Jews fleeing France again

[M.Dancer]

lets go to the UK for a second:

Lets stay in Canada....you're wronger at home

why is it okay for jews to use jewish law in canada and not okay for some muslims to use sharia law?

[DogOnPorch]

you think anyone is advocating that in canada?

Seeing there's already honor killings, I see no reason to think that some severe bearded types aren't out there who'd love to stone a few 'sluts' for showing leg...or having an opinion or whatever. The mosque in my neck of the woods practices full segragation of men and women. Anything is possible once elements of woman's sufferage are tossed out der vvindow.

Edited April 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

That's not how "Sharia Law" works in a Muslim theocracy....public court adjudication in California or Ontario makes it just another civil matter.

what kind of a point are you trying to make?

sharia courts would never have jurisdiction over public courts in canada. this is exactly like the jewish courts.

[dub]

Seeing there's already honor killings, I see no reason to think that some severe bearded types aren't out there who'd love to stone a few 'sluts' for showing leg...or having an opinion or whatever. The mosque in my neck of the woods practices full segragation of men and women. Anything is possible once elements of woman's sufferage are tossed out der vvindow.

any idiot who does 'honor killing' will face the same punishment as any killer in canada would. as far as i know, "honour killing" is not part of sharia law.

you guys are being hysterical over nothing.

[dub]

The mosque in my neck of the woods practices full segragation of men and women. Anything is possible once elements of woman's sufferage are tossed out der vvindow.

what about the synagogues that practice separation of men and women?

you are so ridiculous.

[DogOnPorch]

any idiot who does 'honor killing' will face the same punishment as any killer in canada would. as far as i know, "honour killing" is not part of sharia law.

you guys are being hysterical over nothing.

Figures you'd support the segragation of men and women and making women 2nd Class citizens. So do your pals in Gaza.

[dub]

Figures you'd support the segragation of men and women and making women 2nd Class citizens. So do your pals in Gaza.

how did you come to the conclusion that i "support segregation of men and women" from the following sentence:

any idiot who does 'honor killing' will face the same punishment as any killer in canada would. as far as i know, "honour killing" is not part of sharia law.

wtf??

you quoted me and replied with that.

why do you insist on making ridiculous comments? what's wrong with you?

[DogOnPorch]

what about the synagogues that practice separation of men and women?

They're wrong if they still do. Only ultra-orthodox Jews support such measures and they're pretty rare in Canada. I believe Quebec is the location of the largest Hasidic population in Canada. Severe bearded men, again.

Men and women @ the 'regular' synagogue.

I am you are so ridiculous.

Fixed it for you again.

[DogOnPorch]

you guys are being hysterical over nothing.

This is what leads me to assume that you support Sharia Law. No big deal. Let it happen.

[dub]

This is what leads me to assume that you support Sharia Law. No big deal. Let it happen.

either get rid of all religious courts (that would be my choice) or allow all of them to operate as long as they do not break any canadian laws.

[tango]

This is what leads me to assume that you support Sharia Law. No big deal. Let it happen.

Freedom of religion, choice, etc. No one should be forced, and they always have recourse to Canadian law.

Not up to us to decide, nor you.

And apparently the precedent already exists.

[Argus]

this is why you are ridiculous. it is comments like that.

you're not here to have a debate.

you think anyone is advocating that in canada?

Sharia law does call for women to be stoned, and homosexuals to be killed.

More than half of Canadian Muslims want at least the family aspects of Sharia law in Canada. An unknown number want the whole package, of course.

But even the "family" parts, are extremely misogynistic by our standards which would imply that the majority of Muslims in Canada are extremely misogynistic by our standards.

[Argus]

skilled workers which make up over 3/4 of immigrants coming to canada

No they do not. About fifty two thousand out of almost a quarter million immigrants are actually judged to be "skilled", ie, the principal applicant applying under a number of "skilled applicant" categories which range from investors (the amount is pathetically low) to caregivers to skilled tradesmen. Another 90,000 people come into the country with them as dependants, and are untested as to skills, language or education. Another 86,000 come in as refugees or family class immigrants, and they, too, are untested as to language and education or skills.

