Rue

It is how you state it on a legal level but there is a psychological proponent as well is the point. Terrorists claim with words different reasons for their behavior but it remains constant in motus operandi and planning, Getting back to the original theme, ethnicity actually in the sense of evolving civilizations shows the less diverse a society is, the more likely it procreates outside its own immediate genetic pool. The need of procreation causes all homo sapiens and all life forms to spread their genetic pools to avoid disease. Ironically a lot of spreading of the genetic pool came from invasion of foreign armed forces which raped people and spread the genetic pool but also reinforced the homo sapiens primal instinct of staying within the same pack to remain defended. Our fear of ethnicity can be very well traced back to our ancestors who feared invaders. Often the term invader or other such terms are now used to describe immigrants.

Well I tried. You sound too caught up in other shit and need a laugh.

Z does not need my defense he speaks for himself but he has never ever stated he was against a common Canadian identity. I think you mistake your definition of nationalism and his or mine because mine is the same as his. Our sense of Canadian identity is not the same as the American one. For starters we do not define our history the way Americans do. You Americans use a Chauvenistic approach heavily dependent if not completely predicated on military identity and victories. Our reference to our military history is extremely measured and low key. There is a reason for that. Americans follow the French, Greco and Roman approaches whereas ours is based on quite frankly British military from the 1800's which downplays excessive posturing, swagger and bragging as you Yanks do. Our military does not boast or engage in excessive displays of loud emotions demonstrating our greatness. We do not like to be loud and brag. We line up and say excuse me. We do not need to be the loudest in the room and draw attention to ourselves. Our Canadian identity which Z has made clear in past posts and I agree with is a composite sense of identity embracing aboriginal, British and French influences where we try take the best from them, then mix in with them a constant input of new approaches from other ethnic ideas. You Americans throw in all your ingredients in one big pot and melt it all down into one flavor. We cook it more slowly trying to blend it like you do, but not drown out the different tastes. You Yanks insist on drowning everything with ketchup. We want to use different spices at different times and be subtle on how we infuse our dishes with flavours. So look I have been to Buffalo tail gate parties. I love the sausages (yah I am so kosher) and the other dead animals Yanks cook before a Bills game. Love it. However you guys could learn that there are things other than red meat. You could try for example some escargot, maybe some frog's legs, and for God's sake a real beer not the urine you drink. You are right, we are a country that refrains from an identity like yours but we have one. Its just more modest and subtle in presentation. Put it this way, its the difference between a loud man rushing in a room with an erection demanding his woman strip and spread compared to a quiet man who comes in, turns the lights down, turns on the music (no not Ceine Dion or Anne Murray, I concede it would be the American Barry White), pours some wine, undresses slowly, and tells the woman she smells nice and then asks her what her name is and whether she prefers Chopin or Mozart. Regards, a civilized Canadian nationalist. Here is an easy list to explain our difference in identity Canadian Yankee Norm MacDonald Bob Hope John Candy Melissa McArthy Shania Twain Jennifer Lopez John A. MacDonald George Washington Catholic Mason Beret Cap Maple Leaf Star canoe Navy immigrant drug pusher criminal immigrant mentally disturbed person President of the United States transsexual First Lady Prime Minister of Canada, Finance Mister Jim Parsons, Neil Patrick Harris hockey player football player hockey player soldier homeless person immigrant suv pick up truck Montreal New Orleans back bacon sausage French Spanish Time Horton's Dunkin Doughnuts insecure adult Starbucks customer teenager gang member aboriginal black black Latino Latino Italian British white European ungrateful bastard Liberal, New Democrat, Conservative communist medicare communism gun control communism bank regulations communism car truck cottage trailer curling bowling Corner Gas Seinfeld Hamilton Pittsburgh husky pitbull wolf coyote Canada goose sea gull beaver vagina moose Bubba black man NBA player minority someone from Iowa constable pig blizzard tornado snow rain maple syrup Budweiser beer urine any American beer Rye Southern Comfort marijhuana crack cocaine kayak surfboard pedophile Michael Jackson murderer OJ Simpson

Also make him listen to Celine Dion's Titanic song and Anne Murray's Snowbird, over and over until his head explodes!!!!!! Also make sure he has only one t.v. channel and must watch Red Green reruns over and over in-between. Z the only thing that saved me from becoming Dougie is Corner Gas. It saved my soul from creeping US imperialism.

