Immigrants Should be Welcome, but Become Canadians (or Americans)

[jbg]

For how long must we sit idly by and listen while politicians such as Minister Jason Kenney spout worthless bromides about how Canada must continue to increase its immigration rate in order to "improve our economic performance," or whatever the latest talking points are.

While certain types of immigrants can theoretically help grow the Canadian economy by providing needed skills or talents, the actual statistics show that such "economic" migrants only comprise a minority of our overall immigrant take in. Far more immigrants enter the country as sponsored relatives of existing ones, or as charity case refugees, neither of which category serves much obvious economic purpose. (link to letter to editor)

This is a great piece and the U.S. has versions of the same problem, with the same result.

In the U.S. while a major source of immigration is the border, the large resident/voting population makes it politically hard to do much about it. The other problem is that most work and are desirable residents; things simply wouldn't get done without them.

Because of the 14th Amendment we have the problem of "chain migration" where if they have a baby in the U.S. it's a citizen (called "anchor babies"). Getting rid of the parents and not the infant is problematic. Worse, anchor babies are entitled to U.S. and local benefits such as Medicaid and schooling.

I'd be less mixed and more in favor of this if we weren't developing the "multi-cultural" disease, or letting them form enclaves and not learn English.

The problem, in my mind, in both countries is the lack of imperative for immigrants to assimilate and join forces with their new land. When my ancestors arrived (6 great-grandparents and my paternal grandmother) I suspect they, like most arrivals between 1890 and 1910 learned English as their first order of business. I did know my paternal grandmother, coming from what’s now Hungary or the Czech Republic, for a few years before she died. Her English was perfect and unaccented. She was, in all respects, an American.

In those days, to be fair, the chord was cut by the fact that a physical return to the “old country” to visit was impractical because of the religious persecutions that drove them out in the first place, and telephonic contact was extremely costly (about $120 for three minutes, or probably more, in today’s money) . Thus, when immigrants got on the train to the coast to take a ship to the U.S. the goodbyes were tearful and final. Now, the round-trips to Pakistan are frequent, and the telephone calls maybe $1 per minute or even less.

To solve the immigration problem we don’t need to eliminate the immigrants; just Canadianize or Americanize them.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a great piece and the U.S. has versions of the same problem, with the same result.

A great piece ?

It proposes that the Conservatives are trying to increase immigration to indoctrinate immigrants as Conservatives. That's just dumb. Furthermore, they used to say the same thing about the Liberals - I think perhaps on this very board.

In the U.S. while a major source of immigration is the border,

What does that mean ? Is there a country where immigrants don't come in across a border ? Maybe up from the ground via some kind of vacuum tube setup ?

the large resident/voting population makes it politically hard to do much about it. The other problem is that most work and are desirable residents; things simply wouldn't get done without them.

Because of the 14th Amendment we have the problem of "chain migration" where if they have a baby in the U.S. it's a citizen (called "anchor babies"). Getting rid of the parents and not the infant is problematic. Worse, anchor babies are entitled to U.S. and local benefits such as Medicaid and schooling.

Americans love the cheap labour, but they don't know it. What they do know is what they're constantly told on cable TV: immigrants are stealing from them.

I'd be less mixed and more in favor of this if we weren't developing the "multi-cultural" disease, or letting them form enclaves and not learn English.

Who is "we" ? America ? People are pretty much free there to do as they like, and if they're illegal immigrants anyway it's probably in the best interests of their bosses that they don't learn Spanglish.

The problem, in my mind, in both countries is the lack of imperative for immigrants to assimilate and join forces with their new land. When my ancestors arrived (6 great-grandparents and my paternal grandmother) I suspect they, like most arrivals between 1890 and 1910 learned English as their first order of business. I did know my paternal grandmother, coming from what’s now Hungary or the Czech Republic, for a few years before she died. Her English was perfect and unaccented. She was, in all respects, an American.

