Help defeat the Conservatives for Bill C-24 (Federal Elections - October 19th)

[Bigudi]

WTF is this? Since when did this citizenship and immigration forum became another Harper bashing Huffington post? This is the 3rd posting about this subject. Please keep this forum out of politics.

Yes! How dare you guys! You want to be citizens AND be interested in the politics that directs the course of the country you chose to live? That's preposterous!

 

[torontosm]

From "let's not cherry pick data . . . " to focusing on characterizations like "destroyed immigration" or "killed" immigration, but ignoring the litany of legitimate criticisms duly aimed at Harper's governing, not to mention the four and five years of abuse hundreds of thousands of legitimate, genuine PRs applying for citizenship suffered under the Harper government (with Kenney and then Alexander the Ministers in charge), reflects the utterly underwhelming but persistent response of those who support Harper's continued reign, echoing the bankruptcy of the pro-Harper campaign.

My comments on this thread relate solely to the Cons' record related to immigration, not other topics that are irrelevant. That is the reason why I am ignoring the other criticisms.

I am not a fan of Harper, but I don't see how voting for the NDP or Liberals would amount to anything but cutting off my nose to spite my face. Based on their past track records, coupled with what we are seeing at the provincial levels today, I don't think either party is capable of stabilizing the Canadian economy and moving th country forward in the right direction.

finally, I don't agree that hundreds of thousands of people "suffered" at the hands of the CIC under Harper's watch. Rather, I think that these people were inconvenienced and perhaps had to wait a bit longer. However, as a result of this, tens of thousands (if not more) people who would have easily slipped through Liberal loopholes were denied citizenship, PR, refugee status or other benefits that they didn't deserve. And that in my eyes carries much weight.

 

[keesio]

Vote and vote smart! (And a vote for Harper is about as contrary to voting smart as can be imagined.)

This kind of hyper-partisan attitude is what i was talking about earlier - "if you support the side I don't, you are stupid". Reminded me of Conservative supporters who accused the NDP (and their supporters) of supporting terrorists just because they were willing to negotiate with Al Qaeda. Or Republicans who call Obama (and his supporters) a socialist because they simply hate his policies. The old Bush adage "you are with us or against us".

That attitude is quite a turn off and do people really think they can encourage people to agree with your side with that kind of attitude?

Well, I suppose this is politics these days. Not just here but seemingly everywhere. People "hate" the other side.

 

[AlexRox]

My comments on this thread relate solely to the Cons' record related to immigration, not other topics that are irrelevant. That is the reason why I am ignoring the other criticisms.

I am not a fan of Harper, but I don't see how voting for the NDP or Liberals would amount to anything but cutting off my nose to spite my face. Based on their past track records, coupled with what we are seeing at the provincial levels today, I don't think either party is capable of stabilizing the Canadian economy and moving th country forward in the right direction.

finally, I don't agree that hundreds of thousands of people "suffered" at the hands of the CIC under Harper's watch. Rather, I think that these people were inconvenienced and perhaps had to wait a bit longer. However, as a result of this, tens of thousands (if not more) people who would have easily slipped through Liberal loopholes were denied citizenship, PR, refugee status or other benefits that they didn't deserve. And that in my eyes carries much weight.

To be honest I think I share this view for the a good degree. Mr.Harper and CPC could have done better. However at this point of time they are way better than other options considering the local/international factors. That doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for CPC for ever.

 

[ZingyDNA]

You do realize economy and infrastructure depend A LOT on population, right? This is why you can't look at the number of immigrants without knowing the total population. For example, the US granted about 1 million green cards in 2013 (the latest data I could find), which seems a ridiculously large number. But if you look at their total population (316 million), they are not taking in a lot of immigrants compared to Canada. Legal ones, anyways...

I should also point out that there is a lot of ground between "killed immigration" and "taken it to an unprecedented level", you know? Since the % of immigrant compared to the population remains about the same, I would say the current government falls somewhere between the two extremes

Let's not cherry pick data. Here is a listing of the number of immigrants as a % of population for every year:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2013/permanent/index.asp

As you will see, the # of new PR's as a % of population under the Cons has (0.7% or 0.8%) been similar or greater than that under the Liberal government (0.6% - 0.9%). To me, that hardly seems like the Cons "killed immigration".

