New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[justme]

According to this Newsweek article fromn last year, less than a quarter of the 4 million whites have left South Africa in the last 15 years. Not last year, not over the past 5 years - over the past 15 years. It also shows that South Africa - the nation - isn't "driving a million of them out."

Where did I suggest that it happened in one to five years? From one of my posts on the 15th:

"Roughly a million white people have left South Africa AFTER the fall of apartheid due to safety concerns."

More than one million white South Africans have left the country since the end of apartheid.

Oh, and the government plays stupid. When did it start happening? That's right, AFTER the fall of apartheid.

Yeah, "balancing things out" sounds about right.

Your idea of balance is to make it a black country, and I have no problem with black countries, but by the same token, white people should have the right to white countries, but...

Black countries for blacks.

Asian countries for Asians.

Muslim countries for Muslims.

Israel for Jews.

Mexico for Mexicans.

White countries for everyone.

Tonto called. He wants his country back.

You mean the land that wasn't yet a country that had people living on it before Tonto's people arrived?

If Tonto tried to make his tribe multicultural, he'd lose his scalp.

Many Jews are "white" and many Israelis are white, Christian and Muslim. If they Israelis advocate "multiculurism for white Christian countries" that is of little consequence to "white Christian countries." No double standard.

Netanyahu demands Palestinians recognize 'Jewish state'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_a-25MhRuk

So you have some special Wizard like skills that divine what "Japan" or "Black countries" actually want?

Hocus Pocus:

Japan: Japanese 98.5%

"Although the UN estimates Japan would need 17 million immigrants by 2050 to maintain its current population, immigration is still considered a solution of last resort as even today, there are many in Japan who believe culture and tradition are no less important than survival."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_hilton/20060330.html

There are no policies that state white people must only mate with non-whites.

People that disagree with intermarriage will be condemned for racism.

The government protects the right to be anti-white but tries to do away with the right to be pro-white. It's called political correctness.

Edited October 17, 2010 by justme

[Argus]

Well here's the thing Dorothy, the "white people" in all those countries you are whining about, are the ones that determined their immigration policies in the first place. Turks didn't decide what the immigration policy of Germany was going to be. Blacks didn't force the white Brits to set their immigration up they way they did. And the same thing applies to every single country you can name that is being - as you say - "flooded."

You're quite right. It wasn't the third world countries who decided this. It was the Left in the West. The Left fell in love with the idea of multiculturalism, with the idea of a "community of rainbows" with cultures from all over the world. Throughout the West the bleeding hearts of the Left wanted to offer up "opportunities" to third world residents, and none gave a single solitary thought to what, if any, ill effects might result of that. I'd also dare to say most had little idea just how high the foreign presence would become in their countries decades later.

Most, not all. We now know the Labour party in the UK had a secret plan to change the face of the country for ideological purposes. It never campaigned on it, never told anyone its objectives, just did it.

Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.

Labour's Secret Plan on Immigration

In Canada, the plan was Trudeau's. He also wanted to change the face of the country in order to draw tension away from the English-French question. He felt if there were dozens of different communities the English-French friction would disperse into the maze of cross-community relations and tensions.

There wasn't a lot of official opposition to immigration from the Right for two reasons. The first is that business loves immigration because it pushes labour prices down. The second was that anyone questioning immigration was immediately called a racist, a xenophobe, intolerant, etc.

In fact, all three parties in the Commons were enthusiastic supporters of Multiculturalism, high immigration, and official bilingualism despite the fact massive numbers of people were deeply opposed to all of them. Only when the Reform Party was born did those people have a voice, but Reform collapsed under a nearly continuous and sometimes hysterical series of attacks by the media and cultural elites, softened their stands repeatedly, and became just another liberal party light - much like the Progressive Conservatives. Now their remnants enthusiastically embrace mass immigration and call for more - just like the other two parties.

This despite massive numbers of Canadians being deeply disapproving of almost all aspects of immigration. Almost half of Canadians, in a recent Angus Reid poll, felt immigration was having a negative effect on Canada - yet all three parties continue to pursue high rates of immigration without question. And any individual member of those parties who dares to voice concern is immediately attacked from all sides, both within his or her own party, and from other parties, the media, the immigration industry (including all the government funded ethnic group leaders) as a racist and bigot who needs to be forced out of office.

