New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[dre]

why not? It occurs and people doing the stoning have obviously made the agreement with it even though they may not think it will ever be their destiny.

Because the act of stoning someone is illegal whether that person has voluntarily submitted to the stoning or not.

Reminds me of the German fellow that hired another guy to eat him alive... piece by piece. The guy doing the eating still got charged

Any sort of legal binding arbitration has to be totally voluntary and it cant involve violations of the criminal code.

Edited October 27, 2010 by dre

[Saipan]

I guess that means that lefties like the constitution. I don't know what else to say.

</i>

Yes, they do. 'Specially since we don't even have right to property.

Our rights diminished greatly in the last 100 years.

We don't even have right to life.

[CANADIEN]

Well with regard to this post, I'm a lefty and I don't want to "bring over as many as possible" without it being a susatainable activity with regard to economic and social impact.

Same here.

As for anyone that "...by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison..." well(...)

anyone who believes the majority thinks that Muslims are vermin fit to be put in prison is thinking his dreams for reality, big time.

As for Sharia, meh, the Criminal Code ain't going anywhere and I doubt a weensy teensy portion of a weensy teensy ethnic group is going to make much a difference now or in the foreseeable future. We got Hudsons Bay stores and winters.

I do find it funny sometimes, this Sharia boogey man that keeps getting trotted out. It appears that when it comes to this issue, the righties are always claiming that the tail is, in fact, wagging the dog.

Hear hear

[kimmy]

I do find it funny sometimes, this Sharia boogey man that keeps getting trotted out. It appears that when it comes to this issue, the righties are always claiming that the tail is, in fact, wagging the dog.

Is it being trotted out as an threat to Canadian society? Or is it being trotted out as an example of people unwilling to adapt to our society?

-k

[nicky10013]

Is it being trotted out as an threat to Canadian society? Or is it being trotted out as an example of people unwilling to adapt to our society?

-k

No, it's being trotted out by people wanting to drum up fear to gain political points.

[Saipan]

Could you perhaps expand on this?

What garb? Like maybe a hat, Turban, a Yarmulke what?

Daggers like kirpan worn in our schools..........

[kimmy]

No, it's being trotted out by people wanting to drum up fear to gain political points.

Always?

What if someone were to mention some lefties' support for Sharia as an example of their willingness to throw women under the bus in the name of tolerance? Wait, did we already have that discussion?

-k

[charter.rights]

</i>

Yes, they do. 'Specially since we don't even have right to property.

Our rights diminished greatly in the last 100 years.

We don't even have right to life.

If you joined an Indian Tribe you would have property rights, since such things are not only guaranteed in their Constitution, but their aboriginal and land title rights are entrenched in our Constitution, as well.

Prior to about 190 years ago, settlers enjoyed those rights - the rights to use and occupy a parcel of land, and to freely earn a reasonable living off that land, and the common lands reserved for Indians. However just about 190 years ago the Family Compact movement was born and in its attempts to subvert government and law and turn it to their advantage, they rewrote history to suit their agenda, and created laws that seriously limited the rights - including property rights- in order to maximize a few elitist's profits. Thus we have a Victorian era that in history show a distinct change not only in the way government dealt with Indians, but in the way settlers were treated. By removing rights and placing the control of settlers in the approval of the government oligarchy they were able to steal land and resources uncontested. And when someone like Louis Riel stood up to them, as a leader of a foreign nation resisting their expansion into Manitoba, he was assassinated (well actually he was tried and hung for treason, which not being a Canadian citizen makes it an assassination).

The parallels between the Family Compact movement and the Conservative / Reform agenda is staggering. Harper is doing no less than Sir John A. McDonald did in killing, and ignoring rights of citizens to further his own selfish agenda.

[dre]

Always?

What if someone were to mention some lefties' support for Sharia as an example of their willingness to throw women under the bus in the name of tolerance? Wait, did we already have that discussion?

-k

What "lefty" supports Sharia?

[jbg]

What "unreasonable demands" has society been motivated to cave in to with respect to Sharia Law? If I recall it was soundly rejected in Ontario 5 years ago. Was there a news story or something?

I suspect like gay marriage the attempt to force Sharia law won't disappear. It will come up repeatedly until some Parliament or Court caves.

