Immigration

[Bro]

Our immigration system should serve only one purpose; the best interest of Canada. That means it picks and chooses throughout the world for only the very best and brightest, only the people who will fit in the best and contribute the most to our society. This is a great country. We should only bring the best in to join us. Drug dealers? Murderers? Torturers? Terrorists and their supporters? Why are we letting these people come here and call themselves Canadians??! :angry:

Because Canada has chosen to vote Liberal.Aside from letting anyone into this country,regardless of their ties to

crime or terrorism,they have also made the immigration process a huge financial drain on our tax system. Immigration is supposed to help build our wealth ,but Liberal policies tend to work in reverse.

[August1991]

Do you have a citation for that?

Our emigration is almost one third of our immigration. I suspect many of these emigrants were not born in Canada. And I suspect too that most emigrants go to the US.

Statistics Canada - Pop Growth by Source

[takeanumber]

Maybe we should start quoting our sources? (takeanumber, 2004)

[Argus]

Current immigrants are doing worse and worse.

Proof?

Immigrants

Yet most immigrants have neither the language nor the technology skills.

Do you have any statistics to support this claim?

It's difficult to find such statistics. Much of my belief is inference. You can find some information here immigrants two

In particular the passage" many recent immigrants have good professional qualifications but limited language skills." Only 4 in 10 immigrants come in through the skills program. None of the rest are assessed as to their language or job skills, and since the vast majority come from third world countries I think we can assume that lack of technological skills and language skills are major factors.]

Now they go on welfare, and still lead better lives than they had at home.

What percentage of immigrants go on welfare?

Unknown. However, in the previous cite you can find "Our recent research for the United Way of Greater Toronto (see A Decade of Decline at www.uwgt.org) found that many recent immigrants to the City of Toronto are living in deep poverty, in severely crowded housing and in extremely low-income neighbourhoods". It is also relevent to consider the fuss Bob Rae's government kicked up over immigrant resettlement costs. Surely no one would wish to demonize immigrants less, yet he was very public about the welfare costs Ontario was incurring with recent immigrants. Also, the federal government has been forced to strengthen sponsorship provisions several times as sponsors bring in people and then don't provide for them - resulting in the sponsored immigrants immediately going on welfare. There are also numerous "incidental" and anecdotal accounts. Every time you see a public housing area there is a sea of non-white faces, and statistics canada shows the great majority of non-whites (excluding natives) are newcomers

There was a recent claim in the Citizen that half of all youths in Ottawa detention facilities were Somalians. The claim by Somalian organizations was that this was because most Somali youths were growing up in public housing, where they could too easily fall in with bad elements.

In fact, as a group Muslims, and Turks in particular, resist assimilation. And the vast majority of Turkish men still go back to Turkey for their brides even into the 3rd generation.

You stated 90% in another post, refering to Danish Turks. This kind of hearsay is along the lines of "a friend of my sister-in law..."

To be more precise I claimed upwards of 90%, I believe. In fact, the cite I read says 95%. another cite is a sociological study concerning Turks in Europe.

Denmark Turks in Europe

A few decades back, the census figures on muslims were so low(about 5,000) that they weren't even included except as part of the "other" category. Now there are estimated to be about 1 million of them. That's a 20,000% percent increase in a few decades.

I'll do this for you.

There were some 580,000 Muslims in Canada in 2001 (or about 2% of the entire population).

I would suggest to you that there was likely some underreporting going on given the current world situation and the fear of muslims, particularly newcomers, at being singled out. Add in language difficulties, and the fact many are not citizens, and thus don't vote. Then add in three more years of high birth rates and immigration. For example, Pakistan alone probably sent about 45,000 immigrants to Canada in that three year period. I've seen a number of claims of the million muslim figure.

worldnet Muslims Indimedia In any event, I think you'll agree the numbers have grown enormously, whether it's 20,000% or only 15,000%.

[Argus]

Do you have a citation for that?

