What amount of immigration do you support?

[Argus]

Is your problem with immigration? It sounds like it has more to do with the present practice of multiculturalism.

I have a number of problems with immigration. Principally, no one has ever succesfully put a documented case for why we have so much of it and how it's in my interests. On the other hand, i can see all many of ways it is not in my interests, economically, culturally or otherwise. I can see a number of problems, and a number of dangers, and I can see no real benefits.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Argus

[wyly]

There are some people in Canada who'd vote for the BNP if they were in the UK.

there are a number in this forum who would vote for the Nazi's and their final solution were they a party in Canada...

[eyeball]

How does a civilization evolve - which implies continued progression - by absorbing massive numbers of people who cling to much less evolved cultures and then encouraging them to retain their less evolved cultures?

Yes, by mixing the biological and technological distinctiveness of each other's cultures we all come closer to perfection. Acceptance is utile.

[Argus]

There are some people in Canada who'd vote for the BNP if they were in the UK.

Most inpsired by that kind of thinking. Polls recently in the UK show up to 22% of people could vote BNP. And why? Because mass waves of immigration were brought over to effect wholesale changes in their nation without anyone asking them if that was wanted or telling them why it was being done. Testimony recently from a Labour party speechwriter which I believe, is on this topic has shown a desire to deliberately change the face of the UK for purely ideological reasons without ever asking the people if they wanted that to happen. And anyone who questioned any aspect of it was sneered at as some kind of racist goon.

Fact is if you tried to bring over millions of non-muslim foreigners and plunk them down in any Muslim country there'd be blood in the streets and a revolution. Not just Mulims nations either. If the Indian government announced it was going to bring over many millions of Christians - black Christians, the response would be something less than polite. If you tried to ship millions of White Christian into Japan there'd be civil war. And yet such is the mentality of the Left here that if you even admit any level of discomfort with millions upon millions of foreigners coming here and being encouraged to retain their native ways they sneer at you and dismiss you as some kind of bigoted cretin.

Mind you, the people from those nations above who have a far harsher mentality about such things are fawned over and excused their nationalistic tendancies because the Left would rather cut its throat than ever be seen to be remotely critical of anyone who isn't an Aryan.

Well, or a Jew, of course, but everyone knows how JEWS are! Right?

[bloodyminded]

Many live in huge immigrant communities filled with their countrymen - communities continually replenished with newcomers every year. Again, all of that was not the case in the past.

Oh, sure it was. Big time.

[Argus]

Yes, by mixing the biological and technological distinctiveness of each other's cultures we all come closer to perfection. Acceptance is utile.

Biological distinciveness? The only thing I can think of would be skin pigmentation. Are we spending tens of billions and restructuring our culture so that Canadians can have skin that's a few shades darker?

As for technological distinctiveness, I'm not sure how bringing over people who regard the oxen as high technology, and the toilet as a magic fountain is going to add much in the way of desirable technical distinctiveness to our repertoire.

[Argus]

Oh, sure it was. Big time.

No, it wasn't, not to the same extent. Sure there were small Italian neighborhoods and Polish neighborhoods. Sure. There are over 200,000 Sri Lankans living in Toronto. That's not an ethnic neighborhood or three, that's a mid-sized city. With that many people you can have masses of ethnic businesses, news and entertainment media, cultural organizations and the like which all hugely help to slow integration.

Further, all the rest of those things I listed were not in play back then.

[Argus]

there are a number in this forum who would vote for the Nazi's and their final solution were they a party in Canada...

Name them, genius.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

Biological distinciveness? The only thing I can think of would be skin pigmentation. Are we spending tens of billions and restructuring our culture so that Canadians can have skin that's a few shades darker?

As for technological distinctiveness, I'm not sure how bringing over people who regard the oxen as high technology, and the toilet as a magic fountain is going to add much in the way of desirable technical distinctiveness to our repertoire.

