes, how rash and irresponsible of them to want to rescue 25,000 people from unsafe conditions as quickly as possible.
Almost everything government does, from spending decisions to statutory rules, is arbitrary. Governments routinely set deadlines so as to focus and motivate efforts and to show their commitment to the objective. When people complain about something being "arbitrary", that usually means they've run out of substantive things to say. It's the go-to word for people without anything to say.
You seem very troubled by the family restriction (including single women and gays). I'm curious who you would chose to assist first, given limited resources??
As pointed out to you above, there is no family restriction. Calling it a family restriction, when what it does it filter out one class of individuals, is misleading.
I'm not "troubled". I find the exclusion of single men, unless gay or traveling with parents, in this first tranche to be disappointing given the motivation for the exclusion. But the overall plan is still ambitious and humane, so no, I am not troubled.
I would want them to use the criteria they would normally use to pick the first group of refugees - those most at risk, those most vulnerable (different than risk), those who pass the security screening, etc. Despite the Titanic analogy used above, it's not as simple as "women and children first". While families might usually be the ones to meet that criteria, it isn't a given that they would be the only ones, and there are single men who for religious, political, medical and other reasons might otherwise have qualified. In other words, refugee selection should be principled, not based on profiling designing to meet domestic political concerns.
Also, let's be clear that whether our security experts consider any terrorist links/risks to be 'overblown' or not will in no way whatsoever effect how they deal with this situation. your insistence on any risk being overblown is completely and utterly irrelevant.
I don't even understand what you are saying here. For a paragraph that starts with "let's be clear", it's not very clear what you are trying to say. It's not my insistence. And you think our security experts will disregard their own beliefs?
I agree that refugees will make great contributions. They are not coming to Canada for monetary reasons, to use the country in any way. They come here gratefully to build their lives. They strengthen our country.
I share Gabe's concerns in that it would be nice if we rushed so collectively and urgently to assist our elderly citizens, our veterans, the mentally ill and the poor and so on. I just don't see it as an 'either/or' scenario. I'd like to think we can do both.
Agree with all of that.