Yah. You can use s generalizations for negative or positive conclusions. Terrorists kill the innocent to trigger a hateful reaction by you to all people the terrorist claims to represent and look like. They want you to do that so it can justify them saying to everyone they claim to represent that their group is hated and so justifies a terrorist defending them. Its human nature. If you are white and raped by a black man, your immediate reaction is to hate all black men after that. On the other hand if a black man rescues a white person, its just as likely that white person now likes all black people after that. So the question comes down to what experiences or interactions with others will trigger our generalizations of others in their same category. I will be damned if a terrorist or anyone manipulates how I go on to categorize anyone including terrorists. This is why ironically while I do not embrace fundamentalist orthodox approaches to religions I agree with them when it comes to their central lesson which is to learn to use the individual gift of being able to make decisions to decide whether we spend our lives searching how we create positive or negative consequences. Its why when someone presents something in black and white, all or nothing generalizations, I say move long. How you use your free choice is your choice. I am not hear to preach other than to say its easy to point out what is bad or negative, real easy, too easy, In specific context to this thread which has drifted way past its first initial generalized pronouncement, I reject the premises as being so wide in generalization to render it inherently flawed in conclusion.

Yes that was your point and I said I agreed with it.

If your point is people should not hide behind their ethnicity/colour/race/religion/gender/gender prerefence/disability to excuse being an arsehole I whole heartedly agree. An arsehole transcends all that and to many aresholes play whatever victim card they can to avoid their big arse selves. That said the premises of this thread is a generalization and so it is necessarily flawed and illogical. Ethnic diversity may or may not add or detract from the cohesion of the social groups or other groups within a society. Whether it does or does not depends on a wide range of factors. The title of the thread assumes its a given, or an axiom or an absolute truth or fact to claim ethnic diversity is harmful to a country's social cohesion and NO psychologist or social scientist has a study that can make an absolute statement that its absolutely harmful or for that matter absolutely beneficial. The title of this thread repeats a pattern from Argus of making sweeping negative generalizations about immigrants. It should surprise no one. In fact we can also show numerous studies of extremist bigoted groups who deplore ethnic diversity and preach ethnic purity toshow the lack of ethnic diversity leads to in-bred hateful racism and other forms of bigotry. The point? Can we discuss phenomena or issues on this board without sweeping assumptions and generalizations or pulling social studies which can not be by their inherent nature absolute and pose them as if they are. Here is one example of a critique of the thesis that ethnic diversity leads to lack of social cohesion: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2018/08/10/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion-a-critique/ Here's one that does have concerns about ethnic diversity impacting on social cohesion but without sweeping generalization and showing its economic benefits: https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/46/pdfs/superdiversity-social-cohesion-and-economic-benefits.pdf Here is one that says ethnic diversity has neither a positive or negative effect: https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/can-diversity-cities-create-social-cohesion/36368/ This one points out how easily it is when examining ethnic diversity and social cohesiveness to come up with conflicting or contradictory conclusions: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275508145_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Its_Effects_on_Social_Cohesion Me personally I embrace diversity the same reason I don't pick vanilla ice cream every time I buy ice cream. I want to learn from people who have different experiences, beliefs and perspectives on things. I find people and ideas that are not diverse can become inbred and stagnant. Certainly we know in biology for life to remain healthy it must remain diverse and it its genetic pools remain lacking in diversity, inbreeding leads to genetic anomalies, disease, insanity. Thanks but I like to explore new things and try different food and when I was young, I liked women of all varieties of ethnicity and race. I only regret I am old and rotting and can no longer chase women all over the globe. I could not imagine not embracing the diversity of women out there. Then again I get how some people don't want anyone that does not look or smell like them in their neighbourhood. I don't much have time for such people. They tend to like t play golf and think I want to join their club. No. I prefer dogs of all colours and sizes.

