Lee Lofaso wrote to ALL <=-
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine? Is it the
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine? Is it the
Only Biden could help, but that's money that can be better spent on
bogus infrastructure bills.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across the border, its also to stop crap like fentanyl.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration
planned.
The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across the border,
its also to stop crap like fentanyl.
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine? Is it the
Only Biden could help, but that's money that can be better spent on bogus infrastructure bills. Biden doesn't want to start a ridiculous war that will
potentially cause a loss of money. Biden's all about saving money, so that way there's more of it at his disposal.
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
So it's Redirection Day today from our resident delusional Leftie Elite (wannabee status).
He needs to redirect our attention from the Leftie failed Rittenhouse trial.
He needs to redirect our attention away from the higher prices that we all pay
due to the afwul policies his boy (Biden) put in place.
Now, what other Leftie failures does he need to distract us from by pointing out something that has no impact on our country at all?
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
No. They just got sexually abused when Clinton lied.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across the border, its als
to stop crap like fentanyl.
That would be a good reason for a wall, if it would stop the flow of those kind of things but it doesn't.
People find a way through, over, under or around.
What are all the "non-lefties" in the forum gonna do to stop
Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine? Is it the
Only Biden could help, but that's money that can be better spent on
bogus infrastructure bills.
You know that that bill is popular with everyone.
Even republicans who voted against the bill are mailing their constituents and telling folks how good this will be for them.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.
The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across the border, its also to stop crap like fentanyl.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration
planned.
The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across the border,
its also to stop crap like fentanyl.
That would be a good reason for a wall, if it would stop the flow of those kind of things but it doesn't.
People find a way through, over, under or around.
On 12-05-21 19:52, Matt Munson <=-
spoke to Alan Ianson about Re: Ukraine <=-
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.
The wall isnt just about keeping people from coming across
the border, its also to stop crap like fentanyl.
Only Biden could help, but that's money that can be better spent on bogus infrastructure bills.
You know that that bill is popular with everyone.
Even republicans who voted against the bill are mailing their
constituents and telling folks how good this will be for them.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration planned.
People find a way through, over, under or around.
potentially cause a loss of money. Biden's all about saving money, so way there's more of it at his disposal.
Please. Tell me again. What are *you* gonna do to stop Russian bad boy Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
Do you guys allow your government to import untested undocumented
migrants into the interior of your country, for the sole purpose of strengthening the liberal party via voter re-districting? That's what's happening here. --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
You know that that bill is popular with everyone.
Who's everyone? Conservatives don't appreciate it. My district rep
voted against it.
Even republicans who voted against the bill are mailing their
constituents and telling folks how good this will be for them.
Who did that? My district's congresswoman is one who voted against it.
She has not sent me any such email.
We need more hospitals and more staff,
and we need to find out where the virus originated, and whether or not there are more viruses like it sitting in a test tube somewhere.
Lead pipes can wait until we figure out how to avert the next covid.
It's much better than the wall the previous administration
planned.
Do you guys allow your government to import untested undocumented
migrants into the interior of your country, for the sole purpose of strengthening the liberal party via voter re-districting? That's
what's happening here.
money, sopotentially cause a loss of money. Biden's all about saving
way there's more of it at his disposal.
Please. Tell me again. What are *you* gonna do to stop Russian badboy
Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
I'll vote Republican.
They do it because these "refugees" largely vote..wait for it...Liberal!
Do you guys allow your government to import untested undocumented migrants into the interior of your country, for the sole purpose of strengthening the liberal party via voter re-districting? That's
what's happening here.
No, that doesn't happen here and I don't think that happen in the USA either.
Mike Powell wrote to DOUG MCCOMBER <=-
They do it because these "refugees" largely vote..wait for it...Liberal!
Do they have to become citizens before they can vote?
They do it because these "refugees" largely vote..wait for it...Liberal
Do they have to become citizens before they can vote?
Remember that the Left tends to play a long game and will keep slowly turning up the heat in the pot so that the frog gets boiled to death before he knows what's happening.
Mike Powell wrote to RON LAUZON <=-turning
Remember that the Left tends to play a long game and will keep slowly
up the heat in the pot so that the frog gets boiled to death before he knows what's happening.
So they are the ones behind global warming!!! :O
Doug McComber wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Yes. I should have said they are expected to largely vote Liberal once they gain citizenship.
Ron Lauzon wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Yes, they are. Jokingly and otherwise. Communist nations are the
WORST for messing up the environment.
Only Biden could help, but that's money that can be better spent bogus infrastructure bills.
You know that that bill is popular with everyone.
Who's everyone? Conservatives don't appreciate it. My district rep voted against it.
Even republicans who voted against the bill are mailing their constituents and telling folks how good this will be for them.
Who did that? My district's congresswoman is one who voted against it.
She has not sent me any such email.
We need more hospitals and more staff, and we need to find out where the virus originated, and whether or not there are more viruses like it sitting in a test tube somewhere. Lead pipes can wait until we figureDon't we already know where this came from at this point, why try to deny
out how to avert the next covid.
Do you guys allow your government to import untested undocumented
migrants into the interior of your country, for the sole purpose of strengthening the liberal party via voter re-districting? That's what's happening here.
crossing each year for the past, what 3 or 4 years now? The Liberal
Party of Canada (who have been the party in power for since 2015) allows this loophole, even going so far as to set up buildings and staff the unofficial crossing with RCMP. They do it because these "refugees"
The American people. The build back better plan is well liked by the American people regardless of their political views including 42% of GOP voters and overall 64% of voters.
If we are talking about build back better it was not supported by a
single republican.
We need more hospitals and more staff,
We just built a new hospital here in Penticton. It took years of
planning and cost a small mint even for a small town hospital. If you
want a new hospital go for it.
Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
I'll vote Republican.
Trump wanted to reward Vladimir Putin for invading Crimea (a part
of Ukraine) by lifting all sanctions against Russia. How would doing
the same encourage Putin from invading the rest of Ukraine?
I am not certain about the part after "for the sole purpose," but the first part is happening. A couple of governors have been complaining about the flights that have been dropping homeless migrants off into
their states.
Yes. I should have said they are expected to largely vote Liberal onc they gain citizenship.
The Left isn't even waiting for that. Many Left-controlled local areas are already allowing illegals to vote in their local elections.
Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine?
I'll vote Republican.
Trump wanted to reward Vladimir Putin for invading Crimea (a part
of Ukraine) by lifting all sanctions against Russia. How would doing
the same encourage Putin from invading the rest of Ukraine?
Sanctions against Russia are not effective.
They don't care if the USA refuses to buy any more babushka dolls.
The best thing we can do now is keep on buying as much Russian oil as possible, so that way we can completely finance any battle costs the Russians incur while they're out there annexing our friends' countries.
Yes. I should have said they are expected to largely vote Liberal once they gain citizenship.They do it because these "refugees" largely vote..wait for it...LiDo they have to become citizens before they can vote?
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the Jews and the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it
has never come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.
This is Canada, nobody cares about race here. The fact is Canada, politically, has become very much an urban vs rural divide and statistically immigrants (illegal, legal or refugees) settle in the
bigger cities, Toronto followed by Montreal then Vancouver.
This is Canada, nobody cares about race here. The fact is Canada, politically, has become very much an urban vs rural divide and statistically immigrants (illegal, legal or refugees) settle in the
bigger cities, Toronto followed by Montreal then Vancouver.
Yes. I should have said they are expected to largely vote Liberal once >DM> they gain citizenship.They do it because these "refugees" largely vote..wait for it...Li >DM> MP> Do they have to become citizens before they can vote?
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the Jews and the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it has never come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.
What I stated is simple statistics and not "replacement theory". Canadians don
care about their neighbours religion, ethnicity or race.
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the Jews the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it has n come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.He insinuated that *the government* expects it, not that it is true or that he expects it.
You seem to think the government isn't stupid and also has our best interests at heart. I would not be at all surprised if they (the Democrats in charge) believe in that "racist" theory and believe it will work. Why else would they be flying people from the border into "red" states like Florida, no where near the border? Why not Northern California or Portland or Seattle?
Many people in the US believe that the idea of allowing illegal
immigrants from our southern borders to stay will eventually backfire.
While most of them might be greatful for the stay, they are conservative about certain things that the Democratic Party is making it a point
lately to embrace, like multiple genders, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.
Unless they luck out and all of the border crossers somehow turn out to
be avid socialists who are willing to put up with the rest of it, I suspect it could very well backfire on them. And that is what they will get for being "racists."
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the Jews the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it has n come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.You seem to think the government isn't stupid and also has our best interests at heart. I would not be at all surprised if they (the Democrats in charge) believe in that "racist" theory and believe it will work. Why else would they be flying people from the border into "red" states like Florida, no where near the border? Why not Northern California or Portland or Seattle?
You seem to think the government isn't stupid and also has our best interests at heart. I would not be at all surprised if they (the Democrats in charge) believe in that "racist" theory and believe it will work. Why else would they be flying people from the border into "red" states like Florida, no where near the border? Why not Northern California or Portland or Seattle?
On 15 Dec 2021, Doug McComber said the following...It is obvious as to why they would vote for liberals, because it was liberals which made it possible for a better quality of life.
This is Canada, nobody cares about race here. The fact is Canada, politically, has become very much an urban vs rural divide and statistically immigrants (illegal, legal or refugees) settle in the bigger cities, Toronto followed by Montreal then Vancouver.
Then why are you so sure that "illegal immigrants" will vote for
Liberals?
It is obvious as to why they would vote for liberals, because it was liberals which made it possible for a better quality of life.
Liberals or these illegal immigrants do not care about a National Sovereignty that they are violating.
It is obvious as to why they would vote for liberals, because it was liberals which made it possible for a better quality of life.
Liberals or these illegal immigrants do not care about a National Sovereignty that they are violating.
