What amount of immigration do you support?

[Michael Hardner]

That's not what I was saying at all. They want a piece of what's already been built here instead of building their own country.

Ok, then. How are they different from our ancestors ?

Edited April 21, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[dizzy]

That's not what I was saying at all. They want a piece of what's already been built here instead of building their own country. Do you think they'd want to come here if Canada didn't already have a high standard of living? No, they'd pick another country.

I usually only take on clients that I know will pay well and on time.

I hope no one thinks less of me.

[wyly]

That's not what I was saying at all. They want a piece of what's already been built here instead of building their own country. Do you think they'd want to come here if Canada didn't already have a high standard of living? No, they'd pick another country.

people move for all sorts of reasons...some for political reasons, some move for educational reasons, some financial, some for weather, others for a change of scenery and still others merely for the adventure...there are Canadians who move to third world countries so they can live like kings on the dollar exchange...

[Argus]

Nonsense. I wasn't critiquing your general stance on immigration, but your explicit remarks which evoked old bigotries. Your patronizing "toilets are magical fountains" theme.

I can be as patronizing to idiots as I want, and have been for much of my life. As for toilets - I used to live in a Minto building which, during a period of oversupply of rental housing, was also used to house refugees and immigrants on welfare - paid for by the city (which always irked me given my rent was not cheap). I saw enough, and the Minto guys told me enough to lend more than sufficient credence to the claim of ignorance and backwardness on the part of these people. From starting fires on the floor of their apartments, to throwing garbage, including bones, directly into the halls outside their doors, to urinating in the plastic plants in the lobby, stealing clothes from the washing machines and dryers and trying to plant crops on the lawn, there really was nothing these people didn't try.

As for "dealing with [my] ilk for years"...sure, I have little doubt you've been called on your smug bigotries by others.

I have dealt, in my dissaproval of immigration, with a long list of smamry, arrogant left-wing supporters of immigration, most of whom had virtually NO knowledge of the facts of immigration for many years. I'm used to the ignorance, used to the self-righteousness, and used to the overweaning sense of moral superiority of such folk. I dismiss them in my patronizing way, as intellectual inferiors of no real substance.

[dizzy]

I can be as patronizing to idiots as I want, and have been for much of my life. As for toilets - I used to live in a Minto building which, during a period of oversupply of rental housing, was also used to house refugees and immigrants on welfare - paid for by the city (which always irked me given my rent was not cheap). I saw enough, and the Minto guys told me enough to lend more than sufficient credence to the claim of ignorance and backwardness on the part of these people. From starting fires on the floor of their apartments, to throwing garbage, including bones, directly into the halls outside their doors, to urinating in the plastic plants in the lobby, stealing clothes from the washing machines and dryers and trying to plant crops on the lawn, there really was nothing these people didn't try.

So, your reference point for all immigrants is based on a group of refugees requiring emergency housing.

[Argus]

Ok - how does this relate to your case ? Keep in mind that Ireland is part of the British Isles and the Irish and British haven't historically played that well together.

There really was never a whole lot of cultural dissimilarities between the Irish and English. There was a political clash based on England ruling Ireland and the Catholic Irish not liking it at all, for sure, but periods of violence were intermittent and widely spaced.

How ? By showing the incidents of neighbourly strife between countries of different cultures in history ? I'm pretty sure it would be hard to have any one group stick out if you looked at it objectively.

This is a cop-out. There are scores of nations in the world with sizable Muslim numbers, many of which have other large religious groups, either as majority or minorities. I can't attest to having done a study, but my impression from many years of observation is that there is violence in all of them, with the Muslim sides wanting rule by Islamic law, from Africa to the Middle East, to Asia. This is the thing you lefties don't seem to ever take into account. Islam is not just a religion. It's a code of legal and political conduct designed for states to operate under - and that makes it a political system as much as Communism or Fascism.

But why look at these groups at all ? What suggests to you that we need to change how we've done it ?

