• 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!

Exclusive: Almost half of Canadians want illegal border crossers deported

Ikari said:
Maybe America should be forced to pay for a wall.
Click to expand...
Absolutely...if it was Americans crossing over into Canada (even legally). Usually...its the other way around. Besides...why would Canadians want a wall? They LOVE illegal immigrants.
 
zimmer said:
The illegals entering Canada are a drop in the bucket, I wonder what the poll numbers would be when 3 to 10% of your population is illegal invaders scamming the system?

Those Canadians... Such intolerance... tsk, tsk, tsk.
Click to expand...

Repatriating unwilling immigrants to countries that don't want them back isn't at all easy. Merkel is learning this just now. The best way seems to be to bribe the rulers in onw way or another.
 
Excon said:
Yes false.
What you said; "Isn't that another way of saying "over half do not want x"?", does not apply here as they were already broken down into other categories.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be logically identical for me to be correct. One merely implies the other.

Excon said:
"Don't know" does not mean "do not want", no matter how much you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

You're the only one spinning anything here. "It's raining outside" doesn't mean the same thing as "the street is wet." But one implies the other.

Excon said:
What you said; "Isn't that another way of saying "over half do not want x"?", does not apply here as they were already broken down into other categories.
Click to expand...

Every object in the world falls into several categories at the same time. Propositions are no different. Your point is irrelevant.

Excon said:
"Don't know" does not mean "do not want"
Click to expand...

I agree. But the point is irrelevant. What you're saying is true, but so is what I have claimed.
 
So, an alternative headline would be "most Canadians don't want illegal border crossers deported."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Good point. Calling them "undocumented" is more accurate - I wonder if Canada will deport them (back?) to the US lacking such documentation as to determine where else to dump them. ;)
Click to expand...
Don't you have to document them in some manner when they enter. And once they are documented wouldn't they cease to be undocumented?
The US should act like Mexico does. Many of the people entering are passing through Mexico from further south on the way to the US, often assisted by Mexico.
 
Excon said:
You were not correct.
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm correct. You are confused about the scope of the not-operator. ~(Ax)(Fx) is not identical to (Ax)~(Fx) [Here is the proof: 1.(Ax)~(Fx); 2.~~(Ax)(Fx) (negated conclusion) |= 3.(Ax)(Fx) (DN), Fa (by instantiation from 3, ~Fa (by instantian from 1)]. ~(Ax)(Fx) is identical to (Ex)~(Fx)...which is pretty obvious if you think about it for a moment [in case it's not: clearly, ~Fa is instantiation of ~(Ax)(Fx), and ~Fa is also clearly instantiation of (Ex)~(Fx)]. (note: usual fonts for existential and universal quantifiers not supported, so E is existential quantifier, A is universal quantifier).

That some are undecided (or functionally equivalent thereto) supports my point, not yours. A minority wants illegal aliens deported. That means a majority don't want illegal aliens deported (but it does not mean that a majority wants to not deport illegal aliens). This isn't fine parsing. It's substantive, especially since those undecided could choose to side with those who don't want to deport.

The OP was insinuating that Canadians are sick and tired of illegal immigration. But the data shows otherwise. Some care enough to have made up their minds to keep the illegal aliens. Some don't care, or are otherwise unsure. Together, those make up a majority--a majority of Canadians who are not sick and tired of illegal immigration. Another way of saying the same thing is that you're arguing that, somehow, those undecideds add force to the OP's insinuation. But they clearly do not, and since my argument is about an absence of force from the insinuation of the OP, they do add force to my argument.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
blah, blah, blah...

The OP was insinuating that Canadians are sick and tired of illegal immigration.

blah, blah, blah...
Click to expand...

The OP stated almost half of Canadians want illegals deported.

There has been so little illegal immigration to Canada when compared to the US, it's a statistical anomaly.

When the illegals keep pouring over the border when the weather improves, and I get my How to Exploit the Canadian Welfare System to the Max pamphlet (in 23 languages) and my busing program in order to shuffle thousands of them to the morally superior Kanuckistani's border... then we can start discussing how sick & tired they have become.

