Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Reality hits home. We need immigration after all. Gee whiz, whoda thunk! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Reminds me of an old joke. Why does Canada not have to worry about terrorist attacks? Because this is where the terrorists send their families to be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Hey Argus you will get no argument from me about defending our borders. You realize of course that this effort is daunting to say the least. What worthwhile effort isn't daunting? Yet there are some extremely simple and not terribly expensive things which can be done which would go a long ways towards this objective. 1. We end the practice of people showing up here with no documents, calling themselves refugees, and being released onto the streets the same day with us having no idea who they are. Such unidentified foreigners should be incarcerated until we know who they are and what threats they may pose - as well as whether there is any legitimacy to their claims. Claim processing should be advanced to the point they have a hearing within a month, and the long, endless number of appeals through multiple levels of court eliminated. 2. Much better examination of potential immigrants with an eye to societal/cultural conflicts between them and their intended new homeland. Currently, we examine only their work credentials, their ability to get a job, and whether they have records of criminality or extremism. We don't ask them anything about their attitudes to determine whether they will blend in well, not to mention whether they will support terrorism. A poll taken by the Canadian government recently showed that 10% of the Muslims in Canada they surveyed felt that acts of terrorism planned by the "Toronto 18" was justified. None of those individuals should have ever been admitted to Canada. 3. improvements in passports. If other countires can produce high tech passports for their citizens which are very difficult to trade or exchange, and very expensive and time consuming to counterfeit, then why can't Canada? Our passports are routinely traded and sold among our immigrant community to allow their foreign based family and friends to come and go (and often to stay). They're also routinely forged, along with other Canadian travel documents. 4. longer periods of residence required before obtaining citizenship. It used to require 7 years. The Liberals dropped that to just 3 in order to curry favour among ethincs. It should be raised back to 7. Furthermore, many such people don't even stay here. It's been well-documented that they can take out the paperwork and then simply go back home and keep the passport as a sort of emergency escape document in case of difficulties. Modernizing our passports would put an end to that, as well, for they would record when people entered and exited Canada. Currently we do not keep track of this, despite what people might think. None of this is terribly complicated and it would go a very long way to protecting our borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Reality hits home. We need immigration after all. Gee whiz, whoda thunk! We need SOME immmigration. We do not need even half the numbers we are getting. Therefore, we could be a lot choosier in who we take in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Rough math, taking 75% of population every 75 years2834 1.3 2909 .950 If I'm right the population goes under 1M at the end of the millenium. Are you seriously worrying about a policy put in place today and what it's effects on Canada would be centuries down the line? First of all, we don't even know if the world will be around in a century. We certainly have no clue of what the culture will be, or what effects science and technology might have on it. For all you know, a century from now cloning will be routine, and couples (or singles) will pick up their perfect, made to order babies at the creche, and our reproductive rate will be back up to 2.1 Second, our rate is 1.66. With some modest efforts at tax incentives for parents, that could probably be raised up closer to 2. We could then take SOME immigrants. However, even now, the numbers demographics experts have put on the immigration needed to stabilize our population is about 100k. We take in about 250k every year. We could eliminate 60% of our immigration with NO worry about declining population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Are you seriously worrying about a policy put in place today and what it's effects on Canada would be centuries down the line?First of all, we don't even know if the world will be around in a century. We certainly have no clue of what the culture will be, or what effects science and technology might have on it. For all you know, a century from now cloning will be routine, and couples (or singles) will pick up their perfect, made to order babies at the creche, and our reproductive rate will be back up to 2.1 Second, our rate is 1.66. With some modest efforts at tax incentives for parents, that could probably be raised up closer to 2. We could then take SOME immigrants. However, even now, the numbers demographics experts have put on the immigration needed to stabilize our population is about 100k. We take in about 250k every year. We could eliminate 60% of our immigration with NO worry about declining population. Absolutely right!