-1=e^ipi

Again, we have to be really careful of definitions here. And again we have to look at what is influencing people to do certain things (be they progressives, conservatives or liberals) otherwise we are just using a form of guilt by association. I agree that there are some aspects of conservative ideology that might make one 'appease' retrograde cultural views (usually because conservatism often involves religious traditionalism with its own retrograde cultural views), and progressivism can also cause one to 'appease' retrograde culture views (due to different reasons such as progressive racism or cultural relativism; again using Pat Condell's definition of progressivism), but I do not see why liberalism (or at least classical liberalism) would cause someone to be an appeaser. I'm not backtracking, I'm clarifying my position.

Can you please define what you mean by unqualified way? I believe I asked for a definition earlier... Either way, the uOttawa paper suggests changes to Canada's immigration system to improve the quality of immigrants by making the system more preferable to immigrants with higher human capital qualities. I have provided a list of the non-cultural factors that I think are important (schooling, work experience, physical capital, human capital quality, language skills, etc.) in determining an immigrant's income. All of these things can be measured/estimated (directly or indirectly) or there are good proxy variables to use for these (test scores for language skills for example). Now the reason why I challenged you to list other non-cultural, important factors is because: 1. Including more factors in a model more closely approximates reality and can give better results. 2. If I did not ask you to come up with other factors, I expected that you or someone else would reply by saying that 'differences in income after the effects of the factors that you have listed have been deducted aren't necessarily due to culture but could be due to some non-cultural factor that you have not listed'. And while the statement is true, the burden of proof lies on you to show that these 'factors that I have not listed' exist. Or the least you could do is name them. If we can't even name what other factors could significantly influence differences in income between immigrant groups of different countries of origin, then the more reasonable approach is to conclude that differences in income after the effects of the listed non-cultural factors have been deducted should be primarily due to the effects of culture. My 'assessment' with no elaboration... How very specific of you! *sarcasm* I mention that there are hundreds of results on a google scholar search, and even provide links to two papers, and somehow you interpret that as me asking you to prove my point? Since when is providing evidence asking the other person to prove your point? You have a very warped perspective. I went through so many econometrics papers and found two that are very relevant to the discussion, especially on the quality of immigrants from different countries of origin. And you won't even look at them? That makes me sad. I'll try to be clear, so please be understanding: - Before we can establish whether Canada's immigration policy should favour non-muslim countries over muslim countries, we need to first establish whether Canada's immigration policy should (or at least be open to the idea of) favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries. - I feel like many people in this thread are simply not open to the idea of favouring immigrants from some countries over others regardless of the reason. Why some people might not be open to this idea? I'm not sure. It could be not wanting to appear racist, it could be due to an adherence to the ideology of cultural relativism, or it could be due to people simply having never considered the idea. This is why I think it's important to at least establish that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over others. - This is why I have referenced these 3 papers. All 3 suggest that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries. The reason many not be islamism (these papers mostly discuss human capital quality instead), but that doesn't matter in establishing that Canada should favour immigrants from some countries over immigrants from other countries. The comparison paper between Canada and the United States is very useful here as it clearly demonstrates that the greater quality of immigrants to Canada vs the immigrants to the United States is due primarily to a different origin-country composition (which is due to differences in immigration policy). - Once we establish that Canada should favour immigrants in some countries over others, then we can start to discuss the merits or drawbacks on trying to modify the immigration policy to favour non-muslims over muslims and/or favor immigration from non-muslim countries vs muslim countries. Also, I have never suggested banning muslim immigration. That would be infeasible and it would be somewhat morally wrong to ban people from entering the country based on beliefs (ironically, sharia law has no problem banning immigrants based on beliefs such as polytheists). You really like playing with my wording to avoid acknowledging the results and conclusions of these econometrics papers. Have you not heard of paraphrasing? Much like the burden of proof lying on the person claiming that 'god exists' rather than 'god doesn't exist', the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that 'there exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism' rather than the person claiming that 'there do not exist ideologies that are a bigger threat to the west than islamism'. You keep claiming that there exist things, but will not name them. Then suggest that i'm demanding that you prove my point for me. Do you not see how backwards this is? If you claim something exists, the least you could do is name it so I can at least argue against why it does not exist. You and 'the creationists that demand atheists prove that god doesn't exist' have a lot in common, don't you? Is it that unusual to admit when you are wrong or the correct yourself? I never claimed the papers discuss culture. The papers are there to at least establish that Canada's immigration policy should favour some countries over others, and they also help demonstrate econometrics methodology to other posters (which I think is a useful tool in testing hypothesis and determining which countries should be favoured and by how much). Agree that Canada's immigration policy should favour some countries over others (even if it's just for human capital quality) and then we can begin to discuss how to measure culture, why culture affects income, and if we should favour immigration from some countries over others based on culture.

That was a rhetorical question. I apologize if my writing was unclear. And rhetorical question or not, the fact that "Still don't believe that verses in islamic texts justify terrorist attacks?" has a question mark sort of means it is a question and I am not making assumptions about your position. Learn reading comprehension please. Please give a specific example of Pat Condell making an assumption on someone's position. Perhaps this wikipedia article on progressivism will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism Though I will admit that the article deals more with economic 'progressivism' and historic 'progressivism' rather than the social 'progressivism' that Pat Condell talks about. We really need to be careful and clear of which definitions of 'conservative', 'liberal' and 'progressive' that we are using as the definitions of these words are many. The definitions vary based on geographic location and have changed over time. In many cases the meanings of these words have nearly swapped such as 'progressivism' and 'liberalism' in the united states (liberalism is usually considered more 'left' than progressivism) or economic 'conservatism' and economic 'liberalism' is now considered less statist than economic 'liberalism' (when originally 'conservatism' was far more statist, especially during the french revolutionary period). Edit: in many cases it can be more useful to be more specific in our labels, such as using 'classical liberalism', 'neoliberalism' or 'the perverted definition of the word liberal that the Americans use', rather than 'liberalism'. We should also recognize that 'progressivism' is a much more recent ideology than 'liberalism' (by about 100 years) and their origins are quite different. Liberalism has origins in the 18th century, can be traced back to philosophers such as Locke and Voltaire, influenced events such as the french revolution & the american revolution and was quite focused on individualism & freedom (though classical liberalism should not be confused with libertarianism). Progressivism on the other hand had origins in the 19th century, was influenced by philosophers such as Hegel and Marx (though you shouldn't confuse progressivism with communism) and was especially influential after the great depression in advocating worker's rights and creating a social safety net. Even in Canada, we can see this temporal difference. The liberal-conservative divide was around since confederation, but it wasn't until the 1930's that 'progressive' parties (such as the CCF, later becoming the NDP, and the Progressive Party, later merging to create the progressive conservatives). Though in more recent Canadian history (especially when the PC, NDP and LPC parties all considered themselves progressive) 'progressive' has often been used to mean not socially conservative (though of course not being socially conservative is more related to classical liberalism than classical progressivism). Anyway, I think a lot of disagreement in this thread stems from some posters' failure to accept that these words have many definitions and the definition that say Pat Condell uses for 'progressive' differs from what they may be used to it meaning. That said, with respect to my earlier comments on Pat Condell accepting the fact that the left played a strong role in advocating social change such as gender and racial equality, I want to clarify that these changes were not brought about due to 'progressivism' but rather 'liberalism'. 'Liberalism' has long advocated for equality under the law, long before 'progressivism' even existed. On the other hand, many 'progressive' concepts such as affirmative action or the continuation of the Canadian reserve system (though the Canadian reserve system wasn't created due to 'progressivism') are contrary to equality under the law. Again, we should emphasize the ideologies not the people who classify themselves under those ideologies. I think you are confusing 'progressivism' and 'liberalism', but either way I wouldn't classify all of Western Society under one ideology.

