A Canadian-born friend was saying how proud he was that Justin Trudeau (video of the first planeload being welcomed) and the rest of his countrymen were welcoming Syrian refugees, in contrast to the attitude here in his adopted home, especially as expressed by Donald Trump and the Republicans whom he believes agree with everything Donald Trump says.
The audience for this Canada-is-holier-than-thou speech was a group of high-income native-born Americans and immigrants from Asia. While nobody can argue that getting through immigration in the U.S. is a warm experience, even for U.S. passport holders, we were not quick to agree that ostentatiously welcoming a handful of Syrians was a character-defining activity (the Canadian government site at the time said that 882 refugees had arrived, about the same number as a single planeload from a one-class Airbus A380 (seats 853)).
Could we perhaps conduct a test to see if the Canadians could keep up their attitude for more than one photo/viceo opportunity? I said, “Perhaps if the Canadians asked nicely, Donald Trump would be willing to convert his Boeing 757 back to airliner configuration and bring 250 refugees every day to Halifax, Montreal, or Toronto.” If we can agree that Donald Trump is not in fact the only person who decides how Americans feel about immigrants, what then? Given the weak market for the A380 and current low Jet-A prices we non-Trumps could get together and probably charter one for $50,000 per hour. Figure 10 hours in the air from Istanbul or Beirut to Canada and that’s about $500,000 or less than $600 per refugee. Perhaps the supposedly anti-Syrian Republicans he was complaining about would be willing to kick in for unlimited A380 charter. So the Canadians could welcome 853 refugees per day and enjoy a continuous feeling of moral superiority, all happily paid for Americans. As there are 176 A380s flying, one could add daily flights from Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and other parts of the world where there are at least 853 people who would prefer to live in Vancouver or Toronto (actually maybe there should also be some flights from Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, and other high-crime cities in the U.S.).
[The empty legs back to Turkey or Lebanon could be sold to budget travelers, at least as far as Italy, for example.]
What do readers think? This Canadian government site says that of the 19.5 million officially designated refugees worldwide, Canada will take in about 10,000 annually. That works out to excluding roughly 99.95% of the 19.5 million who would presumably love to have a daily coffee and eclair in Montreal. If Canada excludes 99.95 percent of the people who want to migrate to Canada and the U.S. excludes 99.96 percent of those who wish to migrate to the U.S., does that make Canadians as a group morally superior?
Related:
Since roundtrip commercial flights Istanbul to Toronto are available for less than $600 (and to NYC for under $500) I think your cost estimate is off by at least a factor of 2.
Maybe Trey and Matt were right after all and we should go and kick some Canadian ass…
If Canada keeps it’s moral superiority up and lets many refugees in, wouldn’t President Trump have to build another wall along the northern border due to all the terrorists that will sneak in among the refugees?
Demetri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam would perhaps agree with you on the wisdom of building a wall.
Canadian here. While all the media shows is Canadians welcoming refugees, the polls say we are 55% vs 45% against them. In my province, facing huge layoffs due to low oil prices, the number rises to 65% against. In my circle of family, friends, and professional colleagues not a single person supports importing 50,000 refugees (who will later petition to bring in their parents+siblings+cousins, etc) and giving them many years of welfare and housing (2/3s lack even a high school education in their native language, let alone fluency in English).
Even more irksome is the growing problem of homelessness in my city with hundreds of citizens sleeping in filled-to-capacity overnight shelters and relying on food banks. Trudeau’s govt can’t/won’t fund housing for them, but it will the fund food and housing for 4,000 refugees schedule to arrive here this month. Grrrr.
On this issue, don’t believe what the media spin.
Some interesting perspectives on migration were presented in a recent Freakonomics podcast that may be of interest to some (~60 minutes): http://freakonomics.com/2015/12/17/is-migration-a-basic-human-right-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
This is aside from the main point, and I don’t think there is any real chance of Trump becoming President, but it would be fun to see the interaction between him and Justin Trudeau if it happens. The two men are polar opposites in personality and instincts.
Perhaps Trump could challenge Trudeau to a boxing match.
It’s not entirely (or always) about the math. It’s also about the attitude.
You can take less (or zero) refugees (due to various legitimate reasons), but if you don’t reek of bigotry and are welcoming (or pleasant) in general, you will be perceived positively in the world (and even domestically).
Our warm, welcoming neighbors to the north won’t even allow Americans to visit if they have a DUI on their record. Even George W. had to apply for a waiver.
https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/402/~/entering-the-u.s.-and-canada-with-dui-offenses
From my lofty perch in Sweden, Canada does not seem like much of a threat in the holier-than-thou competition.