Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: SirJohn on March 01, 2017, 02:58:57 pm
-
My views on immigration haven't really changed in 35 years, since I was working as a security guard and had a lot of immigants living in my building and working with me. I wondered why they were in Canada.
I remember when security guards finally signed up with a union to improve lousy pay, no benefits, etc. The company locked us out and brought in a whole bunch of new security guards, most of them immigrants who would work for almost nothing and didn't care about the working conditions. Bringing in low skilled immigrants lowers wages for lower skilled Canadians, and only helps big companies who want cheap labour.
Since then the number of foreign born people in Canada has grown by an enormous degree, to the point where they outnumber Canadians in some cities, and their numbers continue to grow. I like Canada. In fact, I liked it as it was twenty or thirty years ago. I don't want it changed to suit a bunch of damned foreigners.
If we must have immigration, they should be self-supporting, and they should all make a commitment to assimilate, a commitment to embrace our culture and our values. If they can't or won't do that they shouldn't come here. If they break a law or can't support themselves, they should leave.
Too many immigrants are criminals. Oh, I know we don't keep official statistics, but I can see it in the media when there are street killings and when pimps and drug dealers are named and shown. I can see it in the wanted posters the police put out. I know damn well the street gangs are full of people whose first language is not of this continent. It's ridiculous that we can't just deport these people. We should make the path to citizenship harder, and longer and make it easier to deport people before they get there.
-
Thing is immigration doesn't breed the crime, it's their level of poverty. There's lots of great immigrants. Whether you're white 10th generation Canadian or 3rd world immigrant, poverty level is a strong predictor of crime When you take in refugees from poor countries like Somalia or Rwanda etc. because their life is threatened there, they come over often with very little wealth. Then they might have to live in community housing or low-income neighbourhoods, they may not be highly educated, and some can turn to crime, and their life might still suck so they turn to drugs to cope, and some people they meet in their neighboorhood are into drugs & crime & they get involved in that stuff with them.
Very similar reason why, ie: African-Americans in many parts have high crime rates. It's not their skin colour or religion etc it's that they're poor.
-
Thing is immigration doesn't breed the crime, it's their level of poverty. There's lots of great immigrants. Whether you're white 10th generation Canadian or 3rd world immigrant, poverty level is a strong predictor of crime When you take in refugees from poor countries like Somalia or Rwanda etc. because their life is threatened there, they come over often with very little wealth. Then they might have to live in community housing or low-income neighbourhoods, they may not be highly educated, and some can turn to crime, and their life might still suck so they turn to drugs to cope, and some people they meet in their neighboorhood are into drugs & crime & they get involved in that stuff with them.
Very similar reason why, ie: African-Americans in many parts have high crime rates. It's not their skin colour or religion etc it's that they're poor.
Then we should either not take in refugees or take in a lot fewer so they can be properly set up, educated and given a skill. If Canada wants to help world refugees we could accomplish far more by giving money to places like Jordan and Lebanon and Turkey where there are vast camps for refugees than we can by taking them in here and putting them on welfare.
-
Geez. thats a real shame that you don't like it. I think its fine. I know a lady who works for a cleaning contractor. The ownership changed and to be kept on she needed to accept lower wages. She accepted because she needs the pay and she is a low skilled worker. I don't think she should be blamed and vilified for accepting lower wages. I think the vilification and blame belongs to her boss who would not have kept her on if she refused.
You thought, as a striking low skilled person, that the only cost involved was you'd go without pay for a while. You were wrong. Thats not the fault of the people who took the employment right out from under you. The fault belongs with the managers who actually hired them to undermine and defeat the strike and probably pay them less to boot. I know its surprising when the folks with the money play for keeps. But you blame the scabs.
Bringing in lower skilled folks doe's indeed have a adverse effect on low skilled workers wages. But then, in your system, Self-supporting immigrants will most definitely have a depressive effect on low skilled wages. I suspect you know this. If so then you complaint against low wages is mere cover for what really bugs your arse. The world isn't as it was 30-40 years ago. Things have changed. You don't like that. You think immigrants made change happen. And your are very very wrong.
-
Bringing in lower skilled folks doe's indeed have a adverse effect on low skilled workers wages. But then, in your system, Self-supporting immigrants will most definitely have a depressive effect on low skilled wages. I suspect you know this. If so then you complaint against low wages is mere cover for what really bugs your arse. The world isn't as it was 30-40 years ago. Things have changed. You don't like that. You think immigrants made change happen. And your are very very wrong.
The problem with people who think of themselves as progressives, is they often find it impossible to discuss anything in a logical, rational manner. They need to work a righteous condemnation in of the person they're arguing with, after all. And if they didn't say anything the progressive can actually disagree with - as in yes bringing in lots of low skill workers depresses wages - well then, simply come up with the 'hidden agenda' which actually motivates the person you're arguing with. There you go! Now you can work up that self-righteousness into a level where you can stroke your own ego by showing how much better you are as a person!
So, never mind the actual argument. Instead focus on reading between the lines to discern my nefarious evil motives instead! Straw men burn so well, after all.
Here's a clue, junior. I don't have any need to cover up my motivations. I say what I mean, so stop trying to figure out what my secret motivation is because I don''t have any.
-
But it isn't about depressed wages for the non skilled. You said you don't like how things are now. You liked how things were 30-40 years ago. You have blamed immigration for how things have changed. Scabs and people working for less have been around since the ice ages. It isn't something new because immigrants. Your argument is an obvious straw man.
-
The problem with people who think of themselves as progressives, is they often find it impossible to discuss anything in a logical, rational manner. They need to work a righteous condemnation in of the person they're arguing with, after all.
That has to be the most hilarious comment I have read yet.
-
Just out of curiosity, do you think women should be in the workforce? Because coincidentally 30-40 years ago there was an explosion of women entering the workforce. What effect do you think that had on wages?
-
But it isn't about depressed wages for the non skilled. You said you don't like how things are now. You liked how things were 30-40 years ago. You have blamed immigration for how things have changed. Scabs and people working for less have been around since the ice ages. It isn't something new because immigrants. Your argument is an obvious straw man.
I gave several reasons for why the current immigration system is failing. Yes, I liked things the way they were before, when we had no street gangs, for example, when we didn't have drive-by shootings every week, when you could walk down the street in the middle of the city without running into homeless people. But what I said, essentially, was I have no desire to see Canada changed/altered to resemble that of the third world cultures our immigrants originate in.
But the importation of tens of thousands of low skill workers is something I've been complaining about since, well, I was low skilled. It helps banks and big business but harms lower skilled workers in the same way as much of the Temporary Foreign Worker program damages both low skilled and higher skilled workers by depressing the job market and what companies have to pay to get employees.
-
Just out of curiosity, do you think women should be in the workforce? Because coincidentally 30-40 years ago there was an explosion of women entering the workforce. What effect do you think that had on wages?
I think it obviously depressed wages and had a negative impact on families. It also had the affect of changing the negative choice of women in ways that perhaps was not intended by those who campaigned for womens rights. Ie., instead of women not having the choice of going out and working they now largely don't have the choice of staying home.
-
You know that statistically your city is safer than the good old days, right?
-
You know that statistically your city is safer than the good old days, right?
I doubt that. We came close to setting an all-time record for murders last year, in addition to an all-time record for shootings. Most, apparently, coming from the 'immigrant community'.
But to clarify, I'm not nostalgic for the 50s (before my time) or even the 60s. I don't find today terrible. What I don't want is to see us looking like Germany or France or Sweden, with a large, sullen mass of foreigners in our midst who despise us because our ways are not their ways.
You know, the guy who has been cutting my hair for about the last twenty years is a Lebanese immigrant. You couldn't ask for a better immigrant. He's adapted to Canada, started a business, works hard, and is raising his kids as Canadians. But then... he's Christian. Give me 80,000 more guys like him instead of 40,000 Syrians and I won't complain.
-
I think it obviously depressed wages and had a negative impact on families. It also had the affect of changing the negative choice of women in ways that perhaps was not intended by those who campaigned for womens rights. Ie., instead of women not having the choice of going out and working they now largely don't have the choice of staying home.
Well, for someone like me, staying home was never a choice. If I couldn't go out and earn a living wage I have no idea what my life would be like.
But the importation of tens of thousands of low skill workers is something I've been complaining about since, well, I was low skilled. It helps banks and big business but harms lower skilled workers in the same way as much of the Temporary Foreign Worker program damages both low skilled and higher skilled workers by depressing the job market and what companies have to pay to get employees.
Before joining the Republicans, Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Free Soil Party, a political movement that opposed slavery based not (exclusively) on moral grounds but rather because they viewed slavery as an assault on the wages of laborers. So this train of thought is at the very least 170 years old, and in my opinion still valid. The TFW program was certainly exploited to tilt the labor market in favor of employers.
But I'm not sure that all of the immigrants should be just assumed to fall under the heading of unskilled labor. When my dad worked at Nortel, the senior engineer in his department was an older gentleman from the Middle East. I don't know which country exactly, but dad thought he was great and they sometimes went on business trips together. I met him several times, and he was tremendously nice. I don't mention this to suggest that dad's old coworker is typical of Middle Eastern immigrants, but just to point out that some people coming from the region may have valuable skills. There are... or there used to be, at least... some good colleges in the Muslim world, probably built by well-intentioned dictators trying to push their countries forcefully in to the 20th century.
But to clarify, I'm not nostalgic for the 50s (before my time) or even the 60s. I don't find today terrible. What I don't want is to see us looking like Germany or France or Sweden, with a large, sullen mass of foreigners in our midst who despise us because our ways are not their ways.
One thing I recall reading in regard to Sweden is that their immigrants have been so great in number and so overwhelmingly young males that the national gender balance in the late teens and young adult age bracket is now on the order of 133 males per 100 females. China, after decades of the one-child policy and preference for male offspring, has a similar gender imbalance through all age brackets, and a variety of social problems have resulted from it. Sweden is on a path toward disaster if they continue with such idiocy.
In regard to Germany, their big problem is that young men from the "Maghreb" countries file bogus refugee claims to come to Germany, live in Germany while their claims are processed, and refuse to leave Germany after their claims are rejected. Germany can't even deport them... their home countries refused to take them back.
You know, the guy who has been cutting my hair for about the last twenty years is a Lebanese immigrant. You couldn't ask for a better immigrant. He's adapted to Canada, started a business, works hard, and is raising his kids as Canadians. But then... he's Christian. Give me 80,000 more guys like him instead of 40,000 Syrians and I won't complain.
I remember there being a hair salon in Rideau Centre owned by a Muslim family. Well, I don't know for a fact that they were Muslims, but male visitors appeared to be taken to one side of the shop by a male stylist, while female visitors went to the other side with a female stylist... I always assumed that was a Muslim thing. I've seen lots of other Muslim owned businesses as well... restaurants and shawarma stands and "Quality Zabiha!" foods, and so on... and I'm sure there are plenty of other Muslim entrepreneurs that don't have a sign on their shop that declares "hey everybody! Muslim business here!" I've worked with Muslims in my age group who I assume were either first-generation Canadians, or born outside Canada and well-integrated. Nothing in my personal experience agrees with the notion that Muslims who come to Canada end up as poorly-integrated unemployable deadbeats who hate everybody. I'm sure that there are some portion who do fit that description, but I see no reason to assume Muslims in general are worse than the average newcomer in that respect. Now, you've mentioned Ottawa has issues with Somalis in particular. Perhaps Somalis who end up in Canada are often refugees, as opposed to economic immigrants who come here with employable skills?
-k
-
Well, for someone like me, staying home was never a choice. If I couldn't go out and earn a living wage I have no idea what my life would be like.
I honestly have no answer to the question about whether women are better off than they were. I guess the answer is yes and no. Some are, some aren't. My mom used to talk about the 'glory days' in the 50s when she and the other mothers would take their kids to the park and picnic and basically have the day together, almost every day then get ready for their husbands to come home so they could party (no TV no video no games, MUCH socializing). It didn't sound horrible. But for some energetic and brilliant women it was extremely confining. It's good those women can now have careers. But let's not forget, the majority of women do not have careers. They have jobs, just like most men, jobs they'd just as soon not have to get up and go out in the cold to every winter, but which they have no choice because in today's economy one salary is rarely enough to get by on. Not to mention women no longer leave their dad's house for one with their husband in their early twenties. A lot of those women I have spoken to would much rather be home with kids than working at some crummy, unsatisfying job.
The TFW program was certainly exploited to tilt the labor market in favor of employers.
There's no getting around the law of supply and demand.
But I'm not sure that all of the immigrants should be just assumed to fall under the heading of unskilled labor.
I never suggested all of them do. But clearly, too many do. We don't need statistics to see this because we run into them all the time - although the statistics on the deteriorating economic success of immigrants is clear. One interesting aspect of the US system is that economic immigrants already have job offers or actual jobs when they get here, unlike ours. That might be something we want to look at changing.
There are... or there used to be, at least... some good colleges in the Muslim world, probably built by well-intentioned dictators trying to push their countries forcefully in to the 20th century.
My understanding is there are actually NO good colleges in the Muslim world. And what colleges they have focus their energy and pride on learning more about Islam. All those glittering buildings in the gulf are designed by westerners. Their oil infrastructure is maintained by westerners. Most of their professionals are westerners. I would expect them to hire a lot more Arabs if there were really good Arabs to be hired.
In regard to Germany, their big problem is that young men from the "Maghreb" countries file bogus refugee claims to come to Germany, live in Germany while their claims are processed, and refuse to leave Germany after their claims are rejected. Germany can't even deport them... their home countries refused to take them back.
Most of the immigrants crossing our borders illegally right now appear to be from this same region, as well as a little further south, Somalia, Nigeria and Sudan.
I remember there being a hair salon in Rideau Centre owned by a Muslim family.
I wasn't mentioning him merely because he was economically successful but because I've spoken to him often in the last twenty years and he has made an honest effort to raise his kids as Canadians and to involve himself in Canadian society beyond the Lebanese community. My next door neighbor, meanwhile, is Canadian born, but I've never seen a non-Arab go into his house (and he has a lot of visitors) and all the women wear Arab robes and head scarves, including his wife. He makes sure his kids speak Arabic and learn about 'home' and takes them back frequently, sometimes for months at a time so they won't lose their culture. Which is what his parents did with him...
Now, you've mentioned Ottawa has issues with Somalis in particular. Perhaps Somalis who end up in Canada are often refugees, as opposed to economic immigrants who come here with employable skills?
They also come from a society which has been at war forever, with no real government, industry or school system, leading a hardscrabble existence where you take anything you can because nobody will give you a thing. There is little sense of morality about a dog eat dog world, and when they come here they find themselves in paradise, making extensive use of every social welfare advantage they can, regularly getting their food at food banks and their clothes at the Salvation Army - regardless of whether they can afford their own. In my old building it was well known that every family claimed multiple kids, and if by chance an inspector called to visit they would simply borrow the extras from relatives or friends. Crime is also clearly a byproduct of where they came from, as they congregate in male only gangs (naturally, since they don't speak English on arrival and young Somali girls are not allowed out with boys), get into trouble, and escalate into violence.
But this was easily foreseen, and few of them are actual refugees as opposed to economic migrants. Canada needs to be a lot more careful about who it takes in as a refugee, since that's a virtual guarantee of citizenship. And it needs to find a way to deport people a lot faster.
-
I honestly have no answer to the question about whether women are better off than they were. I guess the answer is yes and no. Some are, some aren't. My mom used to talk about the 'glory days' in the 50s when she and the other mothers would take their kids to the park and picnic and basically have the day together, almost every day then get ready for their husbands to come home so they could party (no TV no video no games, MUCH socializing). It didn't sound horrible. But for some energetic and brilliant women it was extremely confining. It's good those women can now have careers. But let's not forget, the majority of women do not have careers. They have jobs, just like most men, jobs they'd just as soon not have to get up and go out in the cold to every winter, but which they have no choice because in today's economy one salary is rarely enough to get by on. Not to mention women no longer leave their dad's house for one with their husband in their early twenties. A lot of those women I have spoken to would much rather be home with kids than working at some crummy, unsatisfying job.
Sure, I like my job, but if money just magically appeared in my bank account, I'd probably be doing something different with my life.
Independence is a big deal for me. The idea of being financially dependent on a man to take care of me is pretty terrifying... it would be terrifying for me even if I were heterosexual.
For some lucky few, their work might be a source of fulfillment... for many more, it's a means of survival, and for an increasing number, work is barely even that.
Leaving aside the question of whether women find their jobs fulfilling... let's also consider something else that's changed since this idealized world of the olden days.
women no longer leave their dad's house for one with their husband in their early twenties
Few men in their early twenties are able to support themselves financially, let alone a wife and a child. While current Baby-Boomer thinking is that "kids these days don't know how to get out and work... when I was your age, blah blah blah etc" that's not the case. For young people entering the job market, a high-paying job isn't easy to find, a home and even rent are very expensive, and most young people don't have enough spare money to look support a non-working spouse, even if they aren't paying off student loans. People are getting married later and having kids later, and in large measure it's because they don't feel they have the financial stability to do those things earlier in life.
-k
-
Sure, I like my job, but if money just magically appeared in my bank account, I'd probably be doing something different with my life.
I guess my point was that or every woman who got a career as a doctor, lawyer or accountant there are hundreds working at Wal-Mart or at fish factories.
Independence is a big deal for me. The idea of being financially dependent on a man to take care of me is pretty terrifying... it would be terrifying for me even if I were heterosexual.
That's because of the culture you were raised in. It wasn't considered important in the 50s. Of course EVERYONE was heterosexual in the 50s, even if they weren't.
Few men in their early twenties are able to support themselves financially, let alone a wife and a child.
Granted, though that was the introduction to this sort of sub-topic, ie whether the introduction of 100% more workers into an economy depressed wages. My mother's father worked as an elevator operator. On the princely salary this paid he supported a non-working wife (well, she did take in some laundry sometimes) and eight children. They were poor but no one starved. My uncle worked as a armored car guard. He supported a non-working wife and three children, bought his own house with an in-ground swimming pool, and had a fairly comfortable time. But the economics of these lower skilled jobs have vastly changed in the intervening years.
-
I guess my point was that or every woman who got a career as a doctor, lawyer or accountant there are hundreds working at Wal-Mart or at fish factories.
And I'm sure a lot of men feel the same way, even if their jobs pay reasonably well.
That's because of the culture you were raised in. It wasn't considered important in the 50s. Of course EVERYONE was heterosexual in the 50s, even if they weren't.
I imagine that even in the idyllic days of yesteryear there were women who stayed in terrifying abusive relationships because they financially had no other option. Independence, for me, isn't just a little trophy I can stick on a shelf. It's being able to provide for my own security and live the life I want to.
Granted, though that was the introduction to this sort of sub-topic, ie whether the introduction of 100% more workers into an economy depressed wages. My mother's father worked as an elevator operator. On the princely salary this paid he supported a non-working wife (well, she did take in some laundry sometimes) and eight children. They were poor but no one starved. My uncle worked as a armored car guard. He supported a non-working wife and three children, bought his own house with an in-ground swimming pool, and had a fairly comfortable time. But the economics of these lower skilled jobs have vastly changed in the intervening years.
30 years ago, my dad was making money roughly comparable to what I'm making now, adjusted for inflation, and he was supporting a stay at home wife, toddlers, and had a 3 bedroom house with a yard and a garage. Today on a similar income I've got 2 plants and a 1 bedroom apartment the size of a phonebooth, and I'm still strapped for cash.
The economics have definitely changed, and these "when I was your age..." anecdotes tend to reinforce the point.
-k
-
The economics have definitely changed, and these "when I was your age..." anecdotes tend to reinforce the point.
-k
Granted. The question is, what changed them?
-
Granted. The question is, what changed them?
Politicians genuflecting at the altar of supply-side economics.
-
CBC criticizes JT for misleading people about the ease of relocating to Canada; turns out its not so easy.
This year, the government says it plans to take in 40,000 refugees within the total target number of 300,000 new immigrants in 2017. These numbers sound generous, but the reality is that Canada's immigration policy is very selective in terms of who gets citizenship. Our nation's immigration process involves a point system that scoops the cream of the crop from a long queue of applicants, which is hardly the wide-open door implied by Trudeau.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-message-to-refugees-1.4051008
-
CBC criticizes JT for misleading people about the ease of relocating to Canada; turns out its not so easy. http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-message-to-refugees-1.4051008
That we turn down one third of in-country asylum seekers is hardly reassuring. In most countries it's more like 90%. The fact is tact is that by the time someone gets this far they're country shopping, not fleeing persecution. That's what the safe third country measures recognize. All those Africans and Mexicans, soon to be joined by Romanians coming into Canada are doing so because they are economic migrants who don't qualify or who don't want to spend the time immigrating by the normal route.
-
Refugees and immigrants are two different animals. The same rules do not apply to both.
-
Refugees and immigrants are two different animals. The same rules do not apply to both.
Granted, the article was confused on that matter. It spoke of both. On the other hand, refugees are a large segment of our immigration stream.
-
That we turn down one third of in-country asylum seekers is hardly reassuring. In most countries it's more like 90%. The fact is tact is that by the time someone gets this far they're country shopping, not fleeing persecution. That's what the safe third country measures recognize. All those Africans and Mexicans, soon to be joined by Romanians coming into Canada are doing so because they are economic migrants who don't qualify or who don't want to spend the time immigrating by the normal route.
I'd like a citation on that 90% figure.
-
I'd like a citation on that 90% figure.
You beat me to it. :)
-
That we turn down one third of in-country asylum seekers is hardly reassuring. In most countries it's more like 90%.
According to DHS, they accepted 47% of their asylum seekers in 2015. http://tinyurl.com/m4uoope
The European Union accepted 61% of asylum seekers in 2016, on first review. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics
Russia accepts between 2% and 5% of asylum seekers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_and_asylum_in_Russia
Isreal accepts about 1% ... http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.600617
Harder to get figures for Middle East and Africa. Japan doesn't seem to accept any refugees and China does, although not Syrians.
-
CBC criticizes JT for misleading people about the ease of relocating to Canada; turns out its not so easy. http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-message-to-refugees-1.4051008
Our nation's immigration process involves a point system that scoops the cream of the crop from a long queue of applicants, which is hardly the wide-open door implied by Trudeau.
The points system is only for skilled workers. Roughly half of the immigrants who are coming into Canada are specifically for economic/skilled benefit to the country. The rest are spousal applications, "humanitarian and compassionate" cases, refugees, family reunification etc.
-
The points system is only for skilled workers. Roughly half of the immigrants who are coming into Canada are specifically for economic/skilled benefit to the country. The rest are spousal applications, "humanitarian and compassionate" cases, refugees, family reunification etc.
In reality, most of those who come in under the skilled worker program are not skilled workers but their families. After that comes the 'family reunification program' where potential immigrants do not face screening for language, education or job skills, then refugees, who likewise face no such screening, then a few obscenely rich people, mostly Chinese and Russians, permitted to buy passports to keep in their wall safes at home. They don't intend to move here but just want the passports in case needed.
Also, immigrants entering the US under their skilled worker program must have a job offer in advance, we make no such demand.
-
I feel like I am contributing to the shittiness of this debate, in general, by not being up on the facts.
My understanding:
-we do some attitudinal screening on immigrants
-Harper wanted more
-some other politicians wanted more
-nothing has changed
Is that right ?
-
I feel like I am contributing to the shittiness of this debate, in general, by not being up on the facts.
My understanding:
-we do some attitudinal screening on immigrants
-Harper wanted more
-some other politicians wanted more
-nothing has changed
Is that right ?
We have NO attitudinal screening on immigrants. It was eliminated many years ago.
Harper never suggested any that I'm aware of. Polls taken by the Toronto Star and CBC showed 2/3rds of Canadians agreed with her, including majorities of both Liberal and NDP voters.
Only Kellie Lietch ever suggested it.
-
We have NO attitudinal screening on immigrants. It was eliminated many years ago.
Harper never suggested any that I'm aware of. Polls taken by the Toronto Star and CBC showed 2/3rds of Canadians agreed with her, including majorities of both Liberal and NDP voters.
Only Kellie Lietch ever suggested it.
Ok.
-
There are problems with our immigration policy yes.
However saying there are problems with our immigration policies and then in the next breath inferring immigrants are criminals based on subjective anecdotal observations is illogical.
Whether immigrants commit crimes is determine by using proper objective methodology. If anything research and statistics has not shown imigrants are necessarily criminals or more likely to be criminals and I would invite Sir John to provide the research where it shows this.
I would suggest there is a reason his posts on immigrants always return to his subjective anecdotal observations and no hard proof.
He would also dismiss articles like this:
https://crdcn.org/immigrants-and-crime-evidence-canada
https://www.immigroup.com/news/does-immigration-cause-more-crime
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/79009/3/Jung_Seyun_Maria_201706_PhD_thesis.pdf
My comment is that immigration policy should be based on:
1-bringing in to Canada needed skilled workers
2-bringing in to Canada needed skilled trades people
3-bring in to Canada legitimate foreign investors and businesses that would expand operations into Canada hiring Canadians and contributing
to our economy.
Believe it or not our immigration policy tries to do the above. Its not perfect, its cumbersome, people try take advantage of it and misrepresent themselves to get in via 1-3 but its there and tries to do the above with an expedited entry process if the applicant meets the entitlement criteria.
Where we have problems is not with legitimate immigrants coming in with 1-3 above. They are screened and have to speak English or French if goingt o Quebec., its with:
4-family reunification
5-bogus refugee applications
6-illegal immigrant entry now flooding our borders.
In regards to 4, in particular countries and cultures where arranged marriages are the norm, family reunification has been abused and thousands of prospective brides are finding themselves dumped and on welfare in Canada as people use marriages as a way to get citizenship and then leave their wives.
In regards to 5, the current refugee process is flooded with persons who can not speak English or French and can not qualify for immigration so use the refugee process as a method to circumvent the immigration application process they know they would be rejected from.
In regards to 6 which is closely related to 5, coyotes, or people smugglers working with organized crime, organized terrorist cells, organized paedophole and **** rings use the refugee process and illegal entry as their primary methods to smuggle people in and out of the country being used in sex rings, to transport drugs, weapons, etc.
Our current government and past Liberal governments and Conservative governments have failed to reform the refugee system. We signed onto a UN Refugee Convention agreement that we then incorporated into our federal immigration laws which fails to understand reality. It was drafted by elitist academics from sheltered environments who had no clue what the real world is.
Had we truly been interested in helping refugees we would simply each year go to refugee sites and bring in a certain amount of refugees after setting up private sponsors via churches, mosques, synagogues and non profit organizations. This was what Stephen Harper did and Trudeau decided to take credit for the Syrian refugees Harper brought in. After posing and using these refugees as monkey props handing them winter coats and giggling, trudea was off to another photo shoot. Those refugees he posed with were privately sponsored.
Since then what the Trudeau government has done is allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to flood into Canada. In fact Canada signed a convention that said if people came into Canada applying for refugee statys from "designated" nations, they would be deported back to those nations and asked to apply for refugee status in those nations. The United States is one of those nations.
