Machjo

I'll start it. first off, I'd make an age distinction. For example, we might say that anyone under the age of fifteen could come as long as his legal guardian meets all the basic criteria. Otherwise, I'd say: 1. Know the local language and culture well. 2. Prove knowledge of a trade or profession that is in demand. 3. Pass a criminal record check. Also, I'd say that this should apply to each applicant and no one gets a free ride owing to their relationship to another, except perhaps those under the age of fifteen. Any other requirements?

If they have nothing to do with government, then they're none of our business, really. Let the police deal with it. If she goes to prison, then certainly her position of MP ought to be removed from her. But even then, her private crimes are hers to know. The only time we need to know about it is if she should commit the crime in her capacity as MP, such as by using her governmental position in some criminal manner. P.S. no, I'm not some Conservative Party hack. Anyone who's read my posts in the past knows that I criticize all party members equally and would be saying the same thing about her regardless of her party affiliation.

Yes, they're optimistic ob-wise. But the signs of inflation are here already.

Actually, I think this was a brilliant idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_gold_dinar It's not an official currency and has no legal sanction either for or against it. But once you know it's gold content, will you really argue about its value as a currency? No, because the value of the coin is inherent in its material composition. Genius.

Now that we've been in inflation for awhile, what's the plan for the upcoming recession, or are we going to wait at the last minute to plan for that too? And so the cycle goes round and round.

I agree with the OP. Just look at the Anglo-French wars. It seems they're still not over to this day.

My God. Why are we forgiving the debt of a country that can afford a nuclear bomb? Dismantle the bomb and we'll forgive your debt. How's that for a trade off. And yes, the Liberals' rainy day fund was a brilliant idea. It's too bad it was all spent before the rain came down. Oh, and by the way, I;m not a big fan of the Liberal Party, but we have to call a spade a spade when we see it, and the rainy day fund was a brilliant idea no matter what party would have come up with it.

What law precisely did he break? If indeed he broke the law that you're aware of, it's your duty as a citizen to report it. I am not aware of any law that he may have violated. can you enumerate them?

Neither did I. I was referring to the OP. I'm not against prosecuting Harper for any particular crime, as long as it is a crime and that Harper is prosecuted as would anyone else.

All I'm saying is that if the government allows the sale of lottery tickets, then it should leave Harper alone. What he did is no worse. In fact, what he did is even more acceptable, seeing that he'd not even benefited from it materially in any way.

Well, where was Harper when he'd made the deal? If that province sells lottery tickets or allows casinos to operate, then I'd say leave Harper alone. If that province did indeed ban all gambling, then prosecute. How complicated is that?

Good point. Le'ts say I make a bet with you on something for $100.00, with a guarantee that the money go to charity, then neither of us stands a chance to gain materially from this. It's just a question of who among the two will give his money to charity. Does that still constitute gambling? I don't know.

Hmmm... isn't the sale and purchase of lottery tickets gabling? Inasmuch as I'd like to see the government ban gambling (or at the very least leave the industry itself), I also think it ought to treat all equally. If indeed gambling is illegal in Canada (then please explain the presence of legal casinos and lottery tickets across the country), then it should either throw no one in jail for gambling or throw each lottery ticked buyer and seller in jail too. What applies to one, applies to all. Take your pick.

Let's say for a moment that proof of self-sustainability and productivity are part of the criteria. Naturally if too many people come in one year, the next year others may find fewer responses to their job applications and so not be able to get the offer they need to show at the embassy when they want to apply for a Canadian visa. Inversely, if few come one year, it may cause a labour shortage resulting in it being easier toget such job offers the following year. If proof of ability to contribute more to the system than taking form it were one requirement for immigration, then that would guarantee that however many came, they would be productive. Remember too that if too many moved to Canada at once, it would push the cost of real estate up in relation to incomes, resulting in fewer of them wanting to come ot such an expensive country. Add to that that since proof of ability to sustain oneself is required, then if real estate costs rise, and they need proof of some form of home ownership or ability to pay rent or what have you, then that will be harder to achieve, thus naturally blocking more of them out. In that sense, the free market would play a role to a degree too. Hmmm... you seem to see something wrong with what you're saying here. I see nothing wrong with it in the least. If our resources and the economy can sustain a doubling of the population in one generation, why not? And if there are no jobs, then why would we want more people? This is precisely where quotas are too arbitrary. With a well-planned points system with no quotas, it would mean that when the market can sustain more immigration, more people would naturally qualify. And when it cannot, fewer would qualify. It would follow naturally with the economic cycle. You seem to see a problem with that.

No, the government would not need to readjust the standards every year. So what if we get more immigrants one year than the next? It'll balance itself out in the end. Also, if the standard is high enough to ensure that the immigrant is more likely to contribute than take, then the more of such immigrants we get, the better. For example, let's say one requirement of immigration was to have lived in the country for at so many years and have contributed an average to taxes above a certain minimum limit, then we'd know for sure that he would be of benefit to society. If too apply for work in Canada, they'd likely not get work and so never come. Those who do get a job offer would come and prove themselves. Thus, without quotas, it would balance itself out based on the natural job market.

If you raise the standards high enough,you won't need to worry about quotas. That's the whole point. If we need quotas, it's because the standards aren't high enough.

Then a simple solution. Before you can become an immigrant, unless you're rich, you have to get a work visa and work for a year. If it's found that you've proven to be successful according to measurable criteria, you gat to stay. Again, no immigration quotas, but just built in standards. If you meet the standard, you get to stay.

So add a requirment for some qualification, or a minimum of post-secondary instruction, or some other requirement such as wealth, etc. I don't agree with quotas simply because they're too arbitrary. If you raise the standards high enough, then you won't need to worry about quotas since too few will be able to meet the requirement anyway, whatever requirement it may be.

I tend to agree overall. I'm not saying that inter-currency fluctuations don't affect us, but merely that there really isn't much we can do about it unless we're willing to ignore domestic currency stability in exchange for inter-currency stability. I'd say keep the currency's local value under control and let it float as it may in relation to other currencies.

Off-reserve natives do pay taxes. And on-reserve natives have had their ancestral land taken away against treaties.

If country A should decide to inflate its currency, that will naturally cause country B's currency to appreciate in relation to country A's, all else being equal of course. At that stage, country B is forced to make a decision. If it wishes to maintain currency stability within its borders (i.e. counter inflation domestically) then it has no choice but to accept the appreciation of its currency in relation to country A's. If it wishes to maintain parity with country A's currency, then it has no choice but to adopt an inflationary policy of its own. Which do you think is more important between maintaining domestic currency stability vs inter-currency stability?

Just the language requirements alone would likely block out at least 80% of the world's population that speaks neither French nor English. Then if you pile on other requirements on top of that, the field would narrow very quickly.

It is an answer. The government should not determine how many can enter. Instead, it should place minimum standards and anyone who can meet the standard can enter.

I would say a simple argument is the same as why people are free to cross provincial boundaries: freedom , access to markets, and braking the barriers that divide people from one another.