New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[guyser]

Will we be required to accept honor killings as part of Canadian heritage because a growing number of immigrants support it and kill relatives in the name of honor?

Did someone suggest we amend our Criminal Code? Oh right, no one did, but you want to ttry and inject some emotional scary shit to try and make a point.

I see what you did, obvious troll being obvious.

Who decides what is a good culture point to import and what is not? How to do screen immigrants for these qualities to keep the "bad" cultural practices out of Canada?

D'uh...Society at large .

Some say curry is bad.....and in England its the national dish. I dont think England had curry 50 years ago.

While everyone on the left wants unscreened immigration, Canadians are being killed or assaulted by immigrants almost everyday somewhere across this country.

Except no one, left right spectrum wants unscreened immigration.Nice try though.

Canadians are being killed or assaulted by Canadians everyday somewhere across this country.

Can we throw them out too? Perhaps you should have been deported instead of jailed. (which by the way is bullshit but nice try for the "tough life" stance)

Something needs to be done to protect Canadians. The courts wont allow us to protect ourselves,

We really should adopt some laws shouldnt we?

We could start with something and call it the Charter of Rights, and then we could have like a Criminal Code,or vice versa and have Judges in neat robes, and Police who carry guns. Man it;d be awesome

We could call it Canada. Eureka !

[Mr.Canada]

Did someone suggest we amend our Criminal Code? Oh right, no one did, but you want to ttry and inject some emotional scary shit to try and make a point.

I see what you did, obvious troll being obvious.

D'uh...Society at large .

Some say curry is bad.....and in England its the national dish. I dont think England had curry 50 years ago.

Except no one, left right spectrum wants unscreened immigration.Nice try though.

Canadians are being killed or assaulted by Canadians everyday somewhere across this country.

Can we throw them out too? Perhaps you should have been deported instead of jailed. (which by the way is bullshit but nice try for the "tough life" stance)

We really should adopt some laws shouldnt we?

We could start with something and call it the Charter of Rights, and then we could have like a Criminal Code,or vice versa and have Judges in neat robes, and Police who carry guns. Man it;d be awesome

We could call it Canada. Eureka !

Lol. Come on man.

First of all I love a good curry and I have no problems with immigrants of any color who come to Canada to become a part of society and contribute.

Protection only comes after the fact. We're powerless to protect ourselves during an assault or attempted murder. If we fight back and do serious damage to the attacker, the victim is arrested. Yeah that's justice all right.

The police are never there when people are being victim to a home invasion by a Asian or black gang. Nor are they there for the many daughters of this land who have been murdered in the name of honor by their Islamic fathers.

If we were allowed to openly carry handguns these thugs would think twice before victimizing society. They would stick to killing each other which suits me fine. Let the innocent people protect themselves, their property and their families. Why hand power to the ruthless ethnic gangs or our large urban centres?

[Slim]

I'm... going to assume not many people are taking Mr. C's trolling seriously and ignore his posts. Shall we continue with the original issue?

A frank and serious discussion really needs to take place on a federal level about immigration, but I have a really hard time imagining that the current leaders in place won't politicize the hell outta it and ruin it for everyone.

Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Slim

[Bonam]

I don't think immigration reform is politically possible under a minority government. It would be political suicide. If it was reform that in some way limited or controlled immigration, the party trying to implement such changes would be derided as racist by every opposition party and by the vast majority of Canadian media. It would be a death blow.

Only a majority government would have a chance at reforming immigration. And even then, only if the party leadership decided that reforming immigration is worth losing the next election over (i.e. if they put the good of the country ahead of the good of the party, which they would never do).

Anyway, I have a feeling immigration reform means very different things to different posters on this board. To people like Mr. C, immigration reform would mean drastically reducing immigration, while to others, it sounds like it would mean speeding up processing and potentially allowing a higher rate of immigrants.

Personally, I just think we need to raise our standards for immigration to Canada by a lot. Family reunification should be reduced to spouse and dependent children only. The "point system" should have the added stipulation that the immigrant must have an active job offer for permanent employment (with possible exceptions for people of demonstrated exceptional ability and for those willing to invest substantial wealth in Canada). Any employer that issues such an offer and then fails to uphold it after the immigrant is in Canada should be subjected to heavy fines. Passing a moderate test of English (or French), supervised by a fluent English (or French) speaking Canadian, including both oral and written components, should be mandatory. A test requiring basic knowledge of Canadian law, history, and social customs should also be required. Additionally, immigrants should have to undergo a reasonably thorough psychological evaluation prior to being granted entry.

[guyser]

Your trolling is becoming obvious.

Protection only comes after the fact. We're powerless to protect ourselves during an assault or attempted murder. If we fight back and do serious damage to the attacker, the victim is arrested. Yeah that's justice all right.

Bullshit.

Next !

The police are never there when people are being victim to a home invasion by a Asian or black gang. Nor are they there for the many daughters of this land who have been murdered in the name of honor by their Islamic fathers.

