Justins refugee headache

[valve37]

Will Canada have 25000 before end of the year. Better be cautious.

Germany imposes surprise curbs on Syrian refugees

Angela Merkel has performed an abrupt U-turn on her open-door policy towards people fleeing Syria’s civil war, with Berlin announcing that the hundreds of thousands of Syrians entering Germany would not be granted asylum or refugee status.

Syrians would still be allowed to enter Germany, but only for one year and with “subsidiary protection” which limits their rights as refugees. Family members would be barred from joining them.

Related: Germany receives nearly half of all Syrian asylum applicants

Germany, along with Sweden and Austria, has been the most open to taking in newcomers over the last six months of the growing refugee crisis, with the numbers entering Germany dwarfing those arriving anywhere else.

However, the interior minister, Thomas de Maiziere, announced that Berlin was starting to fall into line with governments elsewhere in the European Union, who were either erecting barriers to the newcomers or acting as transit countries and limiting their own intake of refugees.

“In this situation other countries are only guaranteeing a limited stay,” De Maiziere said. “We’ll now do the same with Syrians in the future. We’re telling them ‘you will get protection, but only so-called subsidiary protection that is limited to a period and without any family unification.’”

The major policy shift followed a crisis meeting of Merkel’s cabinet and coalition partners on Thursday. The chancellor won global plaudits in August when she suspended EU immigration rules to declare that any Syrians entering Germany would gain refugee status, though this stirred consternation among EU partners who were not forewarned of the move.

Thursday’s meeting decided against setting up “transit zones” for the processing of refugees on Germany’s borders with Austria, but agreed on prompt deportation of people whose asylum claims had failed.

Until now Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans entering Germany have been virtually guaranteed full refugee status, meaning the right to stay for at least three years, entitlement for family members to join them, and generous welfare benefits.

Almost 40,000 Syrians were granted refugee status in Germany in August, according to the Berlin office responsible for the programme, with only 53 being given “subsidiary” status. That now appears to have ended abruptly.

An interior ministry spokesman told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees is instructed henceforth to grant Syrian civil war refugees only subsidiary protection.”

De Maiziere described the new regime as “a win for security and order for Germany”.

Related: Winter is coming: the new crisis for refugees in Europe

But the suddenness of the move by the country that has been pivotal in the EU’s biggest ever immigration crisis will ripple across the region with unknown consequences, particularly in the transit countries of the Balkans and central Europe through which hundreds of thousands have been trekking towards Germany.

The German curbs will encourage these countries to establish barriers of their own to the refugee wave. Merkel is also pressing countries such as Croatia, Slovenia, and Serbia to establish “reception centres” or camps where refugees can be processed and screened before they reach Germany. The countries are resisting because no one knows what to do with those who are screened and do not pass muster for passage to Germany.

Berlin is the most powerful advocate of sharing the refugee burden across the EU, but has also frustrated and angered several countries with a series of unilateral decisions that have had major knock-on effects across the union.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/germany-imposes-surprise-curbs-on-syrian-refugees/ar-CC2Bcm

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

And if through some quirk of fate the refugees were instead from the UK, or from even Israel.....you would be saying "come one, come all".

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

If you are starting to get confused by who is doing what, why, where or how in the Middle East then one Daily Mail reader, known as Aubrey Bailey, has made it ‘Clear As Mud’ with the following:

“Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle-East? Let me explain. We support the Iraqi government in its fight against Islamic State (IS/ISIL/ISIS). We don’t like IS but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia whom we do like. We don’t like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

We don’t like Iran, but the Iranian government supports the Iraqi gov’t against IS. So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting our other enemies, whom we don’t want to lose, but we don’t our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And, all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren’t actually there until we went in to drive them out – do you understand now?”

By Aubrey Bailey, Fleets, Hants 

[gauge33]

That makes Justins headache even worse! Do I unknowingly bring in enemy refugees, radical Muslims among the 25000 for eg. Or will he allow only Christian refugees.   

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

To begin with by saying "Christian refugees" you're suggesting, albeit subtly, that there is a higher probability that Muslims will be radical. This of course excludes all Muslims who are NOT radical, never have been and do not ever want to be ..........or does that matter? That outlook of paint them all with the same brush sounds remarkably like a similar outlook towards another group of people in another country starting in the late 1930's and ending May 7 1945. Would you like a list of radical Christians in N. America? It isn't hard to find and that's just the ones we know about. Anyhow, Trudeau is pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and we will now cease to be as important in the minds of those who dislike the 'west' and our long and 'wet' history in their countries.  

[gauge33]

A bit behind are you not, Afghanistan long ago.

[pierrelebel]

"Justins refugee headache"

Yes, bringing in 25,000 refugees from Syria by year end will be a real challenge for the new government,  More so that the previous Harper government did absolutely nothing in the last few months to prepare for those refugees.

Logistically, it is a real challenge.  The first priorities of course must be security and health.  Then transport, then lodging and integration.  It will not be easy but I expect it will be done by people of good will.... even if it takes a bit longer than the original target date of December 31st.

The Canadian public is behind the government's efforts although, to be honest, the biggest challenge is not logistics but the bigottery and racism expressed by a small vocal minority of Canadians. That is deplorable.

[gauge33]

The parliamentary budget officers report today is likely to give Justin a bigger headache when he has to decide on larger deficits than tabled in his election platform or renege on promises.

[pierrelebel]

The parliamentary budget officers report today... confirms what many Canadians suspected:  Harper and his Finance Minister lied to Canadians when pretending the Conservatives had balanced the budget, when pretending Canada's economy was growing at a much faster rate than reality.

Now we know it was just a big lie in an attempt to get re-elected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-parliamentary-budget-officer-economy-trudeau-1.3312226

OK - So now we have a new government - elected by the people of Canada - and it will be their job to clean up the mess left behind by Harper and his right wing Reform party.