Further, since I have lived in Canada, I have never heard of a single politician talk about immigration as a % of population, but have rather always had numerical targets. Canada's immigration policies are determined by a number of factors, and population is likely just one of those. I personally find it to be entirely irrelevant and Canada's immigration targets should be based on the economy and infrastructure, and the number of newcomers it can handle rather than allowing in more people each year simply because the population has increased.

 

[taleodor]

If you've missed today's news: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alexander-refugee-crisis-1.3213869
I hope, Chris Alexander is now done as a politician. Hopefully, other members of Cons' Immigration committee, such as Costas Menegakis, would also be held accountable.
In any case, I hope our next Immigration Minister would at least have a heart.

 

[torontosm]

You do realize economy and infrastructure depend A LOT on population, right?

I do realize that the economy is somewhat dependent on the population, but I don't see how infrastructure would be. If a number of people suddenly moved to Canada, would that suddenly improve the infrastructure? If these people couldn't find jobs, would that improve the economy?

I should also point out that there is a lot of ground between "killed immigration" and "taken it to an unprecedented level", you know? Since the % of immigrant compared to the population remains about the same, I would say the current government falls somewhere between the two extremes

As I said before, I was speaking in terms of overall figures. The Cons have had the highest levels of immigration to date, which is why I said they had taken it to "unprecedented levels". But, you are correct in that as a % of the population, they are at par with the last Liberal government.

 

[taleodor]

I do realize that the economy is somewhat dependent on the population, but I don't see how infrastructure would be. If a number of people suddenly moved to Canada, would that suddenly improve the infrastructure? If these people couldn't find jobs, would that improve the economy?

As I said before, I was speaking in terms of overall figures. The Cons have had the highest levels of immigration to date, which is why I said they had taken it to "unprecedented levels". But, you are correct in that as a % of the population, they are at par with the last Liberal government.

Please, get your facts straight. There was a significant drop in the relative numbers under Cons, especially if you factor in the provincial nominees (to which Federal Government has little influence). Plus as I've mentioned multiple times, this is by far not about the numbers, and also it's very hard to assess if the numbers provided by the Harper government are actually correct.

 

[AlexRox]

If you've missed today's news: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alexander-refugee-crisis-1.3213869
I hope, Chris Alexander is now done as a politician. Hopefully, other members of Cons' Immigration committee, such as Costas Menegakis, would also be held accountable.
In any case, I hope our next Immigration Minister would at least have a heart.

This is an unfortunate incident , there is no question about that.
Also I am pretty we all know to what level the government system was abused in the past . May I suggest you to this site link ( and the site)
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2011/11/23/nov-23-2011-lying-our-way-to-canada/

So who should be blamed for those loop holes ? and then who should we commend for trying to close those loop holes. Due to these people who abuse these system, the legit people who really need help may have impacted too.

Let's think about a country where terrorist blast bombs , kill people and the government is trying to stop them by having check points, interrogating people. Of course these actions may cause a lot of troubles to innocent people as well ? But what do we choose ? Just stop those security measures due to the inconvenience caused to the innocent people ? I am just presenting as an example and not trying to related terrorism to immigration.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Of course a sudden inflow of immigrants won't improve infrastructure right away. I'm talking about the size of existing population. For example, the US has 9 times the population of Canada, then they should have about 9x the roads for transportation, 9x the power plants for electricity, 9x the shopping malls for shopping, etc. This is based on the fact that they are on about the same level as a developed country, obviously.

They same argument can also be made for how much the size of economy is dependent on population.

I do realize that the economy is somewhat dependent on the population, but I don't see how infrastructure would be. If a number of people suddenly moved to Canada, would that suddenly improve the infrastructure? If these people couldn't find jobs, would that improve the economy?

 

[Bigudi]

You do realize that you must be CONVICTED of terrorism / treason / citizenship fraud FIRST in the court of LAW. This is where you got your due processed. The revocation part is the sentence part of the conviction. Much like getting a sentence of life in jail for a conviction of first degree murder.

Not sure where you are getting this "2nd class" citizenship. Unless you are referring to those people who intend to live a life of fraud, terrorism or treason. On that premise, yes, they are "2nd class" citizen to "1st class" law abiding citizens.

First, "be CONVICTED of terrorism / treason / citizenship fraud" is pretty vague, since as far as we know you can be charged (and maybe convicted) because you were in a protest or wrote some unpleasant manifest.
Be as it will, it is a very dangerous and stupid thing to give this power do the Minister and give no chance of defense after the man made his decision.