What has happened is Trump has **** down on illegal immigrants and so they now after living in the US 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 years have packed their bags, and take buses and taxis to the Canadian border where they walk across our border.
The Canadian government has told them, if you enter a legal port of entry, i.e., a border crossing and apply for refugee status, you'll be sent back to the US where you will probably lose your refugee hearing application-but if you come across the border illegally, you CAN apply for refugee status and the designated country rule won't apply.
In the interim while you wait for your hearing we will put you up in a hotel and give you free dental and medical care not to mention prescription medication, education and training benefits-in fact we will treat you better than actual Canadian citizens and far better than Canadian native peoples who Trudeau likes to cry and shed tears over.
Trudeau's Immigration Minister, a Somali refugee, with a direct conflict of interest will make sure anyone coming illegally will get a hearing.
Oh by the way, if your hearing takes too long, you can argue your Charter rights for a speedy hearing were violated. Oh hey now, what with the huge back log that means tens of thousands of you now waiting in hotels automatically can make that argument to get permanent and instant citizenship.
As well while Trudeau and his Immigration Minister allow Canada to be flooded with illegals who then apply for refugee status, the Refugee Board has told its members to follow a decision by Board Member Lois Figg, that says people from Nigeria should mot be considered refugees meaning what exactly?
No one rejected is deported. We don't do that.
As of today we have about 2-8,000 Nigerians coming to Canada each month illegally all from the US. But no worries our RCMP help them climb in off US soil.
There is the problem. We have made it impossible for legitimate refugees to come to Canada. The legitimate refugees live within walking distance of conflict zones in squalid facilities, suffering from tuberculosis, diaheria, typhoid fever, malaria, stomach parasites, e-coli or being **** by their fellow refugees. Who the hell wants them.
So we have a class of illegals flooding are borders who are neither immigrants or refugees.
They are rewarded for breaking our law by being protected by the Charter the moment they step foot on Canadian soil illegally
So our problem is not with immigrants or for that matter refugees.
Our problem is with a government that is allowing illegal immigration because it will use this to pander to ethnic votes to try get re-elected.
It also allows this current government to say if you question this illegal immigration you are anti immigrant and a racist.
No I am the son of a father whose parents were immigrants and a mother who was a refugee deported simply because she was a Jew and had to get special dispensation from a Senator in the Canadian government to stay as her medical discipline was badly needed in Montreal.
I am a Canadian- a product of immigrants (as are all Canadians) and a refugee (as some are).
I was born in Canada and taught to be bilingual and taught aboriginals were the first Canadians and everyone else came after.
I was taught to respect the British legal system and French culture of Quebec.
I am a boring Canadian.
So when I hear people **** on genuine immigrants which most Canadians are I say shut up. When I hear people **** on genuine refugees, I say shut up.
When I see bull **** liberal guilt elitists apologizing and allowing people to break the law and jump the line ahead of genuine immigrants and refugees I challenge it.
I also challenge Sir John because to me he is no different than Trudeau. He sees all immigrants in one stereotype category.
Trudeau uses it to pander thinking all immigrants blindly support illegal immigration because he Trudeau is a racist bigot. Its why he went to India flipping and flopping in black face mimicking what he thought Indians were. He's just Eddy Cantor singing Mamee in black face.
As for Sir John, I have no time for people who spit on immigrants. Immigrants built this country. We are all immigrants.
The fact that people are taking advantage of loopholes is because our idiot politicians allow those loopholes to pander for ethnic votes.
Stop scapegoating legitimate Canadian immigrants and refugees who build this country and want to build it and do not commit crimes and discuss concrete solutions to get rid of the loopholes such as:
1-deport all illegals now coming in who do not come in at a port of entry back to the US;
2-deport all refugee applications back to designated countries (safe countries they came from before Canada)for refugee hearings
3-deport illegals back to their countries of origin or offer them the option of working as employees of the Canadian government to be placed in specified communities in the North to build roads, houses, infrastructure for aboriginal and other communities.
That is a start.
-
In fact Canada signed a convention that said if people came into Canada applying for refugee statys from "designated" nations, they would be deported back to those nations and asked to apply for refugee status in those nations. The United States is one of those nations.
I believe that agreement only applied to official border crossings where it is enforced. If you have a legal argument against that please make it.
-
There are problems with our immigration policy yes.
However saying there are problems with our immigration policies and then in the next breath inferring immigrants are criminals based on subjective anecdotal observations is illogical.
Your entire long, blathering post seems to be based on the idea that someone, at some point, somewhere or other, 'inferred' that "immigrants" are criminals.
But virtually none of the complaints regarding the effectiveness of our immigration system is based on immigrant crime. And I rarely mention it myself.
Most opposition to our present form of immigration is based on:
A. Economics
B. Values/culture
C. The ability for Canada to assimilate
When discussing problems with immigration I would say 90%+ of my posts are with reference to the above.
Whether immigrants commit crimes is determine by using proper objective methodology. If anything research and statistics has not shown imigrants are necessarily criminals or more likely to be criminals and I would invite Sir John to provide the research where it shows this.
Given Canada keeps no crime statistics based on race or place of origin - by design - that's impossible, of course. Then again, I have never stated that immigrants, as a whole, are 'more likely to be criminals'. This is again a straw man of your own construction.
By the way, why have several levels of government vowed to not keep statistics based on race or origin? Their stated purpose is 'to not give support to racists'. That reason only works if the crime rate is higher among certain races or ethnic groups.
I would suggest there is a reason his posts on immigrants always return to his subjective anecdotal observations and no hard proof.
Yes. See above. When liberal governments vow that keeping such statistics will not be done then it's rather hard to show 'proof'.
Here's a fun game. Spot the white guy:
https://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/crime/most-wanted.asp
Would you care to make a suggestion about why, when visible minorities make up 20% of the population every wanted list seems to have mostly visible minorities?
Yes, yes, visible minorities aren't 'necessarily' immigrants, but according to the government only 30% are born in Canada and that includes lots of kids. Now maybe you turn your brain off whenever you see such lists, but some of us are more open minded and wondering.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/wanted
1-bringing in to Canada needed skilled workers
2-bringing in to Canada needed skilled trades people
3-bring in to Canada legitimate foreign investors and businesses that would expand operations into Canada hiring Canadians and contributing
to our economy.
I have no issue with any of that. But you ignore other factors, such as cultural adaptability. Do you have any problem with importing tens of thousands of people who hate Jews every year and believe wholeheartedly in various conspiracies involving Jews? If not, then perhaps you could petition the government to do so and ask that they all live in your neighbourhood.
So our problem is not with immigrants or for that matter refugees.
There is a major problem with refugees. There are still problems with immigration. The language tests administered abroad by independent schools seem to have fairly low standards in many places. Various studies have shown the literacy rate among immigrants is very low, and that this is a strong contributor to poor economic results. In addition, too many immigrants come in as sponsored people without much in the way of skills, and many of the skills are not aligned properly with job needs here.
I also challenge Sir John because to me he is no different than Trudeau. He sees all immigrants in one stereotype category.
You clearly have read virtually nothing I've written. Your complaints about immigration and refugees are, for the most part, mirror images of what I have been saying. Are you drunk, by chance? Are you replying to the wrong person? Perhaps you could take a single thing I have actually written and reply to that rather than what you imagine I might have said or 'inferred' at some point or other in some post or other.
As for Sir John, I have no time for people who spit on immigrants. Immigrants built this country. We are all immigrants.
Yeah, that's a crock of ****. It's the mindless, dreary pablum of the unthinking Left. People born and raised here are not immigrants, legally, psychologically, emotionally or culturally. I have no idea why this ridiculous cliche continues to be so popular. Migration built almost every country on earth. The ancestors of most of the people in the UK migrated from France, Germany and Scandinavia in the distant past. They don't say "we're all immigrants'. Hell, everyone in Europe's ancestors migrated from somewhere else at some point in time. Nobody there says 'we're all immigrants'. The only place on Earth where people's ancestors were always there is Africa.
And saying 'Hey, immigrants built this country so we have to continue to have heavy immigration' is as intelligent as saying 'Hey, slavery built this country, so we have to continue to have slavery!"
-
My views on immigration haven't really changed in 35 years, since I was working as a security guard and had a lot of immigants living in my building and working with me. I wondered why they were in Canada.
I don't want it changed to suit a bunch of damned foreigners.
If we must have immigration,
Too many immigrants are criminals. Oh, I know we don't keep official statistics, but I can see it in the media when there are street killings and when pimps and drug dealers are named and shown. I can see it in the wanted posters the police put out. I know damn well the street gangs are full of people whose first language is not of this continent. It's ridiculous that we can't just deport these people. We should make the path to citizenship harder, and longer and make it easier to deport people before they get there.
Sir J the above is not couched by the other words you pad around the crux of your sentiment.
Your denial you suggested immigrants are criminal is bull ****,
You do not differentiate between legitimate immigrants and refugees from illegitimate ones.
You engage in slurs against all immigrants.
I stand by my blather, you hide from yours.
-
Sir J the above is not couched by the other words you pad around the crux of your sentiment.
Your denial you suggested immigrants are criminal is bull ****,
You do not differentiate between legitimate immigrants and refugees from illegitimate ones.
You engage in slurs against all immigrants.
I stand by my blather, you hide from yours.
Saying too many are criminals is not saying all immigrants are criminals. And it is self evident most of our street crime is from ethnic groups which are primarily immigrant. You can hide from the facts in your politically correct indignation if they frighten you but I see no reason to.
You sound like those precious police and social workers in the UK who reacted with indignation and accusations when people began complaining about large groups of Pakistani men molesting young white girls. They simply ignored the evidence and called the complainers bigots.
-
Saying too many are criminals is not saying all immigrants are criminals. And it is self evident most of our street crime is from ethnic groups which are primarily immigrant. You can hide from the facts in your politically correct indignation if they frighten you but I see no reason to.
You sound like those precious police and social workers in the UK who reacted with indignation and accusations when people began complaining about large groups of Pakistani men molesting young white girls. They simply ignored the evidence and called the complainers bigots.
Got a cite for any of this? Actually as immigration has increased here, crime has decreased.
-
There are problems with our immigration policy yes.
However saying there are problems with our immigration policies and then in the next breath inferring immigrants are criminals based on subjective anecdotal observations is illogical.
Whether immigrants commit crimes is determine by using proper objective methodology. If anything research and statistics has not shown imigrants are necessarily criminals or more likely to be criminals and I would invite Sir John to provide the research where it shows this.
He will tell you - and he's right - that we don't gather such statistics because we're afraid of the backlash. Which means that the backlash is going to happen anyway at some point, because there is no public engagement on the topic.
So we are effectively in a cycle of autocracy on this topic.
--- ---
My answer would be for governments to separate discussion of multiculturalism & social cohesion with immigration, and to submit the former topic to an all-topic committee. There is no advantage anymore of having social policy in the political realm, as we can see that a political candidate can grab attention by attacking the fabric of society itself. Create all-party committees to work out sensible approaches to these things, including engagement with the public and gathering truly held concerns from all points of the political compass in Canada.
My comment is that immigration policy should be based on:
1-bringing in to Canada needed skilled workers
2-bringing in to Canada needed skilled trades people
3-bring in to Canada legitimate foreign investors and businesses that would expand operations into Canada hiring Canadians and contributing
to our economy.
Believe it or not our immigration policy tries to do the above. Its not perfect, its cumbersome, people try take advantage of it and misrepresent themselves to get in via 1-3 but its there and tries to do the above with an expedited entry process if the applicant meets the entitlement criteria.
Where we have problems is not with legitimate immigrants coming in with 1-3 above. They are screened and have to speak English or French if goingt o Quebec., its with:
4-family reunification
5-bogus refugee applications
6-illegal immigrant entry now flooding our borders.
In regards to 4, in particular countries and cultures where arranged marriages are the norm, family reunification has been abused and thousands of prospective brides are finding themselves dumped and on welfare in Canada as people use marriages as a way to get citizenship and then leave their wives.
In regards to 5, the current refugee process is flooded with persons who can not speak English or French and can not qualify for immigration so use the refugee process as a method to circumvent the immigration application process they know they would be rejected from.
In regards to 6 which is closely related to 5, coyotes, or people smugglers working with organized crime, organized terrorist cells, organized paedophole and **** rings use the refugee process and illegal entry as their primary methods to smuggle people in and out of the country being used in sex rings, to transport drugs, weapons, etc.
Our current government and past Liberal governments and Conservative governments have failed to reform the refugee system. We signed onto a UN Refugee Convention agreement that we then incorporated into our federal immigration laws which fails to understand reality. It was drafted by elitist academics from sheltered environments who had no clue what the real world is.
Had we truly been interested in helping refugees we would simply each year go to refugee sites and bring in a certain amount of refugees after setting up private sponsors via churches, mosques, synagogues and non profit organizations. This was what Stephen Harper did and Trudeau decided to take credit for the Syrian refugees Harper brought in. After posing and using these refugees as monkey props handing them winter coats and giggling, trudea was off to another photo shoot. Those refugees he posed with were privately sponsored.
Since then what the Trudeau government has done is allow hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to flood into Canada. In fact Canada signed a convention that said if people came into Canada applying for refugee statys from "designated" nations, they would be deported back to those nations and asked to apply for refugee status in those nations. The United States is one of those nations.
"Illegal immigrants" is now a political term. Refugees are processed according to a system. If there is a crisis, then the government's job is to manage the system to deal with it.
Trudeau stupidly implied that we were changing policy in response to Trump's blocking of Muslims coming to the US and that set a beacon to attract more refugees. Of course the government hadn't planned for that.
Yet another reason to take this kind of morality out of the political realm.
The Canadian government has told them, if you enter a legal port of entry, i.e., a border crossing and apply for refugee status, you'll be sent back to the US where you will probably lose your refugee hearing application-but if you come across the border illegally, you CAN apply for refugee status and the designated country rule won't apply.
Yes but 'has told them'... isn't right. Nothing changed there. Their problem was moral signalling ... which was done for political reasons.
I was born in Canada and taught to be bilingual and taught aboriginals were the first Canadians and everyone else came after.
I was taught to respect the British legal system and French culture of Quebec.
I am a boring Canadian.
Boring Canadians engage in respectful debate, so I ask you to use the term 'refugee' rather than the populist bullshit term of illegal.
So when I hear people **** on genuine immigrants which most Canadians are I say shut up. When I hear people **** on genuine refugees, I say shut up.
When I see bull **** liberal guilt elitists apologizing ...
Yes, let's be real.
-
Boring Canadians engage in respectful debate, so I ask you to use the term 'refugee' rather than the populist bullshit term of illegal.
No one entering from the US is a refugee.
People who deliberately refuse to cross at manned border crossings between the US and Canada are illegally entering the country.
The are illegal migrants.
Insisting on using inaccurate words because you find the accurate words make you uncomfortable is exactly the kind of crap that fuels the populism you complain about.
-
Trudeau stupidly implied that we were changing policy in response to Trump's blocking of Muslims coming to the US and that set a beacon to attract more refugees. Of course the government hadn't planned for that.
I completely reject that statement.
-
No one entering from the US is a refugee.
People who deliberately refuse to cross at manned border crossings between the US and Canada are illegally entering the country.
The are illegal migrants.
Insisting on using inaccurate words because you find the accurate words make you uncomfortable is exactly the kind of crap that fuels the populism you complain about.
I'm afraid it is your words that are inaccurate. Crossing the border not at a point of entry is not an offense either under the criminal code or the immigration act as long as you do properly report your claim "without delay".
-
Got a cite for any of this? Actually as immigration has increased here, crime has decreased.
A cite that most of our street crime is ethnic? or that most visible minorities are immigrants? Stats Can says 70% of visible minorities are immigrants. As for street gangs, shootings, and the like, one only has to read the papers or check the most wanted sites for the rcmp.
Or did you mean a cite for the Pakistani **** gangs which thrived for decades under the protection of politically correct government agencies? Another batch of 20 was convicted just last week.
https://nationalpost.com/news/20-men-jailed-for-sex-abuse-of-teenagers-in-northern-england
-
Richmond, BC, a city which is now 70% Asian, most of them immigrants from China. Does anyone really wonder why a lot of people who grew up there would feel lost and frustrated?
https://nationalpost.com/feature/richmond-b-c-in-search-of-cultural-harmony-in-north-americas-most-asian-city
-
I completely reject that statement.
Which part ? He tweeted that Canada would accept refugees, in response to the American policy ... and then there were more refugees at our border.
-
The are illegal migrants.
Insisting on using inaccurate words because you find the accurate words make you uncomfortable is exactly the kind of crap that fuels the populism you complain about.
I am not uncomfortable, I seek clarity and commonality of language. If they are entering illegally, how is there a process wherein they are allowed to stay ?
I ask honestly and sincerely.
-
Richmond, BC, a city which is now 70% Asian, most of them immigrants from China. Does anyone really wonder why a lot of people who grew up there would feel lost and frustrated?
https://nationalpost.com/feature/richmond-b-c-in-search-of-cultural-harmony-in-north-americas-most-asian-city
'Asian' ?
I think people who grew up there were Canadians of Asian descent. Do they feel uncomfortable ?
I reject the idea that people who don't like the sight of non white people should be listened to. If we are at the point of social violence or somesuch then that's terrible but we have to look at safety matters. I don't think we are there.
-
I am not uncomfortable, I seek clarity and commonality of language. If they are entering illegally, how is there a process wherein they are allowed to stay ?
I ask honestly and sincerely.
They are allowed to stay until it is determined whether or not they have a valid claim. If not they are sent home. Many have been.
-
They are allowed to stay until it is determined whether or not they have a valid claim. If not they are sent home. Many have been.
If it's illegal to cross at the border, why aren't they charged ?
If it's not illegal why isn't it allowed ?
-
A record number of people around the world are fleeing war, persecution and armed conflict. Canada accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of the overall refugee population in the world.
-
If it's illegal to cross at the border, why aren't they charged ?
If it's not illegal why isn't it allowed ?
They are not charged because it is not an offense under either criminal code or immigration law. But as I say, failing to report and make a claim for assessment can get you deported.
-
A record number of people around the world are fleeing war, persecution and armed conflict. Canada accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of the overall refugee population in the world.
And while being humane is an important part of our approach to immigration, I saw an interesting TV segment recently which made the case that we need to increase our inflow, especially of younger people, lest we end up a bunch of old fogies waiting for pension checks while nobody is working and paying tax to support them.
-
And while being humane is an important part of our approach to immigration, I saw an interesting TV segment recently which made the case that we need to increase our inflow, especially of younger people, lest we end up a bunch of old fogies waiting for pension checks while nobody is working and paying tax to support them.
While that's generally true, Sir John has posted articles that counter it. Now, there were counter arguments to THAT...
but the whole thing was so damn fact based that nobody wanted to pursue it...
-
While that's generally true, Sir John has posted articles that counter it. Now, there were counter arguments to THAT...
but the whole thing was so damn fact based that nobody wanted to pursue it...
Well lets face it, you can search around to find articles to support your opinion no matter what it may be. If you're a right winger, go to the Fraser Institute for support for instance. However the fact of Canada's ageing population is proven by multiple government documents that are simply facts, not biased. Your birth certificate is one such example. And the fact we are not having many babies to replace the old farts is another. We need people on the payroll.
-
Well lets face it, you can search around to find articles to support your opinion no matter what it may be.
Right but arguments have elements of argument and logic that sometimes make sense.
-
'Asian' ?
I think people who grew up there were Canadians of Asian descent. Do they feel uncomfortable ?
I reject the idea that people who don't like the sight of non white people should be listened to. If we are at the point of social violence or somesuch then that's terrible but we have to look at safety matters. I don't think we are there.
Why are you people fixated on race? If you grew up somewhere and still lived there and now the city was full of people who didn't speak English or share your culture or values would you not care so long as they were white? You didn't bother to even read the cite, did you.
-
They are allowed to stay until it is determined whether or not they have a valid claim. If not they are sent home. Many have been.
Cite.
-
And while being humane is an important part of our approach to immigration, I saw an interesting TV segment recently which made the case that we need to increase our inflow, especially of younger people, lest we end up a bunch of old fogies waiting for pension checks while nobody is working and paying tax to support them.
So you think letting in tens of thousands of impoverished, largely uneducated people from the third world who will immediately go on the welfare rolls will help that?
-
So you think letting in tens of thousands of impoverished, largely uneducated people from the third world who will immediately go on the welfare rolls will help that?
Don't worry, we don't do that.
-
. However the fact of Canada's ageing population is proven by multiple government documents that are simply facts, not biased.
Thank God Trudeau promised to double the number of elderly immigrants last election, then! And he's now promised to double it again next year!
-
Don't worry, we don't do that.
We do it every year. You think these migrants are brain surgeons?
-
Cite.
I suggest you google IRCC.
-
So you think letting in tens of thousands of impoverished, largely uneducated people from the third world who will immediately go on the welfare rolls will help that?
I think the ones you so disrespectfully refer to will become educated, get off the welfare rolls, take up jobs and pay taxes. That's what built this country in the first place. I can't help that you have a special place in your heart for non whites.
You do understand that your OAP check comes out of taxpayer dollars right?
-
They are not charged because it is not an offense under either criminal code or immigration law. But as I say, failing to report and make a claim for assessment can get you deported.
That's not quite true. I believe it's only illegal to cross at a non-port of entry if your claim is rejected or not deemed legit, but they virtually never charge people in that case since they're just going to deport you anyways.
Personally, since the US is a safe country (no matter the hyperbole about Trump) they should make it illegal to cross at a non-port in virtually all cases. I also think nobody residing or coming from the US should even be allowed to make a refugee claim since it is a safe country, which is the whole point of the agreement.
-
That's not quite true. I believe it's only illegal to cross at a non-port of entry if your claim is rejected or not deemed legit, but they virtually never charge people in that case since they're just going to deport you anyways.
Personally, since the US is a safe country (no matter the hyperbole about Trump) they should make it illegal to cross at a non-port in virtually all cases. I also think nobody residing or coming from the US should even be allowed to make a refugee claim since it is a safe country, which is the whole point of the agreement.
Well you just supported the point I just threw out there, currently it's not "illegal" to simply cross our borders elsewhere than at a point of entry if you have a valid claim. That's the law as it stands. If you choose to be a trumptard well then that's your choice.
-
Why are you people fixated on race? If you grew up somewhere and still lived there and now the city was full of people who didn't speak English or share your culture or values would you not care so long as they were white? You didn't bother to even read the cite, did you.
Huh ? You said 'Asian' which is a geocentric descriptor of people, not me. But it's also rather unspecific. Widely, it could mean Israelis, Russians, Indians, Pacific Islanders etc.
And you need to do more than come up with a dreamlike scenario of a poor white boy returning to his town to see McClusky's hardware store is now a Sushi Parlor/Bubble Tea Emporium.
Your scenario doesn't make sense to me, but my town is small and white - not a suburb to a huge city. And I confess I didn't get past your post to read the cite, no.
-
Well you just supported the point I just threw out there, currently it's not "illegal" to simply cross our borders elsewhere than at a point of entry if you have a valid claim. That's the law as it stands.
Yes that's basically right. I researched it once. You're technically an "irregular immigrant" if you make a claim right away and it turns out to be valid, and an illegal immigrant if you don't make a claim right away or it is eventually deemed not valid/rejected.
-
I suggest you google IRCC.
So you have nothing.
-
I think the ones you so disrespectfully refer to will become educated, get off the welfare rolls, take up jobs and pay taxes. That's what built this country in the first place. I can't help that you have a special place in your heart for non whites.
You do understand that your OAP check comes out of taxpayer dollars right?
I'd have to google OAP to even know what it means - though I'm quite sure a sophomoric mouth-breather like you has all the social welfare definitions memorized. Your fantasy that uneducated adults who don't speak English are going to magically acquire an education and get a job sufficiently well-paying to pay taxes is as out of touch with reality as everything else you write.
-
Huh ? You said 'Asian' which is a geocentric descriptor of people, not me.
And if you were't too intellectually lazy to read the **** cite you'd understand why it was used.
And you need to do more than come up with a dreamlike scenario of a poor white boy returning to his town to see McClusky's hardware store is now a Sushi Parlor/Bubble Tea Emporium.
Its not a fantasy, which you would know if you had read the cite.
-
That's not quite true. I believe it's only illegal to cross at a non-port of entry if your claim is rejected or not deemed legit, but they virtually never charge people in that case since they're just going to deport you anyways.
Personally, since the US is a safe country (no matter the hyperbole about Trump) they should make it illegal to cross at a non-port in virtually all cases. I also think nobody residing or coming from the US should even be allowed to make a refugee claim since it is a safe country, which is the whole point of the agreement.
As far as it now appears no one is being deported. No manpower to follow up on removal orders even when they exist on failed refugee claimants.
-
A record number of people around the world are fleeing war, persecution and armed conflict. Canada accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of the overall refugee population in the world.
Yes NIW finish the comment. Find out what percentage of refugee applicants in Canada in fact are coming from such countries. Very few if any. Next you might want to find out what the definition of a convention refugee is and wht it may not even include people fleeing civil wars.
-
They are allowed to stay until it is determined whether or not they have a valid claim. If not they are sent home. Many have been.
Not true. Canada does not deport failed refugee applicants at this time.
-
As far as it now appears no one is being deported. No manpower to follow up on removal orders even when they exist on failed refugee claimants.
How many claims have been denied though? The claims take time to process especially if there's big influx.
-
If it's illegal to cross at the border, why aren't they charged ?
If it's not illegal why isn't it allowed ?
It is illegal to cross into Canada other than at a legal port of entry. However any illegal entrant who asks for an application for a refugee claim is being given one at this time. Because of that policy decision which is not based on law but political opinion, instead of deporting illegal entrants back to the US they are allowed to stay and make their refugee claim in Canada and any removal procedure is stayed until after the refugee determination process is exhausted. Even then, once the process is exhausted and a removal order is issued based on another policy issue, Canada does not deport rejected refugee applicants. I repeat it does not at this time and has not for the last 4 years.
There is what is called a designated safe country list. If someone comes to Canada from or via a designated safe country they are not allowed to apply for refugee status in Canada. They must apply in the designated safe country first and only if rejected in that country could they try again in Canada.
The reason our borders are now flooded will migrants applying for refugee status after entering illegally and not at a point of entry is because your government chooses to ignore the designated safe country rule with illegal entrants and only enforces it with refugee applicants entering a port of entry.
Your government has chosen to break it's own laws and encourage a deliberate double standard rewarding illegal entrants the right to be exempt from the designated country rule for political reasons. It should be blocking all illegal entrants and not allowing them the right to apply for refugee status and send them back to the US. However this current regime openly stated it is against the designated country rule so breaks it sending a message to thec world that imigrants can enter illegally from the US and will be allowed to make a refugee claim.
Today the vast majority centering Canada illegally from the US do so because they know the port of entry route via the US still automatically disqualifies them from a refugee application since the safe country rule is still applied to port of entry refugee claimants and the US and for that matter Mexico are considered safe designated nations.
The current state of allowing illegal entrants to avoid disqualification to apply for refugee status from the US as long as they do not enter legally at a port of entry is a travesty. It is a deliberate political decision designed to make a mockery of the safe thid country rule. It is done to pander to ethnic votes as well.