[kimmy]

What "lefty" supports Sharia?

Well, fuzzy-wuzzy Imam Feisal Rauf, for one. He's a lefty, right? I remember y'all telling me what a liberal he is.

I'm sure that if we go back through the debate on Sharia in Ontario we'll find folks trying to soft-sell it using arguments like "it would be strictly voluntary" and "people are just opposed to this because they have the wrong idea about Sharia and they hate Muslims" and so on.

Do we really need to go have a look and see which useful idiots were on the side of Sharia at the time?

edit to add:

oh why not...

What "lefty" supports Sharia?

Marion Boyd.

Do I win something?

-k

Edited October 27, 2010 by kimmy

[Shwa]

I suspect like gay marriage the attempt to force Sharia law won't disappear. It will come up repeatedly until some Parliament or Court caves.

Gay marriage has been dealth with and the Sharia has disappeared. Unless you have some major breaking news about Sharia law in Canada. Do you?

[Argus]

I'm glad you see that it doesn't mean you'll see religious extremism, because you won't.

I think Lefties have a sliding scale of what constitutes "extremism".

For example

Muslims who believe women should cover their faces, obey their men, and never work are considered moderate if they don't actually call for people to be blown up. Christians who want to give women money to look after children at home are extremists.

Muslims who think gays are evil and depraved and should be in prison are moderates - unless they call for violence against them.

Christians who are mildly uncomfortable with gays marrying are extremists.

I guess that means that lefties like the constitution. I don't know what else to say.

And here I was thinking it meant they were morons.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

No, it's being trotted out by people wanting to drum up fear to gain political points.

Unless I'm mistaken, nobody here is running for office. If people post something here it's because they're concerned about it.

[Michael Hardner]

I think Lefties have a sliding scale of what constitutes "extremism".

For example

Muslims who believe women should cover their faces, obey their men, and never work are considered moderate if they don't actually call for people to be blown up. Christians who want to give women money to look after children at home are extremists.

Muslims who think gays are evil and depraved and should be in prison are moderates - unless they call for violence against them.

Christians who are mildly uncomfortable with gays marrying are extremists.

There's something to what you write, but it will change - the public is only starting to become aware of prejudice against Christians today.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Rue]

But why are they becoming poorer and poorer?

That is an extremely complex question. To start with immigrants or new Canadians are becoming poorer and poorer for the exact reason people born in Canada are becoming poorer and poorer-world market conditions that have made Canadian businesses less competitive in a competitive world market.

Part of the above phenomena can easily be seen in the loss of manufactoring jobs to countries with cheap land abundant labour such as China, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Kampuchea, and on and on.

As our technology changes so do education requirements which are now becoming highly specialized and requiring continuing education on a permanent basis. The days of going to school, coming out with one degree only and staying at the same job for ever are over. Today's Canadian must constantly be studying and upgrading their education and become specialized so new Canadians like old Canadians who do not have the proper skills to continue to up-grade and keep up with their speciality are left behind.

There are also new and old Canadians who can not speak or write the two working languages of Canada or ideally both fluently and that shuts them out of the work place.

In many new Canadian communities the new Canadians live in extended families. They buy a large home and the collective family's members all contribute to the mortgage and many are willing to take cheap, menial or minimum wage jobs Canadians born here will not and their collective income pays the mortgage and then goes into a rereve fund to pay the mortgage and if one or more of those members is unemployed they are carried until they find a job. They do without any luxuries and sacrifice.

Not all new Canadians come, fail and become impoverished. Certainly it makes sense that a sector of new Canadians who can't read or write and work in the English or French languages are doomed to be marginal but even many of those do not stay here that long as they move on to the U.S. or they become part of the underground economy and are used as cheap slave labour by their own people or others.

Its a highly complex question dealing with social, economic and other factors and there is no one quick and easy way to define what you ask.

What we do know is many jobs immigrants take are not jobs what "older" Canadians will ever take. What we also know is any one of us can be made expendable and lose our jobs from constant changes in our market place. Many professionals are losing their jobs not just immigrants.

The manufacturing sector in Ontario of course has been hard hit. It was near sighted and not prepared to deal with changing world market forces. The car industry is a classic example. That had nothing to do with new Canadians.