But the police are there when you're victimized by a White Canuck born and bred person.

Got ya, thanks. Whew, Im safe if only honky does some shit up in my hood!

If we were allowed to openly carry handguns .....

One of the "fags" you filmd would have shot you in the face. Oh, with a gun, not ...never mind.

Edited October 8, 2010 by guyser

[Argus]

Theres definately a strong correlation between population and GDP. A country with a million inhabitants is probably going to have a larger economy than one with 50. People consume things... even poor people. And most people contribute labor to the economy in one way or another.

So yeah... theres definately a strong relationship between GDP and population.

Canada's GDP is a hell of a lot bigger than Bangladesh's, or for that matter, Indonesia's, or even Indias. But the real point is what do you mean by growing an economy? Is absolute size the principal concern? I would argue that no one thinks so. The principal point of interest is whether the citizens involved in that economy are, by and large, richer. If you add twenty million illiterate third world goat herders to Canada's population then I suppose its GDP might rise in absolute terms. But would the people living here be better off? Not a chance. We'd all be much, much poorer - well, except the goat herders.

[Argus]

Whether they pay taxes or not insnt the important factor. Theres lots of way you can contribute the economy without paying taxes. Whats more important in terms of judging the effect of immigrants on the economy is whether or not they consume, and whether or not they add value through labor. Most immigrants do both.

If you're alive you consume. But if I have to pay for your consumption then that adds nothing to my happiness or well-being, to say nothing of to my wealth. It actually detracts from my wealth.

Bringing in people who consume as opposed to contributing - and all too many immigrants do that - does not add to our collective wealth, however it affects the GDP. If we have to pay for however many hundreds of thousands or millions of immigrants are on welfare or other social assistance that is no benefit to us.

[Argus]

Except no one, left right spectrum wants unscreened immigration.Nice try though.

Well this group says only 17% of immigrants are screened, and they were called "UnCanadian" by the NDP for saying it. So clearly you're wrong.

[Argus]

I don't think immigration reform is politically possible under a minority government. It would be political suicide. If it was reform that in some way limited or controlled immigration, the party trying to implement such changes would be derided as racist by every opposition party and by the vast majority of Canadian media. It would be a death blow.

The key is the leader of the opposition. Unfortunately, Ignatieff has displayed a pattern of attacking the government on anything that might score political points regardless of whether it's something he and his party would otherwise have supported.

The way to reform immigration is simple. You need general agreement among most of the federal leaders (forget the NDP they'll NEVER agree to anything that tightens immigration) that reform is needed. They can then approve the creation of a panel, a non-biased, non-political panel of experts who would examine things and recommend changes. Then parliament as a whole could accept those changes or not. But if they were presented as government changes, ie, from the Tory party, the Liberals would attack them as racist in order to score political points. There'd have to be a separation between the panel and the government and have to be Liberal representation on the panel.

[CANADIEN]

A rationale approach to examining immigration would be to actually collect data and evaluate it

May be difficult, considering we have a government that won't even allow for a realiable data gathering as to where people come from (yep, that's one of the questions in the long form census).

[CANADIEN]

Will we be required to accept honor killings as part of Canadian heritage because a growing number of immigrants support it and kill relatives in the name of honor?

We are still waiting to get the actual numbers from you. Instead we'll have the usual "you support honour killing" non-sense.

While everyone on the left wants unscreened immigration (...)

There is nobody on the left that posts on this site. After all, nobody here has called for unfettered immigration.

Canadians are being killed or assaulted by immigrants almost everyday somewhere across this country.

And you have numbers that prove it? Edited October 9, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Mr.Canada]

And you have numbers that prove it?

No the country banned gathering crime results based on race, ethnicity and place of origin years ago. I wonder why?

[Slim]

No the country banned gathering crime results based on race, ethnicity and place of origin years ago. I wonder why?

So you don't have any evidence then?

I know, I know... don't feed the trolls...

[Mr.Canada]

So you don't have any evidence then?

I know, I know... don't feed the trolls...

The Toronto Star did an article covering every murder in Toronto a few years back and something like 80% of the people murdered were young black males who were involved in gangs. Coincidence?

I've been to prison and let me tell you that whites are by far in the minority there. This was years ago so I can only imagine that the ratio is even more skewed now then it was then. Many ethnics just simply cannot behave themselves in our society. Why are they driven to crime instead of becoming useful members of society?

Edited October 10, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Wild Bill]

Whether they pay taxes or not insnt the important factor. Theres lots of way you can contribute the economy without paying taxes. Whats more important in terms of judging the effect of immigrants on the economy is whether or not they consume, and whether or not they add value through labor. Most immigrants do both.

If simple consumption was all it took to grow an economy, we should all be able to get rich by cooking rice for each other...

[Smallc]

If simple consumption was all it took to grow an economy, we should all be able to get rich by cooking rice for each other...