This is Canada, nobody cares about race here. The fact is Canada, politically, has become very much an urban vs rural divide and statistically immigrants (illegal, legal or refugees) settle in the bigger cities, Toronto followed by Montreal then Vancouver.
Then why are you so sure that "illegal immigrants" will vote for
Liberals?
I mean, the statistic is one thing, but what's the reason behind the statistic? Is the relationship between living in a city and voting
liberal one of correlation, or is it causation? And if it's causation, does city-living promote a liberal worldview or does a liberal worldview promote city-living?
If you can't prove causation, then it's at best a correlation with possibly some third factor tying them together. If so, what's that third factor, and how does it affect immigrants?
Because statistics tells us they will settle in the big cities and statistics tells us the big cities vote Liberal. Also they (theThis is Canada, nobody cares about race here. The fact is Canad politically, has become very much an urban vs rural divide and statistically immigrants (illegal, legal or refugees) settle in bigger cities, Toronto followed by Montreal then Vancouver.Then why are you so sure that "illegal immigrants" will vote for Liberals?
"illegal crossers" as the press calls them) know it is the Liberal Party of Canada who is allowing this illegal crossing "loophole" to continue, whereas the opposition party has called for its closure. People tend not to bite the hand that feeds them (quite literally feeds them in this case).
I mean, the statistic is one thing, but what's the reason behind the statistic? Is the relationship between living in a city and voting liberal one of correlation, or is it causation? And if it's causation does city-living promote a liberal worldview or does a liberal worldv promote city-living?Well, that's just an "if you can't prove it then it doesn't count" argument, which may be valid for science, but we're talking politics and yes, it is my opinion as stated.
If you can't prove causation, then it's at best a correlation with possibly some third factor tying them together. If so, what's that th factor, and how does it affect immigrants?
The deep dive into the reasons (I can speculate, but clearly you don't want me to) is irrelevant if the statistics bear out the statement (and they do).
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the JewsHe insinuated that *the government* expects it, not that it is true or that he expects it.
the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it has come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.
The government is made of people.
You seem to think the government isn't stupid and also has our best interests at heart. I would not be at all surprised if they (the Democrats in charge) believe in that "racist" theory and believe it will work. Why else would they be flying people from the border into "red" states like Florida, no where near the border? Why not Northern California or Portland or Seattle?
It's not a racist theory if the Democrats believe in it, because they're not fearmongering about other races overshadowing conservative white power in the future.
Many people in the US believe that the idea of allowing illegal immigrants from our southern borders to stay will eventually backfire.
It can only "backfire" if the intention was there in the first place. Otherwise, all it would be is a failed conservative prediction.
While most of them might be greatful for the stay, they are conservative about certain things that the Democratic Party is making it a point lately to embrace, like multiple genders, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.
Then why are conservatives saying afraid of being overtaken politically by people of color?
You don't see this fearmongering about white European illegal aliens, who do exist. The top source of illegal immigration is overstayed visas.
Unless they luck out and all of the border crossers somehow turn out to be avid socialists who are willing to put up with the rest of it, I suspect it could very well backfire on them. And that is what they will get for being "racists."
So you admit that the fearmongering is for naught. Interesting.
The same thing was said about other past undesirables, such as the JewsYou seem to think the government isn't stupid and also has our best interests at heart. I would not be at all surprised if they (the Democrats in charge) believe in that "racist" theory and believe it will work. Why else would they be flying people from the border into "red" states like Florida, no where near the border? Why not Northern California or Portland or Seattle?
the Irish. It's known as "Replacement Theory," it's racist, and it has come to pass in the way that believers in it thought it would.
Is it possible that the reason immigrants prefer urban living and voting liberal is because the Democrats are the one political party of the Big Two that isn't openly hostile to them, to include spreading the lie that Democrats are "bringing" them here to increase liberal votes?
Could it be that the whole phenomenon of immigrants tending to vote liberal is just a right-wing-manufactured, self-fulfilling prophecy?
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are welcoming to them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward their legal presence, then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying to blame the consequences of your actions on your political opponents.
Wel, duh, who said it was not. The majority of those in the government currently who are elected are... ???He insinuated that *the government* expects it, not that it is true that he expects it.The government is made of people.
It's not a racist theory if the Democrats believe in it, because they're fearmongering about other races overshadowing conservative white power i future.It is if they are doing it because they believe it works. It is if they are doing it because they take for granted that "immigrants of color"
will always vote a certain way.
I believe they have some intention, see above re: "why else would they be flying people... into 'red' states?"Many people in the US believe that the idea of allowing illegal immigrants from our southern borders to stay will eventually backfiIt can only "backfire" if the intention was there in the first place. Otherwise, all it would be is a failed conservative prediction.
Probably because it is not in the news. I believe our policy should be the same no matter where the illegal aliens are from. We should be enforcing the laws, deporting them all, and stopping them at any border crossings.While most of them might be greatful for the stay, they are conserv about certain things that the Democratic Party is making it a point lately to embrace, like multiple genders, abortion, same-sex marria etc.Then why are conservatives saying afraid of being overtaken politically people of color?
You don't see this fearmongering about white European illegal aliens, wh exist. The top source of illegal immigration is overstayed visas.
I admit that it could be, yes, but that still doesn't make me happy that we are not enforcing our laws because, you know, feelings.Unless they luck out and all of the border crossers somehow turn ou be avid socialists who are willing to put up with the rest of it, I suspect it could very well backfire on them. And that is what they get for being "racists."So you admit that the fearmongering is for naught. Interesting.
Is it possible that the reason immigrants prefer urban living and voting liberal is because the Democrats are the one political party of the Big that isn't openly hostile to them, to include spreading the lie that Democrats are "bringing" them here to increase liberal votes?If they prefer urban living, then why are they being moved into non-urban areas? If they prefer urban living, where the Democrats are in charge, should the current government be sending them places like North Florida?
Could it be that the whole phenomenon of immigrants tending to vote libe is just a right-wing-manufactured, self-fulfilling prophecy?I have covered that already, and you have responded.
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are welcomi them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward their legal pres then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying blame the consequences of your actions on your political opponents.Probably a lot less "people who are welcoming to them" and a lot more "Democrats and leftists who are willing to give them free things in
order to buy favor." Don't BS us and try to pass off the actions of politicians as being charitable.
In reality, urban areas are more likely to have mass transit, have more jobs available, and be closer to public services than rural areas. That is why a lot of people are drawn to them.
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are welcomi them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward their legal pres then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying blame the consequences of your actions on your political opponents.Probably a lot less "people who are welcoming to them" and a lot more "Democrats and leftists who are willing to give them free things in
order to buy favor." Don't BS us and try to pass off the actions of politicians as being charitable.
If the "loophole" (which I suspect is asylum) is legal, then the
crossings aren't illegal. That you wish it were illegal does not make it so. Calling them "illegal" does not make them so; it's only an excuse to bash immigrants.
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are
welcoming to them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward
their legal presence, then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying to blame the consequences of your actions on your political opponents.
If the "loophole" (which I suspect is asylum) is legal, then the crossings aren't illegal. That you wish it were illegal does not make so. Calling them "illegal" does not make them so; it's only an excuse bash immigrants.Jeff, I know you don't much Canadian news in the US, but they are indeed illegal crossings. They get arrested and charged upon crossing and then are given a court date (usually 6 months to a year out) and are
released. This is common knowledge as it was widely covered by Canadian media (all of it) when it first started happening a few years ago.
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are welcoming to them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward their legal presence, then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying to blame the consequences of your actions your political opponents.Again your unfamiliarity with Canada is on display here. Your assumption quoted above is not what is at play. In fact rural areas want immigrants and lament the fact that most just settle in the big three cities.
You're just trying to make hay where there is none.
On 16 Dec 2021, Gregory Deyss said the following...
It is obvious as to why they would vote for liberals, because it was liberals which made it possible for a better quality of life. Liberals or these illegal immigrants do not care about a National Sovereignty that they are violating.
Actual "illegal immigrants" are unlikely to become US citizens, and are thus unlikely to vote. Refugees who adhere to US asylum laws are likely
to become citizens, but in adhering to the law they are not "illegal immigrants."
Conservatives don't want foreigners of certain nationalities coming into this country, regardless of whether they do so illegally or not, and are more than willing to ignore this fundamental difference between the two groups.
Sure the ones are deemed a residents and or one that has a alien registration Those folks could be become fully fledged AmericanIt is obvious as to why they would vote for liberals, because it liberals which made it possible for a better quality of life. Liberals or these illegal immigrants do not care about a Nationa Sovereignty that they are violating.Actual "illegal immigrants" are unlikely to become US citizens, and a thus unlikely to vote. Refugees who adhere to US asylum laws are like to become citizens, but in adhering to the law they are not "illegal immigrants."
citizens. There is no such issue or problem, that I can see.
Conservatives don't want foreigners of certain nationalities coming i this country, regardless of whether they do so illegally or not, and more than willing to ignore this fundamental difference between the t groups.You're incorrect, why because of what is inside your mind is only your opinion of what you think of Conservatives.
Just because you think this, does not make it so.
I consider myself to a Conservative and I am not of the mind that thinks to himself, nor do I share with others about the hate that you speak of. If someone happens to be on the outside of the U.S.A. and wants to come
to the U.S.A. they should do so legally then that would be totally fine. It would be more then fine actually, they should welcomed appreciated
and even celebrated.
On the paternal side of things; the men in my family were German-Dutch
and on the maternal side of things; my mom was Polish. They were both
U.S. citizens as they were born here in the U.S. Same is true with my grandparents. My great grandparents were the ones who were foreign born and came to the U.S. as legal immigrants through immigration, they did
not lurk or sneak into the ship that brought them to the U.S. and that
is the difference between something that should be celebrated vs condemned.
Jeff, I know you don't much Canadian news in the US, but they are indeed illeg
crossings. They get arrested and charged upon crossing and then are given a urt date (usually 6 months to a year out) and are released. This is common kno
edge as it was widely covered by Canadian media (all of it) when it first star
d happening a few years ago.
