William Ashley Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Yes, we need nuclear engineers who can't read English, and doctors who think you cure cancer with herbs and spices. We need architects who don't know how to use computers and lawyers who think the proper punishment for theft is chopping off a limb or two.Just because someone SAYS they have credentials from some rathole of a country doesn't mean those credentials have much value in Canada. I'd take a nuclear engineer who can't read english and a doctor who knows naturopathy.. and I'd take an architect who doesn't know how to use a computer. Lawyers can be skilled too. PS what you do is train the nuclear engineer to read english provided they don't leave the country for a given period of time, and the doctor you put in an underserviced area where people don't get treated anyway *hey they may convince some people they arn't underserviced.. eh? .. or you train the architect how to use a computer or just let them keep designing buildings without one (it only takes a month or two to learn cad).. afterall you don't need a computer to design a building, and there is somthing called a "scanner". No comment on the lawyers, they can be great people but we don't need to defend one another, lets hope that situation never developes and leave it at a moot point. Lawyers could have many uses such as internatinal business dealings, r as diplomats, or as translators, or anal people. Edited October 21, 2008 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Anyone from anywhere. If they are unskilled we don't need them IMO.We have many many homeless people in our urban whom are unemployed and need jobs so they can stop being homeless and start giving back to their country. We have so many immigrants that they must be out numbering Canadians so badly that they are losing their homes and becoming homeless as the urban centres show us. I didn't even qualify to immigrate to canada a few years back.. of course now I've finished highschool which I left early to enter dead end jobs in the service sector because I didn't have an understanding when I was younger... now I'm attending university - although not as young as others have upgraded.. I've volunteered for the military, acted to help the election process, volunteer at a radio station and do a number of other things... yet I would perhaps not even qualify to immigrate to canada still I think there are a couple other classes we should consider as worth allowing special entry. Those who agree to work in underserviced areas of the economy. those who have good standing in highschool- and pass a Canadian "BAC immigration test" essentially if they pass a SAT and questionaire on Canada etc.. ect.. so they qualfy as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable about canada and the law than regular Canadians, are healthy and have an honest desire to be a canadian citizen, and pledge to act as government informants, or enter a skills training program and contract to remain in canada or face a death penalty etc.. we can deem these intelligent canadian loyalists (and they must know english or french or latin. -- and perhaps agree tocommunity service ---- eg. 40 hours or 400 hours ect... prior to being allowed full citizenship. also those with community sponsers.. eg a communty contract --- we people commit to support x persons name for the duration of their stay in canada - should we default we will be subject to mandatory community service, ect... of course they could secure employmnt but the backers must support them.. or other people sign on as their safetynet. The US also has a military service class. perhaps we could have a - do you agree to move to afghanistan for 1 year prior to moving to canada and work for NATO, as a preentry option for citizenship. oh I forgot really attractve women, they can always find money. and lets not forget OLDer people with hot daughters.. and maybe hot sons too. but they wouldn't be able to leave until they were ugly. except for short vacations. Edited October 21, 2008 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 It helps because many of them help to bring great wealth to our system, just as immigrants always have throughout our history. Cue the violins as Mr. c waxes brings in the emotional mush and nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Your proof for that is? Governments favour immigration because it is good for the economy. If it wasn't.... Business favors immigration because it helps keep wages low - and business influences government. In addition, governments - read political parties - favour immigration because they're trying to suck up to immigrant and ethnic groups for votes. Neither group particularly cares what's in Canada's interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 A larger workforce, a larger consumer economy, and the fact that many immigrants are highly educated. Many do have trouble finding work at first, but we can't guage long term progress on that. I already pointed out how dumb these answer were. Apparently you don't read very well. A larger work force? If that were the gauge for a great country China and India would lead the pack. A larger consumer economy? Right. Much better to be Nigeria than Sweden, eh? They have so many more consumers! Many immigrants are highly educated, and many are not at all educated, and most have poor linguistic skills, and immigrants today are more likely to be in poverty than ever before, contributing little or nothing to the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) I know staunch conservatives like to make everything sound simple, but its not. Sometimes it is. The statistics on immigration and economic performance