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Therefore, we could be a lot choosier in who we take in. some might construe that as "codeword" for something - just sayin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 some might construe that as "codeword" for something - just sayin I don't think anyone here would accuse me of trying to be subtle in my immigration preferences. I approach immigraton as I approached job interviews (from the employer's perspective). I was looking for people with the right attitudes, first and foremost. The documentation (resume's/references/tests) just got them the interview. The interview was where we tried to decide what their mental makeup was, whether they would work hard, work smart, and fit in with the group. A sense of humour was always a big plus. I think we should bring in only the immigrants we need, ie, which is about 40% of what we're currently bringing in. And that we should choose those who would be most suitable, most economically productive, and least likely to cause cultural and criminality problems. That generally DOES mean White, simply because most of that section of the world we would describe as most educationally, scientifically, and culturally advanced is White. But my preference is not based on skin colour. I'd rather take in a million Japanese than a quarter million Vietnamese, for example. I would choose Asian over Africa because generally speaking Asia is more educationally and culturally developed (depending on what parts we're talking about). And I would be quite wary of selecting anyone with really strong religious beliefs which contain very foreign cultural ideas in opposition to our current cultural makeup, ie, a large proportion of Muslims and Sikhs, and a smaller, but significant number of Hindus and Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I don't think anyone here would accuse me of trying to be subtle in my immigration preferences.I approach immigraton as I approached job interviews (from the employer's perspective). I was looking for people with the right attitudes, first and foremost. The documentation (resume's/references/tests) just got them the interview. The interview was where we tried to decide what their mental makeup was, whether they would work hard, work smart, and fit in with the group. A sense of humour was always a big plus. I think we should bring in only the immigrants we need, ie, which is about 40% of what we're currently bringing in. And that we should choose those who would be most suitable, most economically productive, and least likely to cause cultural and criminality problems. That generally DOES mean White, simply because most of that section of the world we would describe as most educationally, scientifically, and culturally advanced is White. But my preference is not based on skin colour. I'd rather take in a million Japanese than a quarter million Vietnamese, for example. I would choose Asian over Africa because generally speaking Asia is more educationally and culturally developed (depending on what parts we're talking about). And I would be quite wary of selecting anyone with really strong religious beliefs which contain very foreign cultural ideas in opposition to our current cultural makeup, ie, a large proportion of Muslims and Sikhs, and a smaller, but significant number of Hindus and Jews. Well said..unfortunately people don t like it when you say the truth ..they try to complicate it and make it harder than it really is! But the sad truth is Canada should pick and choose what countries and what people should be allowed to enter the country...simple as that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I don't think anyone here would accuse me of trying to be subtle in my immigration preferences. notwithstanding those subtleties, and not as a challenge... Canadians need better information, better statistics, to realize and accept that within our current immigration policies, Canada isn't properly "screening for preferred applicants"... most definitely separate from the subtleties you allude to. And, of course, I lean toward accepting the need for greater immigration numbers simply to deal with providing benefits to retired/aged Canadians... I've not read anything to convince me that reduced immigration won't have a significantly detrimental affect to supporting retired/aged Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Argus, Are you seriously worrying about a policy put in place today and what it's effects on Canada would be centuries down the line?First of all, we don't even know if the world will be around in a century. We certainly have no clue of what the culture will be, or what effects science and technology might have on it. For all you know, a century from now cloning will be routine, and couples (or singles) will pick up their perfect, made to order babies at the creche, and our reproductive rate will be back up to 2.1 Second, our rate is 1.66. With some modest efforts at tax incentives for parents, that could probably be raised up closer to 2. We could then take SOME immigrants. However, even now, the numbers demographics experts have put on the immigration needed to stabilize our population is about 100k. We take in about 250k every year. We could eliminate 60% of our immigration with NO worry about declining population. Well, all of our policy is meant to ensure a better future for Canada, so the answer to your first question is 'yes'. Secondly, my post was in response to questions about our negative birth rate - not as a post on its own. Someone had indicated that Canada would depopulate in 100 years, then they posted that it would take 175 years and I have shown that that was false. Thirdly, the 'modest efforts' you talk about are - as I have posted before - social engineering on a scale that usually makes most conservatives gag. The numbers you quoted are dubious, but I'm interested in details if you have 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 notwithstanding those subtleties, and not as a challenge... Canadians need better information, better statistics, to realize and accept that within our current immigration policies, Canada isn't properly "screening for preferred applicants"... most definitely separate from the subtleties you allude to. And, of course, I lean toward accepting the need for greater immigration numbers simply to deal