Maybe I was choosing my wording incorrectly. Should have used 'creating an atmosphere to incentivise a lack of discussion' rather than silencing. No evidence that islamism is a threat to Canadians? Let's see how that claim fairs against the following list of evidence: - honor killings (such as the killing of the Shafia sisters in 2009 in Kingston) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders And before someone says that honor killings have nothing to do with islam, the penalty for apostasy (leaving one's religion) in islam is death. Some individuals feel a religious obligation to kill family members that betray the faith. Admittedly, this isn't the norm in Canada, the norm is shunning those family members who leave islam. In many muslim majority countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran & Pakistan, the punishment for apostasy in islam is performed by the state. - domestic terrorist attacks (ex. 2006 attempt to detonate truck bombs & behead the prime minister by Toronto based islamists) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot Though I will admit that Canada has been lucky enough to avoid any major islamist terror attacks, though other western countries have not been as lucky (perhaps it is just a matter of time in Canada's case until something like the Boston marathon bombing occurs?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings - foreign terrorist attacks killing Canadians abroad (ex. killing of Canadians in Kenya by al Shabaab for being non-muslim) http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/kenya-terrorist-attack-raises-concerns-about-canadian-western-al-shabaab-recruits-1.1468569 - terrorist attacks causing Canada to spend billions funding oversees wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanistan_War - attempts to reduce our freedom of speech (ex. use of human rights organisations by islamists to silence those who criticize islam by using 'hate speech' laws) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy - attempts to perform gender segregation in schools and/or segregation of menstruating females from other females (ex. the Toronto district school board funding islamic prayer in cafeterias in which boys sit in the front, girls sit behind the boys, and menstruating girls sit behind the other girls. Menstruating girls are not allowed to pray.) http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/27/opposing-prayer-in-toronto-public-schools-with-dignity/ - attempts to create gender segregated swimming pools http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/life-video/video-gender-segregated-swimming-irks-quebec-residents/article7147920/ - the rapid increase of the inhumane halal meat industry, where halal meat is becoming the norm without the knowledge of non-muslims http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/03/15/halal_meat_creating_controversy_in_quebec.html http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-firms-paying-inflated-price-to-have-halal-certification/story-fncynjr2-1226743120181 - islamic homophobia http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/islamic-leader%E2%80%99s-anti-gay-comments-could-cost-canadian-school-4-million200413 Still do not think that there is evidence that islamism is a threat to Canada? There have been over 22,000 islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. I agree with this, but it doesn't mean islamism isn't a significant threat. I agree that islam & islamism will eventually fade, primarily due to the lack of flexibility of interpretation when compared to other religions. In christianity, the bible was written long after Jesus supposedly died, so the bible can not be taken as the literal word of god & christianity can keep reinterpreting itself until to fit with conflicting evidence. In islam, the qu'ran contains the teachings and practices of the prophet mohammed who was divinely inspired by Allah, so the qu'ran must be taken literally as the word of god. Therefore, to be muslim you must believe that the qu'ran is the word of god, and therefore you must believe in Adam and Eve. This means that islam is fundamentally incompatible with the evidence of human evolution from earlier primates (where as christianity isn't necessarily incompatible with human evolution as it can just keep reinterpreting itself). Due to this conflict and the vast evidence for human evolution (fossil record, the very DNA in every cell in our bodies, etc.) obviously islam & islamism will fade. However, despite the fact that islamism will fade, that doesn't mean it can't do a lot of damage before it fades. There is also an issue of rates of conversion vs differences in birth rates. Muslims may convert to say atheism much faster than atheists convert to islam (despite the penalty for apostasy in islam being death), but muslim birth rates are far higher than atheist birth rates, offsetting this. Conversion can take a long time if islamicised groups don't interact much with the kaffir and mostly stick with other radicalized muslim groups, rather than integrate. Immigration also plays a factor. Many European cities such as London have either kaffir no go zones or effective sharia law areas. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/mark-tapson/the-rise-of-islamic-no-go-zones/ If we look at demographic trends, many Western European cities (Brussels, Malmo, Rotterdam, Marseilles, etc.) and/or countries will become majority muslim by mid century (Belguim, Russia, possibly France, etc.). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html To an extent I beleive that the 'Eurabia' claims are somewhat paranoia and often ignore the fact that birth rates and conversion rates change over time, but still... I think it is very likely that many European nations will take on a semi-islamic political character by 2030-2040. Indeed, one has to remember that Islam is a very unique religion in that it is more 'complete', supremacist and political. As the relative size of muslims grow, so will the calls to impose either sharia law, or law inspired by sharia and many 'progressive' European countries might become quite 'conservative'. In addition, you also have the fact that muslim majority countries today have a very high birth rate (many countries have a doubling period of 30-40 years), and many non-muslim countries like European countries, Russia, Japan, etc. have birth rates that are so low the populations are in decline. Even China, the world's most populated country, has practically stabilized its population and will start population decline by mid century. Sunni Islam has already overtaken Catholicism as the world's largest religion, and by mid-century all of islam will have completely overtaken chritianity. With this shift in global population, plus the economic development of muslim countries and the increase of islam in Europe, it stands to reason that political islam will be a significant geopolitical force in the first half of the 21st century (Though I would argue that by the second half of this century it will start to decline). Maybe, but I do not think it is fair to compare islam & muslims to previous ethnic or culture group immigrations to Canada. Compared to other religions, islam is so unique. In a sense it is more 'complete' than other religions in that it encompasses almost all aspects of everyday life and is more political. Muslims are expected to have all their life decisions guided by the teachings of the prophet Mohammed in the Quran, the Hadith and other islamic texts, and islam has a legal system, sharia law, which guides tax policy (zakat, jizya, etc.), penalties for various crimes (amputations for thieves for example), how a couple should approach divorce, how the legal system should be structured, how kaffir should be treated, what kind of laws the kaffir should live under, what kind of laws the muslims should live under, how a nation should define its foreign policy with respect to other nations, etc. Islam is also unique in that it's flexibility of interpretation is very small (the only other religion I can think of with such a small flexibility of interpretation is mormonism). The teachings of the prophet Mohammed as written in the Quran must be taken as the word of god. In addition to the Quran, muslims base decisions on the teachings in the Hadith (traditions of the prophet Mohammed), and the Sira (biography of the prophet Mohammed). A mistake a lot of non-muslims make is they think that islam only has one holy book (like the bible or torah), when in fact it has at least 3 or more. In addition to the Quran, Hadith and Sira, muslims must also look at various commentaries and teachings made by islamic scholars, early caliphs (rulers of the islamic caliphate) and friends or family members of the prophet Mohammed. And I wont even get into Shia islam which believes that the teachings of many of the descendants of Mohammed, such as Ali (first cousin and son-in-law to Mohammed), are divinely inspired, so their teachings must also be taken as the word of god (most Shia believe in 12 imams). In combination with the 'completeness' of islam and the inflexibility of interpretation of islam, you also have the issue with it being a supremacist ideology. According to islam, muslims "are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah" (Sura 3:110). Indeed, much of the teachings of islam has to do with how muslims are better than kaffir, how muslims should act towards kaffir and how muslims should think about kaffir. For example,"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (Sura 5:51). I could list passage after passage of intolerant verses in the islamic texts, but the point would remain. Of course, do not take my word for it, I encourage you to learn about islam yourself from multiple sources. It is also important to understand the context in which the verses lie. The following video gives a good explanation of the importance of context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmsL0p6jnI . I'll just end this thought by saying that the percentages of anti-jewish verses in the Medinian Quran, Hadith and Sira that express anti-jewish sentiment exceed the percentage of anti-jewish verses in Hitler's Mein Kompf. http://www.politicalislam.com/pdf/WebSitePDF/ShariaNonMuslim.pdf Now I will admit that the Meccan Quran doesn't contain much anti-jewish sentinment as it contains verses that were revealed to the prophet Mohammed earlier in his life when he was living in Mecca and the muslims were a persecuted minority. It is in the early Meccan part of the Quran where you will find 'peaceful' verses that islam apologists will often cite such as "There is no compulsion in religion" (Sura 2:256). Of course these apologists will often fail to mention the context of the verse (kaffirs burning in hellfire) or more importantly the concept of Naskh. Naskh or abrogation in islam means that later verses revealed to Mohammed abrogate earlier verses. So verses like "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Sura 9:29) abrogate earlier verses such as 2:256. It is important to note that the Quran is not ordered chronologically; though Sura 9 is the last major revelation by the prophet Mohammed. Under Sharia law, non-muslim monotheists are forced to submit to the islamic state and live a 2nd class dhimmi status. That is, they must pay the jizya (islamic tax on dhimmis that must be paid for 'protection' much like the mafia might do), the kharaj (islamic land tax on dhimmis) and a few other dhimmi taxes like ushur, Meanwhile, they cannot benefit from zakat, cannot carry arms, cannot serve in the military or government, cannot display symbols of their faith (sounds like Quebec), cannot build or repair places of worship and must wear distinctive clothing which includes the zunar (a belt) wherever they go (sort of like what nazis did to jews). http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhimmitude_(definition) Of course the option of dhimmitude is only provided to monotheists (christians, jews, hindus, zoroastrians, etc.). Polytheists such as the Quraish in 7th century arabia were not so lucky and only had 3 options: convert, leave or die. Of course islam is a religion of peace... The peace that will occur only after the entire world has either become muslim or has submitted to a global caliphate. Well you would think so but a lot of the empirical evidence is to the contrary, especially in UK & France. Often, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants in western countries are more radicalized than their parents. You can thank Saudi Wahhabism funded by oil money for that! Yet so many North Americans prefer to buy Saudi oil rather than evil dirty Albertan oil... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html http://www.rieas.gr/images/daniel.pdf I agree that there are many moderate westernized muslims. I know many and have many muslim friends (both moderate and non-moderate), including some that drink alcohol, some that do not pray 5 times a day, and some that recently converted to atheism after rejecting islam. But then that leads to the question: If we see many peaceful moderate westernized muslims, and we see many intolerant extremist supremacist muslims, which form of islam is correct? This is a very relevant question, especially as islam does not have much flexibility of interpretation. I won't get into the merits of each position here, I encourage you to learn about it yourself. However, I will say that I'm of the opinion that intolerant islamism is true islam. More moderate and westernized forms of islam exist because many muslims want to embrace modern values of liberalism, but at the same time they do not want to reject islam for family and cultural reasons. A belief that was not placed by reason cannot be removed by reason alone; if you are a muslim and your entire family which you love very much and have a deep emotional attachment to is muslim, will shun you if you leave islam, will tell you that you should be killed for apostasy and will tell you that you will burn in hell forever then you probably do not want to leave islam. As a result, many moderate muslims (like people of other religions) insist on having this cognitive dissonance. Another important concept to mention is the concept of taqiyya. Taqiyya is basically lying to kaffir (especially if you a muslim living in a non-muslim country) about islam in order to advance the cause of islam. Taqiyya is allowed in islam, and many more radical muslims in the west will lie about the true nature of their beliefs to kaffir because they know they are in a minority situation (that isn't to say that there aren't a lot of moderate westernized muslims who truely beleive islam is peaceful as well). Here are some examples of taqiyya by more radical muslims in the west: http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/03/21/taqiyya-deception-free-islamic-cleric-says-america-already-is-paying-jizya-tribute-to-muslims-but-not-enough/ I agree with this statement. Though as mentioned, there might be a few examples where large influxes of certain culture groups might be okay (such as Swedes or South Koreans). Well, I think that it is important to understand that islamist immigrants are very very different from previous groups. The previous groups did not bring an inflexible, intolerant, political, supremacist ideology that has that backing of the creator, Allah, which inspired a prophet (Mohammed) to reveal suras which include ideologies of jihad against kaffir. Maybe a better comparison is if western countries were experiencing large immigration from nazi countries. Also, one more thing to add about my earlier comment on eco-radicalism being a threat to Canada in 2013, to an extent it is related to islamism in that many islamist countries like Saudi Arabia have a financial incentive to prevent the development of the oil sands (by sending money to eco-radicals).