Anecdotal and not helpful.

In those days, to be fair, the chord was cut by the fact that a physical return to the “old country” to visit was impractical because of the religious persecutions that drove them out in the first place, and telephonic contact was extremely costly (about $120 for three minutes, or probably more, in today’s money) . Thus, when immigrants got on the train to the coast to take a ship to the U.S. the goodbyes were tearful and final. Now, the round-trips to Pakistan are frequent, and the telephone calls maybe $1 per minute or even less.

To solve the immigration problem we don’t need to eliminate the immigrants; just Canadianize or Americanize them.

So, in the end, this is just more of "this-group-or-that-group needs a spanking". The thing is, these systems evolve for a reason - as a reaction to a lot of different factors. Simply making a rule isn't a realistic way to solve the problems - just too simple.

[Shwa]

To solve the immigration problem we don’t need to eliminate the immigrants; just Canadianize or Americanize them.

How do we do this and, better yet, how would we know it was done?

[Scotty]

It proposes that the Conservatives are trying to increase immigration to indoctrinate immigrants as Conservatives. That's just dumb. Furthermore, they used to say the same thing about the Liberals - I think perhaps on this very board.

It's not altogether untrue. No, they're not indoctrinated. However, it's a well known fact that most immigrants tend to vote for the part which is in favour of immigration and which let them in. This is why the Liberals were and remain so pro-immigration, and why the Tories now are so pro-immigration. Immigration policy is designed entirely around political ambitions with very little thought to what is right for Canada, either now or in the future.

[Michael Hardner]

How do we do this and, better yet, how would we know it was done?

Clearly - pass a rule, make a law. That will fix everything.

Something like the roller coaster thing that says "you must be this tall to ride", we post a picture of jbg's grandmother at customs with "you must assimilate as much as this woman to enter"...

[Michael Hardner]

It's not altogether untrue. No, they're not indoctrinated. However, it's a well known fact that most immigrants tend to vote for the part which is in favour of immigration and which let them in.

Is that really well-known ? How about some numbers or a link then ?

Let's see if the difference in immigrant vote annually is so large that it would outweigh Canadians who vote because they resent immigration policies.

[Scotty]

Is that really well-known ? How about some numbers or a link then ?

Let's see if the difference in immigrant vote annually is so large that it would outweigh Canadians who vote because they resent immigration policies.

It's not that easy. Its not a black and white calculation. First, those who 'resent immigration policy' tend to be conservatives. How does that figure in the calculation? Well, the Liberals and NDP can pretty much ignore them because they're not likely to get their votes anyway. As for the Tories, Harper has clearly decided, with some justification, that conservative oriented voters will vote for his party anyway because the alternatives are even worse. So many of his core base might not be happy with mass immigration, but where exactly are they going to go to express that at election time?

As to the immigrant vote, it's not spread across the country, but centralized in certain urban ridings where the immigrant vote plays a substantial role. The Liberals used to have a hard lock on immigrants, but their numbers have fallen since they've been out of power. in 2000 they used to get 83% of the immigrant vote. That's down to 49% while conservative support has risen ten percentage points.

Conservatives court immigrant vote

[Michael Hardner]

It's not that easy. Its not a black and white calculation. First, those who 'resent immigration policy' tend to be conservatives. How does that figure in the calculation? Well, the Liberals and NDP can pretty much ignore them because they're not likely to get their votes anyway. As for the Tories, Harper has clearly decided, with some justification, that conservative oriented voters will vote for his party anyway because the alternatives are even worse. So many of his core base might not be happy with mass immigration, but where exactly are they going to go to express that at election time?

Ok.

As to the immigrant vote, it's not spread across the country, but centralized in certain urban ridings where the immigrant vote plays a substantial role. The Liberals used to have a hard lock on immigrants, but their numbers have fallen since they've been out of power. in 2000 they used to get 83% of the immigrant vote. That's down to 49% while conservative support has risen ten percentage points.

