Canada's new Prime Minister's stance on Terrorism given the attacks in Paris

[CPanther95]

Basically, the so called vetting or screening will be finger prints, names and probably ask the question "do you have ties to any terrorist groups"

I wonder if we could find common ground on excluding those that answer "Yes" - or if even that would be considered inhumane and uncaring.

 

[SkaGoat]

Canada is pretty tough on Americans who have any criminal conviction - even for minor drug convictions or for DUI. However, it's also a matter of having relatively easy access to American criminal databases.

It works both ways, if I have been convicted of a crime here in Canada, I would be denied entry into the USA. Basically if you have been convicted of anything more than a misdemeanour you can't enter Canada. The problem comes in that in some states DUI isn't a felony, where is Canada, it is.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Not trying to get off topic but just read that Michigan, Louisiana, Indiana, and Texas governors have stated they will not accept any refugees at this time. Louisiana supposedly is the first place they planned on bringing the refugees to. From one source some refugees have already been brought in but I can't confirm that with other sources.

Pretty much the same from all 4. They are stating their first priority is the safety of the people that elected them governor. They appear to be willing to reopen to refugees once the gov't assures that all possible safety measures are taken before bringing them into this country.

Add Massachusetts. Here's what the governor had to say:

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker joined several American governors in announcing Monday they would not allow any Syrian refugees to move to their states.

“I would say no as of right now,” Baker told reporters at the State House Monday. “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria. “My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority,” he added. “So I would set the bar very high on this.”

Baker said he wanted more information from federal officials.

“I think at this point in time we’d have to be very cautious about accepting folks without knowing a lot more about what the federal government’s plan looks like and how it’s going to be actually implemented and executed,” he said.

And the Mayor of Boston joined in, too:

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh agreed that he wanted to find out more about the federal government’s plan for reviewing incoming refugees.

“We have to see the vetting process and what’s happening with the vetting process,” he said.

He issued a statement later, saying that “as a city and as a country it is not our custom to turn our backs on people who are in need and who are innocent. ... should we be told that Boston is accepting refugees, we will work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels to ensure the safety of Boston residents.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...an-refugees/u2g7kmpDzdPwqgrQVmYiaI/story.html

 

[pat fan]

Add Massachusetts. Here's what the governor had to say:

In the wake of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker joined several American governors in announcing Monday they would not allow any Syrian refugees to move to their states.

“I would say no as of right now,” Baker told reporters at the State House Monday. “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria. “My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority,” he added. “So I would set the bar very high on this.”

Baker said he wanted more information from federal officials.

“I think at this point in time we’d have to be very cautious about accepting folks without knowing a lot more about what the federal government’s plan looks like and how it’s going to be actually implemented and executed,” he said.

And the Mayor of Boston joined in, too:

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh agreed that he wanted to find out more about the federal government’s plan for reviewing incoming refugees.

“We have to see the vetting process and what’s happening with the vetting process,” he said.

He issued a statement later, saying that “as a city and as a country it is not our custom to turn our backs on people who are in need and who are innocent. ... should we be told that Boston is accepting refugees, we will work with our partners at the federal, state and local levels to ensure the safety of Boston residents.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...an-refugees/u2g7kmpDzdPwqgrQVmYiaI/story.html

As soon as I saw Bakers remarks "as of right now" I knew "right now" would quickly be behind it. I've said numerous times prior to this I am 100% for immigration, and refugees are certainly part of that. But if there is not a concrete way to vet them, I just don't see it.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

As soon as I saw Bakers remarks "as of right now" I knew "right now" would quickly be behind it. I've said numerous times prior to this I am 100% for immigration, and refugees are certainly part of that. But if there is not a concrete way to vet them, I just don't see it.

I'm sure the Boston Marathon bombings aren't far from their minds, either.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

I'm sure the Boston Marathon bombings aren't far from their minds, either.

Probably not since they were refugees.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

I just read that ISIS is communicating through the use of PS 4. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this? This is smart on their part but how can anyone monitor that if it is true?

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I just read that ISIS is communicating through the use of PS 4. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this? This is smart on their part but how can anyone monitor that if it is true?

I saw that on CNN... the explanation they gave makes sense.

 

[pat fan]

I just read that ISIS is communicating through the use of PS 4. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this? This is smart on their part but how can anyone monitor that if it is true?

You can't.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

You can't.

