What kind of criteria should immigrants meet?

[CANADIEN]

As for 'multi-culturalism', any country needs a common coulture. Sure it's possible for people to be bicutural in the national culture plus their own. But to have no common culture leads to chaos, and that's wha we're witnessing now. We have many cultures, but no common culture.

There's a lot of things in this country, but chaos is not one of them.

[g_bambino]

"Let us be English or let us be French . . . and above all let us be Canadians." - Sir John Alexander MacDonald

Approximately a century before Sir John A., Prince Edward (Queen Victoria's father) was in Quebec City when a riot broke out between Anglo- and Francophones during the 1792 elections for the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada. He climbed up to where he could be heard and said to the crowd: "Part then in peace. I urge you to unanimity and accord. Let me hear no more of the odious distinctions of English and French. You are all His Britannic Majesty's beloved Canadian subjects."

[CANADIEN]

What a terrible and unpatriotic thing to say.

What an ignorant thing of you to say.

The Black community in Nova Scotia dates back to the aftermath of the American Revolution. For most of the following 2 centuries, they were subjected to the same type of segregation that made the southern U.S. famous, minus the violence.

In the 1830's, 1840's and 1850's, Irish immigrants were treated like third class citizens and relegated to the poorer areas of Quebec City, Montreal, Toronto, subjected to hatred from the general population. They were not the last immigrant group to suffer that fate. Chinese immigrants to B.C.m when not banned outright, where prohibited from occupying certain jobs. Jewish Canadians were virtually barred from certain professions until well into the 20th century (the University of Toronto did not lift his quotas on admission of Jewish students to its Faculty of Medecine until 1959).

No ghettos in Canada before Trudeau? Think again.

[CANADIEN]

these pre-Trudeau clots of similarly cultivated people don't seem as forced and enforced as the ethnic-towns in our cities today

I would tend to disagree. Nooobody today is forcing anyone to live in ethnic enclaves. The experience of many immigrant communities before the 1960's, especially the non-Christian non-European groups, was of being segregated against, denied certain form of employments, denied citizenship and the right to vote, in effect forced to group themselves into enclaves - not through the force of law, but through the force of local population not wanting them around.

[CANADIEN]

Multiculturalism is not. Official multiculturalism, however, is.

As well intended as it was, I'm not sure it's turned out to have been all that successful. As I understand it, multiculturalism was defined in legislation following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and thus "multi" was only originally meant to be "dual" or "bi". Over the ensuing decades, the original intent was stretched to fit every single possible permeation of human culture, to questionable results.

One of the issues, a surprising one, that faced the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was the reaction of various ethnic groups, and we are not just talking here about First Nations or groups of non-European origin. They did not recognized themselves in the idea of a bicultural country. That most have been a shcok for a poliical elite that have been convinced that, except for the First Nations and non-white immigrants, the country was bi-dimentional. The notion of official multiculturalism is borne out of that more than anything else.

The fault of official multiculturalism is not in what it did, but what it failed to do - bring a definition of what it is to be Canadian that would transcend languages, ethnicities and cultures. Sorry, "being diverse" may be a good thing, but it is not an identity.

That being said, and despite the problems (a system of immigration too lax on criminals, isolation of some groups, economic difficulties faced by certain immigrants, to new three), we have managed to avoid for the most part the racial violence that plagued the U.S. at various points in its history, or the race-related alienation and riots of some European countries. We could do better. But I think we have done a lot better than what many believe.

Edited May 20, 2009 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Nooobody today is forcing anyone to live in ethnic enclaves. The experience of many immigrant communities before the 1960's, especially the non-Christian non-European groups, was of being segregated against, denied certain form of employments, denied citizenship and the right to vote, in effect forced to group themselves into enclaves - not through the force of law, but through the force of local population not wanting them around.

Well, perhaps forced was too strong a word. But, there would seem to be a difference between segregation that evolved out of a mutual dislike for cultural differences, and that which emerged through officially sanctioned encouragements to retain every and all imported traditions, whether incompatible with the majority or not. In other words, ethnic ghettoes are perhaps not forced and enforced, but rather are reinforced by official government policy, as opposed to simple and natural anthropological morphogenesis.

[CANADIEN]

Well, perhaps forced was too strong a word. But, there would seem to be a difference between segregation that evolved out of a mutual dislike for cultural differences, and that which emerged through officially sanctioned encouragements to retain every and all imported traditions, whether incompatible with the majority or not. In other words, ethnic ghettoes are perhaps not forced and enforced, but rather are reinforced by official government policy, as opposed to simple and natural anthropological morphogenesis.

I think that too is a bit exaggerated. Not all aspects of all cultures are encouraged - polygamy is but one example.. And the tendency of recent immigrants to move where people from the culture live is nothing new, nor is the tendence of most groups to move out of there by the second or third generation (economic conditions permitting).