I can buy that there is a strategy to play to the conservative roots of most immigrants. But the letter referenced in the OP paints the situation as, basically, immigrants' primary advantage for the government is that they vote for the ruling party. I didn't vote for Harper, but I don't think he's that cynical.

[Shwa]

Clearly - pass a rule, make a law. That will fix everything.

Something like the roller coaster thing that says "you must be this tall to ride", we post a picture of jbg's grandmother at customs with "you must assimilate as much as this woman to enter"...

As long as they can flip burgers or give change, they are trainable for our economy. Plus, it is useful if prospective immigrants have the skills and dexterity to zip up a parka.

The cold assimilates.

[jbg]

It proposes that the Conservatives are trying to increase immigration to indoctrinate immigrants as Conservatives. That's just dumb. Furthermore, they used to say the same thing about the Liberals - I think perhaps on this very board.

I am quite aware of those accusations. I think many politicians play the immigration game to the hilt.

What does that mean ? Is there a country where immigrants don't come in across a border ? Maybe up from the ground via some kind of vacuum tube setup ?

Are you saying Asians and Africans have unique long-distance swimming abilities? My point is that the U.S.'s Mexican border is mostly either urban (El Paso next to Ciudad Juarez and San Diego next to Tijuana) or desert. Both are virtually uncontrollable. As far as Canada's borders go there's the U.S. border but I doubt most Asians and Africans come in that way. The point is that airports and seaports are far more controllable, so most acceptance of people is at some level deliberate.

Americans love the cheap labour, but they don't know it. What they do know is what they're constantly told on cable TV: immigrants are stealing from them.

Correct on both counts. And hypocrisy understood.

Who is "we" ? America ? People are pretty much free there to do as they like, and if they're illegal immigrants anyway it's probably in the best interests of their bosses that they don't learn Spanglish.

Please explain. I don't care what bosses want. Society should want them speaking the language.

Anecdotal and not helpful.

You and I have this argument on climate threads too. I believe that anecdotes are a useful check on supposed statistical analysis. A reality check.

So, in the end, this is just more of "this-group-or-that-group needs a spanking". The thing is, these systems evolve for a reason - as a reaction to a lot of different factors. Simply making a rule isn't a realistic way to solve the problems - just too simple.

It's a question of societal focus. If the signage weren't in multiple language, voting instructions in multiple languages, labelling in multiple languages people would learn English pretty damn fast.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you saying Asians and Africans have unique long-distance swimming abilities? My point is that the U.S.'s Mexican border is mostly either urban (El Paso next to Ciudad Juarez and San Diego next to Tijuana) or desert. Both are virtually uncontrollable. As far as Canada's borders go there's the U.S. border but I doubt most Asians and Africans come in that way. The point is that airports and seaports are far more controllable, so most acceptance of people is at some level deliberate.

Ok, thanks. Got it this time.

Correct on both counts. And hypocrisy understood.

Please explain. I don't care what bosses want. Society should want them speaking the language.

People also want cheap goods and services, and therefore cheap labour. The market speaks volumes on that one, and I doubt that people are able to put two-and-two together, i.e. their grand slam 2.99 breakfast is cooked by someone who makes $3 an hour.

You and I have this argument on climate threads too. I believe that anecdotes are a useful check on supposed statistical analysis. A reality check.

It's a question of societal focus. If the signage weren't in multiple language, voting instructions in multiple languages, labelling in multiple languages people would learn English pretty damn fast.

Do you want to legislate a sign law, then, a la Quebec ?

Yes, as a check anecdotes can help illuminate and humanize arguments. Some arguments, after all, are about whether certain situations should ever happen, so a single story can help us see what is going on. But there are too few statistics put forward - and I doubt that they were provided on this thread either.

[jbg]

Is that really well-known ? How about some numbers or a link then ?