Perhaps someone made the unfortunate error of telling you that this is funny. But no one thinks of the toilet as a "magic fountain," except in the fevered, masturbatory fantasies of the bigots who despise chimeras that are non-existent.

[Argus]

Perhaps someone made the unfortunate error of telling you that this is funny. But no one thinks of the toilet as a "magic fountain," except in the fevered, masturbatory fantasies of the bigots who despise chimeras that are non-existent.

I love the rightous indignation of the Left.

It smells like... ignorance.

But that IS what they've always done best. Grats on the demo, chump.

[Machjo]

You have no evidence they will behave the same. These cultures are a lot more differant from ours than most previous cultures, and there are a lot more immigrants now than ever before. All the previous incidences of huge immigration waves were of people who mostly came from the British Isles and so had an almost identical culture to the one found here.

And the first Europeans integrated nicely, right? Oh, right, you mean 'integrate' in the transitive sense of the verb?

Further, we there is no evidence that Sikhs or Muslims fully integrate anywhere, regardless of how many generations live there. In every nation on Earth where there is any substantial minority of Muslims there is friction between them and the majority. Why is that?

Evidence please. What about the following domestic terrorist incidents in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada#Domestic_terrorism

It appears that nearly all, if not all, terrorist incidents in Canada were committed by Canadians of 'European' blood. And add to that that it would appear possibly none were immigrants. How do you reconcile that with your theories?

Further, there was no concept of multiculturalism in the past, no acceptance of differences.

Have you ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Rome tolerated the Greek language and culture, as it did the Hebrew, and the Jewish Faith, etc. as a pragmatic matter necessary to maintain the unity of the Empire. Of course without a common culture (Latin had always been limited to the elite classes), it was doomed to fail sooner or later, but by tolerating those cultures, the Empire managed to survive a little longer than had it tried to oppress them.

The British tried the same in India with similar results, as had the US in the Philippines, etc.

In fact, in the dark ages, Jews and non-catholic Christians retreated to Muslim Spain for protection, where freedom of religion was guaranteed.

Read up on your history.

Immigrants were very strongly, and sometimes pointedly instructed that the way to be Canadian, the only way to be accepted, was to learn our language and culture and blend in. That is not the case now and has not been for some decades.

Look up statistics Canada, why don't you. About 9% of Nunavummiut are functional in neither English nor French, and about 57% of Quebecers are not functional in English. Are you suggesting that Nunavut and Quebec are overrun by immigrants now? You really need to learn some Canadian demographics.

And further still, immigrants who came from the likes of Poland in the past were more or less cut off here and assimilated in large part because of that. Today's immigrants have satellite television, the internet, and easy telephone access with their homelands, as well as the means to return home fairly frequently. Many live in huge immigrant communities filled with their countrymen - communities continually replenished with newcomers every year. Again, all of that was not the case in the past.

Simple solution to that. Require them to know the local language of the place they're planning to move to before they move there. Bingo, problem solved.

You are basing your presumptions on past immigration waves despite the fact today's waves are not operating under anything like the same circumstances.

Before you comment on the past and Canada, you need to learn more history and Canadian demographics. Plenty of Canadians whose families have lived here for millennia still know neither official languages. Plenty of Canadians who can trace their origins in what is today Canada back to 400 years ago still cannot function in English. And even as far back as the Roman Empire at least we had multicultural societies. Heck, if you read the Old Testament, even it makes reference to cultural exchanges between various kingdoms, and that book was compiled starting an estimated 3000 years ago.

Yes, a common culture is necessary, with a minimum of a common language and knowledge of the predominant religion, customs, etc. This does not mean though that that common language needs be a common mother tongue, nor that knowledge of the predominant religion, mores, etc. mean having to agree with them and convert. All of this can easily be solved by simply requiring potential immigrants to pass a test and prove their ability to integrate via a quality job offer, etc. There is no need to show ethnic, national, religious and other prejudices.

