Why accept any refugees to the U.S. if they are welcome in Canada?

“Justin Trudeau responds to Donald Trump’s immigration ban by saying refugees are welcome in Canada” (Independent):

Justin Trudeau has responded to Donald Trump’s immigration ban by saying Canada welcomes refugees who have been rejected from the US.

Does this mean we should shut down our politically divisive refugee program? If the purpose of the program is to save people from danger, and anyone whom we reject will be accepted by Canada, a far safer country than the U.S. (compare Toronto to Chicago or Detroit!), what is the rationale for continuing the program?


16 thoughts on “Why accept any refugees to the U.S. if they are welcome in Canada?

  1. This is the perfect solution. Canada has 1/10th the population of the US in a vast land area. They could use more people. I’m sure these poor desperate refugees are so desperate to find a safe place that they won’t mind being sent to say Saskatoon or Thunder Bay.

  2. They are not stopping just refugees but also current green card holders. For example Mo Farah or my doctor who was born in Iran.

  3. tekumse: I’m sorry that Mo Farah will also have to suffer the fate of living in Vancouver or Toronto, but I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic of the original post. He is not applying for U.S. residency under a refugee program, is he?

  4. To help the refugees, you have to attack the real problem: what lead to the refugee crises in the first place? Why is the Middle East, Africa, and even some Asian, European and South American countries have a refugee problem? I’m not going to answer my own question because there is no one correct answer. But I will offer the following opinions.

    A country, by taking in refugees, is helping the 0.01% of the refugees that seek it. Those countries are doing it to put a show on the world that they are better humans, but we know this is a “show” and nothing else because it does not address the root cause.

    Is Canada by taking in 39,671 [1] refugees when it has over 36 million [2] souls means much? Is Germany by taking in 222,000 [3] refugees when it has over 80 million [4] souls means much? And why isn’t the rich Arab countries taking refugees? The Arab countries have a perfect story to “show” the world that they care and extend a visa to those being refused entry in the US. After all, based on news reports, students wanting to attend MIT, and doctors and scientist wanting to migrate to the US, businessmen with families wanting to start a business in the US, companies are scrambling about their foreign workers are being refused visas — those are smart, hardworking folks, considered the best-of-the best in their home country, I’m sure ANY country will want them, including an Arab one, no?

    [1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/milestones.asp
    [2] http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/
    [3] http://www.dw.com/en/germany-marks-steep-drop-in-migrant-arrivals/a-19388287
    [4] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:DEU:FRA:GBR&hl=en&dl=en

  5. We help refugees because we have a moral responsibility as a country to do so. While it makes sense for countries to act in a coordinated fashion, what other countries do or don’t do does not affect our underlying moral responsibility.

    @George A: Yes, the most important thing we can do is attack the root causes of refugee crises. This does not preclude direct assistance to refugees.

  6. @Neal, you missed my point. I’m NOT against helping anyone, be it refugee or not. I’m questioning if that “help” really has an impact — this is why I showed numbers in my post.

    If this was about “moral responsibility” then demonstrators (around the global), and news coverage on this topic, are blind sided and are going after a soft target that won’t address the root cause even if Trumpenfuhrer reverses course and gives them their victory.

    “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

  7. We are seeing the early stages of the consequences from massive population overshoot in the middle east and africa. Literally billions of people will be coming of age soon in these places that ecologically and economically cannot support them. There will be endless wars and famines in those parts of the world. A key root cause of the troubles in Syria is really the drought.

    We can’t pretend that letting unfortunate foreigners into the west is a solution. We’re going to help matters by letting in a billion sub-saharan africans? It’s a non-starter of an approach. We’re going to have to draw up the gates and wish these people the best of luck where they are.

  8. @bobbybobbob:

    > A key root cause of the troubles in Syria is really the drought.

    I’m from Aleppo, Syria who immigrated to the US in 1981 at the age of 16 and become US Citizen in 1988. So I speak with experience to say the least.

    Yes, water is an issue in Syria, and it *was* routine to have water cutoff neighborhood by neighborhood on a scheduled weekly routine and every now and then with no schedule. This was mainly to conserve water [1] but it was also because of poor infrastructure to sanitize and deliver water. The water issue was very much addressed by 1990’s to the point by 2010 it was very much non existing.

    The real issue in Syria (and the Middle East for that matter) is religion power over people freedom. You have the Sunni vs. Shia that don’t like each other and want to crush the other at all cost. When you mix religion with government elite, that want to hold on power at all cost, then you have a country with no foundation to stand on and the youth can be lured into becoming exterminest.

    The war in Syria (and the Arab Spring that preceded it) is a proxy war between the religious elite. They dumb down their own citizens so they can keep on ruling, nothing more.

    [1] We got use to it and every house started to install a tank to fill it with water as reserved to be used during the hours when water is shut off. Go figure!

  9. The population of Syria has increased fivefold since 1960, from 4.6 million to almost 23 million. The war has done nothing to reverse this – despite the number killed the population just keeps going up anyway. And Syria is just one country. There are millions upon millions of people in the Middle East and Africa (and Latin America) who might have plausible claim for refuge. There’s no way we can take even a small %. Every $ spent here would go a lot farther if it could be used to house the refugees closer to home or better still just keep them in the places where they were born.

    Just as with divorce, there is a whole industry of “non-profits”, lawyers, government administrators, etc. who are all eating well off of the refugee system as it is and have every incentive to keep it as it is even if it doesn’t make any sense.

    The media focuses in on a small number of model citizens – grad students, doctors, others who will assimilate well. But a lot of refugees will never really assimilate to American culture and will have to be supported by the state one way or another. They would be much happier in a place with a language and culture similar to their own.

    Very few will become bombers like the Tsarnaevs but even before the Tsarnaevs became bombers their whole family was a long term burden to American taxpayers and the criminal justice system – food stamps and shoplifting convictions and drug dealing, etc. (It’s hard to predict who will succeed – their own Uncle Ruslan assimilated extremely well).

  10. This has to be the most anti-prescient post Philip has ever made (by bad luck only, of course). He bet on the safety of Canada. That’s a pretty solid bet. But what bad and unlucky timing!

  11. Anon and BadTiming..

    Only fair to point out that the Quebec City shooting was carried out at a mosque, by a native Québécois who is a fan of Le Pen and our local equivalent.

    In America, this might be cause to reevaluate our disastrous immigration policies, which DJT alone can save us from. But Canada is the home of the brave, relatively speaking, so that won’t be necessary there.

Comments are closed.