Trudeau more unpopular than popular for the first time since election: survey

[Dash Riprock]

1 hour ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Summarization: you don't have a legitimate cause for concern, especially for the here and now and the immediate future, because borders don't matter and you can't stop migration. (The premise of my whole post to begin with). The latter being absolutely subjective and also a herring because not once did I say to "stop migration," nor did I even imply it. But what you can do is certainly limit it. That is one perk of this country surrounded by two large oceans. And no, it's not racist, or bigoted in any way. It actually makes financial, economical sense as well. I know the partisan hacks such as Rupert here love to play that card and it already happened even after my post despite all that I had said about it being completely irrelevant who you are, the colour of your skin, or your religion. Needing to state this here shows people don't actually know me but love to pretend as if they do.. shocker.

Again, my assertion is that most of those tens of thousands that came up from the US the last two years are not eligible for asylum; they've merely circumvented the safe nation rule knowingly, entered this country often illegally, and the federal government is complicit in this crime. Since you are such an advocate of effectively allowing anybody in with complete disregard for the repercussions against those living here economically or otherwise, will you reimburse my tax dollars? Didn't think so. Expanding on that: you're also dead wrong - there is absolutely a huge economic reason to restrict immigration to this country. Housing being one since it is always a hot topic. This government talks about importing 1.3 million people by 2021. At what cost? The housing infrastructure sure as hell is not here to handle the people we already have, never mind those they're bringing in now, and certainly incapable of supporting another 1.3 million people in two two years.  These are things we already know because we hear about it every single day. Even immigrants are having difficulty as acknowledged by uber liberal Huffington Post Canada. There was a colossal shortage three years ago and it's even worse now and will only continue to get worse. Less housing. Higher costs. Real simple. Plenty of homeless tonight in Ottawa and Toronto freezing. Government subsidized housing? Maybe if they were Haitians fleeing the United States because Donald Trump said some mean things.

I can go on: transit and road infrastructure. Healthcare. Employment in general for immigrants. But what does it matter right? You said so yourself: who cares. You can't do anything about migration anyway because the Romans sucked at it.

When are you going to swallow your pride, admit you've grown up, and now are forced to identify as a conservative.

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Summarization: you don't have a legitimate cause for concern, especially for the here and now and the immediate future, because borders don't matter and you can't stop migration. (The premise of my whole post to begin with). The latter being absolutely subjective and also a herring because not once did I say to "stop migration," nor did I even imply it. But what you can do is certainly limit it. That is one perk of this country surrounded by two large oceans.

The oceans and humongous land-mass called America that is our only land border- where people are not exactly 'refugees from' en masse, make the current system perfectly fine. Those who come from overseas are already restricted due to logistics & beurocracy, those who show up are a small trickle and pretty much irrelevant. Ergo, non-issue in practice. 

 

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

 And no, it's not racist, or bigoted in any way.

It gets racist and bigoted, the MOMENT Europe or European country shades are thrown or the notion that immigration is a threat to this country.

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Again, my assertion is that most of those tens of thousands that came up from the US the last two years are not eligible for asylum; they've merely circumvented the safe nation rule knowingly, entered this country often illegally, and the federal government is complicit in this crime.

Largely irrelevant. If USA is not granting them asylum, then they DO have a legitimate humanitarian case to say USA is not a safe nation. 

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Since you are such an advocate of effectively allowing anybody in with complete disregard for the repercussions against those living here economically or otherwise, will you reimburse my tax dollars? Didn't think so. 

There is nothing to re-emburse, since you admit they are a net positive gain to the system. 

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Expanding on that: you're also dead wrong - there is absolutely a huge economic reason to restrict immigration to this country. Housing being one since it is always a hot topic.

housing is only a crisis in a few metros. Does not represent the country. Full stop. 

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

This government talks about importing 1.3 million people by 2021. At what cost? The housing infrastructure sure as hell is not here to handle the people we already have,

never mind those they're bringing in now, and certainly incapable of supporting another 1.3 million people in two two years. 

They will either find a way to make it in astronomically stratospheric housing scenarios in Vancouver, Toronto and half a dozen other cities or they will go to where they can build a house and live in the middle of nowhere. That too is happening. And they won't be able to support us in 3 years, but they sure as hell will support us in 10 years. Its an investment that is positive. 

