Canada's immigration policy.

[benny]

"Floodgate" is used here to mean "border". I guess Machjo wanted to convey the impression that the outside world is composed of too many desperate and uncontrollable populations. Anyhow, it would be more morally meaningful to think that Canadians are emitting so much greenhouse gases outside their borders that the rest of the World is fast becoming a big flood zone, full of potential ecological refugees.

[CANADIEN]

I don't actually do it, but I do sympathise that your knowledge base and life experiences are so limited, and your ideological and linguistic politics so confused that you don't realize it.

There seems to be an epidemic of people talking to themselves here. Good thing I am immune to it.

Edited May 21, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Does it turn your crank to argue about semantics? Because I find it a dreary intellectual exercise.

It's about FACTS.

For those charged with a crime. If I want to sue the government to provide me with some service or let me do something or other I need to hire my own lawyer. They won't supply one for me.

Yet we supply lawyers to foreigners demanding the government let them in, and challenging the decisions of hearings officers and judges, again and again and again and again and again and again.

We are talking about people who face an unknown procedure that may result - if they have indeed legitimate grounds for being admitted but fail because they don't understand the system - in them being send back somewhere where they will be in danger.

I am most definitely not in favour of refugee processing dragging for years and years because of lawyers in it for the bucks. But the should have access to legal advice, to ensure that they understand the procedure, understand their rights and responsibility, and in order that true refugees be admitted and bogus ones have no claim to say that the process was not fair.

Besides, refugee status is not a service. For genuine refugees, it can be a matter of life or death.

[benny]

We are talking about people who face an unknown procedure that may result - if they have indeed legitimate grounds for being admitted but fail because they don't understand the system - in them being send back somewhere where they will be in danger.

I am most definitely not in favour of refugee processing dragging for years and years because of lawyers in it for the bucks. But the should have access to legal advice, to ensure that they understand the procedure, understand their rights and responsibility, and in order that true refugees be admitted and bogus ones have no claim to say that the process was not fair.

Besides, refugee status is not a service. For genuine refugees, it can be a matter of life or death.

Yes. And to those who think greedy lawyers are a huge problem, just think at what charitable priests can do by taking refugee status claimants in the basements of their churches.

[Machjo]

We are talking about people who face an unknown procedure that may result - if they have indeed legitimate grounds for being admitted but fail because they don't understand the system - in them being send back somewhere where they will be in danger.

I am most definitely not in favour of refugee processing dragging for years and years because of lawyers in it for the bucks. But the should have access to legal advice, to ensure that they understand the procedure, understand their rights and responsibility, and in order that true refugees be admitted and bogus ones have no claim to say that the process was not fair.

Besides, refugee status is not a service. For genuine refugees, it can be a matter of life or death.

I fully agree with you.

On compassionate grounds to the immigrant or refugee, while we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of whether to let them enter the country, I think it should go without saying that once we've let them in, that's not the time to make their lives difficult. If we don't want them here, then we shouldn't let them in in the first place. Once in, they start to establish themselves, to find an apartment to rent, work, make friends, get used to the local community, etc. Though they may not be citizens, they are still humans deserving of respect and compassion. If we turn them away at the embassy before they set foot on Canadian soil, their lives won't be too disturbed; they'll just have wasted a few hours at an interview. But if we kick them out after having let them in, then for all we know they may have spent much of their life savings just ot get here already. They may have quit their jobs at home to find new work here, etc. As human beings, they still have basic rights.

[Machjo]

Another point for those who don't care about immigrants' rights. By making it more difficult for an immigrant to enter Canada and making it easier for them to stay in Canada, we're not only protecting the best interests of the immigrants themselves, but of Canadians too. I've known some Canadians who'd fallen in the trap of marriages for citizenship. Needless to say they were enraged at their spouces for it. I knew of one in Victoria who'd committed suicide over it. And another I'd met in Montreal who was quite emotionally, and thus financially, devastated as a result. And needless to say that devastated Canadians are generally not productive in the economy.

As for those immigrants, yes, I fully agree we shold kick them out pronto. But there are a few problems with it:

1. From the few cases I'd known, only one had 'reported' it to Immigration Canada, and that was the one who'd done so via his suicide letter. The others just sucked it in. After all, under emotional duress a person doesn't always think rationally and may just run away from the divorce and never want to face it again. So those immigrants will likely stay in spite of the law, so such a law though useful on occasion won't be so useful in most cases.