That's pretty much what we do.

[Saipan]

So you don't have any evidence then?

As he said; Our country banned gathering crime results based on race, ethnicity and place of origin years ago. I wonder why?

[RNG]

As he said; Our country banned gathering crime results based on race, ethnicity and place of origin years ago. I wonder why?

Because the PC crowd is trying to kill us. I fear for my grandkids.

[Saipan]

Because the PC crowd is trying to kill us. I fear for my grandkids.

Not to worry, I keep an eye where Clark and Orchard are at all times.

[Michael Hardner]

Canada's GDP is a hell of a lot bigger than Bangladesh's, or for that matter, Indonesia's, or even Indias. But the real point is what do you mean by growing an economy? Is absolute size the principal concern? I would argue that no one thinks so. The principal point of interest is whether the citizens involved in that economy are, by and large, richer. If you add twenty million illiterate third world goat herders to Canada's population then I suppose its GDP might rise in absolute terms. But would the people living here be better off? Not a chance. We'd all be much, much poorer - well, except the goat herders.

Didn't you decry someone else for their knowledge of the economy in this thread ? And this is what you come back with ?

I'd like to understand economics more, but you're putting the goat cart in front of the goat. Your so-called goat herders work for employers, who profit on that work - likely more so if the new immigrants charge less for their labour. Also, then consume goods and services.

This is why talking about immigration reform is almost impossible - people like you dumb down the topic and inject the discussion with stupid stereotypes, then bawl like a baby when you're called racists.

I'd like debate on this too, but not with people who call immigrants goat-hearders and frame the debate in paper-thin caricatures.

[Argus]

May be difficult, considering we have a government that won't even allow for a realiable data gathering as to where people come from (yep, that's one of the questions in the long form census).

I think the government pretty much knows where people come from. It processes their immigration papers, after all.

[Argus]

I'd like to understand economics more, but you're putting the goat cart in front of the goat. Your so-called goat herders work for employers, who profit on that work - likely more so if the new immigrants charge less for their labour. Also, then consume goods and services.

Some of them work, some don't. No doubt some employers profit by being able to pay their workers less. That's one side of the story. The other side is that of course, wages get depressed for everyone else in that particular industry. Are you happy that the renumeration paid to low skilled workers gets pushed down? I'm betting you'd think differently if you were a low skilled Canadian worker trying to compete in the marketplace.

And the fact immigrants consume goods and services is quite beside the point if someone else has to pay for them.

This is why talking about immigration reform is almost impossible - people like you dumb down the topic and inject the discussion with stupid stereotypes, then bawl like a baby when you're called racists.

I'm sorry if your prissy sense of political correctness is offended by my blunt descriptions. But the fact is the problem with immigrants as has already been pretty clearly made known is their lack of modern job skills. If you want to bring people into this country by the hundreds of thousands from cultures where a toilet would be worshipped as a magic fountain you shouldn't be surprised that every slum in the country winds up packed with newcomers.

[Saipan]

I think the government pretty much knows where people come from. It processes their immigration papers, after all.

Governmment doesn't even know where some 30 to 50,000 unprocessed immigrants (many may not qualify) are today. Chretien goverment just lost track of them.

[Saipan]

I'd like debate on this too, but not with people who call immigrants goat-hearders and frame the debate in paper-thin caricatures.

OK stop the caricatures and explain why do we need to import more unskilled workers and then keep them on welfare. And coping with the drug dealing and gun running going on - mostly among the Caribbean population in Toronto and South Asians in Vancouver.

[Michael Hardner]

Some of them work, some don't. No doubt some employers profit by being able to pay their workers less. That's one side of the story. The other side is that of course, wages get depressed for everyone else in that particular industry. Are you happy that the renumeration paid to low skilled workers gets pushed down? I'm betting you'd think differently if you were a low skilled Canadian worker trying to compete in the marketplace.

Actually, I'm a high tech worker and my wages were severely pushed down by globalization. Am I happy about it ? No.

And the fact immigrants consume goods and services is quite beside the point if someone else has to pay for them.

The downward push on wages didn't seem to bother conservatives, to my mind, until immigrants started taking those jobs.

I'm sorry if your prissy sense of political correctness is offended by my blunt descriptions. But the fact is the problem with immigrants as has already been pretty clearly made known is their lack of modern job skills. If you want to bring people into this country by the hundreds of thousands from cultures where a toilet would be worshipped as a magic fountain you shouldn't be surprised that every slum in the country winds up packed with newcomers.

I'm not offended, but I'd like to have a debate on the facts - without the weeping and emotionalism that characterizes the arguments against immigration. You can't on the one hand decry people from being emotional, crying racism and what have you, and on the other arrive at the table with a cartoon picture of immigrants.

And, again, this is why talking about immigration reform is next to impossible. People on both sides can't discuss it rationally - and in this example that means you.