Many of the people who come in under the "skilled" category wind up costing us far, far more money than we will ever get back from the main applicant.

i'm quite certain that majority of those who immigrate to canada are more qualified than you are.

And I'm quite certain that, as with most of the things you like to earnestly comment upon, you haven't bothered to actually do any research into anything related to the subject at hand.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

Freedom of religion, choice, etc. No one should be forced, and they always have recourse to Canadian law.

Not up to us to decide, nor you.

And apparently the precedent already exists.

I want freedom FROM religion and demand my rights be respected, as well. Since only a handful of religions actually give a rat's azz what non-believers do, it is those that I single-out. Islam, naturally, is on top of the pile followed by...Creationists...Sikhism...JWs...maybe a few others.

Damn straight it's up to me to decide. I'm a voting, tax-paying native-born Canadian.

Edited April 17, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

No they do not. About fifty two thousand out of almost a quarter million immigrants are actually judged to be "skilled", ie, the principal applicant applying under a number of "skilled applicant" categories which range from investors (the amount is pathetically low) to caregivers to skilled tradesmen. Another 90,000 people come into the country with them as dependants, and are untested as to skills, language or education.

the important thing is that out of the average 250,000 immigrants that become permanent residents every year, 150,000 of them are under the economic class. if a principal applicant is qualified, then his/her spouse and dependent are also qualified and should be qualified to immigrate to canada.

furthermore, if someone wants to sponsor their spouse/parents/children from another country, they must meet minimum requirements like make certain amount of money and definitely not be on social assistance.

Another 86,000 come in as refugees or family class immigrants, and they, too, are untested as to language and education or skills.

not sure where you're getting 86,000 from, but in 2008, out of the 250,000 of those who became permanent residents, 21,000 of them were refugees.

source

Many of these people wind up costing us far, far more money than we will ever get back from the principal, and often only taxpaying "principal".

you have any statistics to back up this comment or are you expressing feelings that are untrue?

[dub]

I want freedom FROM religion and demand my rights be respected, as well. Since only a handful of religions actually give a rat's azz what non-believers do, it is those that I single-out. Islam, naturally, is on top of the pile followed by...Creationists...Sikhism...JWs...maybe a few others.

Damn straight it's up to me to decide. I'm a voting, tax-paying native-born Canadian.

i'm sure there is a group of fundamentalist muslims who would like to see canada's laws changed into the laws they want to follow, but that will never happen.

we have a fairly large muslim population in canada at the moment and they've been living here without any threats to our system. no one's religion is ever going to trump canada's law.

stop living in fear and stop promoting fear. it's unhealthy.

[tango]

No they do not. About fifty two thousand out of almost a quarter million immigrants are actually judged to be "skilled", ie, the principal applicant applying under a number of "skilled applicant" categories which range from investors (the amount is pathetically low) to caregivers to skilled tradesmen. Another 90,000 people come into the country with them as dependants, and are untested as to skills, language or education. Another 86,000 come in as refugees or family class immigrants, and they, too, are untested as to language and education or skills.

Many of these people wind up costing us far, far more money than we will ever get back from the principal, and often only taxpaying "principal".

And I'm quite certain that, as with most of the things you like to earnestly comment upon, you haven't bothered to actually do any research into anything related to the subject at hand.

Accordingly, in late November 2008, newly-appointed immigration minister Jason Kenney announced that in 2009 between 240,000-265,000 new permanent residents will be accepted in Canada.... In setting this target, Kenney maintained that this number is necessary to respond to the diverse skill requirements “of an expanding and dynamic economy.”

... it would likely have little impact on the Canadian workforce.

The reason is that as a percentage of our population, 240,000-265,000 newcomers represent less than one per cent of our national population. This number is even less significant when we factor in people who will be leaving Canada permanently during the same period.

Up to 71,000 of these future immigrants will be coming to Canada under the family class as sponsored spouses, partners, parents, children, and grandparents.

Another 27,200 permanent visas are reserved for protected persons who we are, more-or-less, bound to offer refuge or protection here. Then there is another 10,000 immigrants who we will be accepting for a wide range of humanitarian considerations.