2. If we make it easier for immigrants to enter Canada and then make it more difficult for them to stay, we are then contributing to this problem. No, I'm not excusing the behaviour of such scumbags, but it's still common sense that such policies will likely promote more such behaviour which, needless to say, is harmful to Canada's economy by reducing productivity and potentially increasing pressure on social services for those who wre once employed and economically function who then have to fight depression, legal battles, possibly for children, etc. And they're not immigrants.

So definitely, it's not after they enter the country that we are to decide whether to kick them out or not.Once in, they're in. It's before they come that we should screen them. We should be more lenient once they're in.

[benny]

Another point for those who don't care about immigrants' rights. By making it more difficult for an immigrant to enter Canada and making it easier for them to stay in Canada, we're not only protecting the best interests of the immigrants themselves, but of Canadians too. I've known some Canadians who'd fallen in the trap of marriages for citizenship. Needless to say they were enraged at their spouces for it. I knew of one in Victoria who'd committed suicide over it. And another I'd met in Montreal who was quite emotionally, and thus financially, devastated as a result. And needless to say that devastated Canadians are generally not productive in the economy.

As for those immigrants, yes, I fully agree we shold kick them out pronto. But there are a few problems with it:

1. From the few cases I'd known, only one had 'reported' it to Immigration Canada, and that was the one who'd done so via his suicide letter. The others just sucked it in. After all, under emotional duress a person doesn't always think rationally and may just run away from the divorce and never want to face it again. So those immigrants will likely stay in spite of the law, so such a law though useful on occasion won't be so useful in most cases.

2. If we make it easier for immigrants to enter Canada and then make it more difficult for them to stay, we are then contributing to this problem. No, I'm not excusing the behaviour of such scumbags, but it's still common sense that such policies will likely promote more such behaviour which, needless to say, is harmful to Canada's economy by reducing productivity and potentially increasing pressure on social services for those who wre once employed and economically function who then have to fight depression, legal battles, possibly for children, etc. And they're not immigrants.

So definitely, it's not after they enter the country that we are to decide whether to kick them out or not.Once in, they're in. It's before they come that we should screen them. We should be more lenient once they're in.

I cannot imagine Immigration Canada refusing entry to a sexy girl because a Canadian may fall in the trap of marriages for citizenship.

[Machjo]

I cannot imagine Immigration Canada refusing entry to a sexy girl because a Canadian may fall in the trap of marriages for citizenship.

You misread me. It doesn't even have to be a girl. I've known one case of a Canadian girl used that way. And no, I'm not suggesting that Immigration Canada decide based on appearance either.

All I'm saying is that acting tough on immigration is someting we need to do BEFORE the person enters Canada's borders. Once we let them in, we should then make it as easy as possible for them to get thei citizenship and get on with their lives. If they're not immigration material then let's not let them in in the first place, rather than let them in and then make their lives miserable as that is more likely to push them towards illegal marriages.Once they're in, getting their papers shold be a quick process. In fact, we should think that if they've passed the initial tests in their countries to be let in, then they should be thought of as more than qualified to get their citizenship. Not the other way around.

Sorry if there was any misunderstanding there.

[benny]

You misread me. It doesn't even have to be a girl. I've known one case of a Canadian girl used that way. And no, I'm not suggesting that Immigration Canada decide based on appearance either.

All I'm saying is that acting tough on immigration is someting we need to do BEFORE the person enters Canada's borders.

Immigration becomes a good challenge only if your are ready to face two types of misery: the one that pushes some Canadians to travel abroad for brides/husbands and the one that pushes foreigners to enter clandestinely in another country.

[Argus]

Gross exaggeration to say the least.

Again we have someone making claims who clearly hasn't got the slightest notion of how the system works.

Reaaaal impressive.

[Argus]

Fair enough. On a world scale, it might or might not be. I've witnessed various manifestations of racism abroad too. However, I can still say that, high or low, probaly a majority of Canadians are racist. Majority has a clear definition, more than 50%. Also, I dont think we should compare ourselves to other countries. If we do that, then we drop to their level. Look what happened in the US in their war on terror, with imprsonment without trials, torture, etc. If our goal is to be little better than the rest, then we'll soon follow a race to the bottom.

As far as I'm concerned, one instance of racism is one too many.

How do you define the term? If you define it broadly enough to encompass anyone who has a general preference for people like them than you certainly are going to take in most of the world's population.

