[phibit]

> Canada just accepted 25,000 Syrian refugees fleeing war and something much worse than communism.

This is to my point, there is less scrutiny for immigrants in 'dire straits'.

> The social and economic climate has changed dramatically, you're right. We no longer have a climate condusive to a free-for-all exploitation of Aboriginals, Africans, and the environment.

Unclear how this goes to show that anybody should be allowed to immigrate anywhere under any conditions.

Edit: straights -> straits

[DKnoll]

How long did it take for us (the West as a whole) to recognise the situation in Syria, and how many Syrians died in the meantime?

[Alupis]

> How long did it take for us (the West as a whole) to recognise the situation in Syria, and how many Syrians died in the meantime?

Should probably recognize that civil wars, genocide, and humanitarian disasters are occurring all around the world, right now, and no nation is doing anything about it (nor does the average person even know about these).

Nations of the world have no real obligation to do anything... which is why nothing is done majority of the time. When the interests of "the west" coincide with stopping an atrocity, then "the west" intervenes.

Further, it's fairly naive to believe freighting a few hundred thousand people thousands of miles away from anything even remotely familiar is doing anyone a service. It seems the help Syrian's are getting from "the west" has boiled down into a singular mindset of "just ship them someplace else", never-mind all of the long term issues that arise from this half-hearted solution (housing, income, food, work, cultural assimilation, transportation, etc...).

Bringing these people to the US or Canada doesn't solve any of their problems really - it only trades some problems for others. The real solution is obviously to stop the civil war... and work is being done to accomplish this.

[DKnoll]

>and work is being done to accomplish this.

That's the best euphemism for bombs and sponsoring what we would otherwise consider terrorist organisations I've ever heard.

[Alupis]

> That's the best euphemism for bombs and sponsoring what we would otherwise consider terrorist organisations I've ever heard

I do believe you have inadvertently made my point.

"The west" (including Canada) doesn't care about any global issue unless it conflicts with their interests. In this case, the Assad regime was/is uncooperative with the US in particular, which is why the US seized the opportunity to topple his control (via many methods, including funding known terrorist organizations which just happen to also be against the Assad regime at this moment in time).

"The west" is not involved in any other civil war or genocide at the moment, although there are many active around the world.

> >and work is being done to accomplish this.

Perhaps you're not current on events, but non-military options are being taken right now, and are looking somewhat promising.

We've gone far into the weeds here and gotten even further off-topic than we already were. I, however, feel you're the type to want the last word, so feel free.

[phibit]

Very thought-provoking question but you've now completely diverged from the original topic.

[DKnoll]

You suggested that those in 'dire straits' are treated differently, and I responded that, yes, they are, however it takes a significant amount of time and lives lost for us to recognise this.

[phibit]

It seems like you just joined a conversation about work Visas, but you had already decided you wanted to talk about Syria today.

[DKnoll]

If you look closely, you'll notice I've been talking about systemic racism this whole time.