Why? Simple. Despite the fact huge numbers of Canadians are unhappy with immigration, it is not considered to be a deciding factor in the voting pattern of most of them. On the other hand, there are now large ethnic (immigrant) groups who control important seats, and as far as the politicians are concerned, anyone who speaks against immigration will lose their opportunity for those seats.

Thus Harper, who is the ultimate politician, woos immigrants by promising continued high immigration while being reasonably certain that most of his supporters want immigration curtailed or slowed. Who else are they going to vote for, he figures. And he figures right. Given the other parties are unanimous in their similar political manoeuvrings on this issue they are just itching for any excuse to attack the Tories as racists, bigots, xenophobes, etc. on immigration.

Look at how the Liberal immigration critic worked with the tories on refugee reform, only to have the party pull back lest it offend immigrants. They didn't care what was best for Canada, only what was best for their political prospects in immigrant communities.

This is the same sort of situation which existed in the UK, and which has led to the creation of a racist party (the BNP) which is showing signs of gaining real support now because of the immigration issue.

Immigration and the refusal of mainstream parties to address it is also leading to voter changes in other countries, notably in the nordic countries. In Germany, the government isn't quite ready to do a lot about immigration, but as in England, they have basically declared multiculturalism dead, and begun to demand immigrants learn their language and stop being foreigners in their own land.

[Argus]

You're referring to whom here ? The families of immigrants ? What is the overall unemployment rate among immigrants after 1 year, 5 years in Canada ?

Why should I post information when you can't be bothered to read it?

The unemployment rate has come down, especially for

recent immigrant men (pre recession stats), but was almost twice as high for men and three times as high for women as for the Canadian born. The poor labor-market performance of recent immigrants is greatest for recent immigrants from Africa and to a lesser extent Asia and Latin America (table 5.2)

...In recent years, in spite of the changes in immigration policy introduced by the government, the earnings of recent immigrants have continued to deteriorate relative to those of equivalent Canadian-born workers

...Most troubling of all is the downtrend in the relative

performance of recent immigrants, which shows no signs of abating even as the labor market tightened.(clearly this report was written before the recession)

So is the anti-immigration system. In fact, all economic discussions tend to descend to lower levels because the public doesn't understand economics very well.

The problem is you and the other great defenders of massive immigration use a reverse onus test. Despite the fact the government has never articulated more than a feel-good reason for immigration to be this high, has never set out statistical studies or evidence as to what it should be, or what the benefits are, you continue to insist the policy must remain in place until someone can prove without a shred of a shadow of a doubt that it is harmful to Canada. And few of you are even willing to consider the evidence, anyway.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Argus

[Evening Star]

Most, not all. We now know the Labour party in the UK had a secret plan to change the face of the country for ideological purposes. It never campaigned on it, never told anyone its objectives, just did it.

Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.

Labour's Secret Plan on Immigration

In Canada, the plan was Trudeau's. He also wanted to change the face of the country in order to draw tension away from the English-French question. He felt if there were dozens of different communities the English-French friction would disperse into the maze of cross-community relations and tensions.

You know, even as ulterior motives, neither of these sounds horrible to me.

[Argus]

That is what I like about you Argus, when you can no longer attack the message, you attack the messanger.

Pointing out that you clearly have no understanding of economics is not an attack.

What is silly is you trying to create a straw man with roughly 10% of immigrants by generalizing a limited condition to apply to them all by default.

And your comprehension skills seem similarly low. I have posted statistics which support what all of us can see day-to-day. That is, that the economic performance of immigrants is considerably worse than it was three decades ago, and continues to deteriorate. Immigrants are increasingly more likely to be living in poverty and for that situation to be long term if not permanent.

The sane position would be to realize that the non-productive element in the immigrant population is fairly small

Why do you believe it's sane to take a position based on zero evidence?

and that - by and large - the economic benefits from material consumption alone contributes to our economic well being

You are once again demonstrating economic illiteracy. Material consumption? By this measure if we built millions of cars for free and shipped them out to the world as a measure of our generosity, we would somehow be economically better off.

Now how do you explain all that success and prosperity with such high immigration rates?

