Mark H.

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...

May as well make it retroactive. Send refugee bills to Obama and Bush as well. This is like the Underground Railroad all over again.

It's a symbolic gesture of support - why are you guys bothered by it?

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.

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.

Some of you will just scroll past - but true fans are not ashamed of this team! Can we get 11 likes?!!

Gold Jerry, gold

Advisor #1: gone https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/michael-flynn-resigns-national-security-trump-russia/article34008437/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&click=sf_globe&service=mobile

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.

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.

Finish the checks!

Good god man, are we still at this? Plebiscites are not binding, the government does not have to act on a plebiscite result.

http://q13fox.com/2017/02/03/customs-and-border-protection-tells-airlines-they-will-begin-reinstating-visas/

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.

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

Incorrect. A referendum can only be called on a constitutional matter.

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 anyway Most 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.

Fear. Irrational, unfounded, fear.

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.

Exactly that. The fact that it's even news shows a complete lack of research by Trump's administration. Fear trumps facts...

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.

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

I wonder - if Trump is getting bad advice or if he's just not listening to anyone? He's making changes at a rate that is unreasonable and unsustainable. The immigration ban, forcing Mexico to pay for his wall, while his VP is busy spouting off about abortion, etc. etc. etc. This all happened in their first week - they could at least give their country a little room to breathe. How many executive orders can he sign before they don't mean anything anymore?