Again your unfamiliarity with Canada is on display here. Your assumption quote
above is not what is at play. In fact rural areas want immigrants and lament t
fact that most just settle in the big three cities. You're just trying to mak
hay where there is none.
Then why do you oppose allowing Central American refugees seeking asylum into the country?
Then why do you oppose allowing Central American refugees seeking asylum the country?Because many of us don't believe you have a valid asylum claim just because you can pronounce "asylum." I personally question why these
folks who supposedly need "asylum" are not stopping in the first country they come to that can grant it (Mexico). If they are really in danger, why would they put themselves into more danger by treking across another country that is just as capable of granting them asylum?
I am sure it couldn't be that they are not really seeking asylum, but are really coming all the way here because of some promises that have been made to them by Americans who think similar to yourself... "claim
'asylum' and they have to let you in..."
Jeff, I know you don't much Canadian news in the US, but they are indeed illegSame loophole, and government action, that we have here in the US. They can cross at any "illegal" entry point (because, technically, they have
crossings. They get arrested and charged upon crossing and then are gi urt date (usually 6 months to a year out) and are released. This is comm kno
edge as it was widely covered by Canadian media (all of it) when it firs star
d happening a few years ago.
to come in at an official entry point, making all other crossings
illegal) and all they have to do when caught is claim "asylum" and they are loop-holed.
Again your unfamiliarity with Canada is on display here. Your assumption quoteHe is good at that.
above is not what is at play. In fact rural areas want immigrants and la t
fact that most just settle in the big three cities. You're just trying mak
hay where there is none.
Not really. If immigrants prefer associating with people who are welcoming to them, and not with people who are openly hostile toward their legal presence, then that is as much if not more the fault of conservatives. Stop trying to blame the consequences of your actions your political opponents.Again your unfamiliarity with Canada is on display here. Your assumption quoted above is not what is at play. In fact rural areas want immigrants and lament the fact that most just settle in the big three cities.
You're just trying to make hay where there is none.
Same loophole, and government action, that we have here in the US. They can cross at any "illegal" entry point (because, technically, they have
to come in at an official entry point, making all other crossings
illegal) and all they have to do when caught is claim "asylum" and they are loop-holed.
Then what's the "loophole?"
You've said that:
1. Canadian cities tend to vote liberal;
2. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, tend to settle in cities;
3. The Liberal Party of Canada supports the "loophole;" and
4. The opposition party opposes the "loophole."
I am assuming from point #1 that rural areas in Canada tend to vote conservative (or "opposition"), similar to the political distribution in the US.
What exactly is the nature of the "loophole?" Could opposition to the "loophole" be seen as hostility towards immigrants? At the very least, opposition to the "loophole" is indicative of a belief that not all of
the immigrants who are present should be, and some percentage of immigrants could view the expression of that belief as hostility.
I am good at finding hay where conservatives insist that there is none.
Why do residents of rural areas want immigrants to live there? Why do
they want immigrants rather than other Canadians? Is it because they
yearn for their rural environs to become more culturally diverse?
Somehow I doubt that. No, I smell a need for cheap unskilled labor.
Another factor could be that large cities are homes to charitable organizations who help refugees with the resources they need to get
along in their new home country. This is rarely direct cash
disbursements, but other forms of assistance such as finding a place to live. At least in the US, such assistance is not as readily available in rural areas; I assume the same is true in Canada? Why do you suppose
that is? If the citizens of rural areas are so keen to attract
immigrants to be their neighbors, why is such assistance not offered?
It could be, too, that the government takes this into account when
placing refugees. Acceptance in and the assistance of their neighbors is certain to make a difference in a refugee's success in their new country.
If the "loophole" (which I suspect is asylum) is legal, then theit
crossings aren't illegal. That you wish it were illegal does not make
so. Calling them "illegal" does not make them so; it's only an excuseto
bash immigrants.
Jeff, I know you don't much Canadian news in the US, but they are indeed illegal crossings. They get arrested and charged upon crossing and then are given a court date (usually 6 months to a year out) and are released. This is common knowledge as it was widely covered by Canadian media (all of
it) when it first started happening a few years ago.
I am sure it couldn't be that they are not really seeking asylum, but are really coming all the way here because of some promises that have been made to them by Americans who think similar to yourself... "claim
'asylum' and they have to let you in..."
Conservatives don't want foreigners of certain nationalities coming into this country, regardless of whether they do so illegally or not, and are more than willing to ignore this fundamental difference between the two groups.
I am sure it couldn't be that they are not really seeking asylum, but are
really coming all the way here because of some promises that have been made to them by Americans who think similar to yourself... "claim 'asylum' and they have to let you in..."
Initially, yes. But it's not the say-one-word-and-you're-golden situation that you portray it as. There are initial interviews that weed out the obvious frauds, and a process for the others to follow. They are not granted citizenship, they cannot vote, they cannot work for around 6 months, and they are not eligible for welfare or other "free stuff."
Same loophole, and government action, that we have here in the US. They can cross at any "illegal" entry point (because, technically, they have to come in at an official entry point, making all other crossings illegal) and all they have to do when caught is claim "asylum" and they are loop-holed.
So the "loophole" is that refugees requesting asylum are not "illegal."
I am good at finding hay where conservatives insist that there is none.
Why do residents of rural areas want immigrants to live there? Why do they want immigrants rather than other Canadians? Is it because they yearn for their rural environs to become more culturally diverse? Somehow I doubt that. No, I smell a need for cheap unskilled labor.
So people discovered if they crossing illegally (i.e. not at a border crossing
instead of being immediately returned to the US they would instead get arreste
for crossing illegally and be allowed to stay in the country until their court
ate. At court they claim refugee status. I don't know what the rate is now, bu
last year it was about 50% that get to stay and the rest deported.
phole closed. The big issue with this loophole for most Canadians is that it i
seen as queue jumping. Immigrants go through the proper procedures and wait ye
s to get in to the country. These "illegal crossers" (in quotes because that i
the media's preferred term) jump that queue right to the front of the line.
Then what's the "loophole?"When someone comes into Canada via the US at a regular border crossing
and they
claim refugee status they are immediately refused entry. The same in reverse if
someone coming from Canada enters the US at a border crossing. No hearing, just "return to sender".
No not quite. Depends on the region. But Canada doesn't have anything
like the electoral college system in the US. I think it is pretty universally recognized that without the electoral college system US presidential elections would be decided by New York, LA, Chicago etc. So our elections are heavily decided by Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (somewhat). There are other smaller urban areas that vote Conservative
or NDP (left of the Liberals). But they don't decide elections like Toronto does. Some rural areas will vote Liberal but the majority vote Conservative (a little bit NDP). But without a system like the electoral college, these rural areas just don't have the seat count to
"win".
What exactly is the nature of the "loophole?" Could opposition to the "loophole" be seen as hostility towards immigrants? At the very least opposition to the "loophole" is indicative of a belief that not all o the immigrants who are present should be, and some percentage of immigrants could view the expression of that belief as hostility.Explained in the previous reply. But the last survey I saw (for a left
of centre newspaper) showed ~70% of the population (all political
stripes) wanted the loophole closed. The big issue with this loophole
for most Canadians is that it is seen as queue jumping. Immigrants go through the proper procedures and wait years to get in to the country. These "illegal crossers" (in quotes because that is the media's
preferred term) jump that queue right to the front of the line.
I am good at finding hay where conservatives insist that there is non Why do residents of rural areas want immigrants to live there? Why do they want immigrants rather than other Canadians? Is it because they yearn for their rural environs to become more culturally diverse? Somehow I doubt that. No, I smell a need for cheap unskilled labor.No, you're not good at it. You clearly don't know Canada. We get our
cheap labour without a need for illegals. They come from Jamaica and Mexico on what are called temporary foreign worker visas. This is
largely for agriculture. Many come to Canada each season year after year for decades.
Rural areas want immigrants because most areas have a shrinking population.
Here they often don't even go to jail. The current federal government gives them a court date and then turns them loose.
[...]Another factor could be that large cities are homes to charitable organizations who help refugees with the resources they need to get along in their new home country. This is rarely direct cash
It could be, too, that the government takes this into account when placing refugees. Acceptance in and the assistance of their neighbors certain to make a difference in a refugee's success in their new counYes, that is certainly a big reason why legal immigrants choose the big cities.
Refugees, ones that Canada brings here are settled all over the country
in towns and cities of various sizes.
The illegal crossers settler in Montreal or Toronto. Many of them are Haitian and there is a Haitian community in Montreal. They go where they want, the government doesn't place them.
Rural areas are doing better at attracting immigrants, but they
obviously don't
have the resources big cities do.
So you admit that there are those who are not really looking for asylum but who are claiming it and, if they are not obvious frauds, they get to stay.I am sure it couldn't be that they are not really seeking asylum, b areInitially, yes. But it's not the say-one-word-and-you're-golden situatio that you portray it as. There are initial interviews that weed out the obvious frauds, and a process for the others to follow. They are not gra citizenship, they cannot vote, they cannot work for around 6 months, and are not eligible for welfare or other "free stuff."
really coming all the way here because of some promises that have b made to them by Americans who think similar to yourself... "claim 'asylum' and they have to let you in..."
So, they are lying and are therefore here illegally, right?
They cross at an illegal entry point but, as long as they claim "asylum," whether true or not, there is their loophole.Same loophole, and government action, that we have here in the US. can cross at any "illegal" entry point (because, technically, they to come in at an official entry point, making all other crossings illegal) and all they have to do when caught is claim "asylum" and are loop-holed.So the "loophole" is that refugees requesting asylum are not "illegal."
It would be nice if we could all do illegal things and then, when we get caught, be able to utter a magic word to get out of them, woudn't it?
