Mark H.
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mark H.
-
-
10 minutes ago, Atomic said:
Really? You're comparing the history of Black Americans, who were kidnapped from their homeland or born into slavery, with illegal immigrants who willingly sneak into America and then have the audacity to commit crimes?
Oh sure. They all snuck in, all committed crimes, and now they're all seeking asylum in Canada.
And yes, it was illegal to be an escaped slave; they came to Canada as refugees.
History repeating itself...
-
18 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:
Trump is continuing to ramp up the rhetoric, threatening to deport any undocumented immigrant that has a criminal record. Inevitably the increasing level of threats directed towards specific immigrant populations will turn the current trickle of refugees seeking asylum in Canada into a flood by early summer. Couldn't imagine a worse neighbour, they know the collateral effect of their policies and they don't give a damn. Our problem, is part of their convenient solution. It's akin to running a sewer pipe onto your neighbours property to dispose of your fecal matter.
I hope Trudeau has the balls to stuff a billion dollar invoice into Trump's cake hole and kick him in the nuts after this all plays out, cause you, I, and KBF are going to be the ones paying the bill.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump told "60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl, according to a preview of the interview released by CBS. “But we’re getting them out of our country. They’re here illegally.”
May as well make it retroactive. Send refugee bills to Obama and Bush as well.
This is like the Underground Railroad all over again.
-
-
43 minutes ago, Mark F said:
pay higher salaries, and provide better working conditions. Canadians will do the job.
and try to make Mexicans' and other Latin American's lives in their own countries better;
for instance, don't dump Big Ag American corn into mexico, thereby throwing small Mexican famers off the land and driving them to the United states and up here looking for temporary migrant jobs thousands of miles from their home and family.
The meat packers had no trouble getting canadians to work in the factories in Winnipeg, till they broke the unions, and drove wages down to half of what they were. Now they have to bring people in from Latin America. Surprised? I'm not.
Actually, they were having trouble hiring butchers even with better wages. That's why places like Burns & Jack Forgan went out of business.
Higher wages = higher food prices. We've become addicted to food that's cheaper than it should be, especially meat.
-
9 hours ago, Mark F said:
There is a tendency to look for simple explanations for things.
For instance being opposed to illegal immigration, could be a result of A. being a racist, or
B. not being a racist at all, but realizing that there aren't enough jobs for the people already in the your country, let alone another several million, who will drive down wages;
But if you say you oppose illegal immigration, you will be called racist, by some people.
I know you were just giving an example - but who's picking their tomatoes now? No one - many are rotting in the fields. The truth is, Hispanics take jobs that no one else wants. They do the same thing right here in Manitoba - for Peak of the Market.
-
6 hours ago, yogi said:
Like this post if you're happy Denmark is back! You won't believe who we sign when this post reaches 10 likes!
Some of you will just scroll past - but true fans are not ashamed of this team! Can we get 11 likes?!!
-
-
-
37 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:
“Wednesday and Thursday are going to be very important days for us. When guys have had the opportunity to see their market value … that’s when you get the every-day low prices. You see where the market sets itself,” “You don’t want players in the locker room with a high-profile status that think you underpaid them. It’s to their advantage to see their market value.”
This sounds, more or less, what most of the GMs have in mind for this upcoming Free Agency.
And, it makes sense.
The author of this quote?
Kavis Reed.
Unless the team one province over really needs, for example, your shut down left tackle. IMO that kind of strategy can backfire in a big way.
-
7 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/03/misbehaving-syrian-students-are-a-federal-problem
As to why feminists aren't doing anything about the treatment of women? It is totally bizarre, I agree.
I know a teacher at that school - spent a week with him in Ottawa. He feels the whole thing got blown out of proportion by rebel media. This is a highschool with 2000 + students, they have behaviour problems to deal with every day.
-
-
2 hours ago, 17to85 said:
That's just not true, you can literally ask them to vote on anything. Some places call referendums purely constituational matters and call everything else a plebiscite if you prefer that term but you can put a vote to the electorate over what ever you like.
Good god man, are we still at this? Plebiscites are not binding, the government does not have to act on a plebiscite result.
-
-
1 hour ago, 17to85 said:
And changing how we vote doesn't alter the law? This is an argument of semantics and the word referendum has multiple meanings but if you ask the people to directly vote on something it's a referendum.
It may not - depends how many changes they make. Perhaps considering that something as long standing as rep by pop would be altered, a referendum may be warranted. You may think its semantics, but in Canada you can only ask people to directly vote on constitutional matters.