Nothing new.  Chretien has to clean up behind Mulroney

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/

The election is over folks.  No point in trying to fight the battle all over again.

[gauge33]

Back in April, the PBO said Ottawa would run a $1.1-billion surplus in 2015-16, break even in 2016-17 and post a $2.6-billion deficit in 2017-18. The spring forecast also projected shortfalls of $2.8 billion in 2018-19 and $2.5 billion in 2019-20.

The office is now forecasting a $1.2-billion surplus in 2015-16, but says it will be followed by four straight deficits that are on average $2.4 billion lower per year than its April projection.

It expects shortfalls of $3 billion in 2016-17, $4.7 billion in 2017-18, $5 billion in 2018-19 and $4.6 billion in 2019-20.

Did you not read all the article. Sounds to me they left a 1.1B surplus increasing to 1.2  2015-16 according to the PBO. Deficits growing in later years but that's minor before the Libs add plenty to it if they intend to keep election promises. Well I suppose they could raise all kinds of taxes instead always been the Liberal way. Wynne a good eg.

[pierrelebel]

Bla...bla...bla...  Simple fact: the Harper government lied to us.  Period. End of story.  No point in spinning the story.  He is gone!

Good riddance.

From the mouth of the Minister of Finances in 2015 when presenting the budget to the House:

"Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce this budget is balanced.

This year, we are forecasting a $1.4 billion surplus, and growing surpluses thereafter."

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/speech-discours/2015-04-21-eng.html

[gauge33]

Sorry Pierre, on The Exchange this past hour the PBO assistant confirmed what I wrote and my quote from the article you posted.

The difference in 1.4 and 1.1 is miniscule in a trillion+ budget. I guess you can call the difference a lie but it is a surplus as projected and not a deficit as you infer.

-Harper and his Finance Minister lied to Canadians when pretending the Conservatives had balanced the budget,- 

Oh by the way a surplus equates to a balanced budget. 

[pierrelebel]

From the mouth of the Minister of Finances in 2015 when presenting the budget to the House:

"Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce this budget is balanced.

This year, we are forecasting a $1.4 billion surplus, and growing surpluses thereafter."

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/speech-discours/2015-04-21-eng.html

[gauge33]

growing surpluses thereafter."

The climate has changed along with recent forecasts by BOC and others. Try and acknowledge and cut some slack.

Surpluses not any more we now have a Liberal government.

[pierrelebel]

"The climate has changed along with recent forecasts by BOC and others. "

Thank you for outlining the real problem.

Yes, the climate had changed since the "rosy" budget from last spring forecasting a small surplus after including the sale (at a loss)  of shares in General Motors for a few billion dollars.

Yet, and that is the problem, despite reports from the budget office that Canada was facing structural deficits in years to come, Harper, his minister of finances and the rest of the Conservatives candidates (when allowed to speak) kept repeating the same lie to Canadians about balance budget for years to come when they knew very well that was not true.

[gauge33]

Ah Pierre make sure you read all the article next time you post one before you make untrue statements. Just remember a surplus equates to a balanced budget every time and was as the Cons promised.

Oh by the way that would have continued if Stevie had been returned to power. He would have made it happen but now we are heading into a continuing Liberal deficit. Shades of the Wynne government.  

[pierrelebel]

"now we are heading into a continuing Liberal deficit.'

That is correct.  The federal government may end up with annual deficits in the 14 billion dollar range instead of 10 billion dollar range for the next few years because Harper - as clearly evidenced by the budget office yesterday -  had a 4 billion hidden structural annual deficit while claiming a balance budget for the future.

All you need to do is read the budget presented earlier this year by the Conservative Finance Minister (link supplied earlier).  The lies are right there!  The price of crude oil (WTI) had already dropped from US$105 (Summer 2014) to below US$55 at the time.  The price of copper had already dropped from US$4.50 pound a few years ago to US$2.50 earlier this year.  Those were known facts at the time of preparing the budget.  Yet the Conservatives elected to present a "rosy" future unrelated to facts in the Canadian economy.  All that to gain a few votes.  As it turns out they did not fool Canadians.

Now, Canadians will have to pay the price for their misguided initiatives.

[gauge33]

Back in April, the PBO said Ottawa would run a $1.1-billion surplus in 2015-16, break even in 2016-17 and post a $2.6-billion deficit in 2017-18. The spring forecast also projected shortfalls of $2.8 billion in 2018-19 and $2.5 billion in 2019-20.

The office is now forecasting a $1.2-billion surplus in 2015-16, but says it will be followed by four straight deficits that are on average $2.4 billion lower per year than its April projection.

It expects shortfalls of $3 billion in 2016-17, $4.7 billion in 2017-18, $5 billion in 2018-19 and $4.6 billion in 2019-20.

The truth is there, in fact the surplus (balanced budget) is .1 larger than previously forecasted yet you called it a lie.

Rosy or not, it is going to get a lot less so with Liberal promised added deficits which is not included in the above predictions going forward.  

[pierrelebel]

"Back in April, the PBO said Ottawa would run a $1.1-billion surplus in 2015-16, break even in 2016-17 and post a $2.6-billion deficit in 2017-18."

That is correct.  And that is my point.

Despite that information, the Minister of Finance, in his budget, promised Canadians budget surpluses every year in the future.  He should have known better. He knowingly lied. And Harper did the same thing, every single day during the election campaign.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Here's the bottom line......there are innocent people who need our help. We waste enough money in our government that if we actually stopped squandering we could help those in need and still run a country very efficiently. We should be thankful we are not in the same situation as the refugees are. As my grandmother use to say "there but for the grace of god go I". I'm not religious but her comment speaks volumes. We must do the right thing.....no excuses.