02.06.2017 03:40 PM

Debate immigration? Sure. But with facts, and fairness.

Now on HuffPo.




  1. Peter says:

    We are feeling quite proud of ourselves these days about our openness to immigrants and refugees, and we should be. nothing warms a Canadian heart like this sort of thing. But before we condemn all those Americans and Brits as irrational xenophobes, we should realize Canada has a no-nonsense, tightly-controlled screening process and secure borders. Americans and Europeans have seen huge numbers of immigrants and refugees come through porous borders unexpectedly or illegally without any real screening. For years they have been promised by politicians they will regain control, only to be told after elections that nothing much can be done and it would be racist to try. I’m very skeptical that Canadians would react much differently under similar circumstances.

    I’m all for a reasoned, fact-based debate, but are you being totally honest or is this a euphemism for educating people to think as you do? Can you envision one untainted by xenophobia where the outcome would be a national consensus that we should cut back?

  2. daveconstable says:

    Seems inefficient to ban groups, like religions or nations! We want a system that deals with people one by one. I’ve been marginally involved with people coming here: It looks to me that we always deal with people on eat a time.
    Refugees area different category from immigration. I understand it doesn’t happen often, but they do have a right to return. We identify groups there, but even then , we deal with people one by one.

    The White House ban almost looks like a ban on people the USA is bombing, or is threatening to attack. One or two persons from those countries might have ‘bad hombre’ intentions in getting into USA.

  3. Robert Frindt says:

    That’s right.

    You stick with the pollsters that told you Clinton had a 99 percent chance of winning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *