I never said that they can't bomb a country or deny immigrants. They certainly can and are. I also never said that it needs to be fair.
I'm saying its ridiculous to be mad when people are trying to immigrate to your country for a better life and you're tell them to go back to their country & fix it when you're the one(or your close friends are) actively making it worse on purpose. I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in this.
I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.
> Speaking as an Indian: "brown" people's countries are "brown" people's own responsibilities. If their countries are messed up, they should also own the task of fixing them.
>Other countries can feel free to pitch in if it suits their interests, as you say. But the primary responsibility for our motherlands is with ourselves.
Yes this would make sense if the US & other countries had a policy of non-intervention. When the US & its allies are actively destabilizing these countries, you can't turn around and be like oh now its your fault your country is messed up and you are solely responsible to fix it after we bombed, invaded, or otherwise economically destabilized the region. The long term solution to stop people from immigrating to the US for a better life is to promote political and economic stability in those countries, ie. not bombing them, invading them, removing their leaders, promoting trade with them etc.
I live in Canada and the US is actively trying to destabilize my country through threats of annexation, disregarding trade deals and implementing tariffs, promoting separatism. What can I do to stop the US from doing this exactly? If the US ends up destroying my country, is it my fault? am I solely responsible to fix it?
> Perhaps the "brown" people can work on fixing their home countries so that they wouldn't have to emigrate in order to enjoy a better quality of life.
That's an ignorant thing to say. Even in democratic western countries, it can be very difficult for the average person to institute change even at a local level. If you have to battle corruption or war on top of that, it could be impossible. For example, would it be fair to say that a Sundanese villager should just fix their country as PMCs being hired by the UAE(and others) are committing genocide? Or would you consider that reasonable to flee the country in search of a better life?
We have to admit there are lots of cases where people can't just "fix" their own country as there are complex geopolitical issues that a normal person, or a group of normal people are not able to fix. If Americans want fewer "brown" people in their country, the idea should be to promote global economic and political stability so that people can reasonably make their countries a better place, not to just tell them to go away and fix their own problems.
The claim was there was multiple "organ harvesting scandals". Upon reading, it seems like the system worked, the doctors refused to retrieve the organs because the patient showed signs of life. It also looks like they have worked to put in place stricter protocols for organ retrieval since then.
I would say accidentally mistaking the patient is dead in any case is hardly the same as purposefully harvesting the organs from people they know are alive to get paid. The article does not state any evidence to suggest they are doing this.
There is obviously going to be some pressure to make a decision to retrieve the organs in the interest of not wasting something that could save another's life as there is a limited time frame where these organs can be viable. There is a huge distinction between that and going to patients that have no doubt they are alive and harvesting their organs.
You're making the assumption people with accents are necessarily foreign-based workers. You can be a US or Canadian citizen and have an accent.
I worked in a call center in Canada servicing Americans, I was born in Canada and lived here my entire life and I can assure you I definitely sound canadian but customer still accused me of being located in India, a place I have never even visited. So I don't think customer opinions on the matter are 100% justified and fair.
I agree with your points but they had literally stated that passenger aircraft were getting slower and provided the example of the 747 vs 787. So it was clear to me what he meant.
This isn't true though, the 747's cruise speed is the same as the 787's at 0.85 mach. The 747 has a slightly faster max speed but that's not relevant for actual travel. The 777 has a slower max speed and cruise speed than the 787 despite being older. I don't think you can realistically draw a correlation between older/newer being faster or slower on wide body aircraft.
The Official Languages Act doesn't specify which spelling or dialect you need to use for either French or English. There might be internal federal directives on which to use but its not a legal issue.
This study doesn't prove what you said though. It just says that non-EU immigrants contribute less than EU immigrants on average. It also says that both EU and non-EU immigrants make a net contribution to the UK public finances on average. Non-EU immigrants It also clearly says that Non-EEA migrants are from any country outside of the EU which could include US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
How are you going to blockade an almost 9000 km long border(with a huge variety of terrain) and a 243,000 km long coastline? The US can't even stop drugs and people coming through the 3,145 km border with Mexico. This argument also presumes that no Americans would smuggle supplies to Canada which seems unlikely to me because lots of Americans & Canadians are either related or friends.
Saying it will go away in a future administration is no different than saying this bill won't pass or will be removed by a future Canadian government. Sure it might, it might not, there is no way to tell at this juncture.
To say that it is localized to specific areas and groups in the US is wrong, ICE has been deporting people all over the country without due process. While I am sure there are some areas of the US that are unaffected, I would hardly call that localized. Not to mention the attacks on the constitution by the Trump administration which affects everyone or any number of things that this administration has been doing that is illegal.
It's not false, the Emergencies Act was only invoked from February 14th 2022 to February 23rd 2022. That's 9 days. Between 180 and 219 accounts were frozen based on the sources I found. Please tell me which part is false.
SirSavary's comment covered the military deployments so I will just say that there are numerous cases of the Trump administration deporting people without due process outside the country to places like CECOT where they are tortured. I don't think even the Trump administration denies these things.
>The source of the seizures was the gofundme leak by a hacker. Who has since >been arrested, convicted, and is in prison for a separate hacking incident. >Canada gave him immunity to his crimes during freedom protest. They took the >donor list and seized from there.
That's not true, the fundraising platforms raising funds for the convoy had to register with FINTRAC and failing that, the banks can track who is sending money to those platforms for those accounts. It even says so in the article you linked. What's the source that the government used the leak to find the accounts?
No one got "debanked", it was a temporary freeze for a few days and for a small number of accounts. I also disagree that it was to ruin the lives of those who oppose them, the money was released back to them, that seems like an odd way to ruin someone's life. Surely the tyrannical Liberal government would have been able to do more than keep them from accessing their money for a few days if they truly wanted to ruin lives.
You still are not understanding, the tx and rx are simply what speed they are connected at, not any different than your ethernet connection reporting 100 mbps or 1000 mbps, it does not mean it is actually transmitting that much data.
Is that a typo? While I don't doubt that Alexa sends some amount of data to the internet, I find it hard to believe that it uses 114 mbps per device, maybe you meant 14 mbps?
I'm not sure what is controversial about if you want to reduce people trying to come to your country then you should promote global economic & political stability so they don't have any reason to come. Especially when you are the most powerful country in the world that is already meddling in everyone's affairs.