What amount of immigration do you support?

[Argus]

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

Why? I'm pointing out that the top corporations have many hundreds of places to go to recruit prospective employees, and they tend to focus their efforts on a small number of top schools because they believe they'll get better employees there.

How is that not analogous to what I suggested Canada do with its immigration?

[dizzy]

Why? I'm pointing out that the top corporations have many hundreds of places to go to recruit prospective employees, and they tend to focus their efforts on a small number of top schools because they believe they'll get better employees there.

How is that not analogous to what I suggested Canada do with its immigration?

My apologies, I thought you were suggesting that our immigration problem was sourced in a reality where corporations here only hired from specific universities. Instead, you're suggesting that immigration policy mirror those corporations who hire based on where a candidate completed their studies. So, I'll offer a different answer.

An economy has much more complex needs than a company that produces a particular type of widget. Using your argument, universities here should only be able to grant degrees in sectors where there is perceivable employment potential.

What any country needs are people who are committed, adaptable and growth-oriented. If you take in immigrants with these qualities, you're in a much better situation than with people so narrowly skilled that they become next decade's problem.

[Michael Hardner]

To add: that company doesn't go to those same top schools when they're hiring in their cafeteria.

[Argus]

An economy has much more complex needs than a company that produces a particular type of widget. Using your argument, universities here should only be able to grant degrees in sectors where there is perceivable employment potential.

This is nonsense, of course. The point is that top corporations know what the qualities are of the individuals they seek to hire, and feel, based on their experience, that they have a much better chance of getting those people at the top universities.

Likewise Canada knows or ought to know what type of immigrant it wants, which type is most succesful according to a variety of criteria. Thus the question would be would it be more likely to find such people in England or in Jamaica.

Another question would be; where is it most likely to find the worst immigrants? Where are the worst immigrants coming from? Is that likely to be Somalia and Jamaica, or Poland and Portugal?

What any country needs are people who are committed, adaptable and growth-oriented.

When we come up with a test that can read people's minds and souls you'll have a valid suggestion. Currently we're only capable of examining their backgrounds, what education and skills they have which are applicable to life in Canada, etc. The only thing we know about a person's values, really, would be based on the values of the society in which that person currently resides. And I'd suggest there is little to approve in the cultures of Jamaica and Somalia, and much to dissaprove of in the cultures of Yemen and Pakistan.

To put it more bluntly. You might very well find an outstanding immigrant from Pakistan. Maybe even two. But when you start bringing them in by the tens of thousands what you are doing is importing a small Pakistan, complete with cultural baggage. And there's little about Pakistan's cultural baggage that we should want to import into Canada.

[Argus]

To add: that company doesn't go to those same top schools when they're hiring in their cafeteria.

Companies don't have to put much effort into recruiting people who will be of no real importance to them. I would suggest we should consider all immigrants as having real value to us or we shouldn't be bringing them over. The notion we should import people to scrub our toilets is one I find amazing coming from purported left wingers.

[Michael Hardner]

The notion we should import people to scrub our toilets is one I find amazing coming from purported left wingers.

The idea doesn't come from left-wingers, but from right-wingers, namely the business sector.

[BrassTax]

All of it. We've got a virtually borderless world for corporations but not human beings. I mean, we're still people too for Christ's sakes aren't we?

What about prejudices towards unfettered greed or a lack of concern for the environment? I'd rather see character-based criteria used to determine which corporations should be allowed in and especially any that we allow to roam the world at will, resource companies in particular.

Perhaps if we treated corporations more like they were the aliens the world might be a little more livable for human beings and reduce the compulsion to move.

We have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, now we just need a Universal Declaration of Corporate Responsibility and a Code of Responsibility for Governments probably wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Here here, In complete accordance with you! Let's get rid of these silly quotas though. If they can be a contributing member of society, I say welcome!

[Argus]

The idea doesn't come from left-wingers, but from right-wingers, namely the business sector.

Well it came from you.

[Argus]

Here here, In complete accordance with you! Let's get rid of these silly quotas though. If they can be a contributing member of society, I say welcome!

There are probably about a billion people who would move here under those circumstanes. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing Canada as we know it would cease to exist then.

[Michael Hardner]

Well it came from you.

I hardly think I came up with it, since that's what has been happening for awhile now.

I have been told that the kitchens of Toronto restaurants are almost exclusively Sri Lankan. Likely an overstatement, but still...

[bloodyminded]

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.

Well, I grew up among "these people" as well, in a trailer park that sadly underscored the stereotype: except "these people" were, to my knowledge, approximately 100% whites of European ancestry who had lived in Canada for generations. The place was infested with carelessly tossed garbage, up to and including the carcasses of consumed animals; public urination was a mainstay tradition; theft...hopefully that goes without saying; and there was violence as well.

So, what we gonna do about this uncivilized plague of barbaric whiteys? Clearly, the problem rests with folks of European heritage.