And there we have it! A perfect example of progressive silencing of people who criticize or oppose islamism by calling them racists or white supremacists. We are now back to the original topic of the thread. Thank you very much for your contributions to this thread eyeball! Notice how despite the fact that islam isn't a race, people will still throw around this accusation? Or that there is no basis to make the implications that other posters in here are racist? Now to clarify, there is no way to know from what has been posted if eyeball is a 'progressive racist' or not. Indeed these comments could be made for a variety of other reasons (cultural relativism or finding it easier to cling to progressive political dogma if one paints opposing views as racist views). Well I thank you for attempting to make a list of other 'threats' to Canada (unlike other posters which refused to do so because they could not think of any). Indeed, you might have a point about the aging population, cancer & heart disease as being more relevant to the everyday lives for most Canadians and therefore a bigger 'threat'. Though these are not ideologies. In that case, I shall change/clarify my earlier claim to islamism is the ideology that is the biggest threat Canada & the West in 2013. Though, now that I think about it, eco-terrorism/eco-radicalism has been growing in influence for the past few decades in Canada and has become very relevant recently due to the development of the oil sands and stronger emphasis on other natural resource extraction (including the prosperous uranium & potash industry in Saskatchewan). Also, within Canada the threat of islamism isn't very big compared to some other western countries because most of the immigrants do not come from radical islamist countries. Countries like Britain or France, which have had large amounts of immigration from Pakistan and the Maghreb respectively, are at more risk from islamism. So with that in mind, I shall completely retract my claim that islamism ideology that is the biggest threat to Canada in 2013. That would have to go to eco-ludditism and its opposition to any development of our natural resource industries and of the building of any pipelines (be it east, west, north or south) to extract our oil despite pipelines being far safer, cheaper and environmental than other modes of transport like rail. But I still think that the more general claim 'islamism is the ideology that is the biggest threat to Western countries in the early 21st century' has some merit. Edit: Perhaps I should refer to 'security threat' rather than 'threat'. In that case, perhaps: 'Islamism is the ideology that is the biggest security threat to western countries overall in the first two decades of the 21st century.' Is that better?

Comments made earlier in this thread. So you don't think Canada should have a preference for immigrants with a high human capital quality? Because the paper, which attempts to measure the human capital quality of different immigrant groups, clearly shows that the human capital quality varies beyond statistical significance. From the conclusion: "if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests." Yet we can not use the results of the paper to justify changes to the immigration system? I said all important factors, not all factors. The non-culture important factors would include: amount of schooling, work experience, quality of schooling, quality of work experience, level of proficiency of languages, amount of physical capital per capita, average number of hours worked per week, and mean age of different immigrant groups. If you want to add more to the list of important factors and expand the model fine. Either way, I would like to challenge you to come up with at least 1 'un-measurable' factor (either directly or indirectly through a proxy variable) to the incomes of different immigrant groups that is on par with the importance of culture. And even if it isn't possible to measure or estimate the cultural influence on immigrant performance or the affect of culture isn't significant, there are still other reasons to favour some countries over others when it comes to immigration policy (difference in human capital quality is one). So a paper titled 'Human Capital Quality and Immigrant Wage Gap', which clearly creates an econometric model and uses statistical data to calculate the human capital quality for many countries somehow doesn't calculate human capital quality? Makes perfect sense. *sarcasm* Sigh, fine I'll get you more papers. But only because you are so persistent! A simple google scholar search for papers using keywords such as 'Canada', 'immigration', 'econometrics' and 'country of origin' yields hundreds of results. Unfortunately, most of these require either a subscription fee (which you might not want to pay) or requires you attend a university that pays the fee for you (which I'm not sure you have). So I am not going to bother providing links to papers that require you to pay a fee to view. However, here are 2 relevant papers that I found in my short 5 minute search: Here is an econometric comparison study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that compares Canada and the United States, & that suggests that between 1959 and 1981 the Canadian immigration system (which emphasized a point based system & skills) produced on average more 'skilled' immigrants than the US immigration system (which emphasized family reunification). It attributes this difference in skill to 'the national origin mix of immigrant flows', rather than to obtaining better immigrants from individual source countries. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3691.pdf?new_window=1 Here is an extensive econometric study by Statistics Canada that attempts to measure the quality of education & human capital quality for different immigrant groups (it classifies people based on gender, country of origin, level of education, etc.) and sees how much of the wage gap can be measured by this. Much of the 'the wage gap, which is a key measure of how well immigrants integrate into the economy' (I'm quoting this because of your ridiculous assertion that immigrant income isn't a measure of integration), can be explained by human capital quality differences as shown in the study. The study clearly shows a difference in the human capital quality for different countries of origin (See appendix table 2 on page 41). http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/271/1/Immigrant%20Source%20Country%20Educational%20Quality%20and%20Canadian%20Labour%20Market%20Outcomes.pdf?1 Happy? Or do you need more? Point is that immigrants from some countries are, on average, better than other countries, and we need to take this into account when setting immigration policy. I don't have faith, I have reason. Faith is for religious people and their fairy tales. I didn't ask you to 'prove' it wasn't, I asked you to suggest threats to Canada & the West in 2013 that are even close to comparable to Islamism. Also, I believe my claim was that islamism (also known as islamic supremacism or islamicism) was the biggest threat, not islam (do you not know the difference?). That said, Stephen Harper did say that 'the major threat is still Islamicism', but that isn't proof, I merely added the link to suggest that others hold this view. Sigh, I explain to you why I cannot conclude if something is a good indicator variable or not without knowing the quality of the data and you accuse me of flip-flopping. So admitting lack of knowledge or the uncertainty involved in statistics is flip-flopping now? How convenient. You can name a couple of threats, but will not name them. Must be like my studies... oh wait I just provided some! I would prefer you use the term 'provide strong evidence for' rather than 'prove' when talking about issues related to social science. 'Prove' should be more reserved for things like mathematical proof, or, to a smaller extent, obtaining sufficient statistical uncertainty like in Physics (ex. Higgs boson, which was only announced as a discovery after its statistically significance surpassed 5 sigma; but a 5 sigma significance would be and unreasonable standard in the case of econometric modelling). With respect to the discussion on immigration that we are having, I see two positions: 1. Canada should change its immigration policy to favour immigrants from 'better' (be it in terms of human capital quality, culture, etc.) source countries. 2. Canada should not change its immigration policy to favour immigrants from 'better' (be it in terms of human capital quality, culture, etc.) source countries. We should go with the position that has the strongest evidence in its favour, no? Asking me to 'prove' my position 100%, while providing less evidence to support your position, seems unreasonable to me. Let me see... I have a hypothesis: 'Canada should change its immigration policy to favour immigrants from 'better' (be it in terms of human capital quality, culture, etc.) source countries'. I have this hypothesis before going to the study. I then go to the data in the study to see if it supports this hypothesis, find that it does, and you accuse me of being dogmatic??? I'll concede that the main difference between what I was discussing before mentioning the study and after mentioning the study is that before I was discussing how some immigrant groups are better than others due to the effect of islamism, where as after I was discussing how some immigrant groups are better than others due to human capital quality. Either way, both positions suggest that some countries should be favoured over other countries when it comes to immigration policy. You seem to be stuck on the fact that favouring some countries over others can be done for more than one reason and the fact that the paper I linked doesn't discuss islamism or culture. Chinese is the largest visible minority group in Canada. So on a per capita basis, the Chinese do not necessarily exceed Somalians in this regard. On a side note, I will concede that Han supremacism is not that uncommon, while Somalian muslims are generally not racist because racism is strictly against islam and the teachings of the prophet Mohammed (though other forms of bigotry and discrimination are encouraged by islam such as sexism, homophobia and intolerance of kaffirs). Perhaps this would have been a better counter argument for you to argue? In this case I was referring to your 'hypothesis' that Saudi Arabia is a better source country of immigrants than New Zealand because it has a higher GDP per capita. I then replied that I was open to the testing of this hypothesis, and if the evidence was strong enough for this hypothesis, I would support it. Yes, there are correlations between income and source countries. This is what we are discussing; and it is what the papers I linked look at (though more specifically they refer to the effects of differences of human capital quality among countries). On Pat Condell being a comedian, I will concede that I was unaware about his past history of being a comedian in the 80's and 90's. Though he certainly isn't a comedian now, and his youtube channel isn't a comedy channel, so I do not understand why that is relevant. There are a number of different issues and hypothesis being discussed here, but let's examine this one for now: 'Canada should change its immigration policy to favour immigrants from 'better' (be it in terms of human capital quality, culture, etc.) source countries'

I wouldn't even limit it to left wing politicians. Many immigrants generally are more traditionally minded or more conservative than native Canadians, so the right wing parties also stand to benefit. Take the issue of gay marriage. Most people in Canada support it but the majority of muslim immigrants do not. Also, many other immigrant groups are skeptical of it because it is not part of their culture. Might be a bit off topic here, but I'm skeptical of the quality of Stephen Harper's economics education, because he frequently supports policies that do not make much economic sense (lowering of the GST instead of lowering income or corporate taxes for example) and my impression is that his 1980's Albertan economics education might have been more political than anything.

