Amazon looking for a location to have a 2nd HQ

[fmfranck]

12 hours ago, Né entre les rapides said:

 Il y a un autre point sur lequel j'aimerais connaître ton opinion:  comme on sait, le niveau d'immigration au Canada a fluctué considérablement au cours des années.  Le record en nombre absolu (400,000) a été atteint avant la première guerre mondiale; en proportion de la population totale de l'époque, c'était énorme.  Puis la source s'est tarie (ou plutôt la porte s'est refermée), l'immigration atteignant un minimum durant la grande crise économique des années 1930.  Plus récemment, dans les années 1980, le niveau était rabaissé autour de 100,000 seulement, avant de remonter à partir des années 1990 à son niveau actuel (approximativement).  Ce que j'y vois, c'est que le Canada a exercé un degré élevé de discrétion selon les époques.  La question que je t'adresse est la suivante:  qu'est-ce tu considères comme une obligation morale envers l'accueil des étrangers et comment réconcilies-tu les fluctuations observées avec lesdites obligations?

C'est un peu compliqué de commenter sur les vagues migratoires aux 20e siècle puisque c'est à travers ce siècle qu'on a vu l'instauration d'obligations pour les États en la matière. Par exemple, les cas du MS Saint-Louis (bateau transportant des demandeurs d'asile juifs refusés au Canada en 1939. Ils sont retournés en Allemagne et la moitié sont morts dans des camps de concentration) et du Komagata Maru (navire transportant des indiens refusés à Vancouver), et les lois discriminatoires sur l'immigration asiatique (d'abord Japonaise, et ensuite chinoise) du début du XXe siècle ne pourraient plus se passer de nos jours. 

Par exemple, le droit des réfugiés au Canada a connu une évolution en plusieurs étapes et qui rend difficile de comparer les chiffres entre différentes périodes : 

• Conventions sur le statut des réfugiés 1951. Le Canada est signataire.
• Loi de 1976 sur l'immigration et le statut de réfugié.
• Instauration de la Charte des droits et Libertés - 1982
• Arrêt Singh - l'équité procédurale s'applique aux demandeurs d'asile, mais aussi aux autres demande d'immigration. -1985
• Nouvelle loi sur l'immigration et le statut de réfugié - 2001.

À chacune de ses étapes, les responsabilités du Canada se précisent et augmentent. En somme, on vient appliquer les droits fondamentaux conférer par la Charte canadienne à la démarche de demandeur d'asile prévue par la Convention onusienne. 

Et ça c'est seulement pour l'immigration humanitaire. Pour l'immigration économique, le Canada n'a pas de politique d'immigration réellement jusqu'en 1976. Avant ça c'était la porte ouverte aux américains et européens dans l'ouest Canadien surtout. Comme tu dis, quand cette immigration a cessé, le nombre d'arrivants en général à baissé. 

En 1976, c'est la première loi cadre en la matière qui prévoit : 

• la “réunification des familles”,
• le principe “d’humanité et de compassion” pour l’accueil des réfugiés, et
• la satisfaction des intérêts nationaux d’ordres économique, social, démographique et culturel.

Donc, c'est vraiment depuis ce moment qu'on peut juger des chiffres sur l'immigration de manière évolutive. Avant ça c'était un peu un free for all. Le Canada était peu peuplé et acceptait des nouveaux arrivants selon le contexte : immigration économique, surtout blanche. 

En gros, la présence de nouveaux arrivants est entièrement de la discrétion du Canada. C'est un privilège et non un droit d'y être admis selon le principe de la souveraineté de l'État. Sauf que, le Canada s'est obligé, par le droit international et ensuite par son droit interne, à accepter des immigrants pour motifs humanitaires.  Mais ce système n'existe vraiment que depuis les années 80, c'est pas très loin. Le Canada, avant cela, était beaucoup moins progressiste que nous pouvons le penser. Les fluctuations des nombres d'immigrants dépendaient beaucoup plus du contexte économique et social (rejet basé sur des sentiments discriminatoires : juifs, japonais, chinois). 