I have not wined. That is your personal remark again. I debate. Whether the statistics smeer all immigrants I leave to others to decide. I believe your words to date make clear in the context you continue to use them you define ALL immigrants as a drain. Certainly that is what the exercise you keep reporting did. Your calling the group that claims we need more immigrants to build the country's economy bias, etc., illustrates your name calling. There is nothing bullshit about that, its there for anyone to read. You didn't debate the content of what they said you simply called them bias and other names. You didn't use any statistics to counter what they said. The report you keep quoting did not address what they said. Accusing them of being liars because they are paid to lie speaks for itself. Its name calling, You don't debate what they said you name call them and smeer their motives. The fact they support economic growth in this country does not make them liars any more then it makes anyone a liar for being a lobbyist. I only play back your words. If you don't want to take responsibility for them, don't. Calling a lobbying group liars to avoid debating the content of what they said is your tactic and everyone can read it back. My one point to you from the get go is that the exercise of using a limited time span to label all immigrants a drain on the economy of Canada is inherently distorted and therefore inaccurate. I have not wined. I have called out the process of extrapolation the Fraser report used as flawed. That is called debating, In fact your last response calling my debate "wining" if anything is wining. Argus move on. You started a thread and then used the Fraser Report to argue that ALL immigrants are a drain. Some of us disagree with that approach and have stated why. Stop making it personal. Focus on the issues you claim to support and how you claim to support them. Get back to me when you can explain how an extrapolation of data from a limited time period is accurate. The negative generalization you make is being challenged and calling me out for not being an economist or calling me a winer or a business lobby group liars is not debate. I will again try explain why I believe there is an extrapolation bias that distorts the Fraser report's conclusion-which you have NOT addressed. As well I challenge other inherent fallacies in the report based on views that are similar to Patti Tamara Lenard, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa: 1-the report based its conclusions on a study of recent immigrants to Canada between 1986-2004, whose average incomes and thus contributions to the Canadian tax base were alleged to be lower than non-immigrant Canadians; ( I argued this time limitation being used to then extrapolate is to limited and therefore creates a distorted bias from the generalizations pulled from it-you have yet to address that); 2- the report claimed that each immigrant presents an average net drain of $6329 per year, then multiplied this number by the 4.2 million immigrants in the country who arrived between 1987 and 2010, to come up with the annual "cost" to Canadians it claims all immigrants cost, 26 billion (that extrapolation and assumption it could be applied to ALL immigrants is necessarily bias, it was assumed with no objective measurement it could be arbitrarily applied to all immigrants in the other time period rather than actually looking at the actual numbers); 3-Prof. Tamara contended the numbers were exaggerated, I also argue they were arbitrarily assumed and imposed to create a number without actually looking at the true numbers for the time period; 4- the estimated cost of immigrants to Canada are on average younger at admission than average Canadians, so necessarily any analysis of the taxes immigrants contribute must control for age and that knowing only that the average age of incomers is lower than the average age of Canadian workers, of course because of that reality, immigrants would make less money and therefore to contribute less to the shared tax base no different than a 25 year-old born in Canada would also make less, andcontribute less in tax dollars, than does the average 50 year-old- so if Argus wants to say immigrants are a drain then using his logic, our 25 year-old-Canadians are also a drain-should we deport them as well or do we wait for them and immigrants to grow and over a longer period of time, have a chance to contribute and grow in what they can contribute as we do our own citizens; 5-next, we both argue, if using the Fraser Report and Argus's assumptions that immigrants pay less in taxes than average Canadians (because their incomes are lower), how does that necessarily mean immigrants are drains on the public system? Argus and the report simply assume this...from the distorted sample they took, but I argue and so does this Professor and may others that to actually accurately know if immigrants are a drain we would need to go further and investigate whether immigrants in fact withdraw in excess of what they contribute from the public services to which they are entitled-that was never done; 6-the Fraser Report claimed that admitted dependents were predominantly parents and grandparents, ( and so had limited working years and large medical costs ahead of them)...it also claimed that in the year 2011 more than 50,000 parent and grandparent dependents entered Canada when the actual number was 14,000 an erroneous number it then used to extrapolate a drain based on the burden imposed by supposedly 50,000 parents and grandparents; 7-the Report assumed the average age of parent and grandparent entrants was 65 and therefore their health care costs would be the same as Canadian citizens aged over 65- this is NOT accurate because it did not properly account for the fact that under our current system the health care costs of parents and grandparent entrants are borne by the sponsor, not the tax payer, for 10 years after arrival and so to accurately find out just how much of a "burden" they would really be the Fraser Report would have had to find out how many sponsors were failing to pay the medical bills, something they did NOT do-they just assumed no sponsor paid the bills; 8-the Fraser report does not analyze or consider the spin off effect to the economy from the purchase immigrants generate, it also did not consider any non-monetary, contributions made by Canadian immigrants that could in turn help the economy . 9-initially the report did not consider the billions of dollars immigrants are paying to attend Canadian schools as international students or the rent they pay to people who rent them rooms or give them homestays.

