benny

Again, we obviously retain the one that best resists his criticisms.

Wishful thinking (at best)!

Read between the lines!

Immigrants are not slaves to be used to save us.

Like scientific theories, we retain the one that best resists its criticisms.

Philosophers defend their opinions rationally.

A relatively smaller population is also easier to handle by countries which want to expand by invading other countries.

Because they can defend their thesis more than others.

Moral philosophers like Thomas Scanlon: http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Thomas-...0674950895.html

Also, it is not standard comprehensible English to abuse of suspension points.

Where is the question mark after English (with a capital e also please)?

I think that if we close unilaterally Canada to immigration, we will decrease short-term problems by increasing long term ones.

Putting in place a universal equalization formula will require discovering a transition from competition to cooperation or, in other words, from negotiation to deliberation or from tactical maneuverings to rational deliberations. This can only be achieved, I think, after a period of agonizing exchanges like the one we have seen, inside the United Nations just before the start of the US invasion of Iraq, between France (Dominique de Villepin) and the USA ambassadors. http://www.un.int/france/documents_francai...france_irak.htm

Settling a worldwide equalization formula will require a kind of triangulation where the three angles will be two of the most powerful former Empires (English and French) and the rest of the World. It is here where the bilingualism of Canada can save the World.

Again this topic is not about what direction some government had given to Canada's immigration policies but about the direction of Canada's immigration policy should take independently of the past.

It is a duty for anyone who initiates or wants to maintain an interpersonal relation and our political system, where we hide our choice, is the product of many such relations.

Because as soon as one expresses something to you (his preference here), he also owes you the reasons why he thought it was worthwhile to take some of your time/attention to do so.

For example, growing up in the Bronx is not a personal experience but a social experience.

Likewise, for a will to be a political power to keep society unchanged, a lot of individuals have to recognize themselves by exchanging the reasons at the basis of their different subjective views.

I don't think it is possible to fix this backlog until we acknowledge that it is much like any refugee camp and that refugee camps are rapidly growing everywhere around the World.

For a will to be a political power to change society, a lot of individuals have to recognize themselves.

It is not a topic about "what are" but about "what should be".

People's will is a common will. A common pot cannot be kept hidden.

Canada will always remain the country best protected against illegal immigration though.

A people is not individuals hiding their choices from one another.