I think that this shows a lack of understanding of economics. No society 'needs' unskilled wage earners to function (how would one even define a societal 'need' in economic terms?). The wage isn't the only thing that matters to employers. How productive an employee is (which is affected by a variety of factors such as the worker's quantity of physical capital and human capital) are also relevant. In the long run, wages tend to reflect the marginal product of labour. So a group of people can have a higher income than another group of people if they have more human capital (better education, more work experience) and more physical capital (tools and machinery to be used in their workplace). This is the primary reason why people in countries like western Europe earn more than people in say sub-saharan Africa. So no, a society doesn't 'need' unskilled wage earners to compete. Japan, for example, doesn't have a very high immigration rate (especially by western standards) and has a low birth rate + declining/aging population. But rather than 'import unskilled labour' many people would prefer to replace the labour by robotics or improve the productivity of workers with better education/training and tools/equipment. Yes, income is correlated with benefit to society.

Huh? Who is going to attack Canada or threaten our 'sovereignty' by military force? What kind of paranoia is this? Canada only borders one country and that country is our closest ally and world super power. The entire developed work is allied with each each other. Canada, USA, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc. are all allied with each other. They are and will continue to be the dominant geopolitical force on Earth for decades. If one of our allies (and by this I mean allies that share strong cultural similarities, not allies out of convenience like Saudi Arabia) decides to get a stronger military, that isn't a threat, it makes us safer. Because of the overwhelming military dominance of NATO & allies, direct military threats to Canada from other nation states aren't a reality. The biggest threat remains attacks from non-nation states such as those done by islamic terrorist organizations. Haha, very funny. But seriously, can anyone in this thread name something that is a bigger threat to Canada in 2013 than islamism? I agree. The refusal to even acknowledge the merits of using geographical performance indicators to guide immigration policy is a big issue. Are you referring to a previous thread that I am unaware of? Could you provide a link please? Also, could you explain how studies about 'source country characteristics' of different countries could shed much light on the racism of hiring in Canada, since those studies group people based on nationalities rather than on race? Indeed, there are other factors that affect economic success and/or economic contribution to Canada. A person's wage can often differ from their 'marginal product of labour' or 'marginal social benefit' due to a variety of reasons for market failure (un-internalized externalities, public goods, tragedy of the commons, inefficient credit markets, inflexible wages, distortionary government intervention such as the minimum wage, etc.). There are also many ways that people can contribute to society outside of employment. However, economic contribution remains correlated with income, and just because it isn't a perfect correlation or just because it is difficult to measure other factors that contribute to social benefit doesn't mean that we shouldn't take income information into account when making immigration policy decisions.

Have to catch on some replies... :/ Not optimal means in need of change, or things would be better if the policy became closer to what is optimal. One can use economic models/theories and statistical data to estimate optimal policies. I'll give you an example: I think that the optimal amount of tariffs between Canada and the US is zero. I'll give you another example: If one accepts that recent global warming / climate change is primarily human caused, that the negatives of climate change out way the positives of climate change, that the net negatives of climate change exceed the costs of implementing policies to combat climate change, and that reducing C02 emissions is a more effective method of preventing climate change than alternatives (like making a giant space mirror or pumping sea water into clouds to increase albedo) then one can use the approach of cost-benefit analysis (that is monetizing how much people value the environment, calculating the costs of adaptation, calculating the costs of mitigation, determining the appropriate interest rate, etc.) plus statistical data to estimate the optimal level of pigouvian taxes on CO2 emissions. Anyway the paper uses the methodology of econometrics to test a model / hypothesis that the human capital quality for immigrants varies based on origin of country. It finds that the variation among countries of human capital quality is statistically significant. As for bringing more papers into the discussion, if you do not understand the first paper, what is the purpose in introducing more? It would only complicate the discussion when clearly you refuse to accept the idea that the paper I posted suggests that Canada should change it's immigration policy to account for the fact that the human capital quality varies based on country of origin and therefore the immigration policy should either use statistical data based on past immigrants to modify the point system to favor immigrants from countries with higher human capital quality or rely more on "cognitive and professional accreditation tests" to determine who gets to immigrate to Canada. A better question might be why are so many posters in this threat so absolutely close minded to the idea that maybe immigrants from some countries are better than immigrants from other countries (this could be due to a number of reasons, be if islamism, human capital quality, economic performance, work ethic, etc.)? If you guys were a bit more open minded then perhaps we can have a more interesting conversion such as 'which immigrant groups the government favor?', 'what factors should we consider when deciding which immigrants should be favored?', 'how can these factors be measured and to what uncertainty?'. But instead your guys are close minded and refuse to even acknowledge that perhaps some immigrant groups (say South Koreans) perform better and integrate better than other immigrant groups (say Somalians). Concede me this point and perhaps we can have a more productive conversation, but at this point I think you are just trying to cling to some dogmatic progressive ideals such as cultural relativism. Already did that. Please provide a better example of 'Somalian immigrants performing better than Chinese immigrants' or back off from your earlier claim that you can use statistics to prove whatever you want. See the problem is you don't understand regression models / econometrics. GDP isn't a good proxy for how important cultural effects are for how well immigrants integrate into Canadian society, because there are other factors that affect the economic performance of immigrants besides culture (such as amount of education, amount of work experience, quality of education, quality of work experience, amount of physical capital, etc.). However, if one creates an econometric model that includes all important non-cultural factors that affect the economic performance of immigrants and finds that what is left (after subtracting the non-cultural factors) is statistically significant and that the econometric model fits the data well, then it stands to reason that most of what remains will be due to cultural effects, so what remains of GDP after subtracting important non-cultural effects is a good proxy for cultural factors that affect GDP. Maybe it would be worth while to explain regression to you, but you are close minded to the idea that maybe Canada should have a policy to favour immigrants from some countries over others, so i'm not sure what use it would be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma Huh? If you are only allowed to draw conclusions that agree with your hypothesis then that is dogma! Not science. Yes, yes you can. Economists have done it for decades and will continue to do it. The paper I linked calculates human capital quality with some decree of accuracy, and human capital quality is an indicator variable of culture (as culture can affect human capital quality; example: cultures with good work ethic will generally have a higher human capital quality that those cultures with poor work ethic). And again, I'm not going to link you to more and more papers until you understand the first one. I don't get how the distinction between subjective and objective prevents society from using econometrics or cost benefit analysis to guide policy decisions. Do you prefer policy decisions be based on ideology (like extreme 'progressivism' or traditional 'conservatism') rather than be based on evidence and reasoning? Nope to 2. Nope to 1 & 3, not to mention claims 1 & 3 are contradictory (1 implies dogmatic methodology, 3 implies non-dogmatic methodology). Nope to 4, I provided evidence to support my claims. And 5 is due to you not understanding my posts / being unfamiliar with econometric methodology. You list is merely a collection of lies, misunderstandings and false claims. I say could be, because whether something is a good indicator variable / proxy or not depends on the quality of the data. So I cannot make a certain claim about if something is a good proxy or not without examining the data. Perhaps a definition would be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_variable_(statistics) Sigh, I explained this above. I never claimed that GDP/capita is a good 'metric' of the suitability of immigrants. You can keep trying to claim I did but it isn't true. I suggested that taking GDP/capita and subtracting the effects of non-cultural factors (like work experience, education, physical capital) using regression analysis can give something that could be a good indicator (and the 'could' is there because the quality of the statistical data can vary). That's your response for my request "Could you at least list some potential threats to the west that come close enough to par with islamism such that the issue of 'islamism being the biggest threat to the west in 2013' is at least debatable by people with a reasonable understanding of geopolitics?"? The fact that you have such difficulty to name even 1 threat that can be close to par with islamism is quite indicative of the reality today: Islamism is the greatest threat to the west in 2013 (much like totalitarian communism was during the cold war, and nazism was during WW2). The link speaks for itself: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-says-islamicism-biggest-threat-to-canada-1.1048280 Your response to my request for a definition of 'unqualified terms' uses 'unqualified terms' in its definition... Lol? You cannot criticize methodology when examining whether something is 'proof' or not? What a bizarre definition of proof you must have! Right... providing links to econometric studies by Canadian Universities with rigerous methodology is no better than some misleading graph you found on the internet that doesn't even say where it got the data from. *sarcasm* I'm not missing the point. If you want to argue that GDP/capita of former countries is the only thing Canada should consider when determining which groups of immigrants should be favoured by the immigration system, you build a hypothesis (i.e. regression model) to test this vs other hypotheses, and you perform the econometric analysis that suggests that this hypothesis is true based on the data, then I am open minded enough to accept the results and change my opinion. As for the tower of Babel, it's some nonsense Christian fairy tale. As for building tower of Babel, humans will one day build something much greater, it is called a space elevator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator Pat Condell isn't a comedian...