I have removed specific comments of yours from your last response to me for the sake of addressing them directly. In regards to your first comment, stop projecting your feelings on me. I do not see things as right or wrong, you do., I see two or more view points none wrong or right., Differentiate your cognitive perceptions from mine please. Your inability to do so, and to presume I am you and must think like you is erroneous and it is narcissistic. In regards to your second comment you again demonstrate the name calling only this time you tone down your last name calling and you make a meaningless comment. How is your opinion any less bias than this group's opinion? How is the Fraser report less bias than the opinions of this group? You believe you quote infallible statistics from a report you necessarily now contend have no bias which is of course absolutely incorrect but simply goes back to showing how you think when you find a self-serving, subjective, bias exercise that suits your opinion, it must be infallible but anyone else's opinion erroneous because they are "bias". Your third comment again starts with you trying to be personal with me with an insult, suggesting because I do not agree with you and debate you I must have poor communication skills. Next you then proceed to contradict yourself denying you make generalizations about all immigrants then continue to do just that in the very response and yes your exercise is moronic thank you. In regards to your next statement about indigenous people you become personal, project a personal impression of a comment I made giving it a meaning I never gave it and clearly explained, chose to ignore the explanation, and reverted right back to a position of personal petulance discussing your feelings. In regards to the next comment, you made a personal remark to me that was inappropriate just as it would be inappropriate to question whether you are an economist and again you fail to show any understanding of why when you do that you do not debate, you become personal and name call and do not show an ability to debate different view points without becoming personal and attacking he person not discussing the views or issues. You then demonstrate your lack of economic understanding, You again pop off antiquated reports and act as if their brief time span analysis can be extrapolated to support your position that all immigrants are a drain on the economy. I have repeated several times and you clearly can't grasp it, any report that only limits its time span of analysis to a very limited time period can not by its inherent time limitation be accurate. That is not a matter of economics, its a matter of a basic principle of extrapolation and quantitative statistics which you clearly do not understand and ignore continuing to pose reports you find as if they are infallible and the only possible explanation of the view point you offer. You then accuse me of being illogical when in fact to date all you have done is present a flawed report stating it is the only possible explanation. Then you try soft-pedal your routine denying you are against all immigrants coming to Canada and what your actual agenda is suggesting you only want to justify "adjusting" the immigration system, Readers can decide for themselves whether the totality of your comments to date smeer all immigrants or just some. As for your taking offence to suggesting you are an immigrant, that is illogical let alone laughable.