Exactly why it's smart.

 

[Bluestars]

To those who don't want refugees at all: do you understand that this is a life or death issue? These people are staying in camps, starving, sleeping on the ground, no medical help. They have no more belongings, they have no more homes, families are broken up and torn simply because they did not have the chance to be born here. We have everything here, we are lucky and privileged to live here and we need to help these people. I, for one, cannot go to sleep at night knowing that we are denying these people help when they really need it. The terrorists are ALREADY in every country. They don't need this refugee crisis to infiltrate, they are already in. Too many lives have been lost already and a "western" life is not more valuable than a "middle eastern" life.

I get what you are saying, but we do not have to bring people into our country to help them. There are many people the US has helped all over the world without bringing them home.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I just read that ISIS is communicating through the use of PS 4. Has anyone else heard this or can confirm this? This is smart on their part but how can anyone monitor that if it is true?

It is true. They can't monitor..it's a closed network.

 

[ronandannette]

How would they even screen people? Not like you can call Syria and find out their backgrounds. ISIS has said they will infiltrate countries by posing as refugees. What more do people need to hear before they realize letting thousands in to either Canada or the US is not a great idea.

Pretty much non-stop discussion of this issue on local talk radio today. One of the best ideas I heard (although I'm not clear if it's just punditry or if the government is actually making this decision) is to screen strictly by demographic. Prioritizing entry to women with children, orphaned minors, the elderly, those with severe mental or physical handicaps, homosexuals and religious minorities. These people are arguably the absolutely most vulnerable and least likely (although not 100% unlikely) to pose a security threat. I would be all for this type of profiling.

 

[pat fan]

Pretty much non-stop discussion of this issue on local talk radio today. One of the best ideas I heard (although I'm not clear if it's just punditry or if the government is actually making this decision) is to screen strictly by demographic. Prioritizing entry to women, children, the elderly, those with severe mental or physical handicaps, homosexuals and religious minorities.

Had to be just talk radio talk. President was pretty emphatic about not separating into categories.

 

[ronandannette]

Had to be just talk radio talk. President was pretty emphatic about not separating into categories.

This is Canada we're talking about...I understand it's getting little confusing participating in both threads.

 

[pat fan]

This is Canada we're talking about...I understand it's getting little confusing participating in both threads.

Oops! sorry Plus, getting past my bed time Great idea though! Pass it south, ok?

 

[nanienamou]

I get what you are saying, but we do not have to bring people into our country to help them. There are many people the US has helped all over the world without bringing them home.

And how can you do that? They have already fled their country, they are settled in different temporary camps all over the middle east and Europe. Essentially, what you are saying is that you are too scared and since YOU don't want them near you, too bad for the countries who are giving them temporary shelter. The reality is that there are not enough resources for them to stay in Europe and Middle East, Europe is asking us for help to handle the influx of refugees. And for those of you who would suggest to send them back home, please understand that these people do not have a home anymore.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...9ee4b045bf3df04d49?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

 

[CPanther95]

And how can you do that? They have already fled their country, they are settled in different temporary camps all over the middle east and Europe. Essentially, what you are saying is that you are too scared and since YOU don't want them near you, too bad for the countries who are giving them temporary shelter. The reality is that there are not enough resources for them to stay in Europe and Middle East, Europe is asking us for help to handle the influx of refugees. And for those of you who would suggest to send them back home, please understand that these people do not have a home anymore.

We can certainly get food, clothing and other resources over to them to help out while they are being processed and fully vetted. Any women, children, elderly or sick can be processed quickly. Any men can help with the construction of temporary shelters for them and their families while they wait.

We can minimize the risk and help as many as possible find a permanent home. It's not one or the other, and there's no special humanitarian award for those willing to take the most risks to help out.

 

[nanienamou]

Let's just remember that every refugee will be properly screened before arriving in Canada. The process was already started before these attacks, visa agents were already in place in the field and the government is adamant that measures are in place to assure that Canada remains secure. The first wave will be comprised of people who already have family here, and mostly women and children. That is what is being said today in many news outlets around here (I'm in Quebec, and use mainly French media (SRC/RDI, La Presse), but I'm thinking that CBC must be covering this too).

 

[TLSnell1981]

I'm not as confident as you are, regarding the level of scrutiny, that will be used in screening refugees.

I'm not against helping refugees. I just do not want the bad guys slipping through... not even one.