Your government rewards people who break immigration entry laws. It punishes those who line up for years to get in and now chokes our refugee determination process with illegals who have lived in the US for years and now come to Canada fearing Trump.
This was deliberately done as Trudeau openly stated he would take in US illegals to show we were more tolerant than Trump.
It was an attempt at holier than thou grandstanding. Now we have more and more failed Nigerian refugee claims. No these people are not deported. They continue to live and work in Canada. We are not deporting them. Many can not speak English and are on welfare now. After their 12th month in Canada federal aid stops.
A refugee applicant gets 25,000 in money in assistance plus free dental, Ohip and housing as well as career counselling in the first year before getting cut off. In magic month 12 refugees suddenly find themselves having to go on welfare if they don't speak English well enough to get a job. Many get jobs no Canadian will do. There are jobs at minimum wage that don't require skills. This is what we use such people for, filling the jobs no one else wants.
Its a device to find and trap pernanently marginalized cheap employees to do the **** jobs Canadians are too good for and won't take.
-
How many claims have been denied though? The claims take time to process especially if there's big influx.
True as well. Big delays not withstand the prescribed time lines. . But trust me, no deportations. Hell they take forever to remove hardened criminals which take priority and they have vey small no,
's of CBSA and other enforcement officers to track down and deport. It's a fiasco at this point and believe me the fugitive or illegals know it,
-
MH SAID..
"Illegal immigrants" is now a political term..
Yet another reason to take this kind of morality out of the political realm.
Yes but 'has told them'... isn't right. Nothing changed there. Their problem was moral signalling ... which was done for political reasons.
Boring Canadians engage in respectful debate, so I ask you to use the term 'refugee' rather than the populist bullshit term of illegal.
So when I hear people **** on genuine immigrants which most Canadians are I say shut up. When I hear people **** on genuine refugees, I say shut up."
I respond....
Illegal immigrant is a legal term not a political term the way I have used it. You lump me in with those you stereotype through projection as using it as a term to hate all immigrants. I and most Canadians know the difference between illegal and legal immigrants and do not ask or need you to dictate to mevwhat words we can use because you are politically correct and stereotype people like me who use specific terms you choose to give another meaning to.. You are no different than Sir J. You both engage in stereotyping.
Next don't lecture me on what a refugee means. It's there for anyone to find out. In law it has a specific definition as set out under the UN Convention and then incorporated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I discuss the legal definition of refugee under those laws. An illegal immigrant is one who entered Canada illegally and / or overstays a visa or has a removal order issued against them and refuses to leave and avoids expulsion.
I talk of the law. If you want to try accuse me of using illegal immigrant as a term to insult legal and legitimate immigrants screw you. You are a bigot for lumping all immigrants in one category not me. You also speak like a presumptuous racist elitist patronizing privileged pompous ass who does not get it. You do not get the privilege to presume to tell Mr what an immigrant is thank you. Legitimate migrants came here following rules and laws. They did not break laws. Who the pack are you To patronize that and lump us all in with those making a mockery of the laws...save your patronizing liberal guilt for someone else.
Next if you want to pretend illegal does not mean illegal engage yourself not me.
Next, you want to ignore the legal definition of refugee and change it to suit your guilt of the day cause knock yourself out. Your need to widen the definition is for your subjective political views. I discuss the law not your subjective views.
One last thing. Neo Nazis I get. In my face anti immigrants I get. When you and Sir J couch your stereotypes trying to sound politically correct from the left or the right YOU BOTH SUCK THE SAME LEMON.
I have corrected the spelling.
-
Its a device to find and trap pernanently marginalized cheap employees to do the **** jobs Canadians are too good for and won't take.
No, it's a device to artificially suppress wages which would have to rise to attract workers were it not for a steady stream of desperate, low skilled newcomers.
-
It is illegal to cross into Canada other than at a legal port of entry. However any illegal entrant who asks for an application for a refugee claim is being given one at this time. Because of that policy decision which is not based on law but political opinion, instead of deporting illegal entrants back to the US they are allowed to stay and make their refugee claim in Canada and any removal procedure is stayed until after the refugee determination process is exhausted.
From what I've read, according to the UN refugee convention you can't punish a refugee claimant from crossing at a non-port if they make a claim ASAP. I assume the spirit of this is so people fleeing for their lives don't have to potentially risk their lives by having to divert to a legal port, or can't get caught fleeing by their own country and not allowed out etc. But that's virtually never the case for people coming from the US.
Even then, once the process is exhausted and a removal order is issued based on another policy issue, Canada does not deport rejected refugee applicants. I repeat it does not at this time and has not for the last 4 years.
Cite?
There is what is called a designated safe country list. If someone comes to Canada from or via a designated safe country they are not allowed to apply for refugee status in Canada. They must apply in the designated safe country first and only if rejected in that country could they try again in Canada.
I thought you can only make one claim, and once rejected from a safe country you can't make another claim in another safe country. This is to prevent migrants in ie: europe from shopping for refugee status from country to country.
-
I don't know what Rue is on about but I can't invest the time to find out. TLDR, moving on
-
No, it's a device to artificially suppress wages which would have to rise to attract workers were it not for a steady stream of desperate, low skilled newcomers.
Didn't you claim in the last day or two that these low-skilled newcomers were simply going on welfare?
-
Didn't you claim in the last day or two that these low-skilled newcomers were simply going on welfare?
Many do. Few want to stay there. Most will eventually get generally low paid work once they learn sufficient English.
-
Many do. Few want to stay there. Most will eventually get generally low paid work once they learn sufficient English.
And many will end up teaching our children.
Canada can credit immigrants for making it one of the best-educated countries in the world.
https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/02/01/immigrants-are-largely-behind-canadas-status-as-one-of-the-best-educated-countries.html
-
I also think nobody residing or coming from the US should even be allowed to make a refugee claim since it is a safe country, which is the whole point of the agreement.
They are not - period.
-
Because of that policy decision which is not based on law but political opinion, instead of deporting illegal entrants back to the US they are allowed to stay and make their refugee claim in Canada and any removal procedure is stayed until after the refugee determination process is exhausted.
How does one deport a citizen of a third country into the US?
-
Even then, once the process is exhausted and a removal order is issued based on another policy issue, Canada does not deport rejected refugee applicants. I repeat it does not at this time and has not for the last 4 years.
Wrong - completely 100% wrong.
In 2017, there were 8,200 removals of failed refugee claimants. The rest of your post is based on that nonsense premise as well.
-
Wrong - completely 100% wrong.
In 2017, there were 8,200 removals of failed refugee claimants. The rest of your post is based on that nonsense premise as well.
He's not big on fact checking that's why I tend to ignore the screeds. kudo's to you for doing the work to provide the xenophobes with actual info.
-
And many will end up teaching our children.
Canada can credit immigrants for making it one of the best-educated countries in the world.
https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/02/01/immigrants-are-largely-behind-canadas-status-as-one-of-the-best-educated-countries.html
This is stunningly dumb for several reasons. The first being we're talking about penniless, uneducated illiterate migrants. Now I can well believe that your teachers fell into that category based on what you write and think, but it's bloody rare. Second, that 'best educated' **** disguises that many of these 'educated' immigrants clutching their degrees can't work in their jobs because of their poor language skills and because they can't get accredited here due to the lousy state of their homeland's educational systems. No, a degree is not a degree regardless of where it came from.
-
This is stunningly dumb for several reasons. The first being we're talking about penniless, uneducated illiterate migrants. Now I can well believe that your teachers fell into that category based on what you write and think, but it's bloody rare. Second, that 'best educated' **** disguises that many of these 'educated' immigrants clutching their degrees can't work in their jobs because of their poor language skills and because they can't get accredited here due to the lousy state of their homeland's educational systems. No, a degree is not a degree regardless of where it came from.
I see you still never let facts get in the way of your bigotry. Carry on.
-
Wrong - completely 100% wrong.
In 2017, there were 8,200 removals of failed refugee claimants. The rest of your post is based on that nonsense premise as well.
WE had 47,800 refugee claims in 2017
46,700 refugees were admitted in 2016
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-asylum-claims-doubled-in-canada-last-year-un-says/
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/record-number-of-refugees-admitted-to-canada-in-2016-highest-since-1980-1.3382444
-
I see you still never let facts get in the way of your bigotry. Carry on.
What facts, you sanctimonious imbecile? Were talking about migrants and you look at the numbers of degrees from economic immigrants and then suggest the migrants will become teachers. Do you even know how to spell 'logic'?
-
Another interesting fact I found, top countries or origin on Canada's deportation list:
#1 China - 13.6%
#2 India - 6.8%
#3 United States - 6.4%
#4 Nigeria - 5.9%
#5 Haiti - 4.9%
#6 Pakistan - 4.0%
#7 Mexico - 3.6%
#8 Somalia - 2.8%
#9 Cuba - 2.3%
#10 Jamaica - 1.7%
Other - 48.1%
-
What facts, you sanctimonious imbecile? Were talking about migrants and you look at the numbers of degrees from economic immigrants and then suggest the migrants will become teachers. Do you even know how to spell 'logic'?
Were you unable to understand/digest anything in the article? Evidently not. But yes there are people crossing our border who don't have PHD's, but are fleeing for their lives. And if they don't have a valid reason they are deported. I'll leave you to the imbecilic insults since that seems to be where you always go to when challenged.
-
From what I've read, according to the UN refugee convention you can't punish a refugee claimant from crossing at a non-port if they make a claim ASAP. It's not punishment to send someone back to a safe country. That is illogical and it is not what the law actually says or ever said. It is a policy to interpret it that way. Go read the definition.
You asked me to cite where it says Canada does not deport failed refugee claimants. I and those who practice immigration law know it as a fact. You can ask any immigration lawyer or better still go on any site providing legal advice to refugee claimants.
YOU ALSO STATED you thought a refigee can make one claim, and once rejected from a safe country you can't make another claim in another safe country. Dead wrong. It is only when you do not make an application at a safe country before coming to Canada you are disqualified. Once you are rejected you can make a claim for refugee status in any other country. Research the law. The prevention of shopping around applies to the former not the latter and If you can not figure out why try think. I the first example you have not properly availed yourself, in the second you have.
With due respect go find out.Its on the Canadian government IRB web site and it's not my ro.e to have to research it for you.
-
POON SAID...
From what I've read, according to the UN refugee convention you can't punish a refugee claimant from crossing at a non-port if they make a claim ASAP.
I NOW RESPOND It's not punishment to send someone back to a safe country if they have not properly availed themselves of its refugee process.If that country was not safe, then it might cause harm...Spoon you missed the point. Asking people to properly avail themselves at the first safe country is precisely done to stop using countries as stop overs if they are genuine refugees. Also no law exists saying you can't punish as Poon says. I repeat no such law exists. Read the law.
It is a policy to interpret the law to allow refugee applicants to circumvent the safe seco d country rule not any law. That double standard was created by Trudeau. Moon's assertion is illogical. If it's punishment to apply a safe country rule to illegal entrants why would it not be as well to those entering legally. The double standard is illogical and inconsistent using Lion's standard. The very same reason we created a safe country rule to cut down refugee claims at The port of entry is no different than if they cross illegally. The decision to invent the double standard is a political one and it needs to end as it discriminates against people entering Canada legally for refugee claims.
Next Poon asked me to cite where it says Canada does not deport failed refugee claimants. I and those who practice immigration law know it as a fact. You can ask any immigration lawyer or better still go on any site providing legal advice to refugee claimants or ask The bring in government.
Poon ALSO STATED he thought a refugee once rejected from a safe country can't make another claim in another safe country. Dead wrong. All Poon has to do is go on government IRB site and find out, It is only when you do not make an application at a safe country before coming to Canada you are disqualified from doing so in Canada until Trudeau chose to arbitrarily refuse to enforce his own laws because he is too gutless to change them.
Once you are rejected you can make a claim for refugee status in any other country. Research the law. The prevention of shopping around applies to the former not the latter and If you can not figure out why try think why . In the first example you have not properly availed yourself, in the second you have. In the second you may have a reason, in the first you gave not established o e yet making it premature to access our system.
With due respect go find out Poon. Its on the Canadian government IRB web site and it's not my role to have to research it for you.
[
-
Also no law exists saying you can't punish as Poon says. I repeat no such law exists. Read the law.
Here's the UN refugee convention:
Article 31
Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.
Well looks like you're right, since the US isn't a country any refugee would have their life/freedom threatened, so we've all been sold a crock of BS.
Next Poon asked me to cite where it says Canada does not deport failed refugee claimants. I and those who practice immigration law know it as a fact. You can ask any immigration lawyer or better still go on any site providing legal advice to refugee claimants or ask The bring in government.
Now then, WHY don't they deport them? This makes no sense since people are deported all the time. It's also very easy to deport them back to the US compared to any other country.
-
It's simple - we have to hear their claim as if they didn't come from the US, because they make their claim inside Canada, and not at the border. We don't have the option to send them back to the US, only their country.
-
It is a policy to interpret the law to allow refugee applicants to circumvent the safe seco d country rule not any law. That double standard was created by Trudeau. Moon's assertion is illogical.
...
It is only when you do not make an application at a safe country before coming to Canada you are disqualified from doing so in Canada until Trudeau chose to arbitrarily refuse to enforce his own laws because he is too gutless to change them.
Complete and utter hogwash. The safe third country agreement between Canada and the US is very explicit. I suggest you read Article I, section 1, subsection a.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
-
Complete and utter hogwash. The safe third country agreement between Canada and the US is very explicit. I suggest you read Article I, section 1, subsection a.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/final-text.html
What about it? It's just defining terms:
ARTICLE 1
1. In this Agreement,
a. “Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
-
What about it? It's just defining terms:
ARTICLE 1
1. In this Agreement,
a. “Country of Last Presence” means that country, being either Canada or the United States, in which the refugee claimant was physically present immediately prior to making a refugee status claim at a land border port of entry.
The bolded part is important.
-
The bolded part is important.
But what does that have to do with the part of Rue's post Impact quoted?
Rue was saying you have to make a refugee claim in the 1st safe country you arrive in (US or Canada) in order to make a claim in the other country afterwards.
-
Rue was saying you have to make a refugee claim in the 1st safe country you arrive in (US or Canada) in order to make a claim in the other country afterwards.
Where is that written?
-
Where is that written?
I have no idea.
I've heard it's an important factor in a claim though.
-
I've heard it's an important factor in a claim though.
Yes, but what you have "heard" is not what defines the regulations. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/LS/371/c11-e.htm) is the defining regulation, and it clearly points out that agreements would need to be reached with the third party countries. I posted earlier the specific agreement concerning the United States.
If the person in question already has a status in the US (e.g. pending asylum seeker) then they might be sent back on that basis, additionally if they arrive in Canada by a land border port of entry then they can be turned back. That doesn't mean that many factors will no play into their claim hearing, including arriving irregularly from the US. If the agreement with the US does not allow us to return them there, then they will need to be returned to their home country unless they face persecution in their home country; then our participation in the international agreements cover that.
-
But what does that have to do with the part of Rue's post Impact quoted?
Rue was saying you have to make a refugee claim in the 1st safe country you arrive in (US or Canada) in order to make a claim in the other country afterwards.
Because when they're making a claim within Canada, after already crossing the border, it doesn't matter anymore where they've been.
-
Here's the UN refugee convention:
Article 31
Refugees Unlawfully in the Country of Refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.
Well looks like you're right, since the US isn't a country any refugee would have their life/freedom threatened, so we've all been sold a crock of BS.
Now then, WHY don't they deport them? This makes no sense since people are deported all the time. It's also very easy to deport them back to the US compared to any other country.
Let me though be very clear with you. Because I teach Immigration law and practice it pro bono I know **** you don't as well. So I should ver very very clear with you. because you are not "wrong". Just there is so much **** to keep aware of and it changes and a lot of it is not law its policy (the government choosing to ignore the law).
I also would have answered you earlier but I was busy.
For your information 398 people who crossed the U.S. border illegally for asylum in Canada out of 32,173 ave been deported since authorities began tracking irregular migration in April of 2017 to the end of August 2018.
Of the 398 , 146 were sent back to the U.S., where 116 of them have citizenship, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. The rest were deported to 53 countries, with most sent to Haiti (53), Colombia (24), Turkey (19) or Iraq (15). 48 of then were under the age of 17, included 238 males and 160 females.
Now the reason I said they aren't deporting refugee claimants is because 116 of those 398 were US citizens so they can not be refugee claimants. So you really have 282 deportations but when you look at most of those they deal with very specific disqualifications that are blatant. I am telling you if there is even a remote chance of harm they are not being deported as a general rule and most smugglers are well aware of this.
Now the info I quote you can find by simply finding the stats on the government sites. They keep the stats. The above was also published by the Star back in September: https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2018/09/07/canadian-border-agency-has-deported-398-illegal-migrants-out-of-32000.html
What I can tell you is the system has collapsed. IRB employees are burned out and quitting in droves. The actual hiring process for IRB board members is a farce as competent lawyers are being turned away in favour of Liberal patronage appointments that are slowing down the process.
What is happening is as follows. A decision is being circulated to all Board members saying they must follow a decision by Lois Figg a Board member stating Nigerians can't be refugees since they are not in danger in all of Nigeria. They will be expected to follow that decision and reject all the Nigerians.
The Hatiens for the most part except for 17 are all being rejected (these are Haitiens who have lived in Florida illegally prior to the earthquakes and came to Canada fearing Trump deportation). However they are not being deported. The vast majority will not be deported for financial reasons; I-Canada has no airplanes or manpower to enforce the deportations; ii-the countries where they are to be deported to will not take them.
The thing is the vast majority of migrants you see coming in are illegal, know they do not qualify for refugee status, but know Trudeau won't deport them as long as he is in power. That is the word in the migrant world and with the immigration world.
I have said it ad infinitum, most migrants we see today coming in illegally were never refugees in the UN convention sense, they are simply poor people in desperate need of work and have no transferable skills to qualify as a regular immigrant so they use the loophole.
Had Canada said you can not come in illegally so you can circumvent the designated country rule, we would have no issue. Trudeau did not want to be seen turning poor migrants away as he panders to the ethnic vote openly and blatantly as he has done in the Muslim and Siekh communities. The thing is I am not sure the ethnics he panders to, don't see through him. Many of them came the hard legal way waiting for years or paying big bucks to go to school to stay.
It is a mess.
Read the refugee definition. If we really wanted to take in refugees we would not define them as we do in the UN convention adapted into our Immigration Act. A true refugee flees a war. Everyone else who flees due to famine, draught, earthquake, desertification, epidemic diseases,poverty are migrants. Tyhey become illegal immigrants when they cross the border illegally.
As a lawyer I use the word illegal immigrant in a specific legal way. I find Michael Hard or the other leftist trendies turning it into an expanded definition they find anti immigrant to be bull ****.
I didn't create the laws. I only report them.
I don't agree with how trendy Liberals like Michael Hard use the term refugee either. They use it to apply to anyone. They apply it to anyone who has left a country.
The vast majority of people trying to call themselves refugees are migrants trying to push in line. Period.
We either have rules of admission we follow or we don't. At this time Trudeau expects immigrants to line up while telling other immigrants they can break the laws He sends two signals and it is dividing the world of immigrant Canadians between those who came legally and those who came illegally. He is lumping all immigrants in one category wrongfully assuming all immigrants support illegal ones. That is a privileged rich white boy assumption. Immigrants do not all think the same because they all have big noses or brown skin. No we do not all smell the same, think the same, eat the same food. This horseshit that immigrant Canadians find any questioning of how immigrants come to Canada anti immigrant and need the protection of Michael Hard and a bunch of rich white boy socialists is crap. We came here without the need of liberal guilt.
You want people in Canada to work, then make sure there is a need for them and direct them to that work. Don't create some bullshit definition created by liberal guilt spoon fed ivory tower elitists who feel guilty about having sent Jews back to Nazi Germany. Immigrants do not need patronization. Lying to them and suckering them into becoming Canada's permanent marginalized cheap labour is what Trudeau is doing.
He's not some Christian missionary bringing savages to Christian heaven. He is an out of touch elitist rich boy wannabee who hasn't a clue what a refugee or an immigrant is and his total exposure to them is PHACKING PHOTO SHOOT.
He doesn't live with them and never will. His attending radical mosques where the followers hate women and gays and then in the next breath posing as a gay friendly feminist is a joke. So is his tearing over aboriginals and then patronizing them and telling them to shut up behind closed doors.
He's a phony pandering for votes. Harper said it upfront. It was Harper who made sure the Syrian refugees would have private sponsorship. Trudeau's government dumps them after a year and pretends they no longer exist.
The only way we can make this work is to structure programs that would send migrants without proper work or language skills to Northern locations where they could be asked with proper supervision to build roads, homes, infrastructure for aboriginals and in return learn English, French, aboriginal ways, basic vocational skills and Canadian history and then after 3-5 years be given permanent residency after passing language tests and in the interim they get free room and board and a small allowance.
That is a model that was floated but no one has the balls to pursue it because the same soft leftist guilt ridden snot heads think that is cruel. Its not. Most immigrants did just that when they came to Canada.
Its how the country was built by Ukes, Irish, Doukhabors, Siekhs, Filipinos, Jews, Chinese, on and on. None of our immigrants came to a country giving us $50,000, free dental and health care, free housing and $50,000 thou in cash.
-
Even in a blatant case like this it takes us 5 years to deport one of these guys. What a mess our judicial and immigration systems are. Mind you, he hasn't left yet...
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/i-like-to-dance-salsa-merengue-and-bachata-cuban-mans-marriage-scam-to-canadian-undone-by-his-love-of-latin-beats/wcm/34b5f94e-6348-43f5-bb14-1efdf3a2aa45
-
Even in a blatant case like this it takes us 5 years to deport one of these guys. What a mess our judicial and immigration systems are.
It appears this is the legal system that is the problem. He lost his residency in 2014; the specific months are not mentioned so it could be anywhere between 0-24 months.
I had a coworker that married an Australian girl in the late 90's (year, not her), and she divorced him as soon as she got her permanent residency.
-
It appears this is the legal system that is the problem. He lost his residency in 2014; the specific months are not mentioned so it could be anywhere between 0-24 months.
I had a coworker that married an Australian girl in the late 90's (year, not her), and she divorced him as soon as she got her permanent residency.
He's been appealing since 2013 when the judge annulled his marriage. Yes, it's a legal problem. It's been a legal problem since the Singh decision gave full charter rights to immigrants and refugees, including the right to have us pay for their lawyers.
-
There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul
-
There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul
So a bunch of old farts sitting around in wheel chairs waiting for their OAP checks while nobody's working won't affect the economy? I'd like to see how that works.
-
So a bunch of old farts sitting around in wheel chairs waiting for their OAP checks while nobody's working won't affect the economy? I'd like to see how that works.
If you read the cite you'd have seen that the age differential between immigrants and Canadian born people is simply not that big. And that the numbers needed to offset an aging population rise rapidly to the point we'd need millions of immigrants each year.
Further, they're not going to be paying the taxes to offset your fabled OAP if they're not earning high incomes. And large numbers are NOT.
-
If you read the cite you'd have seen that the age differential between immigrants and Canadian born people is simply not that big. And that the numbers needed to offset an aging population rise rapidly to the point we'd need millions of immigrants each year.
Further, they're not going to be paying the taxes to offset your fabled OAP if they're not earning high incomes. And large numbers are NOT.
Well you can ignore the ageing population problem and work a number of years longer or pay more taxes. Which do you pick?
-
Well you can ignore the ageing population problem and work a number of years longer or pay more taxes. Which do you pick?
Apparently clicking on a cite is too complex. Here, saves you the difficulty.
Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem – indeed it may well exacerbate it.
In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.
-
There's more articles than the one Sir J provided. The issue is far more complex then just citing one article or two or three.
http://www.rcinet.ca/immigration-en/2017/03/07/the-economic-impact-of-immigration/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/immigration-is-a-net-economic-benefit-this-is-a-story-canada-should-build-on/article31854798/
https://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html#gs.njm_ob0
https://globalnews.ca/news/4255495/immigrants-help-lethbridge-economy-flourish-with-diverse-businesses-and-culture/
https://www.opencanada.org/features/how-immigrants-strengthen-canadas-economy/
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-10-02/450_000_Immigrants_Per_Year_Could_Boost_Canada_s_Economy_If_Newcomers_Have_Better_Job_Outcomes.aspx
https://fcpp.org/2011/08/05/only-more-immigrants-can-save-canadas-economy-immigration-is-best-solution-to-funding-retiring-baby-boomers/
https://venngage.com/blog/why-immigration-is-good/
-
Apparently clicking on a cite is too complex. Here, saves you the difficulty.
Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem – indeed it may well exacerbate it.
In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.
Re read your article and you'll see an IF in the first paragraph. If what thet IF pointed to were true you might have a point, except it's not. The vast majority of immigrants to Canada last year were between 25 and 39 years. And on average are further educated than Canadians.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/443305/international-migrants-in-canada-2014/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/census-2016-education-labour-employment-mobility/article37122392/
-
I love a good fact fight ! :D
-
There's more articles than the one Sir J provided. The issue is far more complex then just citing one article or two or three.
And yet the article I cited itself cited multiple academic studies, including some from the government. Yours... not so much.
The studies quoted were:
MacDonald Royal Commission Report
Study by the Department of Health and Welfare
Study by the Economic Council of Canada
Study by Fraser Institute
Study done for the House of Lords in the UK
Study done by the CD Howe Institute
And the piece was by a former head of Canada Immigration.
http://www.rcinet.ca/immigration-en/2017/03/07/the-economic-impact-of-immigration/
Interview with a guy who says immigration is great for everything that ails you. Provides no evidence or stats.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/immigration-is-a-net-economic-benefit-this-is-a-story-canada-should-build-on/article31854798/
Interview with a person who says immigration is great because some immigrants are entrepeneurs! (says nothing whatsoever about the rest)
https://www.cicnews.com/2016/10/canada-needs-immigration-to-balance-aging-population-108568.html#gs.njm_ob0
Immigration agency quote of Conference Board report saying Canada should bring in massive amounts of immigrants to bring our population to 100 million - because everyone knows the bigger population countreis are better (see India, Nigeria, Indonesia). It says the following "If population growth continues as established without a significant effort to grow the population, it is projected that Canada will be home to 54 million people by 2100."
To which I say...SO!?
https://globalnews.ca/news/4255495/immigrants-help-lethbridge-economy-flourish-with-diverse-businesses-and-culture/
Immigration propaganda feel-good piece with no evidence.
https://www.opencanada.org/features/how-immigrants-strengthen-canadas-economy/
Report saying new immigrant businesses were more likely to export than others - so?
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-10-02/450_000_Immigrants_Per_Year_Could_Boost_Canada_s_Economy_If_Newcomers_Have_Better_Job_Outcomes.aspx
Conference board rah rah, let's become bigger study quoted above
https://fcpp.org/2011/08/05/only-more-immigrants-can-save-canadas-economy-immigration-is-best-solution-to-funding-retiring-baby-boomers/
Rah rah immigration piece with no evidence or stats
https://venngage.com/blog/why-immigration-is-good/
American piece saying immigrants are good for innovation
-
Maybe check the population of our closest southern neighbor, and then compare that to their economy. That should give you a clue as to how increased population density can pay off. 10 times more people, worlds strongest economy. At least until Trump **** it up.