I am good at finding hay where conservatives insist that there is none. Why do residents of rural areas want immigrants to live there? Why do th want immigrants rather than other Canadians? Is it because they yearn fo their rural environs to become more culturally diverse? Somehow I doubt No, I smell a need for cheap unskilled labor.If they can only do cheap, unskilled labor (not my claim), would you rather them work or sit and not do anything, similar to many Americans (and I am guessing Canadians, too) with "disposable" college degrees?
Here they often don't even go to jail. The current federal government gives them a court date and then turns them loose. Lately, they've been turning them loose far from the border. They are on the honor system.
An issue here also. I work with a lot of legal immigrants. They have
all sorts of trouble. If you come in legal, and from a place separated
by an ocean, they enforce the laws against them 100% because they know they are working and don't want to lose their jobs.
I hear that people can overstay a visa somehow, and I have seen in the news that they do, but I cannot figure out how considering how much they hassle my legal co-workers. Unlike the illegal crossers, my co-workers have no magic word they can utter to get preferred treatment.
Here they often don't even go to jail. The current federal governmen gives them a court date and then turns them loose.No jail time here either. They are not only turned loose immediately but they are given some social assistance benefits and put up in hotels.
Here they often don't even go to jail. The current federal government gives them a court date and then turns them loose.
No jail time here either. They are not only turned loose immediately but they e given some social assistance benefits and put up in hotels.
It would be nice if we could all do illegal things and then, when we get caught, be able to utter a magic word to get out of them, woudn't it?
Sure, like shooting someone and then claiming it was an "accident." The gun was in your possession, it went off, and someone was killed. But really, it was just an "accident."
I hear that people can overstay a visa somehow, and I have seen in the news that they do, but I cannot figure out how considering how much they hassle my legal co-workers. Unlike the illegal crossers, my co-workers have no magic word they can utter to get preferred treatment.
So you're saying that you can't imagine how anyone could overstay a visa, but are convinced that refugees can just skip a court hearing and be off scot-free? Interesting.
Joe's promise to import millions of refugees from central america has been fulfilled. Despite being raped on the way here due to Joe's preferred migratio
protocol, they are still grateful for their acceptance at our border. Now all the speculation about millions of dollars to Trump victims will keep the idea looking attractive for years to come.
As would seem appropriate for someone who is in the country legally.
The "loophole" only seems to be a "loophole" for those concerned about queue-jumping; there's no other justification given for claiming that people seeking asylum should be imprisoned.
Conservatives don't want foreigners of certain nationalities coming into this country, regardless of whether they do so illegally or not, and are more than willing to ignore this fundamental difference between the two groups.
Which conservatives are those? Which nationalities are they rejecting? Which member of the media are you parroting this time?
So it would appear that the "loophole" has been closed for well over a year.
The electoral college is irrelevant. The political distribution in the US between urban and rural areas has nothing to do with the electoral college. Their representation in government does, but the actual distribution does not.
Yes, because refugees fleeing persecution are on a little bit different timetable than most other folks. However, they are merely given the benefit of the doubt and given asylum temporarily; permanent residence requires them to prove that they are actually fleeing persecution. As mentioned in my previous post, this does not appear to be the case since March, 2020, though.
That's one source, yes. Perhaps employers are open to others.
Rural areas want immigrants because most areas have a shrinking population.
So anyone would do, but they prefer immigrants?
"Illegal crossers" being, at least prior to March of 2020, legal immigrants.
How long must they wait before they can choose where they wish to live?
The illegal crossers settler in Montreal or Toronto. Many of them areGiven a choice, they go where there are more resources.
Perhaps they could do something about that.
No jail time here either. They are not only turned loose immediately they are given some social assistance benefits and put up in hotels.
As would seem appropriate for someone who is in the country legally.
The "loophole" only seems to be a "loophole" for those concerned about queue-jumping; there's no other justification given for claiming that people seeking asylum should be imprisoned.
I was thinking more along the lines of speeding or trespassing,It would be nice if we could all do illegal things and then, when w caught, be able to utter a magic word to get out of them, woudn't iSure, like shooting someone and then claiming it was an "accident." The was in your possession, it went off, and someone was killed. But really, was just an "accident."
especially the latter, since that is what the others with magic words
are in effect doing.
"ASYLUM!" and everything is A-OK!
I would include looting and shoplifting but apparently several of the folks doing that lately know some other magic word or incantation that works better.
There is a difference there. The people I know on visas are working,I hear that people can overstay a visa somehow, and I have seen in news that they do, but I cannot figure out how considering how much hassle my legal co-workers. Unlike the illegal crossers, my co-wor have no magic word they can utter to get preferred treatment.So you're saying that you can't imagine how anyone could overstay a visa are convinced that refugees can just skip a court hearing and be off scot-free? Interesting.
and I cannot imagine them keeping their jobs if their visas expire (because they don't). Now, if I had experience working somewhere that looked the other way (and got away with it), or knew visa overstayers
who somehow did so while not being employed or attending school, it
might not be so difficult to imagine.
OTOH, here locally I follow the sherrif's FB page, and skipping court dates is apparently an everyday occurance.
As would seem appropriate for someone who is in the country legally.The loophole is that they can cross anywhere, which is illegal. If they know the magic word, they get treated just as if they had crossed at a legal location (or as if they didn't even cross, as you have pointed
The "loophole" only seems to be a "loophole" for those concerned about queue-jumping; there's no other justification given for claiming that pe seeking asylum should be imprisoned.
out).
In other words, before claiming asylum (legal) they broke the law and apparently don't get punished for it.
If they somehow have not learned the magic word, they get treated as a law-breaker.
The only ones who seem to be making a difference between the two groups are the non-conservatives like Jeff-T. The rest of us can claim we are fine with immigrants and don't like *anyone* being here illegally or queue-jumping in front of those who are here legally, but we willConservatives don't want foreigners of certain nationalities coming this country, regardless of whether they do so illegally or not, an more than willing to ignore this fundamental difference between the groups.Which conservatives are those? Which nationalities are they rejecting? W member of the media are you parroting this time?
somehow get lumped back into the "racist conservatives" group before we know it.
So it would appear that the "loophole" has been closed for well over year.The legal loophole hasn't been closed. No laws have been passed. Instead the government decided to enforce the spirit of the Can/US agreement
(with respect to refugee claims) because of COVID. I'll have to check later (I'm writing this on a vintage PC because I'm a loon sometimes)
but I'm pretty sure they re-opened the illegal crossings recently.
The electoral college is irrelevant. The political distribution in th between urban and rural areas has nothing to do with the electoral college. Their representation in government does, but the actual distribution does not.Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it of course. But I
would argue most would disagree with it.
Yes, because refugees fleeing persecution are on a little bit differe timetable than most other folks. However, they are merely given the benefit of the doubt and given asylum temporarily; permanent residenc requires them to prove that they are actually fleeing persecution. As mentioned in my previous post, this does not appear to be the case si March, 2020, though.Right. But the difference is theses "refugees" are already in the US. They are not American citizens fleeing persecution by the US. They are already safely in the US. This is why our two countries have that legal agreement in place where someone from a third country in Canada can't
walk into the US and claim asylum and vice versa.
That's one source, yes. Perhaps employers are open to others.There are no others. We don't share a border with Mexico and it is very very rare for "boat people" to show up on our shores. Has only happened
a couple of times in the past 100 years.
It's not "prefer immigrants" so much as internal migration patterns just don't exist (generally) where people are moving from cities to rural areas.Rural areas want immigrants because most areas have a shrinking population.So anyone would do, but they prefer immigrants?
My province (Nova Scotia) just passed the 1 million population threshold last week and while immigration is up significantly (for this region)
and the province is thrilled with that and trying to attract more, the bulk of population growth in 2020 was actually mostly Ontarians moving here. They were escaping both COVID (it was very low here) and having their housing dollars go much further. Many could telework.
"Illegal crossers" being, at least prior to March of 2020, legal immigrants.Nope. That is why they are arrested and charged as soon as they cross. Last stat I saw (which would have been early 2020) was that 50% are deported and the other 50% get refugee status. This is of course after
a court hearing.
How long must they wait before they can choose where they wish to livGood question. I don't know but I don't think they are bound to live
where they are placed. It is just a placement program as opposed to "you must live here".
I imagine most people the world over want to live in a city. Toronto in particular and Montreal have large immigrant populations so familiarityThe illegal crossers settler in Montreal or Toronto. Many of theGiven a choice, they go where there are more resources.
is a draw for some too.
Perhaps they could do something about that.I don't know about other provinces, but Nova Scotia is slowly improving. Slowly. There are other issues in rural areas that make it difficult for anyone starting out without family roots to make things easier. Lack of public transportation and affordable housing (real-estate is cheaper but apartments aren't as plentiful) can be barriers.
Well you've stated that a few times but they are not there legally. That is why they are arrested and charged when the cross illegally. They are arrested and charged FOR crossing illegally.No jail time here either. They are not only turned loose immedia they are given some social assistance benefits and put up in hotAs would seem appropriate for someone who is in the country legally. The "loophole" only seems to be a "loophole" for those concerned abou queue-jumping; there's no other justification given for claiming that people seeking asylum should be imprisoned.
Our two countries have a treaty (and each country has laws to enact/enforce this treaty) whereby when someone from a third country enters Can from the US (or vice versa) and claims asylum they are denied immediately on the spot and immediately sent back to the other country. However when someone sneaks into Canada (by crossing illegally) they are charged and as we have due process they have a court date. That gives them the opportunity to request asylum.
This didn't use to occur all that frequently. But then the Prime
Minister made some tweet a few years back saying Canada would welcome whomever Trump was seen to have tweeted against and word spread among
the Haitians (mostly Haitians) in the US who were there because of some program you guys had regarding the 2007 hurricane. They started
crossing at Roxham Road into Quebec. The appropriate response, given the Can/US treaty would have been to stop them and turn them around. Instead the government had the RCMP literally help them across (there are photos of RCMP carry luggage). They still get arrested and charged. But the numbers crossing there ballooned as word got out. All the while the majority of Canadians, of all political stripes, wanted the government
to close it down.