@ GhostHack - I've heard the whole 'both the left and right are bad, all politicians are corrupt and don't care about you' argument. I'm not really sure how bringing it up is helpful to this thread, so I'm not going to give your post a long reply. So I provide estimates of the number of people that have died to islamic jihad (270 million) to refute your claim that things done under Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism dwarf what has happened under islamism, and you respond with ad hominem attacks? Cool, good to know I won the point. So Shinzo Abe wanting to bolster Japan's military and change the constitution so that Japan can defend its allies if they are attacked (Canada) is a threat to Canada? Having allies that share similiar values increase their military power is not a threat to Canada in the 21st century. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1332507/japans-shinzo-abe-outlines-plans-bolster-defence-capabilities

Could you at least list some potential threats to the west that come close enough to par with islamism such that the issue of 'islamism being the biggest threat to the west in 2013' is at least debatable by people with a reasonable understanding of geopolitics? Let's see... I provided a link to an article titled 'Harper says islamism biggest threat to Canada', which quotes Harper saying something along those lines and has a video where he says it. How is that not enough for you? What does unqualified terms mean??? I never denied this. At the same time, islamic jihad has been going on for 1400 years before George Bush invaded Iraq. Now we are just arguing semantics here. Clearly I have a different definition of 'values' than you (probably cause of a different academic background). To me, a number is a value. You fake 'proved' nothing. Even after all this supposed 'fake proof' the graph still has Chinese at 24%, which is not 'nearly half', so a better thing to call the graph is a blatant lie. You provide no reference to where the data comes from, or the methodology used. I could make a graph that says 99% of rapists are forum posters named Micheal Hardner, and not provide any reference to where the data comes from (i.e. make up data) and it wouldn't make it 'fake prove' anything. And given that Chinese make up a much larger percentage of the visible minorities, one could argue that the graph shows that 'Somalians' are worse immigrants than 'Chinese', not the other way around. Please stop trying to compare this garbage graph to the paper done by the group at University of Ottawa, it's insulting to statistics and econometrics. Yes, if one wants to argue that GDP per capita of host countries is the only thing we should concern our selves with when asking about the quality of immigrants, performs rigorous econometric analysis that strongly suggests that this hypothesis is true, then I have no problem favoring Saudi Arabian immigrants over New Zealand immigrants. However, in reality there are a variety of factors that affect immigrant quality (language skills, education levels, literacy rates, cultural compatibility, etc.) so you will most likely need to consider more than just GDP per capita of host country when determining optimal immigration policy. Again you are asking me to be less dogmatic in one sentence then requesting I be more dogmatic in the next. Make up your mind please. Unoptimal in the sense that it would be of greater benefit to Canada to either change our immigration distribution or our immigration levels. Income of immigrant groups is probably one of the largest factors, but there are other factors that contribute to overall benefit (such as how often immigrants give to charity, the average age of the immigrants, the average retirement age, how many children the different immigrants tend to have, if different immigrant groups bring over dependents or not, etc.). Saying someone dislikes muslims is synonymous to 'islamophobe', is it not? And I just said that I didn't dislike muslims, I dislike islam... Please reread what I said. Let's see, I have provided numerous links to videos (especially to answer bleeding heart's false claims with respect to to what Pat Condell's opinions are), links to articles (ex. the one that estimates that the number of humans killed by islamic jihad is over 270 million), various quotations (including quotations of the qu'ran & quotations from politicians such as David Cameron, Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper), references to econometric studies that discuss the value of different immigrant groups. Yet I have provided no evidence of anything?... How does that compare to what everyone else in this thread has provided combined? I guess everyone else has provided less than nothing... Are you trolling me?

Guess I have to repeat myself... The paper shows a number of things: - It suggests that income differences among different immigrant groups based on country of origin are due to factors such as human capital (education + work experience), has a theoretical regression model to test this claim, tests that claim, finds that the results of the regression model are statistically significant, meaning that the model is reasonable. Again, 'integrating better' isn't exactly a well defined economic concept, but how well different immigrants perform (in terms of income) after one takes into account levels of human capital could be a good proxy to use to test if different immigrant groups are 'integrating well'. Anyway, point is the study clearly supports my claim that different immigrant groups (from different countries) have statistically different value to Canadian society (in this case in terms of income and how much human capital they have) from one another. Perhaps I should have referenced this paper which focuses more on human capital quality instead? http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~scoulomb/pages/CGN-dev-August_2013.pdf - It suggests changes to Canadian immigration policy (implying that immigrant distribution is unoptimal). Supporting my claim that immigrant distribution isn't optimal (why anyone would have the default position that it is optimal given the large number of ways we could modify immigration policy is puzzling to me). - It shows a rigorous statistical methodology for testing the value of different immigrant groups (econometrics), which I think is helpful given the number of ridiculous statements about statistics made in this threat ('people can use statistics to show anything', 'you cannot objectively measure 'values' of immigrants', etc.). - You are really tempting me to take the data, create a regression model to include 'cultural compatibility' (as well as other factors like human capital from education & work experience), test the hypothesis, calculate the results and post them. I do not have time to do so however. Also, you misinterpret what I have said about 'integrating better'. While I agree that GDP of former country and GDP of immigrant group in Canada aren't good proxies for 'integrating better', taking whatever is left over from variance in GDP per capital of an immigrant group after explaining for other factors that might affect GDP per capita (such as human capital, of which GDP of former host country is a good proxy as shown by the referenced paper and others), should yield a good proxy of the cultural effects of how well immigrant groups 'integrate' and therefore be a good proxy for 'integrating better'. Or if you want it explained another way, use this quote by Sherlock Holmes: "If you’ve eliminated all other possibilities, whatever remains must be the truth" Sigh... Look does everything have to be spelled out for you in the written conclusion or abstract for you to understand things? In econometrics you create a theoretical regression model which you try to justify based on economic theory, test the model against the data, then conclude how well the results support or falsify the model. There is often lots of information in a regression study that isn't included in the conclusions; and results of a regression can be explained in a number of different ways. While the econometric model used doesn't include culture, it is generally accepted by economists that culture effects GDP per capita. Generally richer countries have more similar cultures to Canada than poorer countries (like western europe), therefore the cultural effects on GDP per capita of immigrant groups should be correlated with income per capita (which is used as a proxy for human capital). Basically I'm suggesting that income per capita can also be used as a proxy for cultural compatibility and not just human capital when i said: Accusing me of dogmatic methodology now? Again, the study was posted cause it showed a number of things (as listed at the top of the post) so invalidated some of the claims you made earlier in the thread. Having a hypothesis (such as suggesting that culture or human capital affect GDP) isn't the same being dogmatic. While regressions generally only show correlations, not causation... that is where economic theory (to develop theoretical model which you test) and time series analysis come in. Also, what errors have I made? Anyway, I'm saying that questions like 'how much does culture affect immigrant performance?' can be answered using econometrics (and this is relevant with respect to determining immigration policy). I'm not sure about that... I'm sure you can find a bunch of eco-Luddites that think that society was better off before industrialization, and might argue that standard of living and GDP are negatively correlated. Proof? Or are you just going to keep strawmaning what I say (by suggesting that I suggest that the paper suggests conclusions which it doesn't suggest)? Obviously income of immigrants one they move to Canada are correlated with the over economic benefit of the immigrant. Or do you really not see the difference between an immigrant with a strong education that comes to Canada and earns $100,000 dollars a year and an immigrant with little education, little language skills and earns $10,000 dollars a year? First you complain that the study doesn't support 'my conclusions' and that I'm not being dogmatic enough. Then you claim I'm only picking this study to support 'my conclusions' and I'm being too dogmatic. Make up your mind please. And at least I'm bringing studies, videos, quotations and a variety of links to this thread... No I meant that I do not know what it means, and I do not care much about not knowing the meaning (because it probably means something silly).

Progressive racism and political correctness are not the same thing, and I have made no such claim. Progressives silencing criticism of islamism can be done for a variety of reasons including progressive racism, political correctness and cultural relativism. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, but what I meant to say is that I did not expect so much disagreement given overwhelming evidence in favour of 'my position' that any reasonable person would agree with. I guess you will always have some people try to argue ridiculous positions (moonlandings being fake, 911 caused by US government, earth being 6,000 years old, islamism not being the biggest threat to the west today, etc.). Nazism is dead, communism is mostly dead (cold war is long over), if islamism isn't the biggest threat to the west today, what is? Look even Stephen Harper agrees that islamism is the biggest threat to Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-says-islamicism-biggest-threat-to-canada-1.1048280 The soviet system died by a combination of inside and outside (western + islamic) influences. The cliche of great civilizations only falling because of what happens isn't 100% true. Also, I wouldn't suggest that something needs to cause the US to decline significantly to be a significant threat. You don't think terrorism and damage to property / killing of people counts as a significant threat. As for islamism not contributing to the decline of the USA, I think they are doing a pretty good job at it. Osama Bin Laden, despite being dead, has managed to get the US involved in 2 costly wars (Afganistan & Iraq), cost the USA trillions of dollars, cost the USA goodwill from other countries, got the idiot George Bush elected a second time, and caused the US policy makes to be more concerned with foreign issues than with domestic issues. Income per capita is a value that can be associated with a group of people. Literacy rates is a value that can be associated with a group of people. Average years of schooling is a value that can be associate with a group of people. If those don't count, I have no idea what you mean by values of groups of people. Wow, what an absolute nonsense statistics and misuse of data. I asked you to "produce 'a government statistic' that "proves" that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than Somalians". No where in your data do you have Somalians or even East Africans. This data neither defines racialized persons, nor poverty, nor how the data was collected, nor mentions which country this data is for. Looking at the percentage of the 'racialized persons living in poverty' who are chinese, rather than looking that the number of 'racialized persons living in poverty' per capita makes no sense given that Chinese people probably make up the largest visible minority group. Showing me that idiots can misinterpret data doesn't satisfy your earlier offer. Now again I ask you to produce 'a government statistic' that "proves" that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than Somalians or back off with your ridiculous claims. Yeah... good luck trying to argue that a study that doesn't even use data from Saudi Arabia (as seen in appendix) somehow justifies increasing immigration from Saudi Arabia. Actually I'd like to see you try to use the study to justify increasing immigration from Pakistan. Go ahead. If you cannot then please stop trying to claim things along the lines of, 'people can use statistics to justify whatever'. What is this 'mistake'? If I find a study that contributes significantly to the discussion, I'll link it regardless of if it fits my conclusions or not; I do not approach things dogmatically. See my last post with respect to cost-benefit analysis vs econometric analysis (edit: I have found many attempts at cost-benefit analysis on immigration online but they are either not very well done or not relevant to the topic at hand, and again I think econometric analysis is a more useful approach in this case). There referenced study suggests that immigration policy is unoptimal and proposes changes. I even quoted the passage in the conclusion that suggests this for you. Oh noes, name calling! Look I don't dislike Muslims, I dislike islamism and islam. In fact I dislike all religions. Muslims are arguably the group of people that suffer the most from islam so I feel sorry for them. My opinions on islamism are based on a variety of evidence. I've been familiar with the work by Serge Coulombe et al. (University of Ottawa group) before I became familiar with islam and islamism. I used to hold opinions along the lines of 'all religions are roughly equally as bad' or 'christian extremists are as much a threat as islamic extremists' before evidence changed my opinion to something different. Islam is such different (and I would argue more complete) religion compared to anything else, and the amount of text in the Qu'ran, the Hadiths and other islamic text that can be used to justify terrorism is quite high. Edit: Finally caught up on replies. Arguing against 4 people is difficult.