-
Maybe check the population of our closest southern neighbor, and then compare that to their economy. That should give you a clue as to how increased population density can pay off. 10 times more people, worlds strongest economy. At least until Trump **** it up.
In what way is the United States better off than Finland, which has way fewer people than we do?
In what way is Canada worse off than Indonesia or India or Brazil, which have way more people than we do?
-
The Somalian refugee who is now in charge of Canada's immigration system has stated that Canada will increase immigration to 350,000 over the next few years because of a shortage of labour and skills.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-to-increase-annual-immigration-admissions-to-350000-by-2021
Yet we had three reports last year that said otherwise.
Dire warnings of a widespread Canadian labour crisis and a “lost generation” of young workers have been overblown, according to a market analysis by TD Economics. Deputy chief economist Derek Burleton says demographic and economic shifts may be hitting young workers particularly hard, but he doesn’t believe projections of across-the-board labour shortages and skills gaps. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/skills-gap-canada-labour-shortage_n_4138487.html
A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs. http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html
-
The Somalian refugee who is now in charge of Canada's immigration system
Roll my **** eyes. Ahmed Hussen has a BA in history from York and a law degree from the University of Ottawa and specialized in immigration and criminal law. He was president of the Canadian Somali Congress - he's eminently qualified. You're not.
-
The Somalian refugee who is now in charge of Canada's immigration system
I guess it is a step up from calling the previous President, the black guy, but a very shallow step.
-
Ah yes, yet another rather blatant attempt at racial profiling.....that failed.
-
Roll my **** eyes. Ahmed Hussen has a BA in history from York and a law degree from the University of Ottawa and specialized in immigration and criminal law. He was president of the Canadian Somali Congress - he's eminently qualified. You're not.
He's an immigrant. You don't put immigrants, who will inevitably have dual loyalties, in charge of your country's immigration. Small wonder the acceptance rate for refugees has shot up under him.
Why would you put him being president of the Somali congress as a qualification anyway? That would be a disqualification.
He's also a liar. He says we have to increase immigration because of a labour shortage that is proven to not exist.
-
I guess it is a step up from calling the previous President, the black guy, but a very shallow step.
I never called the previous president the Black guy. His skin colour didn't matter to me in the slightest. What mattered to me was his inexperience, his indecisiveness, and his sort of ivory tower academic view of things which made it difficult for him to grasp reality. He wasn't a horrible president, like this idiot Trump, and I'd say also better than that idiot Bush, but he wasn't that good a president either, especially on foreign policy.
-
He's an immigrant. You don't put immigrants, who will inevitably have dual loyalties, in charge of your country's immigration. Small wonder the acceptance rate for refugees has shot up under him.
Why would you put him being president of the Somali congress as a qualification anyway? That would be a disqualification.
He's also a liar. He says we have to increase immigration because of a labour shortage that is proven to not exist.
Proven by whom?
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/05/labour-shortage-canada_a_23517802/
https://www.randstad.ca/workforce360-trends/archives/how-does-immigration-impact-canadian-jobs_1759/
https://www.immigration.ca/severe-shortages-in-the-2018-canadian-labour-market/
-
He's an immigrant. You don't put immigrants, who will inevitably have dual loyalties, in charge of your country's immigration. Small wonder the acceptance rate for refugees has shot up under him.
Why would you put him being president of the Somali congress as a qualification anyway? That would be a disqualification.
He's also a liar. He says we have to increase immigration because of a labour shortage that is proven to not exist.
How do you know he has ‘divided loyalties’?
-
Seems like economists and business leaders are happy with this plan:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-admit-40000-more-immigrants-a-year-by-2020-under-liberals-new-three-year-plan/article36800775/
-
Proven by whom?
According to the PBO and the other two studies I posted. No one else has done a study that claims differently. A government bureaucrat blithely saying there's a shortage doesn't count. If he said anything differently he'd be fired. And the CFIB can go and **** itself. Of course it says there's a labour shortage. That's so its members can keep bringing in hundreds of thousands of TFWs who they can exploit without complaint.
-
How do you know he has ‘divided loyalties’?
Wouldn't you? Anyone born and raised in another country is going to have divided loyalties.
-
Seems like economists and business leaders are happy with this plan:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-admit-40000-more-immigrants-a-year-by-2020-under-liberals-new-three-year-plan/article36800775/
Business groups loves more immigration. It depresses wages for workers. If business had its way we'd be bringing in ten million new immigrants a year.
I think the PBO can be relied on to do an unbiased study. Here are some more unbiased studies from my original cite.
There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.
-
Seems like economists and business leaders are happy with this plan:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-admit-40000-more-immigrants-a-year-by-2020-under-liberals-new-three-year-plan/article36800775/
More immigration will certainly improve Canada's total GDP as well as the TSX & corporate revenues. Hard to say if it would help the GDP per capita or not.
-
There's many that argue it's essential:
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/05/16/conference-board-canada-immigration-increase-labour-economy/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4211243/immigration-canadian-economy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/03/canada-more-dependent-than-ever-on-immigration-data-shows_a_23231446/
There are many more. This is not 1985 or even 1991. We're living in a different world.
-
Proven by whom?
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/05/labour-shortage-canada_a_23517802/
https://www.randstad.ca/workforce360-trends/archives/how-does-immigration-impact-canadian-jobs_1759/
https://www.immigration.ca/severe-shortages-in-the-2018-canadian-labour-market/
TO be fair, Randstad is an employment agency where a large # of their clients are immigrants, and immigration.ca is an immigration law firm, so both obviously want more immigrants, so not exactly unbiased sources. Huffington Post seems like a decent source though.
-
Wouldn't you? Anyone born and raised in another country is going to have divided loyalties.
I certainly do.
-
Hussen says economic immigration is badly needed in areas across the country that are short on workers and long on older residents. “In certain regions the hunger for workers is huge,” he said.
Everywhere outside the GTA and Vancouver area and maybe Montreal is filled with tons of old baby boomer white people, so medium sized cities and small towns across the country could look almost like ghost towns in another 25 years when the boomers are all dead. I get some of the need and what Hussen is saying here. However, a problem is that immigrants aren't moving to small towns or Quebec City or Kingston or the Atlantic Provinces etc.#'s, they're largely moving to the GTA and Vancouver area etc. You walk around the GTA and it's mostly non-white immigrants. You drive 30 minutes outside the GTA and it's a sea of white people. Barrie and Whitby etc.
I suspect over the next 25+ years small town/city populations, especially those not near big cities, will shrink significantly while larger city populations will keep exploding.
-
I certainly do.
Really? Interesting, explain.
-
There's many that argue it's essential:
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/05/16/conference-board-canada-immigration-increase-labour-economy/
https://globalnews.ca/news/4211243/immigration-canadian-economy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/03/canada-more-dependent-than-ever-on-immigration-data-shows_a_23231446/
There are many more. This is not 1985 or even 1991. We're living in a different world.
Two quotes from a business association, which means they're biased, and one saying 3/4rs of our growth comes from immigration. Which means without immigrants we'd still be growing, which means we don't need to increase immigration again.
And at no time has the federal government ever so much as studied how it might encourage Canadians to have more children, much less worked on doing so.
Further, we've seen cites from studies done from the UK to Canada to Australia, formal, unbiased studies not done for business associations, which say immigration is not going to do much of anything to help a declining birth rate unless we dramatically increase it to several million a year.
And if you guys thought an aging population was a problem and were using immigration to address it you wouldn't have doubled the number of elderly immigrants allowed in, and wouldn't have announced plans to double it again.
-
Really? Interesting, explain.
I've lived in Canada since 1984 (Moved here in my late twenties) and would never move back to the UK to live, but I still pay more attention the the BBC than the CBC and if we ever play you guys at any sport, team or individual, I still cheer for the Brit.
-
I've lived in Canada since 1984 (Moved here in my late twenties) and would never move back to the UK to live, but I still pay more attention the the BBC than the CBC and if we ever play you guys at any sport, team or individual, I still cheer for the Brit.
Interesting, I appreciate the honesty.
-
The UN says in 2017 Canada has over 1/5 (21.5%) of its population who are foreign born. That's 25% higher than any other G8 country, and higher than any other European country besides Switzerland and the micro-countries (Luxumbourg, Andorra etc.).
That means the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Iceland etc. etc. all have lower immigrants per capita than Canada. The USA has 15.3% foreign-born residents, which is over 25% lower than Canada. In fact, Canada has about twice the # of foreign-born residents per capita as France, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Belgium, Netherlands, and 3.5x more than Finland.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/12111108/Mapped-Which-country-has-the-most-immigrants.html
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates17.shtml
So why do we have this "labour shortage", & we have to increase immigration even further, but all of these other countries with virtually identical birth rates as Canada don't have to increase populations to our levels? Sorry but I call BS. This sounds like a Liberal dog whistle election promise to drum up the base.
-
Immigration Minister Hussen wants dramatically higher immigration rates in the future:
“It’s also a question of gradual increase so our immigration system can be able to process these things, communities can be able to absorb them and local immigration partnerships can do their work,” he said. “We can’t just go to 450,000 at once. You need to build up to that.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-to-increase-annual-immigration-admissions-to-350000-by-2021
-
Wouldn't you? Anyone born and raised in another country is going to have divided loyalties.
Oh i don't think I buy your broad assumption. My grandparents were born and raised in another country and I never saw a trace of them being loyal to any other country than Canada. Also, having worked in Somalia, I suspect that if I had been born and raised there and then got to Canada, I think I might have concluded I had died and gone to heaven. Just being born elsewhere doesn't cause you to be loyal to the place.
-
Immigration Minister Hussen wants dramatically higher immigration rates in the future:
“It’s also a question of gradual increase so our immigration system can be able to process these things, communities can be able to absorb them and local immigration partnerships can do their work,” he said. “We can’t just go to 450,000 at once. You need to build up to that.”
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canada-to-increase-annual-immigration-admissions-to-350000-by-2021
Yes, that's what a council of experts has told the government is the optimal level - 450,000. Do you know better than them? Canada is a country of immigrants and immigration. It has been throughout most of its history. That's reality.
-
Yes, that's what a council of experts has told the government is the optimal level - 450,000. Do you know better than them?
Experts have to be given assumptions and requirements before they can come up with a recommendation. The people who define those assumptions and requirements can manipulate the "expert" opinion to support predetermined conclusions.
IOW, unless you can provide details of the assumptions and requirements given to this panel of experts and who was on this panel then you can take your appeal to authority and shove it.
-
Experts have to be given assumptions and requirements before they can come up with a recommendation. The people who define those assumptions and requirements can manipulate the "expert" opinion to support predetermined conclusions.
IOW, unless you can provide details of the assumptions and requirements given to this panel of experts and who was on this panel then you can take your appeal to authority and shove it.
So I guess there actually are no experts, they're all just puppies on strings for some other whatevers you are trying to identify.
-
Yes, that's what a council of experts has told the government is the optimal level - 450,000. Do you know better than them?
The council is made up of a bunch of progressive business experts hand-picked by the Liberal gov (8 of the 14 members are women!). None of them have any experience whatsoever in the immigration field:
https://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp
-
The council is made up of a bunch of progressive business experts hand-picked by the Liberal gov (8 of the 14 members are women!). None of them have any experience whatsoever in the immigration field:
What is more interesting is they are all super wealthy which will never have to face the negative consequences of mass immigration because they can just pick up and move to another country if things get too bad.
-
What is more interesting is they are all super wealthy which will never have to face the negative consequences of mass immigration because they can just pick up and move to another country if things get too bad.
I googled the members. A bunch of the people on the council don't live in Canada or even North America, and some haven't lived in Canada in decades.
The chair of the council, Dominic Barton, was born in Uganda, came to Canada at age 7, then left to do his did his masters in the UK. He hasn't lived in Canada for the last 21 years, he was in Asia etc. He came back to Canada a few months ago.
-
The council is made up of a bunch of progressive business experts hand-picked by the Liberal gov (8 of the 14 members are women!). None of them have any experience whatsoever in the immigration field:
https://www.fin.gc.ca/n16/16-031-eng.asp
WOMEN! How terrible. ::)
-
What is more interesting is they are all super wealthy which will never have to face the negative consequences of mass immigration because they can just pick up and move to another country if things get too bad.
Canada was formed by 'mass immigration'. So, if you consider the formation and continued existence of this country to be a negative consequence, I guess you'd be on to something.
-
I googled the members. A bunch of the people on the council don't live in Canada or even North America, and some haven't lived in Canada in decades.
The chair of the council, Dominic Barton, was born in Uganda, came to Canada at age 7, then left to do his did his masters in the UK. He hasn't lived in Canada for the last 21 years, he was in Asia etc. He came back to Canada a few months ago.
So, does that make them less qualified when it comes to the economic and social impacts of immigration? Would it help if they were needlessly xenophobic too?
-
Canada was formed by 'mass immigration'. So, if you consider the formation and continued existence of this country to be a negative consequence, I guess you'd be on to something.
Simplistic view of history. Canada when though a period of mass migration and then slowed it significantly for 50 years:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016006-eng.htm
I am saying it should be slowed - not eliminated.
More importantly, the economy no longer needs unskilled labour that can't speak the language. We need to focus on skilled worker immigrate class and limit the number of unskilled family class immigrants. We also need to stop allowing in every queue jumper with a sad story to tell. People who show up at the US border should be deported immediately until they get the message that Canada is not going to be a dumping ground for people who could not convince american authorities that they deserved asylum.
-
Simplistic view of history. Canada when though a period of mass migration and then slowed it significantly for 50 years:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016006-eng.htm
I am saying it should be slowed - not eliminated.
And experts say it shouldn't.
So do we believe a partisan hack on the internet or people who study this **** for a living?
Tough choice.
-
And experts say it shouldn't.
No one has provided any argument of why the opinion of so-called super wealthy "experts" with little or no personal stake in Canada should matter. Calling people experts because you like what they say does not make them any less biased.
-
Jesus Christ, Tim. John posted links to their arguments. If you're saying their biased, then demonstrate it.
However, I'm not buying a damn thing you're selling. There's one consistent aspect to your arguments. If experts disagree with your partisan agenda, they're "biased." You've never once actually shown any expert to be advancing biased arguments.
-
If experts disagree with your partisan agenda, they're "biased."
Wrong. I say that all experts are biased: even those I agree with. Recognizing the bias and accounting for it is necessary prerequisite. People who think they can throw out the label "expert" as if it is infallible word of god need to give their head a shake.
-
More importantly, the economy no longer needs unskilled labour that can't speak the language. We need to focus on skilled worker immigrate class and limit the number of unskilled family class immigrants. We also need to stop allowing in every queue jumper with a sad story to tell. People who show up at the US border should be deported immediately until they get the message that Canada is not going to be a dumping ground for people who could not convince american authorities that they deserved asylum.
What you propose is illegal.
-
What you propose is illegal.
Laws can be changed. The current system is farce and does not deserve support.
-
Yes, that's what a council of experts has told the government is the optimal level - 450,000. Do you know better than them? Canada is a country of immigrants and immigration. It has been throughout most of its history. That's reality.
The council of 'experts' chosen by the Liberals, made up largely of people who were self proclaimed immigration boosters and business groups wringing their hands with glee at the prospect of more desperate people who will work for low wages.
The reality is that Canada does not need even as high a level of immigration as we have now and this self-serving determination to keep raising rates higher and higher is pushing Canadians into greater hostility towards immigration and immigrants. Then you talk in amazement about the rise of the far right and wonder how it could possibly be happening and who could be responsible.
Look in a mirror. You're the dad.
-
Wrong. I say that all experts are biased: even those I agree with. Recognizing the bias and accounting for it is necessary prerequisite. People who think they can throw out the label "expert" as if it is infallible word of god need to give their head a shake.
Yes, we already know you're a radical skeptic. That you believe there's no such thing as a biased opinion. The problem is that you completely fail to recognize that this doesn't mean that all opinions are equal to those of studied, evidence-based conclusions. Your bias argument is stupid because it's like saying a medical doctor is biased, so we should listen to some health blogger whose credentials we don't know because all decisions come from a place of bias and that makes all credentials meaningless. Your argument is a ridiculous partisan ploy to dismiss expert opinion when it clashes with the propaganda you insist on pushing. You're doing it here and you do it constantly in environment threads. Why anyone continues to engage with you is beyond me.
-
Canada was formed by 'mass immigration'. So, if you consider the formation and continued existence of this country to be a negative consequence, I guess you'd be on to something.
Canada was formed as a colony and had slavery. So I guess we should still be a colony and still have slaves.
Canada was formed using horses and buggies so we have to continue to use horses and buggies! Canada was formed with men being in charge and no voting rights for women! That's how it must continue!
All the above arguments, including yours, are idiotic.
-
So, does that make them less qualified when it comes to the economic and social impacts of immigration? Would it help if they were needlessly xenophobic too?
It doesn't make them MORE competent. These people were selected to give the answers the Liberals wanted. They are not a panel of experts of any kind. A panel of experts would consist of demographics people. There were none on this panel.
-
And experts say it shouldn't.
So do we believe a partisan hack on the internet or people who study this **** for a living?
Tough choice.
Experts like the guy who ran Immigration Canada? I guess he's not expert enough since he doesn't agree with the internationalists.
But do go on bringing in tens of thousands of unskilled labourers each year just as automation begins to do away with all the jobs they find. I'm sure the social upheavals, massive unemployment and crime waves won't bother you.
-
What you propose is illegal.
You keep standing on your noble pedestal and Canada will wind up with a far right government. Then you'll bleat about it and wonder how it could have ever happened.
-
The problem is that you completely fail to recognize that this doesn't mean that all opinions are equal to those of studied, evidence-based conclusions. Your bias argument is stupid because it's like saying a medical doctor is biased, so we should listen to some health blogger whose credentials we don't know because all decisions come from a place of bias and that makes all credentials meaningless.
Except this is a bunch a strawmen that has nothing to do with my arguments. I have said numerous time is the credibility of an expert depends on the scientific rigor of their field and whether they are commenting on something that is within their domain of expertise. The medical field has a lot of scientific rigor which makes experts like doctors extremely credible but doctors have biases such as the ones created when pharma companies push one-sided marketing materials on doctors. Climate science has very little rigor because it is impossible to validate many of the claims in a lab. That makes their expertise a lot less credible. On top of this you have a climate scientists commenting on things outside their expertise such as the question on whether renewables are viable then their opinion is as useful as my postman's.
-
Except this is a bunch a strawmen that has nothing to do with my arguments. I have said numerous time is the credibility of an expert depends on the scientific rigor of their field and whether they are commenting on something that is within their domain of expertise. The medical field has a lot of scientific rigor which makes experts like doctors extremely credible but doctors have biases such as the ones created when pharma companies push one-sided marketing materials on doctors. Climate science has very little rigor because it is impossible to validate many of the claims in a lab. That makes their expertise a lot less credible. On top of this you have a climate scientists commenting on things outside their expertise such as the question on whether renewables are viable then their opinion is as useful as my postman's.
So the only "credible opinions" are the ones that support your bias, regardless of credentials. We get that.
-
Climate science has very little rigor because it is impossible to validate many of the claims in a lab.
Like which claims ? Temperature predictions or any predictions can't be made in a lab, obviously, but you can still evaluate how they have done on the whole and validate.
Bloggers might have a role, if they simply are used as a 'public' that reviews papers and submits questions to authors, obviously through a curator.
On top of this you have a climate scientists commenting on things outside their expertise such as the question on whether renewables are viable then their opinion is as useful as my postman's.
Depending on how many degrees your postman has, but yes your point is taken. The media has a set of lenses it uses to frame stories, so that the reader can digest it. Unfortunately, the frame takes away from the picture sometimes.
-
People who show up at the US border should be deported immediately until they get the message that Canada is not going to be a dumping ground for people who could not convince american authorities that they deserved asylum.
Why ?
Here - let me help:
-
I say that all experts are biased: even those I agree with. Recognizing the bias and accounting for it is necessary prerequisite.
Now that is a winning statement. If I disagree with anything you say, then you are wrong and I am right.
-
WOMEN! How terrible. ::)
It was a sarcastic comments. I don't have any problem with women, quite the opposite. It was to show how the council was Liberal hand-picked since they put 50% women quotas with most things.
-
So, does that make them less qualified when it comes to the economic and social impacts of immigration? Would it help if they were needlessly xenophobic too?
It makes them qualified to talk about economic impacts, from a liberal (small "l") perspective. We can be fairly certain that nobody that disagreed with The Trudeau gov's preconceived philosophies would have been chosen to be put on his council. If you want a non-partisan, non-ideological, objective assessment, you won't find it from this council. We need a national conversation and a national study on this, not a liberal conversation and a liberal study.
Also, I agree with them on some counts. Nominal GDP will go up, tax revenues will go up etc. But housing prices will also go up, GDP-per-capita will decrease. We need to see all the pros and cons, and weigh them. I'm not against immigration, but i'm also not for continual increases while we already have among the highest immigration rates among high-income countries. Here's a good article on this whole situation, it seems pretty balanced: https://globalnews.ca/news/3782202/450000-immigration-target-canada/
"The flip side is that GDP per capita would be slightly lower in the high-immigration scenario, at $61,600 per person compared to $62,900 under the status-quo scenario. That’s mainly because immigrants tend to earn less than native-born Canadians, making just over 83 per cent of Canada’s average wage.
It is the lower income of immigrants, not lower earnings for Canadians, that drags down the per capita GDP figure in the high-immigration scenarios, the authors note."
-
And experts say it shouldn't.
So do we believe a partisan hack on the internet or people who study this **** for a living?
Tough choice.
This an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what degrees they have, it matters the quality of their arguments, based on evidence. Economic experts also used to think neoliberal policies would have positive effects on developing economics. The evidence says they were often wrong.
You guys keep saying "well such-and-such experts say it's good so it must be true". What are their arguments for higher immigration is good for your economy and country, and what is their evidence for that?
-
And experts say it shouldn't.
So do we believe a partisan hack on the internet or people who study this **** for a living?
We live in a democracy, so let's let the voters decide. Let voters hear all the arguments and let them make up their own minds next year. Canadian voters are a pretty reasonable bunch and have usually voted in the right direction in our history
-
This an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what degrees they have, it matters the quality of their arguments, based on evidence.
This is the fallacy fallacy. You’re denying expert opinion on the subject of their expertise, claiming it’s a logical fallacy to say their credentials make them more qualified in the topic than partisan hacks in the internet.
-
This is the fallacy fallacy. You’re denying expert opinion on the subject of their expertise, claiming it’s a logical fallacy to say their credentials make them more qualified in the topic than partisan hacks in the internet.
That's a fallacy fallacy fallacy.
-
We live in a democracy, so let's let the voters decide. Let voters hear all the arguments and let them make up their own minds next year. Canadian voters are a pretty reasonable bunch and have usually voted in the right direction in our history
I agree with a lot of what you write but I think this approach is an inherent problem with democracy. The average person isn't equipped to do a cost/benefit evaluation of something like this. Neoliberal politicians will find a way to paint the rosiest picture possible, wtihout actually engaging and educating "the" public. After while, resentment builds and a populist takes advantage of that.
Unfortunately, we need a public discussion on immigration, but not for economic reasons. While I think it's good for the economy, based on arguments I have read... the cost of ripping apart the social fabric is too high. We have a window of opportunity to heal, unify and redouble our national beliefs with regard to social cohesion and we can do that by having a break and a real conversation.
In the end, we should end up where we are now but we need to manage our public discussion first, and unify. In return, we should ask those who want to discuss immigration to make a clear distinction to eliminate xenophobes, and any whiff of colonistic attitude.
-
Interesting commentary on Green success in Germany:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-how-to-pull-voters-back-from-the-far-right-brink-look-to-germany/
So he added more cops (why not, anyway?) and he pushed publicly for more border security and tougher, quicker deportation policy for the hundreds of thousands of migrants who don’t qualify as refugees. Tellingly, his party didn’t call for less immigration – his highly multicultural state has gaping needs for new population and he believes those voters weren’t concerned about immigration itself, just a sense of powerlessness.
Looks like the Greens in Germany have learned to listen.
-
This is the fallacy fallacy. You’re denying expert opinion on the subject of their expertise,
The article I posted was expert opinion. It was from the former head of Immigration Canada and quoted several government studies. You completely ignored it because it didn't agree with your open borders beliefs.
You **** hypocrite.
-
Why ?
Here - let me help:
It's not as simple as constructing a table. First you have the justification for mass immigration. It improves the economy, it's needed because of a shortage of labour, and it's needed because of an aging population.
The problem is no one has supported these with any actual evidence. Meanwhile, we have studies, unbiased government studies, which say it really isn't going to help the economy. We have several studies, from both the private sector and the PBO, which say there is no labour shortage and that none is foreseen in the coming decades. And we have a variety of unbiased studies which say the impact of immigration on our aging population will be minimal.
To my mind that means Immigration does little for Canada. Meanwhile, it makes our cities more crowded, makes housing more expensive, increases pollution (including CO2), eats up farmland, and causes social upheaval. None of THAT can is open to opinion. It is fact.
I would not cancel immigration. But I would reduce the numbers focus on younger people with real, easily transferable job skills in an area we need people, who speak English or French well enough to communicate for their job and have a job offer. I would also shift it away from our current source countries, particularly Muslim countries, which not only cause the most social upheaval but have the worst economic outcomes. And yes there would be a values test and face to face interview to see how adaptable and open minded potential immigrants are. They would also be required to demonstrate how, between becoming permanent residents, and applying for citizenship, they had worked to assimilate (which is the rule in places like France and Switzerland).
I would end the immigration of seniors. If people want to bring their parents or grandparents over I'd let them, but they would be 100% responsible for their expenses, including health care, and these seniors would never be eligible for citizenship.
-
You **** hypocrite.
What is so annoying about cyber an is ilk is they will anoint any yahoo as an infallible "expert" as long as they are saying things that conform to their ideology. They never look carefully at what is being said and the actual knowledge the so called expert has. They only thing that matters is they can slap the label "expert" on someone and claim they no longer have any need to think about counter arguments. Intellectual laziness.
-
It's not as simple as constructing a table. First you have the justification for mass immigration. It improves the economy, it's needed because of a shortage of labour, and it's needed because of an aging population.
The problem is no one has supported these with any actual evidence.
You are overreaching. The issue is that there isn't a complete consensus on some of these points. But there is evidence on both sies.
If it's so cut and dried then it IS as simple as constructing a table.
I would not cancel immigration.
Why not ? You just said it's bad for the economy. Stand behind your principles man.
I would also shift it away from our current source countries, particularly Muslim countries, which not only cause the most social upheaval but have the worst economic outcomes.
Now THAT is bullshit. What country someone comes from says very little about how good they will be for Canada. If I grabbed 1,000 British inmates and 1,000 Pakistani grad students which would you pick ?