You mean despite. Imagine how high that success and prosperity would be without hordes of illiterates coming to Canada every year.

Canada is in the G8 dude, or have you forgetten?

Wow.

I successfully debunked the 'spin' that the Fraser Institute put on their report.

All you demonstrated was that you didn't read it, had no interest in reading it, have no care or concern about statistical or academic information, and support high immigration for ideological or racial reasons.

All I have "shown?" Come off it, G8 bud. High levels of immigration, small population, G8.

Your scientific and economic methodology is without equal.

[justme]

CANADIEN,

Canada, America and Europe will be a majority non-white by the middle of the century. To turn a majority population in a country into a minority, regardless of how it's done, is destructive for them culturally, politically, etc. It turns their way of life and who they are as a people upside down, and if you think they like it, explain white flight. There is no way such a policy can be carried out without knowing what the results will be, and thus the intent is self-evident.

[Argus]

CANADIEN,

Canada, America and Europe will be a majority non-white by the middle of the century. To turn a majority population in a country into a minority, regardless of how it's done, is destructive for them culturally, politically, etc.

I know what you're trying to get at but you're quite wrong in the terms you're using. The fact the majority will have a different skin pigmentation is really not the problem. The problem is that we are importing foreign cultures with them and swamping our own domestic culture and value systems. The majority of the people in Toronto are now non-white. But the problems related to that are all due to the educational, cultural, traditional and religious beliefs of the newcomers, which persists into the next generation and the next due to continued high level of immigration.

If we ended immigration now, and allowed ourselves to absorb the newcomers and their children for a few decades, we'd be okay. But the continued growth in "ethnic" ie, foreign cultures in Canada is what is pushing aside Canadian traditions, values and beliefs.

[justme]

You know, even as ulterior motives, neither of these sounds horrible to me.

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

You don't have a problem with that? Sounds like treason to me.

[justme]

In Germany, the government isn't quite ready to do a lot about immigration, but as in England, they have basically declared multiculturalism dead, and begun to demand immigrants learn their language and stop being foreigners in their own land.

Thilo Sarrazin's book, Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany does away with itself), is a number one best seller on Amazon.de.

And the latest news:

Merkel says German multicultural society has failed

[Evening Star]

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place.

You don't have a problem with that?

None whatsoever.

[Evening Star]

I mean, that's more or less the explicit point of multiculturalism, isn't it? Has anyone pretended otherwise?

[CANADIEN]

CANADIEN,

Canada, America and Europe will be a majority non-white by the middle of the century. To turn a majority population in a country into a minority, regardless of how it's done, is destructive for them culturally, politically, etc. It turns their way of life and who they are as a people upside down, and if you think they like it, explain white flight. There is no way such a policy can be carried out without knowing what the results will be, and thus the intent is self-evident.

Bizarre, my cultural identity has not changed as a result of non-white immigartion, not one bit. And there is still no proof of INTENT. No surprise there, since the premise - that "white culture is being destroyed" is a non-sense to start with.

BTW, care to provide statistics about white-skinned people`s flight from Canada, the USA, Europe, Australia or New Zealand? More importantly, where are they going?

And no, no relying on South African numbers. After all, the majority of south Africans have always been black-skinned. Which, in your "to each race its own countries" would make white flight from that country .a good thing, to be emulated here through a mass exodus out Canada of all non-whites.

Edited October 17, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Evening Star]

Were people voting for Trudeau thinking that his policies concerning multiculturalism and immigration would promote a "society defined by a common religion, language and traditions"? (Or two languages and sets of cultural traditions in Canada's case?) I don't even get how this is some sort of secret plot. Did Mulroney continue those policies in the 80s because he was under this impression? Is it not possible that people might have realized and noticed that these policies would cause changes in society and that people might have liked some of these changes?

[Evening Star]

All that article has taught me is that the Daily Mail is in fact as creepy as my British friends tell me it is.

[justme]

'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII

'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.

'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.

Immigration tops the list of complaints.

'Our country has been given away to foreigners while we, the generation who fought for freedom, are having to sell our homes for care and are being refused medical services because incomers come first.'

