• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cowardly Canadians

I like that plan, except I'd modify it to exclude children and ugly women. :lol:

Nasty frat boy Beavis/Butthead talk.

Complete family units with father/mother and their children is the best bet.

Single moms with boys is a danger since the boys can grow up fatherless and become radicalized locally.

Single moms with daughters is no problem. That's where the frat boyz will be interested, turning the girls into sorority Susie's.
 
Why not look at Canada's overall immigration policies and Canada's history of diversity and inclusion before we begin throwing rocks at Canada? In fact, don't we have enough to work on here in the United States?

I don't understand our national penchant for ****ing with every other country on earth.

Canada, as a ratio or percentage of population, takes in more immigrants and refugees each year than any other country on the planet, including the US. The US takes in about 1 million each year - Canada between 250,000 and 300,000 each year, in addition to those who are temporary/seasonal workers. Considering Canada is a 10th the size population wise and not even close to a 10th the size of the US economy, that's not a bad record.

As stated on other threads, Canadians aren't opposed to the refugees coming - just the speed of bringing 25,000 before the end of the year which was simply a stupid campaign promise. And let's not forget that 25,000 is in comparison to the 10,000 President Obama has committed to.
 
Actually, if you bothered to keep up with my posts, I posted 2 links in regards to terrorism and refugees. I never claimed feminism is a terrorist movement, that's what we call a straw man ��

If you've bothered to look you'd see your zipper is open.
 
Have you seen photos and video of refugees flooding into Europe? Pretty much nothing but young single males with a few women and children sprinkled in. Canada doesn't need that nightmare.

Yeah, I don't enjoy cherrypicking.
Facts about the Syrian Refugees
We will first look at Cruz’s comment. Cruz is referring only to 850,000 refugees and migrants — not all from Syria — who have tried to enter Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea. About 62 percent of them are men, according to the U.N., not 77 percent, as Cruz said.
More important, they are just a subset of the total Syrian refugee population of more than 4.2 million.
 

Keep in mind, that is by following vetting procedures that can take years... Instead these refugees are going to be fast tracked in with minimal vetting, can't blame syria for not being eager to help the country Bombing them with that vetting process.

Without that vetting, you are effectively gambling that the rate will remain the same.
 
Yeah, I don't enjoy cherrypicking.
Facts about the Syrian Refugees

Even at 62%, that's a huge discrepancy. Why 62% men as opposed to 38% women and children? Do you see that ratio anywhere else? Simple fact remains, there are too many single men of fighting age in the Syrian refugee group that is fleeing into Europe. I presume the numbers are much different in the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other Middle Eastern neighbouring countries and thankfully that's where Canada will be getting it's compliment of 25,000.
 
I didn't understand what you were saying. What? You don't understand that?? It wasn't a trick question.

I'm simply pointing out that the position held by Canada, and the positions held by those who oppose bringing Syrian refugees here are not even close to being the same. Canadians as a whole have opened themselves up to these refugees and they're grappling with how to best accommodate them. The US debate is on letting them. Pointing at what Canadians (a nuanced approach with the ultimate goal of incorporating the refugees into their society) are doing to prove how right those who have flatly opposed to the refugees coming here (and let's face it, that really is the position of Christie, Carson, Trump, Cruz etc) is kind of silly.
 
Last edited:
Even at 62%, that's a huge discrepancy. Why 62% men as opposed to 38% women and children? Do you see that ratio anywhere else? Simple fact remains, there are too many single men of fighting age in the Syrian refugee group that is fleeing into Europe. I presume the numbers are much different in the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and other Middle Eastern neighbouring countries and thankfully that's where Canada will be getting it's compliment of 25,000.

Men are targeted by ISIS more often. It seems logical that men would be the ones who'd be most likely to flee while women and children would stay. It's usually what happens when there is an invading force using forced conscription. Men flee into the woods, deserts, etc in higher numbers. That said, it's impossible for us to know why there exists a discrepancy without a census Syrian population. At least, one that isn't from the early 2000s (that's when their last census was taken). It may have been that men already outnumbered women before the crisis substantially (the last census suggests 106 men per 100 women). Likewise, poverty may be an issue. In Muslim countries, women and children tend to be consistently among the poorest. That may cripple their ability to actually leave Syria. Men, being the ones with jobs and income (whether single or married) seem to have higher economic possibilities and thus would have an easier time leaving Syria.
 
Last edited:
What do Canadian men want from these unaccompanied women refugees?
 