Our two countries have a treaty (and each country has laws to enact/enforce this treaty) whereby when someone from a third country enters Can from the US (or vice versa) and claims asylum they are denied immediately on the spot and immediately sent back to the other country. However when someone sneaks into Canada (by crossing illegally) they are charged and as we have due process they have a court date. That gives them the opportunity to request asylum.
The loophole has *effectively* been closed. I'm typing this on an Apple IIgs. Loons of a feather, I guess...
It's not an opinion; it's a matter of cause and effect. Does the
existence of the electoral college cause conservatives to tend to prefer rural areas, and liberals urban areas? I don't see how, but if you'd
care to enlighten me please do so.
Your own assertion that the same is largely true in Canada only backs up my point, because it is happening there in the absence of an electoral college.
How does it benefit you to have the opposite opinion, that the US electroal college is somehow responsible for the distribution of conservatives and liberals in rural and urban areas?
They are also subject to persecution in the US, because they are in the
US illegally.
The Safe Third Country Agreement has several requirements and several exceptions. The most relevant here is that it only applies to people who cross the border at border crossings, by train, or by aircraft (with some additional exceptions for the latter).
Why they didn't include any border crossing, but limited it to these
three types, is an interesting question. It would have been extremely
easy to say, "Anyone entering Canada or the US..." but they seem to have gone through additional effort to list the means of entry that the agreement applies to. If it's a "loophole," it very much seems to be an intentional one.
So you're saying that there is only one source for agricultural workers
in all of Canada?
Why, then, would immigrants prefer rural living if even native Canadians don't?
Interesting. Well, that's one way to attract people. I'm not sure why the intense focus on immigrants, though.
I take it that Roxham Road is not an official border crossing?
There's really no need to deny these people basic human dignity and respect, and nothing to be gained by doing so.
They are not necessarily denied asylum immediately on the spot. There are some interesting exceptions listed in the agreement.
One such exception is that if someone has committed a crime in the US
that would make them eligible for the death penalty in the state where
the crime was committed, they are allowed to request asylum instead of being immediately turned away.
Does this mean that there's a "loophole" for murderers? Sure sounds like
The answer to all that is just a misunderstanding. I meant the electoral college protects rural areas from being dominated politically by the big urban areas, not that it causes rural/urban divide.
Point being in Canada, because we don't have something like that, federal elections are largely decided by the big urban areas. There is a
corridor of urban ridings between Quebec City and the Greater Toronto
Area that largely decides the outcome of federal elections for the
entire country.
They are also subject to persecution in the US, because they are in t US illegally.Well, if they are legitimate refugees they could have claimed asylum in the US. Being there illegally is not a legit reason to claim asylum and Canada.
Yup. Well yup except I don't think it was intentional as it goes against the "spirit" of the agreement. This is what most Canadians want the government to fix through legislation. Polling varied by region, but aggregate from coast to coast 70% of Canadians want the government to
put an end to it. --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/10/25 (Raspberry Pi/32)
So you're saying that there is only one source for agricultural worke in all of Canada?Locals or foreigners through official Temporary Foreign Worker program. Yup, that's it.
Why, then, would immigrants prefer rural living if even native Canadi don't?Lol, well they probably wouldn't at any rate greater than some average.
Interesting. Well, that's one way to attract people. I'm not sure why intense focus on immigrants, though.Well because prior to the, shall we call it COVID migration, Nova Scotia was always a net loser of people to other provinces. Without immigration we'd have a shrinking population. This province currently has one of
the oldest populations per capita.
I take it that Roxham Road is not an official border crossing?No it is not
There's really no need to deny these people basic human dignity and respect, and nothing to be gained by doing so.I don't think anyone would argue with that (well some would I suppose
but they are a minority). However the issue with claiming asylum in
Canada when you already are in the US is the problem. Just like someone from Ecuador traveling through several countries first before finally reaching the US and claiming asylum.
The UN, International law and most western nations all agree that a refugee should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. Whereas there is definitely some country shopping going on here.
They are not necessarily denied asylum immediately on the spot. There some interesting exceptions listed in the agreement.Yes, that makes the headline news here every couple of decades.
One such exception is that if someone has committed a crime in the US that would make them eligible for the death penalty in the state wher the crime was committed, they are allowed to request asylum instead o being immediately turned away.
Does this mean that there's a "loophole" for murderers? Sure sounds lWell of course not, it is part of the law and is by design. Whereas I don't believe the illegal crossings being left out of the agreement are
on purpose, rather it is just an example of shoddy legislation.
That is true, although "protect" might not be the word everyone would choose. "Give unfair advantage to" would be the word choice of many. The electoral college doesn't just give low-population or low-population-density states an advantage; it was designed to give an advantage to states with large populations of slaves.
Indeed, they could have. But for whatever reason they did not. Just as people crossing the southern border into the US could have requested asylum in Mexico, but did not. Just as the people crossing the southern border into Mexico could have requested asylum in Guatemala or Belize,
and so on down the line. There are probably people in the US who are
happy to see them keep on moving north.
Unfortunately, the "spirit" of the agreement isn't what got signed.
As it is, though, conservatives showing hostility and resentment toward refugees isn't going to help bring them to conservative areas of the country.
It seems like there's something that could be done to attract immigrants, perhaps through the government. I mean, you seem to think that Canada as
a whole has too many immigrants, but Nova Scotia doesn't have enough...
It sounds like a "loophole" built into the law (or agreement, however you want to put it). How do you suppose that the people who wrote the agreement came up with all of these requirements and exceptions and
such, while forgetting to make the it applicable to someone who simply crosses the border at a non-official place? Do you suppose they thought that such a thing would never happen?
As it is, though, conservatives showing hostility and resentment towa refugees isn't going to help bring them to conservative areas of the country.Um, that's really not a thing here. You have to remember Canada's conservatives are left of your Republicans. Conservatism in Canada over the past 20 years shifted right a step then leftwards a half step. In
the 80s they were considered left of the Democratic Party. They didn't form government in the 90s and went through a split and sort of regrouping. They ended up (comparatively for the time) about on par with Democrats of the 90s. At this time the Conservative Party was about as "right-wing" as they had ever been in Canadian history. When they formed government in the 2000's they actually increased immigration
dramatically from the Liberal government before them, and most of that immigration was from S.E. Asia.
In the past few years they've drifted a little left but I'd say the Democratic Party has shifted a bit more leftward and today's
Conservative Party would be slightly right of the Democratic Party but still pretty far from the Republican Party.
All that to say conservatives here aren't what you described as quoted above. And as I pointed out, the issue (that people across all political stripes) have here with these illegal crossers is the queue jumping.
It seems like there's something that could be done to attract immigra perhaps through the government. I mean, you seem to think that Canada a whole has too many immigrants, but Nova Scotia doesn't have enough.I don't know where you got the idea that I think Canada has too many immigrants. I never said or implied that.
That is true, although "protect" might not be the word everyone would choose. "Give unfair advantage to" would be the word choice of many. electoral college doesn't just give low-population or low-population-density states an advantage; it was designed to give a advantage to states with large populations of slaves.Right. A case of perspective. Many here like the way it is and many want change. Some would like something closer to the electoral college so that confederation matters more than population. Still others just want some form of proportional representation. Polling-wise over the past several years most want change from our "first past the post" system.
Indeed, they could have. But for whatever reason they did not. Just a people crossing the southern border into the US could have requested asylum in Mexico, but did not. Just as the people crossing the southe border into Mexico could have requested asylum in Guatemala or Belize and so on down the line. There are probably people in the US who are happy to see them keep on moving north.Another case of perspective. Many believe people who do this to be "country shopping" which to them invalidates their claim to be refugees. Others don't have that view.
It sounds like a "loophole" built into the law (or agreement, however want to put it). How do you suppose that the people who wrote the agreement came up with all of these requirements and exceptions and such, while forgetting to make the it applicable to someone who simpl crosses the border at a non-official place? Do you suppose they thoug that such a thing would never happen?Ineptitude. Governments are infamous for it.
Um, people expressing resentment over refugees utilizing the "loophole" apparently does happen there.As it is, though, conservatives showing hostility and resentment
If you're wanting to stop the influx rather than welcome it, isn't it
safe to say that you think there are too many immigrants?
Another case of perspective. Many believe people who do this to be "country shopping" which to them invalidates their claim to be refuge Others don't have that view.
True. But which view is supported by the law(s)?
You specifically said "conservatives showing hostility and resentment". That is what isn't a thing here. It is a majority of Canadians left,Um, people expressing resentment over refugees utilizing the "loophol apparently does happen there.As it is, though, conservatives showing hostility and resen
right and in between wishing their government to end the queue jumping. Not "conservatives showing hostility and resentment".
If you're wanting to stop the influx rather than welcome it, isn't it safe to say that you think there are too many immigrants?No. There is a big difference between refugees and immigrants.
So we take refugees to be compassionate as a nation, but we are looking for skilled immigrants to fill shortages in the workplace.
Well there is a case working its way through an appeals court (lowerAnother case of perspective. Many believe people who do this to "country shopping" which to them invalidates their claim to be r Others don't have that view.True. But which view is supported by the law(s)?
than our national Supreme Court) right now. COVID is overshadowing this whole thing of course. Prior to COVID it was front and centre in
people's minds. It was a minor issue in the last election (2021) and if the next election (expect statistically in about 15 months due to the minority government) happens with COVID fading as a pandemic and more endemic than I expect it will be an issue again.