with providing benefits to retired/aged Canadians... I've not read anything to convince me that reduced immigration won't have a significantly detrimental affect to supporting retired/aged Canadians. Sorry buddy the retirees sowed what they should reap: Zilch, Zero. If your solution is to erode and dump immigrants on masse to Canada to prop up a cushy retirement at the expense of Canada's heritage: Fack eff to you and your degenerate idealogy. Apparently it wasn't enough for trash boomers to get their parents wealth via inheritance tax free. Apparently it wasn't enough for trash boomers who were smart enough to buy a house in the early eighties and dump it after the value increased ten fold from 30,000 to 300,000. Not only did these boomers and their parents realized these gains they got a free ride with their selfish greed. Their logic is I buy a car today for $10000, use the car for thirty years, and turn around and sell it for $100000. Who gets to live rent free and drive around in car for free? Now you want immigrants and future generations of Canada to fund your retirement. Who on heaven and the generations preceding the boomers and their parents gave you the political right to escalate real estate in that fashion. This real estate run up was because of loose immigration and loose credit. I have come across many newcomers who have been in Canada for not even 2 years and they have bought a house and are paying into a mortgage. How the eff does someone relocate to a new country and qualify for a mortage without a significant down payment. It is not a mystery why housing prices have been pushed up. Canada is not a good Country. It is not a country of good people. It is a country of lazy, selfish, greedy, lying cheats. I suggest you start thinking how to fund your retirement through good honest effort instead of trying to cheat and exploit immigrants and Canada's future generations for your vanity. I will say to you people and to the world that life as we know it will not end. It may transform into something else similar to how life transformed from dinosaurs to what life is today but it will not end. What will happen life will endure. The dilema Canada faces is the people of Canada hate life and hate Canada so much they will do what they can to make Canada a lagging Country in wealth, prosperity, and innovation behind all other countries in the world. Shame on you parasites and may the god portayed in the Old Testatment inflict on you people what you all deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 I would choose Asian over Africa because generally speaking Asia is more educationally and culturally developed (depending on what parts we're talking about). And I would be quite wary of selecting anyone with really strong religious beliefs which contain very foreign cultural ideas in opposition to our current cultural makeup, ie, a large proportion of Muslims and Sikhs, and a smaller, but significant number of Hindus and Jews. Racist are you? Collector of Hitler paraphanelia. For one Parts of Africa (Egypt) became apart of the Roman Empire. Africans not only were apart of North American and Euro History they paid their dues to North America and Europe. Sure, Africans are pissed off for being made use as slaves in the US but they should get over it and look at the bigger historical picture. As for you advocating the sell out of Canada by preferring Asians is really a sell out of Liberties. The Asians Canada brings in don't think for themselves. These Asians lack individuality and are machine like. Often they are rude and arrogant in their manner. When I speak of Asians I speak of the variety Canada is bringing in. The successful Asian Countries such as Japan and South korea leave no reason for their people to look to Canada for economic prosperity. If they do come to Canada it is often to work at a Japanes Multi national companies in an Engineering or Operational Capacity. Easy for them to do because Japan dominates the world as much as the US with big Corporations. Canada on the other hand, ?? A low life horse and buggy Country bent on cultural obliteration. Not only do japanese and asian companies operate in Canada they often are the ones paying near minimum wage, use employment agencies as a way of business, and provide only production style employment. So I guess pearl harbor was for nothing. The Korean War for Nothing. Vietnam for nothing. Perhaps its time Canada burns all the legions and do away with Rememberance day because you people are an insult to that history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Actually I think we should restrict immigration, not prevent it. Tradesman and professionals should be able to get in, and they should be able to bring their "immediate"families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 notwithstanding those subtleties, and not as a challenge... Canadians need better information, better statistics, to realize and accept that within our current immigration policies, Canada isn't properly "screening for preferred applicants"... most definitely separate from the subtleties you allude to. And, of course, I lean toward accepting the need for greater immigration numbers simply to deal with providing benefits to retired/aged Canadians... I've not read anything to convince me that reduced immigration won't have a significantly detrimental affect to supporting retired/aged Canadians.Sorry buddy the retirees sowed what they should reap: Zilch, Zero. If your solution is to erode and dump immigrants on masse to Canada to prop up a cushy retirement at the expense of Canada's heritage: Fack eff to you and your degenerate idealogy. Apparently it wasn't enough for trash boomers to get their parents wealth via inheritance tax free. Apparently it wasn't enough for trash boomers who were smart enough to buy a house in the early eighties and dump it after the value