I'm simply pointing out that the position held by Canada, and the positions held by those who oppose bringing Syrian refugees here are not even close to being the same. Canadians as a whole have opened themselves up to these refugees and they're grappling with how to best accommodate them. The US debate is on letting them. Pointing at what Canadians (a nuanced approach with the ultimate goal of incorporating the refugees into their society) are doing to prove how right those who have flatly opposed to the refugees coming here (and let's face it, that really is the position of Christie, Carson, Trump, Cruz etc) is kind of silly.

Thank you, Mr. Hat. Now I understand. I actually haven't heard much rhetoric from the candidates on this issue. I've formed my opinion from hearing the POTUS speak about it and from our Governor and my own common sense. I heard Obama ridicule concerns on their face. I heard our governor say that he was going to block them coming to Illinois if he could until he heard complete details about the vetting process. My common sense tells me our President is being an arrogant jerk.

Where's THIS from the President?

"Look, we are going to open our door to 10,000 Syrians. These people are coming from war-torn areas of Syria. Forty percent of them are families - husband, wife and children. 20% of them are orphans under the age of 14 years old. 20% are single women and 20 % are young single men between the ages of 17 and 50. We are in process of vetting these people by XYZ. I understand these concerns! Yet I would hope we will do what we've always done -- stand as a beacon of hope and soft landing place for those whose lives are being torn to shreds by this civil war."

Would this be asking too much? To acknowledge the concerns of Main Street? Why is that so hard?
 
Men are targeted by ISIS more often. It seems logical that men would be the ones who'd be most likely to flee while women and children would stay. It's usually what happens when there is an invading force using forced conscription. Men flee into the woods, deserts, etc in higher numbers. That said, it's impossible for us to know why there exists a discrepancy without a census Syrian population. At least, one that isn't from the early 2000s (that's when their last census was taken). It may have been that men already outnumbered women before the crisis substantially (the last census suggests 106 men per 100 women). Likewise, poverty may be an issue. In Muslim countries, women and children tend to be consistently among the poorest. That may cripple their ability to actually leave Syria. Men, being the ones with jobs and income (whether single or married) seem to have higher economic possibilities and thus would have an easier time leaving Syria.

Well, let's think about that for a minute:

1. Who's doing the fighting in Syria against the Assad regime? The forces waging war would be predominantly men would they not? As such, wouldn't that cut down on the actual number of Syrian men fleeing Syria? And wouldn't that cut down on the number of Syrian men of fighting age who are still alive and not included in the 200,000 or so Syrians who have been killed in the conflict to date?

2. It's possible that a disproportionate number of females and female children have been captured by ISIS to use as slaves and as enticement for single men to join ISIS but would they be in such great numbers that it would skew the numbers fleeing to Europe by such an extent - 62% to 38%?

3. By UN accounts, there are 4 million refugees from Syria to date. Do we know the numbers of men, women, and children in the UN funded and operated refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and others? It's possible, and I don't have the answer, that many well meaning men of fighting age dropped their wives and families off at refugee camps in these countries and then fled to Europe in the hopes of establishing themselves there so that in the future they could sponsor their families to join them. That's putting an extremely positive spin on the skewed numbers, but knowing how some men have come to Canada on work permits and then sought landed status and then sought to sponsor family members - parents, wives, children, etc. - it is very possible that even the majority of fighting aged men fleeing to Europe are doing it to set up a better life for themselves and their families. That said, countries like Canada and the US can't take too many chances in that regard under the circumstances.

4. It's quite clear that the Syrian regime is opposed to those in the US led coalition that wants to see them ousted. As such, it's unlikely that this regime would provide credible security screening for Syrians, particularly fighting aged men, to the UN and/or individual countries from the coalition. They're likely to give a pass to enemies of the regime who may have been criminals or terrorist sympathizers, etc. so it's virtually impossible to get a good picture of what the history of single men of fighting age might be. Children are easy to clear and their mothers likely as easy. That's who we should be saving through refugee relocation until the situation is a little more settled over there.
 
Thank you, Mr. Hat. Now I understand. I actually haven't heard much rhetoric from the candidates on this issue. I've formed my opinion from hearing the POTUS speak about it and from our Governor and my own common sense. I heard Obama ridicule concerns on their face. I heard our governor say that he was going to block them coming to Illinois if he could until he heard complete details about the vetting process. My common sense tells me our President is being an arrogant jerk.

Where's THIS from the President?

