What kind of criteria should immigrants meet?

[Machjo]

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.

I can agree with some point in this:

1. Government should neither oppose nor promote multiculturalism. Government should just stay out of it beyond establishing sommon cultural norms. And I certainly agree that a person ought to be required to pass certain objecive criteria, including a knowledge of the local language, before even setting foot on Canadian soil.

One point though, the government does not feed most of them. In Vancouver, I'd met restauranteurs who knew neither English nor French who were working nevertheless. My issue though is with cultural integration. Economically they're not necessarily a burden on us. But culturally they do divide the community if they don't even know the local language, let alone culture.

[Machjo]

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.

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?

Yup. I'm smart enough that when abroad (and I have worked abroad) to respect the local laws, and not travel through a warzone.

[Machjo]

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.

Je suis bien content d'entendre ça. Alors, comment familier est-tu avec la culture canadienne-française?

[Machjo]

"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?"

Common sense. If he doesn't want strangers infringing on his territory, then he should put a sign up to make it clear. We have one outside saying 'no solisitors'. That doesn't stop us from having guests over though, and we certainly wold not approciate the government telling us whom we can or cannot invite to our home.

[Machjo]

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.

So if I break into an old woman's apratment, beat her to death and take her stuff and don't get caught, then morally that's fair game because she couldn't defend herself?

[Machjo]

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.

There could be simple solutions to this:

1. Require a stringent English or French test. This would eliminate the need for the federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml)

2. Require an applicant to either have a busines partner or empoyer who's signed to take responsibility for him until he can prove his ability to stand on his own two feet in Canada.

3. Family class could be judged also from the current immigrant himself. If let's say his taxes are high enough that it would be more beneficial forus to accept the costs for that new family member than for us to lose that tax money, then we could make an exception, though that would mean that he could only take in so many family class members depending on his value to Canadian society. Yet even then, some criteria that should never be sacrificed are a criminal record check and language competence. While we may be willing to accept some costs on the grounds that the sponsor is making an exceptional tax or other contribution to Canada well beyond the average taxpayer, we're still not prepared to babysit them either none-the-less.

[Machjo]

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

Ah justice schmustice. What do yu think we are? Canadian?

[Renegade]

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

I doubt it avoids wars to meet justice criteria. There have been many conqured races which have had criteria for justice. It didn't stop a war nor their conquest.

[Machjo]

I doubt it avoids wars to meet justice criteria. There have been many conqured races which have had criteria for justice. It didn't stop a war nor their conquest.

And it sure is better to conquer and pillage our way to victory than to go extinct while sticking to our principles?

[Renegade]

So if I break into an old woman's apratment, beat her to death and take her stuff and don't get caught, then morally that's fair game because she couldn't defend herself?

The question wasn't asked from a moral perspective and it was not answered from one. It was answered from a practical basis.

A woman (in most cases) has more power than an uninvited intruder because she has the power of the police behind her. When she doesn't have the state's power behind her, she is pretty much powerless.

If you want to phrase it morally, answer the question of why we have the moral right to exclude anyone from Canada?

[Renegade]

And it sure is better to conquer and pillage our way to victory than to go extinct while sticking to our principles?

Not sure. We may be here because our ancestors conquered and pillaged. The extiinct people may have stuck to their principles. Which is "better" is a matter of perspective.

[Wild Bill]

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

You're picking apart my model instead of my point, by dragging it into a sidebar.

How does the number of suicide bombers in Canada change my point?

[Machjo]

Not sure. We may be here because our ancestors conquered and pillaged. The extiinct people may have stuck to their principles. Which is "better" is a matter of perspective.

And this might reveal who we are as a people. I'd rather we sink proudly into oblivion than to stoop to victory. I practice this phylosophy in my own private life too, and yes I've been burned more than a few times by it, and yet still can't get around to stooping to avoid getting burned yet again.

[CANADIEN]

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

Exactly.

Noone here is arguing for no-limit "we don't ask any question" immigration.

Criminals are not welcome here. Terrorists have no place here.

And yes, we have right to expect from immigrant that they respect the laws of this country, that they abide by the basic rules we set for ourselves (nothing more, nothing else) and that they learn about this country's history and traditions.

But there are people who would block some would-be immigrants just because they're from the "wrong" place, the "wrong religion, or the wrong skin colour.

[Machjo]

Exactly.

Noone here is arguing for no-limit "we don't ask any question" immigration.

Criminals are not welcome here. Terrorists have no place here.

And yes, we have right to expect from immigrant that they respect the laws of this country, that they abide by the basic rules we set for ourselves (nothing more, nothing else) and that they learn about this country's history and traditions.

But there are people who would block some would-be immigrants just because they're from the "wrong" place, the "wrong religion, or the wrong skin colour.

Exactly. We don't oppose immigrant terrorists. We oppose terrorists ful stop, be they native born evangelical white Anglosaxon terrorists or otherwise.

[benny]

Common sense. If he doesn't want strangers infringing on his territory, then he should put a sign up to make it clear. We have one outside saying 'no solisitors'. That doesn't stop us from having guests over though, and we certainly wold not approciate the government telling us whom we can or cannot invite to our home.

