New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Shwa]

Shwa, you strike me as being able to discuss immigration policy rationally, without name calling. And I feel that I can do so as well. Anybody else on here want to discuss immigration reform ? I imagine there are some.

I'm just waiting for some good arguments to progress on this topic.

I think I can and I believe that all immigration policies should be regularly reviewed as a simple matter of a management best practice.

What I see Argus asking is that should non-government organizations - such as the one he cited - have direct influence on immigration policy and reform? That is a touchy subject I think. Not the subject of immigration policy per se, but the influence of outside organizations including think tanks, ethnic lobby groups, religious groups etc. Sure they should be heard, their reports reviewed, but where is a line drawn to ensure there is no direct influence?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Shwa

[Pliny]

I don't think we need to change our system specifically for immigration. Any changes to the system that I favour are across-the-board for all government ops.

On the other hand, if we're talking about major shifts... do we want to start talking about redesigning the economy ? Some are touting no-immigration/no-growth models, it seems to me. I have seen one paper on that: Prosperity Without Growth

It isn't the economy that has to grow. It is government that must sustain itself and pay for it's growing economic social liabilities that enforces growth.

From it's introduction:

Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours

is the myth of economic growth. For the last five

decades the pursuit of growth has been the single

most important policy goal across the world.

Yes it is the single most important policy goal, not of society, but of government. It must inflate the money supply to keep growth going. This intervention of easy money and credit does not allow for poor investments, bad management and ill conceived businesses, to fail. They keep thriving because money is easily available and credit cheap. When failure of large businesses occur it is a shock and most, if not totally corrupt, will be bailed out. Small businesses of little or questionable value to society, such as the Paris Hilton's and Kim Kardashian's of the world can keep going because there is lots of money around.

What should happen is that growth be controlled by deflation. Then any growth we have is efficient and sustainable.

Unfortunately, governments lose revenues in periods of deflation so it avoids it and calls it a recession or depression. In supplying social benefits government must maintain it's revenues and therefore encourages economic growth 100% of the time. People wind up doing useless things when there is no correction. But when prices and wages adjust naturally instead of being continually inflated by government there is no deflation or inflation which are general macro-economic phenomena, instead there is a continual adjustment of prices and wages on a micro-economic level, hardly affecting all of the population at once. Their policy of growth creates and fosters inefficiency and misuse of resources.

The text within seemed to be more about a heart-and-home plea to persuade people to change than about a specific plan for replacing our economy with something new.

They must change their vote to change society and not think of government as a source of entitlement.

A return to Sound money and an abandonment of government's inflationary monetary and fiscal policy is the only solution. Who is going to vote for cutting entitlements?

Sorry, Pliny. It doesn't fly for me any more to say that immigration policy opponents are labeled racist.

Well, the way you phrased that it sounds like it did fly with you at one time. Did it?

Take a look at this thread. There hasn't been any progress made on the issues discussed here, and in fact you have people like justme coming in and dominating the debate at points.

If I took the time to go through this thread, I could score the pro/anti reform posters on how much they focused on issues rather than name calling. I don't think there would be a clear winner on either side.

Good discussion takes both sides, and pro-reform people aren't any more ready than those who would label them racist without listening.

There won't be any progress until politically correct multi-culturalism policies are neutered. The left argues from the multi-cultural aspect and the right argues from the aspect of a single Canadian culture and assimilation of other cultures. If someone cleaves to their culture why would they want to live in Canada, if it is a different culture to theirs? The second generation will be confused and want to abandon their original culture or at least some aspects of it, for the dominant one, especially if their own culture has restrictions on their freedoms that their adopted culture doesn't. Families in this respect are going to have problems unless they decide that the "adopted" culture remain foreign to them and they will in that case work to just use it and abuse it. This results in cultural tensions and dissension with little assimilation occurring. What is wrong with the idea that we have created a country that is desirable to live in and people should come here to continue to make it a desirable place to live in by adopting the workable aspects of the existing culture?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Well PC doesn't shut down debate here, thank God, however opposing blind bigotry or chauvensim isn't necessarily PC.

But I am curious about this: "If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist."

Have you ever seen legitimate critics of immigration policy vilified as "racist?" If so, where?

I don't in the least think you are curious about it.

What do you define as a "legitimate critic"? Let me guess, there aren't any here.

Tell me you haven't seen "any" critics of immigration policy vilified as racist first and that it doesn't exist whatsoever.

Say what you really mean to say and please abandon the coy, condescending attitude.