The indigenous people had their inherent weaknesses yes. They were far from perfect. My sole point is that other than them who is not from somewhere on this planet. Even they technically are from I suppose Mongolia but does that make them immigrants as well? I mean I suppose it depends on the way one constructs the term immigrant right? I don't have an argument for you because your points as usual are well stated and factual as usual. My only debate is with the snap shot in time as to how Argus is determining whether "immigrants" are a drain to Canada. If I was using your terms, no doubt you would in your distinct way find a way to illustrate we are all the serfs of someone but who determines our usefulness? How do we do that? If your great grand child goes on to cure cancer but in your generation you were a poor schmuck does that mean we ignore where the great grandchild was able to come from? Does Argus think the great people of any country (by great I leave that to others to define as great) simply are born there and didn't come from descendants from elsewhere? Shit we all come from somewhere and where our dna ends up who the phack knows is the point and how that dna evolves in later life forms is not caught in his ridiculous snap shot which necessarily distorts time and the span we use to measure benefits made to a country. Using Argus' analysis the Indians and Chinese that came and built our railroads were what? A drain? Well we taxed them. We put a head tax on them. Should we put one on immigrants again? Where do we go with this sweeping definition that all immigrants are a drain?

In regards to your first comment, the up-dated report is still based on the same erroneous presumptions. In regards to your second comment, the rebuttal you provided has not rebutted the erroneous assumptions in the first report, simply continued them. Your third comment shows you do not debate the content of the reports provided simply name call. I don't care what YOU trust. This is a debate on whether portraying ALL immigrants as a drain on Canada is accurate or logical or even makes economic sense. Your feelings are not material to the issues. In regard to your fourth comment, of course you do and repeat the same negative smeer of all immigrants in this latest response then make a proclomation that your subjective method of smeering all immigrants as a drain on Canada is the only way to discuss the issue. This shows you are close minded to any view but your own and now go so far as to pose you are infallible making this about you personally and how you can not be debated. Your last comment above is the most illogical. To start with never have I on this or any other forum in any response ever contended the rights of any one group of citizens in Canada is superior to another. Never, you projected that because you did not understand the point I made. The point I made was that: i-it is not when analyzing the impact of immigrants snap shotting them into a narrow period or span of time to determine their impact is inaccurate and no neither I nor anyone else has to be an economist to understand that extrapolation of statistics is innacurate of its parameters are too restricted. That is actually a basic quantitative statistical fact and many people who have never gone to school but learned their lessons on the street understand that as well. Knock off the attempt to question me on being an economist because neither are you and everyone regardless of their academic background has the right to their opinion when debating and they don't have to have cancer to discuss it. Next had you understood the above point which you didn't bother to respond to and thus simply name called away in the studies by the people you call names you did you would have understood my point was that with the exception of indigenous people everyone in this country is in fact an immigrant and so to study the impact of immigrants in this country where do you claim you will only analyze the current impacts within a very confined time span? How is that accurate? How does that account for say the results an immigrant creates today, that will only show up as a positive impact on Canada 50, 100, 200 years from now? That was the point you failed to grasp and so you projected an illogical projection as to what I was claiming and accused me of being a racist when in fact you are the one arguing we should make blanket negative generalizations about an indentified group of people not me. To compound your ignorant projection as to what I said even further you made a false analogy about Israel and anti-semitism. In fact I have contended the exact opposite of what you claim. I have stated whether someone arrives in Canada today or has been here since being born, differentiating their positive or negative impacts on the economy of Canada simply based on whether they are a recent come to Canada individual is illogical. One needs to properly extrapolate if one is to forecast trends and economics provide forecasts of trends, not absolute rigid rules of cause and effect. Now the reason I argue that is not because I am an economist but perhaps because as a lawyer I understand the definition of a Canadian before and after they become a Canadian citizen and that this legal status in itself will not determine their negative or positive contributions as you have claimed. Next I argue that because as I said, it is illogical for you to think you are not an immigrant simply because you were born in Canada or that if someone is born in Canada and is a drain on Canadian society you make no comment on them but will smeer thousands of not millions of people who came to this country and built it. Now before you get in my face and lecture me about anti-semitism or drivel, take the time to read the points I made and stop engaging in personal remarks. Thank you.

Does not change a thing I said. The entire area known as Canada was inhabited by indigenous peoples who came before the rest of us,. Their inhabiting the land first, determines their status not your interpretation of what ruling means. The fact the indigenous peoples did not have a centralized government or body to dictate to them rules does not mean they did not inhabit the land and functionally operate with their own systems of decentralized laws and regulations. Life in Canada did not start with a European model of law and how that model defines the country. Its precisely why the Magna Carta Act and King John did not deny the pre-existence of aboriginal laws and customs but honoured them.