[Michael Hardner]

You have no evidence they will behave the same. These cultures are a lot more differant from ours than most previous cultures, and there are a lot more immigrants now than ever before. All the previous incidences of huge immigration waves were of people who mostly came from the British Isles and so had an almost identical culture to the one found here.

We have also had people from Asia, Southern Europe, Ireland, the Carribean and Eastern Europe.

Further, we there is no evidence that Sikhs or Muslims fully integrate anywhere, regardless of how many generations live there. In every nation on Earth where there is any substantial minority of Muslims there is friction between them and the majority. Why is that? Further, there was no concept of multiculturalism in the past, no acceptance of differences. Immigrants were very strongly, and sometimes pointedly instructed that the way to be Canadian, the only way to be accepted, was to learn our language and culture and blend in. That is not the case now and has not been for some decades.

Your assertions are conflict elsewhere is based on impressions, not on hard facts. Furthermore, such conflicts defy quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis has to include the possibility that there is bias.

I would say that you're proposing a change in policy - treating certain groups differently than others. Therefore the onus is on you to defend such a change, i.e. to make a case for treating people differently, not on others to defend treating them as we have treated other groups.

You are basing your presumptions on past immigration waves despite the fact today's waves are not operating under anything like the same circumstances.

But you're not suggesting new rules for Poles - or are you ?

[bloodyminded]

I love the rightous indignation of the Left.

It smells like... ignorance.

But that IS what they've always done best. Grats on the demo, chump.

Translation: you hate to be exposed as a frightened little bigot.

My bad.

[Argus]

And the first Europeans integrated nicely, right?

No, they crushed and overwhelmed the local culture. You regard that as a positive thing we should allow to be repeated with us?

It appears that nearly all, if not all, terrorist incidents in Canada were committed by Canadians of 'European' blood. And add to that that it would appear possibly none were immigrants. How do you reconcile that with your theories?

Drivel. There were a few minor terrorist instances commited by Canadians, and largely because of what? Because of a minority ethnic group chaffing at percieved inujustice from the majority ethnic group. That is, btw, often the source of terrorism around the world. So you think the solution is to have dozens of huge ethnic groups here?

You know why we need to show up at airports 2 hours early? Because of Sikh and Muslim terrorism, Sikh terrorism against Air India, and repeated Muslim threats. You know why there are cops on the streets of Ottawa with submachineguns? Because of murderous attacks on the Turkish embassy by Armenians. In any case, when did this come to be about terrorism?

Have you ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Rome tolerated the Greek language and culture, as it did the Hebrew, and the Jewish Faith, etc. as a pragmatic matter necessary to maintain the unity of the Empire.

I know this might shock you, but this isn't Rome. And Rome didn't deliberately bring in millions of foreigners, and let them have citizenship without any real demonstration of loyalty. In fact, if you were a foreigner and wanted roman citizenship you had to spend years in the army proving your loyalty.

Look up statistics Canada, why don't you. About 9% of Nunavummiut are functional in neither English nor French, and about 57% of Quebecers are not functional in English. Are you suggesting that Nunavut and Quebec are overrun by immigrants now? You really need to learn some Canadian demographics.

Again, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. The situations are hardly analgous. The Inuit have their own culture, which has largely survived due to isolation. The same goes to Francophones. So? Immigrants rarely settle in the far north and Quebec takes great care about how many immigrants it allows in, and ensures they speak French first.

Before you comment on the past and Canada, you need to learn more history and Canadian demographics. Plenty of Canadians whose families have lived here for millennia still know neither official languages.

Again, I'm not sure what you think you're point is. Do you believe it's desirable to have more people in Canada with no connection with the mainstream and no ability to communicate with it? Is that your point? This is a good thing so let's keep bringing in more?

Plenty of Canadians who can trace their origins in what is today Canada back to 400 years ago still cannot function in English.

Right, and that hasn't caused any social tensions at all, now has it? That hasn't nearly led to the breakup of the country or to suspicions between them and english Canada, to derision, dislike, political tensioins or anything like that, right? So again, you're saying this worked out so well let's bring in millions more people who are isolated from the rest of Canada and from each other?