If as Macleans suggests, 95% of the gang violence in Toronto is being committed by Jamaicans, do you not think there might be a debate there which says we should no longer bring in Jamaicans? Surely this would be unfair to individual law-abiding Jamaicans who hope to emigrate to Canada, but so what? We should only be taking into account what is in Canada's interest. If more than half the criminals in Ottawa jails are Somalians, doesn't that suggest we should allow in no more Somalians? Every year groups like Consumer Reports test all available cars and give out a list of which ones are the best value for the money, which ones are safest, which ones are least likely to break down and have problems. Why should we not have something similar on immigrants and guide our selection process accordingly?

The case for immigration is generally done as a 'no brainer' with an economic justification, as are the cases for globalization etc.

Are you saying your unstinting support for the current immigration system lacks any actual knowledge about its costs and benefits? That basically you "heard it was a good thing" and so support it without question, thought or inquiry?

What other groups ?

That would be the people you referred to as previous immigrants, ie, our ancestors.

[Argus]

I think the ideal of multiculturalism is something of a misnomer.

1st generation immigrants may or may not hold onto their 'culture', they often don't. The Mrs. was born overseas, and her parents use the shopping channel, speak english, attend local events, etc.

The overwhelming majority of the time, the 2nd generation of children are simply absorbed into the North American culture which is consumerism. They start wearing fashionable clothes, watching American television, and acting like the rest of us.

And yet more than half of Canadian Muslims feel Sharia law should form the basis family law, and from what I understand, radicalization is highest among younger Muslims, including those born here. I believe almost all the Toronto Eighteen were born and raised in Canada, were they not?

[Born Free]

.. but my impression from many years of observation is that there is violence in all of them, with the Muslim sides wanting rule by Islamic law, from Africa to the Middle East, to Asia. This is the thing you lefties don't seem to ever take into account. Islam is not just a religion. It's a code of legal and political conduct designed for states to operate under - and that makes it a political system as much as Communism or Fascism.

Whats with all your "lefites" crap? Are you that obsessed that you have to have everything coded as being either left of right? Give it a rest. You look stupid.

[Argus]

But most immigrants are not causing any of the problems that keep getting brought up. Why should they be tarred with insult and criticism and recrimination for things they aren't responsible for?

Most Pintos never burst into flames and killed their owners. Only a small percentage did. Most LG fridges never caught fire and burned down the homes they were installed in. Only a small number did. Most people who smoke never get lung cancer, only a small percentage do.

If it's something we can choose we prefer not to take the chance when there are alternative choices available.

[Machjo]

And yet more than half of Canadian Muslims feel Sharia law should form the basis family law, and from what I understand, radicalization is highest among younger Muslims, including those born here. I believe almost all the Toronto Eighteen were born and raised in Canada, were they not?

And so were the members of the FLQ, environmental terrorists, the Dukhobor terrorits we had in the past, etc. So, clearly immigration has little to nothing to do with terrorism, nor does Islam. The Doukhobor group that engaged in terrorism in BC in the past are a radical Christian Anarchist group. The FLQ, if religious, were most likely Catholic, but even more likely they were secularist nationalists. So what does immigration have to do with any of this?

[Argus]

So, your reference point for all immigrants is based on a group of refugees requiring emergency housing.

No, though living in a riding with the highest percentage of Muslims in Ontario for more than a decade certainly forms a part of the background of my feelings. I was replying here only to the claim that my sarcastic reference to the technological prowess of newcomers was somehow without basis.

But why should I not use that experience? I lived in a neighborhood which was fairly clean, safe, and middle class for some years. After immigrants and refugees started flooding the neighborhood crime skyrocketed, especially violent crime, to the point the police had to put in a sub station up the street. And the standards of the building where I lived deteriorated markedly due to the actions of the other tenants - many of whom weren't paying. Thus did the federal immigration system detrimentally affect my life and safety. I might add that during this period of time I was also working poor, and so the influx of people with few job skills also impacted my hopes for employment and the wages I could command. This is the personal impact of immigration on me. The national impact I have stated numerable times, and continue to ask why, and what provable benefits we derive from the current system.