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

These are things we already know because we hear about it every single day. Even immigrants are having difficulty as acknowledged by uber liberal Huffington Post Canada. There was a colossal shortage three years ago and it's even worse now and will only continue to get worse. Less housing. Higher costs. Real simple. Plenty of homeless tonight in Ottawa and Toronto freezing. Government subsidized housing? Maybe if they were Haitians fleeing the United States because Donald Trump said some mean things.

I can go on: transit and road infrastructure. Healthcare. Employment in general for immigrants. But what does it matter right? You said so yourself: who cares. You can't do anything about migration anyway because the Romans sucked at it.

The immigrants coming to Canada has little or nothing to do with the housing crisis in Canada, since immigrant-fuelled demand for housing is not what is driving up the prices but overseas investment + speculation from the wealthy canadians, who are milking the system for maximal returns. Ignorant to try and link it with immigrants who are more economically valuable to this country, on average, than the ones born here. 

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Funny how people on the coast that will be negatively impacted by the pipeline are against it..... people in the north east / east  ( F 350 crowd ) of BC that will not be negative impacted are for the pipeline....

The coast is not going to be negatively affected by it, the coast will just have another economic competetor to its cushy tourism and fishing market that the coast people don't beneift from much - hence their opposition. 

3 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

 

Odd how that works...

 

Keep the bitumen in the ground where it belongs. Climate change is real.  

Driving cars burning gas and its demand going up is also real. Nobody cares for people who want the forbidden fruit but then denies forbidden fruit to others because its bad for nature. 

[canuckistani]

3 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Every time I contest the federal government spending billions on third world dumps and any immigration issue for absolutely valid reasons. This thread alone. This very page. And its' not just you. Race card is applicable in the sense I am white and Canadian and therefore "privileged" and don't have any real right to contest these issues without being implied as racist, or even blatantly called one, unless of course it coincides with your beliefs. Like I said, not even two seconds after I stated it is completely irrelevant where you are from or the colour of your skin - that didn't stop you guys from going there anyway. Clearly it is some mental defect on your behalf where you guys default to this assertion. 

I didn't say everyone who contests immigration is racist. It comes down to three simple class of people who are anti-immigration:

 

1. racists. They use the 'look at Europe' angle - which i've decisively proven, when applied to Canada, *IS* a racist concept.

2. ignorants. They use the 'economic burden to us' argument, when its clearly not the case- proven by StatsCan itself.

3. True cons, who want to be the elites of the next 50 years not through merit, just through birth: they realize that world is filling up fast, Canada is empty and sooner or later, with CC and various factors, those who control land in Canada are going to be the kings of the 22nd century. Ie, protectionism. 

Bad news for #3 is that the human mixing tsunami is accelerating, not decelerating. So doomed to failure in either case. Most of Canada *ARE* immigrants. Next several generations will see a massive shift in Canadian demographics towards brown people from the world over, because its their kids that are batting at near 50% enrollment. And immigrants have ties back home which further accelerates the process. #3 has already lost, they just havn't realized it yet. They will when their grandchildren are starting to go to high school. 

 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Every time I contest the federal government spending billions on third world dumps and any immigration issue for absolutely valid reasons. This thread alone. This very page. And its' not just you. Race card is applicable in the sense I am white and Canadian and therefore "privileged" and don't have any real right to contest these issues without being implied as racist, or even blatantly called one, unless of course it coincides with your beliefs. Like I said, not even two seconds after I stated it is completely irrelevant where you are from or the colour of your skin - that didn't stop you guys from going there anyway. Clearly it is some mental defect on your behalf where you guys default to this assertion. 

thats funny, you are seeing it as "race card" when people are just pointing out that you're factually wrong on a lot of these topics. I've never once called you a racist. You're the one seeing rebuttals through a race view. 

 

Of course you can contest the issues, but if e.g., someone starts saying things like the influx of refugee claimants is overwhelming us or that these people will be on a lifetime of welfare or some such other bs then it needs to be called out and facts presented. People on here, I can't recall at the moment if it was you, were complaining about refugees getting dental care and how much that "cost" Canada. That sort of bunk needs to have some facts thrown at it, it has nothing to do with "race". 