[Michael Hardner]

It isn't the economy that has to grow. It is government that must sustain itself and pay for it's growing economic social liabilities that enforces growth.

This argument seems like a tangent to the discussion on immigration. Of course, the economy still needs to grow whether or not the government does.

Well, the way you phrased that it sounds like it did fly with you at one time. Did it?

I used to entertain the complaint that people weren't allowed to discuss immigration for fear of being shouted down. As such, when this thread I wondered if that was still the case in 2010. I haven't done the score card on this thread, as it's 20 pages long but I don't recall seeing any relevant and reasonable posters dismissed as racists on this thread.

What is wrong with the idea that we have created a country that is desirable to live in and people should come here to continue to make it a desirable place to live in by adopting the workable aspects of the existing culture?

Nothing, and in fact I think that is what we promote.

[Pliny]

Not sure if you're being ironic, but if you are then you should know that Pliny's comment falls short of rational.

No, I was not being ironic. I think you were referring to Argus's comment as falling short of rational.

I didn't find it to be irrational from the perspective of immigration but it would be from the perspective of multi-culturalism.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I was not being ironic. I think you were referring to Argus's comment as falling short of rational.

I didn't find it to be irrational from the perspective of immigration but it would be from the perspective of multi-culturalism.

Ok, then why is Argus' point possibly racist ? I don't think it would necessary be so, if it were correct. I took it to mean that importing millions of hostile immigrants at once would be a bad idea.

Who could argue against that, if it were remotely true ?

[Pliny]

This argument seems like a tangent to the discussion on immigration. Of course, the economy still needs to grow whether or not the government does.

I think the sustainability of growth is the question here not whether an economy needs to grow. There are times it needs to correct itself but usually never has to on a macro level only business or industry specific areas that need correction. What government fosters is economic bubbles that burst affecting the whole economy.

I used to entertain the complaint that people weren't allowed to discuss immigration for fear of being shouted down. As such, when this thread I wondered if that was still the case in 2010. I haven't done the score card on this thread, as it's 20 pages long but I don't recall seeing any relevant and reasonable posters dismissed as racists on this thread.

Well, to be honest I haven't looked on this thread either but I have in the past seen individuals called racist for their views on immigration.

Pliny: What is wrong with the idea that we have created a country that is desirable to live in and people should come here to continue to make it a desirable place to live in by adopting the workable aspects of the existing culture?

Nothing, and in fact I think that is what we promote.

Well, it doesn't seem to be what we are getting. I think we are trailing in Europe's footsteps and will inevitably end up where they are today since we have similar multi-cultural policies.

[Oleg Bach]

If human resourses are truely a resourse, then their must be some quality control in place regarding immigration...Ride your local bus or subway and have a good look...These immigrants are NOT the cream of the crop..they are NOT the best their land of origin has to offer--- If they were..they would have stayed put and stayed home where they were doing well - BUT they were not doing well...So governments quietly get together and make deals on how to dump human garbage anywhere they can..Look at the deal Mexico made with the states---IT consisted of Fox saying to Bush...."Hey George...the land fill is full- can I dump my used up slaves in Arizona?" ----Thats about it...

Internal displacement of original populations is common world wide..It is not about improving the quality of life or the economy of host nations..It's simply about finding a way to get rid of useless people with out resorting to the scandalous idea of state santioned genocide - to solve the problem.

[Pliny]

Ok, then why is Argus' point possibly racist ? I don't think it would necessary be so, if it were correct. I took it to mean that importing millions of hostile immigrants at once would be a bad idea.

Who could argue against that, if it were remotely true ?

Look at it through a politically correct lens. What culture is hostile to ours or us? None. If there is a perception of hostility it is because some of us are intolerant, not because anyone or any culture is hostile.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

I think the sustainability of growth is the question here not whether an economy needs to grow.

That sounds like a good line of inquiry to me.

Well, to be honest I haven't looked on this thread either but I have in the past seen individuals called racist for their views on immigration.

Me too. It is still happening in the public at large, as one mayoral candidate questioned whether we can support growth in Toronto and was shouted down.

Well, it doesn't seem to be what we are getting. I think we are trailing in Europe's footsteps and will inevitably end up where they are today since we have similar multi-cultural policies.

Europe and Canada have very different approaches. Our workplace and business environment are more flexible than theirs, and we have a generally more open society and less of a national identity. All of these things have advantages, IMO.

[Shwa]

I don't in the least think you are curious about it.