increased ten fold from 30,000 to 300,000. Not only did these boomers and their parents realized these gains they got a free ride with their selfish greed. Their logic is I buy a car today for $10000, use the car for thirty years, and turn around and sell it for $100000. Who gets to live rent free and drive around in car for free? Now you want immigrants and future generations of Canada to fund your retirement. Who on heaven and the generations preceding the boomers and their parents gave you the political right to escalate real estate in that fashion. This real estate run up was because of loose immigration and loose credit. I have come across many newcomers who have been in Canada for not even 2 years and they have bought a house and are paying into a mortgage. How the eff does someone relocate to a new country and qualify for a mortage without a significant down payment. It is not a mystery why housing prices have been pushed up. Canada is not a good Country. It is not a country of good people. It is a country of lazy, selfish, greedy, lying cheats. I suggest you start thinking how to fund your retirement through good honest effort instead of trying to cheat and exploit immigrants and Canada's future generations for your vanity. I will say to you people and to the world that life as we know it will not end. It may transform into something else similar to how life transformed from dinosaurs to what life is today but it will not end. What will happen life will endure. The dilema Canada faces is the people of Canada hate life and hate Canada so much they will do what they can to make Canada a lagging Country in wealth, prosperity, and innovation behind all other countries in the world. Shame on you parasites and may the god portayed in the Old Testatment inflict on you people what you all deserve. Why would you categorize all retired/aged Canadians as affluent “trash boomers”… are there any retired/aged today – and will there be any tomorrow, who, after a life of contributing directly or indirectly to the well-being and maturation of this country… are there any of those retired/aged Canadians who are, and will be, dependent for their basic minimum living needs upon OAS/GIS/CPP? Or… are they and will they, all be, as you say, “lazy, greedy, lying cheats”? Given your religious overtone, is your god considerate of the well-being/betterment of all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 ...So I guess pearl harbor was for nothing. The Korean War for Nothing. Vietnam for nothing.... You are finally understanding the value of war. http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/edwin_starr/war.html War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sainte_...al_soldier.html He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain, A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew. And he knows he shouldn't kill, And he knows he always will, Killing you for me my friend and me for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 You are finally understanding the value of war.http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/edwin_starr/war.html War, huh, yeah What is it good for Absolutely nothing Uh-huh http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/sainte_...al_soldier.html He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain, A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew. And he knows he shouldn't kill, And he knows he always will, Killing you for me my friend and me for you. Ever watch those Billy Jack movies? It always struck me how the hippies never seemed to realize that if it wasn't for Billy Jack making war on the rednecks they would all have been wiped out! War is evil, true. Still unilateral disarmament is a synonym for suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 notwithstanding those subtleties, and not as a challenge... Canadians need better information, better statistics, to realize and accept that within our current immigration policies, Canada isn't properly "screening for preferred applicants"... most definitely separate from the subtleties you allude to. And, of course, I lean toward accepting the need for greater immigration numbers simply to deal with providing benefits to retired/aged Canadians... I've not read anything to convince me that reduced immigration won't have a significantly detrimental affect to supporting retired/aged Canadians. As I have posted a number of times in the past, we do not select immigrants for age. We select them for educational and skills achievement (or as refugees for no particular reason at all). It is not surprising, then, that by the time a resident of the third world, where most of our immigrants originate, reaches the level of economic ability and achievement to apply for immigration to Canada he is generally in or approaching middle age. Therefore, the average age of immigrants only trails the average age of native born Canadians by a few years. As well, the government's own statistics on immigrants' economic performance has been showing a marked and progressively worse deterioration in the economic success of immigrants as compared to their predecessors. Bringing in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of immgrants who are going to be joining the working poor or those on welfare is not a means of economically viable support for the elderly. In any event, using immigrants for that purpose is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme, as you continually have to keep importing more in order to supprot those on top. A far better idea is providig better incentives for Canadians to have children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 (edited) Racist are you? Collector of Hitler paraphanelia. For one Parts of Africa (Egypt) became apart of the Roman Empire. Africans not only were apart of North American and Euro History they paid their dues to North America