Secret ballots make it hard to know this to a science. However, in the U.S. many large cities like New York that have large recent immigrant population are heavily Democratic. The political machines recruit votes heavily in immigrant neighborhoods. Those habits die hard. I'm a registered Democrat, for example, though I split my votes evenly between the party.

Let's see if the difference in immigrant vote annually is so large that it would outweigh Canadians who vote because they resent immigration policies.

Most Canadians who are not immigrants vote on a variety of issues, and thus would be unlikely to vote only based upon immigration issues. Immigrants though are more likely to vote their origins. And I base this on my own families and other Jews' experiences. It has usually taken two to three generations for us to even get to the mixed votes that I make. Registration in the G.O.P. is still a bridge too far.

[Michael Hardner]

Secret ballots make it hard to know this to a science. However, in the U.S. many large cities like New York that have large recent immigrant population are heavily Democratic. The political machines recruit votes heavily in immigrant neighborhoods. Those habits die hard. I'm a registered Democrat, for example, though I split my votes evenly between the party.

Phone polling would be enough to determine if this strategy is viable.

Ok - are you American ? A US resident ?

Most Canadians who are not immigrants vote on a variety of issues, and thus would be unlikely to vote only based upon immigration issues. Immigrants though are more likely to vote their origins. And I base this on my own families and other Jews' experiences. It has usually taken two to three generations for us to even get to the mixed votes that I make. Registration in the G.O.P. is still a bridge too far.

Again, all I'm hearing is anecdotal. Maybe somebody has something from an actual strategist or something ? It was claimed on this thread that it's well known. I would concur that it makes sense for parties to go after new voters, but there is a risk there too. Also the letter in the OP amounts to a conspiracy theory, IMO.

Jews vote their origins... not sure what this means.

[jbg]

Do you want to legislate a sign law, then, a la Quebec ?

It is true that on the Interstate highways we have an "English-only" rule. Thus in New York the "Sortie a Quebec" signs came down on Interstate 87 some time ago, whereas on the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border (going into NH) the sign that reads "Bienvienue a New Hampshire" remains since it's on Route 3, a non-Interstate designated road.

I am not really in favor of such a law, but in the U.S. it takes some doing to get bi-lingual signs posted. At the polls the instructions are both in English and Spanish, something I oppose.

Howewer, at private businesses that serve the public, I have no problem with multiple languages being in use, as long as one of them is English. Here's an example. At a Shell station on busy Route 1 in Port Chester, a town that borders on my town, the station posted a promotion only in Spanish. I wrote Shell. The next day I received a reply e-mail stating that choice of language was up to the station owner. I responded that the station was a Shell franchise, and that the station was on a road heavily used for local and mid-distance travel and this gave Shell a poor image. When I passed the station the following weekend the promotion was signed in both languages.

I happen to feel strongly that multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism is good only for enclave leaders, not for the rank and file. They benefit by learning English (or where appropriate French) and blending in with the population.

[jbg]

Phone polling would be enough to determine if this strategy is viable.

Many people lie in phone polling. If you believe phone polls, 90% of Jews voted for Obama. There's no way this is true. The real number is more like 66%.

Ok - are you American ? A US resident ?

You know the answer but I am U.S. born, a U.S. resident and a U.S. citizen. As I stated earlier, 6 of my 8 great-grandparents came between 1890 and 1910. My paternal grandmother and her parents came around 1910.

Again, all I'm hearing is anecdotal. Maybe somebody has something from an actual strategist or something ? It was claimed on this thread that it's well known.

Something called "common sense" maybe.

I would concur that it makes sense for parties to go after new voters, but there is a risk there too. Also the letter in the OP amounts to a conspiracy theory, IMO.

Again, not conspiracy, political common sense.

Jews vote their origins... not sure what this means.

Means that the Democrats were at the docks when we came. They got us apartments. They got us jobs. They got us English-language night school. And not so incidentally they registered us en-masse to vote. Loyalties die hard.