And no one answers except with cliches which don't stand up to scrutiny.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

Whats with all your "lefites" crap? Are you that obsessed that you have to have everything coded as being either left of right? Give it a rest. You look stupid.

Whenever immigration is discussed the sides fall into a predictable pattern. The Left generally supports immigration, the Right generally opposes it. Very rarely do I find anyone on this group I would endorse as conservative supporting and defending the present system of immigration and very rarely do I find someone on the Left attacking it and calling for severe limits on immigration.

As I said, it's as predictable as your type getting into a frothing, brainless rage at anyone daring to question the system you support - though you know nothing whatsoever about it.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Argus

[Born Free]

Whenever immigration is discussed the sides fall into a predictable pattern. The Left generally supports immigration, the Right generally opposes it.

Thats a myth...

[Argus]

And so were the members of the FLQ, environmental terrorists, the Dukhobor terrorits we had in the past, etc. So, clearly immigration has little to nothing to do with terrorism, nor does Islam. The Doukhobor group that engaged in terrorism in BC in the past are a radical Christian Anarchist group. The FLQ, if religious, were most likely Catholic, but even more likely they were secularist nationalists. So what does immigration have to do with any of this?

Terrorism is merely a sidebar to the actual discussion here. I oppose immigration from many standpoints, primarily cultural and economic. AS far as terrorism go, what is in the past is in the past. The terrorism and religious violence today comes from Muslims. As for the Doukhobors, I would not be in favour of bringing in masses of them either, nor, for that matter, masses of bible thumping, born again Christians.

[Argus]

Thats a myth...

Drivel.

[Michael Hardner]

There really was never a whole lot of cultural dissimilarities between the Irish and English. There was a political clash based on England ruling Ireland and the Catholic Irish not liking it at all, for sure, but periods of violence were intermittent and widely spaced.

There weren't a lot of cultural dissimilarities but you did have hundreds of years of violence. Was that the religion or the culture causing it ?

Is the fact that the killings intermittent and widely spaced relevant ?

This is a cop-out. There are scores of nations in the world with sizable Muslim numbers, many of which have other large religious groups, either as majority or minorities. I can't attest to having done a study, but my impression from many years of observation is that there is violence in all of them, with the Muslim sides wanting rule by Islamic law, from Africa to the Middle East, to Asia. This is the thing you lefties don't seem to ever take into account. Islam is not just a religion. It's a code of legal and political conduct designed for states to operate under - and that makes it a political system as much as Communism or Fascism.

In other words - there's a culture to be considered. That's fine, and I always say that culture is to be blamed in cases where the religion as a whole may not be the cause. For example, violence in Christian African countries. But I would say that the culture is something that Canada offers an alternative to - therefore accepting people who want to abandon it. If you're against the culture, you can starve it by siphoning off the people from there. If that's how you want to play it.

There's no cop out here - there's just a demand that you be clear on what you're talking about. We often hear on how the left is reacting with knee-jerk or irrational arguments. So then, talk the walk -> set forward your criteria and the reasons for it.

If as Macleans suggests, 95% of the gang violence in Toronto is being committed by Jamaicans, do you not think there might be a debate there which says we should no longer bring in Jamaicans? Surely this would be unfair to individual law-abiding Jamaicans who hope to emigrate to Canada, but so what? We should only be taking into account what is in Canada's interest. If more than half the criminals in Ottawa jails are Somalians, doesn't that suggest we should allow in no more Somalians? Every year groups like Consumer Reports test all available cars and give out a list of which ones are the best value for the money, which ones are safest, which ones are least likely to break down and have problems. Why should we not have something similar on immigrants and guide our selection process accordingly?

I haven't seen that suggestion from MacLeans. I heard a 'we don't know but...' number of 80%. Why don't you give us a cite ?