Why so touchy?

What do you define as a "legitimate critic"?

Think tanks (such as the one in the OP), ethnic lobby groups, recognized spokesperson for communities or religious groups...

Let me guess, there aren't any here.

I dunno.

Tell me you haven't seen "any" critics of immigration policy vilified as racist first and that it doesn't exist whatsoever.

Some critics ARE racist, which poses a problem. If we lump in "any" criticism as being racist, then that is no good either. Therefore, we need to establish a baseline - an open, public and rationale baseline such as the groups above.

So for open and public groups or even public persons that criticize immigration policies, do they get labeled as racist in the press or other media? I wouldn't think so seeing how libel laws work and such, so I am wondering where you are seeing all the immigration critics being labeled as racist. Not counting MLW of course.

Say what you really mean to say and please abandon the coy, condescending attitude.

This is what I meant to say, although I thought I was clear about it the first time.

[Michael Hardner]

Some critics ARE racist, which poses a problem. If we lump in "any" criticism as being racist, then that is no good either. Therefore, we need to establish a baseline - an open, public and rationale baseline such as the groups above.

Like 'justme' who wades in the debate on immigration reform, only to say that he thinks the races should be kept separate. It's not so much his/her racism that distracts the discussion, but the fact that they don't accept immigration at all.

[Pliny]

Europe and Canada have very different approaches. Our workplace and business environment are more flexible than theirs, and we have a generally more open society and less of a national identity. All of these things have advantages, IMO.

There are definitely differences but we are on course to make our workplace and business environment less flexible, become a more closed society (Americans not allowed) and increasingly cling to our national identity.

[Michael Hardner]

There are definitely differences but we are on course to make our workplace and business environment less flexible, become a more closed society (Americans not allowed) and increasingly cling to our national identity.

Do you think so ? With the global economy pulling us offshore, and putting Asia in our backyard I don't see the trend going the way you seem to.

Anti-Americanism may be a result of more contact with the US, or our realization that we're still hugely dependent on them for exports.

[Evening Star]

Yeah, that makes no sense to me at all, esp considering that the US is our largest trading partner and we're among their chief allies.

[Pliny]

What do you define as a "legitimate critic"?

Think tanks (such as the one in the OP), ethnic lobby groups, recognized spokesperson for communities or religious groups...

Well, that sort of ends the thread.

Some critics ARE racist, which poses a problem. If we lump in "any" criticism as being racist, then that is no good either. Therefore, we need to establish a baseline - an open, public and rationale baseline such as the groups above.

You are, of course, a member of one of the groups above?

I think if we had freedom of speech and racists could speak freely then we would know who they are and not confuse them with people who have legitimate social concerns. Such as forced integration of cultures disguised as multi-cultural tolerance.

In this day and age I think we recognize people are people of whatever race, colour or creed and all deserve the same consideration. Thus true racists could never rise to any power.

What you say is true a baseline has to be established but curtailing freedom of speech blurs the line and we guess or point fingers at who we think might be a racist, carte blanche using the race card when we can, making a mockery of racism with multi-culturalism and the expectation of unquestioning tolerance.

So for open and public groups or even public persons that criticize immigration policies, do they get labeled as racist in the press or other media? I wouldn't think so seeing how libel laws work and such, so I am wondering where you are seeing all the immigration critics being labeled as racist. Not counting MLW of course.

Michael happened to mention one and seems to be aware of it. Are you not aware of it at all?

This is what I meant to say, although I thought I was clear about it the first time.

Not relevant. Coy and condescending.

[Pliny]

Do you think so ? With the global economy pulling us offshore, and putting Asia in our backyard I don't see the trend going the way you seem to.

The trend is still that way as I see it, we still have our alliances but you may be correct there could be a shift.

Anti-Americanism may be a result of more contact with the US, or our realization that we're still hugely dependent on them for exports.

In my opinion, anti-Americanism or anti any culture exists for one of two reasons, imperialistic aggression, real or perceived, military or economic, or ignorance (jealousy included in the definition of ignorance).

[Argus]

I think I can and I believe that all immigration policies should be regularly reviewed as a simple matter of a management best practice.

Immigration policy has never been reviewed. There has never been any quantifable goals set for the immigration system and no research or statistical analyses has ever been done to attempt to set a number on what type of or how many immigrants Canada should take in. No effort has ever been made to determine what percentage of immigrants we let in ought to fail or what, if anything to do should that number be exceeded. How, given all that, can policies be adequately reviewed?