Military power isn't an inherent threat unless there is reason to use that power against you. USA has military power, Japan has military power, Britain has military power, and France has military power, but those aren't threats because they are our allies. I will agree that Soviet military power was a threat, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is an existential threat. Oh wow, you really want to go there? lol. Even if I ignore the fact that deaths caused by leninism, stalinism and maoism aren't caused by the ideology of communism (those 3 ideologies aren't subsets of communism, but rather ideologies that include communism as well as other aspects such as totalitarianism), over 270 million people have been killed by islamic jihad (not to mention all the people put in slavery, were forcibly converted, had their limbs chopped off, got stoned for being raped, lived in 2nd class dhimmi status, etc.). I guess I'll need to provide some references. http://www.infideltaskforce.com/tearsofjihad.html Yay, finished responding to page 3! Nearly caught up.

Well duh, it's an economics paper by rigorous economists from the University of Ottawa. The term 'integrating better' isn't exactly a well defined economic concept, and good luck trying to get funding to do a study that could even be remotely considered 'racist' or 'islamophobe'. That said, the paper in question, isn't a study on the effects of 'cultural compatibility' of immigrants from different nations, it's a study that focuses on education and human capital of different immigrant groups and how that relates to their incomes once they come to Canada. It shows how language ability, different levels of education, income from host countries and other factors are correlated with the incomes of immigrants once they arrive to Canada. Income of host countries is shown to be a good proxy for human capital of immigrants. Though what the paper might doesn't say is that income of host countries & human capital of immigrants should be strongly correlated with 'cultural compatibility' as generally richer countries are more similar to Canada (Western Europe, Japan, etc.) than poorer countries; furthermore, culture is a significant factor in a country's economic prosperity and well being (there is are reasons why South Korea has gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the richest countries in the world and it is very much related to the country's culture). It also shows that there is some significant unexplained variability in resulting immigrant income, that isn't explained by the factors used in the regression model (so could be the result of other causes such as the influence of culture). It is also really interesting if one looks at the appendix table B1 of the regression model. Is it just a coincidence that islamic countries such as Iran, Afganistan and Bangladesh generally have negative unexplained regression coefficients (afganistan and Bangladesh have coefficients of approx -2.6 for both males and females)? Admittedly, Egypt and morocco have positive coefficients (though of course both countries are quite secular). While places that are very culturally similar such as Britain, France and Northern Europe have positive regression coefficients? Please correct me if I am misreading something. Edit: actually most of these coefficients are within the t values, so aren't statistically significant, so forget I made this comment; not much can be concluded from table B1 other than the regression model used having good results at explaining variability in resulting immigrant income. Anyway, I referenced the study not because it is a study that specifically says how terrible islam is and how important culture is when it comes to an immigrants 'compatibility' (which the paper doesn't do, and I would never want to suggest that out of respect for the economists), but because it shows a rigorous approach to examining how different factors affect resulting immigrant income, how we can measure those factors, and how the results of such factors suggests modifications to Canada's immigration system to improve the quality of immigrants that come to Canada. It would be interesting to see the results of regressions that try to estimate the cultural effects on resulting income (maybe use proxies such as government type, freedom indexes, religious make up, languages used, etc. to estimate this). It would also be interesting to compare how countries such as Canada & Australia, which do immigration very well and do not have relatively much immigration from radical islamic countries, fare when compared to countries such as UK & Frace, which do not do immigration as well and have high immigration from radical islamic countries such as Pakistan and the Maghreb, in terms of the quality of immigrants. 'Most people' believe in nonsense fairy tales (i.e. religion), do not understand basic maths (let alone regression analysis), and follow ridiculous political ideologies, so I'm not sure if 'most people' is a good standard to examine anything with. Also, 'GDP of source nation' is not a proxy for 'fit with Canada' (like GDP is a proxy for standard of living), rather 'GDP of source nation' is a good proxy for human capital (which then affects immigrant income) as explained in the referenced study. My comments were based of various comments that you have made which are along the lines of: 'we can't actually objectively measure things, or use statistics in any meaningful way', which of course basically disregard the entire field of econometrics, or calling my explanation of a methodology to determine ways to measure cultural compatibility as 'a mathematical tower of Babylon, can't work and will only feed your biases'. The University of Ottawa study clearly suggests that current immigration distribution is un-optimal with respect to not properly accounting for the human capital of different immigrant groups. There are thousands of studies that suggest that the immigration distribution is un-optimal for a variety of reasons. Again define fabric of Canada. Also, you are suggesting that we shouldn't care if the immigration distribution is un-optimal? lol, good luck with that... I probably shouldn't have used the words net benefit analysis. Performing cost-benefit analysis on immigration policy is quite difficult for a variety of reasons (since immigrants become Canadians it is difficult to determine who the 'stakeholders' are, it is difficult to estimate social effects such as how much people value 'diversity', etc.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis Cost-benefit analysis is useful if you are looking at more specific questions such as 'what kind of policy should Canada have with respect to the Canadian Pacific Salmon fishery?', should Canada build a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit?' or 'Should the Northern Gateway Pipeline be allowed to be built?', but I think econometrics is a more useful approach in determining immigration policy. So in that case, I'll take back my earlier offer to provide links to CBA's of immigration policy. Yeah... still don't understand the meaning. 'Fabric of Canada' means 'Canadian policy'? Yeah... really helpful! *sarcasm Yes, my opinion is based of a variety of evidence. Wait, are you saying that your default position is that immigration distribution and immigration levels are somehow magically optimal? Could you provide justification for such a position. What exactly do you want? A study that says in it's conclusion "muslim immigration is super bad and we need to limit it"? No self-respecting economist would publish such a thing. Are you saying I shouldn't post evidence that does't directly support my opinions? Such an approach would be dogmatic; I care more about the rigority of the study than if it fits my opinion or not. The econometric analysis admits that resulting immigrant income varies greatly depending on country of origin, shows that this is due to a variety of factors (education, human capital, language skills), and concludes that the current immigration distribution is unoptimal. So what if it doesn't discuss effects of islam or culture, it still adds to the discussion and shows that you are wrong on a variety of comments made. Furthermore, I wanted to show you a rigorous econometrics paper so you would stop disrespecting (unintentionally) the field. I do not disagree with this, but that doesn't mean that government policy (especially immigrant distribution) is optimal. What do you see my thesis as? A variety of inter-related issues are being discussed here. I'm mostly just correcting other people's wrong opinions/claims. I never claimed the study reached my supposed conclusions on immigration (especially with respect to islam). Such an approach (in terms of only providing information that directly supports my conclusions) would be dogmatic, and I posted the study for other reasons (also I know and respect the economists who made the study).

When someone says things like 'the liberal left has lost its way' and 'my natural constituency has been poisoned' that doesn't sound like he is saying that two lefts have always existed and I don't acknowledge the supposed accomplishments of the far left who I now identify as the enemy. It sounds like he is saying that he feels that the political left has become corrupted and has morphed into something different. The left of the past that defended homosexual rights (i.e. liberals) is different from the left of today that protects the gay-hatred and misogyny of islamism (i.e. progressives). The left has sort of adopted a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality, and 'because islamism disagrees with traditional western conservatism (which has strong christian influences) and muslims are a minority, surely islamism must be an ally of the left!'. That said, 'mainstream liberals' from the past that didn't support gay rights were obviously not very liberal (and would not fit Pat Condell's definition of liberal). Come on... Now I think you are being a bit unfair in your demands. I have provided plenty of evidence to explain Pat Condell's positions, showed that he identifies with the old left (or liberalism), showed that he is very much against racism, supports women's rights (frequently criticizes islam over it), supports gay rights, etc. I'm sorry that there isn't a video where he spends all his time discussing the great accomplishments of the left in the past, because he talks about more relevant current events instead. If you want to keep arguing whatever your 'point' about Pat Condell not acknowledging the great past of the left has morphed into, then so be it. But I think you are being unreasonable. Seriously? Are you suggesting that anytime someone discusses issues of islam, racism, progressivism and/or freedom of speech they have to also mention the great accomplishments of the left as well as how terrible the evil imperialist west was? Why? I don't get why you keep asking 'Well why isn't Pat Condell talking about something else instead?'. He isn't talking about great accomplishments of the past left, or the evil imperialism of the west because he is talking about progressivism, racism and islam! I swear, there must be a name for this type of argumentative fallacy; I'll have to look it up. Also, I think this sort of mentality may be indicative that you suffer from western apologism, a common trait of 'progressivism'. Proof? Yes because calling people anti-Canadian when arguing political positions never occurs... *sarcasm* Suggest that Canada changes it's health care system(s) to include private enterprise? Get called anti-Canadian. Suggest that Canada abolishes the minimum wage cause it's a dumb concept? Get called anti-Canadian. Suggest that there are flaws with unlimited multiculturalism, especially if integration between new immigrants and Canadians is poor? Get called anti-Canadian, and racist, and islamophobe. Suggest that Canada should have a less 'progressive' tax system to increase the incentive for productive behaviour, therefore increase GDP? Get called anti-Canadian. Suggest that employment insurance should be made voluntary as it unfairly favours seasonal workers and due to moral objections on forcing this insurance/tax? Get called anti-Canadian. Need I go on? Being called anti-Canadian or un-Canadian is very common, but is mostly used by the left (where as anti-American is mostly used by the right). Edit: Will continue with replies in chronological order later. Sorry that I am still not caught up.

