Visible Minorities to be majority in 25 years

[wyly]

That's really you're only defense, isn't it? Wide open immigration, displacing the populace with millions of foreigners like you can't be objected to on any basis unless one is a bigot.

yup...bigot(VISIBLE minority)

You can't actually make a rational economic or demographic argument supporting why we're bringing in so many immigrants. Instead you just cast blanket accusations.

in what sense is VISIBLE MINORITYan economic arguement?? please enlighten us how immigrants are more likely to have University education than Canadians and their children become University graduates in far larger numbers than Canadian born, how is that bad for our economy?...and how is VISIBLE MINORITY to be taken in any other way but bigoted???

Still trying to get your uncle Igor to in?

most are dead and the ones that aren't are very well off and happy where they are, it's surprising how well those Europeans live...but then you'd actually have to leave the farm once in your life time to know that...

[wyly]

I don't know anyone on here who's advocating for that.

it anything but wide open and never has been...

[bush_cheney2004]

yup...bigot(VISIBLE minority)

The term "Visible Minority" is bigoted by design....one of the dumbest things I have ever encountered in a government's lexicon.

[M.Dancer]

The term "Visible Minority" is bigoted by design....one of the dumbest things I have ever encountered in a government's lexicon.

When I lived in Montreal the term invisible minority was floated about....don't remember what it meant...

[cybercoma]

I for one have no problem with immigrants so long as they are hard working and adhere to Canadian values.

This is where we enter a philosophical debate about what "Canadian" values are. I'm all for universal values, rather than nihilistic moral relativism; however, defining particularly Canadian values may prove impossible. Try explaining them to an immigrant when we can't even explain them to each other.

Edited March 10, 2010 by cybercoma

[ToadBrother]

This is where we enter a philosophical debate about what "Canadian" values are. I'm all for universal values, rather than nihilistic moral relativism; however, defining particularly Canadian values may prove impossible. Try explaining them to an immigrant when we can't even explain them to each other.

I think the problems are that "morals" and "values" are loaded words. But certainly we can describe, with a broad brush, features of our society; such as the rule of law, protections of civil liberties and so forth which are key facets of Canadian society. Cultural values are always hard to pin down, and, unfortunately, are somewhat vulnerable to alteration by those attempting to express them. Certainly the UK is now doing that, trying to create at least somewhat descriptive notion of what it is to be British, that isn't just a pack of cliches, but does attempt to express those underlying ideas that make up "Britishness". I see no reason that Canada and other Western nations cannot do the same, to make the point that we accept people from all over the world, but that certain fundamental aspects of our culture are non-negotiable.

[ToadBrother]

The term "Visible Minority" is bigoted by design....one of the dumbest things I have ever encountered in a government's lexicon.

I don't see how that follows. Obviously people from India or China are going to stand out in a society dominated by people of European origin. Stating that is hardly bigoted, nor is making demographic projections based on that.

[cybercoma]

I'm sure you have a very compelling argument, but it's very difficult to discern amongst the ad hominem attacks and faulty assumptions:

It's rare enough that I'm still somewhat surprised when I run into a non-white person who does not speak with a heavy accent.

Yes, I am, because they are, for the most part, from third world countries, have poor language skills, perform poorly economically, and have much more difficulty integrating because of their widely different cultural and religious backgrounds. An immigrant from, for example, Poland, has a far easier time.

Not only do you not have any evidence to support you claim, but for some particular reason, probably bigotry and racism, you seem to believe that people with accents cannot be productive members of society. To be quite honest with you, should you move at your age to another country, you too would have an accent to the locals. Forget another country even, move to Quebec. If you did learn French at all, perhaps you would speak it with a heavy English accent. Does that all of a sudden mean that you're "undesirable" or incapable of adopting to local customs and values?

Of course not, because you're not from a "third world country", as you say. However, the economic conditions within a country does not determine the abilities of the people within it. Dambisa Moyo is a brilliant Oxford taught economist that is from Zambia originally. She also received her Masters from Harvard. She happens to be black, speaks with an accent, and comes from what you would probably consider a third world country.