That will leave about 156,600 in the “economic class” of which a growing percentage is selected by the provinces and territories.

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/live/article/162225

Your facts are not correct, and you gave no source.

Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out.

[DogOnPorch]

i'm sure there is a group of fundamentalist muslims who would like to see canada's laws changed into the laws they want to follow, but that will never happen.

we have a fairly large muslim population in canada at the moment and they've been living here without any threats to our system. no one's religion is ever going to trump canada's law.

stop living in fear and stop promoting fear. it's unhealthy.

Sez you.

[Argus]

the important thing is that out of the average 250,000 immigrants that become permanent residents every year, 150,000 of them are under the economic class. if a principal applicant is qualified, then his/her spouse and dependent are also qualified and should be qualified to immigrate to canada.

The idea that we should let dependants/spouses in with the applicant with no testing comes from an archaic idea that the head of the household - ie, the man - will always look after his family. Of course, many divorce right after they get here, or further along the line. Or the principal applicant dies, or goes home or just can't work for whatever reason. That leaves us responsible for paying for the upkeep of his illiterate, uneducated family forever.

Now I'm not saying that principal applicants shouldn't be able to bring in their wives and children. But the wives, and if above a certain age the children, should be required to learn English, and whatever skills or education the wife has or does not have ought to be taken into consideration. Not to put too fine a point on it but I would far rather bring in a married couple who are both educated and speak something approximating the local language, than one applicant who speaks it, along with his goat-herder wife and four teenage children.

furthermore, if someone wants to sponsor their spouse/parents/children from another country, they must meet minimum requirements like make certain amount of money and definitely not be on social assistance.

Of course, if they bring them in and then decide not to support them - then we're on the hook. We do not deport the "sponsored" immigrant and we do not force the "sponsor" to pay for them.

you have any statistics to back up this comment or are you expressing feelings that are untrue?

I'm expressing feelings which are unquestionably true. Just wander through any public housing project in this country sometimes, or visit the social services office in any major city. In all likelihood the great majority of the people you're going to encounter will be brown people speaking English - if they can - with a heavy foreign accent.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

we have a fairly large muslim population in canada at the moment and they've been living here without any threats to our system. no one's religion is ever going to trump canada's law.

Muslims have not actually been here for very long, nor have they had the numbers to create much fuss. It was only a few decades ago that the census didn't even mention Muslims by name. Their numbers were so small they were lumped in with "other faiths". In 1981 they were first counted, and the total Muslim population was 98,165. Ten years later it stood at 253,260. Ten years later it stood at 580,000. That was as of 2001, in case you're not keeping track. The number is expected to reach 1.4 million in eight years. The Muslim population has been essentially doubling every ten years. And yet it is the youngest of all denominations at an average age of 28.1 years. A group which doubles its population every 7-10 years is a group which is growing in power and influence, certainly in a democracy, where their votes count as much as anyone's.

[Argus]

Accordingly, in late November 2008, newly-appointed immigration minister Jason Kenney announced that in 2009 between 240,000-265,000 new permanent residents will be accepted in Canada.... In setting this target, Kenney maintained that this number is necessary to respond to the diverse skill requirements “of an expanding and dynamic economy.”

... it would likely have little impact on the Canadian workforce.

Yes, this is a political statement from a party hoping to make inroads with immigrant groups. It is not backed up by ANY evidence of any kind.

The reason is that as a percentage of our population, 240,000-265,000 newcomers represent less than one per cent of our national populatio

Uh huh, and if you do that over a period of twenty years... then that'd represent 20% of the population, right? We've been doing it for closing on forty years now, and in some cities there are more immigrants than Canadian born. When was it ever put up for a national vote whether we wanted to bring in so many millions of new people they would supplant the local population and culture?

Your facts are not correct, and you gave no source.

Nothing in your source contradicted a single thing I posted.

Immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out.