Now its easy to say Canada should only take in qualified candidates. SO who decides that? That is the question. What will be the criteria to decide who is qualified and needed? That is the basis of discussions. That and whether the refugee laws have had too many loopholes which of course they did and still do.

The fact is had the world been serious about refugees a bunch of guilty sheltered types who had no clue what a refugee was would not have drafted the laws the UN uses now for refugee determination. They are a farse. True refugees are caught in camps within a day or so of the conflict zones they flee from and their major issue is dying from diaheria, cholera, malnutrition or being killed by hostile guerillas or government forces.

The refugee determination laws drafted by arm chair guilt ridden individuals, some who I had the misfortunate to have to work with and dialogue with had no clue as to the real world. They created a fantasy system where Canada became the messiah of the down trodden but in fact simply created a system where every p ervert, criminal, corupt politician and political abuser could be the first out of their country and into Canada claiming refugee status.

If we had been truly serious about refugees we would have been funding services at the refugee camps and funding programs to repatriate people and develop their job and life skills.

Those are the kinds of issues that need to be discussed and I can tell you some of the most incompetent bureaucrats and questionable lawyers with a financial interest in their practices to promite immigration will be the first calling for reforms trying to distance themselves from the idiocy they have created as the current legacy.

This country needs more population to replace the aging baby boomers if it is to have a tax basin to pay out for the social services for the aged in the years to come.

That is not the issue. The issue is how do we assure people work and

contribute to the economy and pay taxes if we are to sustain our

social services.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Rue

[Argus]

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.

By that logic the best thing that ever happened to Canada was outsourcing. In fact, we'd be even better if every Canadian took a 90% pay cut! Oh what a lovely place to live this would be then!

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 dumb it down because most of the people arguing in favour of immigration are dumb.

[Argus]

There's something to what you write, but it will change - the public is only starting to become aware of prejudice against Christians today.

I'm not decrying prejudice against Christians. I'm decrying the hypocrisy of people who give non-Christians a buy out on the same things which infuriate them when Christians do it.

Like the NDP eagerly enticing Arar's Hijab wearing wife to run for them in my previous riding, then being embarrassingly silent when she admitted there was no way in hell she would ever support gay rights.

[Argus]

That is an extremely complex question. To start with immigrants or new Canadians are becoming poorer and poorer for the exact reason people born in Canada are becoming poorer and poorer-world market conditions that have made Canadian businesses less competitive in a competitive world market.

We can leave off the question of whether Canadians as a whole are becoming poorer because immigrants are being measured against Canadians, not the world. Their poverty rates are rising, their unemployment rates are rising, all compared to previous immigrants and compared to Canadians.

In many new Canadian communities the new Canadians live in extended families. They buy a large home and the collective family's members all contribute to the mortgage and many are willing to take cheap, menial or minimum wage jobs Canadians born here will not and their collective income pays the mortgage and then goes into a rereve fund to pay the mortgage and if one or more of those members is unemployed they are carried until they find a job. They do without any luxuries and sacrifice.

You make it sound so noble, like they don't even apply for welfare or unemployment or anything else.

Which of course, is silly. When a new immigrant loses his or her job they will most certainly apply for benefits. In fact, if there's one general observation I've been able to make of immigrants it's that, coming from the hardscrabble countries they do, they'll take anything they can get, however much they have to twist and wriggle to justify it to the bureaucracy. In fact, while CRA won't say so publicly, 90% of benefit fraud we experience is with "new Canadians"

Not all new Canadians come, fail and become impoverished. Certainly it makes sense that a sector of new Canadians who can't read or write and work in the English or French languages are doomed to be marginal

Then why bring them here? Numerous studies of the immigration system have advised the government to increase the points for those who have the requisite language skills. Numerous studies have pointed to immigrant illiteracy as a major factor in their poor economic performance.

What we do know is many jobs immigrants take are not jobs what "older" Canadians will ever take.

That's a myth. Canadians will certainly take those jobs if they have an incentive to, especially if the jobs pay better. And it is mass immigration of low skilled workers which is depressing the pay rates for those jobs.