Second, don't polarize the matter in this idiotic way of "only a criminal wouldn't like the law". It is as idiotic as some Americans saying "if you didn't do anything wrong, you don't need your privacy".

Third, it is a second class citizen effectively because now we have the first class citizens (those who cannot lose their citizenship) and the second class citizens (those who can lose their citizenship). It can't be more simple than that. Either everybody can lose it or nobody can.

 

[dpenabill]

It seems like this forum is filled with comments about why not to vote for the Cons, but I don't see too many people touting the pros of voting for any other party. Remember, you can't just vote against Harper....you have to vote for someone. Do you really think the NDP and Liberals would be better?

Absolutely, absolutely, yes, either the NDP or the Liberals would be far better . . .

. . . but I have steered away from advocating voting for a particular party because there is so much more at stake in this election. It is not so much a matter of defeating the Conservatives, but wrestling the future of Canada from the authoritarian grip of Stephen Harper.

To be clear, it is probably apparent that my personal vote leans Green or NDP, and in this election, for my riding I support the NDP candidate even though I would, but for the imperative to avoid Harper forming another government even though more than 60 percent of those who vote, vote against him, vote for our incumbent who has been one of the only two members of Parliament from the Green Party.

Many seem to overlook that the Conservatives formed a majority government following the 2011 election despite receiving less than 40% of the votes cast in the election. Yet, despite more than 60 percent of those who actually voted voting against him, Harper has governed with minimal regard for any view other than that which is held within what was his extremely close circle of advisers . . . many of whom are now gone, including Ben Perrin, Nigel Wright, John Baird, and including the loss of Jim Flaherty. Observers seem unsure whether Jason Kenney and Joe Oliver were in or just close to that circle, but the circle appears to be reduced to three these days, Ray Novak, Jason Kenney, and Joe Oliver.

Thing is, outside the inner circle and perhaps a small circle of others around the inner circle, Harper has not even allowed alternative viewpoints from within the Conservative caucus. Virtually none are confessing, but it is quite apparent that a large number of Conservatives are corralled if not muzzled against their better judgment.

For example, many of the Bills which were passed by Parliament in the last four years were forced through with minimal debate, minimal committee study, and oft times with no consideration for proposed amendments . . . even those amendments proposed to fix obvious flaws or mistakes in the Bill. Bill C-24, the SCCA, is a salient example: rather than allow any amendments during the parliamentary process, some obviously needed fixes were added to subsequent Bills and adopted as part of the separate, barely related legislation. These were largely technical, such as fixing erroneous cross-references. But the point is that even when there are obvious problems, even merely technical problems, Harper has not allowed his legislation to be amended . . . often excluding any amendments proposed by Conservatives!

There are many reasons why so many Harper opponents are emotional. It is not so much about the policies and agendas of Conservatives, which sure many oppose, but the huge issue is the way in which Stephen Harper runs the government, an approach to governing which is undemocratic, lacking transparency, abusive, and intractable.

There are genuine reasons why the dominant movement in this election is to defeat Harper far more than it is about defeating the Conservatives.

The one thing I hold against the Conservatives the most is their utter failure to take control of their party despite how wrong Stephen Harper clearly is for Canada, for the Conservatives even.

It's time for Harperman to go.

 

[screech339]

First, "be CONVICTED of terrorism / treason / citizenship fraud" is pretty vague, since as far as we know you can be charged (and maybe convicted) because you were in a protest or wrote some unpleasant manifest.

Being CHARGED is NOT the same as being CONVICTED. You and I know the difference. You can be charged and end up NOT CONVICTED. In other words, found GUILTY in the court of law. How is being CONVICTED be seen as "vague". Either you are found guilty of not. Nothing vague about that. Pretty black and white to me.

 

[taleodor]

Being CHARGED is NOT the same as being CONVICTED. You and I know the difference. You can be charged and end up NOT CONVICTED. In other words, found GUILTY in the court of law. How is being CONVICTED be seen as "vague". Either you are found guilty of not. Nothing vague about that. Pretty black and white to me.

The vague part is related to the nature of conviction, i.e. some one may call DUI a terrorism. Would this law apply? The second point of vagueness comes from the fact that you may be convicted by some phony puppet court (think Egypt and Fahmy case).

 

[Bigudi]

The vague part is related to the nature of conviction, i.e. some one may call DUI a terrorism. Would this law apply? The second point of vagueness comes from the fact that you may be convicted by some phony puppet court (think Egypt and Fahmy case).

Precisely.