CANADIEN

Nope, my entire rebuttal is that it is stupid to claim that mandatory union membership is akin to Jim Crow laws. And the more you make that claim, the more you demonstrate the stupidity of the argument.

Keep digging. As was pointed out, there was nothing democratic in laws that excluded people on account of their skin colour. within limits set by law. Yet you call union busting laws "right-to-work". Thanks for the inconsistency. Yeah right. not nearly as much as the lower wage and lower worker protection that come with so call "right to work" legislation. You know, the laws that allegedly protect a right YOU say does not exist?

Fair question. That being said, logic dictates that failure by government to do thing the way they should be done is not a reason for doing things in a way that would be no better than what has been done.

Then I'll ask again. Scotty is proposing what is in fact a quota - giving preference in imnmigration to people from certain areas of the World - is he right or wrong?

Which is why employment conditions must be clear and conform to the law. The energy spent arguing that only immigrants from certain places come here would be better spent setting up clear and fair standards for employment and enforcing them.

That's the Fraser Institute's claim. Doesn't make it true. There is no doubt that it is more complicated to screen idinvidual candidates than to just say "we'll take people from this part of the World only, and other people need not apply". You want the best? You make sure you get the best.

Sounds faire to me, with a few safeguards (both for us and the immigrants). such as: - employers would have to demonstrate that there is no equally qualified candidate for the job in Canada - conditions for employment would be clear, conform to the law, and binding to both parties - clear avenues for immigrants to protect themsevles from exploitation would be in place - in certain professional fields (such as medecine and engineering, for example), would be immigrants would need to prove they meet Canadian standards

And I thought the whole of the thread was to attract the best candidates. it is not?

Nope. Toronto.

Neither of which are even close to Auswitch, treblinka, Majanek, as bad as they actually are.

I know the facts about crime in the city. You still have not demonstrated like we are turning into an African countries when it comes to education level, hunger, AIDS, literacy level, to name only these. Don't worry, I don't expect you to come even close to these ones, because on those grounds you cannot prove your case. I still expect your opinion on Scotty's proposal though.

You set standards, including on how to actually measure skills. Which is different from assuming all university degrees are created equals, and from just assuming that somebody from Europe will be better qualified than any candidate from elsewhere in the world. There is no doubt that not all unversities are created equal. This is why a strict and uniform process to evaluate credentials and skills is needed. A blanket "we will only allow immigrants from Europe" policy actually fails to acknowledge that tehre is more to skills than formal education, or even situations like immigrants from the rest of the World trained in western univerisities. Western universities are in most cases more than likely to rank higher than most olther universities, so there is no logical need for a system that just gives blanket preference to candidates from certain parts of the world.

Now, has anybody anywhere suggested we welcome millions of immigrants every year? Talk about a statement that lacks logics.

When I pointed out that the statistics used by Scotty ranks immigrants from certain parts of Africa higher than those from certain parts of Europe, you could not come with anything better than: And I am still waiting for concrete evidence that this is happening or likely to happen, instead than statistics on crime in FOREIGN countries. Now, if I am in error in believing you support Scotty's proposal, my apologies. question is, though, are you in support of his proposal?

When you have actual evidence that 2001 USA is similar to 1933 Germany, let me know.

Like it or not, deciding we will take people based primarily on where they come from is a quota. And what is more logical than choosing the best candidates regardless of what they are coming from, pray tell? Certainly not discarding potential candidates because "oh well, no matter how good of a candidate YOU may be, the avarage candidate from your neck of the wood is not that good".

Keep digging yourself a bigger hole. People are... people. Better luck trying to prove they're not. And if you think that's what I want it to be, you need to learn how to read. As I have said before, our system cshould enable us to pick the best candidates, regardless of where they come from. Of course, pointing to the flaw in your argument is gonna be tiresome... to you.

Then, it should be clear that a system that properly evaluates people would lead to more immigrants from Europe than other areas. Without the need to have place origin as the determining criteria. Don't you agree? Excuse me while I laugh. Fact remains that the right immigrant selection system is the one that chooses the best individual immigrants regardless of where they come from. The best you can put in defense of your "non-Europeans need not apply" proposal is to compare people to spark plug. That's beyond poor.

You have a point. Which is why I see a slight bump, not much more.

We are actually quite a bit away from Tea Party Storm troopers leading Muslim children into gas chambers. The dangers posed by bigots if not confronted is bad enough - there is no need for over the top rhetorics.

Proximity is a starter, plus already nhaving relatives there.

My understanding (and it may be wrong) is that in Canada a union shop means that you pay union membership dues even if you decide not to sign in the union, and that the working conditions an wages negotiated by the union also apply to you.

And to anyone who actually understand what took place in Nazi Germany.

Somehow, I just knew that there was something no quite working with that argument.

Well... Jim Crow laws too were voted by democratically elected bodies.