Originally Posted by paw339

Lets not forget the Canadian government ended the special status for Haitians before the US and the majority of Haitians have their asylum claims turned down by Canada and are being deported.

Originally Posted by paw339

I read an interesting article the other day (sorry no link) lamenting how resilient Presidents Trump's support has been considering how awful/useless etc he has been (author didn't like him) . One of the biggest reasons he gave was pushback because of false accusations of racism and bigotry against people just because they didn't like illegal immigration and even immigration in general. The author gave many examples of why someone wouldn't like immigration without being racist (eg labour supply-wages) even though he was pro immigration himself. He also referenced surveys which showed immigrants in general had similar concerns over immigration levels and illegal immigration compared to native born after a few years and they weren't being accused of being racist.

Originally Posted by paw339

It is both bizarre and unacceptable that Canada should accept this mass influx of asylum-seeking migrants originating from the United States, the richest country in the world.


Stephen Gallagher: We must stop the mass influx of illegals now | Vancouver Sun

Originally Posted by magnumpi

It's not about what I would do...

Originally Posted by bats

Swamped? Please check your bigotry at the door.

Germany isn't landlocked.

Originally Posted by carcajou

I don't believe bats actually thinks I am a bigot.

I actually think it was a lame and disingenuous attempt to bully me off the thread for having an (actually, just slightly) different political viewpoint than bats. When I called the poster out, I think he or she stammered and then invented that bit of linguistic astrology about "swamped" as a way to save face.

Another poster used "flood" to describe asylum seekers but had political viewpoints more in tune with them, so both bats and BristolUK allowed that to slide.

"Swamped" has been used THOUSANDS of times in news articles about the situation (as has "flood!") without a peep because rational and logical human beings do not see any connection to race, ethnicity or bigotry in that term.

"Bigot" is a very, very strong word that should only be used against - well, actual bigots.

It isn't a term to play around with, or to be used as a lazy smear against others for daring to have degrees of political or ideological thought difference. Shame on the poster for using it in that way, and I will continue to call out false and dishonest allegations against me in that way, just as forcefully as I have here.

Originally Posted by BristolUK

Sure...I was just making the point that understanding why someone does something isn't the same as approving breaking laws as your earlier comment suggested.

Originally Posted by magnumpi

I would most likely stay in the US and hope that the Gov there extend my stay. I am not sure I would make my family walk across a border then be submitted to life in a tent in a sports stadium. Theoretically of course

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian

Another option would be to return to Haiti and help to rebuild what was destroyed.

Originally Posted by magnumpi

Now your thinking yeh, I guess I would...

Originally Posted by Shard

It's not about only showing tolerance to groups you agree with, but to groups who are themselves tolerant. The inherent principle of tolerance is undermined if it is to excuse a group acting with intolerance.

Originally Posted by BristolUK

Really? I assume you disagree with ISIS. Would you tolerate them?

Originally Posted by morpeth

Hitler, Mao and Stalin would probably have used the same sort of logic.

Do groups from the extreme left show tolerance any more than those on the extreme right ? I met extreme leftists during a time in France many years ago, and while I disagreed with their views I certainly treated them with tolerance and politeness, as I would a group at the other end of spectrum.

Originally Posted by morpeth

The recent demonstrations at Berkeley and the violence employed, show the dangers of "tolerant" groups trying to impose their "tolerant" opinions by shutting down others.