Another case of perspective. Many believe people who do this to be "country sh
ping" which to them invalidates their claim to be refugees. Others don't have at view.
ylum. Whereas immigrants apply and are approved based on merit. Unlike the US
e filter our immigration applicants through the country's needs for certain jo
sectors that are under-manned by existing Canadians. If we need doctors and an
pplicant is qualified, they get approved. If we need engineers of a certain ty
and an applicant is qualified, they get approved, etc. If an applicant can't ll a sector that needs people their application doesn't get approved. This is w most of the western world does it but not the US. It works out well for Cana
because immigrants generally have employment lined up (or are already working
n that field as a resident).
Another case of perspective. Many believe people who do this to be "coun shSame here. Jeff's opinion is that this shopping to reach the US border from a country we don't share borders with is ok while others of us question it.
ping" which to them invalidates their claim to be refugees. Others don't at view.
In addition to that, another thing that makes me question it is being related to someone, whose politics are similar to Jeff's, who makes frequent trips to Central America to encourage potential immigrants and coach them on what to do when they get here. This person would not
travel anywhere that was actually dangerous.
You specifically said "conservatives showing hostility and resentment That is what isn't a thing here. It is a majority of Canadians left, right and in between wishing their government to end the queue jumpin Not "conservatives showing hostility and resentment".
Expressing resentment is hostility. Not violent hostility, but hostility nonetheless.
No. There is a big difference between refugees and immigrants.
Not really. You may have different means of dealing with different
classes of immigrant, but anyone entering Canada and living there permanently, by whatever means, is an immigrant.
What skills is Nova Scotia seeking as they try to attract immigrants?
Which case is this? Can I assume that it's an appeal court, someone is appealing a judgment against them, because that's how appeals usually work. So someone got charged with a crime (presumably etering the country illegally?) and convicted, and is appealing that conviction?
Same here. Jeff's opinion is that this shopping to reach the US border from a country we don't share borders with is ok while others of us question it.
How America does it is what leads a lot of people to question what our government is up to since they are not doing things this smarter way.
Again, you said conservatives I said no, it is everyone.You specifically said "conservatives showing hostility and resen That is what isn't a thing here. It is a majority of Canadians l right and in between wishing their government to end the queue j Not "conservatives showing hostility and resentment".Expressing resentment is hostility. Not violent hostility, but hostil nonetheless.
Well that is your opinion, but in Canada (where this conversation is about) they are two legally different things and viewed by the general populace as two very different things.No. There is a big difference between refugees and immigrants.Not really. You may have different means of dealing with different classes of immigrant, but anyone entering Canada and living there permanently, by whatever means, is an immigrant.
What skills is Nova Scotia seeking as they try to attract immigrants?Nova Scotia doesn't have any main industries or business sectors, just a little of everything. The one single area that stands out in need is
care of the elderly. Nova Scotia has an older population (I think we
have more octogenarians per capita than any other province).
Which case is this? Can I assume that it's an appeal court, someone i appealing a judgment against them, because that's how appeals usually work. So someone got charged with a crime (presumably etering the cou illegally?) and convicted, and is appealing that conviction?https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-supreme-court-hear-appeal-us lum-seeker-pact-2021-12-16/
They (refugee advocates) one in Federal Court. Gov appealed and won in Federal Appeals Court, refugee advocates appealing to Supreme Court of Canada.
Then why do you oppose allowing Central American refugees seeking asylum into the country?Biden has gone back to the Trump Era policy to hold these Central American refugees within our closest neighboring country of Mexico until their claims for asylum can be heard.
Then why do you oppose allowing Central American refugees seeking asy into the country?Biden has gone back to the Trump Era policy to hold these Central
American refugees within our closest neighboring country of Mexico until their claims for asylum can be heard.
Which is infinity better for them, this is also better for the Biden administration due to the horrific images of massive overcrowding, but Biden has his own-self and his liberal advisors for this catastrophic clusterf*ck.
Kamala Harris has been a disaster with her quest to find root causes, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out but indeed it take someone helluva lot smarter then this VP who has chosen to take a independent approach find alternative explanations that have led to nowhere.
She was sent to the border, where does she go? 800 miles from where
those horrific images of overcrowding were taken. It is like she does
not want to acknowledge that the problem exists. or (it's as if) if it's out of sight and out of mind then therefore needs not be of any concern.
Just last week, 12 missionaries (11 Americans and a Canadian, I believe) escaped from being held hostage by the "400 Mawozo" gang in Haiti. Apparently, gang members pinned in their van with two other vehicles and kidnapped them and took them hostage. The gang either demanded, or were preparing to demand, $1 million per hostage. The missionaries escaped at night and walked 10 miles through gang territory to safety, carrying two small children with them.
I'll bet you don't think Haiti is all that dangerous, either.
I had to laugh when Trump was Pres (lots of TDS in Canada as you can imagine) a
d was talking about immigration reform to a system that served America's needs,
so many Canadian pundits in the media would slag him for it. And I thought, you
idiots, he's describing our system which you have no problem with!
She was sent to the border, where does she go? 800 miles from where those horrific images of overcrowding were taken. It is like she does not want to acknowledge that the problem exists. or (it's as if) if it's out of sight and out of mind then therefore needs not be of any concern.
The root cause is not simply a desire to live in the US. That alone does not qualify one for asylum. The refugees coming here are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. What, in your opinion, is the root cause of that violence and persecution, and what can be done to solve it? Turning away refugees is not a solution to the problem; it's only addressing the symptoms of the problem.
The root cause is not simply a desire to live in the US. That alone does qualify one for asylum. The refugees coming here are fleeing violence an persecution in their home countries. What, in your opinion, is the root of that violence and persecution, and what can be done to solve it? Turn away refugees is not a solution to the problem; it's only addressing the symptoms of the problem.Not having Secretaries of State like Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a start as far as what can solve it in the future.
I'll bet you don't think Haiti is all that dangerous, either.No, I think Haiti is plenty dangerous for people who are not Haitian. I watch the news.
Not really. You may have different means of dealing with different
classes of immigrant, but anyone entering Canada and living there
permanently, by whatever means, is an immigrant.
Well that is your opinion, but in Canada (where this conversation is about)
they are two legally different things and viewed by the general populace as
two very different things.
What skills is Nova Scotia seeking as they try to attract immigrants?
Nova Scotia doesn't have any main industries or business sectors, just a little of everything. The one single area that stands out in need is care of the elderly. Nova Scotia has an older population (I think we have more octogenarians per capita than any other province).
How America does it is what leads a lot of people to question what our
government is up to since they are not doing things this smarter way.
I had to laugh when Trump was Pres
(lots of TDS in Canada as you can imagine)
and was talking about immigration reform to a system that served America's needs, so many Canadian pundits in the media would slag him for it. And I thought, you idiots, he's describing our system which you have no problem with!
Not having Secretaries of State like Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a start as far as what can solve it in the future.
Oh? What did Tillerson and/or Pompeo do to resolve the root cause(s) of the problem?
I don't remember either of them bragging about their handling of Central American quite like HRC did in her memoirs... at least, the original printings. Once what she took credit for went south, that part mysteriously disappeared from future printings.Not having Secretaries of State like Hillary Rodham Clinton would b start as far as what can solve it in the future.Oh? What did Tillerson and/or Pompeo do to resolve the root cause(s) of problem?
The root cause is not simply a desire to live in the US. That alone does not qualify one for asylum. The refugees coming here are fleeing
violence and persecution in their home countries. What, in your opinion,
Just last week, 12 missionaries (11 Americans and a Canadian, I believe)
escaped from being held hostage by the "400 Mawozo" gang in Haiti.
Apparently, gang members pinned in their van with two other vehicles and
kidnapped them and took them hostage. The gang either demanded, or were
preparing to demand, $1 million per hostage. The missionaries escaped at
night and walked 10 miles through gang territory to safety, carrying two
small children with them.
I'll bet you don't think Haiti is all that dangerous, either.
No, I think Haiti is plenty dangerous for people who are not Haitian. I watch the news.
Again, you said conservatives I said no, it is everyone.
Not everyone, it would seem.
What skills is Nova Scotia seeking as they try to attract immigrNova Scotia doesn't have any main industries or business sectors, jus little of everything. The one single area that stands out in need is care of the elderly. Nova Scotia has an older population (I think we have more octogenarians per capita than any other province).
And refugees cannot fill these roles?
It would seem that this counters your claim that "everyone" is resentful of the refugees.
On 21 Dec 2021, Gregory Deyss said the following...
Then why do you oppose allowing Central American refugees seekin into the country?Biden has gone back to the Trump Era policy to hold these Central American refugees within our closest neighboring country of Mexico un their claims for asylum can be heard.
Not willingly. The courts decided that Biden somehow improperly
terminated the program.
This is not better for them, much less infinitely better. There are virtually no resources for them in Mexico.
Why does she need to go to where the overcrowding is to acknowledge its existence? More likely, she went to the headquarters of the people
managin the current situation to get information from them.
The root cause is not simply a desire to live in the US. That alone d not qualify one for asylum. The refugees coming here are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. What, in your opiniThere's nothing stopping their alleged assailaint(s) from crossing the border right behind them; the violence is welcome to spill over into our country.
Close enough.Again, you said conservatives I said no, it is everyone.Not everyone, it would seem.
Who knows. But as I stated earlier, in Canada we seek skilled (labour or professional) immigrants to fill needs. Whereas we take refugees regardless of if they can even work let alone fill needed vacancies.And refugees cannot fill these roles?What skills is Nova Scotia seeking as they try to attract iNova Scotia doesn't have any main industries or business sectors little of everything. The one single area that stands out in ne care of the elderly. Nova Scotia has an older population (I thin have more octogenarians per capita than any other province).
It would seem that this counters your claim that "everyone" is resent of the refugees.That's not my claim at all. That is YOUR claim about what you say I
said. I didn't. I didn't say resentful and I didn't say everyone. I
said the majority (~70% nationally) don't like the queue jumping. You insist on interpreting that as "everyone is resentful". That's your problem not mine. In the media biz they call that "spin". You're good at it.