-
What is so annoying about cyber an is ilk is they will anoint any yahoo as an infallible "expert" as long as they are saying things that conform to their ideology. They never look carefully at what is being said and the actual knowledge the so called expert has. They only thing that matters is they can slap the label "expert" on someone and claim they no longer have any need to think about counter arguments. Intellectual laziness.
What we've seen in this thread i think is that people no matter left or right will tend to believe those experts which confirm their own biases and challenge those that don't.
Most Quebecers, for example, won't be convinced by even the most accurate & overwhelming expert consensus that says Quebec will benefit economically from higher immigration if Quebecers feel their culture and identity is under threat from it.
If the Liberals are convinced to significantly increase immigration levels by only looking at economic arguments, which is what they've done so far with this council, they're missing the cultural, identity, political, social factors etc. Voters care about those things too, and if they see their government doesn't, they will elect politicians who will, on the far right if they're forced to, which has been the case in the US and throughout Europe.
-
Most Quebecers, for example, won't be convinced by even the most accurate & overwhelming expert consensus that says Quebec will benefit economically from higher immigration if Quebecers feel their culture and identity is under threat from it.
They may be deciding to take the less economically advantageous path because it satisfies other objectives, such as cultural protection. Canada as a whole did this with our media ecology protections in FTA and NAFTA.
If the Liberals are convinced to significantly increase immigration levels by only looking at economic arguments, which is what they've done so far with this council, they're missing the cultural, identity, political, social factors etc.
If you are correct, how could we even hope to discuss those things if we can't even have a numbers-based economics argument ?
I believe the meta- problem is unity. Argus is a good example of how a proper economic analysis could start. I disagree with the conclusions he reaches but some of the arguments he makes are sound. The 'Canada is getting older' argument seems good until you realize we're not importing immigrants who are exclusively young people. It makes you wonder if there is indeed an economic rationale or not.
The formation of a truly public discussion around immigration (and I'm not saying the Liberals are doing that) would at least set an example (maybe a global one) about how to have a proper public discussion. I would expect that even if such a discussion didn't foster unity it could identify rational actors, and responsible thought leaders at all points of the spectrum.
-
You are overreaching. The issue is that there isn't a complete consensus on some of these points. But there is evidence on both sies.
You have government studies which say it is of little value to the economy, and you have studies from business groups which want more cheap labour, or others who benefit from immigration claiming otherwise. I knew which I believe. BTW today's paper notes that despite the strong labour market wages aren't growing.
Why not ? You just said it's bad for the economy.
No, I did not. I said there's no evidence it helps the economy. That being said, I'm not against smaller amounts of immigration as long as they contribute and avoid the social upheaval. That does not mean immigrants who come here to become taxi drivers or laborers or store clerks.
Now THAT is bullshit. What country someone comes from says very little about how good they will be for Canada. If I grabbed 1,000 British inmates and 1,000 Pakistani grad students which would you pick ?
Is anyone proposing we recruit criminals? Is anyone proposing we lower standards? I went to the trouble of doing an ATIP request to get the full report the Toronto Star published on average wages for immigrants from a wide variety of countries. The ones from the middle east were at the bottom. The ones from Europe, India and the Philippines were at the top. If that offends your sense that all beings are equal, I'm sorry but I'm going by the evidence. In addition, when talking about social upheaval, there is no group which causes more of it than Muslims. And I think there is no group which will be slower to assimilate than Muslims.
As to Pakistanis, I don't think there is a country in the world, aside from perhaps Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that has more violent religious fanatics in it. This is a country where riots in the street are going on right now because after 8 years on death row the courts released a Christian woman who got into a dispute with Muslims at a well. The earnings of Pakistanis in Canada are generally low, and I suspect their feelings about women, though we have no information on it for Canada (we do not keep such records), might be disturbingly similar to the ones we see in the United Kingdom. I see lots of cons and very little pros in importing people from this country.
-
I agree with a lot of what you write but I think this approach is an inherent problem with democracy. The average person isn't equipped to do a cost/benefit evaluation of something like this. Neoliberal politicians will find a way to paint the rosiest picture possible, wtihout actually engaging and educating "the" public. After while, resentment builds and a populist takes advantage of that.
You're saying the people, the general will, are too stupid to decide the fate of their own country? To have self-determination? Isn't that condescending? Canadians don't have the time to figure out all the fine details, that's why politicians are elected, but they'll get their way whether we like it or not, including electing a Doug Ford-type to federal office if need be.
Politicians of all types will have their say, but also the media, academics, NGOs, people will watch youtube clips, debate on twitter/FB etc. Say we had a referendum, some people will fear the results won't go the way they want & could go like the Brexit vote, but we should fear more what will keep happening if people don't have a say at all. More social unrest as resentment & frustration brews. Civil wars happen often because people feel their government isn't representing them & giving them self-determination. That's why the US civil war started (Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the South, so they succeeded), and why Quebec & Catalonia etc threaten(ed) to separate.
What I see could very well happen is that if the Trudeau gov ignores popular sentiment, if they put their own wishes over what Canadians want, they're creating the conditions for rightwing "populist" parties to win elections in this country. It happened in the US, Italy, UK with Brexit etc etc. Countries across the west have been electing the only parties that will listen to them on immigration reform, these populist parties, the only ones that will dare to curtail some of the migration coming into their country, along with the cultural issues that come with them.
Unfortunately, we need a public discussion on immigration, but not for economic reasons. While I think it's good for the economy, based on arguments I have read... the cost of ripping apart the social fabric is too high. We have a window of opportunity to heal, unify and redouble our national beliefs with regard to social cohesion and we can do that by having a break and a real conversation.
In the end, we should end up where we are now but we need to manage our public discussion first, and unify.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. We need a unifying leader for that, someone to appeal to both the right & left & get their respect. I don't see him/her yet.
-
You have government studies which say it is of little value to the economy, and you have studies from business groups which want more cheap labour, or others who benefit from immigration claiming otherwise.
There are also studies that say it provides a small boost to GDP, and it's also hard to separate the trends of open borders, global trade with increased migration also. 'Cheap labour' isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
No, I did not. I said there's no evidence it helps the economy.
I believe I read that most economists believe that immigration is beneficial and provides a slight boost to GDP.
That being said, I'm not against smaller amounts of immigration as long as they contribute and avoid the social upheaval. That does not mean immigrants who come here to become taxi drivers or laborers or store clerks.
Why not ?
Is anyone proposing we recruit criminals? Is anyone proposing we lower standards? I went to the trouble of doing an ATIP request to get the full report the Toronto Star published on average wages for immigrants from a wide variety of countries. The ones from the middle east were at the bottom. The ones from Europe, India and the Philippines were at the top. If that offends your sense that all beings are equal, I'm sorry but I'm going by the evidence. In addition, when talking about social upheaval, there is no group which causes more of it than Muslims. And I think there is no group which will be slower to assimilate than Muslims.
Then why not just ban bringing in lower wage workers ? Why target a country ?
As to Pakistanis, I don't think there is a country in the world, aside from perhaps Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that has more violent religious fanatics in it.
Luckily people apply for citizenship on a form that asks for more than 'what country are you from ?'. There are other factors at play, we just have to have that conversation. Neither you nor I know enough about this topic, but at least I am humble enough to admit it. Or maybe I'm just arrogant enough to poke holes in your attempts.
In any case, it's not personal... I just long for a more informed conversation. The conversations we have here are more informed than most I read and they're still not very informed at all.
-
I believe I read that most economists believe that immigration is beneficial and provides a slight boost to GDP.
You bring in more people you are going to boost the GDP which makes this argument irrelevant. What matters is whether the GDP per capita rises or falls.
I personally think we need to learn to build a economy that does not need constant population growth. Any policy that presumes we can grow the population forever is dumb.
-
You bring in more people you are going to boost the GDP which makes this argument irrelevant. What matters is whether the GDP per capita rises or falls.
I personally think we need to learn to build a economy that does not need constant population growth. Any policy that presumes we can grow the population forever is dumb.
What you apparently haven't comprehended is that without immigration our population will diminish since we aren't having babies and we are getting old. You want your OAP check, you better have somebody on the payroll. Basic economics.
-
What you apparently haven't comprehended is that without immigration our population will diminish since we aren't having babies and we are getting old. You want your OAP check, you better have somebody on the payroll. Basic economics.
You're right. So therein lies the rub.
The West has chosen by our own free wills to not have enough babies to replace ourselves. We have done this to ourselves. We're (lack of) breeding ourselves out of existence. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Westerners are going the way of the dodo while African populations are exploding, so we have to import them & other growing but poorer populations. In nature, the most successful and adaptable populations survive while the least successful go extinct, how odd humans are.
Maybe we should stop complaining about immigrants and stfu and have babies. Somehow we complain it's too expensive to have many kids and when we do we let the state or strangers raise them when they're very young (daycare, all-day kindergarten), but we've never been richer and have 2 parent incomes, meanwhile 80 years ago we were having 5+ kids and lived poorly/modestly on 1 income and did ok. We're too busy being slaves to our possessions to spend it on things that actually matter. Maybe it's good we go extinct?
-
You're right. So therein lies the rub.
The West has chosen by our own free wills to not have enough babies to replace ourselves. We have done this to ourselves. We're (lack of) breeding ourselves out of existence. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Westerners are going the way of the dodo while African populations are exploding, so we have to import them & other growing but poorer populations. In nature, the most successful and adaptable populations survive while the least successful go extinct, how odd humans are.
Maybe we should stop complaining about immigrants and stfu and have babies. Somehow we complain it's too expensive to have many kids and when we do we let the state or strangers raise them when they're very young (daycare, all-day kindergarten), but we've never been richer and have 2 parent incomes, meanwhile 80 years ago we were having 5+ kids and lived poorly/modestly on 1 income and did ok. We're too busy being slaves to our possessions to spend it on things that actually matter. Maybe it's good we go extinct?
Well i'm no economics expert but it seems to me that we in the western world may be victims of government/corporate greed as well as our own personal greed. They want a work force without shelling out for family support, and we want a Mercedes Benz in the driveway. My grandparents arrived from Scotland in their mid twenty's without a pot to **** in or a window to throw it out. They farmed, raised six children, one of course was my mother, and were very happy hard working people. I'm not bragging I'm just saying that those principles are as valid today as they were then.
-
Well i'm no economics expert but it seems to me that we in the western world may be victims of government/corporate greed as well as our own personal greed. They want a work force without shelling out for family support, and we want a Mercedes Benz in the driveway. My grandparents arrived from Scotland in their mid twenty's without a pot to **** in or a window to throw it out. They farmed, raised six children, one of course was my mother, and were very happy hard working people. I'm not bragging I'm just saying that those principles are as valid today as they were then.
Totally agree. As for corporate greed, they also want the lowest wages possible, and consumers want the lowest prices possible (obviously), so cheap Mexican farmers without legal status making less than minimum wage? Bring it on they say. And governments want 2 working parents for more tax revenue, and less kids they have to put through school while they don't provide any tax revenue being out of the workplace the first 16-20 years of their life. Better to bring in a young immigrant in their 20's set to work immediately. And has been said, capitalism demands constant population growth for markets etc. so we're in a bit of a pickle that only immigration can solve apparently, and that changes the cultural makeup of a nation, and that makes people uncomfortable & tribal.
-
What you apparently haven't comprehended is that without immigration our population will diminish since we aren't having babies and we are getting old. You want your OAP check, you better have somebody on the payroll. Basic economics.
Guess what "experts" say that immigration CAN'T solve the demographic problem:
https://www.cdhowe.org/no-elixir-of-youth-immigration-cannot-keep-canada-young/4869
But you will ignore those experts because they don't say what you want to hear.
You have nicely given me a perfect example of how hypocritical the "infallible expert" argument that you and others keep using is.
-
And has been said, capitalism demands constant population growth for markets etc. so we're in a bit of a pickle that only immigration can solve apparently, and that changes the cultural makeup of a nation, and that makes people uncomfortable & tribal.
People who say that don't understand capitalism. Capitalism can work fine with stable or declining population. Governments are the ones that need constantly increasing populations because they want to keep expanding the entitlement state and that can't be done easily with the slow growth/declining GDP that comes with a stable population.
-
The West has chosen by our own free wills to not have enough babies to replace ourselves. We have done this to ourselves.
Increasing wealth increases the investment required per child so it is perfectly rational that populations will stabilize once over a certain wealth level. Immigration actually makes this problem worse by increasing the cost of housing due to higher demand. It is a kind of a vicious cycle. People find it difficult to afford housing so they delay having children, governments uses this to justify more immigration which, in turn makes the housing affordability problem worse.
-
There are also studies that say it provides a small boost to GDP, and it's also hard to separate the trends of open borders, global trade with increased migration also. 'Cheap labour' isn't necessarily a bad thing either.
A small boost to GDP is meaningless. It doesn't help the people here, or make up for the increased crowding, pollution and social upheaval. And cheap labour might not be bad for business but keeping wages low for lower skilled workers is definitely not good for them.
Why not ?
Because such jobs do not pay income taxes and are going to be disappearing over the coming years due to automation.
Then why not just ban bringing in lower wage workers ? Why target a country ?
Because we are not doing well in determining who will and will not succeed. The only statistically significant factor I have seen is country of origin. If there's another you know of I'd be glad to hear it. The difference in economic success between immigrants from the top performing source countries and the lower ones is huge.
Luckily people apply for citizenship on a form that asks for more than 'what country are you from ?'.
It doesn't ask enough, and there are rarely personal interviews. Here's another preference of mine: working couples. If we're bringing people in for economic reasons then working couples would, it seems, be better than a religious couple from a place where women rarely work. Women from Muslim countries have generally low labour force participation rates, and low wages when they do participate due to inferior education in their homelands.
I don't think bringing deeply religious people into Canada from a religion which has numerous guidelines which are extremely hostile to our cultural values is a good thing. I see no reason to do so, especially given their generally low economic success. Far better to bring in couples from other places which do better and where religious values are not as inimical to ours values.
-
You bring in more people you are going to boost the GDP which makes this argument irrelevant. What matters is whether the GDP per capita rises or falls.
That is not all that matters. There are myriad other factors, including intangibles such as how a heterogeneous mix of people can improve a country that has a conservative and static approach to innovation.
I personally think we need to learn to build a economy that does not need constant population growth. Any policy that presumes we can grow the population forever is dumb.
I have never heard you articulate this as such. Is that a new conclusion ? Your statement sounds much closer to David Suzuki's position than I would expect. That's not a slam.
-
What you apparently haven't comprehended is that without immigration our population will diminish since we aren't having babies and we are getting old. You want your OAP check, you better have somebody on the payroll. Basic economics.
A. With ZERO immigration, our population would begin to slowly diminish in some decades from now, but any real effects are many decades away and that is plenty of time for social customs to change
B. Immigrants who don't pay taxes are not going to be funding anyone's OAP cheque, including theirs.
-
Somehow we complain it's too expensive to have many kids and when we do we let the state or strangers raise them when they're very young (daycare, all-day kindergarten), but we've never been richer and have 2 parent incomes, meanwhile 80 years ago we were having 5+ kids and lived poorly/modestly on 1 income and did ok.
80 years ago you could raise 5+ kids on one income, but the cost of housing, and basic necessities has skyrocketed and wages have not kept up.
-
80 years ago you could raise 5+ kids on one income, but the cost of housing, and basic necessities has skyrocketed and wages have not kept up.
Immigration is partly responsible both for wage stagnation and increasing housing prices.
-
Immigration is partly responsible both for wage stagnation and increasing housing prices.
OMG, You don't see the obvious contradiction in that statement? All these "poor unskilled immigrants" are buying houses in Canada's three largest cities and that's helping to drive prices up. So how do that do that if they're so damn poor and unskilled?
-
It was a sarcastic comments. I don't have any problem with women, quite the opposite. It was to show how the council was Liberal hand-picked since they put 50% women quotas with most things.
So you don’t think there is any way they were picked on merit? How un-sexist of you.... ::)
-
So you don’t think there is any way they were picked on merit? How un-sexist of you.... ::)
That's one of the problems with quotas. They cast doubt on merit.
-
That's one of the problems with quotas. They cast doubt on merit.
So you're saying you have doubt about the merit of women? I suggest that casts a lot of doubt on your merit.
-
So you're saying you have doubt about the merit of women? I suggest that casts a lot of doubt on your merit.
One of the things I notice about you is that you are incapable of letting a post that you don't like go by, even when you can't come up with a reasoned response. So you make stuff up. You do seem to do that a lot.
-
That's one of the problems with quotas. They cast doubt on merit.
It would be lovely to live in a world where quotas weren't necessary.
-
It would be lovely to live in a world where quotas weren't necessary.
Well, it's big world, but if you're talking specifically about the one we live in, they aren't. As long as discrimination is effectively outlawed, that should be good enough.
-
OMG, You don't see the obvious contradiction in that statement? All these "poor unskilled immigrants" are buying houses in Canada's three largest cities and that's helping to drive prices up. So how do that do that if they're so damn poor and unskilled?
Never said all immigrants are poor or unskilled. Never even suggested it. But we do get the majority of our immigrants under other programs than Economic. And the ones you prefer in particular, seem to be at the low end of the economic success range.
-
One of the things I notice about you is that you are incapable of letting a post that you don't like go by, even when you can't come up with a reasoned response. So you make stuff up. You do seem to do that a lot.
Forgive me if I don't take you very seriously. You have argus though. :D
-
Forgive me if I don't take you very seriously. You have argus though. :D
I don't expect you to. You are the one making stuff up after all.
Tell you what, you show me where in that post I said I have doubts about the merit of women and I'll delete my profile and never confuse you again.
-
Never said all immigrants are poor or unskilled. Never even suggested it. But we do get the majority of our immigrants under other programs than Economic. And the ones you prefer in particular, seem to be at the low end of the economic success range.
You failed to address the contradiction.
And of course your comment about "the ones I prefer" is just yet another stupid assumption. For instance one of "the ones I prefer" was a flight instructor who helped guide me to my initial license. And he was an immigrant all the way from India who actually knew how to fly. Imagine that!
-
But we do get the majority of our immigrants under other programs than Economic.
2017 statistics
56% of permanent resident admissions were economic class
93% of immigrants have knowledge of English or French
61% of economic admissions settled in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver
on a positive note in 1997 only 10% settled outside of Ontario, BC, and Quebec; that is now 34%
80% of our population growth was from international immigration
For those going on about refugees
2016: 62,343
2017: 44,747
-
You failed to address the contradiction.
I fully explained it. You just don't seem to be capable of understanding anything which contradicts your internationalist worldview.
And of course your comment about "the ones I prefer" is just yet another stupid assumption. For instance one of "the ones I prefer" was a flight instructor who helped guide me to my initial license. And he was an immigrant all the way from India who actually knew how to fly. Imagine that!
And this is relevant, how?
-
2017 statistics
56% of permanent resident admissions were economic class
Let me rephrase then. Only a minority of our immigrants are skilled immigrants.
Does that make it better?
93% of immigrants have knowledge of English or French
Yes, as did the taxi driver I had the other day. He didn't have very damned much of it though.
-
I fully explained it. You just don't seem to be capable of understanding anything which contradicts your internationalist worldview.
And this is relevant, how?
You explained **** all. I'm waiting to find out how how all these poor immigrants that are according to you living living on welfare, have no jobs or job skills, are able to drive up housing prices in the 3 largest city's in Canada.
And what is relevant, that you attempt to ignore, is that the man I spoke of was an immigrant who came to Canada, from a country you and Trump would probably call a "shithole" with very valuable skills which he applied appropriately.
-
You explained **** all. I'm waiting to find out how how all these poor immigrants that are according to you living living on welfare, have no jobs or job skills, are able to drive up housing prices in the 3 largest city's in Canada.
Find someone of at least median intelligence. Have them read my answer to you and try to explain it.
And what is relevant, that you attempt to ignore, is that the man I spoke of was an immigrant who came to Canada, from a country you and Trump would probably call a "shithole" with very valuable skills which he applied appropriately.
So not relevant then. As I thought.
-
Find someone of at least median intelligence. Have them read my answer to you and try to explain it.
So not relevant then. As I thought.
Even someone of median intelligence could identify your blatant contradiction.
-
A small boost to GDP is meaningless. It doesn't help the people here, or make up for the increased crowding, pollution and social upheaval. And cheap labour might not be bad for business but keeping wages low for lower skilled workers is definitely not good for them.
I guess you haven't done a cost/benefit analysis. I saw .5% boost, long-term, expressed. That is a benefit. 'Crowding' is not a benefit. Also it's not a cost, as it's just a failure of planning that needs to be addressed apart from immigration. If we don't have good planning, it doesn't matter if population goes down we are still in trouble.
Keep wages low for labour is not good for them, I agree, and that's a cost. But government also doesn't actively seek to make wages 'good for them' in all cases and when Wynne did this, it was specifically called out and targeted by the PC government. But it's a cost and there are limits as to how high we want to make 'low' wages. For my money, a $15 minimum wage should be liveable in small-town Ontario. You effectively would pay no taxes, be able to contribute to CPP and pay rent and have a car, even save a little.
Because such jobs do not pay income taxes and are going to be disappearing over the coming years due to automation.
But they're still necessary. If you indicate that you want to do something with these jobs, it's going to be a principle you're applying across all economic policies.
Because we are not doing well in determining who will and will not succeed. The only statistically significant factor I have seen is country of origin. If there's another you know of I'd be glad to hear it. The difference in economic success between immigrants from the top performing source countries and the lower ones is huge.
Significant factor "you have seen". I guarantee you there are more and the government doesn't tell us what these are. IN fact, this whole question plays into your suspicions about political factors involved also. In this age of analytics they are likely to predict to a large degree who will succeed and who will not. They just don't deem it necessary to inform the peasants of the thinking.
It doesn't ask enough, and there are rarely personal interviews. Here's another preference of mine: working couples. If we're bringing people in for economic reasons then working couples would, it seems, be better than a religious couple from a place where women rarely work. Women from Muslim countries have generally low labour force participation rates, and low wages when they do participate due to inferior education in their homelands.
Targeting people based on their religion is not on. If you are looking for economic and cultural fit, though, you can effectively determine these things by asking around religion without asking directly. For example "Will the wife be working".
I don't think bringing deeply religious people into Canada from a religion which has numerous guidelines which are extremely hostile to our cultural values is a good thing.
I guess you haven't known any religious immigrants who were highly professional and well-integrated into our society. I have, so I don't see a reason for a blunt ban on religious people.
I see no reason to do so, especially given their generally low economic success. Far better to bring in couples from other places which do better and where religious values are not as inimical to ours values.
Using national origin is such a blunt and dumb tool as I have said.
-
Don't know if this has come up yet...
https://globalnews.ca/news/4623753/immigration-2019-election-tasha-kheiriddin/
COMMENTARY: Liberals seek to make immigration ‘wedge issue’ for 2019 federal election
It seems like the Liberals are going to make immigration into a moral issue, which is a bad way to approach it IMO. Shaming people because they don't want to increase immigration seems very odd to me. It effectively means anybody who wants more immigration is morally superior. The Liberals themselves must have arguments against increasing immigration past their number of 350K. Why can't use their arguments against them ?
My rally cry is going to be "discuss smarter". Separate morals and economics.
-
Shaming people because they don't want to increase immigration seems very odd to me.
Why would that seem odd? It's pretty much what happens all the time.
-
Why would that seem odd? It's pretty much what happens all the time.
It's still odd, though. It's a basically impossible position to hold. Like "People who don't give enough to charity are bad." without defining "enough".
This is "people who oppose increasing immigration are racist"... and yet nobody believes immigration should be unlimited and unrestricted (.) so everyone is racist... ?
-
It's still odd, though. It's a basically impossible position to hold. Like "People who don't give enough to charity are bad." without defining "enough".
This is "people who oppose increasing immigration are racist"... and yet nobody believes immigration should be unlimited and unrestricted (.) so everyone is racist... ?
I mean... ya. There's 3 main founding cultures in Canada: Quebec/francophone culture, anglo-Canadian culture, and aboriginal cultures. What chaps my bum is that Quebec is morally allowed to protect its culture, and aboriginals are allowed, but anglo-Canadians aren't since we're the dominant majority culture and therefore seen as an oppressor rather than a victim like the minority aboriginals and Quebecois.
Another problem is that there's a very fine line between protecting your culture and being a racist/xenophobe/intolerant shmuck. Quebecers straddle that line all the time lately and hop over it occasionally and becomes hypocrites. Nationalism is a really tricky thing to manage properly. In a world made up of nation-states, you need some nationalism in order to unify culturally/politically, but not too much or you become hateful and intolerant. If I'm being honest, sometimes i catch myself falling into that hole, so I have to stop myself & correct it, or other posters will. Luckily this is a safe place for me to make those mistakes & I won't lose my job or friends over it.
Those who are very tolerant, well they're compassionate open people, but if say you're a Quebecois and are too tolerant & open, all of a sudden you can find your culture disappearing if you don't protect it, which is why they do. Culture is a zero-sum game, and that makes it a battleground sometimes, the ie: more American Walmarts are in your community the less Zellers' are going to be around, the more American music is on the radio the less Canadian music will be there. That's why we have CRTC.
-
It's still odd, though. It's a basically impossible position to hold. Like "People who don't give enough to charity are bad." without defining "enough".
This is "people who oppose increasing immigration are racist"... and yet nobody believes immigration should be unlimited and unrestricted (.) so everyone is racist... ?
We're not talking about what is. We're talking about what some people believe is.
-
That's why this immigration issue is so divisive, and why it's one of the biggest issues the West has faced, because it's an existential issue. Globalization has changed everything & will only get wider and deeper.
-
I guess you haven't done a cost/benefit analysis. I saw .5% boost, long-term, expressed.
The couple next door bring over a turkey for dinner. Now you have two. But there's twice as many people eating them. An increase in GDP is not something I care about.
'Crowding' is not a benefit. Also it's not a cost, as it's just a failure of planning that needs to be addressed apart from immigration.
It IS a cost in terms of life enjoyment of those here. And once of the problems is that so many of our immigrants come from the same source countries and want to be with their friends/relatives or just people like them in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. If we took in a bunch of Ukrainians they'd have no particular need to go to these cities.
Keep wages low for labour is not good for them, I agree, and that's a cost. But government also doesn't actively seek to make wages 'good for them' in all cases and when Wynne did this,
There is a vast difference between wages rising naturally because of demand, and a sudden artificial jump in wages for no good economic reason.
For my money, a $15 minimum wage should be liveable in small-town Ontario. You effectively would pay no taxes, be able to contribute to CPP and pay rent and have a car, even save a little.
You are introducing a Socialist moral belief into an economic argument. Why should people who have minimal marketable skills be able to have a happy, content life? Have you forgotten the whole point of Capitalism is to encourage people to improve their skillset and education in order to make themselves more marketable and earn more? You want to just GIVE them the money so they don't have to bother. And remember, that money has to be TAKEN from others involuntarily. It might seem cold, but what it actually does is punish those who are productive by taking away their money and giving it to those who are unproductive so they don't need to bother to improve themselves.
The status quo is a reaaaally comfortable place for most people. If I had been able to make $15 an hour and have a car and pay rent and save I probably would not have tried to hard to get out of my shitty jobs and into something better. The more comfortable you make it for people to live well without any skills or education the more people without skills or education we will have.