En somme, je dirais que le Canada a un très bon PR. On est un peu isolé géographiquement, ce qui rend l'immigration clandestine assez compliquée. Pour cette raison en particulier, on reçoit très peu d'immigrants non-désirés. Si on regarde les pays qui sont plus proche des zones de conflits, on peut voir la disparité avec ce qui se passe au Canada. 

Demandes d'asile officielles : 
Allemagne : 198,300  demandeurs - pop de l'Allemagne 82,790,000 = 0,24% de la population totale.

Italie : 126,500 demandeurs - pop de l'Italie - 60,590,000 = 0,21% de la population totale.

Canada : 50 375 demandeurs - pop du Canada : 37,000,000 = 0,13% de la population totale.

Un dernier point intéressant, ces pays ont desfois beaucoup plus de réfugiés, sans que ceux-ci ne produisent de demande d'asile (du fait d'être sans papier sûrement). Par exemple, il y a 3,5 millions de réfugiés en Turquie présentement, mais seulement 126,110 demandeurs d'asile en 2017. Au Canada on se plaint des demandeurs d'asiles, mais on refoule environ la moitié de ceux-ci et on a aucun réfugiés sans papier. Il faut dire aussi que le nombre de demande d'asile est assez stable au Canada. 

Modifié 15 novembre 2018 par fmfranck

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 1 heure, fmfranck a dit :

C'est un peu compliqué de commenter sur les vagues migratoires aux 20e siècle puisque c'est à travers ce siècle qu'on a vu l'instauration d'obligations pour les États en la matière.

En effet.  Mes félicitations pour l'excellent résumé qui capte les faits marquants de cet aspect du 20 e siècle.?

[mont royal]

It is misleading to refer to asylum seekers as immigrants. By doing so, it raises false concerns that they are jumping the queue and displacing those who have methodically applied for immigrant status. This is not the case. The immigration process is in a separate category all together and the number of immigrants allowed into Canada is not directly affected by the arrival of asylum-seekers.

Furthermore, asylum seekers will only be in a position for permanent residence if they can achieve refugee status; which basically means that they have to prove that their lives would be in danger if they ae returned to their native land. A strong majority of the recent asylum seekers are being refused refugee status and are being deported. The biggest problem really is that it takes much effort and time to verify the potential danger a claimant might be in if they are refused refugee status.

This, is turn, often leads to another humanitarian dilemma. It can take 2 or 3 years to determine that an asylum seeker will be endangered if they return home and that therefore Canada has an internationally approved responsibility towards them, By then it is most likely that their children will have integrated into Quebec society. Their French will be fluent; In fact, most will be more Quebecois than anything else by then. Their parents will most likely have been working, and have advanced quite a bit in integrating into the local community... and then, if it is decided that that do not qualify for refugee status,, everything changes for them. They have to pack up their bags and go back to their county of origin and restart a whole new process of adaptation and reintegration..

This global dilemma will only increase in intensity in the near future. Climate change will force the uprooting of millions of people who will have no option but to leave a country that is either suffering from severe drought, or is now under water.

[jerry]

Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters

By J. David Goodman

Feb. 14, 2019

 

Amazon said on Thursday that it was canceling plans to build a corporate campus in New York City. The company had planned to build a sprawling complex in Long Island City, Queens, in exchange for nearly $3 billion in state and city incentives.

But the deal had run into fierce opposition from local lawmakers who criticized providing subsidies to one of the world’s most valuable companies. Amazon said the deal would have created more than 25,000 jobs.

Amazon’s decision is a major blow for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had set aside their differences to lure the giant tech company to New York.

As recently as Wednesday, the governor had brokered a meeting between Amazon executives and union leaders who had been resistant to the deal, according to two people briefed on the sit down. The meeting ended without any compromise on the part of Amazon, according to the people.

In recent days, supporters had begun mobilizing and felt encouraged by polls showing broad-based support for the company. Some could be seen wearing pins in support of Amazon. But those efforts did not sway many critics, who oppose the company for its anti-union practices and for the changes they feared it would bring to Queens.

State Sen. Michael Gianaris, a vocal critic who was chosen for a state board with the power to veto the deal, said the decision revealed Amazon’s unwillingness to work with the Queens community it had wanted to join.