And laugh at them.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
[SUP]Obviously I'm correct. You are confused about the scope of the not-operator. ~(Ax)(Fx) is not identical to (Ax)~(Fx) [Here is the proof: 1.(Ax)~(Fx); 2.~~(Ax)(Fx) (negated conclusion) |= 3.(Ax)(Fx) (DN), Fa (by instantiation from 3, ~Fa (by instantian from 1)]. ~(Ax)(Fx) is identical to (Ex)~(Fx)...which is pretty obvious if you think about it for a moment [in case it's not: clearly, ~Fa is instantiation of ~(Ax)(Fx), and ~Fa is also clearly instantiation of (Ex)~(Fx)]. (note: usual fonts for existential and universal quantifiers not supported, so E is existential quantifier, A is universal quantifier).

That some are undecided (or functionally equivalent thereto) supports my point, not yours. A minority wants illegal aliens deported. That means a majority don't want illegal aliens deported (but it does not mean that a majority wants to not deport illegal aliens). This isn't fine parsing. It's substantive, especially since those undecided could choose to side with those who don't want to deport.

The OP was insinuating that Canadians are sick and tired of illegal immigration. But the data shows otherwise. Some care enough to have made up their minds to keep the illegal aliens. Some don't care, or are otherwise unsure. Together, those make up a majority--a majority of Canadians who are not sick and tired of illegal immigration. Another way of saying the same thing is that you're arguing that, somehow, those undecideds add force to the OP's insinuation. But they clearly do not, and since my argument is about an absence of force from the insinuation of the OP, they do add force to my argument.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
Still wrong.
"Don't know" does not mean "do not want". Period.
In this case it is not another way of saying "over half do not want x" as you falsely asserted
Nothing is going to change that.
 
Does anyone ever bother to read the links or is it just read the headline and make a lot of assumptions.

For a starter.
The increasing flow of hundreds of asylum-seekers of African and Middle Eastern origin from the United States in recent months is becoming a contentious issue in Canada.
Click to expand...
So do you understand that the subject matter is not mexicans who enter your country illegally or leave by entering canada illegally?
Another look at the article
In the United States, where President Donald Trump was elected partly on his promise to boost deportations, 50 percent of adults supported "increasing the deportation of illegal immigrants," according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in the same week.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that your president is making a big push to bring this to everyones attention. Nothing wrong with that of course. Something should be done about illegals. So please do not start any rants about me trying to protect illegals.

Now here is the part that makes many of the comments so far nothing more than crap coming from people who fail to read and educate themselves on the subject before giving a rant
Illegal migrants interviewed by Reuters in Canada said they had been living legally in the United States and had applied for asylum there. But they fled for fear of being enmeshed in Trump's immigration crackdown.
Click to expand...

These people come from a country where their government uses the same tactics that trump is using to generate fear of immigrants whether legal or not. They come from a country where they will be killed if they are sent back. T
Can none of you get your heads rapped around that kind of fear?
 
zimmer said:
The OP stated almost half of Canadians want illegals deported.

There has been so little illegal immigration to Canada when compared to the US, it's a statistical anomaly.
Click to expand...

First, what the hell is it with you guys and logic?

Second, why are you saying this to me? I'm not the one who posted this thread. Are you saying I've mis-characterized the point of the OP or something? The thread was obviously about how the liberal policies of Trudeau's government are unpopular...except of course it relies on a minority of respondents.
 
Excon said:
"Don't know" does not mean "do not want". Period.
Click to expand...

I agree, but SO WHAT?

Excon said:
In this case it is not another way of saying "over half do not want x" as you falsely asserted
Click to expand...

I never asserted "it" is another way of saying "over half do not want x." Your thinking would be helped if you first learn to write in clear and coherent language.

What I did assert is quite clear (at least to anyone with any skill in logic), and my argument is mathematically sound. You may as well be arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
First, what the hell is it with you guys and logic?

Second, why are you saying this to me? I'm not the one who posted this thread. Are you saying I've mis-characterized the point of the OP or something? The thread was obviously about how the liberal policies of Trudeau's government are unpopular...except of course it relies on a minority of respondents.
Click to expand...

I started the thread, so I know what the point of it was.

It's simple, and you started dancing around the thrust of it like a weasel.

The point: Almost half of Canadians want illegals invaders sent back... Period.