But they're still necessary.
We don't need to bring people in to do them. if they're necessary then employers will increase wages to get employees. That's how Capitalism works.
Significant factor "you have seen". I guarantee you there are more and the government doesn't tell us what these are. IN fact, this whole question plays into your suspicions about political factors involved also.
You think its for some other reason that the Liberals doubled the number of elderly family class immigrants for the last election, and that they've announced they're doubling it again?
Targeting people based on their religion is not on. If you are looking for economic and cultural fit, though, you can effectively determine these things by asking around religion without asking directly. For example "Will the wife be working".
I don't care how you do it. For example, as in the cases we've seen from France and Switzerland where a refusal to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex resulted in a failed citizenship application.
Using national origin is such a blunt and dumb tool as I have said.
If it works, I don't care. Did you know that something under 7% of immigrants from South Africa and the Phillipines have incomes below the LICO? It's 33% for immigrants from Algeria (the government just announced it wants to recruit 40,000 immigrants form Algeria because they speak French). Morocco, Iraq/Iran, Turkey and Bangladesh are all at the top end of the spectrum for poverty. To my simple mind that says let's have more South Africans and Fillipinos and fewer Algerians and Bangladeshis (Pakistan is only slightly better on the list).
-
I mean... ya. There's 3 main founding cultures in Canada: Quebec/francophone culture, anglo-Canadian culture, and aboriginal cultures. What chaps my bum is that Quebec is morally allowed to protect its culture, and aboriginals are allowed, but anglo-Canadians aren't since we're the dominant majority culture and therefore seen as an oppressor rather than a victim like the minority aboriginals and Quebecois.
Of course we are. We have cultural exemptions and protections built into trade agreements and fund our own jingoistic media empire.
The fact that other cultures can have different conversations about their relationships with other cultures is marginally interesting, but I don't see why it should bother people.
Another problem is that there's a very fine line between protecting your culture and being a racist/xenophobe/intolerant shmuck. Quebecers straddle that line all the time lately and hop over it occasionally and becomes hypocrites. Nationalism is a really tricky thing to manage properly. In a world made up of nation-states, you need some nationalism in order to unify culturally/politically, but not too much or you become hateful and intolerant. If I'm being honest, sometimes i catch myself falling into that hole, so I have to stop myself & correct it, or other posters will. Luckily this is a safe place for me to make those mistakes & I won't lose my job or friends over it.
Anything worthwhile is difficult to create and maintain. We took the American model and added state-supported, if not enforced, tolerance. We also took that as a point of pride against a superpower neighbour who has had problems with their relationships with African Americans. (Ironic understatement intentional.)
Those who are very tolerant, well they're compassionate open people, but if say you're a Quebecois and are too tolerant & open, all of a sudden you can find your culture disappearing if you don't protect it, which is why they do. Culture is a zero-sum game, and that makes it a battleground sometimes, the ie: more American Walmarts are in your community the less Zellers' are going to be around, the more American music is on the radio the less Canadian music will be there. That's why we have CRTC.
Right. The interesting thing is that we have an opportunity to validate a key Canadian cultural building block: our affinity for gabbing and negotiating things ad nauseum. And we can turn it into an asset, even, if we find ways to formalize discussions and move them forward where no other nation can.
-
What chaps my bum is that Quebec is morally allowed to protect its culture, and aboriginals are allowed, but anglo-Canadians aren't since we're the dominant majority culture and therefore seen as an oppressor rather than a victim like the minority aboriginals and Quebecois.
What is anglo-Canadian culture and how is it not protected? I see it literally everywhere. What would you like to protect your culture from?
-
What is anglo-Canadian culture and how is it not protected? I see it literally everywhere. What would you like to protect your culture from?
Great questions. The #1 thread of all time, which continues, is American influence.
-
Great questions. The #1 thread of all time, which continues, is American influence.
Leftists always challenge the idea of preserving our culture by demanding it be defined. But the culture of a people is an amorphous thing which would take whole books to describe.
Oddly, I have never heard anyone demand others define THEIR culture in any way, much less suggest it didn't exist.
-
What is anglo-Canadian culture and how is it not protected? I see it literally everywhere. What would you like to protect your culture from?
Bring in half a million people from foreign cultures like the Liberals want, coupled with shrinking birthrates, and how long do you think that will last? Maybe you're open to that cultural change, maybe you aren't, but make no mistake, it will change our culture. If we go with the 450k number, we have to be willing to accept that, as will Quebec.
Couple that with massive American cultural influence as MH said...
-
Leftists always challenge the idea of preserving our culture by demanding it be defined. But the culture of a people is an amorphous thing which would take whole books to describe.
Oddly, I have never heard anyone demand others define THEIR culture in any way, much less suggest it didn't exist.
Sorry - I was intending to write 'threat'.
And you are right. But leftists and rightists both must agree that we do need to 'protect' 'OUR' 'culture' in some way, as a principle.
-
Leftists always challenge the idea of preserving our culture by demanding it be defined. But the culture of a people is an amorphous thing which would take whole books to describe.
Amorphous: having no real or identifiable form.
Conservatives: we demand that you protect our culture, which we can neither identify nor describe, from any sort of change that we disaprove of.
-
Amorphous: having no real or identifiable form.
Conservatives: we demand that you protect our culture, which we can neither identify nor describe, from any sort of change that we disaprove of.
Exactly... the two people in this thread who want "anglo culture" protected define it as "amorphous" or when asked the other one says "it" will change when you bring in people from other cultures. They can't define what "it" is or how it will change or what it is that is changing, or why it shouldn't change. As if we have this perfect culture that needs protecting. ::)
They talk as if our culture has never changed and we've never brought in immigrants from other cultures before... Canada is other cultures!
Poonlight - spit it out already... what are we going to lose?
-
Conservatives: we demand that you protect our culture, which we can neither identify nor describe, from any sort of change that we disaprove of.
Describe Quebecois culture, aboriginal cultures, African culture, Italian culture, British culture, American culture etc
-
Exactly... the two people in this thread who want "anglo culture" protected define it as "amorphous" or when asked the other one says "it" will change when you bring in people from other cultures. They can't define what "it" is or how it will change or what it is that is changing, or why it shouldn't change. As if we have this perfect culture that needs protecting. ::)
They talk as if our culture has never changed and we've never brought in immigrants from other cultures before... Canada is other cultures!
Poonlight - spit it out already... what are we going to lose?
Well we might lose a few MacDonald's if immigrants open eateries that produce REAL food that actually has flavor.
-
Describe Quebecois culture, aboriginal cultures, African culture, Italian culture, British culture, American culture etc
One of the best ways to get a handle on such things is to get out of Mom's basement and travel.
-
Describe Quebecois culture, aboriginal cultures, African culture, Italian culture, British culture, American culture etc
I don't need to.... you're the one making a claim that "anglo-Canadian culture" needs protecting. Step up.
-
I don't need to.... you're the one making a claim that "anglo-Canadian culture" needs protecting. Step up.
I didn't ask you though.
-
I didn't ask you though.
Really? You're going to pretend to have a one-on-one discussion on a public forum so you can avoid answering? ::)
-
I was told by a FN expert in one of our training sessions that the different FN cultures in Canada are as separate from each other as any other cultures from around the planet are, and any attempt to lump them in to one culture was utterly wrong.
I suppose my northern European culture is the same. I wouldn't want to have to define it. I could probably define Bradford in the 60s, but so what, it's gone.
Anyone who has a culture thinks it's worth saving. It doesn't matter. They're all going to change eventually.
-
One of the best ways to get a handle on such things is to get out of Mom's basement and travel.
I don't live with my mommy or daddy, and I've traveled a lot, and what I've learned is that there's good aspects to a lot of cultures, and other places are nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. You said you went to Sudan for a bit. Why do you live in Canada and not there? Would you raise a family there? Would you like Canada to be like Sudan? Nigeria? China? India? Philippines? Russia? America?
You said you live near Greektown. Why do Greeks live together there? Why do Chinese choose to live together in Scarborough & Markham etc, and not Brampton? Why do South Asians live in Brampton & not Markham? Why do lots of Italians live in Woodbridge? Chinese in Richmond, BC? Francophones in Trois-Rivieres QC? Why do lots of Francophobes live in Orleans, ON & not Kanata? Why do lots of aboriginals choose to live on reserves & not move to the city where they'd be financially far better off? Are they all racist xenophobes?
-
I was told by a FN expert in one of our training sessions that the different FN cultures in Canada are as separate from each other as any other cultures from around the planet are, and any attempt to lump them in to one culture was utterly wrong.
I agree, that's why I always used the word "aboriginal cultures" plural and not "culture" singular.
-
Describe Quebecois culture, aboriginal cultures, African culture, Italian culture, British culture, American culture etc
Indeed, how can a culture be defined absolutely? I have been here only 60 years, and my culture has changed to accept female equality, gay rights, access to abortion, how and when we access media. Culture changes across the country too; East Coast culture is different than West Coast culture and small town culture is different from urban culture. This is not to say that we don't all share some similar cultural behaviors, because we do. Still, a "culture' is changeable and does change. The fear of culture change, the insistence that we have to 'save' our culture doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Anyone who has a culture thinks it's worth saving. It doesn't matter. They're all going to change eventually.
It's not about a culture changing, or some immigrants coming to Canada, it's the scale of the change. Canadian birth rates have been well below replacement levels & trending downwards for decades, the baby boomers will all be dead in a few decades, while migration of people from foreign cultures has been ever-increasing. Doing the math, that is some massive fundamental demographics shifting unseen since Samuel de Champlain et al. starting taking up roost.
If/when his decedents in Quebec start becoming a minority & think the culture could be going the way of the dodo, they'll be stark-raving mad. We've been seeing violence already, it's just going to get worse.
-
I don't live with my mommy or daddy, and I've traveled a lot, and what I've learned is that there's good aspects to a lot of cultures, and other places are nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. You said you went to Sudan for a bit. Why do you live in Canada and not there? Would you raise a family there? Would you like Canada to be like Sudan? Nigeria? China? India? Philippines? Russia? America?
You said you live near Greektown. Why do Greeks live together there? Why do Chinese choose to live together in Scarborough & Markham etc, and not Brampton? Why do South Asians live in Brampton & not Markham? Why do lots of Italians live in Woodbridge? Chinese in Richmond, BC? Francophones in Trois-Rivieres QC? Why do lots of Francophobes live in Orleans, ON & not Kanata? Why do lots of aboriginals choose to live on reserves & not move to the city where they'd be financially far better off? Are they all racist xenophobes?
Um it seems you've missed the point by a country mile. My point is that cultures are actually discernible, and nothing to do with where I live.
-
...This is not to say that we don't all share some similar cultural behaviors, because we do. Still, a "culture' is changeable and does change. The fear of culture change, the insistence that we have to 'save' our culture doesn't make any sense to me.
See above. It's not the change, it's the scale of it. If people believe their culture is under existential threat, things are going to get ugly and already have. I'm not violent & I accept the will of the majority in our democracy, but other people clearly don't. That should alarm us. As MH said, we need to have a national conversation about this, instead of hushed tones & it all bubbling under the surface and venting like volcanoes like we're seeing.
-
Um it seems you've missed the point by a country mile. My point is that cultures are actually discernible, and nothing to do with where I live.
You're right, sorry about that.
-
You're right, sorry about that.
No worries. Have you heard the latest, Trump now says he has "kept more promises than I've made". I'm scratching my head as to how that might work.
-
See above. It's not the change, it's the scale of it. If people believe their culture is under existential threat, things are going to get ugly and already have. I'm not violent & I accept the will of the majority in our democracy, but other people clearly don't. That should alarm us. As MH said, we need to have a national conversation about this, instead of hushed tones & it all bubbling under the surface and venting like volcanoes like we're seeing.
If our culture can only be carried on by babies born to European-descendant Canadians and if there are not enough of those babies being born, what are we supposed to do? Force certain, ethnically appropriate women to have babies? That's not a very likely scenario, so in order to avoid Canada and Canadian culture to simply fade from view I think we can agree that we need a certain level of immigration.
The questions seem to be a) how much immigration and b) from where.
How much immigration is certainly debatable. I assume we would need at least enough to maintain the current population level both to maintain our economy and to make us not quite a pushover should another country want to expand their territory. I don't know what that number is, but we can probably assume it's less than than the 200,000 to 250,000 we have accepted over the last number of years.
The next question is "where should these immigrants come from?". Some people insist that our immigrants should come from "countries most like us". The problem with "countries most like us" is that their birth rates are also falling and concerns about "White European-based culture" disappearing exist there as well. If Canada decided on a policy of limiting immigration to these "culturally compatible" countries, what's to stop these other countries from doing the same? If all these "similar" countries are vying for the same decreasing number of immigrants, what will be the outcome? Will it be "good" for Canada? How attractive would Canada be to the British, Europeans, Australians, etc? Would we get the "cream" of those immigrants or the dregs? Would we be able to even get enough immigrants to maintain our population from our "preferred" countries? If not, we would clearly have to open the doors to "less preferred" countries, and eventually end up back where we are today.
You say that the people who are concerned about their culture disappearing see it as an existential crisis and if we ignore it, it will lead to violence. But what do they expect to be done? Their solutions are generally simplistic (build a wall to keep them out; implement values testing to keep them out), often based on racist claims (Mexicans **** and murder, we don't want them; Muslims are backward and barbaric, we don't want them).
Most of all, they ignore all the times we have been down this road before, accusing immigrant groups of being culturally incompatible, religious extremists, criminals, having divided loyalties, not willing to integrate or assimilate. Those claims have been wrong every single time as these groups have all become "Canadian". But still, some Canadians insist "this time" it's different, even as each succeeding generation of immigrants becomes more westernized.
Also, what does a "national conversation" mean? What does that look like, exactly? Town hall meetings by the current government? Expert panels on newscasts? Surveys by Statscan? Studies by academics?
-
Amorphous: having no real or identifiable form.
Conservatives: we demand that you protect our culture, which we can neither identify nor describe, from any sort of change that we disaprove of.
And there, in a nutshell, is the typical sneering attitude of the Left whenever anyone suggests Canada (other than Quebec) has a culture. A woman who would set herself on fire to protect the culture and values of the Muslim world or any country in it laughs and sneers at the thought of a Canadian culture because it can't be summed up in the few paragraphs her limited attention span could absorb.
-
Um it seems you've missed the point by a country mile. My point is that cultures are actually discernible, and nothing to do with where I live.
Maybe you simply are too shallow and ignorant to understand anything about cultures other than superficial things like food and quaint ethnic outfits.
-
See above. It's not the change, it's the scale of it. If people believe their culture is under existential threat, things are going to get ugly and already have. I'm not violent & I accept the will of the majority in our democracy, but other people clearly don't. That should alarm us. As MH said, we need to have a national conversation about this, instead of hushed tones & it all bubbling under the surface and venting like volcanoes like we're seeing.
People like these aren't capable of caring. They're too ignorant, too superficial. They live for the moment without any thought or care for the future and can't imagine anything happening other than the world unfolding as they believe it should. Anyone who thinks differently must be some kind of crazed extremist, and certainly a rarity.
I was reading a thing the other day where a guy was talking about a girl he went out with in high school. In Texas. She's so tribal in her conservatism she proudly brags about unfriending people who express different political views. She sneers at 'mainstream news' and never watches it, only FOX. She lives in a bubble surrounded only by people who think like her. Because anyone who has different opinions gets pushed out of the bubble.
Most of the people on this web site are exactly like that woman, only in reverse.
Some part of me almost hopes to see an extremist government take power in Canada, just to see how horrified they will all be. Of course, not a single one of them will hold themselves or those like them at fault. They'll simply blame the 'ignorant racists' who elected it. Just like their American counterparts do.
-
The next question is "where should these immigrants come from?". Some people insist that our immigrants should come from "countries most like us". The problem with "countries most like us" is that their birth rates are also falling and concerns about "White European-based culture" disappearing exist there as well. If Canada decided on a policy of limiting immigration to these "culturally compatible" countries, what's to stop these other countries from doing the same?
First, the idea that immigration is going to make much demographic difference has been shot down multiple times. Immigration will NOT solve a declining birth rate or an aging population unless we up the numbers to millions each year. Second, bringing in immigrants from more compatible cultures presents less of a threat to ours and allows for easier assimilation. Third, the only thing which is going to seriously address a declining birth rate is to figure out why it's declining and then undertake a program to reverse it. That is not something our government has made any attempt at.
Finally, the concern about culture and values has only a tertiary relationship with skin colour. And only because the countries which are most similar to ours, culturally, are Europeans, which means largely white. You can certainly assimilate people of any place, given sufficient time, but not if they're coming over by the hundreds of thousands every year and settling in together.
-
And there, in a nutshell, is the typical sneering attitude of the Left
Awww....did she hurt your feelings?
Tell us again how it's the left who are snowflakes.
-
Indeed, how can a culture be defined absolutely? I have been here only 60 years, and my culture has changed to accept female equality, gay rights, access to abortion, how and when we access media. Culture changes across the country too; East Coast culture is different than West Coast culture and small town culture is different from urban culture. This is not to say that we don't all share some similar cultural behaviors, because we do. Still, a "culture' is changeable and does change. The fear of culture change, the insistence that we have to 'save' our culture doesn't make any sense to me.
Maybe it's not fear of losing a "culture" so much as losing or compromising all the benefits and rights we have worked so hard for:
my culture has changed to accept female equality, gay rights, access to abortion, how and when we access media.
Introduce a culture in large numbers that doesn't value any of those things, and there are bound to be problems/culture clashes.
-
IF we can get by the insults... again, left and right both want to protect our culture and nothing is wrong with that. The devil is in the details.
-
Awww....did she hurt your feelings?
Tell us again how it's the left who are snowflakes.
Believe me I can feel utter contempt for people like you without having hurt feelings.
-
IF we can get by the insults... again, left and right both want to protect our culture and nothing is wrong with that. The devil is in the details.
Sorry? The Left responds with ridicule to the very idea we HAVE a culture. How on earth do you get that they want to protect it?
-
Believe me I can feel utter contempt for people like you without having hurt feelings.
Yeah, no ****. If you had any amount of reflexivity, you would realize your comments to dia were projections.
-
Introduce a culture in large numbers that doesn't value any of those things, and there are bound to be problems/culture clashes.
How many people were "practicing" Christians 60 yrars ago in Canada? How many people disaproved of gay people 60 years ago? How many gay people, 60 years ago, lived "in the closet" for fear of being arrested, attacked or killed? How many women in Canada, 60 years ago, were legally allowed to be **** by their husband or who were beaten by their husbands while society and the authorities looked the other way? How many girls and women died from illegal abortions, or had their babies taken away because they were illegitimate? How many people firmly believed that a woman was subject to her husband's authority, such that my mother told me she had to get her husband's approval for birth control? And that she couldn't divorce him for physical abuse because adultery was the only permitted reason for abuse? And that when she went to a lawyer to regain custody of one of her children, she was told she would lose all three because the courts preferred divorced men over divorced (fallen) women.
We are talking about the majority of the population supporting these backwards social attitudes. Not 10% or even 30%, but a majority of Canadians. And look how we've somehow managed to move past those conservative, patriarchal and homophobic attitudes, often dragging Christians and conservatives kicking and screaming.
And yet you would have it that less than 1/10th of the population would somehow have the power to take us backwards. Especially when the majority of that under 10% population actually accepts and supports our progressive values.
The only culture clash is from xenophobes who engage in fear mongering and hyperbole instead of rational thought.
-
How many people were "practicing" Christians 60 yrars ago in Canada? How many people disaproved of gay people 60 years ago? How many gay people, 60 years ago, lived "in the closet" for fear of being arrested, attacked or killed? How many women in Canada, 60 years ago, were legally allowed to be **** by their husband or who were beaten by their husbands while society and the authorities looked the other way? How many girls and women died from illegal abortions, or had their babies taken away because they were illegitimate? How many people firmly believed that a woman was subject to her husband's authority, such that my mother told me she had to get her husband's approval for birth control? And that she couldn't divorce him for physical abuse because adultery was the only permitted reason for abuse? And that when she went to a lawyer to regain custody of one of her children, she was told she would lose all three because the courts preferred divorced men over divorced (fallen) women.
We are talking about the majority of the population supporting these backwards social attitudes. Not 10% or even 30%, but a majority of Canadians. And look how we've somehow managed to move past those conservative, patriarchal and homophobic attitudes, often dragging Christians and conservatives kicking and screaming.
And yet you would have it that less than 1/10th of the population would somehow have the power to take us backwards. Especially when the majority of that under 10% population actually accepts and supports our progressive values.
The only culture clash is from xenophobes who engage in fear mongering and hyperbole instead of rational thought.
You're absolutely right. It hasn't been that long since the majority of our population supported those backwards social attitudes. And you're also right that religion often had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.
In many other threads you have dramatically warned of the religious right-wing front and how they are such a danger, much more so than terrorism. Yet now, you are arguing that the religious right - of any religion and especially if they banded together - would not have any power to backtrack those values.
I notice you've finally replaced the label "xenophobe" for "Islamophobe" and "racist".
Again, this was my sentence:
Introduce a culture in large numbers that doesn't value any of those things, and there are bound to be problems/culture clashes.
I didn't mention Christians or Muslims or any religion. I didn't mention any race. I didn't mention any culture.
If acknowledging that two cultures who are very different would experience problems and culture clashes, is your criteria for labeling someone a xenophobe or a racist or an Islamophobe and attacking their morality as a human being......well, I think that says a lot more about you, than me. Your rabid defense of Islam is itching your persecution complex and you are now seeing and inventing discrimination where there was none.
-
Yeah, no ****. If you had any amount of reflexivity, you would realize your comments to dia were projections.
Given your total inability to understand the psychology and motivations of humans I'm afraid your attempt at personal psychoanalyses over the internet is, once more, a complete fail.
-
We are talking about the majority of the population supporting these backwards social attitudes. Not 10% or even 30%, but a majority of Canadians. And look how we've somehow managed to move past those conservative, patriarchal and homophobic attitudes, often dragging Christians and conservatives kicking and screaming.
And yet you would have it that less than 1/10th of the population would somehow have the power to take us backwards. Especially when the majority of that under 10% population actually accepts and supports our progressive values.
You forget this was done within the context of a long history of western liberalism, and the culture and values which are derived from it. Such things are absent among immigrants from Muslim countries. There has been, from what I can tell, approximately ZERO societal advancement throughout the Muslim world. Unlike Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists, Muslim social values have largely remained static from where they were a thousand years ago.
Your belief that's all going to change here within a couple of generations has no rationality behind it.
It's also a question of risk/return, of up side and down side. There is NO downside to shifting our immigration away from Muslim nations. We can find immigrants, and more economically successful ones, elsewhere. Then we don't have to just hope that they assimilate. We get the same reward without the risk.
Because there is no way to reverse the process if your blithe assumptions don't work out. We can't, in a few decades, order all the Muslims out of the country.
-
Given your total inability to understand the psychology and motivations of humans I'm afraid your attempt at personal psychoanalyses over the internet is, once more, a complete fail.
So you are now the "expert" on what motivates humans are you? I suspect not. Not all humans are motivated as much as you seem to be by such a simple thing as skin color.
-
So you are now the "expert" on what motivates humans are you? I suspect not. Not all humans are motivated as much as you seem to be by such a simple thing as skin color.
What motivates humans has baffled Marxists and their ilk for a hundred years.
-
What motivates humans has baffled Marxists and their ilk for a hundred years.
And it will continue to baffle me for however many years I have. People who vote for the likes of Trump for instance.
-
Sorry? The Left responds with ridicule to the very idea we HAVE a culture. How on earth do you get that they want to protect it?
Against Americans.
-
If our culture can only be carried on by babies born to European-descendant Canadians and if there are not enough of those babies being born, what are we supposed to do? Force certain, ethnically appropriate women to have babies? That's not a very likely scenario, so in order to avoid Canada and Canadian culture to simply fade from view I think we can agree that we need a certain level of immigration.
1. It may be inevitable that Canadian birthrates are on the permanent decline and nothing we do will stop that, and traditional Canadian culture will decline similarly as foreign cultures become more prevalent. My point was, lots of Canadians will refuse to accept this, and as they feel existentially threatened, some will become violent.
2. I don't think European-descendant Canadians are the only ones who can have babies to carry on Canadian culture(s). I know friends born in Canada to immigrant parents who are just about perfectly assimilated into Canadian culture. They aren't from the biggest cities where immigrants are most numerous (Toronto, Vancouver) so they've been able to assimilate easier. Friends I know born in Canada by immigrant parents from Toronto or Vancouver grew up in ethnic enclaves often in schools where virtually all of the students and teachers were from their same foreign country/culture so they haven't assimilated as well I've found.
3. You can't force people to have babies, but you can provide more incentives, including financial. At the very least, more money should go to Canadian parents as incentives to have Canadian babies than we spend on immigration to bring in non-Canadians.
The questions seem to be a) how much immigration and b) from where.
How much immigration is certainly debatable. I assume we would need at least enough to maintain the current population level both to maintain our economy and to make us not quite a pushover should another country want to expand their territory. I don't know what that number is, but we can probably assume it's less than than the 200,000 to 250,000 we have accepted over the last number of years.
The last 2 years have been 310,000 and 300,000. I don't know what the # should be either from an economic, social, cultural standpoint etc.
As Global News points out:
Canada would need to add six million people just to fill up the demographic gap left behind by boomers, economist Stephen Gordon noted a few years ago. And that hole keeps growing by 200,000 per year. Boosting immigration levels to 450,000 people a year and even higher would likely help boost growth. It might even alleviate fiscal pressures. But it won’t come close to cancelling out the impact of an aging population and low birth rate.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3782202/450000-immigration-target-canada/
The next question is "where should these immigrants come from?". Some people insist that our immigrants should come from "countries most like us". The problem with "countries most like us" is that their birth rates are also falling and concerns about "White European-based culture" disappearing exist there as well.
I don't think it should matter where an immigrant comes from, there's good & bad apples from any country, it should all be based on merit. As you say we couldn't just take from western countries anyways because the numbers just aren't there for our needs. What might be considered is taking too many immigrants from any particular country because when you get large populations from any one country you almost always create ethnic enclaves that assimilate less.
Most of all, they ignore all the times we have been down this road before, accusing immigrant groups of being culturally incompatible, religious extremists, criminals, having divided loyalties, not willing to integrate or assimilate. Those claims have been wrong every single time as these groups have all become "Canadian". But still, some Canadians insist "this time" it's different, even as each succeeding generation of immigrants becomes more westernized.
Yes we should learn from past mistakes so not to repeat them, while acknowledging the different circumstances between then and now.
Also, what does a "national conversation" mean? What does that look like, exactly? Town hall meetings by the current government? Expert panels on newscasts? Surveys by Statscan? Studies by academics?
Hard to say, but immigration will be an election issue next year so at least we'll get some public debate on it that way.
