New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Michael Hardner]

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.

You need to, first of all, declare your aversion to Argus' caricature before we start a serious discussion.

[Argus]

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

Imagine how much worse it's been for those at the low end of the scale.

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

You have a cliche'd and archaic view of what being conservative means.

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.

I wasn't describing all immigrants. I was describing the problem immigrants, the people we have no business bringing here and expecting to be anything more than wage slaves or welfare lifers. And my description seems colorfully apt when discussing many of these people.

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.

I haven't been irrational. I've merely been, to your mind, improperly disrespectful towards the growing number of failed immigrants. You should be congratulating me on my candour.

[Argus]

You need to, first of all, declare your aversion to Argus' caricature before we start a serious discussion.

Michael Hardner's mandatory declaration required of all participants in any discussion on immigration>

I promise to refrain from saying, suggesting, implying or even thinking anything unflattering or uncomplimentary, or in any way, shape or form disrespectful towards immigrants in general or any subset of immigrants, regardless of their cultural level, job skills or lack thereof, behaviour pattern within Canada, or amount of time on welfare.

Once you've made your declaration, had it certified, and submitted it, along with a suitable deposit (to be kept on hand and forfeited if you say anything unflattering of immigrants) Michael Hardner will allow you to participate in a discussion about immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

I wasn't describing all immigrants. I was describing the problem immigrants, the people we have no business bringing here and expecting to be anything more than wage slaves or welfare lifers. And my description seems colorfully apt when discussing many of these people.

Your colour commentary doesn't help the debate, and it turns it from a rational debate about facts to a debate replete with stereotypes and misconceptions. For you to qualify your statements by saying "these are only SOME immigrants" is a cop-out. Can the other side now say that only some of the immigration reform people are racists ? How many ?

You have tainted yourself to the point that you can't reasonably expect to be part of a serious discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

Once you've made your declaration, had it certified, and submitted it, along with a suitable deposit (to be kept on hand and forfeited if you say anything unflattering of immigrants) Michael Hardner will allow you to participate in a discussion about immigration.

Sorry, but your side has made the accusation that rational discussion isn't possible with the emotional cries of 'racism' being bandied about. They you arrive at the grown-up's table and immediately soil yourself.

I would write a similar qualifier to people who are engaging in the debate from the "other" side, that crying racism whenever anybody talks about immigrants isn't appropriate.

But we can't have that debate, clearly, and you illustrate why.

[Oleg Bach]

Let them become as moderate and centralist in their views as possible. It will be to no avail unless the typical attitude that Canadians have about immigration comes to a well needed end!

The mantra being bantered about for the last ten years revolves around land mass and so-called economic growth. Every one is chanting the fact that "Canada has so much land, that must be filled to capacity. I beg to differ...If you have a large and comfortable house it does not mean that you invite every friend, relative and stanger to come and live in that house. It makes no real sense to fill all rooms to the point where and uncomfortable and degraded living condition result.

As for more people meaning more money for all - this is simply not true. As for "growth"..Is it a reality that constant and unrestrained growth improve the quality of life for all? I have seen the lowest of low that leave their own land and hang out at the welfare department - for instance and I do not want to be unkind..I saw a family of Asians - applying for welfare..the had a fading grand mother ---who needs constant medical care...the husband was a slight and shy man of no real use or substance..the wife seemed quiet mindless - and their child was mentally challenged to say the least.

Someone explain to me in all their liberal kindness how this FAMILY, is of use in Canada and how they will contribute? I personally see that these people who do not even know the language..were a burden at the point of origin..and a burden at the point of settlement ...which is here.

And you can go on like the American left that "we are a nation of immigrants" - This is bullshit ...The immigrants after WW2...were all able bodied persons who came to assimulate..who came to contribute and were capable of doing so...Most of todays immigrants are supposedly "educated" - In what I ask? Will they grow more and better food? Will they love and assist our elderly and poor? Will they create shelter from the heat and cold? OR WILL THEY SIMPLY JOIN OUR SWELLING LIBERAL BUREACRCY AND CONTINUE TO MAKE US MORE POOR AND MORE EQUAL?

[PIK]

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?

One of my buddies kid ended up in jail in S,Ont and the somalia's that ran that jail ,scared the living hell out of him, he straightened right up ,got married,kids ,good job.A somalia or who ever from that part of the world ,seems to love our jails, good food and a roof over thier heads , some were saying it is better then being free back home.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh and as far as Mr. co-op living, bycyle riding Jack Layton acting like a leftist American and useing terms like "un-American" - translated to UN-CANADIAN..he is playing the nationalist emotional race card..and attempting to make so-called nationalists feel guilty and "un-Canadian" when it comes to saying enough is enough... Funny...lefties hate boarders but when it suits them they like to mention nationalism..which is the height of Trotskyite hypocracy.

[guyser]

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.

"Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills"

Obviously Im not. I think I will stick with my first assessment.

The full sentence is above. Note the word" fully"

And the NDP, did they all of a sudden become relevant.

Lastly, the Immigration Reform Group have no link to determine the validity of the statement, leaving it vague ,not to mention creating their own mandate.

Sigh........

[Saipan]

You need to, first of all, declare your aversion to Argus' caricature before we start a serious discussion.

All I need to do is what I please to do. And I can see his point. Even 'though I could be one of the goat herders [that was a good one ] and (gasp) from "Eastern" Europe to boot.

There's definitely Immigration problem here. We don't need to import so much unqualified "work" force just to drain welfare.

[Shwa]

...you arrive at the grown-up's table and immediately soil yourself.

You also score a bonus point for tying this in with the traditional big family Thanksgiving dinner stereotype. Very well done sir!