'Our British culture is draining away at an ever increasing pace,' wrote an ex-Durham Light Infantryman, 'and we are almost forbidden to make any comment.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229643/This-isnt-Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

The media says all sorts of negative things about the BNP, but they seem to be the only party that's willing to stand up for Brits.

Nationalism simply means loyalty and devotion to a nation, and it's people that lack that that deserve contempt.

[CANADIEN]

Nationalism simply means loyalty and devotion to a nation, and it's people that lack that that deserve contempt.

Non-sense such as yours makes a mockery of nationalism, and would deserve my contempt, if it were not a free alternative to YukYuk.

Right now, CANADIANS of non-Western descent are among those fighting in our armed forces in Afghanistan. Their loyalty to this country is being proven each and every minute of their tour of duty. The only loyalty you show is to your own prejudice.

If I were forced to decide between keep them or you in this country, I would chose them. And no, it is not because of the colour of their skin or yours.

Edited October 17, 2010 by CANADIEN

[justme]

I mean, that's more or less the explicit point of multiculturalism, isn't it? Has anyone pretended otherwise?

Call it Marxistculturalism and you're closer to the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCJ8gyc-wKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0bqQetlgJ4

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

[justme]

Non-sense such as yours makes a mockery of nationalism, and would deserve my contempt, if it were not a free alternative to YukYuk.

Right now, CANADIANS of non-Western descent are among those fighting in our armed forces in Afghanistan. Their loyalty to this country is being proven each and every minute of their tour of duty. The only loyalty you show is to your own prejudice.

If I were forced to decide between keep them or you in this country, I would chose them. And no, it is not because of the colour of their skin or yours.

Is that why the government doesn't need an affirmative action program for the Armed Forces?

Europeans are the founding people of this country. It is why we have English and French as official languages. It is why we have a Westminster government and a legal system based on British common law. It is why the majority of the population is white and Christian. I'm not ashamed to say that I want to see it remain that way for future generations. I am loyal and devoted to Canada not to your vision of what Canada should be. If you have a problem with that, I don't care.

[g_bambino]

I know what you're trying to get at but you're quite wrong in the terms you're using. The fact the majority will have a different skin pigmentation is really not the problem. The problem is that we are importing foreign cultures with them and swamping our own domestic culture and value systems. The majority of the people in Toronto are now non-white. But the problems related to that are all due to the educational, cultural, traditional and religious beliefs of the newcomers, which persists into the next generation and the next due to continued high level of immigration.

If we ended immigration now, and allowed ourselves to absorb the newcomers and their children for a few decades, we'd be okay. But the continued growth in "ethnic" ie, foreign cultures in Canada is what is pushing aside Canadian traditions, values and beliefs.

It's always bothered me as well when people turn a discussion on immigration into one of race. Race has nothing whatsoever to do with any problems that arise from immigration; their roots, as you say, actually lie in cultural differences. However, Canadian culture has never been monolithic and impervious to the influence of new customs; over centuries, immigrants to this land have added to the existing ethos some of the beliefs and practices brought with them from whence they came. The real difficulty arises when an imported ethnic practice is simply and irreconcilably at odds with the domestic culture; it's then that we see those on the left who worship at the shrine of Trudeaupian multiculturalism start to splutter and get tangled by their own words as they attempt to explain how one culture's habit of separating and subjugating women, for instance, should be embraced for its differences by our tolerant and open society.

Worse still is the habit of the hand-wringers to erase from the Canadian character any aspects of it that they (not even necessarily the newcomers themselves) have deemed offensive to newcomers.

[+]

Edited October 17, 2010 by g_bambino

[justme]

Were people voting for Trudeau thinking that his policies concerning multiculturalism and immigration would promote a "society defined by a common religion, language and traditions"? (Or two languages and sets of cultural traditions in Canada's case?) I don't even get how this is some sort of secret plot. Did Mulroney continue those policies in the 80s because he was under this impression? Is it not possible that people might have realized and noticed that these policies would cause changes in society and that people might have liked some of these changes?

Mulroney didn't simply continue it, he increased immigration despite evidence of an economic downturn. The Conservatives have since continued mass immigration regardless of what shape the economy is in. They only care about the ethnic vote and take Canadians of European descent for granted because we don't have an alternative to vote for - Argus is right about that. There is no political party that will represent us.