[...]WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.Biden has gone back to the Trump Era policy to hold these Centra American refugees within our closest neighboring country of Mexi their claims for asylum can be heard.Not willingly. The courts decided that Biden somehow improperly terminated the program.
The justices said in their unsigned decision that the Biden
administration appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously by
rescinding the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection
Protocols.
This is not better for them, much less infinitely better. There are virtually no resources for them in Mexico.Do feel to donate money to https://give.unrefugees.org/
if you so choose.
Who knows. But as I stated earlier, in Canada we seek skilled (labour professional) immigrants to fill needs. Whereas we take refugees regardless of if they can even work let alone fill needed vacancies.
So Nova Scotia is in need only of skilled labor?
That's not my claim at all. That is YOUR claim about what you say I said. I didn't. I didn't say resentful and I didn't say everyone. I said the majority (~70% nationally) don't like the queue jumping. You insist on interpreting that as "everyone is resentful". That's your problem not mine. In the media biz they call that "spin". You're good it.
It was indeed your claim. You exact words, in fact, were "Again, you said conservatives I said no, it is everyone."
It was indeed your claim. You exact words, in fact, were "Again, you conservatives I said no, it is everyone."Okay spin master, lol, the point again is it isn't all conservatives it
is a wide cross section of Canadians and they aren't resentful. You can try to paint it as otherwise but people see through that.
There's nothing stopping their alleged assailaint(s) from crossing th border right behind them; the violence is welcome to spill over into country.
Do you have evidence of this happening, or is it just hypothetical?
And why would Central American gangs give up the sweet gig they've got terrorizing people where they're at to trek all the way to the US and try their luck here?
It definitely seems like you're having to resort to making up
hypothetical situations to back up your points.
Okay spin master, lol, the point again is it isn't all conservatives it is a wi
e cross section of Canadians and they aren't resentful. You can try to paint it
as otherwise but people see through that.
crossing thThere's nothing stopping their alleged assailaint(s) from
intoborder right behind them; the violence is welcome to spill over
country.
Do you have evidence of this happening, or is it just hypothetical?
There's evidence of it being possible.
It's carless to wait for a catastophe.
And why would Central American gangs give up the sweet gig they'vegot
terrorizing people where they're at to trek all the way to the US andtry
their luck here?
It's racist to say that Central American gangs are terrorizing people. I prefer to refer to them as humans, and they've already proven capable of trekking on up.
It definitely seems like you're having to resort to making up
hypothetical situations to back up your points.
Making up hypothetical situations saves lives. It's part of being ready.
I saw Elvis in one of his last live performances, in Baton Rouge. Fortunately for me, I was not carless. It was rainy, and after the
concert as I was walking to my car in the parking lot a lady with
an umbrella asked me what I thought about the show. I told her
I saw Elvis in one of his last live performances, in Baton Rouge.
Fortunately for me, I was not carless. It was rainy, and after the
concert as I was walking to my car in the parking lot a lady with
an umbrella asked me what I thought about the show. I told her
Were you an Elvis fan prior to the concert, or was this just for the chick?
There's evidence of it being possible. It's carless to wait for a catastophe.There's nothing stopping their alleged assailaint(s) from crossi border right behind them; the violence is welcome to spill over country.Do you have evidence of this happening, or is it just hypothetical?
And why would Central American gangs give up the sweet gig they've go terrorizing people where they're at to trek all the way to the US and their luck here?It's racist to say that Central American gangs are terrorizing people. I prefer to refer to them as humans, and they've already proven capable of trekking on up.
It definitely seems like you're having to resort to making up hypothetical situations to back up your points.Making up hypothetical situations saves lives. It's part of being ready.
But, but, but Jeff needs to be able to assign an "-ism" to those ~70% who don't like queue jumpers. You are not being fair! :)
But, but, but Jeff needs to be able to assign an "-ism" to those ~70% don't like queue jumpers. You are not being fair! :)
Nah, Doug just has to keep changing his story while calling *me* the spin-master. Or has that escaped your attention?
A lack of evidence of it happening is not evidence of it being possible.
compassion for are the latter group. As their method of entry involves turning themselves in as soon as possible, it's very unlikely that
anyone abusing their vulnerability would "come in right behind them," as that would mean putting themselves at the mercy of US officials. At
Central American gangs ARE terrorizing people, and it's not racist to
"Trekking on up" is not the cakewalk you seem to think it is, especially if they're planning on seeking asylum. Our border is not as "open" as
you claim, and well over half of those seeking asylum are deported immediately.
Making up hypothetical situations saves lives. It's part of being rea
BS. "The sky is falling!" is another hypothetical situation you may have heard of.
First joke of 2022 I've heard. Nice one Jeff!But, but, but Jeff needs to be able to assign an "-ism" to those don't like queue jumpers. You are not being fair! :)Nah, Doug just has to keep changing his story while calling *me* the spin-master. Or has that escaped your attention?
A lack of evidence of it happening is not evidence of it being possibYou don't need evidence of something being possible; you just need to
know whether it's possible or not.
compassion for are the latter group. As their method of entry involve turning themselves in as soon as possible, it's very unlikely that anyone abusing their vulnerability would "come in right behind them," that would mean putting themselves at the mercy of US officials. AtTheir assailants are not necessarily at the mercy of US officials. There are backdoors. Their assailant(s) can possibly have a tourist visa. Their assailants can already be here waiting for them to arrive. Their assailant(s) can have associates already here. You're the one who's looking at everything through Don Lemon's lens and not thinking things through. You're assuming the best scenario, and it's great to think positive, but in this case let's not make their problems ours.
Central American gangs ARE terrorizing people, and it's not racist toUnited States American gangs are terrorizing people too. Philadelphia
had more than 500 homicides last year. Is it better to get killed in Pennsylvania rather than El Salvador?
"Trekking on up" is not the cakewalk you seem to think it is, especia if they're planning on seeking asylum. Our border is not as "open" as you claim, and well over half of those seeking asylum are deported immediately."Deported" simply means "Try Again." For example, there's a particular criminal from Mexico who has been deported 10 times. The 10th time that
he entered illegally, he raped a 13 year old.
Does the army not prepare for stuff? Do they just take stuff as it goes? Cops "make stuff up" to solve crimes. Surveillance team members set up cameras to cover all angles; they don't just leave areas unmonitoredMaking up hypothetical situations saves lives. It's part of beinBS. "The sky is falling!" is another hypothetical situation you may h heard of.
with a "nobody uses that door" attitude.
crossiThere's nothing stopping their alleged assailaint(s) from
overborder right behind them; the violence is welcome to spill
country.
hypothetical?Do you have evidence of this happening, or is it just
There's evidence of it being possible. It's carless to wait for a
catastophe.
A lack of evidence of it happening is not evidence of it being possible.
You continue to fail to recognize that two groups of people enter the country
two different ways. One group enters and does their best to stay hidden, while the other group enters and surrenders to authorities as soon as possible. The great hordes you seem to feel this sarcastic compassion for are
the latter group. As their method of entry involves turning themselves in as
soon as possible, it's very unlikely that anyone abusing their vulnerability
would "come in right behind them," as that would mean putting themselves at
the mercy of US officials. At best, if their claim for asylum is immediately
denied, they're deported, and at worst, they're pointed out and prosecuted.
You really don't think these things through, do you?
One more time. They are not undocumented workers. They are illegal
aliens. Got it? No more of this leftist politically correct nonsense. Unnerstan'? Good.
But, but, but Jeff needs to be able to assign an "-ism" to those ~70% who >MP> don't like queue jumpers. You are not being fair! :)
Nah, Doug just has to keep changing his story while calling *me* the spin-master. Or has that escaped your attention?
He claimed that "everyone" was against allowing the "queue jumpers" in. In fact, everyone is not against it.Nah, Doug just has to keep changing his story while calling *me* the spin-master. Or has that escaped your attention?He has added more details, based on questions received, but the core of the story has not changed... race has not been playing a part in the discussion, and that most people (~70%) are not against returning to the stated standards.
You keep claiming that most people must not want it, but I think an important point is that "most people" are not among the group of politicians making the decision and therefore are not involved whenever
it comes time to decide whether or not to continue making exceptions.
Granted, I have not noticed Doug pointing this out, but you seem smart enough to understand that bit, but you keep poking at it anyway.
A lack of evidence of it happening is not evidence of it being pYou don't need evidence of something being possible; you just need to know whether it's possible or not.
So when you said, "There's evidence of it being possible," you were
lying?
why the means of entry of the assailed should be closed. Now that you're saying that's not the case, it's pretty obvious that the US asylum
system is sound.
It's true that the US has gangs, too, but that's comparing apples and oranges. Gangs today are pretty tame compared to the prohibition-era
gangs that we once had, and the Central American gangs are more similar
to the latter (although still worse).
"Deported" simply means "Try Again." For example, there's a particula criminal from Mexico who has been deported 10 times. The 10th time th he entered illegally, he raped a 13 year old.
That may be, but with their fingerprints, etc., on file from their first attempt at abusing the asylum system, they're unlikely to try that route again.
with a "nobody uses that door" attitude.
Yeah, but they don't just make up stuff like "What if extraterrestrial aliens invaded tomorrow?" The stuff they prepare for is both possible
and plausible, whereas your hypothetical scenarios are flawed by a fundamental misunderstanding of the current situation.
He claimed that "everyone" was against allowing the "queue jumpers" in. In fact, everyone is not against it.Nah, Doug just has to keep changing his story while calling *me* the spin-master. Or has that escaped your attention?He has added more details, based on questions received, but the core of the story has not changed... race has not been playing a part in the discussion, and that most people (~70%) are not against returning to the stated standards.
No, because there IS evidence of it being possible.So when you said, "There's evidence of it being possible," you were lying?A lack of evidence of it happening is not evidence of it beYou don't need evidence of something being possible; you just ne know whether it's possible or not.
why the means of entry of the assailed should be closed. Now that you saying that's not the case, it's pretty obvious that the US asylum system is sound.It's just peachy.