“Like a petulant child, Amazon insists on getting its way or takes its ball and leaves,” said Mr. Gianaris, a Democrat, whose neighborhood includes Long Island City. “The only thing that happened here is that a community that was going to be profoundly affected by their presence started asking questions.’’

“Even by their own words,’’ he added pointing to their statement, “Amazon admits they will grow their presence in New York without their promised subsidies. So what was all this really about?”

To attract Amazon, city and state officials offered the company one of the largest ever incentive packages in exchange for a much larger return in jobs and tax revenue.

They agreed to remake plans for the Queens waterfront and move a distribution center for school lunches. They even agreed to give Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive access to a helicopter pad.

Under the plan, within 15 years the company could occupy as much as eight million square feet of office space.

It included a campus of office buildings for as many as 40,000 workers.

But almost as soon as it was announced, the deal was met with resistance, from local elected officials like Mr. Gianaris and progressive groups that held rallies and petitioned in Queens against the deal.

Many critics were angered that the circumvented the normal land-use process and essentially eliminated any veto power by the City Council.

The idea of scaling back plans for the New York campus was a subject that had become increasingly discussed among the Amazon’s board, according to a source familiar with the board’s deliberations. The meetings between Amazon and Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio before the company decided to come to New York led executives to believe that there would be greater political support than turned out to be the case.

The company had chosen New York as well as a site in Northern Virginia for major expansion. On Thursday, the company said it had no plans to reopen a search for a second location.

Kathyrn S. Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, said, “How can anyone be surprised? We competed successfully, made a deal and spent the last three months trashing our new partner.”

Ms. Wylde said the reception Amazon had received sent a “pretty bad message to the job creators of the city and the world.”

Here is the statement released by Amazon:

After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.

We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion — we love New York, its incomparable dynamism, people, and culture — and particularly the community of Long Island City, where we have gotten to know so many optimistic, forward-leaning community leaders, small business owners, and residents. There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and their staffs, who so enthusiastically and graciously invited us to build in New York City and supported us during the process. Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have worked tirelessly on behalf of New Yorkers to encourage local investment and job creation, and we can’t speak positively enough about all their efforts. The steadfast commitment and dedication that these leaders have demonstrated to the communities they represent inspired us from the very beginning and is one of the big reasons our decision was so difficult.

We do not intend to re-open the HQ2 search at this time. We will proceed as planned in Northern Virginia and Nashville, and we will continue to hire and grow across our 17 corporate offices and tech hubs in the U.S. and Canada.

Thank you again to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the many other community leaders and residents who welcomed our plans and supported us along the way. We hope to have future chances to collaborate as we continue to build our presence in New York over time.

Corey Kilgannon, Patrick McGeehan and Karen Weise contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/amazon-hq2-queens.html

[Megafolie]

il y a une heure, jerry a dit :

Amazon Pulls Out of Planned New York City Headquarters

By J. David Goodman

Feb. 14, 2019

 

Amazon said on Thursday that it was canceling plans to build a corporate campus in New York City. The company had planned to build a sprawling complex in Long Island City, Queens, in exchange for nearly $3 billion in state and city incentives.

But the deal had run into fierce opposition from local lawmakers who criticized providing subsidies to one of the world’s most valuable companies. Amazon said the deal would have created more than 25,000 jobs.

Amazon’s decision is a major blow for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had set aside their differences to lure the giant tech company to New York.

As recently as Wednesday, the governor had brokered a meeting between Amazon executives and union leaders who had been resistant to the deal, according to two people briefed on the sit down. The meeting ended without any compromise on the part of Amazon, according to the people.

In recent days, supporters had begun mobilizing and felt encouraged by polls showing broad-based support for the company. Some could be seen wearing pins in support of Amazon. But those efforts did not sway many critics, who oppose the company for its anti-union practices and for the changes they feared it would bring to Queens.

State Sen. Michael Gianaris, a vocal critic who was chosen for a state board with the power to veto the deal, said the decision revealed Amazon’s unwillingness to work with the Queens community it had wanted to join.