and Europe. Sure, Africans are pissed off for being made use as slaves in the US but they should get over it and look at the bigger historical picture. As for you advocating the sell out of Canada by preferring Asians is really a sell out of Liberties.The Asians Canada brings in don't think for themselves. These Asians lack individuality and are machine like. Often they are rude and arrogant in their manner. When I speak of Asians I speak of the variety Canada is bringing in. The successful Asian Countries such as Japan and South korea leave no reason for their people to look to Canada for economic prosperity. If they do come to Canada it is often to work at a Japanes Multi national companies in an Engineering or Operational Capacity. Easy for them to do because Japan dominates the world as much as the US with big Corporations. Canada on the other hand, ?? A low life horse and buggy Country bent on cultural obliteration. Not only do japanese and asian companies operate in Canada they often are the ones paying near minimum wage, use employment agencies as a way of business, and provide only production style employment. So I guess pearl harbor was for nothing. The Korean War for Nothing. Vietnam for nothing. Perhaps its time Canada burns all the legions and do away with Rememberance day because you people are an insult to that history. You know, some people who are proud to live in the greatest country on earth might take offense to that. However your previous religious babble in this thread allows me to just Edited September 27, 2009 by Who's Doing What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 As I have posted a number of times in the past, we do not select immigrants for age. We select them for educational and skills achievement (or as refugees for no particular reason at all). It is not surprising, then, that by the time a resident of the third world, where most of our immigrants originate, reaches the level of economic ability and achievement to apply for immigration to Canada he is generally in or approaching middle age. Therefore, the average age of immigrants only trails the average age of native born Canadians by a few years.As well, the government's own statistics on immigrants' economic performance has been showing a marked and progressively worse deterioration in the economic success of immigrants as compared to their predecessors. Bringing in tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of immgrants who are going to be joining the working poor or those on welfare is not a means of economically viable support for the elderly. In any event, using immigrants for that purpose is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme, as you continually have to keep importing more in order to supprot those on top. A far better idea is providig better incentives for Canadians to have children. I can't disagree with anything you have said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Actually I think we should restrict immigration, not prevent it. Tradesman and professionals should be able to get in, and they should be able to bring their "immediate"families. Totally agree....if they contribute great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted September 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 So let the courts carefully examine the evidence, without inciting undue fear or propaganda in the media. We've had enough of that, right? Alarm bells should be going off... long before they start blowing up our metro transits and building's......next they will be planting IED'S on our highways only matter of time, Canada has to wake up at some point i only hope it isn t after the damage is done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Many of them come to work in the IT industry for lower salaries than most folks here require. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 Alarm bells should be going off... long before they start blowing up our metro transits and building's......next they will be planting IED'S on our highways only matter of time, Canada has to wake up at some point i only hope it isn t after the damage is done! accepting to your absolute paranoia and obsession, what's your desired remedy to get "them" out from under your bed and out of your closets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted September 27, 2009 Report Share Posted September 27, 2009 You know, some people who are proud to live in the greatest country on earth might take offense to that. However your previous religious babble in this thread allows me to just Actually my religious tone is not one of preaching but one of reference. Being this God is not here to talk directly one could look to what was written to draw parallels to what is going on in current affairs. Particulary in Canada's case the story of Sodom and Gomorah. That is that God. Rome's God was jupiter not the God of Abraham. Some Say Jupiter and Zeus are one in the Same God. The letters you are writing are Roman letters, not english, french, italian, spanish, german or whatever other language who has decided to make you use of these letters for their means of documenting their respective societies. When I site history or religion I do it to show people have no basis and ought to rethink their position. Because this thread is about Islamic terrorists we can thank them for the fort knox security treatment happening at the US/Canada border. Canada is not respected by the US. The US looks for ways to take advantage of Canada. The US will continue to do this until Canada embraces who it really is and starts building a Canada reflective of this. If Canada persists and insists on selling Canada out for the gain of the few it will become a world joke. You are concerned about my religious tone you ought to watch religulous a documentary put out by Bill Maher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.