Our emigration is almost one third of our immigration. I suspect many of these emigrants were not born in Canada. And I suspect too that most emigrants go to the US.

Statistics Canada - Pop Growth by Source

I've seen nothing to indicate that immigrants make up any substantial portion of emigrants, and your cite doesn't even mention them. I'm afraid "I suspect" doesn't cut it, especially without even a logical basis as to why you suspect.

[Argus]

"Swamped" implies that it's a problem.

If you care about the welfare of this country it is.

How so? Your reply seemed to say "Who cares if Canada's home grown culture is swamped by foreigners. There's nothing special about it anyway."

Half the justification for accepting immigrants is economic. The second half is that Canada is a multi-cultural country that is made stronger by enhancing the mosaic.

I have been following immigration for some time, and I have never seen anyone raise this as a reason for immigration. Do you have any kind of cite from anywhere which supports this?

Or are you saying that it's okay for white people to be drains on the community, but not for immigrants because 'they were here first'?

It has nothing to do with skin colour. I might be willing to let my lazy brother use my spare bedroom but I'm damned if I'll extend that courtesy to some guy I hardly know. I'm quite willing to admit we have some useless home-grown people. That does not mean we should be importing more.

Wherever immigrants migrate, the economy booms, because 90% of them are such hard workers.

Do you have any cite to support this? Because a couple of the ones I've already posted on this thread would seem to contradict you.

10 grand spent on a new immigrant will return WAY MORE money in the long run than 10 grand dropped on White people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

Unless you can find some citation to support that I'm afraid I'll have to simply dismiss it as a racist statement.

Sorry--early immigrants got TONS of help. 

The community helped them build their hose.  They fed them until they got up on their feet.

In fact, in the earliest of days, there was quite a bit of social welfare programs!

Again, I'm going to have to ask for citations, as your claims go quite against what I know of history.

[takeanumber]

QUOTE 

QUOTE 

"Swamped" implies that it's a problem.

If you care about the welfare of this country it is.

How so? Your reply seemed to say "Who cares if Canada's home grown culture is swamped by foreigners. There's nothing special about it anyway."

How nativist.

QUOTE 

Half the justification for accepting immigrants is economic. The second half is that Canada is a multi-cultural country that is made stronger by enhancing the mosaic.

I have been following immigration for some time, and I have never seen anyone raise this as a reason for immigration. Do you have any kind of cite from anywhere which supports this?

(Trudeau, 1982), (Canadian Values Study, (ongoing) 2004)

Or are you saying that it's okay for white people to be drains on the community, but not for immigrants because 'they were here first'?

It has nothing to do with skin colour. I might be willing to let my lazy brother use my spare bedroom but I'm damned if I'll extend that courtesy to some guy I hardly know. I'm quite willing to admit we have some useless home-grown people. That does not mean we should be importing more.

You imply all immigrants don't work.

This is not the case.

QUOTE 

Wherever immigrants migrate, the economy booms, because 90% of them are such hard workers.

Do you have any cite to support this? Because a couple of the ones I've already posted on this thread would seem to contradict you.

(StatsCan data, 2002) (Ritzk, 2001)

QUOTE 

10 grand spent on a new immigrant will return WAY MORE money in the long run than 10 grand dropped on White people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

Unless you can find some citation to support that I'm afraid I'll have to simply dismiss it as a racist statement.

(Ritzk, 2001)

QUOTE 

Sorry--early immigrants got TONS of help. 

The community helped them build their hose.  They fed them until they got up on their feet.

In fact, in the earliest of days, there was quite a bit of social welfare programs!

Again, I'm going to have to ask for citations, as your claims go quite against what I know of history.

("An early history of New Brunswick", 1984)

For somebody who so is concerned about their 'culture' and 'history', you sure don't seem to know a lot about how this country was built. Perhaps if you practised what you preached, that soap box of yours would be a little more sturdy, and you wouldn't be pwned so much.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[Argus]

Half the justification for accepting immigrants is economic. The second half is that Canada is a multi-cultural country that is made stronger by enhancing the mosaic.