What is common sense too is that to have guests over, solicitation is a prerequisite. At the most fundamental level, immigration is two people exchanging prestigious captives in order to make peace.

Edited May 20, 2009 by benny

[g_bambino]

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.

I'm not sure what point of mine it is that you're arguing with.

[Oleg Bach]

They that come should be of the same value system - Christian based - with multi-cultural over tones - This nation was based and built on ancient concepts that seperated it and exaulted it above third world nations.. secularism is a pest - most importantly - immigration policy should have people in charge that actually do the work and understand what sort of human product they are importing - All officals should study the religion and culture of the place of origin - The big mistake that Britain made was assuming that all immigrants had Christian values - instead by the time they figured out who they had invited into the national household - it was to late - and they were flooded by those that HATE - and hold in contempt the host nation.

[Machjo]

I'm not sure what point of mine it is that you're arguing with.

I got the impression from your previous post that you were suggesting that cultural shift had begun only after the French and the British wre already established. I was pointing out that the very establishment of those communities was itself a cultural shift. My apologies if I'd misunderstood you there.

[Machjo]

They that come should be of the same value system - Christian based - with multi-cultural over tones - This nation was based and built on ancient concepts that seperated it and exaulted it above third world nations.. secularism is a pest - most importantly - immigration policy should have people in charge that actually do the work and understand what sort of human product they are importing - All officals should study the religion and culture of the place of origin - The big mistake that Britain made was assuming that all immigrants had Christian values - instead by the time they figured out who they had invited into the national household - it was to late - and they were flooded by those that HATE - and hold in contempt the host nation.

An established church could arguably have certain advantages as a foundation for a common civic religion and thus serve as a contributing factor in the establishment of a common culture, as long as it limits itself to that. I wouldn't mind that my children be required to study the Bible as secular literature. But I'm not raising my kids Christian and don't intend to. I would have an issue with imposed religious education.

I And of course I'll raise my children in the religion of my choice and practice the religion of my choice. Establishing the Christian Faith as the national religion and teaching the Bible in school as literature would merely serve to give us a common point of reference in religious discussions, nothing more.

[Oleg Bach]

When we went to school we did a short prayer in the moring - basically a pledge to adhere to God and goodness - no one shot or stabbed each other. BUT - most do not realize what Christianity really is and I can see that you do not want to raise your children as such - but - do not lable your mentoring as Christain - just use the concepts - but - also remember it is a state of mind that is pure rebellion and freedom from the secualarist state - It counters utlitarianism..it ensures the right of the singular individual - LOOK at the Muslim population - based in war - conversion by the sword and a very insect like hate of the individual - secularism is much like Islam - in fact is is almost the same.

[CANADIEN]

An established church could arguably have certain advantages as a foundation for a common civic religion and thus serve as a contributing factor in the establishment of a common culture, as long as it limits itself to that. I wouldn't mind that my children be required to study the Bible as secular literature. But I'm not raising my kids Christian and don't intend to. I would have an issue with imposed religious education.

I And of course I'll raise my children in the religion of my choice and practice the religion of my choice. Establishing the Christian Faith as the national religion and teaching the Bible in school as literature would merely serve to give us a common point of reference in religious discussions, nothing more.

You do not need to establish an established church to have religious texts studied as litterature. Actually, not having one would help doing that.

As for the idea of an established Church. One of the good concepts that came from the American Constitution was the refusal of an established Church, Setting a Church as the official one, a legal ppoint of reference, is the best way to ensure sectarianism and religious descrimination.

[Oleg Bach]

Treat religion for what it is - History - with a lot of revisionism to create social control....problem now adays is - the powers that be do not want our children to know from where they came and who they are - a person with no history is like a turnip that fell off the truck and was born yesterday - there are some great wisdoms contained in the old writings - why toss them all out as if all is myth...look at the sayings of Solomon or the words of Christ - very civilizing.

[benny]

Treat religion for what it is - History - with a lot of revisionism to create social control....problem now adays is - the powers that be do not want our children to know from where they came and who they are - a person with no history is like a turnip that fell off the truck and was born yesterday - there are some great wisdoms contained in the old writings - why toss them all out as if all is myth...look at the sayings of Solomon or the words of Christ - very civilizing.

We will have less problem integrating immigrants when we will have understood that a common culture is made not at all of some substantive contents but of a certain kind of emptiness or openness.

[Oleg Bach]

We will have less problem integrating immigrants when we will have understood that a common culture is made not at all of some substantive contents but of a certain kind of emptiness or openness.

As open as a Berka and just as secretive - we have welcomed people into the country without even bothering to know who they are and what they think. Trust - I can't stand it when I see a Muslim or a Jamacian look at me with distrust - institutional distrust - I am their friend if they let me - We have created an atmosphere of fear. It is increasing - There was a time when I could walk down the street and make eye contact in a kind manner with blacks - now I can not for fear of it being taken as a challenge to a damned duel.wtf! Who engineered this - this is bad planning... Only a few in my small community are friends - we are all races - but we behave like men - and show love - without the interference of the state inforced assimulation..we earned trust.