What I see Argus asking is that should non-government organizations - such as the one he cited - have direct influence on immigration policy and reform?

I never asked any such thing. I pointed out that this new group set itself up and was immediately called "unCanadian" for daring to question immigration policy and suggest that it might not be entirely justifiable.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

It's not so much his/her racism that distracts the discussion, but the fact that they don't accept immigration at all.

It's too bad you couldn't disarm such people by pointing out the evidence which says immigration is good for Canadians.

Assuming, of course, such evidence actually exists somewhere.

[guyser]

Immigration policy has never been reviewed.

On April 6, 2000 the Government of Canada introduced a first reading of a proposed new Bill respecting the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“Bill C-31”). Bill C-31 is a major legislative initiative that follows a four-year exhaustive review of Canada’s existing immigration program and policies and which culminated in the submission to Parliament of a report in January 1998, enumerating 172 recommendations by a three-member panel, the Legislative Review Advisory Group.

http://www.immigration.ca/permres-new_protection_act.asp

[Michael Hardner]

It's too bad you couldn't disarm such people by pointing out the evidence which says immigration is good for Canadians.

Assuming, of course, such evidence actually exists somewhere.

The evidence is in the economics unfortunately. Economics is something that even the brightest of us find hard to understand. But that said, it's a given that growth is good.

Some point out that sustainable growth is what we should focus on. If that's the case, then it's assumed that the basis for the discussion is "What is good growth ?" and not "How do we keep immigrants out ?".

[Argus]

http://www.immigration.ca/permres-new_protection_act.asp

Let me clarify. I did not mean to suggest no one anywhere has ever reviewed immigration. The fraser report, for example, did that.

However, our immigration system is not based on any detailed analyses of our economic and social needs. The report you mention was quite detailed in its analyses, but most of the recommendations were ignored. It, for example, recommended far more extensive use of detentions of refugees, especially those whose cases are almost certainly not going to succeed.

[Argus]

The evidence is in the economics unfortunately. Economics is something that even the brightest of us find hard to understand. But that said, it's a given that growth is good.

Who says its a given? You have one pie and four people. Good? You add four more people and you now have two pies. Where is the improvement? There's more mess, more crowding, but where is the improvement?

What if you add five more people, but only one more pie. Now there's actually less to go around. Where's the improvement there?

Where is the economic analyses and factual justification for immigration? The government should have performed such a detailed analyses, and should be doing so fairly frequently so it knows what numbers to let in, but I don't see it.

[Michael Hardner]

Who says its a given? You have one pie and four people. Good? You add four more people and you now have two pies. Where is the improvement? There's more mess, more crowding, but where is the improvement?

What if you add five more people, but only one more pie. Now there's actually less to go around. Where's the improvement there?

Argus, you have well written posts and generally have a good mind - but your analogy here is just off the charts wrong.

An economy isn't a pie. There isn't a treasure chest of wealth for us to divide up. An economy has movement of capital from person to person.

Where is the economic analyses and factual justification for immigration? The government should have performed such a detailed analyses, and should be doing so fairly frequently so it knows what numbers to let in, but I don't see it.

They likely did it around 1850. If there is work to be done, and people willing to do it at the wage offered, then they look to import somebody to do the job 1-2-3. If that person has children, then you have more productive people adding to the economy, spending, buying and paying taxes.

[Shwa]

Immigration policy has never been reviewed.

Simply not true. For example, program evaluations are always used in the audits and reviews of policy.

There has never been any quantifable goals set for the immigration system and no research or statistical analyses has ever been done to attempt to set a number on what type of or how many immigrants Canada should take in. No effort has ever been made to determine what percentage of immigrants we let in ought to fail or what, if anything to do should that number be exceeded.

That you know of. However I think even with the partnerships with the provinces and their input into the goals of immigration there doesn't appear to be a 'layman's' report laying around that clearly spells out how the present numbers were determined and I think there should be. Now if you want, there is plenty of digging to do here with the Sustainable Development Strategy document. But it still is not right up front about any quantifiable goals.

How, given all that, can policies be adequately reviewed?

Quite simply the are reporting on things as they stand now.

I never asked any such thing. I pointed out that this new group set itself up and was immediately called "unCanadian" for daring to question immigration policy and suggest that it might not be entirely justifiable.

Your quite right here. I suppose I should have used the word 'participation' and not the word 'influence' too. No such legitimate group should be blithely attacked for a genuine interest in immigration policy review or reform in Canada.