Perhaps the problem here isn't with various cultural and religious backgrounds integrating into society, but backwards conservative bigots like yourself not allowing them to integrate into our society. You would have the doors locked before they even arrive. And based on what? The colour of their skin, their religion, their country of origin, completely arbitrary distinctions that you personally find undesirable.

Not only do you fail to support what you're saying with any evidence, I can think of myriad reasons people would have a hard time becoming productive in a foreign country--local bigotry being amongst the largest factors, but you instantly point the finger at them. You are the one that has put the blinders on to all evidence that contradicts your wholly bigoted claims. You are looking at the evidence with the assumption that particular people (specifically non-whites, judging by your opening post) are incapable of integrating. Countless examples exist of perfectly capable doctors, engineers, and academics working menial minimum wage jobs because they are not given the opportunities here. Our government makes no qualms about importing labour for the jobs "Canadians don't want to do." However, they have an accent, so they mustn't be as capable as Canadian born ones, right?

Moreover, your use of ad hominem attacks--

I think PC zealots are brainless imbeciles, so I never really care about their opinions.

The clarity of your vision has led me on previous occasions to consider you to be, intellectually speaking, legally blind.

--is not only childish, but shows that you really have nothing pertinent to add to your bigoted grand-standing. Edited March 10, 2010 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

I see no reason that Canada and other Western nations cannot do the same, to make the point that we accept people from all over the world, but that certain fundamental aspects of our culture are non-negotiable.

I would actually say they have done that to a certain extent in the new Citizenship Guide, some omissions notwithstanding.

[ToadBrother]

I would actually say they have done that to a certain extent in the new Citizenship Guide, some omissions notwithstanding.

In a lot of ways I think a lot of Western countries are going to start looking to the US, which has, historically, done a much better job at integrating immigrants. For a lot of years, multiculturalism advocates have looked down their nose at the Melting Pot as an inferior process, and yet, for the most part, the US, despite some incredibly persistent racial and immigration issues, simply does not have the problems that Canada, the UK and other Western European countries are having.

I'm not saying the US is perfect, but I think the Melting Pot is much more a recipe for unity and for maintaining core social ideals in the face of people whose backgrounds and insular natures can lead to the kinds of problems seen elesewhere.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

I would agree to a certain extent, but I don't see Canada's multicultural policy disappearing. There may be some changes to the way that we do things, but it won't be a wholesale shift in direction. Canada hasn't experienced a lot of the problems that Europe has really (though, I suppose it has happened to some extent in Montreal), so I don't think there will be a rush to change.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

for the most part, the US, despite some incredibly persistent racial and immigration issues, simply does not have the problems that Canada, the UK and other Western European countries are having.

Immigrants destroyed the World Trade Center. Violent crime and economic disparity are staggering in the United States, compared to other Western nations. I would hardly say their idea of complete integration into the loneliness of a culture that values individuality over community, and independence over social welfare, has been a glowing success.

[Smallc]

The other things I would say about that; with the emergence of a second language group as a real force in the US, it may become very difficult to maintain the melting pot as time goes on.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't see how that follows. Obviously people from India or China are going to stand out in a society dominated by people of European origin. Stating that is hardly bigoted, nor is making demographic projections based on that.

"Visible minority" is bigoted by design because it emphasizes physical or cosmetic attribute departure(s) from "white" or "Caucasian", ignoring all others, including language, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc. It is a very stupid term that proudly announces institutional bigotry based on labeling anything and everything as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour".

[bush_cheney2004]

The other things I would say about that; with the emergence of a second language group as a real force in the US, it may become very difficult to maintain the melting pot as time goes on.

No habla Espanol?

[ToadBrother]

Immigrants destroyed the World Trade Center.

Last time I checked, they were in the US on visas.

This is what I hate about these sorts of conversations, whole bunches of things get confused. Are we talking about immigrants, people with work or education visas, refugees, what?