[Visionseeker]

Canada has always been, and always will be a multicultural country. The French, English and Scots joined in founding our country at the expense of or with various First Nations communities. The Irish built the Rideau Canal. Scandinavians and Ukrainians helped to settle the west. European Jews and Greeks, Italians and Poles infused our cities with their talents and the Chinese gave much blood to build our railways.

We are a nation of immigrants. And for that reason, we are strong.

Canada has no “defined culture” because it is forever being redefined. Just as the Main in Montreal gave us Richler, Layton and Cohen, it shall soon give us a Chen, Yoo or Nugyen. And I eagerly await the results.

[CANADIEN]

Canada has always been, and always will be a multicultural country. The French, English and Scots joined in founding our country at the expense of or with various First Nations communities. The Irish built the Rideau Canal. Scandinavians and Ukrainians helped to settle the west. European Jews and Greeks, Italians and Poles infused our cities with their talents and the Chinese gave much blood to build our railways.

We are a nation of immigrants. And for that reason, we are strong.

Canada has no “defined culture” because it is forever being redefined. Just as the Main in Montreal gave us Richler, Layton and Cohen, it shall soon give us a Chen, Yoo or Nugyen. And I eagerly await the results.

I just hope they'll be an improvement from Richler and Layton

[g_bambino]

I think that too is a bit exaggerated. Not all aspects of all cultures are encouraged - polygamy is but one example.. And the tendency of recent immigrants to move where people from the culture live is nothing new, nor is the tendence of most groups to move out of there by the second or third generation (economic conditions permitting).

Well, let's not exaggerate too far in the opposite direction. I see clearly the ethnic enclaves here in Toronto and its surrounding suburbs, some of which have grown themselves to the size of small cities, and, while I well realise that people of a common heritage will naturally congregate with their like kind, I can't help but wonder just how much government grants and protections offered under official multiculturalism help to stabilize and feed these fairly isolated communities, so that it becomes year after year ever easier for one to live here without ever having to change at all.

[Wild Bill]

The MAJORITY of immigrants are not criminals.

The MAJORITY of immigrants do work for a livng.

The MAJORITY of immigrants obey our laws.

The MAJORITY of immigrants want to be Canadians.

Who cares? Only a minority of people are suicide bombers.

THOSE are the ones to fear!

The majority of jocks shower after a game. Would you feel comfortable sitting with the minority?

I swear, most Canadians must be bailing out of math around Grade 6 these days...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Who cares? Only a minority of people are suicide bombers.

THOSE are the ones to fear!

The majority of jocks shower after a game. Would you feel comfortable sitting with the minority?

I swear, most Canadians must be bailing out of math around Grade 6 these days...

Fear is an extension of emotions that are designed for self preservation. Yet we must do more than merely survive. These base emotions are what causes much grief on this earth and they are what needs to be dealt with.

[Renegade]

None of the choices in this poll are specfic enough.

IMV, immigrants should not be flitered based upon their competance but rather based upon the needs and best interest of Canada. The needs of Canada constantly changing and so the criteria should change to reflect that. Some implications of this are:

1. Canada doesn't need more senior citizens and as such it should discrimminate on the basis of age.

2. Canada needs more of some professions and none of others. People should be admitted on the basis of them meeting a need for skills.

3. Canada doesn't need additional drain on social services. Immigrants who are likely to drain social services (such as healthcare) should be excluded.

4. Immigrants should be assessed on the basis of thier ability to integrate into the population. For example, potential immigrants who don't have the language skills should be excluded.

5. If Canada needs entreprenuers, immigrants may be discrimminated on the basis of their wealth and willingness to invest in businesses.

Immigrants select Canada based upon the percieved benfit to themselves, doesn't it makes sense that Canada do the same?

[wyly]

Who cares? Only a minority of people are suicide bombers.

THOSE are the ones to fear!

The majority of jocks shower after a game. Would you feel comfortable sitting with the minority?

I swear, most Canadians must be bailing out of math around Grade 6 these days...

hmmm with your grade 6 math tell us how many suicide bombers have we had in Canada?

[wyly]

None of the choices in this poll are specfic enough.

IMV, immigrants should not be flitered based upon their competance but rather based upon the needs and best interest of Canada. The needs of Canada constantly changing and so the criteria should change to reflect that. Some implications of this are:

1. Canada doesn't need more senior citizens and as such it should discrimminate on the basis of age.

2. Canada needs more of some professions and none of others. People should be admitted on the basis of them meeting a need for skills.

3. Canada doesn't need additional drain on social services. Immigrants who are likely to drain social services (such as healthcare) should be excluded.

4. Immigrants should be assessed on the basis of thier ability to integrate into the population. For example, potential immigrants who don't have the language skills should be excluded.

5. If Canada needs entreprenuers, immigrants may be discrimminated on the basis of their wealth and willingness to invest in businesses.