Though you have no evidence to support this, of course.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Argus

[jbg]

Now I'm not saying that principal applicants shouldn't be able to bring in their wives and children. But the wives, and if above a certain age the children, should be required to learn English, and whatever skills or education the wife has or does not have ought to be taken into consideration. Not to put too fine a point on it but I would far rather bring in a married couple who are both educated and speak something approximating the local language, than one applicant who speaks it, along with his goat-herder wife and four teenage children.

Good point, except that learning one of the other official languages, French or Canadian should do. Also, the relatives they bring in should be limited to wives and children. We don't need to provide elder care for people who never paid into the system by working here.

Of course, if they bring them in and then decide not to support them - then we're on the hook. We do not deport the "sponsored" immigrant and we do not force the "sponsor" to pay for them.

We can hold the wage earner responsible the same way we hold divorcing spouses responsible for their ex-spouse and childrens' support.

I'm expressing feelings which are unquestionably true. Just wander through any public housing project in this country sometimes, or visit the social services office in any major city. In all likelihood the great majority of the people you're going to encounter will be brown people speaking English - if they can - with a heavy foreign accent.

The color of the skin is utterly irrelevant and the inflammatory nature of that ruins an otherwise good post. Some of the best lawyers I know are quite brown-skin Jamaicans who learned English quite well and are quite eloquent and well-spoken.

[Argus]

The color of the skin is utterly irrelevant and the inflammatory nature of that ruins an otherwise good post. Some of the best lawyers I know are quite brown-skin Jamaicans who learned English quite well and are quite eloquent and well-spoken.

The colour of the skin is relevant in two respects. One, it's become a sort of shorthand code on this site for "people the left refuse to ever criticize" and two, because almost all non-white, non-aborigines in Canada are immigrants. Thus the fact that Toronto, for example, now has a majority of non-white residents, indicates the high level of immigration and its obvious effects in this country despite what the previous poster was suggesting.

[jbg]

The colour of the skin is relevant in two respects. One, it's become a sort of shorthand code on this site for "people the left refuse to ever criticize" and two, because almost all non-white, non-aborigines in Canada are immigrants. Thus the fact that Toronto, for example, now has a majority of non-white residents, indicates the high level of immigration and its obvious effects in this country despite what the previous poster was suggesting.

My point is that all people must behave acceptably or face deportation or jail, regardless of color.

[dub]

The idea that we should let dependants/spouses in with the applicant with no testing comes from an archaic idea that the head of the household - ie, the man - will always look after his family. Of course, many divorce right after they get here, or further along the line. Or the principal applicant dies, or goes home or just can't work for whatever reason. That leaves us responsible for paying for the upkeep of his illiterate, uneducated family forever.

what are you talking about? of course many divorce right after?

is this another Argus "feeling" trying to replace facts?

Now I'm not saying that principal applicants shouldn't be able to bring in their wives and children. But the wives, and if above a certain age the children, should be required to learn English, and whatever skills or education the wife has or does not have ought to be taken into consideration. Not to put too fine a point on it but I would far rather bring in a married couple who are both educated and speak something approximating the local language, than one applicant who speaks it, along with his goat-herder wife and four teenage children.

who are you to say how many children people can bring into the country or if the wife was a goat herder? the important part of this whole process is that the Principal Applicant, who can be the husband or the wife are qualified under our immigration rules. the application receives more points if the spouse has a higher education level.

Of course, if they bring them in and then decide not to support them - then we're on the hook. We do not deport the "sponsored" immigrant and we do not force the "sponsor" to pay for them.

wrong again. the sponsor is responsible to provide for the essential needs of the sponsored person(s) for a period of time following the arrival.

I'm expressing feelings which are unquestionably true.

you've already demonstrated that a lot of your "feelings" are wrong. you've allowed your bigotry to take over you.

Just wander through any public housing project in this country sometimes, or visit the social services office in any major city. In all likelihood the great majority of the people you're going to encounter will be brown people speaking English - if they can - with a heavy foreign accent.

so your problem is 'heavy accents'?

i doubt you've gone through many public housing projects.

i recommend you do some research about these situations before looking within yourself to come up with information. you don't seem to really know the true facts of the situation and instead you've allowed your bigotry to take over your thoughts on new immigrants.