“Like a petulant child, Amazon insists on getting its way or takes its ball and leaves,” said Mr. Gianaris, a Democrat, whose neighborhood includes Long Island City. “The only thing that happened here is that a community that was going to be profoundly affected by their presence started asking questions.’’

“Even by their own words,’’ he added pointing to their statement, “Amazon admits they will grow their presence in New York without their promised subsidies. So what was all this really about?”

To attract Amazon, city and state officials offered the company one of the largest ever incentive packages in exchange for a much larger return in jobs and tax revenue.

They agreed to remake plans for the Queens waterfront and move a distribution center for school lunches. They even agreed to give Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive access to a helicopter pad.

Under the plan, within 15 years the company could occupy as much as eight million square feet of office space.

It included a campus of office buildings for as many as 40,000 workers.

But almost as soon as it was announced, the deal was met with resistance, from local elected officials like Mr. Gianaris and progressive groups that held rallies and petitioned in Queens against the deal.

Many critics were angered that the circumvented the normal land-use process and essentially eliminated any veto power by the City Council.

The idea of scaling back plans for the New York campus was a subject that had become increasingly discussed among the Amazon’s board, according to a source familiar with the board’s deliberations. The meetings between Amazon and Mr. Cuomo and Mr. de Blasio before the company decided to come to New York led executives to believe that there would be greater political support than turned out to be the case.

The company had chosen New York as well as a site in Northern Virginia for major expansion. On Thursday, the company said it had no plans to reopen a search for a second location.

Kathyrn S. Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, said, “How can anyone be surprised? We competed successfully, made a deal and spent the last three months trashing our new partner.”

Ms. Wylde said the reception Amazon had received sent a “pretty bad message to the job creators of the city and the world.”

Here is the statement released by Amazon:

After much thought and deliberation, we’ve decided not to move forward with our plans to build a headquarters for Amazon in Long Island City, Queens. For Amazon, the commitment to build a new headquarters requires positive, collaborative relationships with state and local elected officials who will be supportive over the long-term. While polls show that 70% of New Yorkers support our plans and investment, a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project we and many others envisioned in Long Island City.

We are disappointed to have reached this conclusion — we love New York, its incomparable dynamism, people, and culture — and particularly the community of Long Island City, where we have gotten to know so many optimistic, forward-leaning community leaders, small business owners, and residents. There are currently over 5,000 Amazon employees in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island, and we plan to continue growing these teams.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and their staffs, who so enthusiastically and graciously invited us to build in New York City and supported us during the process. Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio have worked tirelessly on behalf of New Yorkers to encourage local investment and job creation, and we can’t speak positively enough about all their efforts. The steadfast commitment and dedication that these leaders have demonstrated to the communities they represent inspired us from the very beginning and is one of the big reasons our decision was so difficult.

We do not intend to re-open the HQ2 search at this time. We will proceed as planned in Northern Virginia and Nashville, and we will continue to hire and grow across our 17 corporate offices and tech hubs in the U.S. and Canada.

Thank you again to Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the many other community leaders and residents who welcomed our plans and supported us along the way. We hope to have future chances to collaborate as we continue to build our presence in New York over time.

Corey Kilgannon, Patrick McGeehan and Karen Weise contributed reporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/amazon-hq2-queens.html

Wow. Tout un revirement.

[Rocco]

On pourrait leur renvoyer une boite de carton avec des cartes postales de Montréal..

[LindbergMTL]

Stunning!

[ScarletCoral]

 How Amazon’s big plans for New York City were thwarted by the city’s resurgent left wing 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/14/how-amazons-big-plans-new-york-city-were-thwarted-by-citys-resurgent-left-wing/

Amazon had stepped into a political firestorm, a cauldron of progressive energy whipped up by simmering resentments both local and national that was cresting just as the plan came together.

“Here is a company that has concentrated so much power that they think they can dictate to states and cities what they’re allowed to tell their people, how much money of theirs they want to take, to grace us with their presence,” State Sen. Mike Gianaris told reporters
 

[Djentmaster001]

NYC will lose out a few billion $ per year due to Amazon pulling out + loss of taxes from 25K high paying jobs. Big loss for them. 

[peekay]

I will never make fun of Montreal NIMBYs ever again. WOW