[Warhippy]

13 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Every time I contest the federal government spending billions on third world dumps and any immigration issue for absolutely valid reasons. This thread alone. This very page. And its' not just you. Race card is applicable in the sense I am white and Canadian and therefore "privileged" and don't have any real right to contest these issues without being implied as racist, or even blatantly called one, unless of course it coincides with your beliefs. Like I said, not even two seconds after I stated it is completely irrelevant where you are from or the colour of your skin - that didn't stop you guys from going there anyway. Clearly it is some mental defect on your behalf where you guys default to this assertion. 

Actually, the only reason people play the race card is that invariably these arguments can NEVER be made without comments like "third world dumps" or mentioning a culture, people, race or religion" as a way to present their argument.

 

Added that people then use issues at home that have never mattered to them outside of their presented argument to justify their views and it just falls utterly flat.

[johngould21]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats funny, you are seeing it as "race card" when people are just pointing out that you're factually wrong on a lot of these topics. I've never once called you a racist. You're the one seeing rebuttals through a race view. 

 

Of course you can contest the issues, but if e.g., someone starts saying things like the influx of refugee claimants is overwhelming us or that these people will be on a lifetime of welfare or some such other bs then it needs to be called out and facts presented. People on here, I can't recall at the moment if it was you, were complaining about refugees getting dental care and how much that "cost" Canada. That sort of bunk needs to have some facts thrown at it, it has nothing to do with "race". 

Like many in my own family, sadly! They're taking all our jobs, is heard a lot as well.

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

Like many in my own family, sadly! They're taking all our jobs, is heard a lot as well.

yeah its amazing how they can do that and be on welfare at the same time 

[Dash Riprock]

10 hours ago, canuckistani said:

I didn't say everyone who contests immigration is racist. It comes down to three simple class of people who are anti-immigration:

 

1. racists. They use the 'look at Europe' angle - which i've decisively proven, when applied to Canada, *IS* a racist concept.

2. ignorants. They use the 'economic burden to us' argument, when its clearly not the case- proven by StatsCan itself.

3. True cons, who want to be the elites of the next 50 years not through merit, just through birth: they realize that world is filling up fast, Canada is empty and sooner or later, with CC and various factors, those who control land in Canada are going to be the kings of the 22nd century. Ie, protectionism. 

Bad news for #3 is that the human mixing tsunami is accelerating, not decelerating. So doomed to failure in either case. Most of Canada *ARE* immigrants. Next several generations will see a massive shift in Canadian demographics towards brown people from the world over, because its their kids that are batting at near 50% enrollment. And immigrants have ties back home which further accelerates the process. #3 has already lost, they just havn't realized it yet. They will when their grandchildren are starting to go to high school. 

 

Here's another option.

 

We can very easily protect our borders from any influx of migrants as long as we take back control which Trudeau has only recently given up.  We will bring in as many immigrants as is a benefit to Canada, that is all. That is the stance of the conservative population afaiac.

 

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Actually, the only reason people play the race card is that invariably these arguments can NEVER be made without comments like "third world dumps" or mentioning a culture, people, race or religion" as a way to present their argument.

 

Added that people then use issues at home that have never mattered to them outside of their presented argument to justify their views and it just falls utterly flat.

well, you can if you want to just stick to facts. Its fine to propose the argument that we have too much need at home to be sending money overseas, or posing the question 'is our border secure' and then have a debate on the whole topic. The problem seems to come when the raw numbers and facts just seem to annoy people who've already staked out a position. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Dash Riprock said:

Here's another option.

 

We can very easily protect our borders from any influx of migrants as long as we take back control which Trudeau has only recently given up.  We will bring in as many immigrants as is a benefit to Canada, that is all. That is the stance of the conservative population afaiac.

 

Can you be more specific on that? what controls have been "given up"? 

[Dash Riprock]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Can you be more specific on that? what controls have been "given up"? 

Not really. It's my understanding JT signed some UN open border thing that the US and others refuse to buy in on and is causing some unrest in Europe (one of the new yellow vest issues). If that's not true, feel free to inform.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dash Riprock

[Warhippy]

9 minutes ago, Dash Riprock said:

Not really. It's my understanding JT signed some UN open border thing that the US and others refuse to buy in on and is causing some unrest in Europe (one of the new yellow vest issues). If that's not true, feel free to inform.

