Well Will Moreton I don't think there's much conspiracy other than what's flat out under our nose here. I'm neither "anti-accepting-refugee" nor "anti-accepting-immigrant". I'm "anti-accepting-illegal-immigrant" and "anti-arbitrarily-labeling-illegal-immigrants-as-refugees". To give you an example: we're bringing 25,000 Syrians into Canada and I'm quite happy about that. The most important thing though is that they will enter legally, with proper checks and naturalization through immigration authorities. So even though the media are having their little jamboree orgasm clasping on the term "refugees" into Canada (LOL), they are in veritable truth LEGAL IMMIGRANTS in this case, nonetheless; and whose tragic circumstances justify expedient, albeit legal, immigration should they please to do so. Most importantly, they are NOT seeking refuge into Canada away from war if they are departing from Turkey, unless they are air lifted or ferried straight from Syria, into Canada. In other words, they are NOT refugees even in the case of Canada. Do you find the term "refugee" sexier or something compared to "immigrant"? because the term" refugee" applies only in specific contexts and circumstances. Does it connote more compassion in your view or something? Because I find it's being used as a blanket statement to force illegal immigration as something desirable and normal, which it shouldn't. So what exactly is it that you find is being implied as "conspiracy"?