Canada Girl Guides restricting scout unit travel to USA

[NJCubScouter]

The point is to eliminated criminal aliens, terror threats and other nasty things that can happen when you let your guard down.

 

You can choose to believe that if you wish.  I believe the actual point is pure showmanship.

[Back Pack]

You can choose to believe that if you wish.  I believe the actual point is pure showmanship.

Then you believed this when the last administration did this?

 

Or you can read the executive order and eliminate any doubt your have.

[Col. Flagg]

You can choose to believe that if you wish.  I believe the actual point is pure showmanship.

 

Can you highlight for me the part where anyone is being targeted due to race, religion or ethnicity?

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

[Rick_in_CA]

But if you look at what @@backpack posted, it hasn't really.

 

Actually, the report that @@backpack posted says it is too early to tell, it is expected to do reduce travel. A pair quote from the article:

While there is a strong level of concern on the possible spillover effects related to inbound travel in general, it is too soon to tell how large an impact this action will have on the travel industry.

and

In light of recent events, it seems prudent revisit the economic effects of the executive order banning refugees and migrants from Muslim majority countries as measured by the Council on Foreign Relations. From Edward Alden, Senior Fellow at CFR:

 

"A Muslim ban, or any targeted or broad-based ban on foreign visitors from countries with significant Muslim populations, would also have consequences well beyond the direct effect on travelers. It would hurt the economies of communities dependent on tourism. A ban on these travelers also would spill over to federal, state, and local budgets via decreased tax revenues. And depending on how other nations react, it could have still broader consequences for travel, trade, and investment."

 

Alden estimates the effects of a travel ban to be an economic loser. Direct spending losses “could range from $14 billion to $30 billion [per year]. Adding in indirect (multiplier) effects... increases this range to $31 billion to $66 billion. The loss of jobs could range from 50,600 to 132,000.†Alden also notes the effect of educational travelers, noting the loss to be around “15 percent of the total foreign student spending, or $4.6 billion†and the indirect cost of losing foreign graduate students in the sciences, which could weaken foreign investment as foreign business travelers face new hurdles in reaching the United States.

So I think it is fair to say that the statement "the report says it hasn't" is incorrect.

[Col. Flagg]

 

Actually, the report that @@backpack posted says it is too early to tell, it is expected to do reduce travel. A pair quote from the article:

and

So I think it is fair to say that the statement "the report says it hasn't" is incorrect.

 

Look at the numbers, not the verbiage. The numbers are going up, not down. Yes, that's a picture in time but for now the numbers are up.

 

Time will tell if the verbiage of a reduction comes true.

[Rick_in_CA]

Then you believed this when the last administration did this?

The problem here is that the Obama administration did nothing of the sort (we all should have learned by now that just because Trump tweets or says something, doesn't mean it's even remotely true).

 

What the Obama administration did in 2011 was too slow down the processing of refugees from Iraq while the screening procedures were expanded.

http://www.businessinsider.com/big-differences-between-trumps-immigration-ban-obamas-2011-policy-2017-2/

Edited March 15, 2017 by Rick_in_CA

[Rick_in_CA]

Look at the numbers, not the verbiage. The numbers are going up, not down. Yes, that's a picture in time but for now the numbers are up.

 

Time will tell if the verbiage of a reduction comes true.

The numbers in the report all are from before the Trump executive order. Which is why it says "too early to tell".

[RememberSchiff]

Having read the Canadian volunteers being turned back from traveling to aid a NJ church, should the Jambo organizers proactively inform US Customs and Border Protection which countries are sending scouts and their names?

 

Let's try to keep this discussion scout related.

[Col. Flagg]

The numbers in the report all are from before the Trump executive order. Which is why it says "too early to tell".

 

Look at their February numbers.

[Cambridgeskip]

Since the discussion had turned to the Candian Girls and the British teacher, the first part of your comment ("Well, of course the recent governmental activity is going to adversely affect travel.") appeared directed at that current issue and not to the future probability.

 

And no, the whole point of the policy is NOT to reduce travel to the US. The point is to eliminated criminal aliens, terror threats and other nasty things that can happen when you let your guard down. Canada does that today too. The result may be a slight drop in travel. I will take better vetting procedures for increased safety any day. We do that in Scouting now. We do background checks to keep the Scouts safe.

 

 

 

One guy got turned back. He's Muslim so everyone starts crying foul because one guy got turned back.

 

Below is a list of all the various things the Customs and Border Patrol has to deal with in January. How many Muslims do you think were in this data? How many were turned back? It is not a perfect system by any means. Heck, the system even went dark last month in a few major ports of entry. But when you deal with this much incoming and out-going stuff you have to have a system. Some times it works. Some times it doesn't. But just because one guy gets turned back does not mean it was because of race, religion, nationality or anything else. It could be a good old mistake. 