Trudeau signed a UN compact that is not, was not and will never be legally binding that does not threaten

 

Our sovereignty

Our borders

Does not change our immigration policy

Our ability to police our borders

or our ability to vette who gets in and who doesn't.

 

We signed an agreement in principal to ensure that human migration is done without human rights violations towards migrants, to share security information and to ensure that everyone does their share to make sure no one country is totally overwhelmed.

 

And the idiocy bought the line that "we are throwing open our borders to muslims and sharia law" hook line and sinker.

 

https://undocs.org/A/CONF.231/3

 

The single most damning issue is that this compact is literally right there fore the reading, is only 32 total pages long (including cover) and NOBODY reads it, they're just taking facebook pages as valid in their stories instead of just looking for simple facts.  Took me less than 11 seconds to find the document.

 

here is the single most essential paragraph in it.  Note where it shows we literally give up nothing.  This is the most important paragraph followed by this one small statement posted under it.

 

(c) National sovereignty. The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law;

 

This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Warhippy

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Dash Riprock said:

Not really. It's my understanding JT signed some UN open border thing that the US and others refuse to buy in on and is causing some unrest in Europe (one of the new yellow vest issues). If that's not true, feel free to inform.

ah that. Its not legally binding, its just a statement. Its being overblown as a political thing but it has no legal teeth whatsoever. 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4731612/un-international-agreements-legally-binding/

 

The misinformation that Scheer is putting out on this is shameful imo. If you go to the actual document look at para 7 where it states its not legally binding on the signatories (https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf). 

 

It makes sense that countries would be starting to get organized and begin agreeing on how to deal with the waves of migration we'll likely be seeing for a long time to come. 

[Dash Riprock]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

ah that. Its not legally binding, its just a statement. Its being overblown as a political thing but it has no legal teeth whatsoever. 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4731612/un-international-agreements-legally-binding/

 

The misinformation that Scheer is putting out on this is shameful imo. If you go to the actual document look at para 7 where it states its not legally binding on the signatories (https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf). 

 

It makes sense that countries would be starting to get organized and begin agreeing on how to deal with the waves of migration we'll likely be seeing for a long time to come. 

I don't think we need a wall or anything. Now that Trump has catch and return in place instead of catch and release, and maybe even more wall, I think the flow of illegals will dwindle. If illegals need to rely on air traffic to enter Canada, we can probably keep it under control quite easily.

 

Thanks to both you and @Warhippy for bringing me more up to speed.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Dash Riprock

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, Dash Riprock said:

I don't think we need a wall or anything. Now that Trump has catch and return in place instead of catch and release, and maybe even more wall, I think the flow of illegals will dwindle. If illegals need to rely on air traffic to enter Canada, we can probably keep it under control quite easily.

I think what will stem the flow is people not eligible for refugee status is finding out they really aren't better off to try us vs the US. We're sending people back at a similar rate. 

[johngould21]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

ah that. Its not legally binding, its just a statement. Its being overblown as a political thing but it has no legal teeth whatsoever. 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4731612/un-international-agreements-legally-binding/

 

The misinformation that Scheer is putting out on this is shameful imo. If you go to the actual document look at para 7 where it states its not legally binding on the signatories (https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf). 

 

It makes sense that countries would be starting to get organized and begin agreeing on how to deal with the waves of migration we'll likely be seeing for a long time to come. 

Mini Harper, Scheer, had his former protege (Harper) tell him that he was spreading misinformation.

[johngould21]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah its amazing how they can do that and be on welfare at the same time 

...and that they have.

[canuckistani]

6 hours ago, Dash Riprock said:

Here's another option.

 

We can very easily protect our borders from any influx of migrants as long as we take back control which Trudeau has only recently given up.  We will bring in as many immigrants as is a benefit to Canada, that is all. That is the stance of the conservative population afaiac.

 

False. Your entire premise rests on the notion that US is a 'safe country' for the refugees headed to Canada,ergo, they are implicitly circumventing the refugee law. That is a subjective opinion, not objective fact. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

Mini Harper, Scheer, had his former protege (Harper) tell him that he was spreading misinformation.

I hate it when politicians of all stripes do things like that, and assume people are too stupid to read. I guess a lot of the time we don't prove them wrong tho.