"Look, we are going to open our door to 10,000 Syrians. These people are coming from war-torn areas of Syria. Forty percent of them are families - husband, wife and children. 20% of them are orphans under the age of 14 years old. 20% are single women and 20 % are young single men between the ages of 17 and 50. We are in process of vetting these people by XYZ. I understand these concerns! Yet I would hope we will do what we've always done -- stand as a beacon of hope and soft landing place for those whose lives are being torn to shreds by this civil war."

Would this be asking too much? To acknowledge the concerns of Main Street? Why is that so hard?

Good morning Maggie,

President Obama is arrogant and he's always been pretty thin skinned and doesn't take criticism well. As time goes on and his term comes to a close, he's even more thin skinned as he sees his Presidency being reduced to one of the worst in American history even though it started out with great promise.

But Obama is not alone in this regard. Our Liberal Premier here in Ontario has basically labelled anyone who has expressed any security concerns about the 25,000 refugees we're taking in as racists and bigots, claiming that those who are throwing up security concerns are just doing it to justify their bigotry and racism. That's the standard liberal arrogance of trying to dismiss any opposition to liberal ideas in the most vile language.
 
Thank you, Mr. Hat. Now I understand. I actually haven't heard much rhetoric from the candidates on this issue. I've formed my opinion from hearing the POTUS speak about it and from our Governor and my own common sense. I heard Obama ridicule concerns on their face. I heard our governor say that he was going to block them coming to Illinois if he could until he heard complete details about the vetting process. My common sense tells me our President is being an arrogant jerk.

Where's THIS from the President?

"Look, we are going to open our door to 10,000 Syrians. These people are coming from war-torn areas of Syria. Forty percent of them are families - husband, wife and children. 20% of them are orphans under the age of 14 years old. 20% are single women and 20 % are young single men between the ages of 17 and 50. We are in process of vetting these people by XYZ. I understand these concerns! Yet I would hope we will do what we've always done -- stand as a beacon of hope and soft landing place for those whose lives are being torn to shreds by this civil war."

Would this be asking too much? To acknowledge the concerns of Main Street? Why is that so hard?

So you want the president to make the entire thing digestible for you. That's not going to happen. How exactly do you think refugees are vetted when they're not Syrians? How do you think the 70K Bosnians (who engaged in terrorism on both sides of the field) were vetted? I don't think you actually understand the hurdles most of these refugees have to jump through before/during/after they are in the process of getting here and much less the demands made from them once they're here. I just found it funny that you thought the opinions of Canadians somewhat validates whatever anyone in the US is talking about. The debates in both countries are extremely different.
 
Last edited:
So you want the president to make the entire thing digestible for you. That's not going to happen. How exactly do you think refugees are vetted when they're not Syrians? How do you think the 70K Bosnians (who engaged in terrorism on both sides of the field) were vetted? [BOLD]I don't think you actually understand the hurdles most of these refugees have to jump through before/during/after they are in the process of getting here and much less the demands made from them once they're here.[/BOLD] I just found it funny that you thought the opinions of Canadians somewhat validates whatever anyone in the US is talking about. The debates in both countries are extremely different.

Yes!! I most certainly DO want the president to make it DIGESTIBLE. That's his freakin' job, for heaven's sake.

As to what I bolded in your post, no, few IF ANY people understand. Five minutes of explaining is somehow beneath him??

And what do YOU know that they do? Tell us about it. And reference your source.

Happy Thanksgiviing. ;)

Edit...I see my bolding didn't work, but the code is there. That's right, isn't it?
 
That's really very funny. I got turned back on arrival in Vancouver a couple of years ago because of a DUI I had in 1998. They will take 25000 Syrians, but they won't take me! Oh the irony.

Well, maybe you should change your name. Just sayin'... ;)
 
The overwhelming numbers who have been settled in the US and applying to come here are children, women, families.

Reference to validate that claim?

Because a well respected organization says something quite different:

UNHCR’s data show that 50.5 percent of refugees are women. Females age 18 to 59 make up 23.9 percent of the refugees, while males in that age group make up 21.8 percent.

Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees

A difference of only 2.1% is hardly "overwhelming" when talking about the very demographic that is most bothersome to some.

Now, what is your reference to validate the "overwheling" claim please.
 
Reference to validate that claim?

Because a well respected organization says something quite different:

Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees

A difference of only 2.1% is hardly "overwhelming" when talking about the very demographic that is most bothersome to some.

Now, what is your reference to validate the "overwheling" claim please.

Glad you respect that source.

"67 percent have been children under the age of 12 and women, according to State Department data."

Facts about the Syrian Refugees | Factcheck

"2 percent are single males of combat age."

Background Briefing on Refugee Screening and Admissions
 
Back
Top Bottom