Those of you who followed the last Canadian elections at all closely might remember that their newly elected liberal leader Justin Trudeau made quite a point of criticizing outgoing PM Harper over the issue of Syrian refugees. While Harper advised caution and proper vetting, Trudeau referred to such concerns as a political distraction and a lack of will to simply do what must be done for humanitarian reasons. His plan was to bring at least 25,000 Syrians into the country by the end of the year and he even made a few sideways comments about Americans who were unwilling to be just as welcoming. There were a few similarities between the two countries, since Barack Obama’s more ambitious plan to bring in 100,000 Syrians was met with majority resistance at home. Trudeau also faced disapproval from the majority of Canadians, but vowed to press on.
Apparently it didn’t take more than a few terrorists sneaking over various borders pretending to be hopeless migrants fleeing the war before Canada’s leader saw the light. (Daily Caller)
Canada’s Syrian refugee plan will be limited to women, children and families from now on after increased security concerns about single males.
Citing anonymous sources, CBC News reports that the terror attacks in Paris Nov. 13 have led the government to rethink its policy. Canada is working toward getting 25,000 Syrian refugees admitted by the end of the year and is screening applicants at a rate of 100 per day to meet the quota. The announcement of the revisions are expected to take place Tuesday.
The government has been silent about what the security screening process looks like and whether it takes place at camps in Europe or in Canada.
Hrmm… not accepting Syrian males unless they are part of a family with women and children? No young, strong, single males? That sounds curiously familiar, but I simply can’t place where I’ve heard it before…
Oh, and while we’re on the subject, I meant to ask you about that whole “camp” thing you’ve been referencing. If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re looking at two options. One would be vetting people who are in camps in Europe. The other would be bringing them to Canada and putting them in camps in your own country. But if they’re not free to leave while you do the vetting, wouldn’t that be… not to put too harsh of a term on it here… sort of like internment? So wouldn’t those be, er… internment camps?
Not for nothing, but that doesn’t sound terribly liberal to me.
All snark aside, Canada’s new leader seems to be learning some hard lessons pretty quickly. Actually governing is never as easy as sitting in the cheap seats and throwing stones, is it?