I have been following immigration for some time, and I have never seen anyone raise this as a reason for immigration. Do you have any kind of cite from anywhere which supports this?

(Trudeau, 1982), (Canadian Values Study, (ongoing) 2004)

That is not a quote of any kind. Learn how to quote or learn how to back up your opinions with logic.

You imply all immigrants don't work.

This is not the case.

All immigrants do not work. That does not imply that no immigrants work. Learn the difference.

 

Wherever immigrants migrate, the economy booms, because 90% of them are such hard workers.

Do you have any cite to support this? Because a couple of the ones I've already posted on this thread would seem to contradict you.

(StatsCan data, 2002) (Ritzk, 2001)

That once again is not a citation of any kind. You have nothing to back up your opinions with?

QUOTE 

10 grand spent on a new immigrant will return WAY MORE money in the long run than 10 grand dropped on White people in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

Unless you can find some citation to support that I'm afraid I'll have to simply dismiss it as a racist statement.

(Ritzk, 2001)

Once again, you have posted nothing in support of what is apparently just your opinion. Learn what constitutes a cite or learn how to back up your opinons with logical inference.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, you're going to have to accept the fact that this isn't as much of a problem as you think it is. It isn't a cover-up or conspiracy on the part of the major parties, it's just not enough of a concern for anyone to make it a major issue.

It's health care, taxes and the sponsorship scandal this time around.

[August1991]

I've seen nothing to indicate that immigrants make up any substantial portion of emigrants

Between 1996-2001, we accepted 1,217,000 immigrants. In the same period, we had 376,000 emigrants. This is high by international (Australia, NZ, US) standards.

StatCan Growth by Source

-----

I remember reading this Globe article you cite (and other articles based on the same StatCan data). I believe that overall, people born outside Canada still have more wealth (StatCan on Wealth)

I don't want to get into a Stats war (unless you think this question is worth pursuing). We might both agree to say that, for some reason, current immigrants to Canada are apparently not doing as well a previous immigrants. [is that even true? Dunno.]

-----

In particular the passage" many recent immigrants have good professional qualifications but limited language skills." Only 4 in 10 immigrants come in through the skills program.

This is critical, IMV. Family Class and Refugees make up the majority of our immigrants. This is a political issue and has nothing to do with economics. I think the 4 in 10 figure is too high. When a skilled person is accepted, dependants also get accepted. In terms of immigrant visas issued, how many persons were in fact selected by skills criteria?

-----

Q: How many immigrants on welfare?  A: It is also relevent to consider the fuss Bob Rae's government kicked up over immigrant resettlement costs. 

The relevant point here is that the feds used to pick up settlement costs through agreements with the provinces. No more. Then the provinces downloaded to the cities. This is mostly a Toronto issue.

------

Turkish mail order brides in Denmark

I fought my way through the verbiage of your source and never did find the stat in question. (I even did a search on '95' without success.)

My point? For many reasons, the Muslim experience in Europe is not the same as the Muslim experience in North America. (That's why I gave the Dearborn example.)

-----

580,000 Muslims in Canada in 2001.

I would suggest to you that there was likely some underreporting going on given the current world situation and the fear of muslims, particularly newcomers, at being singled out.

Huh?

-----

The most significant stat I saw here overall is that the Muslim population grew from about 1.2% of the whole population in 1991 to 2% of the whole population in 2001.

Now, if this frightens you, then I guess we should be concerned about this issue. Otherwise, it's a tempest in a glass of water.

Argus, with all this said, I share your concern about immigration, what it means to Canada, the fact that everyone is afraid to discuss it.

But as an ambivalent Canadian, I am proud that our immigration policies are basically "colour-blind". That says something to everyone in the world.

I also think that family re-unification should be a cornerstone of immigration policy.

[takeanumber]

(Ritzk, 2001)

It IS a citation.

Read a style guide.