Yes, a common culture is necessary, with a minimum of a common language and knowledge of the predominant religion, customs, etc. This does not mean though that that common language needs be a common mother tongue,

There is no nation I'm aware of which does not have a common tongue where there aren't massive tensions, jealousies, rivalries and dislike between different linguistic groups. So why would you want to cultivate that?

nor that knowledge of the predominant religion, mores, etc. mean having to agree with them and convert. All of this can easily be solved by simply requiring potential immigrants to pass a test and prove their ability to integrate via a quality job offer, etc. There is no need to show ethnic, national, religious and other prejudices.

Right, because no one ever lies on a test and says what they know you want to know.

[dizzy]

I have a number of problems with immigration. Principally, no one has ever succesfully put a documented case for why we have so much of it and how it's in my interests. On the other hand, i can see all many of ways it is not in my interests, economically, culturally or otherwise. I can see a number of problems, and a number of dangers, and I can see no real benefits.

Oh, so you're nostalgic.

[Argus]

We have also had people from Asia, Southern Europe, Ireland, the Carribean and Eastern Europe.

We have never before had a sustained, endless wave of large scale immigration from anywhere other than the British Isles

Your assertions are conflict elsewhere is based on impressions, not on hard facts.

Then refute those assertions by demonstrating how Muslims live in peace and brotherhood with their neighbors in so many countries.

I would say that you're proposing a change in policy - treating certain groups differently than others.

First, I have stated repeatedly the government, no government has ever justified with valid studies and numbers why we have such large scale immigraiton, or why it benefits us to spread that immigration around and bring in so many people from third world countries - often third world countries with long histories of violence. Second, yes, i'm suggesting we treat groups differently, based on performance. If it emerges that immigrants from Poland fare better in Canada than immigrants from Jamaica, that they are involved in less crime, have a higher income, a lower propensity to be on welfare, that they integrate more easily and cause fewer social tensions, then yes, I'm suggesting we bring in more Poles and fewer Jamaicans.

Therefore the onus is on you to defend such a change, i.e. to make a case for treating people differently, not on others to defend treating them as we have treated other groups.

If we treated modern immigrants the way we treated other groups they would be required to be self sufficient or go home. There would be no government assistance for them of any sort, including language training, education or welfare. There would be no accomodations made for them and they would either have to sink or swim.

[Argus]

Translation: you hate to be exposed as a frightened little bigot.

My bad.

That is the age old cry of the Leftist who hasn't got the intellectual ability to defend the immigration system. It's almost a cliche that if you dare to suggest any level of discomfort with immigration some morons from the Left will start jumping up and down and scream "Bigot! Racist! Evil! Evil! Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!"

You think I haven't been dealing with your ilk for years? You're pathetic.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

That is the age old cry of the Leftist who hasn't got the intellectual ability to defend the immigration system.

Given that you have Jerry Seinfeld on your side, I would classify this as a myth. When pressed on the intellectual merits of his case, he tends to move the goalposts of his argument then eventually to flee. And much of the case against change and globalization is based on a kind of emotional xenophobia in my experience.

The American/Canadian framework is strong, and it tends to attract those who want to leave old ways behind.

[bloodyminded]

That is the age old cry of the Leftist who hasn't got the intellectual ability to defend the immigration system. It's almost a cliche that if you dare to suggest any level of discomfort with immigration some morons from the Left will start jumping up and down and scream "Bigot! Racist! Evil! Evil! Heretic! Burn him! Burn him!"

You think I haven't been dealing with your ilk for years? You're pathetic.

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.

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

Edited April 21, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

We have never before had a sustained, endless wave of large scale immigration from anywhere other than the British Isles

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.

Then refute those assertions by demonstrating how Muslims live in peace and brotherhood with their neighbors in so many countries.

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.