[Saipan]

So much for the Immigration issues.

[Michael Hardner]

All I need to do is what I please to do. And I can see his point. Even 'though I could be one of the goat herders [that was a good one ] and (gasp) from "Eastern" Europe to boot.

There's definitely Immigration problem here. We don't need to import so much unqualified "work" force just to drain welfare.

So I guess it's not really that "no one is talking about this important issue because of fear of being attacked " is it ? My God ! The harbingers of "open discussion" ! They are so glorious in their desire to help, and yet are under threat of being attacked...

Sorry, but I can't get any more sarcastic than that without getting lightheaded.

All I can add to this stillborn debate is the word "DUH".

[Michael Hardner]

So much for the Immigration issues.

We really need to discuss goat herding first, as Argus has pointed out. Goats are an agricultural question, so let's start by me mailing you some soil samples...

[dre]

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

Conservatives are a superset of two radically different subsets. One is made up of well to do and very smart and educated capitalists, entrepreneurs, industrialists, and heirs and heiresses. The other is made up of overly religious rural pigfarmers. The only reason these two groups are even affiliated under a single political banner is because group 1 know how to push all of group 2's buttons and group 2 isnt exactly made up of the sharpest bulbs in the knife-shed (if you know what I mean).

The first group has never waffled on its opposition towards stopping immigration or illegal immigration. Groups like the Chamber of commerce are consistant opponents of any immigration policy that would put upward pressure on wages, or seriously penalize companies that hire illegal aliens.

The second group... "Social Conservatives" are the ones that are angry about immigrants taking their jobs, "destroying america" and so on. Theyre the xenophobic ones generally.

Anyhow... Just wanted to point that out. The downward push on wages is exactly what that first group wants. They never stopped wanting it. It just seems that way because group 2 is starting to get wrestless and vocal.

[Michael Hardner]

Conservatives are a superset of two radically different subsets. One is made up of well to do and very smart and educated capitalists, entrepreneurs, industrialists, and heirs and heiresses. The other is made up of overly religious rural pigfarmers.

If that's the case, then we need to be sensitive. Traditionally, pig farmers and goat herders don't get along.

I understand you full well, on the other points.

[Saipan]

So I guess it's not really that "no one is talking about this important issue because of fear of being attacked " is it ?

I don't see that. If someone is afraid "he should get out of the kitchen".

Because "there's nothing to fear but fear itself"

[Argus]

Your colour commentary doesn't help the debate, and it turns it from a rational debate about facts to a debate replete with stereotypes and misconceptions. For you to qualify your statements by saying "these are only SOME immigrants" is a cop-out. Can the other side now say that only some of the immigration reform people are racists ? How many ?

You have tainted yourself to the point that you can't reasonably expect to be part of a serious discussion.

You know, it doesn't sound like serious discussion is what you're looking for anyway. It sounds more like you're looking to stop serious discussion - which is par for the course from the Left.

[Argus]

But we can't have that debate, clearly, and you illustrate why.

Clearly we can't have the debate around delicate, prissy people like you whose hair curls at the slightest sign anyone might be lacking respect for those to whom you have appointed yourself the shining white knight.

On your way home tonight don't forget to find an immigrant, pat his head, and tell him how grateful he should be that you're out there on the interet to protect him from disrespect. Maybe he'll bob his head, smile, and thank you for your paternalistic benevolence.

Assuming he can understand English, of course.

[Michael Hardner]

You know, it doesn't sound like serious discussion is what you're looking for anyway. It sounds more like you're looking to stop serious discussion - which is par for the course from the Left.

Look back on this thread. I was ready to have one until you marched into our conference room with a goat herder.

Your opening post on this thread now looks as ridiculous as it should.

[Argus]

All I can add to this stillborn debate is the word "DUH".

Well that's more helpful and intelligent than anything else you've had to say.

[Michael Hardner]

Clearly we can't have the debate around delicate, prissy people like you whose hair curls at the slightest sign anyone might be lacking respect for those to whom you have appointed yourself the shining white knight.

Again - check your OP. What exactly were you referring to about "fear of being attacked" ? Was it my criticizing you for pretending to want a serious discussion, then calling immigrants goat herders ?

You can either be a delicate flower petal, or a boor - but not both. And you can't have a serious discussion, because as soon as we let down our guard you grace us with a symphony of farts.

[Argus]

Look back on this thread. I was ready to have one until you marched into our conference room with a goat herder.

Your opening post on this thread now looks as ridiculous as it should.

You saw a thread where someone might be expressing discontent with the immigration system, gasped in horror, and ran in flailing your arms and shrieking like a politically correct little word nazi to make sure there was no such discussion.

[Argus]

Again - check your OP. What exactly were you referring to about "fear of being attacked" ?

The phrase wasn't mine, but it was pretty clear in that anyone who dares to try to critize the present immigration system will be attacked by the politically correct left, whether the desparaging terms are 'racist" or "unCanadian" or something else. The Left has been stifling debate on immigration for decades.

Thank you for fulfilling the cliche, though.

[Michael Hardner]

You saw a thread where someone might be expressing discontent with the immigration system, gasped in horror, and ran in flailing your arms and shrieking like a politically correct little word nazi to make sure there was no such discussion.

Uh... no. See my first post where I said this should be discussed.

Here's what you added:

Argus - October 7 - 1030 AM

They say no one is talking about this important issue because of fear of being attacked

Argus - October 9 - 942 AM

If you add twenty million illiterate third world goat herders to Canada's population then I suppose its GDP might rise in absolute terms.

Now, I'm sure you CAN debate things seriously - what do you say we reboot ? You recant and we'll move forward.