I have a general preference for "European" people. But to me that includes anyone who was born and raised here (or for that matter, in Europe, the US, Australia, etc) and who acts in a broadly general way, like one of the group, as it were. Skin colouration is irrelevent unless you're talking about my preferences in women, and that comes down to physical preferences, where I admit that, in most cases, I do prefer the physical appearance of white women.

Would I hire a white man over a black man where I thought the Black man would do a better job? Not on the basis of skin colour. If one was likely to do the job better, the only way he would not get hired would be if I perceived that he would not get along with people for whatever reason. The only case where that ever arose was in my believe, due to his attitude, as displayed during the interview, that a middle eastern man would not cheerfully and faithfully follow the orders of his intended supervisor - a girl half his age.

[benny]

Again we have someone making claims who clearly hasn't got the slightest notion of how the system works.

Reaaaal impressive.

I think I know how it should work.

[Argus]

It's about FACTS.

We are talking about people who face an unknown procedure that may result - if they have indeed legitimate grounds for being admitted but fail because they don't understand the system - in them being send back somewhere where they will be in danger.

Which is a reason to perhaps appoint an advocate who works with the immigration system and has knowledge of the proper criteria for acceptance to advise someone, as opposed to going to the adversarial system populated by highly paid lawyers whose interests lie in prolonging things.

[benny]

Which is a reason to perhaps appoint an advocate who works with the immigration system and has knowledge of the proper criteria for acceptance to advise someone, as opposed to going to the adversarial system populated by highly paid lawyers whose interests lie in prolonging things.

Adversarial system means competition. Competition is what makes market more efficient than the state.

[Argus]

I think I know how it should work.

Perhaps, but clearly you don't know how it DOES work.

Nor is it very hard to find out by a few simple google searches, that it often takes many years of hearings and appeals to get rid of failed applicants.

[Argus]

Adversarial system means competition. Competition is what makes market more efficient than the state.

So you're in favour of abolishing public health care in favour of a private system, then?

[benny]

So you're in favour of abolishing public health care in favour of a private system, then?

A court is a mix system with lawyers representing private interests and the judges or jurors representing the public interest.

[Machjo]

How do you define the term? If you define it broadly enough to encompass anyone who has a general preference for people like them than you certainly are going to take in most of the world's population.

I wold define racism as a belief, consciour or subconsious, in the moral superiority of one race over others. On that basis, I'm quite certain the majority of Canadians are at least moderately racist.

I have a general preference for "European" people. But to me that includes anyone who was born and raised here (or for that matter, in Europe, the US, Australia, etc) and who acts in a broadly general way, like one of the group, as it were. Skin colouration is irrelevent unless you're talking about my preferences in women, and that comes down to physical preferences, where I admit that, in most cases, I do prefer the physical appearance of white women.

Would I hire a white man over a black man where I thought the Black man would do a better job? Not on the basis of skin colour. If one was likely to do the job better, the only way he would not get hired would be if I perceived that he would not get along with people for whatever reason.

I would consider your above paragraph to be not racist, but rather geocentrist. You say skin colour doesn't bother you, but you'd still prefer people acculturated to European cultural norms in a broad sense. Thankfully that doesn't spill over into your beliefs about hring practices, but what about immigration?

The only case where that ever arose was in my believe, due to his attitude, as displayed during the interview, that a middle eastern man would not cheerfully and faithfully follow the orders of his intended supervisor - a girl half his age.

Well, Middle Easterners look more or less like us already anyway, but I suppose you have stereotpes about that region. When you didn't hire that person, was it because of his behaviour alone, or did the behaviour of others of the same part of the world influence your perception of him? And even if he were sexist in some way, would that affect your view of the next candidate from that part of the world, or would you ust judge each candidate on his own merits? For example, let's say one is a progressive-minded Middle-Easterner who belives in the equality of men and women and would have no issue with a female boss, and the other is a traditionalist Anglo who believes women should stay at home and keep house, and would not appreciate being under a woman in the chain of command. Which would you hire?

[Machjo]

Adversarial system means competition. Competition is what makes market more efficient than the state.

This is a common misassumption in the West, and both capitalists and socialists are often guilty of it. Competition is not necessarily synonymous with efficiency. I remember reading one report that had suggested that government restrictions on cigarette advertising had actually helped the tobacco industry, and here is why:

If one cigarette company spent much money on advertising, all others had no choice but to match its spending or lose its share of the market, In this respect, competition was actualy a drain on the resources of the companies involved since the advertising spending was no longer to increase the market share, but simply to maintain it. Advertising could only increase the market effectively if it can monopolise it. Otherwise, all advertising simply neutralized each other.