Immigrants select Canada based upon the percieved benfit to themselves, doesn't it makes sense that Canada do the same?

I haven't checked in on the process in a longtime but I believe those points are taken into consideration...

[Army Guy]

hmmm with your grade 6 math tell us how many suicide bombers have we had in Canada?

Which ones do you want, Canadians who have become suicide bombers, or Bombing attacks planned and orginated in Canada but carried out overseas....or just groups of Canadians caught before they could bomb something.....or maybe we could borden it up alittle and include all terrorist activties carried out by natural Canadians or Canadian immigrants

[madmax]

or maybe we could borden broaden it up alittle and include all terrorist activties carried out by natural Canadians or Canadian immigrants

Borden... oppsss freudian slip. Canadian Military base.... Fixed for you

[wyly]

There's still plenty of racism in Canada today. As for respecting individual cultures, I can agree with that, and I think the intentions of multiculturalism were good. But it was flawed in that while we can each bask in our own individual cultures, a common culture is also needed to allow us to understand one another. This balance between multiculturalism and national integration can only be achieved through biculturalism in the individual culture and the national one.

the cultural divisions blur within a generation...the 1st generation will always tend to socialize with others like them and tend to keep the customs they're familiar with Canadians living abroad do the same. However 2nd generation immigrants generally mix freely with other Canadians, I've lost track of how many couples I know are the result of mixed marriages regardless of origin. My wife is asian I'm european we each have our cultural customs we pass on to our kids, their friends when they gather in our home looks like a United Nations convention but we're all still Canadians first.

Canadians can live wherever they want, but once outside our borders, they're responsible to fend for themselves and find their own way home. No freedom without responsibility. They go hand in hand.

so if you get in trouble in a foreign country and end up in some hellhole of a prison you're ok with that and don't expect any help from the Canadian Embassy/Consulate?

[wyly]

Which ones do you want, Canadians who have become suicide bombers, or Bombing attacks planned and orginated in Canada but carried out overseas....or just groups of Canadians caught before they could bomb something.....or maybe we could borden it up alittle and include all terrorist activties carried out by natural Canadians or Canadian immigrants

we have mutli-generational Canadians that have carried out bomb attacks what are your plans to prevent that?... there is no way to determine someones political motivation years in advance, what your impling is we just barr people by skin colour, ethnic origin or religion...

[benny]

"What kind of criteria should immigrants meet?" is a short-sighted question, I think. Here is a better one:

"What criteria should an owner meet in order to prevent strangers from infringing on his territory?"

[Renegade]

"What kind of criteria should immigrants meet?" is a short-sighted question, I think. Here is a better one:

"What criteria should an owner meet in order to prevent strangers from infringing on his territory?"

Ultmately the owner needs to meet just one criteria: He must have the power to force strangers from infringing on his territory without permission.

Natives did not meet that criteria and so lost their ability to prevent strangers from infringing on their territory.

[Renegade]

I haven't checked in on the process in a longtime but I believe those points are taken into consideration...

Somewhat, but it should be the overridding consideration. For example we award points to "Family Class" immigrants. How does it benefit Canada to take on a senior citizen simply because they are related to someone already in Canada.

Also, the current system is not very adaptable to changing skill requirements. It also doesn't take into account that in order to fill a skill need, it takes more than an immigrant having a skill. For example, the immigrant must have to locate in the area where the need exist, also the skill may need to be licensed. That is why you have skilled immigrants driving cabs.

[benny]

Ultmately the owner needs to meet just one criteria: He must have the power to force strangers from infringing on his territory without permission.

Natives did not meet that criteria and so lost their ability to prevent strangers from infringing on their territory.

But ultimately, if the owner wants to avoid wars, he needs to meet a justice criteria.

[Machjo]

Well, I was thinking specifically of Canada, and further focused on its origins; so the three original "ghettoes" were the First Nations' communities, and the British and French colonies. You're correct that from then on, more varieties arrived here and created not-so-vaguely defined ethnic enclaves; the Dutch in Ontario, the Polish in Saskatchewan, the Sikhs in Vancouver... Still, these pre-Trudeau clots of similarly cultivated people don't seem as forced and enforced as the ethnic-towns in our cities today; they seemed more spontaneous and transmutable rather than like a controlled product of an experiment in social engineering.

Incorrect. If by'ghetto' you mean distinct cultures, then the First Nations and the Inuit alone consisted of many nations. And cultural shift did not begin after the arrival of the French and the British. It began with the arrival of the French and the British. We ourselves have been contributors to this cutural shift.

[Machjo]

Who cares? Only a minority of people are suicide bombers.

THOSE are the ones to fear!

The majority of jocks shower after a game. Would you feel comfortable sitting with the minority?

I swear, most Canadians must be bailing out of math around Grade 6 these days...

But we won't throw all Arabs in prison, avoid all jocks in sight before even getting close to them, etc.

And what does it have to do with maths?