Did you see anything in the OP stating anything about Trudeau? Nope.

PS. My logic is fine. Yours is in question, as is your reading comprehension ability.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
I started the thread, so I know what the point of it was.

It's simple, and you started dancing around the thrust of it like a weasel.

The point: Almost half of Canadians want illegals invaders sent back... Period.
Click to expand...

OK. That means (as I have been saying) that over half do not want illegal aliens sent back.
 
ashurbanipal said:
OK. That means (as I have been saying) that over half do not want illegal aliens sent back.
Click to expand...

No. "Over half" do not.

You cannot group the 17% "do not know" (or whatever it is) in the "do not want to send them back camp". Not honestly. If you want to try and be clever... OK... but that's grade school clever... easily debunked where adults with a fraction of functioning brain matter roam.

It was what... 37% do believe they should be welcomed?

Further, beyond being able to accurately and honestly interpret basic statistics, or being fundamentally dishonest, you seem to playing a game here with posts... the chase the squirrel around the yard game...

What do I mean?

You delete the button which connects posts you are quoting. That's cheesy at best, or an indication of someone with honesty & character problems at worst.

Do you have a problem with people looking back at what you've written previously?

It seems so.

Why would that be?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
No. "Over half" do not.

You cannot group the 17% "do not know" (or whatever it is) in the "do not want to send them back camp".
Click to expand...

Why not? They obviously do not want to send them back.

zimmer said:
Not honestly. If you want to try and be clever... OK... but that's grade school clever... easily debunked where adults with a fraction of functioning brain matter roam.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being rude. I posted the MATH on this issue. So you may as well be arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

zimmer said:
It was what... 37% do believe they should be welcomed?
Click to expand...

Something like that.

zimmer said:
Further, beyond being able to accurately and honestly interpret basic statistics, or being fundamentally dishonest, you seem to playing a game here with posts... the chase the squirrel around the yard game...

What do I mean?

You delete the button which connects posts you are quoting. That's cheesy at best, or an indication of someone with honesty & character problems at worst.
Click to expand...

Or an indication of someone who just copies the posts and codes all the HTML in notepad.

zimmer said:
Do you have a problem with people looking back at what you've written previously?
Click to expand...

Of course not. It's all pretty easy to find. Do you need me to post instructions or something? If I had trouble with it, I'd hardly post in such a permanent format. Do you honestly have a problem remembering what you were talking about a few hours (or minutes) ago? Does it honestly give you trouble to click on the "previous" link on a page? If so, I'm not sure what your crowing about functioning brain-matter is all about. If not, then I'm not sure what your complaint is.
 
zimmer said:
I think American groups should take a page from the Mexicans, and create information pamphlets about getting to Canada, and how to game their welfare system to the max.

I'd fund that, plus a few dozen buses to transport those who feel threatened, and want to escape.
Click to expand...

And we can get rid of that troglodyte Lena Dunham in the process.
 
ashurbanipal said:
[SUP]I agree, but SO WHAT?


I never asserted "it" is another way of saying "over half do not want x." Your thinking would be helped if you first learn to write in clear and coherent language.

What I did assert is quite clear (at least to anyone with any skill in logic), and my argument is mathematically sound. You may as well be arguing that 2+2 does not equal 4.[/SUP]
Click to expand...
:lamo
Again.
Still wrong.
"Don't know" does not mean "do not want". Period.
In this case it is not another way of saying "over half "do not want x" as you falsely asserted.
Nothing is going to change that.​


ashurbanipal said:
I never asserted "it" is another way of saying "over half do not want x."
Click to expand...
Pure unadulterated bs!
You do not get to hide behind your assertion because you first asked it as a question. As you were told. In this case, no.
You then stated that you didn't understand why I was disagreeing with you. Which is you doubling down on that false assertion.

But not only the above, but as we can see in the following, you later made the assertion again as a definitive.

ashurbanipal said:
That means a majority do not want deportation-...
Click to expand...

So ...
1. Yes you did assert it and are therefore being dishonest.
2. You are wrong as that is not what it means in this case.
Again.
[highlight]"Don't know"[/highlight] indicated they are undecided, not that they do not want "X". ​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom