Quote:
Originally Posted by biguc
With that said, I'd actually agree that Quebec is a diversion. The real issue--and fatal flaw in CANZUK--is loss of immigration sovereignty.
I already posted this article about Nauru, but here it is again.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a...u-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees
here's another:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...hildren-in-australian-offshore-detention
If you want to make an Australian with a heart and a brain squirm, all you have to do is mention Nauru. But most Australians are as delightfully oblivious to everything--it's the source of their bluff charm--as most of the world are to Australia. If anyone paid attention, they'd be an international pariah.
Australia's illegal, human-rights-violating approach to refugee (non) settlement is obviously incompatible with Canada's, and ought to irritate every instinct we have about what it means for Canada to be a good and just country.
Being completely cynical, CANZUK could read as a play to sideload less humane immigration policies. I prefer to think its strident supporters aren't attempting an end run around our better instinct by appealing to freedom, and just haven't thought it through. |
I don't understand why you think this is the smoking — that "proves" CANZUK won't work. Firstly, if it was really a deal-breaker for a "good and just country" like Canada, wouldn't New Zealand have sought to kill the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement with Australia? Wouldn't many of the highly-regarded European social democracies have a problem with the EU outsourcing the inhumane treatment of millions of refugees to Turkey? Doesn't seem to be stopping them from being members in free-movement blocs. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and its almost impossible to manage large refugee crises in a fully just and humane way without fully opening one's borders.
Threaded Mode