are fairly clear. But bleeding heart liberal types shrink from numbers and facts. We need skilled people, now, and many of the immigrants we take in are skilled, highly educated, and very contributing. Yes, which is why every public housing project is crammed full of immigrants, why so many immigrants are in jail, why so many immigrants can't find work anything like what they were doing in their profession back home. Where can we find lots of immigrant workers? Science academies? Among the business elites? Well, no, janitors and cleaners, security guards and taxi drivers, parking lot attendants and assembly line workers. Every government we've had for the longest time has been very supportive of immigration because its good for Canada. That includes the government of the RH Stephen Harper. Harper needs to make inroads among ethnic voters. That's why his party is pro immigration. He wants to cut the Liberals off from their lifeblood of support, a support the Liberals have spent decades courting. And he knows he can't oppose immiration because the country is filled with people like you who have absolutely ZERO knowledge about the immigration system, but cling to a rose coloured view of it and attack anyone who questions immigration as a racist and bigot. Edited October 21, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 What do you mean by foreigners? How about people from Britain, or the United States, would they be still allowed? Is the concept of "not a Canadian" so immensely complex that you liberals are completely baffled by it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Is the concept of "not a Canadian" so immensely complex that you liberals are completely baffled by it? "You Liberals". Do not call me a liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) I'd take a nuclear engineer who can't read english and a doctor who knows naturopathy.. and I'd take an architect who doesn't know how to use a computer. Lawyers can be skilled too.PS what you do is train the nuclear engineer to read english provided they don't leave the country for a given period of time, and the doctor you put in an underserviced area where people don't get treated anyway *hey they may convince some people they arn't underserviced.. eh? .. The civil service sends managers to language training, full-time, for about a year in order to teach them the other language. The last time I saw costs posted it was something like $150,000 each to reach fluency. You have to pay their wages, after all, as well as tuition and expenses. Are you willing to do this for all the tens of thousands of professionals we bring into Canada as "skilled workers" whose language skills can barely order a meal in a McDonalds? As for your doctor who believes herbs and spices can cure cancer - fine, we'll make a special list of "we are the world" types and you and your families will all be directed to these doctors, leaving the other doctors to the rest of us. You know, I remember seeing a profile of Soviet doctors years back. There are some really good ones, but they were a minority, the ones in the party hospitals, the ones in Moscow. There were huge numbers of Soviet doctors who wouldn't, without years of training, qualify as nurses in Canada. I highly doubt the situation is any better with regard to doctors from Nigeria or Bangladesh. Edited October 21, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 "You Liberals". Do not call me a liberal. Socialist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 If you must really know, I'm an anarchist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 If you must really know, I'm an anarchist. Ahhh, another proponent of what I call the Mad Max world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ahhh, another proponent of what I call the Mad Max world. Not quite. I do believe in system of government but I also have some anarchist tendencies, sometimes. Like when I perceive that what we have is a corrupted political system that inherently must serve the wealthiest and most powerful groups in society. I'm talking about the cutting of special deals, bending of the rules in favour of big businesses, making profit for a select few now at the expense of the future. I believe in fairness and equal rights for anyone, and the protection of the individual from profiteers. I do not adhere to a particular party or fixed ideology, but pick and choose what I like from any of them, depending on the needs of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Not quite. I do believe in system of government but I also have some anarchist tendencies, sometimes. Like when I perceive that what we have is a corrupted political system that inherently must serve the wealthiest and most powerful groups in society. I'm talking about the cutting of special deals, bending of the rules in favour of big businesses, making profit for a select few now at the expense of the future. I believe in fairness and equal rights for anyone, and the protection of the individual from profiteers. I do not adhere to a particular party or fixed ideology, but pick and choose what I like from any of them, depending on the needs of the situation. Ahh... That's called Socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) Ahh... That's called Socialist. You mean the "S" word? No, please I won't accept any of your conventional labels either. I don't believe in the welfare nanny-state. I would not vote NDP. Politicians to me are inherently tellers of un-truths hence anarchy is better. I'm an anarcho-cynicalist. We take turns to act as a kind of executive officer of the week but decisions have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... Edited October 21, 2008 