-
Canada would need to add six million people just to fill up the demographic gap left behind by boomers, economist Stephen Gordon noted a few years ago. And that hole keeps growing by 200,000 per year. Boosting immigration levels to 450,000 people a year and even higher would likely help boost growth. It might even alleviate fiscal pressures. But it won’t come close to cancelling out the impact of an aging population and low birth rate.
Does that mean we're due for a population drop ?
-
I agree with comments made on both sides of the debate because its not a all or nothing issue and so I have ticked off like to people arguing different sides for doing an excellent job explaining themselves.
This always comes down to questions like just what is Canadian culture and how do we assure immigrants build positively that culture with Canadians born here. I don't know what Canadian culure is. We spend so much time saying what we are not, i.e., what we include, we don' really define it. I have very mixed emotions when I see the debate bog down into negative generalizations of an entire people but I do think we have to be honest and understand and be careful not to send out the message our culture can be anything it wants to be. It can't. For example for Trudeau to pose as a pro gay feminist but also cowtow to Muslim fundamentalist mosques preaching anti gay, anti women, anti Jewish crap is b.s. and he's done that.
Trudeau has managed to pander to anything he thinks will vote for him- I give him that. He never misses an opportunity to pander and pose.
I just don't think its honest or sincere. I have a problem with his holier than thou speeches at the war memorial but refusing to properly fund medical and counselling care of armed forces vets.
An instrinsic part of Canadian culture is to honour the sacrifice of our armed forces members and one of those ways is being there when they come home. I think Trudeau is so busy pandering to what he thinks are social groups who will vote for him if he patronizes them with photo ops and speeches, he forgets certain Canadians who are the epitome of what this country is about.
I personally believe myself war memorial services should be apolitical and therefore be represented by the Governor General on behalf of Canada not him. That's just me. See I believe the Monarchy symbols are part of Canadian culture. Not a popular stance these days.
-
I personally believe myself war memorial services should be apolitical and therefore be represented by the Governor General on behalf of Canada not him. That's just me. See I believe the Monarchy symbols are part of Canadian culture. Not a popular stance these days.
Well, how would it look if every NATO leader was there and he didn't go ?
Politicizing these things is a problem, though. I'm surprised he doesn't wear a peace symbol instead of a poppy.
-
I personally believe myself war memorial services should be apolitical and therefore be represented by the Governor General on behalf of Canada not him.
I see a major push back if that were to happen. I agree that anything said there should be apolitical, but not having the Prime Minister present would be taken as a slight. I didn't watch what was said this year, but I generally expect them to lay a wreath and not say much.
-
Does that mean we're due for a population drop ?
High income economies are already seeing their fertility rates drop below replacement. With the increasing income in other parts of the world, we will also see less migration. Our social programs in most of the high income nations are based on population theories that are no longer valid. We're currently paying for the aged and our kids are supposed to be paying for us; however, without replacement fertility, the bottom is going to drop out.
We need to have a serious discussion about youths "failure to launch" and how the necessity of higher education has contributed to this fertility decline. Where a bachelor's degree is nearly mandatory these days to just "getting by" (and in some cases not even that), youth are prolonging marriage and parenthood even longer than any generation before. Mid-century scholars argued that universal high school in the late 19th century and early 20th century were delaying the transition to adulthood (and it did), but imagine now that it's delayed even further for post-secondary education.
With those educations come massive debt loads. Regardless of what fear-mongers will tell you, most people do not have children before they are economically stable. The unexceptional cases have people getting an education, finding work, saving to start a family, then getting married when they have enough savings, and starting a family. With the massive debt loads coming out of colleges and universities, not only is family formation delayed due to the extended education, but it is now delayed even further past the extended education so that young adults can service their debts and find economic stability before marrying and starting a family.
And we can see it playing out in the numbers. People are not only getting married much later, but many are not marrying at all. People are not only marrying much later, but also having children much later in life, and again....there's a increase in the number of people going childless. Those who do have children are having fewer children because there's less fertile years for childbearing, but also less money to support them.
While this is all fine for the stress overpopulation puts on resources and the environment, it is not fine for the global economy. The global capitalist economy is predicated on growth...infinite growth. Population decline will be disastrous to that end. But perhaps it will be just the encouragement the global economy needs to re-define its parameters and re-define what success means.
-
High income economies are already seeing their fertility rates drop below replacement.
This is very old news, but the newer news is declining pop grown in emerging economies.
We need to have a serious discussion about youths "failure to launch" and how the necessity of higher education has contributed to this fertility decline. Where a bachelor's degree is nearly mandatory these days to just "getting by" (and in some cases not even that), youth are prolonging marriage and parenthood even longer than any generation before.
Even bachelor degrees aren't good enough any more. The high school dropouts I knew that had their dads get them on with Ontario Hydro enjoyed 6-digit salaries in the 1990s and are retiring now.
You want to "have a conversation" around how much people should get paid ? What their income should be ?
Here's an example of how hard that is: I had a facebook argument with some younger people (maybe not millennial but Gen X anyway) who were posting that disbursements for seniors should be TRIPLED. I had to point out to them that their own cohort was doing much worse than in the past and that seniors are doing famously well.
People are utterly ill equipped to talk about economics, and even can't recognize their own interests in the discussion.
With those educations come massive debt loads. Regardless of what fear-mongers will tell you, most people do not have children before they are economically stable. The unexceptional cases have people getting an education, finding work, saving to start a family, then getting married when they have enough savings, and starting a family.
And we can see it playing out in the numbers. People are not only getting married much later, but many are not marrying at all. People are not only marrying much later, but also having children much later in life, and again....there's a increase in the number of people going childless. Those who do have children are having fewer children because there's less fertile years for childbearing, but also less money to support them.
This is my situation exactly.
-
We need to have a serious discussion about youths "failure to launch" and how the necessity of higher education has contributed to this fertility decline. Where a bachelor's degree is nearly mandatory these days to just "getting by" (and in some cases not even that), youth are prolonging marriage and parenthood even longer than any generation before.
Yes agreed. What's incredible is how many millions of Canadians were basically suckered into paying all that money going to university but ending up with a rather useless degree job market-wise and ended up in jobs that had absolutely nothing to do with what they studied? So many Arts/Humanities degrees where people could have got the same knowledge for free at their local library & saved themselves the time and money.
Incredible that 50 years ago all you needed was your grade 10 to get into most trades & other community college programs.
-
Yes agreed. What's incredible is how many millions of Canadians were basically suckered into paying all that money going to university but ending up with a rather useless degree job market-wise and ended up in jobs that had absolutely nothing to do with what they studied? So many Arts/Humanities degrees where people could have got the same knowledge for free at their local library & saved themselves the time and money.
Incredible that 50 years ago all you needed was your grade 10 to get into most trades & other community college programs.
News item tonight. Shortage of mechanics to even change car tires. Nobody wants to go into the trades now. They want comfortable office jobs. Even if they don't pay as much. I also was seeing something lately about the problems with student doctors - teaching them surgery, or even how to stitch a wound, because they have no experience doing anything with their hands. Whereas the previous generation would have experience in sewing and darning clothes, and repairing cars and fixing fences and doing other home repairs, and gardening and working on small appliances, like toasters, and wiring things up, many of the generation they're seeing now have done none of that. They know how to use a phone and a computer, and that's it. They lack dexterity in their fingers. And also, if they can't get someone to tell them what to do and can't google it they're lost, having little idea how to use initiative and explore different possible solutions because in their lives there was always an adult there to ask. Doesn't speak well to the future.
I've been saying for years that we should be bringing in immigrant tradesmen, not more people with degrees unless it's for a profession that we're short of.
-
I've been saying for years that we should be bringing in immigrant trade semen, not more people with degrees unless it's for a profession that we're short of.
:D :D :D
-
Sorry. Apparently, mentally I'm a 12 year old boy today.
-
Sorry. Apparently, mentally I'm a 12 year old boy today.
Better get dressed with the lights out then.
-
It looks like the big banks are all in with immigration and growth:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-25/trudeau-s-human-stimulus-helps-canada-match-trump-s-tax-cuts?srnd=premium-canada&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Q4_Bloomberg_Retargeting_PW-Subscription_All-Users_Ontario&utm_term=Retargeting_Paywall-Subscription_WCA_Power-Readers_Male-Female_41-65_FB-IG&utm_content=Content_Article_Trudeau-Human-Stimulus_V1&fbclid=IwAR0OTb5VwTukejoTbzmi2Ixk7kOdSYO_D8stSMytGn5bL8Us9XwGuN35IBg
-
Don't blame them, more customers mean more profit.
-
This can't be right:
Stefane Marion, chief economist at National Bank of Canada, said it’s not just the sheer number of people entering Canada, but also the quality of immigrants the country has been able to attract: younger, more educated people who help drive household formation and contribute to the economy’s resiliency.
“Of all the OECD economies, Canada has the most aggressive immigration policy that brings in work-ready immigrants,’’
Hasn't SJ been telling us we aren't getting employable immigrants?
-
This can't be right:
Hasn't SJ been telling us we aren't getting employable immigrants?
He has tried hard, but anybody who does actual research knows better. Maybe it's because I'm a son of immigrants I'm not afraid of them. However I'm sure he can find refuge with the bigots over at MLW.
-
It looks like the big banks are all in with immigration and growth:
Ah yes, another inspiring, feel-good story about immigration with NO data to support its conclusions.
How progressive!
Look, big business loves immigrants; the more the better. They want us to become a country of 100 million and damn the crowding. It's all more profits and expansion for them. That doesn't mean it's good for us.
-
This can't be right:
Hasn't SJ been telling us we aren't getting employable immigrants?
No. You're simply not bright enough to understand nuance.
I have never claimed we aren't getting employable immigrants. I have claimed... and it isn't even my claim, that too many of our immigrants are not employable, and too many are employable but only as non skilled labour.
This guy was head of Immigration Canada. I suppose you know more than he does?
In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.
-
He has tried hard, but anybody who does actual research knows better. Maybe it's because I'm a son of immigrants I'm not afraid of them. However I'm sure he can find refuge with the bigots over at MLW.
There was no actual research in that cite.
-
No. You're simply not bright enough to understand nuance.
I have never claimed we aren't getting employable immigrants. I have claimed... and it isn't even my claim, that too many of our immigrants are not employable, and too many are employable but only as non skilled labour.
This guy was head of Immigration Canada. I suppose you know more than he does?
In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.
Apparently it is you who has trouble understanding nuance. Your own quote states that a large percentage of the inflow of immigrants are spouses and childre of those who come here to work. I would remind you that there are a lot of households in this and many other countries that are not immigrants where one parent who goes to work while the other stays home to look after the kids. I would also reming you that we don't usually make kids work, we send them to school so they will become employable.
-
There was no actual research in that cite, you brainless, sophomoric twat.
Ah the typical go to for argus when he's been refuted. You are predictable I'll give you that.
-
No. You're simply not bright enough to understand nuance.
If I did not understand nuance, I would regularly swipe insults across entire groups and populations, like you do.
-
Apparently it is you who has trouble understanding nuance. Your own quote states that a large percentage of the inflow of immigrants are spouses and childre of those who come here to work. I would remind you that there are a lot of households in this and many other countries that are not immigrants where one parent who goes to work while the other stays home to look after the kids. I would also reming you that we don't usually make kids work, we send them to school so they will become employable.
All of which is completely irrelevant. The point of posting that was to point out that the number of ACTUAL SKILLED NEW PEOPLE coming in is not much greater in number than the number of refugees coming in. And both are overwhelmed by family members - none of whom are required to pass any particular test for skills.
-
If I did not understand nuance, I would regularly swipe insults across entire groups and populations, like you do.
I don't regularly swipe insults across entire groups and populations. You simply consider honest statements about their group behavior to be insulting because truth is a foreign concept to you. When I observe that the Koran is antisemitic, and as a result the Muslim world is filled with people who hate Jews you consider that an insult. It's merely an observation.
-
Ah the typical go to for argus when he's been refuted. You are predictable I'll give you that.
You are incapable of 'refuting' anyone. You suck at debate, never mind discussion, and are too lazy to find cites to back up your posturing.
-
All of which is completely irrelevant. The point of posting that was to point out that the number of ACTUAL SKILLED NEW PEOPLE coming in is not much greater in number than the number of refugees coming in. And both are overwhelmed by family members - none of whom are required to pass any particular test for skills.
No it's not irrelevant, it's what's happening. And did your mommy have to pass any particular test for skills in order to raise you? Perhaps she would have come up short.
-
There was no actual research in that cite, you brainless, sophomoric twat.
Omni is a twat? I want pictures.
-
Omni is a twat? I want pictures.
Argus hasn't quite figured out the meaning of the word apparently. If and when he does I'm sure he'll use it much more often when anyone refutes his opinions.
I bet he'll google up lots of pics. He and rue can enjoy at their leisure.
-
Omni is a twat? I want pictures.
You want pictures of a twat? You're on the internet. I can get you pictures of twats.
-
Do these twats post about Trump's shenanigans?
-
[attachimg=1]
-
We all had a close relationship with a twat at least once.
-
We all had a close relationship with a twat at least once.
I have never been close to you.
-
I have never been close to you.
In many ways.
Perhaps look up the meaning of the word, and pass it to argus.
-
In many ways.
Perhaps look up the meaning of the word, and pass it to argus.
Okay.
The word twat is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.[1][2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat
-
Okay.
The word twat is widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English, referring to a person considered obnoxious or stupid.[1][2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat
I thought since we are in Canada, you wouldn't have to go to Britain to find a definition that suits/describes you. This is what I think most people on this side of the pond refer to with the word.
twat
/twät/
nounvulgar slang
noun: twat; plural noun: twats
1.
a woman's genitals.
-
I love a good debate about a woman's genitals, carry on fellas!
-
I love a good debate about a woman's genitals, carry on fellas!
Oh bollocks.
-
I thought since we are in Canada, you wouldn't have to go to Britain to find a definition that suits/describes you. This is what I think most people on this side of the pond refer to with the word.
twat
/twät/
nounvulgar slang
noun: twat; plural noun: twats
1.
a woman's genitals.
Not me. I've known many a twat in my time. Still do.
-
Not me. I've known many a twat in my time. Still do.
Good, then I'll leave you to deal with argus.
-
Good, then I'll leave you to deal with argus.
I would never name names.
I'm not a twat.
-
In many ways.
Perhaps look up the meaning of the word, and pass it to argus.
No he knows the meaning of the words...but for you however I am only to pleased to assist so we can avoid confusion for you and again let me say I am only to pleased to help you.
Let's start with the definition of "Omni" and since you appear to have a problem with the British I did not go to the Oxford Dictionary but to the country of illiterates and their Mirriam Webster dictionary where they define " Omni" as: "all : universally ".
Then we go to the word "twat" from that same dictionary, where it defines "twat" as: " slang, vulgar: vulva ".
So given these references this means necessarily that an "Omni twat is an all encompassing or universal twat.
Now please Omni, don't confuse the above definition with the Omni 20, a consumer product which can be found at:
https://amasexshop.com/product/omni-20-mode-unique-****-ring-and-female-stimulator/ and is $35.33 (US) ( hurry while supplies last).
Listen if any of you need any other information , please just ask.
Regards Rue,
Twatologist to the Stars
-
No he knows the meaning of the words...but for you however I am only to pleased to assist so we can avoid confusion for you and again let me say I am only to pleased to help you.
Let's start with the definition of "Omni" and since you appear to have a problem with the British I did not go to the Oxford Dictionary but to the country of illiterates and their Mirriam Webster dictionary where they define " Omni" as: "all : universally ".
Then we go to the word "twat" from that same dictionary, where it defines "twat" as: " slang, vulgar: vulva ".
So given these references this means necessarily that an "Omni twat is an all encompassing or universal twat.
Now please Omni, don't confuse the above definition with the Omni 20, a consumer product which can be found at:
https://amasexshop.com/product/omni-20-mode-unique-****-ring-and-female-stimulator/ and is $35.33 (US) ( hurry while supplies last).
Listen if any of you need any other information , please just ask.
Regards Rue,
Twatologist to the Stars
Whatever. And I chose Omni because I've used them often to navigate my way around the world. (and it doesn't take long to type) Now maybe back to something to do with immigration.
-
Sure. Here's another story which demonstrates that one of the major problems with how we take in migrants or refugees is our incompetent legal system. Because once they're here it's almost impossible to get rid of them, even when they're scum.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/judge-gave-excessively-light-sentence-to-avert-deportation-of-refugee-who-threatened-to-kill-police-appeal-court
-
Not only did they balance the budget and are now producing surpluses, Quebec's government is also going to cut immigration. Boy, big change in just a few years there.
The Coalition Avenir Québec government tabled details of its policy on Tuesday, confirming it will go ahead with a campaign promise to reduce the number of immigrants to 40,000 in 2019, down from more than 50,000 this year.
Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said the government wants to make sure those who are coming will be better integrated into the workforce.
He also said a French language and values test, a contentious proposal put forward during the campaign, is still in the works.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-immigration-legault-trudeau-1.4931929
-
Not me. I've known many a twat in my time. Still do.
Clot was a favourite of my father's, not as harsh as twat.
-
Certainly want to get rid of birther tourism. One in five births in Richmond hospital is now a birth tourist. That's where my son was born. Nowadays my wife might not have got in and had to go to another hospital. Apparently it has happened.
-
Clot was a favourite of my father's, not as harsh as twat.
Definitely not as harsh, but in the UK twat has lost some its more vulgar connotations.
-
We are a tribal people. I've seen a number of sociologists say that. We've developed that way through hundreds of thousands of years, and its in our bone, our instincts. One of the major reasons so many people get uncomfortable with large numbers of foreigners coming into their country is that it instinctively feels like another tribe invading our territory. These people aren't of our tribe. They're of the 'other', and no matter what little pieces of paper they might be given by a grandiose government, the suspicion they aren't really part of our tribe continues
And this sort of thing definitely doesn't help. Just whose side these people are on is made clear. And to me, it's that old tribal thought - that these people aren't of my tribe, and should not be allowed into our territory.
A group of Richmond residents, including lawyer and former mayoral candidate Hong Guo, have voiced their support for Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng, and are asking for the Canadian government to “release her immediately.” A press conference called “Demanding fairness protecting human rights” was held last Saturday in Richmond by a Richmond-based group called the Chinese Women and Children’s Association of Canada, which was launched in 2015. President Dongmei Han said at the conference that the arrest “violates a citizen’s rights" becasue "Meng is a Chinese citizen under Chinese jurisdiction, and U.S. law should not override the laws of other countries.” Han called the arrest “too dirty” and "inhumane" during an interview with the Richmond News on Monday.
https://www.richmond-news.com/news/richmond-group-defending-huawei-cfo-calls-arrest-too-dirty-1.23527661
Calls have doubled to Sunny Chan’s Cantonese dialect afternoon call-in radio show on AM1320 since the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.
Callers overwhelmingly support China’s calls for Meng to be released, they feel she has been poorly treated, and there is concern that Chinese-Canadian politicians can’t openly discuss the case without alienating members of the Chinese community, said Chan.
“The Chinese community is very concerned,” he said. Most callers believe the detention of Meng is unreasonable. “Most of the community stands on China’s side, not on Canada’s side.
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/vancouver-radio-host-says-chinese-community-taking-chinas-side-in-meng-case
I'm reminded of an interview given by the head of CSIS earlier this year.
At least two provincial cabinet ministers and a number of other government officials and employees are under the control of foreign countries as part of espionage schemes, Canada's top security official said Tuesday.
In an exclusive interview on CBC's The National, CSIS director Richard Fadden said foreign powers are infiltrating Canadian political circles and influencing public servants, fueling a growing concern about economic espionage in Canada.
It reminds us that China does nothing that it doesn't think will benefit China. If it allows people to immigrate to Canada, it's because it intends to be able to make use of them. In fact, it has openly stated that one of the jobs of its intelligence service is to ensure its overseas diaspora is reminded of their loyalty to China. To this end, Chinese-"Canadian" businessmen are told their ways will be smoothed for doing business between China and Canada - as long as they cooperate. Thus we see a parade of Chinese-"Canadian" businessmen trooping to the Liberal party fund raisers to donate the maximum and tell the cabinet ministers they're lunching in how important it is that Canada cooperate with China.
We also have to wonder just how many Chinese immigrants are little more than spies for the Chinese government
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-infiltrated-by-spies-csis-boss-says/article4392618/
-
Get those foreigners out of my tribal circle, go home European invaders.
-
Get those foreigners out of my tribal circle, go home European invaders.
Trump isn't going to get his border wall, so I doubt argus will get his either.
-
That's very alarming. This is why I don't believe in dual citizenship. You pick your loyalty, and then you live with it. If a war ever comes, we should know you'll be loyal to Canada. If you decide to be citizen of Canada you have to surrender your foreign passport beforehand.
Are these Richmond Chinese citizens of Canada? If so, they swore an oath of loyalty to the Queen & to Canada.
I also don't believe in people languishing as permanent residents for decades. You either commit fully to Canada and become a citizen, or you leave.
This is why the "post-national state" stuff is BS, because most other countries in the world are nationalist & people are proud to be a part of a national identity. Multiculturalism is also BS. Assimilate or leave. You can speak other languages at home & practice your religion, but you'd better try to fit into Canada society and be eternally proud & grateful for everything this country has given you. Canada's founding cultures (various anglo, Quebecois, & aboriginal) should always have primacy over all others. I'm tired of catering to foreigners, it's time foreigners start catering to Canada. If I moved to another country I would expect no different.
-
You either commit fully to Canada and become a citizen, or you leave.
It sounds like they are fully committed to Canada. If they were Chinese citizens, then no dissent would be allowed and they must tout the official line. Here in Canada, everyone is allow freedom of expression.
-
It sounds like they are fully committed to Canada. If they were Chinese citizens, then no dissent would be allowed and they must tout the official line. Here in Canada, everyone is allow freedom of expression.
Freedom to kiss ass to mother China? Yup you have that freedom. Fully committed to Canada? Gimme a break
Maybe they should remember why they're here in the first place instead of sticking up for Chinese communist spies who deal with Canada's enemies (Iran). Iran has no embassy in Canada and the counties have no formal diplomatic relations for a reason. China and Iran are scum governments. These Canadians swore an oath to Canada & the Queen, so they should live by it.
Now let's have that Chinese passport please, so we can burn it...
-
That's very alarming. This is why I don't believe in dual citizenship. You pick your loyalty, and then you live with it. If a war ever comes, we should know you'll be loyal to Canada. If you decide to be citizen of Canada you have to surrender your foreign passport beforehand.
Are these Richmond Chinese citizens of Canada? If so, they swore an oath of loyalty to the Queen & to Canada.
I also don't believe in people languishing as permanent residents for decades. You either commit fully to Canada and become a citizen, or you leave.
This is why the "post-national state" stuff is BS, because most other countries in the world are nationalist & people are proud to be a part of a national identity. Multiculturalism is also BS. Assimilate or leave. You can speak other languages at home & practice your religion, but you'd better try to fit into Canada society and be eternally proud & grateful for everything this country has given you. Canada's founding cultures (various anglo, Quebecois, & aboriginal) should always have primacy over all others. I'm tired of catering to foreigners, it's time foreigners start catering to Canada. If I moved to another country I would expect no different.
jawohl herr kommandant
You sound more populist nationalist than anything else and that is scary if you hapen to support liberal democracy, such as I do. What happens for instance if Canada decides to launch an illegal war (such as the US invasion of Iraq) and you happen to be smart enough to understand that illegality and therefore decide not to fight it. You want to throw people who are knowledgeable and principled out of the country, even if they're born here? tsk, tsk. Won't happen on my watch.
-
Get those foreigners out of my tribal circle, go home European invaders.
We're not invaders when we're born and grew up here
-
That's very alarming. This is why I don't believe in dual citizenship. You pick your loyalty, and then you live with it. If a war ever comes, we should know you'll be loyal to Canada.
And that is not out of the realm of the possible. The Chinese have been arming for years, and pushing their influence outward, bullying nearby nations, and building ships, like aircraft carriers, to project power. They continue to believe that whatever they want, they should get. So they continue to make threatening noises about Taiwan, an island they have never ruled, that China has never ruled. If fighting breaks out between them and the Americans - which is likely, if not likely to happen soon, it's quite possible Canada could be drawn in. And we'd have this huge community of Chinese in Canada whose primary loyalty is to China.
-
jawohl herr kommandant
You sound more populist nationalist than anything else
He sounds logical.
and that is scary
Yes, logic would scare you.
What happens for instance if Canada decides to launch an illegal war
Who gives a ****?
These are foreigners living in Canada. You can't comprehend the difference between citizens speaking their minds on a matter of government policy and foreigners demanding you do as their REAL government demands?
-
We're not invaders when we're born and grew up here,
Once again, apparently you don't get it. Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders".
-
He sounds logical.
Yes, logic would scare you.
Who gives a ****?
These are foreigners living in Canada. You can't comprehend the difference between citizens speaking their minds on a matter of government policy and foreigners demanding you do as their REAL government demands?
He sounds logical "to you" because you are a lot further down that rabbit hole than he is.
-
You sound more populist nationalist than anything else and that is scary if you hapen to support liberal democracy, such as I do.
Yes I am essentially a populist nationalist. Both seem to be dirty words these days, but they really aren't. Are you an elitist globalist?
I favour the average voter over elites (politicians, corporations, lobbyists, the rich etc.) and favour my country & countrymen over foreign actors (generally, not absolutely).
What happens for instance if Canada decides to launch an illegal war (such as the US invasion of Iraq) and you happen to be smart enough to understand that illegality and therefore decide not to fight it. You want to throw people who are knowledgeable and principled out of the country, even if they're born here? tsk, tsk. Won't happen on my watch.
I very much opposed the Iraq War. If Canada launched such a war then it's fine to oppose it, as long as it's not because you have loyalties to Iraq or the Muslim nation.
-
I'm reminded of an interview given by the head of CSIS earlier this year.
how Trumpian of you... that referenced interview was given in... 2010. And, apparently, your boy Harper was a tad peeved that the CSIS director went 'rogue/public'; something a "chiefSpy" shouldn't be doing. Yup, CSIS director under the ministry headed by..... your boy Vic Toews. Simpler times, for simpletons, hey Argus!
-
Yes I am essentially a populist nationalist. Both seem to be dirty words these days, but they really aren't. Are you an elitist globalist?
I favour the average voter over elites (politicians, corporations, lobbyists, the rich etc.) and favour my country & countrymen over foreign actors (generally, not absolutely).
I very much opposed the Iraq War. If Canada launched such a war then it's fine to oppose it, as long as it's not because you have loyalties to Iraq or the Muslim nation.
Wait now, before you said if a war comes along we should support it, (no apparent qualifications provided) now you say we can oppose it given certain qualifications. Which is it?
And no, I'm not an "elite globalist" I' am a patriot.
-
Wait now, before you said if a war comes along we should support it, (no apparent qualifications provided)...
I never said such a thing.
What I said was if you come from another country, and a war breaks out between Canada and that country, you should be loyal to Canada over that other country.
If you don't believe in the war, ok fine, it's legit to take an anti-war stance (there's lots of dumb wars), but don't side with the other country. That's like treason.
-
I never said such a thing.
What I said was if you come from another country, and a war breaks out between Canada and that country, you should be loyal to Canada over that other country.