Progressivism and islamism are distinct but related issues. The relation is that 'progressivism' as defined by Pat Condell makes it difficult to talk about the issue of islamism because people do not want to be labelled as 'racist' or 'islamophobe', and as a result the west hasn't properly identified the threat of islamism (see previous links on David Cameron and Justin Trudeau). This thread was started because people unfamiliar with Pat Condell's videos misunderstood his video so I wanted to clarify Pat Condell's position: progressive racism exists, progressivism & progressive racism make it difficult to discuss the islamism, islamism is the biggest threat to the west today & within the topic of islamism there are a number of issues (including islamic terrorism and immigration to western countries). Really my position (and Pat Condell's) position shouldn't be debatable, yet multiple posters here seem to want to argue against the position or devalue the position (either through ad hominem fallacies or by trying to argue that communism, liberalism and/or conservatism are also bad therefore why care about progressivism or islamism?). Why do you guys choose to do this? I'm not sure. Can't produce objective approaches for assessing value of groups of people???... It's called statistical analysis, it's done all the time. I provide a link in my last post to 1 of hundreds of thousands of papers do exactly this. Sure idiot politicians or random posters on the internet can just make up statistics or misinterpret statistics to make whatever conclusions they want, but that doesn't devalue rigorous statistical analysis. And yes, I would like to see you produce 'a government statistic' that "proves" that Chinese people are worse at assimilating than Somalians. I called your bluff, now either produce these so called statistics or back off with your ridiculous claims. Again, refer to the paper by the group at the University of Ottawa I provided a link to. It has plenty of 'value numbers' (whatever that means) for immigrants from different countries of origins. As for your second sentence, I cannot create people, I am no god and creationism is nonsense. I have a reasonably good understanding of statistics (good enough to understand papers such as the one I linked to) for I do have a math-economics degree from the University of Ottawa. I'm not sure if your understanding is good however (all you seem to do is insult the field of econometrics). Note really sure what you mean by scattershot of examples... examples of what? But overall with your post that contains this quotation, it appears that you now overall agree with me. You agree that progressive racism exists and that progressivism can lead to silencing debate on some issues such as islamism and affirmative action. In that case you agree with Pat Condell's video, so this thread has been a success! Am I mistaken? Well it can be, depending on if the progressive is actually racist or not, but I have yet to see the 'progressive racist' label be used vs particular people or at anywhere close the the frequency at which non-racists, who wish to have honest discussion about issues such as islamism or affirmative action, are labelled as racists by 'progressives'. Well I think it is possible to discuss the compatibility of different immigrant groups to Canada. Econometric studies of statistical data can be used to guide immigration policy on how to optimize an immigration system to determine the immigrant distribution and the level of immigration optimal for Canada's economy. The idea of limiting muslim immigration is something that would have to be justified through statistical analysis before being implemented (though admittedly, limited immigration by religion is something that would be very controversial and hard to implement, so I would advocate limiting immigration, or rather assigning points, based on country of origin).

There is no objective way to measure 'standard of living', but there are objective ways to measure things like gdp, life expectancy, literacy rates and then create the HDI index which can act as a proxy for 'standard of living'. Similarly, while there is no objective way to measure 'integrating better', it is possible to do objective analysis of proxies for 'integrating better'. If you would like, here is a 2012 paper on Human Capital and Immigrant Wage gap by three professors from the University of Ottawa. http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~scoulomb/pages/Coulombe-Grenier-Nadeau-Wage%20Gap-2012.pdf This is the kind of rigorous statistical analysis I was talking about. I'll post a passage from the conclusion: "it suggests that the worsening immigrant wage gap in Canada over the last couple of decades may not be so much to a geographic shift in immigrant source countries but rather an economic shift in immigrant source countries from relatively rich to relatively poor countries.From a policy point of view, this study suggests that if a country wants to adopt an immigrant selection policy based on a point system such as that of Canada, then for the same number of years of schooling and of work experience, the number of points should vary depending on the assessed quality of those years of schooling and work experience. In particular, more points should be allocated if schooling (especially the highest diploma) and work experience have been acquired in Canada than if they have been acquired in another country. Another and possibly more efficient approach, would be to rely less on the number of years of schooling and of work experience in selecting immigrants, and more on cognitive and professional accreditation tests." Nope. Your lack of understanding of statistical analysis methodologies isn't a valid point. Because the current immigration distribution is un-optimal. We mis-value the education levels of immigrants from a variety of countries, do not tie immigration strongly enough to employment (like the US), and often lose out to countries like Australia or the US in terms of good quality immigrants. Parties like the NDP wish to place too much emphasis on 'family' immigration rather than 'economic' immigration. More like I do not understand what 'the fabric of Canada' means. Please define it. ​I have a desire to change immigration policy because it is un-optimal. And I never said I don't believe in countries; countries definitely exist. I disagree with the niqab and kirpan not on cultural grounds. I have no problem with the hijab, the kippa and the turban. My disagreement with the niqab and kirpan lies with security concerns. I also think that some accommodations go so far as to violate concepts of equality and secularism. If a muslim woman can wear a face covering to a bank, why can't an atheist man? If a sikh man can carry a concealed dagger into a university, why can't a jewish lady? Laws should apply equally to everyone regardless of religious affiliation. I am unclear on the relevance of this comment. Are you implying that I do not understand the benefit of immigration or of immigrants? Anyway, sorry that I haven't responded to all comments yet. I seem to be arguing 4 people here and am the one who brings the most evidence and references to the conversation.

Bleeding Heart: Again, what is more relevant is if the ideologies behind the labels suggest bad policies or adversely affect humanity. Other ideologies adversely affecting humanity doesn't justify the adverse effects caused by 'progressivism'. The ideology of 'progressivism' (by Pat Condell's definition) is something that goes well beyond party lines and can affect people from left, right or center in western countries. It is what causes David Cameron (a conservative) to say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5CHev43PhI "There is nothing in islam that justifies this truly dreadful act... It is an utter perversion of the truth to say anything different." But this isn't true, there are plenty of verses in islamic texts and actions by the prophet mohammed that justify; it is David Cameron who is perverting truth for political correctness here. Don't believe me? Listen to the guy that actually killed Lee Rigby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTu8MhSdR4 Still don't believe that verses in islamic texts justify terrorist attacks? Then listen to this video by David Wood who goes into great detail in examining verses in the Qu'ran, Hadiths and in other islamic texts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH7Ty8iPh5c The 'progressive' ideas of political correctness, cultural relativism and progressive racism prevent the west from properly identifying the causes of islamic terror attacks and therefore developing effective strategies to deal with this threat. But maybe 'progressive' politicians like Justin Trudeau will eventually be able to find the 'root causes' of terrorist attacks, cause clearly it can never have anything to do with Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGeMp6R7y8 ​Cultural relativism, political correctness, progressive racism, ideology of unconstrained multiculturalism, hatred of the west (ideas like foreign conflicts must be the west's fault; things being the west's fault is usually the default position of progressives), etc. Not the idea that progressives, but the ideology of progressivism. Stop referring to people and instead refer to ideologies. I would prefer some references here. Didn't the west side with East Timor over Indonesia? While I agree that these things significantly contribute to islamic terrorism, you haven't shown how these are caused by the ideologies of liberalism or conservatism. Politicians in the west (especially the US) make stupid foreign policy decisions all the time mostly because of ignorance, but that doesn't mean liberalism and conservatism cause this. I will give you that neo-con political ideology is a cause behind aggressive actions towards islamic countries and therefore contributes to islamic terrorism, but this still doesn't make the effects of progressivism any less bad. As for the rest of your post, I don't really understand it's significance. Politicians that identify as liberal or conservative make bad policy decisions that either contribute to terrorism or finance terrorism, so what? How does that matter to the fact that 'progressivism' (as defined by Pat Condell) negatively influences the west, the main reason being that it prevents the west from identifying and dealing with the problem of islamism? Two wrongs don't make a right, and a second wrong doesn't make the first wrong any less wrong.

Military power itself isn't a threat unless there is an incentive to use it (mutually assured destruction + valuing of progress and human life prevent that). Economic stagnation in communist countries hardly qualifies as an existential threat to western countries. The soviet union collapsed because it was fighting western funded islamists in Afghanistan, and also because it is an inherently bad economic system. As for people dying to proxy wars in the cold war, these weren't caused by the ideologies of communism (nothing in communism says you should kill people), where as deaths from islamic jihad are caused by islamist ideologies (since their is plenty of verses in the Qu'ran and other islamic texts to justify murder). There have been 1400 years of nearly non-stop islamic jihad on non-muslim countries. Do you think islam's spread to egypt, syria, turkey, maghreb, persia or hindustan was peaceful? If we compare the amount of deaths caused by islamism in history to the amount of deaths supposedly caused by 'communism' or 'christianity' or 'atheism' or something else that it comes Woops, I copy pasted the wrong url. My apologies. I'll try to refind the video where he mentions the concept of new Liberalism. However, I did find this video (which is better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk At 1:30 he says, "politically I used to belong to the liberal left... I still believe in those things, which is why I'm no longer on the liberal left... The liberal left has lost its way, lost its moral authority and become a threat to out freedom... Where does that leave me politically? Does it leave me on the right? no... my natural constituency has been poisoned by people like you". There, does that satisfy you now? Can you give up your claim that Pat Condell somehow doesn't acknowledge the past of the 'left'?