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 You mean the "S" word? No, please I won't accept any of your conventional labels either. I don't believe in the welfare nanny-state. I would not vote NDP. Politicians to me are inherently tellers of un-truths hence anarchy is better. I'm an anarcho-cynicalist. We take turns to act as a kind of executive officer of the week but decisions have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... So your really not an anarchist, as someone will still be making decisions? People will still be lobbying and you will still have a type of political structure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 You mean the "S" word? No, please I won't accept any of your conventional labels either. I don't believe in the welfare nanny-state. I would not vote NDP. Politicians to me are inherently tellers of un-truths hence anarchy is better. I'm an anarcho-cynicalist. We take turns to act as a kind of executive officer of the week but decisions have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... I see. must get kind of boring being the only person in your basement that is eligible for the committee. (assuming the hampster is not eligible.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I see. must get kind of boring being the only person in your basement that is eligible for the committee.(assuming the hampster is not eligible.) Thats why I have you, sweetheart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Thats why I have you, sweetheart... Ok, let me know when it's my week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoliticalCitizen Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 From the first page. Add is a problem in todays "have it your way" society, I understand that. So, I'll repost it. If we are headed for economic turmoil as the opposition parties are claiming, isn't it time to slow down immigration. After all if Canadians are out of work what sense does it make to keep taking in new Canadians? Shouldn't we be finding hard working Canadians jobs after the collapse of the manufacturing sector? It seems strange to me that immigration is to remain high when all opposition parties are claiming we are heading to a recession. If we go into a recession wouldn't the new Canadians needlessly further strain our social assistance system? Obviously I am not speaking of those who come here bringing money to start businesses etc. I am speaking of the ones who go directly onto the public dole and remain there. The LPC and the NDP claim that we have lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the CPC came to power. Is it prudent to allow over 400,000 immigrants into the country in the same time span if we are on the verge of recession? Seems irresponsible to me. I read it in the first post. It's a collection of unrelated and unfounded statements. Most immigrants do not come here to work in the manufacturing sector. Most immigrants do not receive social assistance. Most immigrants come with a proven set of skills. Most immigrants become part of ethnic networks through wich they find work and growth opportunities. Some immigrants CREATE companies that employ Canadians (born here). So again I ask: how is it that you believe new immigrants are going to make the economical situation worse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ok, let me know when it's my week. Ok, but only if you wear the funny hat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I read it in the first post.It's a collection of unrelated and unfounded statements. Most immigrants do not come here to work in the manufacturing sector. Most immigrants do not receive social assistance. Most immigrants come with a proven set of skills. Most immigrants become part of ethnic networks through wich they find work and growth opportunities. Some immigrants CREATE companies that employ Canadians (born here). So again I ask: how is it that you believe new immigrants are going to make the economical situation worse? Walk into any OHIP or Social Service office in any bigger city and tell me what you see there. No amount of spin will deny the truth. How long can we afford to do this in these times of economic uncertainty? We need skilled workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 The civil service sends managers to language training, full-time, for about a year in order to teach them the other language. The last time I saw costs posted it was something like $150,000 each to reach fluency. You have to pay their wages, after all, as well as tuition and expenses. There is another cost. That is the salary paid to the employee replacing the worker who is away on language training. I wonder if this expenditure is reported in the total language training program costs. I suspect not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 I do not adhere to a particular party or fixed ideology, but pick and choose what I like from any of them, depending on the needs of the situation. Canadians who bother to vote get to pick and choose. On another thread you said you don't vote. I'm curious to know how you pick and choose what you like without casting a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Walk into any OHIP or Social Service office in any bigger city and tell me what you see there. People. No amount of spin will deny the truth. Of course not. Did someone opine their were Giraffes or Rhinos or some other animals in there? How long can we afford to do this in these times of economic uncertainty? Do what? Provide healthcare in this country? A long time. We need skilled workers. Yes we do. We should re-train a lot of canadians to become skilled workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.