It would be an exhaustive exercise, by the way, and in the end I don't think you would be convinced.

First, I have stated repeatedly the government, no government has ever justified with valid studies and numbers why we have such large scale immigraiton, or why it benefits us to spread that immigration around and bring in so many people from third world countries - often third world countries with long histories of violence. Second, yes, i'm suggesting we treat groups differently, based on performance. If it emerges that immigrants from Poland fare better in Canada than immigrants from Jamaica, that they are involved in less crime, have a higher income, a lower propensity to be on welfare, that they integrate more easily and cause fewer social tensions, then yes, I'm suggesting we bring in more Poles and fewer Jamaicans.

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

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

If we treated modern immigrants the way we treated other groups they would be required to be self sufficient or go home. There would be no government assistance for them of any sort, including language training, education or welfare. There would be no accomodations made for them and they would either have to sink or swim.

What other groups ?

[Handsome Rob]

Is your problem with immigration? It sounds like it has more to do with the present practice of multiculturalism.

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.

[justme]

The American/Canadian framework is strong, and it tends to attract those who want to leave old ways behind.

That's why Peel Police has a diversity unit

On Sunday, four people were taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries after a brawl involving as many as 100 people broke out inside the Sri Guru Nanak Sikh Centre in Brampton, about 45 kilometres west of Toronto.

The fight, reportedly involving machetes, knives and construction axes, was the result of a long-standing disagreement between two groups from the temple.

Officers with the diversity unit of Peel Police have been in contact with temple members in hopes of preventing another attack. The investigation is continuing and more people may be arrested, said Nulle.

....

In early April, prominent Indo-Canadian lawyer Manjit Mangat was stabbed multiple times in the torso outside the Sikh Lehar Centre, another temple in Brampton. The weapon used was a kirpan.

....

The float carried Khalistan flags and photos of leaders from banned terrorist groups, who are part of a movement for an independent Punjab region, separate from India.

Tens of thousands of people still attended the event, but organizers caused an even greater stir when they told Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh and Liberal MLA David Hayer they were not invited to the parade and they would attend at their own risk.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Violent+temple+incidents+Sikh+image+World+Sikh+Organization/2925968/story.html

A Toronto banquet hall was the scene of a "martyrs' prayer event" held on Monday night in honour of two Tamil Tigers rebels killed during a recent suicide attack in the Sri Lankan capital.

Police have been trying to clamp down on pro-Tamil Tigers functions around the city since the group was added to Canada's list of outlawed terrorist organizations, but the officers did not interrupt the event and left after an hour.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1346013

They come here for a piece of the good life instead of building their own countries into better places to live. It's like the little childrens story about the hen that baked a loaf of bread: nobody wanted to help, but everyone wanted a piece when it was done. And hey, when multiculturalism encourages them to bring their ways here, as though this country is nothing more than an empty glass to pour foreign cultures into, they get the best of both worlds.

[bloodyminded]

That's why Peel Police has a diversity unit

They come here for a piece of the good life instead of building their own countries into better places to live. It's like the little childrens story about the hen that baked a loaf of bread: nobody wanted to help, but everyone wanted a piece when it was done. And hey, when multiculturalism encourages them to bring their ways here, as though this country is nothing more than an empty glass to pour foreign cultures into, they get the best of both worlds.

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?

[Michael Hardner]

They come here for a piece of the good life instead of building their own countries into better places to live. It's like the little childrens story about the hen that baked a loaf of bread: nobody wanted to help, but everyone wanted a piece when it was done. And hey, when multiculturalism encourages them to bring their ways here, as though this country is nothing more than an empty glass to pour foreign cultures into, they get the best of both worlds.

Your argument seems to say both things: that they want to come here to build our country, but they want to keep their ways.

What's wrong with coming here to build something ? I'm sure your ancestors did it.

[justme]

Your argument seems to say both things: that they want to come here to build our country, but they want to keep their ways.

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.

Also:

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

The answer is in his paragraph.