Once the govenrment intervened and restricted advertizing, then all cigarette companies could reduce their spending proportionally to each other, save money, and still each keep their share of the market since spending on advertising woudl have dropped proportionately on all sides. In this respect, government intervention to restrict such competition actually helped all of the companies involved.

We find that in saturated markets too. Those companies that try to compete with each other not only hurt one another but themselves too in a competitive market. The company that simply decides to specialize instead can thus duck out of the competition and create its own niche, thereby not wasting precious resources on competition, but instead developing its own niche market while either letting the other companies have the rest of the market or even entering into collaboration with certain companies in a symbiotic relationship. In fact, symbiotic companies can sometimes fare better than competitive ones since they can then ride on the backs of the success of other companies, and even receive help from other companies if it's determined that one company's success can benefit the other's. For example, a hotel might enter into colaboration with a restauraneur, a professional spa compay, etc. and ask them to move into the hotel to increase business, or allow them to rent some floors. Manydeparment stores will also enter into agreements with restaurants to move in to along the same principles of a symbiotic relationship.

Now capitalists are not the only ones guilty of confusing competitiveness with efficiency either. The socialist notion of confrontational labour uniions is likewise highly inefficient. Obviously, during a lock out or strike, nothing is being produced, thus both sides suffer.

The examples above are but some of which show the fallacy in the asumption that confrontational systems are necessarily more efficient. If anything, collaboration is more efficient than confrontation as resources are redirected towards production rather than competition.

[Machjo]

So you're in favour of abolishing public health care in favour of a private system, then?

It's equally fallacious to assume that a private system is necessarily more adversarial than a public one. Parliament is public. Courts are public. yet all are adversarial and thus inefficient. The current public health system is more collaborative, granted, but provided the right structures, it could be just as collaborative in the private sector too. Going back to the example with the cigarette companies. Though the government had made them more efficient by reducing advertising competition, they still remained private enterprises. In theory at least, I'm sure the appropriate legal framework could be presented to create a private collaborative health-care structure.

[benny]

This is a common misassumption in the West, and both capitalists and socialists are often guilty of it. Competition is not necessarily synonymous with efficiency. I remember reading one report that had suggested that government restrictions on cigarette advertising had actually helped the tobacco industry, and here is why:

If one cigarette company spent much money on advertising, all others had no choice but to match its spending or lose its share of the market, In this respect, competition was actualy a drain on the resources of the companies involved since the advertising spending was no longer to increase the market share, but simply to maintain it. Advertising could only increase the market effectively if it can monopolise it. Otherwise, all advertising simply neutralized each other.

Once the govenrment intervened and restricted advertizing, then all cigarette companies could reduce their spending proportionally to each other, save money, and still each keep their share of the market since spending on advertising woudl have dropped proportionately on all sides. In this respect, government intervention to restrict such competition actually helped all of the companies involved.

We find that in saturated markets too. Those companies that try to compete with each other not only hurt one another but themselves too in a competitive market. The company that simply decides to specialize instead can thus duck out of the competition and create its own niche, thereby not wasting precious resources on competition, but instead developing its own niche market while either letting the other companies have the rest of the market or even entering into collaboration with certain companies in a symbiotic relationship. In fact, symbiotic companies can sometimes fare better than competitive ones since they can then ride on the backs of the success of other companies, and even receive help from other companies if it's determined that one company's success can benefit the other's. For example, a hotel might enter into colaboration with a restauraneur, a professional spa compay, etc. and ask them to move into the hotel to increase business, or allow them to rent some floors. Manydeparment stores will also enter into agreements with restaurants to move in to along the same principles of a symbiotic relationship.

Now capitalists are not the only ones guilty of confusing competitiveness with efficiency either. The socialist notion of confrontational labour uniions is likewise highly inefficient. Obviously, during a lock out or strike, nothing is being produced, thus both sides suffer.

The examples above are but some of which show the fallacy in the asumption that confrontational systems are necessarily more efficient. If anything, collaboration is more efficient than confrontation as resources are redirected towards production rather than competition.

In this regard, the Canadian citizenship has to be conceived as a valuable piece of property. We would like to design a mechanism to allocate this asset to those who are best able to maximize a social welfare function. I cannot think of a better mechanism than the one where Immigration Canada gives the Canadian status to the foreigners who are willing to pre-commit more resources than others.