-
1 hour ago, 17to85 said:
That's one definition, however the other definition is simply any vote put before the electorate. Federally Canada has had 3 referendums, one on the Charlottetown accords, one on conscription and one on prohibition so clearly in Canada the usage is not solely for constitutional matters.
All of those were fundamental changes to Canadian Law - as the Quebec referendum would have been - had the result been 'yes.' If eliminating our 'first past the post' election system (a Westminster system) will fundamentally change the laws of the land, then yes, a referendum would be warranted.
I honestly don't know why this feels like an argument - there's nothing to argue about - it's a fact.
3 (1) Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.7/page-1.html#h-2
-
49 minutes ago, 17to85 said:
you can call a referendum on what ever you want and personally I think that if the way we are changing how our government is elected then it should be put before the people and let them directly voice their opinion.
Incorrect. A referendum can only be called on a constitutional matter.
-
6 hours ago, 17to85 said:
Not without a referendum he shouldn't. Honestly I don't know why people even believed him when he promised that, it was clearly something they promised only to motivate a certain segment to vote for them.
Unless the electoral reform were extensive enough to become a constitutional matter, they can not call a referendum on it.
-
https://mcccanada.ca/stories/hutterite-help-refugee-sponsorship-story
I don't know if this video will make a difference to some of the views I've read in this thread - but I'm going to post it anywayMost of you are aware that I'm a Hutterite - it has never been a secret around here. The way we dress is simply our dress code - we prefer to keep things simpler. Our Muslim friends are just people who worship in a different way than we do.
-
39 minutes ago, Mark F said:
Muslim hatred comes to Canada
Two men were arrested following last night's shooting at a Quebec City mosque that left six people dead and 18 wounded, in what Quebec's premier described as a "murderous act directed at a specific community."
Fear. Irrational, unfounded, fear.
-
51 minutes ago, Rich said:
The 90 day ban was put in until they can review and change the current immigration procedures. I'm very curious to see what changes they are going to make in those 90 days so that they feel they can lift the ban. Hope I'm wrong, but have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most refugees are from camps already vetted by the U.N. I believe this is fear mongering, and as you say, just the tip of the ice berg.
-
8 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
So this is a prime example then of what you are talking about, right Mark? This really is a total load of crap. I can't see this ban lasting, it's just not going to work. These bans will be reversed soon. There is so legal basis for it, whatsover.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2017/01/29/22700549.html
Exactly that. The fact that it's even news shows a complete lack of research by Trump's administration. Fear trumps facts...
-
3 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:
Good points Mark. I do note that for some reason Obama did not seem to think Saudia Arabia was an issue either.
That's visa waiver restriction compared to a complete immigration ban.
-
I want to share a story here - definitely related to current US politics:
We have a family of Sudanese refugees in Selkirk, MB. that were sponsored by a group of 20 local churches - my wife and I are members of the committee. They were vetted by the United Nations and arrived in July. Just in case it matters, they are Muslim. A widowed mother, her teenaged / young adult children, and one son who's married with one infant child. The had to leave a daughter and son behind in a U.N. refugee camp for complicated reasons. The son (22) is now being forced out of the camp due to a lack of U.N. resources and him being an able-bodied male. However, if he leaves, Sudanese rebels will force him to fight for their cause, literally put a gun into his hand. One of the sons has dramatically improved his english, can even text coherently, and has started volunteering in the seniors program at the local library - a first step to building an employment resume.
Questions:
1. Is the U.N. vetting process not adequate enough for Trump? What exactly is going to be improved in 90 days?
2. If that young man is indeed forced out of the camp against his will and winds up with the rebels - would he then be considered dangerous when he undergoes the vetting process? Is it really that simple? Does he not deserve help?
Finally, this is why articles like the one posted above really bother me. They are mostly political: the democrats did this, the republicans did that, the left wishes this were not true, etc. etc. etc. They attempt to fear monger while not actually addressing the issues, not really sharing the story of actual refugees.
-
1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:
The article would be quite convincing if one were not aware of the facts it omits.
1. It cites Somalia as a source of terrorism via refugees - but Somalia is not even on the ban list
2. It does not mention countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia being excluded from the list - or does the that art gallery incident in Turkey not matter?
3. Obama postponed refugee applications, not ALL VISAS, big difference
US Politics
in General Discussion
In the mid 19th century context, escaped slaves were considered criminals by the US government. Agreeing with the rhetoric of that post and implying that refugees are criminals is an insult to refugees who come here and earn an honest living. Do you really believe 2 - 3 million criminals will be moving into Canada and Mexico? That the people who came to Manitoba this past week seeking asylum are criminals?