The refugee determination laws drafted by arm chair guilt ridden individuals, some who I had the misfortunate to have to work with and dialogue with had no clue as to the real world. They created a fantasy system where Canada became the messiah of the down trodden but in fact simply created a system where every p ervert, criminal, corupt politician and political abuser could be the first out of their country and into Canada claiming refugee status

.

I don't disagree with you here. It's farcical that anyone can come here and claim refugee status, and then stay for years while it's sorted out. How many ex hollywood stars with mental problems do we need to support anyway?

This country needs more population to replace the aging baby boomers if it is to have a tax basin to pay out for the social services for the aged in the years to come.

This too is a myth. The average age of immigrants is about the same as that of Canadians, and immigrants who are poor, even working poor, do not pay taxes and so do not help to support anyone.

[Michael Hardner]

By that logic the best thing that ever happened to Canada was outsourcing. In fact, we'd be even better if every Canadian took a 90% pay cut! Oh what a lovely place to live this would be then!

Not at all. There is a market for higher paying work too, but you can't expect to pay Tim Hortons employees twice as much, and expect to sell as much coffee when the price increases.

I dumb it down because most of the people arguing in favour of immigration are dumb.

Name-calling is not like you. Seems to me you're running out of arguments, which is ironic giving the subject of this thread.

There's another thread called "how a liberal argues"... according to the video therein, they argue like you do.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not decrying prejudice against Christians. I'm decrying the hypocrisy of people who give non-Christians a buy out on the same things which infuriate them when Christians do it.

Isn't that the same as saying they're prejudiced against Christians ?

Maybe it's better to refer to it as hypocrisy or double-standards.

[Rue]

I'm not decrying prejudice against Christians. I'm decrying the hypocrisy of people who give non-Christians a buy out on the same things which infuriate them when Christians do it.

Like the NDP eagerly enticing Arar's Hijab wearing wife to run for them in my previous riding, then being embarrassingly silent when she admitted there was no way in hell she would ever support gay rights.

I have read your posts long enough these last few years do know you hate everyone equally and for the same reasons lol, and yes the example you give is precisely one that for me epitomizes everything I hate about the NDP. That said, those kinds of issues dealing with cultural assimilation to me should be seperated when discussing immigration issues from the ones dealing with how we make sure people are working and contributing to our tax basin.

I think people willing to come and work hard and pay taxes we want. How to assure we bring those kind of people and not people who are going to bring negative baggage with them incomptable with our Western views is a special topic. It is a tough one because for me it makes an exception to the rule. Yes I would agree Argus someone who comes to Canada and works hard and pays their taxes but brings hatred and spreads it no I do not want him or her here causing problems for us all.

I also am not naive and know some very pro Canadian new immigrants contribute nothing to Canada and never will but then we can say the same thing about Canadians born here and equally about bigoted and non bigoted people.

Let's face it Argus, we will always have a percentage of our population who will not work and figure out the systems and play them. I am not sure you can ever find a way to sift them out and its a delicte act not to hurt innocent people in the name of cracking down on some parasites.

I also get upset with people who come to Canada and have no loyalty to it and just use it as a temporary residence and suck it for all its good and leave nothing behind.

However I do not want to negatively stereotype anyone. Not because I am a guilt ridden Liberal but because I am a reasonable person and I know there is good and bad and a bit of both in all groups we care to define.

I get annoyed with either extreme-the one that says we can't talk about a unified Canada first vision because it will be unfair and intolerant but I also get upset with the other extreme that paints all immigrants as bumbs or ungrateful or a drain on society.

I am in no position to engage in negative stereotypes of new Canadians or old Canadians. I have enough problems governing my own affairs and me personally, I believe the only real Canadians were aboriginal peoples and then while the english and the French then came and I consider them the second wave, its the aboriginals I consider the original Canadians. I see this country as a mix of the original aboriginal combined with the Anglo-French as the second wave, and then all the rest of us shmucks in the next never ending wave. So I see Canada as having 4 components, aboriginal, Anglo, Franco and for want of a better word the rest of us shmucks. Mix it all up that is what we have.