Edited May 22, 2009 by benny

[Machjo]

In this regard, the Canadian citizenship has to be conceived as a valuable piece of property. We would like to design a mechanism to allocate this asset to those who are best able to maximize a social welfare function. I cannot think of a better mechanism than the one where Immigration Canada gives the Canadian status to the foreigners who are willing to pre-commit more resources than others.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not the sharpest cookies this evening, but I don't see the relationship between my post about the distinction between competitiveness and efficiency on the one hand, and your post about immigrants on the other. Granted it's mostly my fault since my post went off topic whereas your is helping to bring it back on topic, but I'm still curious as to the relationship you saw there that I somehow missed. Again, sorry if I don't follow your meaning in your post.

[benny]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not the sharpest cookies this evening, but I don't see the relationship between my post about the distinction between competitiveness and efficiency on the one hand, and your post about immigrants on the other. Granted it's mostly my fault since my post went off topic whereas your is helping to bring it back on topic, but I'm still curious as to the relationship you saw there that I somehow missed. Again, sorry if I don't follow your meaning in your post.

There is a parallel to make between accessing consumers' eyeballs (tobacco companies) and accessing the Canadian citizenship status (foreigners). At first sight, I see no reason why the Canadian government should allocate airwaves differently than it is choosing its immigrants.

[Argus]

A court is a mix system with lawyers representing private interests and the judges or jurors representing the public interest.

You didn't answer the question.

[Argus]

I wold define racism as a belief, consciour or subconsious, in the moral superiority of one race over others. On that basis, I'm quite certain the majority of Canadians are at least moderately racist.

Well, to begin with, your definition is at odds with the generally accepted definition of racism as the belief in the genetic superiority of one race over another.

Also, I do not think very many Canadians dislike/distrust visible minorities on the basis of a belief in either genetic or moral superiority. I think that, for the most part, dislike/distrust/suspicion of non-whites arises out of personal experiences with a particular group, experiences related to individuals by peers and family, and perceptions which come through the various entertainment and news media. I am sure, for example, that there are some honest, hard-working Somalians who don't think that all white women are whores. But as someone who lived in a neighborhood which was about 50% Somalian, and worked with a number of Somalians I just haven't met one yet. So my perceptions of Somalians in general are influenced by my experiences and those related to me by others who have dealt with Somalians. Do I think Somalians are morally inferior to us? Well, generally speaking, yes. Not because of skin colouration, but because of the nature of the society in which they were raised. Do I think they're genetically inferior to us? No. I certainly think they're inferior to us overall, however, in terms of say education and cultural enlightenment.

On the other hand, I have no personal experiences with Jamaicans. There isn't a high population of them in Ottawa. My impression of Jamaicans is almost entirely media driven - with the exception of friends who have been to Jamaica. Again, my impression is not good. People tell me that everyone in Jamaica is on the take, and everywhere they went people tried to rip them off. And in media, well, Jamaicans are heavily into illegal narcotics, prostitution and street gangs. Do I think, therefore, that they are "morally" inferior? Yes, but again, that has zero to do with their skin pigmentation.

What do I think of people from Botswana? Nothing whatever at the moment. I have read nothing about them, nor had any personal experiences, nor has anyone related any personal experiences, favorable or unfavorable

You see how this works?

You say skin colour doesn't bother you, but you'd still prefer people acculturated to European cultural norms in a broad sense.

Broadly speaking almost all people have a general preference to be in the company of individuals who are of a similar culture and value set.

Well, Middle Easterners look more or less like us already anyway, but I suppose you have stereotpes about that region. When you didn't hire that person, was it because of his behaviour alone, or did the behaviour of others of the same part of the world influence your perception of him?

I would say I was aware of the possibility going into the interview. The man's age was an unexpected factor, and that added to my concern. Middle aged men, or men approaching middle age, even in our culture can have a problem taking orders from a young woman half their age. But the fact he shrugged off her questions, and mostly paid attention to the males, and that even with us his answers tended to be evasive and generalized worked against him. He wouldn't have gotten the job even if he was lilly white with the way he was acting. But how much of the way he was acting was due to his cultural background? The point I'm making is that if visible minority members have difficulties getting hired - and some do - it's more likely related to cultural problems in communication as opposed to employers not liking their skin colour. And the worse your English is, the harsher your accent, the less likely you are to be hired for any position. It should be noted that visible minority immigrants from certain nations have a hard time getting jobs, while visible minority immigrants from others have a considerably less difficult time. It can't all just be dismissed as colour.