[Michael Hardner]

Why should I post information when you can't be bothered to read it?

Sorry, but the data you have posted is incomplete. Unemployment is twice as high for immigrant men, which is how high ? And, again, at what point does it improve and what is the break-even point after which immigration is a net drain on the economy ?

Seriously, you set the bar with your opening post then we have this garbage thread dominated by justme and his racial segregationism and very little analysis. Are you still wondering why debate on this topic is next to impossible ?

The problem is you and the other great defenders of massive immigration use a reverse onus test. Despite the fact the government has never articulated more than a feel-good reason for immigration to be this high, has never set out statistical studies or evidence as to what it should be, or what the benefits are, you continue to insist the policy must remain in place until someone can prove without a shred of a shadow of a doubt that it is harmful to Canada. And few of you are even willing to consider the evidence, anyway.

I have invited this debate in my OP on this thread. The government has never set out statistical studies, perhaps because the link between immigration and economic growth is largely accepted ? I would say that the onus is on you to provide some evidence, and you did - the Fraser report (I think) - which I responded to.

If immigration was simply a feel-good initiative, then I would expect Harper (an economist) to cut back immigration. The reason that he hasn't, I have read here, is supposed to be that it would kill him politically. That starts to sound like a conspiracy theory after awhile. If Harper gets a majority are we all expecting that immigration will be severely curtailed then ?

[CANADIEN]

Is that why the government doesn't need an affirmative action program for the Armed Forces?

Whether or not the Armed forces feel they need to target minorities for recruitment (they don't - you see, unlike you, I do not feel the need to judge people according to the color of their skin) does not change the fact that there are people proving everyday a loyalty to this great country of ours that is not tainted by prejudice.

Europeans (...)

you mean whites, right?

are the founding people of this country.

Let's forget about the First Nations that litterally saved the lives of most of the first Europeans coming here, the Métis who were the first to stand up for the rights of Western Canadians, the Chinese workers of the Transcontinental railway, Black Loyalists who settled in Newfoundland, etc., etc.

It is why we have English and French as official languages.

Has there been any proposal for Chinese, Japonese, Swahili to replace them or for them to be added to the mix? Nope.

It is why we have a Westminster government (...)

There are proposal afloat for a system more akin to the American one, but do you seriously believe in the possibility of a system not based on democracy (direct or representative) being implemented any time during our life or the life of our children and grandchildren? You probably do... I don't, but then I deal into what actually makes sense, not prejudice-based fears.

and a legal system based on British common law.

and civil code law in Quebec, in case you've forgotten. And you will most likely bring the example of some immigrants who would prefer the law systems they've been used to. Thing is - they're not the first, they won't the last, they or their children will one day ask themselves why they even bothered in the first place.

It is why the majority of the population is white and Christian.

And the skin-colour of an individual matters only to those who cannot shake their illogical prejudices.

I am loyal and devoted to Canada not to your vision of what Canada should be. If you have a problem with that, I don't care.

You are devoted to a narrow, "idealized" vision of a Canada that is more myth than reality. And what I have with it is not a problem, but rather a chuckle.

Edited October 17, 2010 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The real difficulty arises when an imported ethnic practice is simply and irreconcilably at odds with the domestic culture; it's then that we see those on the left who worship at the shrine of Trudeaupian multiculturalism start to splutter and get tangled by their own words as they attempt to explain how one culture's habit of separating and subjugating women, for instance, should be embraced for its differences by our tolerant and open society.

I would like to see examples of people here suggesting we embrace the subjucation of women.

[Argus]

All that article has taught me is that the Daily Mail is in fact as creepy as my British friends tell me it is.

Why? Because it said something you didn't like? Would you prefer the Telegraph? Labour's Secret Immigration Plan or perhaps the Times? Labour's secret immigration scheme

[Saipan]

Let's forget about the First Nations that litterally saved the lives of most of the first Europeans coming here

They said so?

the Métis who were the first to stand up for the rights of Western Canadians

Ralph Klein did.

And the skin-colour of an individual matters only to those who cannot shake their illogical prejudices.

That would be Japs. Even their whorehouses have signs (in English) Japanese Gentlemen Only