Are you saying your unstinting support for the current immigration system lacks any actual knowledge about its costs and benefits? That basically you "heard it was a good thing" and so support it without question, thought or inquiry?

I have heard the economic argument, that more people make for a bigger economy. That does make sense to me. I met someone from Wales who described his area as never having new homes built or new businesses created... not much economy and not much immigration to his area either.

[Machjo]

I don't see how a simple quota system could solve the vast majority of problems with regards to immigration. If we did that, then the vast majority of immigrants would be more highly skilled and higher paid than the average Canadian.

I would make some exceptions for people whose lives are genuinely in danger, such as Iran's Baha'is for example, though even there we should have some kind of minimal standard, such as at least knowing the local language and culture to a reasonable degree as a start, after which we may have to provide them with some job skills afterwards. That would be about the only kind of exception I'd make.

[bloodyminded]

Most Pintos never burst into flames and killed their owners. Only a small percentage did. Most LG fridges never caught fire and burned down the homes they were installed in. Only a small number did. Most people who smoke never get lung cancer, only a small percentage do.

If it's something we can choose we prefer not to take the chance when there are alternative choices available.

We're not talking about cars or cigarettes, but about human beings who are not doing anything wrong.

[Argus]

We're not talking about cars or cigarettes, but about human beings who are not doing anything wrong.

Corporations recruit new employees from certain high ranked schools. Less known, but equally true, is they tend to dismiss applicants from other, less favoured schools. You might be really bright, might be an outstanding potential employee, but if you go to certain schools, some corporations and businesses will not even grant you an interview. Their studies show that the % of employees hired from your school who do well is considerably lower than the % from other schools, so they hire from those other schools. As long as they have more than enough applicants to choose from they will continue to focus on the schools which their records show them produce the best employees.

I see nothing wrong with this approach. Is it unfair to individuals? Yeah, I think so. But does it work for the corporations? Clearly. I'm not interested in us being "fair" to foreigners in the application of our immigration policy. I'm interested in doing what's best for us.

[dizzy]

Corporations recruit new employees from certain high ranked schools. Less known, but equally true, is they tend to dismiss applicants from other, less favoured schools. You might be really bright, might be an outstanding potential employee, but if you go to certain schools, some corporations and businesses will not even grant you an interview. Their studies show that the % of employees hired from your school who do well is considerably lower than the % from other schools, so they hire from those other schools. As long as they have more than enough applicants to choose from they will continue to focus on the schools which their records show them produce the best employees.

Citation, please.

[Argus]

Citation, please.

Why? Do you honestly have some doubt that corporate recruiters focus on the top universities?

[Michael Hardner]

Why? Do you honestly have some doubt that corporate recruiters focus on the top universities?

I think dizzy was somewhat surprised about the assertion that some schools are de facto 'blacklisted' as was I.

[Argus]

I think dizzy was somewhat surprised about the assertion that some schools are de facto 'blacklisted' as was I.

I didn't mean to put it as strongly as a blacklist. They don't recruit from those other schools, however, and if you send in an application, well, how much attention are you going to get coming from the University of Bridgeport when the company in question focuses all its recruitment efforts on the elite schools?

[dizzy]

I didn't mean to put it as strongly as a blacklist. They don't recruit from those other schools, however, and if you send in an application, well, how much attention are you going to get coming from the University of Bridgeport when the company in question focuses all its recruitment efforts on the elite schools?

Maybe a more accurate claim would be, "Some corporations recruit new employees from certain high ranked schools. Less known, but equally true, is that some of them tend to dismiss applicants from other, less favoured schools."

I wouldn't dispute the statement were it framed this way, but it would then also hold less weight. Next to none, actually.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't mean to put it as strongly as a blacklist. They don't recruit from those other schools, however, and if you send in an application, well, how much attention are you going to get coming from the University of Bridgeport when the company in question focuses all its recruitment efforts on the elite schools?

Ok, that's less surprising I suppose.