It's true that the US has gangs, too, but that's comparing apples and oranges. Gangs today are pretty tame compared to the prohibition-era gangs that we once had, and the Central American gangs are more simil to the latter (although still worse).You're saying that central American gangs are more deadly than USA-based gangs, but nationality is ambiguous; MS-13 (established in El Salvador)
is killing people in New York & in Maryland, for example. Just wait till they catch wind that their enemies are being flown into Harrisburg, and see what happens.
I know I said "they'll follow em right in," but what I meant was"Deported" simply means "Try Again." For example, there's a part criminal from Mexico who has been deported 10 times. The 10th ti he entered illegally, he raped a 13 year old.That may be, but with their fingerprints, etc., on file from their fi attempt at abusing the asylum system, they're unlikely to try that ro again.
"they'll find em here if they want to."
So for a gang member to follow (or search for) their enemy in the USA, that's unplausible? As unplausible as martian activity?with a "nobody uses that door" attitude.Yeah, but they don't just make up stuff like "What if extraterrestria aliens invaded tomorrow?" The stuff they prepare for is both possible and plausible, whereas your hypothetical scenarios are flawed by a fundamental misunderstanding of the current situation.
70% is close enough to "everyone" that, if they all got a vote, it wouldn't be happening.
Your buddy Al has used all-encompassing language in the past and you thought that was ok because it shouldn't be taken literally. Make up
your mind.
Your buddy Al has used all-encompassing language in the past and you thought that was ok because it shouldn't be taken literally. Make up your mind.
Did you think that Al's language should be taken literally? Make up your mind.
I never actually saw Doug say everyone.Your buddy Al has used all-encompassing language in the past and yo thought that was ok because it shouldn't be taken literally. Make your mind.Did you think that Al's language should be taken literally? Make up your mind.
I have seen Al continue to claim
that he never said something, and you defend him, even when what he said is quoted back to him word for word.
The one thing Al has going for him is that his post are sometimes only quasi-coherent, where Doug's are usually pretty clear. That gives Al
more wiggle room later.
Again, you said conservatives I said no, it is everyone.
I have seen Al continue to claim
that he never said something, and you defend him, even when what he s is quoted back to him word for word.
So by analogy, you're now claiming that Doug never said it? Doug hasn't denied it. And if that's not what you're claiming, then what is the relevance of this?
Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall citing the 70% national average.I have seen Al continue to claimSo by analogy, you're now claiming that Doug never said it? Doug hasn denied it. And if that's not what you're claiming, then what is the relevance of this?
that he never said something, and you defend him, even when what is quoted back to him word for word.
I have seen Al continue to claim
that he never said something, and you defend him, even when what he is quoted back to him word for word.
So by analogy, you're now claiming that Doug never said it? Doug hasn't denied it. And if that's not what you're claiming, then what is the relevance of this?
Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall citing the 70
national average.
Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall citing 70I am pretty sure the spin to "everyone" came from someone else, after you cited the 70% average (which is where I got that number from).
national average.
Right. As in all political stripes (I said that too a few times), left, centre, right. Read comprehension Jeff. Tis lacking.Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall the 70% national average.Nope, you said, "it's not just conservatives, it's everyone."
I checked.
Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall citi the 70% national average.
Nope, you said, "it's not just conservatives, it's everyone."
I checked.
Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely recall citingI am pretty sure the spin to "everyone" came from someone else, after you
70
national average.
cited the 70% average (which is where I got that number from).
You would be wrong, of course. I quoted to you the message where Doug said "it's not just conservatives, it's everyone."
So now you're just being willfully ignorant.
Right. As in all political stripes (I said that too a few times), left, centre, right. Read comprehension Jeff. Tis lacking.
Everyone is everyone.
I am pretty sure the spin to "everyone" came from someone else, aft you
cited the 70% average (which is where I got that number from).
Taken in the context of "it was not just Conservatives" who were part of the 70%, which is the context it came out of, I read that statement as "everyone" meaning the group included people from "every" slice of the political spectrum and not just conservatives. If it is 70% and we are talking Canada, I am pretty sure that 70% must include moderates and likely liberals, since I doubt that 70% of Canada is conservative.
I think you found one word to start an argument with Doug about because having non-conservatives in favor of closing those loopholes goes against your belief that only big bad conservatives don't want unchecked immigration into Canada (or the US).
But only when it proves your point. When Al or you use it, it does not always literally mean "everyone" even when context would indicate otherwise.Right. As in all political stripes (I said that too a few times), l centre, right. Read comprehension Jeff. Tis lacking.Everyone is everyone.
Right. As in all political stripes (I said that too a few times), lef centre, right. Read comprehension Jeff. Tis lacking.Pretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely r the 70% national average.Nope, you said, "it's not just conservatives, it's everyone."
I checked.
Everyone is everyone.
Everyone is everyone.Understanding context is key to reading comprehension.
Right. As in all political stripes (I said that too a few times), lePretty sure I said "most" not "everyone" and I definitely the 70% national average.Nope, you said, "it's not just conservatives, it's everyone." I checked.
centre, right. Read comprehension Jeff. Tis lacking.
Everyone is everyone.
Understanding context is key to reading comprehension.
He will never be convinced because reading the way he did means he is right. Read in context, it means he is wrong.
Understanding context is key to reading comprehension.
Clarity is key to being understood.
Understanding context is key to reading comprehension.He will never be convinced because reading the way he did means he is right. Read in context, it means he is wrong.
Indeed it is which is why I said multiple times things like "70%" and "across the political spectrum". Your failure to comprehend is actuallyUnderstanding context is key to reading comprehension.Clarity is key to being understood.
a deliberate put-on in order to find some perceived thread to pull at to be able to paint people in certain political hyper-partisan ways.
Clarity is key to being understood.Indeed it is which is why I said multiple times things like "70%" and "across the political spectrum". Your failure to comprehend is actually
a deliberate put-on in order to find some perceived thread to pull at to be able to paint people in certain political hyper-partisan ways.
COVID is a Democrat-**exploited** virus. But that's not news. The Dems never >let a crisis go unexploited - even if they have to create one (*cough* *cough* >Ukraine).
I read some interesting facts about Ukraine today. Specifically, the
area
in question is two break-away "republics" that border Russia and that (apparently) are Russian-majority areas. While the powers that maintain these two areas have been accused of human rights violations, by both the UN and Amnesty International, so have the Ukranian Army and the pro-Ukranian forces in these areas.
Russia (and the USSR) have a history of picking on Ukraine, and there is no
love-loss there (holomodor, anyone?). I would not want to see Russia
take
the whole country back over by force, but there does appear to be more going on there than what we hear about (Putin threatening innocent Ukraine).
There has been conflict between Russia and Ukraine for at least 200 years. An
the current civil war has been going on there for 8 years. Biden didn't help ything when he said we would have a firm response, unless Russia only invaded little.
Russia (and the USSR) have a history of picking on Ukraine, and there is no
love-loss there (holomodor, anyone?). I would not want to see Russia take
the whole country back over by force, but there does appear to be more going on there than what we hear about (Putin threatening innocent Ukraine).
Many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as "liberators" because the USSR had been s
genocidal with the holodomor and the secret police activity. I'm sure both th
Russians and Ukrainians have this national memory.
Indeed they did. Can you imagine things being so bad that you would welcome the Nazi Germans into your country.
So far, they've only invaded a little and the strong response has been chirping crickets.
Russia (and the USSR) have a history of picking on Ukraine, and thereis
nomore
love-loss there (holomodor, anyone?). I would not want to see Russia
take
the whole country back over by force, but there does appear to be
going on there than what we hear about (Putin threatening innocent
Ukraine).
Many Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis as "liberators" because the USSR had
been s
genocidal with the holodomor and the secret police activity. I'm sure
both th
Russians and Ukrainians have this national memory.
Indeed they did. Can you imagine things being so bad that you would welcome the Nazi Germans into your country. IIRC, the USSR made the Ukranians pay heavily for their welcoming of Germany, once they took the Ukraine back over.
Indeed they did. Can you imagine things being so bad that you would
welcome the Nazi Germans into your country.
The Germans certainly did.
So far, they've only invaded a little and the strong response has been
chirping crickets.
About a week ago, Putin met with Ping of China. I wonder if China is going to look at the lackluster response of the west, and take the opportunity to
invade Taiwan a little bit.
So far, they've only invaded a little and the strong response has been chirping crickets.
About a week ago, Putin met with Ping of China. I wonder if China is going to ok at the lackluster response of the west, and take the opportunity to invade iwan a little bit.
Putin invaded Ukraine to keep them from seeking membership in NATO. And why would Ukraine seek NATO membership, anyway? Was there ever serious risk of them being invaded?
Putin invaded Ukraine to keep them from seeking membership in NATO. And would Ukraine seek NATO membership, anyway? Was there ever serious risk them being invaded?As they have had an issue in an eastern province with Russian-backed groups for quite a while now (8 years or so), I would say the answer is yes.
On 23 May 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
Putin invaded Ukraine to keep them from seeking membership in NATO. AndAs they have had an issue in an eastern province with Russian-backed groups for quite a while now (8 years or so), I would say the answer is yes.
would Ukraine seek NATO membership, anyway? Was there ever serious ris
them being invaded?
That was intended as more of a rhetorical question since Ukraine was, in fact,
invaded.
On 08-14-22 13:46, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Bj”rn Felten about Re: "I hate the Lefties, <=-
Did you know that there's a war in Ukraine? Did you know that war
creates refugees? But Ukranians can't come seek residency in the USA because it's too damn far of a walk.
Of course that is well known that there is a war going on, and that a large number of Ukranians have fled the country to Poland and other countries. Did you know that the USA has approved accepting 100,000 of them into America?
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 167:24:31 |
| Calls: | 9,280 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (11,384K bytes) |
| Messages: | 467,369 |