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.
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
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.
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.
For example, Sweden is denying residency to, and sending back, almost half its current arrivals from the Syria/Iraq theater.
Getting back to substance, did you research how many of the 26K have been granted permanent residency?
The unstated premise is that the current structure of our immigration system serves any national interest.
Let's set aside the fact that immigration creates more jobs for natives than it displaces (turns out immigrants buy things just like natives do),[0] and that there's near universal consensus among economists that restrictions on the movement of goods, people, and money invariably hurt a state more than they help, and that we clearly agree with this philosophy when moving these things 3,250 miles from Anchorage to Albany, just somehow don't for the 210 miles from Ottawa.
Let's set all that aside and assume there's some coherent and humane rationale for telling people who they're allowed to do business with and where they're allowed to walk based on the random accident of what hospital they were born in.
Even then, the current administration of immigration law is nonsensical in several ways. If a citizen's brother was born in the Philippines, they would have had to apply 23 years ago for the State Department to even read their application.[1] We have a bunch of categories where we've picked quotas out of a hat that have no meaningful relationship to the country's needs. Quotas are a particularly terrible approach to rationing, especially when you have to apply in a single category, so there's no extra consideration for someone who would be valuable for multiple reasons (ie, someone who holds a unique advanced degree, is a family member of a citizen, and is fleeing persecution in another country).
The fact that all countries do something does not make it right, or even necessarily rational.[2]
[0] https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/legacy/reports...
[1] http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bull...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
N.B. - Thank you for your civil comment on a difficult topic, this is exactly why I like discussions on HN, so upvoted even though I'm adding a counterpoint.
EDIT - misplaced cite
The concept that immigration policies are usually very flawed is real, and also has been a source of frustration for me personally. I however do not expect things to change quickly at least in the US.
Worth noting that very conservative immigration policy seems to be the most "safe", the strict policy of "nobody can enter, ever" is very easy to understand, predict and monitor over time. I can imagine a situation where immigration policy is too lax, and yield unforeseen badness.
PS: thanks for being equally civil, and for a very relevant comment.
There has been a dramatic change in economic and social climate in the Americas. Our vague "ancestors" entered Canada and the US in times where it might not have been so magnificent to immigrate, and as such they were presented with incentives to immigrate and contribute to a growing economy. Never mind that some of our ancestors came in as refugees fleeing war and communism.
Today, both Canada and the US have the right to protect their national interests and prioritize the development of their own citizens above the interests of foreign nationals. All countries do this, even those perceived as the most accepting.