I knew a woman who looked into immigrating to the US because her boyfriend was an American, and it was actually damned hard. Even getting married wasn't enough, there were lots of hoops to jump through.

[bush_cheney2004]

Immigrants destroyed the World Trade Center. Violent crime and economic disparity are staggering in the United States, compared to other Western nations. I would hardly say their idea of complete integration into the loneliness of a culture that values individuality over community, and independence over social welfare, has been a glowing success.

305,000,000 vs. 35,000,000....and it's not just the weather.

[ToadBrother]

"Visible minority" is bigoted by design because it emphasizes physical or cosmetic attribute departure(s) from "white" or "Caucasian", ignoring all others, including language, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc. It is a very stupid term that proudly announces institutional bigotry based on labeling anything and everything as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour".

So it's bigoted because it concerns itself with one particular demographic element? Do you think a census form asking "Are you Catholic" is also bigoted?

[Smallc]

It is a very stupid term that proudly announces institutional bigotry based on labeling anything and everything as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour".

The purpose is the exact opposite in fact. The distinction is made in order to ensure that said people are not being discriminated against because of being in the minority.

[Smallc]

Even getting married wasn't enough, there were lots of hoops to jump through.

That's actually the same here. I know a couple of Americans who are still Americans. One is trying to become Canadian.

[bush_cheney2004]

So it's bigoted because it concerns itself with one particular demographic element? Do you think a census form asking "Are you Catholic" is also bigoted?

Only if no other choices were presented for "religion". But hell, since you mentioned it, Canada has a "problem" with bigoted preferences for Catholics and Protestants instantiated in the constitution!

[ToadBrother]

The other things I would say about that; with the emergence of a second language group as a real force in the US, it may become very difficult to maintain the melting pot as time goes on.

That could be interesting. To be fair, that element has been there in some places for some time (South Florida, for instance). Still, one gets a pretty good sense that Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal), aren't crossing the Rio Grande to turn California or Texas into the New New Mexico. Most seem rather dedicated to getting the hell out of Mexico and giving themselves and their children the kinds of opportunities that it is now clear Mexican society is never going to be able to offer so many south of the border. Besides, most of these people are not unilingual Spanish-speakers, so it's not quite the situation you find with other countries and self-isolating immigrant groups. Quite the opposite, Latinos, beginning with Cuban ex-pats, have become quite attuned to the political system.

Edited March 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

I'm not assuming that the Mexican immigrants intend to change things, but I think it's starting to have an interesting effect on US language dynamics.

[bush_cheney2004]

The purpose is the exact opposite in fact. The distinction is made in order to ensure that said people are not being discriminated against because of being in the minority.

Wiki say:

The classification “visible minorities” has attracted controversy. In March 2007, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination described the term as racist because it singles out a group.

Another criticism arises regarding the composition of “visible minorities” as defined by the Canadian government. The Canadian government defines visible minorities as “non-white” or “non-Caucasian” and further states that it comprises the following groups: “Black, South Asian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian, Filipino, Arab/West Asian, Latin American”. Furthermore, the category “West Asian” may offend those descended from the people of Georgia, and Armenia, if these do not regard themselves as Non-White or West Asian, in fact this groups have been the name giver to the term Caucasian.

Similarly, a Latin American, even if entirely of European ancestry, is implicitly defined as “non-white” or “non-Caucasian” under the definition of visible minority. Again, this use of the term “visible minorities” implies a Eurocentric definition of “white” and “Caucasian”.

Critics have noted that the groups comprising “visible minorities” have little in common with each other, as they include some disadvantaged ethnic groups and other groups who are not disadvantaged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_minority

[M.Dancer]

"Visible minority" is bigoted by design because it emphasizes physical or cosmetic attribute departure(s) from "white" or "Caucasian", ignoring all others, including language, gender, disability, sexual orientation, etc. It is a very stupid term that proudly announces institutional bigotry based on labeling anything and everything as "persons, other than Aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour".

I endorse your spelling of colour....as opposed to coloured spelling...