Canadas Syrian Refugee Plan may Exclude Single Men. - Polidicks

[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185[/url] [QUOTE] [B]Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns[/B] The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned. Sources tell CBC News that to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program. The details of the plan will be announced Tuesday, but already Canadian officials have been working on the ground to process people. In the last six weeks alone, Canadian authorities have managed to screen about 100 people a day in Lebanon to help the government reach its ambitious target of getting 25,000 Syrian refugees here by the end of the year.[/QUOTE] I'm honestly quite conflicted about this.

It's the same (kind of) rule at a lot of sex clubs. Not entirely fair but based on an understandable concern.

One would think that a terrorist's attempt to blend in would include having a family... This is bullshit.

I'm okay with this. Families should definitely come first.

If they are to only take in a limited amount of refugees, then yes, I think anyone would rather see that they decide to take in children first, and so of course the child's immediate family as well whether that's just mum, dad, mum and dad, or even guardians if the child has lost their parents.

[QUOTE=vercas;49181338]One would think that a terrorist's attempt to blend in would include having a family....[/QUOTE] Well thats a bit ridiculous. [QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;49181335]It's the same rule at a lot of sex clubs. Not entirely fair but based on an understandable concern.[/QUOTE] I'm surprised that there are family-focused sex clubs.

[QUOTE=vercas;49181338]One would think that a terrorist's attempt to blend in would include having a family... This is bullshit.[/QUOTE] So what, no one should be taken in, not even children, because there's a chance that 0.01% of refugees would be radicalised? Don't forget, the majority of these people are escaping from the likes of ISIS. Also this isn't like the unimpeded flow from Turkey into Europe. These refugees are extensively screened and hand picked, and they are selected from Syrian refugee camps, not boats that failed to make it across to Greece. I think saving hundreds or thousands of families from a war-zone is worth the risk of accidentally letting a radical in.

I'm ok with this. Sucks for the single dudes but families come first IMO and it helps filter out the baddies.

Is this that big of a problem? In other cultures, it's perfectly fine to still live with your parents even when you're almost 30

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49181349]Well thats a bit ridiculous. I'm surprised that there are family-focused sex clubs.[/QUOTE] I've never even heard of a sex club before this.

I see where they're coming from, but it's worded incredibly poorly. Instead of saying 'Oh, we're not including single men' it should have been presented as prioritizing families and children above all else, but what can you do? I don't see a single quote from a government official regarding the issue in the article. Also, the comments are kind of toxic. I suppose this is a decent middle ground for those on both sides of the issue. We've already had a handful of refugees arrive in my city and so far no bombs have gone off.

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;49181335]It's the same (kind of) rule at a lot of sex clubs. Not entirely fair but based on an understandable concern.[/QUOTE] I do hate my refugee camps to be a sausage party.

[QUOTE=vercas;49181338]One would think that a terrorist's attempt to blend in would include having a family... This is bullshit.[/QUOTE] That is much more difficult than you would think. Not only would the wife and children have to keep the same story, they would have to continuously repeat the same story of their "family" over and over throughout the process. That kind of repetition usually reveals deceit, especially if it's "well written" so to speak, to the point where the story of "how we met" or "where we got married" is repeated using the same phrases and words again and again.

I'm a little conflicted how this would exclude some sons too.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49181970]I do hate my refugee camps to be a sausage party.[/QUOTE] Well, it's pretty much the same logic. "They're not [I]all[/I] going to be rapists(terrorists), but it's safer to just ban them all outright." They allow accompanied men, which is the exact same rule as with the refugees (albeit for vastly different reasons). In both cases I can -kind of- understand the reasoning, even if it's inherently kind of unfair.

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;49181335]It's the same (kind of) rule at a lot of sex clubs. Not entirely fair but based on an understandable concern.[/QUOTE] except that sex club are private institutions and can actually decide to discriminate. Countries not so much. Which is where this is very interesting. Generally speaking it would probably be less of an issue legally if this was a preference for families. But this isn't preferential, but exclusionary. It's entirely possible someone might challenge this in court and win. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49181349]Well thats a bit ridiculous. I'm surprised that there are family-focused sex clubs.[/QUOTE] There's a number of less sordid institutions, swingers parties and similar which have similar practices. Lone men barred, men with a woman allowed, single women allowed.

I am okay with this.

Actually, as a single male you're only not given priority if you're heterosexual or cis-gendered. See this article: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/canada-syria-refugee-plan-liberals-mccallum_n_8640914.html[/url] [QUOTE]Priority for government refugees will be given to complete families, women at risk, members of sexual minorities and single men only if they are identified as gay, bisexual or transgender or are travelling as part of a family.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49183371]Actually, as a single male you're only not given priority if you're heterosexual or cis-gendered. See this article: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/canada-syria-refugee-plan-liberals-mccallum_n_8640914.html[/url][/QUOTE] Pretty sure thats because ISIS released several videos of them taking gay people and throwing them off several story tall buildings.

Incredibly wise of the Canadian government.

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49183371]Actually, as a single male you're only not given priority if you're heterosexual or cis-gendered. See this article: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/canada-syria-refugee-plan-liberals-mccallum_n_8640914.html[/url][/QUOTE] I think we will see a lot of articles that tell us that the majority of the syrian refugee men are gay or trans.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49182197]That is much more difficult than you would think. Not only would the wife and children have to keep the same story, they would have to continuously repeat the same story of their "family" over and over throughout the process. That kind of repetition usually reveals deceit, especially if it's "well written" so to speak, to the point where the story of "how we met" or "where we got married" is repeated using the same phrases and words again and again.[/QUOTE] Have you ever considered that terrorists might actually have actual, legit families? It might come as a shock to you, but a lot of them do, and all it would take to get around this is a family that shuts up. The security concern aside, it's a great thing that they prioritize families over single men.

Europe should do the same thing to be honest.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49184414]Europe should do the same thing to be honest.[/QUOTE] I don't think Canada has to. It isn't taking in 800,000 people without even bothering to check for ID or do background checks.

Why exactly are you defending this? This is bullshit. What about the legitimate male refugees? And what, women and married men can't be terrorists now?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49184780]Why exactly are you defending this? This is bullshit. What about the legitimate male refugees? And what, women and married men can't be terrorists now?[/QUOTE] Ye strikes me as dangerous to back up. If homosexuality is indeed genetic (lots of studies support this) and estimates place the percentage of population being gay around 6-10% with some as high as 20% then, with the homophobia is syria, iraq, afghanistan and all over africa, you are denying a potentially huge number of refugees asylum when they certainly need it.

A terrorist only needs to find a child and a woman to pass through this dumb shit. Fake papers are acquirable.

I can understand the canadian government being concerned, but I also feel for the guys who travel all that way to be denied. The one thing that could make this situation worse is some brainwashed women or kids being used as a way to commit attacks and then put it under even more scrutiny.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49184780]Why exactly are you defending this? This is bullshit. What about the legitimate male refugees? And what, women and married men can't be terrorists now?[/QUOTE] Statistically, women and married men are much less likely to be terrorists. If you're going to be bringing refugees in anyway, you might as well mitigate the risks that come with it.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49184780]Why exactly are you defending this? This is bullshit. What about the legitimate male refugees? And what, women and married men can't be terrorists now?[/QUOTE] omg people here need to stop pretending that men are being victimised. There are millions of refugees, and Canada is only taking in a few thousand of them. It makes sense to prioritise getting families out of refugee camps. Even after Canada has taken in 25,000, there will still be many families out there in those camps.