In response to the Fraser report I already stated and repeat again the report based its conclusions on a study of immigrants to Canada between 1986-2004. It claimed those immigrants average incomes were lower than non-immigrant Canadians and therefore inferred their contributions to paying taxes must have been lower as well. The report claimed that each immigrant caused an average net drain of $6,329 per year. They then assumed they could multiply that number by 4.2 million, because there were 4.2 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1987 and 2010, then came up with the number 26 billion as the cost to Canada. The above was repudiated by numerous economists. Here is one of many direct repudiations of the Fraser Report: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/each-immigrant-costs-canada-450-per-year-report-1.674930 I already referred to the following which Argus dismissed without any substantial argument simply some name calling to address why immigrants are a benefit for economic growth in Canada: https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/2018/05/15/imagining-canada-s-economy-without-immigration?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1t 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?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/10-10-15/Immigrants_Make_Significant_Contributions_To_Innovation.aspx I maintain smeering all immigrants as Argus has done is erroneous. I contend we need properly qualified immigrants to help continue to build our economy and the issue is not immigration, it is about how we determine who is qualified to be an immigrant and I believe Argus does not understand basic economic principles and their co-elation to matching qualified candidates to specific positions to enable an economy to function and grow. It is absolutely ridiculous in today's global economy to think one can shut themselves off and inbreed to sustain economic growth. The dialogue on this forum does not distinguish between qualified immigrants and unqualified ones or for that matter legitimate and non legitimate refugees. It simplifies and generalizes and labels all persons coming to Canada in one negative definition and I call that out as bullshit. I support the Conservative Party of Canada's position on immigration which is to encourage qualified immigrants and not confuse them with illegitimate ones taking advantage of deficiencies in the immigration laws which need to be fixed. If people on this forum want to embrace a reactionary simpleton like Bernier or accuse anyone who is not against immigrants as a Trudeau lover, make my day and tell me I love Justin. Lol. I am a son of a refugee and immigrants and proud of it as are most Canadians. The only non immigrants in this country are indigenous people. The people against immigration are immigrants who forget their origins and how and why their families before them came here. Hard working immigrants are not and have never been the issue. Genuine refugees are not the issue.

On a lighter note, Halifax is not Alabama.

Socialism is another word for either v.d. or commie pinko. Lighten up. If you are going to resurrect McArthyism, do it right. That was also a pun. Trump won't win anything by a slim margin..have you seen the size of his ass?

Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeb Bush, commies. Obama was a commie. Would you get real. The black and white generalizations of anyone opposed to fatso is absurd.

No Yah the Republicans who lost to Trump and anyone who disagrees with him is a socialist. Got it.

Bul shit. I raised the issue of Trump's behaviour not his fatness. The speedo comment was a crack atdenying an obvious condition as you are well aware. Trump is no Reagan or Taft. He has lowered POTUS to an all time with his rudeness, illiteracy, ignorance, incoherence. He has soiled the office of the Presidency. His alliance with Putin and Kim and his spending his days insulting people is beneath his office. Also what is ironic now you bring up his fat was is how this idiot had the nerve to call others fat and ugly. He is a pathetic bully baboon with zero substance who can not spell or interact with anyone without a fight.

Yah that sounded like all people who loose Trump are socialists. Thanks.

Really? Socialism?

But did Taftv wear a speedo is the point..pay attention boys...yahbahvthey are the same....Taft got his ass stuck in his tub... Trump has got us head stuck up his ass. Yah I know that makes him flexible...

What is my favourite skin condition, pimples, boils, infected wounds oozing with pus, bloated corpse, impitago, psoriasis, acne, cysts, gangrene, skin cancer, ulcers, 3rd degree burns, leprosy, hemmeroids, hmmmmm...I pass.

Hey denial is a wonderful thing when you are 300 lbs and you insist on wearing a speedo.

How and why do you think he was hired? Get real.

The studies you quote were repudiated long ago.