 

Month: 1/2017

Trucks: 900,901

Loaded Truck Containers: 655,175

Empty Truck Containers: 236,176

Trains: 3,288

Loaded Rail Containers: 168,914

Empty Rail Containers: 86,767  

Train Passengers:  16,048 

Buses: 20,763

Bus Passengers: 261,237  

Personal Vehicles: 8,539,345 

Personal Vehicle Passengers: 16,313,043

Pedestrians: 3,757,048  

 

https://transborder.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_Index.html

 

Once again I accept your point, to a certain extent. However..... and bear with me if this sounds like it's going at a tangent, this is all tied in.

 

Imagine, if you will, that you are an educated man living in Victorian London. You are appalled at the social deprivation you see in working class districts, in particular what becomes of the children there, many of who end up in work houses or get drawn into criminal gangs and the like and you want to do something about it. To get public attention. To get people to listen.

 

You could go into politics, you could try telling people about the statistics. Of how many children die, how many are orphans. etc.

 

Or you could do something far more effective.

 

You could write a novel called Oliver Twist.

 

Charles Dickens is a great hero of mine. His ability to make his point with a fantastic story packed with colourful characters and with a wry sense of humour. @@Stosh will have to forgive me if I sometimes find his brand of humour a touch Dickensian! That's a compliment by the way.

 

What's this got to do with the price of fish?

 

Human beings aren't very good with large numbers and what they mean. We haven't evolved that way. For most of human history we have only had to cope with numbers into the hundreds. Sheep in a heard, days in a year, people in the village. That's why when you start talking about millions of people coming in and thousands of trucks, planes etc the brain doesn't compute. Ironically it is (partly) why people struggle with the fact that terrorism is as small a risk as it is. They don't see the hundreds of millions that are never effected by it, they see the small numbers (comparitively) killed in individual incidents. Fact remains that you are more likely to be killed by your own alarm clock than by a terrorist in the western world.

 

Back to those millions of passengers on thousands of trucks etc. All the stats in the world don't beat one really good story in terms of being influential. That story can be the story of an orphan in work house in Victorian England who runs away and gets taken on by a gang of thieves in London. Or it could be the story of a muslim man turned away from the USA shortly after the US president says he wants to stop all muslims coming in.

 

The fact is that this story, and others like it, has got legs. And those legs will run. 

 

If the US government wants to sooth and alay the fears of those who wish to travel to the USA then they are going to have come up with as equally an interesting counter story. Statistics, much as the scientist in me wish they would, just don't cut it.

[ianwilkins]

 And, not to try to steer this thread back to the subject of Scouting or anything, it is probably going to adversely affect attendance at the 2019 World Jamboree, ... It will be interesting to see whether there is any impact on the enthusiasm of the nations of Europe, etc. for this world jamboree.

I Will do my very best to encourage as many of mine to apply. Though we only have very limited spaces. They only get one shot at going to a Jamboree as a young person, so in a way it's irrelevant where it is.

[Rick_in_CA]

Look at their February numbers.

I'm sorry, but I've looked carefully through the posted report and I don't see any February numbers. What am I missing?

[Back Pack]

If the US government wants to sooth and alay the fears of those who wish to travel to the USA then they are going to have come up with as equally an interesting counter story. Statistics, much as the scientist in me wish they would, just don't cut it.

Your premise is flawed. We just had an election on the topic. Rather than be reactionary about security like the last administration did, the current administration wants to be proactive. It's got nothing to do with tourism. We'd rather be secure and accept credible travelers than to even risk letting in one Berlin or Paris bomber.

 

If that means a few folks get their feelings hurt because they were denied entry, so be it.

[Cambridgeskip]

Your premise is flawed. We just had an election on the topic. Rather than be reactionary about security like the last administration did, the current administration wants to be proactive. It's got nothing to do with tourism. We'd rather be secure and accept credible travelers than to even risk letting in one Berlin or Paris bomber.

 

If that means a few folks get their feelings hurt because they were denied entry, so be it.

 

I think you've missed my point.

 

It's not an either or argument. It's not about hurting anyone's feelings or otherwise.

 

The US government can of course do what it wants with regard to security. It may also, and indeed areas of the country that are highly dependent on tourism may like it, want to ensure that those who would otherwise not be turned away aren't scared off. It doesn't have to chose. It can do both. I am sure there are different branches of the executive there to do both. And if it chooses to do both a narrative, a story, something that makes it personal is a more effective method of doing so than dry statistics about all those people who have no doubt entered the country without difficulty. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by RememberSchiff
typos

[Eagledad]

Back in the mid 90's when forums and discussion groups were just becoming a tool for the interest they represented, I remember the Canadian Scouts basically dominating the Scouting Web with the discussions and resource sites to find just about anything a scouter needed to improve their program. Canadian Scouts at the time was considered by all the best of the best in scout programs. There were many discussions from the American scouters to how the BSA could change and follow some of their examples.

 

Then all that changed overnight. I remember clearly the Canadian Scouters announcing their exit of the forums because their organization was making major changes in the program. I don't remember the particulars about it, but politics and activism was given all the blame. As I read the little bit of information of this story, I can't help but feel that the tail is still wagging the dog in Canada, and now at another county. So this is Globalism.

 

Barry

Edited March 16, 2017 by Eagledad