Sunday, November 22, 2015

General rules, specific outcomes, and #refugees

The S.S. St. Louis was a ship full of unscreened potential refugees with unproven economic potential coming from a war zone filled with enemies of Canada and the United States, but seeking refuge.

We see the rejection of the St. Louis' would-be refugees as a tragedy, but by the standards many people advocate for determining which refugees we should accept, we would turn it around again today.

Rules should be general, not specific. Sometimes our general rules will not give us the specific results we want and bad things will happen. We'll let in a criminal, a spy, or a radical, or we'll condemn innocent people we could have saved to die. Perfection isn't an option, and neither is a costless policy.

Whether or not we should have a rule that would require us to turn away the St. Louis today is arguable, not a discussion beyond the pale. But people who advocate for that rule should have to own up to the potential costs of their preferred policy, not just preach the virtues of caution.


Bec said...

First and foremost, the SS St Louis was indeed a travesty mostly because it was a different time and generation of experiences. Much different.

Now, re your "But people who advocate for that rule should have to own up to the potential costs of their preferred policy, not just preach the virtues of caution."

The word "preach" is your undoing. The word "preach" suggests or may I be so bold as to say, condemns anyone who has an identifiable challenge with the refugee relocation strategy. THEY are as entitled to speak their minds, challenge the process, question their safety, worry about terrorists, dislike the expense at the cost of the unemployed and the soon to be over taxed Canadians but I will conclude.

They ARE NOT preaching. They have concerns and should be allowed to be heard and not silenced.

dmorris said...

There is no comparison between the SS St.Louis and today's Syrian refugee situation. The shipload of educated and talented Jews can hardly be compared to the Syrians, unless one has been thoroughly indoctrinated with the "all cultures are equal" fantasy.

The disgraceful episode concerning Canada was our anti-semitic Prime Minister and his fellow traveller in Immigration,Frederick Blair,and, as Mordechai Richler opined, the silence of the wealthy and politically powerful Montreal Jewish community.

In a poll of Liberal Party members a few years ago, Mackenzie King was voted "Canada's greatest Prime Minister", even beating Pierre Trudeau. Liberals were willing to overlook Mac's foibles, and I doubt most of the LPC were even aware of M-K's disgraceful role in sending these 900 plus people to their death.

The Syrian refugees face no such fate if they are kept in refugee camps in the ME, there is NO group contemplating a "final solution" to the Syrian crisis. We can bring some refugees to Canada,and hope they become productive citizens, but we aren't the wealthy Nation we once were,and we have plenty of problems right here that need solutions. The approximately 1-2 billion the government estimates it will cost to settle this year's 25,000 is not coming from a bottomless money pit, and rest assured,when the government makes an estimate, it will usually be exceeded by at least 50%.

Mr.Trudeau's zeal to pander to the Muslim community is only exceeded by his naivety. Canada would be well advised to discuss the situation with EU Countries that have allowed large numbers of ME immigrants, they might be surprised to discover it's not working out as well as the pro-immigration zealots imagined.

Bernier's bad bet

Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press Maxime Bernier is taking a gamble. He believes that there is a large, disenfranchised voting bloc in Canada...