For me though all Canadians should understand first and foremost the aboriginal traditions, then the Anglo and Franco and how those three were the foundation from which the rest of us could then come and build on to. I see nothing wrong in a mixed bowl of soup with many spices added but to be realistic, it has to be mixed and made into a uniform and consistent formula called Canadian if it will ever work. Cosntantly putting a hyphen before Canadian means its boiling over and not being mixed properly I want a clear Canadian identity not this constant confusion of it can be whatever it wants to be at any moment. I want it to be aboriginal, Anglo and Franco with a mix of et al but it has to be Canadian and put Canada first and I can't see it doing that ignoring the aboriginal cultural traditions and then the British and French experiences.

There is no way a person born in Canada like me who is from a family of refugees and immigrants who came to escape oppression is anything but Canadian first precisely because I learned the aboriginal, British and French histories and know they are at the pith and substance of what Canada is and the freedom I am able to have. I myself could not imagine a Canada without those 3 references and building onto them and thanking the peoples from those 3 for creating the foundation for a country for me and others.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Rue

[Pliny]

Pliny: That's 2 now. Of course, you have to assume that questioning immigration policy is racist but there is no other reasonable reason why a crowd would think immigration policy could not or should not be questioned.

Nope. Labelling all questioning of immigration policy as racist is not reasonable.

If I wasn't clear enough I was not talking about all questioning of immigration policy. I was referring to the specific incident where a person was shouted down by a crowd when he questioned immigration policy. Perhaps, I could have better said, "Of course, you have to assume that questioning immigration policy is racist in this instance....."

Why would any intelligent person interpret the intent of what I said and think that it was "labeling all questioning of immigration policy is racist " and then profoundly state it "is not reasonable."

You chose to interpret it that way which means there is no intent on your part toward reaching any understanding.

My experience on forums leads me to an understanding of your point of view which is to speciously misconstrue what is said, argue semantics, be coy, generally nitpick and mix it up with a bit of civility once in awhile just to keep things off balance.

I enjoy intelligent discussions and have no one I ignore. You are, in my opinion, quite intelligent but I believe our personal differences of opinion or method of debate belays any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Consequently, my engagement with you will probably be quite limited.

This is my honest opinion and assessment, true or not, it is my conclusion. Basically, I am not interested in wasting anymore of my limited time here trying to explain my view to someone who really isn't interested in understanding it anyway.

Good day, sir.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Pliny

[Shwa]

If I wasn't clear enough I was not talking about all questioning of immigration policy. I was referring to the specific incident where a person was shouted down by a crowd when he questioned immigration policy. Perhaps, I could have better said, "Of course, you have to assume that questioning immigration policy is racist in this instance....."

First page, 4th post. Do you have something you want to add or discuss about this?

Although I think you'll find that there is no such things as "unfettered" immigration in Canada thus the racist label isn't heard that often. Although, when it is heard with regard to our present policies, we ought to pay attention to those concerns if they are warranted.

Why would any intelligent person interpret the intent of what I said and think that it was "labeling all questioning of immigration policy is racist " and then profoundly state it "is not reasonable."

I wasn't necessarily attributing the view to you specifically, but as an idea that appears to come up often.

You chose to interpret it that way which means there is no intent on your part toward reaching any understanding.

My experience on forums leads me to an understanding of your point of view which is to speciously misconstrue what is said, argue semantics, be coy, generally nitpick and mix it up with a bit of civility once in awhile just to keep things off balance.

I enjoy intelligent discussions and have no one I ignore. You are, in my opinion, quite intelligent but I believe our personal differences of opinion or method of debate belays any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Consequently, my engagement with you will probably be quite limited.

This is my honest opinion and assessment, true or not, it is my conclusion. Basically, I am not interested in wasting anymore of my limited time here trying to explain my view to someone who really isn't interested in understanding it anyway.

Thanks for the personal evaluation Pliny, it really means alot, especially coming from you. Allow me to offer the same kindness in return, but using only one word to evaluate you: egotist.

[Pliny]

Thanks for the personal evaluation Pliny, it really means alot, especially coming from you. Allow me to offer the same kindness in return, but using only one word to evaluate you: egotist.

At last some straight forward honesty. It took me a long time to get that out of you. Why didn't you say that at the time you decided it or were you just suspicious until now?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Pliny