Better yet--pick up a journal once in awhile and at least get some original material to spew instead of the prejudiced crap you were raised on.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[Argus]

Argus, you're going to have to accept the fact that this isn't as much of a problem as you think it is. It isn't a cover-up or conspiracy on the part of the major parties, it's just not enough of a concern for anyone to make it a major issue.

It's health care, taxes and the sponsorship scandal this time around.

I'm not sying Immigration is a "major" issue. The major issues are invariably economic. That's why the government is able to get away with doing things which go against what the majority of Canadians want. Because while their actions aren't supported by the public at large the issue isn't as important to the public as, for example, health care.

That does not mean it's not an important issue for the future of Canada.

[Argus]

In particular the passage" many recent immigrants have good professional qualifications but limited language skills." Only 4 in 10 immigrants come in through the skills program.

This is critical, IMV. Family Class and Refugees make up the majority of our immigrants. This is a political issue and has nothing to do with economics. I think the 4 in 10 figure is too high. When a skilled person is accepted, dependants also get accepted. In terms of immigrant visas issued, how many persons were in fact selected by skills criteria?

The figure for the skills category is about 123k, well over half of all applicants. However, each category includes both "Principal Applicants" and dependants. So overall probably about 1/3 to 1/4 of those in the skills cagetory are actually considered skilled. More importantly, the percentage of immigrants with neither English nor French language skills has actually been going up Immigrant language skills and is currently at 46% of all immigrants.

Argus, with all this said, I share your concern about immigration, what it means to Canada, the fact that everyone is afraid to discuss it.

But as an ambivalent Canadian, I am proud that our immigration policies are basically "colour-blind".  That says something to everyone in the world. 

I don't have a problem with the colour of immigrants. I have a problem with what I see as the growing size of "foreign" communities in Canada, filled with millions of people who are considered "Canadians" but have shown no particular interest in being assimilated into the larger community, who still are, in almost every way, members of their previous national groups. And who moreover bring with them and keep alive, the hatreds and habits ingrained in them from living in their previous cultures.

Muslims with sympathies to Al Quaeda and hatred of Jews and Americans are merely the most recent concern

I also think that family re-unification should be a cornerstone of immigration policy.

The cornerstone of our immigration policy ought to be bringing over the very best educated and skilled immigrants who are most likely to contribute economically to Canada without upsetting its social fabric. They can bring their immediate families with them. As for grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters - they can visit, but I have no interst in bringing them to Canada unless they are skilled enough to make their own way here, and determined to fit into Canadian life.

[Argus]

(Ritzk, 2001)

It IS a citation.

Read a style guide.

Better yet--pick up a journal once in awhile and at least get some original material to spew instead of the prejudiced crap you were raised on.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

Apparently you don't know what a cite is in this medium. Giving me the name of a book or a study is not a cite. You think I'm going to go to the library and read through it for whatever particular passage you're referring to?

I will take your nonsensical ranting as nothing but uneducated personal opinon.

[August1991]

I don't have a problem with the colour of immigrants. I have a problem with what I see as the growing size of "foreign" communities in Canada, filled with millions of people who are considered "Canadians" but have shown no particular interest in being assimilated into the larger community

There you go again. What do you mean by "foreign"? "Assimilated" into what? What is Canada?

More specifically, should immigrants be selected based on some criteria about their willingness to assimilate into something called Canada? There used to be points for "personal suitability" but I think that's gone now.

The cornerstone of our immigration policy ought to be bringing over the very best educated and skilled immigrants who are most likely to contribute economically to Canada without upsetting its social fabric. They can bring their immediate families with them. As for grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters...

This is more or less the case now. Family class cases refer to spouses, kids and parents. A Canadians should have the right to marry whoever they want and have that person become an immigrant.

One point you have missed in this thread is the whole refugee immigration process. Frankly, this is a mess and I suspect is the basic cause of all the bad stats and problems you refer to. The Charter says that "anyone in Canada is entitled to due process". In the case of a potential refugee, this means anyone who gets here is entitled to a long drawn out process to hear their claim.