-1=e^ipi

It is important to remember that Omar Khadr is the victim not Christopher Speer. At least according to the cbc.

No. I just pointed out that there is a large gap in human capital quality between developed and developing nations. Canadian university standards may be lowering and many Canadian universities may suck, but universities in Pakistan suck more. Sure, if you want to compare a gender studies degree in Canada to an Engineering degree in Pakistan. But for similar types of degrees there is a large human capital quality difference. Do you need me to cite studies that show this to be true? No, your statement is untrue once you take into account human capital quality.

People can lie about religion and sexual orientation. It is pretty difficult to lie about which country you are from.

It's called grade inflation...

A degree from Pakistan is not the same as a degree from Canada. There are large differences in the quality of education between countries.

not universally accepted = prevailing consensus? And there are more options beyond not have immigration vs have immigration. There is how much immigration to have? What types of immigrants should be chosen? etc.

You are arguing that Canada wouldn't? Lol. I really laughed out loud at this one. Canada's university standards are high? What universe do you live in?

Can we just define Canadian as Canadian citizen and if you want to refer to groups of Canadian Citizens that you do not strongly identify with, could you use a different term? Otherwise it gets confusing and we are using different definitions for different terms. Edit: How about unintegrated-Canadians? Does that work? I meant that if you have a sudden surge of immigration from somewhere (say China) in a sort time period, then these immigrants will tend to go to a location in Canada with high employment prospects (say Calgary) during that time. So employment prospects can explain some of the localization phenomena of immigrants. I never implied that...

What is an 'ethnic' restaurant? It's sort of like the term 'ethnic' voter. It doesn't make sense since everyone has an ethnicity.

People aren't foreigners if they are immigrants... 1. Distribution of economic opportunity. 2. To be in a more familiar environment. And the group that Argus is extrapolating from (Franco-Ontarians & Quebecers) aren't even immigrants...

Yes, the Ottawa culture is terrible with respect to languages. Especially when it comes to employment. For me, excluded no (unless you are involved in the conversation, but that would just not make any sense from the speaker's part). Resentful? Certainly not.

Either way, I don't get how that makes requesting people to justify their positions 'bunk'.

Your question is too poorly defined to provide a decent answer.

So... because a person changed their mind about a position... asking someone to justify that the benefits of mitigation policy exceed the costs is a 'bunk' request? Did I understand that correctly? Edit: Btw, this conversation's quality is deteriorating rapidly.

Multiculturalism is neither inherently a strength nor a weakness; that depends greatly on the cultures involved. Furthermore, definitions of multiculturalism vary as I explained earlier in the thread. Also, are you confusing immigration policy with multiculturalism?

Ahh... no. Countries control their borders. Japan and South Korea for example are wealthy and have low immigration levels.

Yay, another person that realizes the logical absurdity of it all. Also, try asking these cultural relativism activists if they think that Canadian society is superior to South Korean society since Canada is multicultural and South Korea is mono-cultural. They will never respond to such a question.

This argument doesn't make sense. South Korea is successful relative to almost all other countries in the world and is mono-cultural. Canada was relatively successful to almost all other countries prior to 'multiculturalism' as well.

That isn't really a definition... As I said earlier, there are many forms of multiculturalism, and it is probably better to distinguish between different types.

No, I'm used to it.

And where do you live now? I live in major cities where there are lots of immigrants. And being a younger Canadian, there is an even higher proportion in my age group. In some environments where the percentage of immigrants gets really high like 80%+ you start to see significant integration issues and it also puts lots of stress on the domestic population to help achieve that integration. Furthermore, different immigrant groups integrate differently; some groups integrate very well while others integrate poorly.

The first link is a TD article that just considers demographics, makes the absurd claim that the Labour Force Participation rate should be maintained at current/historic levels for some reason, and then concludes that immigration must be increased to 350,000 people per year. This methodology is absolute trash. The second link is a very decent and well researched study and literature review, and it shows how complicated the issue of immigration is. But I think you should read the paper that you linked to, because I don't think it supports your claims. - The paper recognizes that issues of poverty and assimilation for immigrants are getting worse in recent years and that the quality of immigrants relative to the domestic population has been increasing. - The paper recognizes that you can't theoretically derive if immigration levels are too high or too low and have to appeal to empirical evidence (this is obvious, but I wish most of the posters in this thread would realize this). - The paper recognizes that low skilled immigrants are a much greater burden than high skilled immigrants and emphasizes the differences between Canada's immigration policy and that of other countries (and that Canada has been more successful due to emphasis on skilled workers). - It recognizes that the effect of immigration on Canada's age structure is not that significant, so arguments that immigration should be justified based on demographic effects are not that justified. - The methodology seems decent overall. Maybe they should have estimated more values for different immigration levels (cause I would really like to use those to do a quadratic estimation of the optimal immigration level) and they should have discounted GDP per capita over all time periods plus projected more than a decade into the future to get a more accurate picture of the net effect of immigration on expected quality of life. - Probably the biggest result is that they find that if immigration is increased to 350,000 people per year, then GDP per capita will decrease and it will be 0.3% lower in a decade from now than under the current 250,000 people per year. So from this paper, I cannot understand how people can claim that immigration levels should be increased from 250,000 people per year to 350,000 people per year. - On the other hand, they find that if you fix immigration quality issues then 350,000 people per year is more than justified and if anything it should be much higher than that. So immigrant quality issues are significant and need to be addressed. Wow, another trash td article. You are making me really skeptical of ever trusting the banking or business community on the issue of immigration. All this link does is state what the current immigration policy is. It doesn't help the discussion.

Yes, men should have a right to do this. And actually, using the right hormone therapy, male humans can lactate. I never claimed that it does. In the context of mathematics, equals and same are equivalent. But in this context you probably mean 'equal rights' when you mean equal. Sure they can. http://gaycatholic.info/ Sure they can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ujjal_Dosanjh Is anything a 'right'? Do 'rights' exist outside of what the government enforces? Actually, we can inherit property from eachother's family. It depends on the person writing the will to decide. My family has property and not mass debt? Wow, you know so much about me... Everyone has an equal right under the law to create a will and decide who inherits their stuff.

Yes. I had an 'etc.'. Depends on the context, but I said 'equal rights' so there should be no ambiguity.

Do you know what is divisive though? Progressive idiots that want to group and categorize people based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. rather than treat people as individuals with equal rights.