Mind you, class-warfare bigotries about "trailer trash" (a class designation if ever I've heard one) tend to ignore the fact that the troublemakers were a minority.

Exactly as in the case you mention.

Edited April 28, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

I hardly think I came up with it, since that's what has been happening for awhile now.

I have been told that the kitchens of Toronto restaurants are almost exclusively Sri Lankan. Likely an overstatement, but still...

It is an undeniable truth that employers love to find employees who will work for next to nothing, and who can be bullied into doing whatever they're told without complaint. This is why business loves immigration. Is it your contention we ought to be bringing over immigrants in order to satisfy this desire?

[Argus]

Well, I grew up among "these people" as well, in a trailer park that sadly underscored the stereotype: except "these people" were, to my knowledge, approximately 100% whites of European ancestry who had lived in Canada for generations.

I'm not sure what you're point is but if it's that we shouldn't bring over white people who are losers and will go on welfare for the rest of their lives I'm in full agreement.

If on the other hand you're saying that since we have a lot of white people who don't pay taxes or who are on welfare we ought to be fair and bring over as many non-white people as we can to also not pay taxes or go on welfare then I'm afraid I disagree.

[dizzy]

This is nonsense, of course. The point is that top corporations know what the qualities are of the individuals they seek to hire, and feel, based on their experience, that they have a much better chance of getting those people at the top universities.

Likewise Canada knows or ought to know what type of immigrant it wants, which type is most succesful according to a variety of criteria. Thus the question would be would it be more likely to find such people in England or in Jamaica.

Another question would be; where is it most likely to find the worst immigrants? Where are the worst immigrants coming from? Is that likely to be Somalia and Jamaica, or Poland and Portugal?

To put it more bluntly. You might very well find an outstanding immigrant from Pakistan. Maybe even two. But when you start bringing them in by the tens of thousands what you are doing is importing a small Pakistan, complete with cultural baggage. And there's little about Pakistan's cultural baggage that we should want to import into Canada.

The type of immigrant our country wants mostly earnestly is skilled/educated. Look at the numbers on immigration by class for evidence. This can't effectively be sourced through a country of preference strategy. You use a point system to accomplish this and apply it to individuals. I've already provide this link, but these are the demand areas for economic class immigration.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp#list

Another thing to consider is that, if you apply a preferred nation approach to immigration, you enhance the conditions for ethnic grouping, which is apparently one of your issues.

Skilled immigrants who are single are the most globally mobile, so they will also jump ship more readily when job opportunities become available elsewhere. Family-oriented immigrants will tolerate lower pay and compromise more readily on work opportunities in favour of providing stability and opportunity to their children. And their kids, who grow up integrated within our culture and value systems, in turn contribute to the workforce when they complete their schooling.

When we come up with a test that can read people's minds and souls you'll have a valid suggestion. Currently we're only capable of examining their backgrounds, what education and skills they have which are applicable to life in Canada, etc. The only thing we know about a person's values, really, would be based on the values of the society in which that person currently resides. And I'd suggest there is little to approve in the cultures of Jamaica and Somalia, and much to dissaprove of in the cultures of Yemen and Pakistan.

How do you feel about China and India? These two countries are providing the majority of our immigrants.

[dizzy]

It is an undeniable truth that employers love to find employees who will work for next to nothing, and who can be bullied into doing whatever they're told without complaint. This is why business loves immigration. Is it your contention we ought to be bringing over immigrants in order to satisfy this desire?

Your "undeniable" is actually only "a grain of", The flip side of your rather cynical assessment is that many employers appreciate the work ethic of immigrants over lazy, entitled canadians.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure what you're point is but if it's that we shouldn't bring over white people who are losers and will go on welfare for the rest of their lives I'm in full agreement.

none of these poeple, to my knowledge, are immigrants, unless you go back a hell of a long ways. There was no welfarewhen their ancestors arrived.

If on the other hand you're saying that since we have a lot of white people who don't pay taxes or who are on welfare we ought to be fair and bring over as many non-white people as we can to also not pay taxes or go on welfare then I'm afraid I disagree.

No, your point was that the non-European immigrants were different, using a personal anecdote. So I used a personal anecdote to refute it.

Also, I never mentioned welfare, so I don't why you make that assumption.

[Michael Hardner]

This is why business loves immigration. Is it your contention we ought to be bringing over immigrants in order to satisfy this desire?

No, my contention is that the love of immigration comes from the business sector, which is right-wing.

You have acknowledged that.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

They very much mattered. They were builders and practitioners of a philosophy. They did not say `we are building this for the future people of our religion that will inherit it`.

My grandparents were immigrants who very much wanted their children & grand children to inherit what they built. They came to Canada and became Canadian, no Whining about preserving their language, religion or culture

[Michael Hardner]

their children & grand children

Of course.

The point being that America - referring to the continent - was formed on an idea, which has been successful. It was about setting up conditions for prosperity by respecting rights and diversity. See the First Amendment of the bill of rights.