Not sure I agree with what you are saying. Here you are suggesting 2 things: that communism was an extinctional threat and that islamism is not a greater threat than communism was. Communism as an ideology was never an existential threat to the west. All western countries could adopt communism economic policy and they wouldn't necessarily be any less western. Many communists in the west support liberal democratic values such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. Communism is merely a bad economic system that doesn't take into account incentives of productive behavior. Now if we are talking about the totalitarian communism practiced during the cold war (and still practiced in North Korea), that was never an existential threat either. Why? Because unlike islamists, these communists value human life, both their own and those of their enemies, they generally accepted the golden rule (treat others how you want to be treated), and they supported human/technological progress. Mutually assured destruction was more then enough to prevent significant conflict. Now contrast with islamists who wish to "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Sura 9:29). Now for those that are unfamiliar with islam, Sura 9 is the last major revelation of the prophet Mohammed so abrogates earlier 'peaceful' verses that Mohammed made while in Mecca and Sura 9 was revealed in the context of Mohammed performing offensive islamic jihad on christian Syria. Of course only mono-theists like jews, christians and hindus are lucky enough to have the option to pay the Jizyah, polytheists such as the Quraish in Arabia only have the options of leave muslim lands, convert or die. According to islamists, non-muslims are immoral sub-human kaffir and dying in battle against the kaffir is the greatest of deaths and will please allah the most. Things like value of human life (they don't value anyone's life even their own), or the golden rule (treat others how you wish to be treated) do not apply like they did vs communists. Nor is the west at conflict with easily identifiable nation states like we were during the cold war. I do not think that Islamism is an existential threat to the west (mostly because it is just another superstitious fairy tale that will die as people become more educated. Unlike christianity, islam does not have the same level of flexibility of interpretation, as the Qu'ran is effectively the word of god through Mohammed, so Islam is 100% incompatible with the idea of human evolution as a Muslim must believe in Adam & Eve), but it is still a significant threat

To be fair, i'm not sure how well the libertarian label fits Pat Condell. He might be a libertarian in a more general sense but I doubt in more strict definitions of libertarian (like those that want severely limited government intervention). He doesn't do videos on tax policy or size of government so it is difficult to know. My best guess is that he might be more closely aligned with the Canadian Freedom Party than with the Canadian Libertarian Party (if he were Canadian). As said earlier, he does support UKIP and the EDL. I'm a bit confused, are you saying that muslims victimized by western militarism are supportive of homosexuals, or that 'progressives' are sympathetic of muslims victimized by western militarism? Why do you feel it necessary to bring up the muslims victimized by western militarism? In this post, could you clearly define which definitions of liberal and conservative you are using? Depending on the definitions used, progressive may or may not overlap with both liberal and conservative. Justin Trudeau for example, can be considered both a liberal and a conservative depending on which definitions are used. I'm not sure how valid this is (especially without clear definitions of liberal and conservative). The LPC did not support the Iraq War, where as the Labor party in Britain did (and the Labor party is the most 'progressive' of the 3 main parties). Furthermore, even if I were to agree with the claim that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' were responsible for the Iraq War, what indicates that it is a result of the ideologies of 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' and not due to political opportunism or faulty intelligence? Liberals and conservative have been colluding in attempted genocide??? What??? Am I misreading something? Yes, please elaborate. How have liberalism and conservatism contributed to an increase in islamic terrorism that exceeds the damage done by progressivism in fighting islamism? (I'm not saying I disagree with your statement, but without knowing your definitions of liberal or conservative, or hear your arguments and reasoning I cannot say) Isn't it all related? Isn't the biggest issue the failure of the west to properly identify the causes and assess the significance of islamic terrorism? I you referring to how the Americans thought that communism was a greater threat then islamism so had no problem financing the Taliban? Damage done by individuals who identify with certain political positions is different from damage caused by ideologies (you need to show that any bad things done by liberals and conservatives is done as a result of liberalism and conservatism, and even so I'm not sure how that makes any negative consequences of 'progressivism' any less negative). A muslim man killing another man because the muslim wanted to steal a car is different from a muslim man killing another man because that man left islam and the punishment for apostasy in islam is death. In both cases a muslim man kills another man, but only one of the cases is a result of islamic ideology. You need to elaborate more and give examples. Statistics don't show anything that's helpful... right... Would you prefer a net benefit analysis rather than a statistical analysis? Immigrants from some countries integrate better and make more income even after factoring for education and work experience than other immigrants. Why wouldn't you prefer the immigrants from those countries that integrate better? Yeah we could do something like use calculate the 'productivity' (or basically whatever is left over after statistical analysis) of immigrants from different countries after controlling for things like education, work experience, age, language proficiency, etc. using statistical data on incomes of recent immigrants and then use this 'productivity' to add or subtract points to an immigration applicant's application. By Canada, do you mean the Land of Canada, the People of Canada, or the State of Canada? If you are trying to use some appeal to patriotism fallacy on me it will not work because I reject patriotism as irrational. If someone said 'nationalized health care is a central part of this country' would that make nationalized health care any more justified? If not, why does such an argument apply to multiculturalism? But that is besides the point. Multiculturalism cannot work with cultures/ideologies that are culturally supremacist such as nazism or islamism. Multiculturalism shouldn't mean having to accept face coverings (niqabs) in public, allow for kirpans (concealed daggers) in crowded areas, or constantly change language to not offend anyone (yet 'progressives' will argue that 'multiculturalism' does). The cultures of new immigrants and how well these cultures interact with Canadian cultures is very relevant.A better question might be why do you feel that there shouldn't be limits on multiculturalism?

Here is one where Pat refers to the 'New Left' which is clearly distinct from the 'Old Left': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWw7H4m389o I'll try to get more examples but there are over 6 years of videos and none of them really concentrate on the past of the left so it is more difficult to find comments in videos that mention the left's past than I thought (Pat mostly concentrates on current events, so comments on acknowledging the west's past are spread out among many videos). Unrelated, but here is a video that more specifically describes Orwellian language used by progressives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SReDcW0fokE

Well there are 2 issues with progressive racism. The first is the fact that it is racist. The second in that I tries to stifle honest debate about important issues such as rising islamism in the west, discussion of affirmative action, etc. I gave a 5 paragraph response to your question on limited multiculturalism, only 2 paragraphs were anecdotal. I agree that anecdotal stories are not strong evidence for anything, I just thought it would help some people to understand. That said, if you want I can provide statistical analysis of data collected by statistics Canada and other organisations that examine how recent immigrants to Canada fair (in terms of income) even after controlling for things such as educational background, amount of work experience, etc. In such studies countries such as Switzerland, Austria and South Africa tend to perform very well where as countries such as Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh perform poorly. Or would you prefer I bring statistics on honor killings per capita, rape per capita, probability of being incarcerated per capita for immigrants of different countries of origin? Point is, immigrants from some countries perform very well (often outperforming non-immigrants) where as immigrants from other countries perform less well. I'm not really sure why you are so focused on the phrase 'changing the fabric of the entire nation'. I'm not really sure what the fabric of Canada is and personally I don't really care. Are you trying to imply that I'm xenophobic or something? Good luck with that. To clarify, racism isn't the only issue. Its effects on freedom of speech and on the discussion of various issues is also an issue. Other racist groups such as neo-nazis and skinheads are highly marginalized in western society and are in no position of power. Progressives on the other hand are often in positions of power, have significant influence in media and have been effective at reducing freedom of speech (Human Rights Commissions anyone?). Pat Condell doesn't deny that 'the left' in the past did support ideals such as freedom of speech, opposition to misogyny (not caving into islam), avocation of gay rights (not caving into islam), pluralism, etc. He doesn't mention it in the first video linked in the thread, but he does mention it in other videos. Do you need me to find them for you? I would prefer you stop assuming that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge something just because he doesn't mention it in 1 of hundreds of videos. But yes in other videos he acknowledges the left's past but claims that it has been corrupted by things such as political correctness. Obviously being an atheist that opposes tradition, supports gay rights, supports pluralism, etc. he can't identify the conservative party (not to mention one could argue that David Cameron is a 'progressive', or at least caves into 'progressives'). The guy is frustrated that no mainstream party even remotely represents his political views. The rest of your post just continues with the false premise that Pat Condell doesn't acknowledge the left's past, which he does, so it has been refuted. And regardless of the left's past, what is relevant is the politics of today and how that will affect the future. In which cases, discussion of issues such as islamism is very relevant and why 'progressives' that try to have honest discussion about these issues is problematic. Is it like knowing what an atheist is i.e. you only know for sure if you're not one?An atheist is someone that does not hold a belief in a god or gods. The definition of atheist is clear. I do not understand your comparison. ​Race isn't merely a social construct, it is genetic in origin and results from different populations adapting to different geographical conditions over time. There is a reason that darker skin is preferred in equatorial regions where as lighter skin is preferred in polar regions and it isn't the result of being a social construct. That said, I do find the notion of 'visible minority' a bit silly, though collection of racial data for use when analyzing statistics and making policy decisions has some merit (statistics of course is something the Canadian conservatives do not like very much).