If you don't believe in the war, ok fine, it's legit to take an anti-war stance (there's lots of dumb wars), but don't side with the other country. That's like treason.
Here's what you actually said: If a war ever comes, we should know you'll be loyal to Canada.
-
Once again, apparently you don't get it, moron. Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders".
The products of? You're the sanctimonious twat who professes to be willing to fight to the death for the right of a guy who just stepped off the boat to be called "Canadian" but you're also quick to dismiss people who have lived in Canada for ten generations as not really native when it suits your ideological purposes.
Every nation on earth is filled with people whose ancestors came from somewhere else. And that includes the natives here. Suggesting those of the wrong racial makeup are not as much natives as those who came earlier is as racist as it comes. Believing this while at the same time self-righteously demanding everyone consider immigrants who just got here as every bit as equal citizens and Canadians as everyone else just displays the level of ideological fanaticism gripping the few strands of brain material in your otherwise empty skull.
-
Once again, apparently you don't get it, moron. Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders".
Ha, not me, I immigrated. You lot should get out of my country, pronto, if you are the products of foreign invaders.
Apply to come back in by using the correct legal procedure and I'll see what I can do.
-
how Trumpian of you... that referenced interview was given in... 2010. And, apparently, your boy Harper was a tad peeved that the CSIS director went 'rogue/public'; something a "chiefSpy" shouldn't be doing. Yup, CSIS director under the ministry headed by..... your boy Vic Toews. Simpler times, for simpletons, hey Argus!
Quoting a warning from the former head of CSIS about the loyalty/disloyalty of people here is Trumpian?
Why do you strive so hard to lower the level of dialogue further with every post you make? Are you hoping to bring it down low enough you can understand what people are talking about without pictograms?
-
Here's what you actually said: If a war ever comes, we should know you'll be loyal to Canada.
As opposed to a foreign country. Like Chinese people in BC sticking up for a Chinese scumbag espionage cellphone maker/Iran dealer (yes i know this has nothing to do with war).
I think our decision to arrest her is problematic, it's created a tit-for-tat where they're holding our own people in China. I don't know the true motivation of why the Trudeau gov green-lit this. But the problem I have with it has nothing to do with her being Chinese, it has to do with it possibly being bad for Canada's interests.
I think our citizenship oath should include denouncing all allegiances to any other countries. I guess there's a reason kids in the US pledge allegiance to the flag every morning.
-
The products of? You're the sanctimonious twat who professes to be willing to fight to the death for the right of a guy who just stepped off the boat to be called "Canadian" but you're also quick to dismiss people who have lived in Canada for ten generations as not really native when it suits your ideological purposes.
Every nation on earth is filled with people whose ancestors came from somewhere else. And that includes the natives here. Suggesting those of the wrong racial makeup are not as much natives as those who came earlier is as racist as it comes. Believing this while at the same time self-righteously demanding everyone consider immigrants who just got here as every bit as equal citizens and Canadians as everyone else just displays the level of ideological fanaticism gripping the few strands of brain material in your otherwise empty skull.
You're just makin' **** up now man. Not worth a response.
-
Yes I am essentially a populist nationalist. Both seem to be dirty words these days, but they really aren't. Are you an elitist globalist?
Me too. Concern for the interests of ordinary people and for the political independence of a country. I guess elitists just don't get it.
-
Ha, not me, I immigrated. You lot should get out of my country, pronto, if you are the products of foreign invaders.
Apply to come back in by using the correct legal procedure and I'll see what I can do.
You just contradicted yourself. Try a little harder.
-
Every nation on earth is filled with people whose ancestors came from somewhere else. And that includes the natives here. Suggesting those of the wrong racial makeup are not as much natives as those who came earlier is as racist as it comes. Believing this while at the same time self-righteously demanding everyone consider immigrants who just got here as every bit as equal citizens and Canadians as everyone else just displays the level of ideological fanaticism gripping the few strands of brain material in your otherwise empty skull.
Would you consider a Muslim born in Canada a "native" Canadian?
-
You just contradicted yourself. Try a little harder.
No I didn't. But don't be scared, I'm not going to round you up, or anything.
-
As opposed to a foreign country. Like Chinese people in BC sticking up for a Chinese scumbag espionage cellphone maker/Iran dealer (yes i know this has nothing to do with war).
I think our decision to arrest her is problematic, it's created a tit-for-tat where they're holding our own people in China. I don't know the true motivation of why the Trudeau gov green-lit this. But the problem I have with it has nothing to do with her being Chinese, it has to do with it possibly being bad for Canada's interests.
I think our citizenship oath should include denouncing all allegiances to any other countries. I guess there's a reason kids in the US pledge allegiance to the flag every morning.
The Trudeau gov. didn't "green light " this. Police forces on either side of the border have reciprocal agreements on such issues. You seem to be getting way ahead of the courts with your preconceived notions of what actually transpired.
-
No I didn't. But don't be scared, I'm not going to round you up, or anything.
You did actually and it was rather dumb. You immigrated apparently, I was born here. Don't worry, I'm not going to round you up or anything.
-
Would you consider a Muslim born in Canada a "native" Canadian?
Mostly. With exceptions. For example, The Khadrs. They came here, spit on our culture, history and values, and had kids, who they then moved back to the middle east to grow up with 'the proper values'. So no, I don't consider Khadr a a native Canadian. His parents weren't Canadian and he didn't grow up here.
-
You're just makin' **** up now man. Not worth a response.
What part of what I said was made up? Out with it.
-
What part of what I said was made up? Out with it.
Every **** word.
-
The Trudeau gov. didn't "green light " this. Police forces on either side of the border have reciprocal agreements on such issues. You seem to be getting way ahead of the courts with your preconceived notions of what actually transpired.
Trudeau was informed before the arrest. This was a very political move.
-
Trudeau was informed before the arrest. This was a very political move.
Of course he was informed. But he didn't interfere with what is a judicial issue. That's the way things are meant to be done.
-
You did actually and it was rather dumb. You immigrated apparently, I was born here. Don't worry, I'm not going to round you up or anything.
I didn't, it wasn't, I did, you were, and you said this:-->"Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders"."
If you're going to have a knee jerk reaction to a point made in a post, you should know what you are talking about first.
-
I didn't, it wasn't, I did, you were, and you said this:-->"Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders"."
If you're going to have a knee jerk reaction to a point made in a post, you should know what you are talking about first.
Here let me give you a little hint "country of immigrants"
Ever heard that phrase before?
-
Here let me give you a little hint "country of immigrants"
Ever heard that phrase before?
It doesn't matter what you say now, you are quoted as saying "Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders"."
If you just mean legal immigrants, and not the people who came in and took the country away from the people who were living here, why would you say "invaders"?
I'm the product of a Yorkshireman and an Italian Immigrant to Yorkshire. No invasion necessary.
-
It doesn't matter what you say now, you are quoted as saying "Most of us here are the products of foreign "invaders"."
If you just mean legal immigrants, and not the people who came in and took the country away from the people who were living here, why would you say "invaders"?
I'm the product of a Yorkshireman and an Italian Immigrant to Yorkshire. No invasion necessary.
I didn't say invaders. I put the quotation marks around it. Get it, yet?
-
I didn't say invaders. I put the quotation marks around it. Get it, yet?
Yes. I saw that. I included the quotes when I quoted you.
Is it your contention then, that all immigrants are foreign "invaders"? Or just those who produced offspring? The latter seems to be what you were saying.
-
Yes. I saw that. I included the quotes when I quoted you.
Is it your contention then, that all immigrants are foreign "invaders"? Or just those who produced offspring? The latter seems to be what you were saying.
OMG you're funny. Immigrants are not invaders. Have a little rest now.
-
How many centuries/millennia does it take for an invasive species to become a native species?
-
OMG you're funny. Immigrants are not invaders. Have a little rest now.
Ha, not me, I immigrated. You lot should get out of my country, pronto, if you are the products of foreign invaders.
Apply to come back in by using the correct legal procedure and I'll see what I can do.
And we're in a loop now...
-
How many centuries/millennia does it take for an invasive species to become a native species?
I think it may take 2 generations.
-
And we're in a loop now...
Here's a little after class project for you: did you immigrate or emigrate?
-
Here's a little after class project for you: did you immigrate or emigrate?
Immigrate. I came here to live. If we were talking about the country I left, I emigrated. But we were talking about Canada, not the UK.
-
I'm reminded of an interview given by the head of CSIS earlier this year.
how Trumpian of you... that referenced interview was given in... 2010. And, apparently, your boy Harper was a tad peeved that the CSIS director went 'rogue/public'; something a "chiefSpy" shouldn't be doing. Yup, CSIS director under the ministry headed by..... your boy Vic Toews. Simpler times, for simpletons, hey Argus!
Quoting a warning from the former head of CSIS about the loyalty/disloyalty of people here is Trumpian?
Why do you strive so hard to lower the level of dialogue further with every post you make? Are you hoping to bring it down low enough you can understand what people are talking about without pictograms?
??? the waldo simply highlighted your bull-shyte claim to being reminded of an interview from last year... one that actually occurred in 2010, 2 CSIS directors prior to the current one you're falsely claiming was interviewed last year. The waldo simply reinforced your Trumpian tendencies.
-
Every **** word.
Point to ONE.
-
Here let me give you a little hint "country of immigrants"
Ever heard that phrase before?
Just from every self-righteous, sanctimonious **** on the internet.
-
How many centuries/millennia does it take for an invasive species to become a native species?
Depends on the colour. If white, never. If black or brown, about ten minutes.
-
??? the waldo simply highlighted your bull-shyte claim to being reminded of an interview from last year... one that actually occurred in 2010,s.
The waldo doesn't have to highlight bullshit, since being the **** he is that's all that spews from his empty head.
-
Depends on the colour. If white, never. If black or brown, about ten minutes.
Now if ever there was a self-righteous, sanctimonious comment from an **** on the internet, that would be it. Might as well add a good dose of bigoted and racist as well eh.
-
Now if ever there was a self-righteous, sanctimonious comment from an **** on the internet, that would be it. Might as well add a good dose of bigoted and racist as well eh.
Why so upset? I didn't even mention you, though I did, of course, reference the degree of ignorant racism which lies behind all the bigotry you spew on the internet.
-
Why so upset? I didn't even mention you, though I did, of course, reference the degree of ignorant racism which lies behind all the bigotry you spew on the internet.
Ooops, I see you're losin' it again. Waldo showed you up again did he?
-
Ooops, I see you're losin' it again. Waldo showed you up again did he?
Wallowing, waddling Waldo? Your alter ego? You're two empty skulls stuffed up the same fat ass.
-
Wallowing, waddling Waldo? Your alter ego? You're two empty skulls stuffed up the same fat ass.
You're funny.
-
Wallowing, waddling Waldo?
Argus, please fill out a report!
(https://scontent-frx5-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/0fc17cc90a92fc9ed7ad7133071e2680/5C94A0A4/t51.2885-15/e35/44262437_347874925974627_6499663657509821593_n.jpg)
-
Argus, please fill out a report!
It's Pictogram Wally again! Still trying to make up for an inability to discuss anything rationally or coherently with pictograms and pictures!
-
It's Pictogram Wally again! Still trying to make up for an inability to discuss anything rationally or coherently with pictograms and pictures!
waldo PSA: no - that was a graphic template to allow you to report on your butthurt... this is a pictogram representing your butthurt!
(https://i.imgur.com/HkoU6AS.png)
-
We're not invaders when we're born and grew up here
Then you will never, ever, ever once in a bizillion years, say anything about the children born of immigrants (legal, illegal, tourist, etc.).
-
Then you will never, ever, ever once in a bizillion years, say anything about the children born of immigrants (legal, illegal, tourist, etc.).
He talked himself into a corner there eh.
-
waldo PSA: no - that was a graphic template to allow you to report on your butthurt... this is a pictogram representing your butthurt!
(https://i.imgur.com/HkoU6AS.png)
Are you sure it's not a selfie?
-
Then you will never, ever, ever once in a bizillion years, say anything about the children born of immigrants (legal, illegal, tourist, etc.).
I rarely ever do. The only time I've mentioned the children born of immigrants is in reference to Muslims, when PEW shows they're more religious than their parents are.
Because their religion preaches values antithetical to Canada's values.
-
Well, now, this is the most honest assessment I've seen of Canada's politicians and immigration, and the Conservative party's wishy-washy, spineless attitudes - and in the Washington Post, too.
The same day the migration compact was ratified, Pew released a sweeping survey of global attitudes on immigration. Canadians were skeptical as ever, with a large majority stating they’d like to see Canada’s immigration rates capped or lowered. (The rate favoring the capped-or-lowered position, 80 percent, was higher than the number of Americans saying the same, 73 percent — a fact to keep in mind the next time you read some paean to “Canadian exceptionalism”).
In other words, an overwhelming majority favors the opposite of what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in October: a steady increase of Canada’s immigration intake over the next three years. The Conservative Party, however, has elected not to complain about the increase, instead suggesting Trudeau’s Liberals are just vaguely bad at managing Canada’s immigration bureaucracy. Trudeau’s immigration minister called it “empty criticism for the sake of criticism.”
If the Tories are being timid, it’s likely because they’d be hypocrites for protesting given they themselves raised Canada’s immigration intake to unpopular heights during their time in power. On a deeper level, however, it’s hard to avoid concluding that the Tories simply don’t believe the public’s opinion on this issue is legitimate. Within the Canadian elite, opinions on immigration tend to be unflinchingly supportive, united in belief that Canada’s immigration system is the most ingenious in the world and the least in need of critical reexamination. Public dissatisfaction with liberal attitudes toward immigration must therefore be carefully redirected to only the most extreme, stylized representations of it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/14/canadas-conservatives-prefer-symbolism-over-substance/?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.05fcbab2152d
-
Can't say I really understand why it is that any time any group decides to hold a small protest about immigration the radical left has to come out and scream and yell abuse and get violent. And I find the quote here particularly absurd:
Counter protestor Adebayo Katiiti vehemently disagrees with the anti-immigration argument.
"They don't know our stories. They're like 'Oh, go back where you're coming from.' That's white privilege," said Katiiti, who is originally from Uganda. "Racism is dangerous, and it's what they're representing."
To me, what's dangerous is the idea that only one opinion is permitted on any subject, and that anyone who dares to express a different one is dangerous and needs to be stopped. It's particularly egregious for someone who comes to Canada from a land where there is little or no freedom to try to limit the freedoms we enjoy here.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-anti-immigration-yellow-vest-protest-violence-fight-1.4948100
-
Immigration Policy. Its decided when the Foreign Minister decides to let someone in the country because
they remind her of her daughter.
In other words, no thought, no reason, purely subjective, spur of the moment, feel good, my **** don't stink
Liberal la la land pronouncements.
Just how many young women on this planet Muslim and non Muslim feel the same way as the young lady does who
was just let in along with the bull **** photo op with the Foreign Minister hugging her latest cause. Hmmm?
Did this government stop for a second and ask, how many other women are any different than this one and what
precedent was just set?
What this government give a thought to any policy let alone immigration policy?
Right.
-
Immigration Policy. Its decided when the Foreign Minister decides to let someone in the country because
they remind her of her daughter.
In other words, no thought, no reason, purely subjective, spur of the moment, feel good, my **** don't stink
Liberal la la land pronouncements.
Just how many young women on this planet Muslim and non Muslim feel the same way as the young lady does who
was just let in along with the bull **** photo op with the Foreign Minister hugging her latest cause. Hmmm?
At first I thought good for Canada, i was proud. But then you think about it, and the Trudeau gov jumped on this as fast as they could. So he can pat himself on the back to show the world what a feminist hero he his. If it were a young man escaping his family would they have bothered? If this weren't a high profile story would they have bothered? If she weren't a Saudi? Playing politics with people's lives I don't like.
Why is Freeland spending taxpayer money hopping a plane to meet a refugee at the airport to get a photo op? Why not send an IRCC rep that lives in the Toronto? What makes this refugee more special than all the others?
-
If it were a young man escaping his family would they have bothered? If this weren't a high profile story would they have bothered? If she weren't a Saudi? Playing politics with people's lives I don't like.
(refugee) women's rights are human rights, n'est-ce pas?
-
(refugee) women's rights are human rights, n'est-ce pas?
Yes. I'm very supportive of women's rights. Feminism is the wonderful belief that men & women should be treated equally in terms of rights. It's not a belief where women should be treated better than men, or vice versa.
I'm happy that more people are finally starting to realize how oppressive Saudi Arabia is for females instead of hiding behind cultural relativism arguments.
-
(refugee) women's rights are human rights, n'est-ce pas?
Actually no. They are not synonomous although they can overlap. If they were synonomous then the majority of women of the world are entitled o protection in Canada under the provisions for seeking state protection under our current laws..
The problem is precisely how wide you want to extend the definition because at this point, your Foreign Minister has opened the definition wide enough that without legal exaggeration, not millions but billions of women could qualify to come to Canada on the same grounds as this Saudi girl.
The issue is not whether this girl did not like her life in Saudi Arabia. Most of us sympathize with her-the issue is if you take her in on the grounds she requested, then how do you now say no to so many others and think about it, did this government give any thought to just how many young women let alone mature women meet the same profile as this young lady? Of course they didn't. This government is run by knee jerk reaction Liberals jumping on the cause of the day with no consequence to how law works.
This is precisely the same knee jerk feel good behaviour that has created the fiasco where we are now flooded with hundreds of thousands of illegals who are not refugees but have come to Canada illegally because of PM told them too.
It is absolutely and utterly irresponsible for our Foreign Minister to state in public she has a bias for an incoming person because they remind her of her daughter-what absolute and utter bullshit-a Minister acts in a neutral manner considering all implications to her actions not some subjective fel good reaction.
This idiot foreign Minister will not be around as we are now flooded with yet more claims from young women. Now they simply have to argue they don't like their religion and parents.
Where the hell do you think this will end? This is not some simplistic formula where anyone unhappy has a human rights violation. What a naïve postulation.
How wide do you want to go with human rights? Do explain your criteria and how it does not open up Canada to millions demanding they be let in and given benefits.
-
Actually no. They are not synonomous although they can overlap. If they were synonomous then the majority of women of the world are entitled o protection in Canada under the provisions for seeking state protection under our current laws..
The problem is precisely how wide you want to extend the definition because at this point, your Foreign Minister has opened the definition wide enough that without legal exaggeration, not millions but billions of women could qualify to come to Canada on the same grounds as this Saudi girl.
The issue is not whether this girl did not like her life in Saudi Arabia. Most of us sympathize with her-the issue is if you take her in on the grounds she requested, then how do you now say no to so many others and think about it, did this government give any thought to just how many young women let alone mature women meet the same profile as this young lady? Of course they didn't. This government is run by knee jerk reaction Liberals jumping on the cause of the day with no consequence to how law works.
This is precisely the same knee jerk feel good behaviour that has created the fiasco where we are now flooded with hundreds of thousands of illegals who are not refugees but have come to Canada illegally because of PM told them too.
It is absolutely and utterly irresponsible for our Foreign Minister to state in public she has a bias for an incoming person because they remind her of her daughter-what absolute and utter bullshit-a Minister acts in a neutral manner considering all implications to her actions not some subjective fel good reaction.
This idiot foreign Minister will not be around as we are now flooded with yet more claims from young women. Now they simply have to argue they don't like their religion and parents.
Where the hell do you think this will end? This is not some simplistic formula where anyone unhappy has a human rights violation. What a naïve postulation.
How wide do you want to go with human rights? Do explain your criteria and how it does not open up Canada to millions demanding they be let in and given benefits.
Um no. She had renounced Islam which is punishable by death in SA. She reported abuse by her father and her brother. Several other countries including Australia responded to the UN request that arose from this case to support this woman. But I guess you know more than all of them eh? Let's build a wall.
-
Interesting article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/explainer-refugee-fast-tracked-unchr-1.4981205
More than 25 million refugees worldwide are waiting for resettlement, including people fleeing war in Syria, starvation in Yemen and religious persecution in Myanmar. The Mohammed case prompts the question: Who qualifies for urgent protection? CBC Explains.
Technically, anyone who is outside of their home country who is likely to be killed, subjected to violence, torture, sexual assault or arbitrary imprisonment who is likely to be returned to their country of nationality or former residence, according to Canadian government guidelines.
In theory, this could potentially include millions of people. The UNHCR is the first to assess whether a person outside of their home country could qualify for urgent protection under an emergency resettlement program.
In practice, the UNHCR knows it can't be referring hundreds of thousands of people for emergency protection, as no country would accept such a high volume of cases, said Asad Kiyani, a refugee law specialist at the University of Victoria.
"They have to be very selective to preserve the agency's credibility," he said in an interview. "The UNHCR acts as a filter and screens out a lot of people who could qualify for these very pragmatic reasons."
...
When people are applying for asylum outside of Canada, three categories of claims generally determine how fast cases are processed, Kiyani said.
In an ordinary resettlement case deemed normal priority, the person applies for asylum in Canada after being vetted by the UNHCR or sponsored by a private organization, Kiyani said.
This process can take months or years. It involves security screenings, interviews with visa officials, a medical exam and an international criminal background check.
A second category — known as urgent priority — aims to have the refugee resettled in a third country within six weeks of the person making contact with the UNHCR, Kiyani said. It usually involves a person with urgent medical needs.
For emergency cases such as Mohammed's, the UNHCR aims to have the person resettled in a safe country within seven days of their first contact with the UN agency.
...
For emergency cases where time is short, medical exams and other security checks often happen once the person is in Canada. Canadian officials can still remove the refugee if he or she fails these tests.
-
I have a friend who works in CBSA. They told me the refugee system is BS because the people who really need protection don't get it. The poorest and most vulnerable can't afford a plane ticket to come to Canada or another country, and sometimes officials need to be bribed with money (or even sex) for them to let you leave their country. Very sad.
-
Ugh. Well, it checks out. Peel the onion and there's fakeness and fakeness. They are arguing symbols.
-
This is precisely the same knee jerk feel good behaviour that has created the fiasco where we are now flooded with hundreds of thousands of illegals who are not refugees but have come to Canada illegally because of PM told them too.
hundreds of thousands??? Member Omni's reply to you succinctly detailed unique qualifiers; member Poonlight's reply to you provided a summation of UNHCR categorizations and associated prioritizations. The waldo suggests the only knee-jerk response was yours!
-
hundreds of thousands??? Member Omni's reply to you succinctly detailed unique qualifiers; member Poonlight's reply to you provided a summation of UNHCR categorizations and associated prioritizations. The waldo suggests the only knee-jerk response was yours!
It is hundreds of thousands. All you have to do is stop knee jerk reacting and go onto the Immigration site and find the stats for just how many people have applied, and applied and been rejected, for refugee and protection status, in the last 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
Go on. Uh um uh um uh.
Now go add up how many Muslim women in the world are unhappy with their religion and families and will renounce their religions and families if they are allowed fast track entry to Canada.
Go on. Give it some thought. I doubt you and Omni spend more than 5 seconds on anything and that is the problem. You jerk off too quickly to anything you perceive feel good. You need to take a breath.
-
It is hundreds of thousands. All you have to do is stop knee jerk reacting and go onto the Immigration site and find the stats for just how many people have applied, and applied and been rejected, for refugee and protection status, in the last 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
Go on. Uh um uh um uh.
Now go add up how many Muslim women in the world are unhappy with their religion and families and will renounce their religions and families if they are allowed fast track entry to Canada.
Go on. Give it some thought. I doubt you and Omni spend more than 5 seconds on anything and that is the problem. You jerk off too quickly to anything you perceive feel good. You need to take a breath.
good on ya for clarifying your claimed numbers reflect upon rejections... and not 'illegal' residents. Methinks you should watch your tense: in your latest reply you're going back, "2, 5, 10, 15, 20 years", yet your original statement reads, "are now flooded..... because of PM told them too". Just how long has JT been your nemesis - how many years now? ;D
This is precisely the same knee jerk feel good behaviour that has created the fiasco where we are now flooded with hundreds of thousands of illegals who are not refugees but have come to Canada illegally because of PM told them too.
-
It is hundreds of thousands. All you have to do is stop knee jerk reacting and go onto the Immigration site and find the stats for just how many people have applied, and applied and been rejected, for refugee and protection status, in the last 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
Go on. Uh um uh um uh.
Now go add up how many Muslim women in the world are unhappy with their religion and families and will renounce their religions and families if they are allowed fast track entry to Canada.
Go on. Give it some thought. I doubt you and Omni spend more than 5 seconds on anything and that is the problem. You jerk off too quickly to anything you perceive feel good. You need to take a breath.
Uh maybe you should take 5 seconds and stop contradicting yourself. How can it be "hundreds of thousands" being rejected and at the same time the same number entering illegally? Maybe take 5 seconds and look up the actual numbers.
And can you ever make a comment without adding some warped sexual innuendo?
-
And can you ever make a comment without adding some warped sexual innuendo?
look... about the story that member Rue sneaks into pet shops and fingers the hamsters - it's important that we wait to hear the evidence on both sides rather than just accepting either side’s claim!
-
look... about the story that member Rue sneaks into pet shops and fingers the hamsters - it's important that we wait to hear the evidence on both sides rather than just accepting either side’s claim!
I shall defer to the courts.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/29/labor-shortage-supply-constraints-and-inflation-hold-back-economy-trying-to-emerge-from-pandemic.html
Hmmmmm
Economists say many people retired and fewer immigrants coming into the U.S. are two factors behind the labor shortage.
-
I heard that. Some people who stopped working just never went back, like people close to retirement. Maybe also some married people who wanted to remain stay at home parents? And some workers who maybe would go back but the COVID risks have convinced them to stay home for now.
-
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/29/labor-shortage-supply-constraints-and-inflation-hold-back-economy-trying-to-emerge-from-pandemic.html
Hmmmmm
I hear a lot about these labour shortages. I should find a post from a guy who had been trying to get a job in a restaurant. He couldn't find one, despite all the protestations from restaurants about a staff shortage. They weren't interested in him. He didn't have experience and he didn't want to work split shifts or full time. So nobody would hire him. I guess they're not as desperate as all that after all. They were also offering crap wages. And from all accounts of the people who work in restaurants, especially the chains like Tim Hortons, they treat the staff horribly.
So maybe they'll have to raise their wages and be nicer, huh? Gee, too bad, so sad.
-
New York has started sending migrants to Canada.
NYC migrants are moving to Canada! Eric Adams is giving disgruntled asylum seekers free bus tickets to Canadian border
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11717237/Disgruntled-NYC-asylum-seekers-looking-better-quality-life-Canada.html
-
Mayor is giving free bus tickets to... anywhere. He wants them gone. Sounds like a republican lol
-
Mayor is giving free bus tickets to... anywhere. He wants them gone. Sounds like a republican lol
Or an Albertan/Saskatchewanian.
-
What happens when a country rejects immigration AND has low birthrate ?
Japan.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/asia/japan-population-crisis-countryside-cities-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
-
What happens when a country rejects immigration AND has low birthrate ?
Japan.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/17/asia/japan-population-crisis-countryside-cities-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
They don't have to worry so much about rising sea levels?