[Michael Hardner]

Many people lie in phone polling. If you believe phone polls, 90% of Jews voted for Obama. There's no way this is true. The real number is more like 66%.

What ? Do you have proof ? They've been using phone polls since Dewey beats Truman...

You know the answer but I am U.S. born, a U.S. resident and a U.S. citizen. As I stated earlier, 6 of my 8 great-grandparents came between 1890 and 1910. My paternal grandmother and her parents came around 1910.

No, I don't follow your personal details that closely but thanks for filling them in.

Something called "common sense" maybe.

Means that the Democrats were at the docks when we came. They got us apartments. They got us jobs. They got us English-language night school. And not so incidentally they registered us en-masse to vote. Loyalties die hard.

I don't know that that's true. Wasn't the big push of Jewish immigration in the 19th century ? I doubt that political loyalty goes that far, but you can tell me as it's your claim.

[Scotty]

I can buy that there is a strategy to play to the conservative roots of most immigrants. But the letter referenced in the OP paints the situation as, basically, immigrants' primary advantage for the government is that they vote for the ruling party. I didn't vote for Harper, but I don't think he's that cynical.

I wouldn't call it cynical, I'd call it... pragmatic to a fault.

[jbg]

What ? Do you have proof ? They've been using phone polls since Dewey beats Truman...

A proof is a proof.

I don't know that that's true. Wasn't the big push of Jewish immigration in the 19th century ?

Actually there was a push from Germany from roughtly 1849 through the 1880's, and then the hugest push, from Russia (including what's now Poland, Ukraine, the Slovak Republic, the Baltic states and other areas under the Czar's control) from roughly 1892 through the beginning of WW I. The triggering events were Passover riots against the Jews in 1892, the most famous of which was Kisinev.

The Jews traditionally open the front door of their house during the Passover Seder (the same dinner as served as the Last Supper). Russian peasants thought it would be a great idea to burst in through those open doors and slaughter or at least beat up Jews having a peaceful family dinner. The police did nothing to stop the attacks. Thus one of the largest exoduses of history started and the WW I hostilities eventually limited travel. Shortly after WW I the U.S. slammed its doors shut, followed by Canada in 1935.

I doubt that political loyalty goes that far, but you can tell me as it's your claim.

In the U.S. people often register to vote, and to join a political party, in the same step. Often that's at your 18th b-day (21st before 1971), and at that stage many are still following their parents' habits.

[Michael Hardner]

A proof is a proof.

Ah yes, the philosophy of Chretien.

Loud buzzer sound.

Actually there was a push from Germany from roughtly 1849 through the 1880's, and then the hugest push, from Russia (including what's now Poland, Ukraine, the Slovak Republic, the Baltic states and other areas under the Czar's control) from roughly 1892 through the beginning of WW I. The triggering events were Passover riots against the Jews in 1892, the most famous of which was Kisinev.

So those who came in during McKinley's term are still Republicans ?

[Cyberguy]

As far as I can tell, you're all a bunch of Xenophobes (Look it up) operating by degrees within some sort of Xenophobic arena: ie. the topic of this forum listed above.

People will automatically get to know their surroundings & adapt on a daily basis to engender their own (survival or) well-being, if it's warranted.

My grandparents had an accent & had trouble with certain phrases, so, wow that pretty much limits immigration to England, New Zealand, if you don't mind being called "love" or maybe only Austrailia or whites & the odd black from the U.S.A. That's pretty much a caucasions only policy. Most racists don't realize their own prejiduce; its justified by some minutia or irregularity.

Besides the only people that were "Canadians or Americans" were the aboriginal tribes before their genocidal eradication. I am a believer in tolerance & multiculturalism & the value that all bring to our society & the desire to be part of it that far outweighs the domestic apathy that is born out by election participation rates in the 30th percentile range.

Since Immigrants are more Patriotically Canadian or American than we luddites are, the only thing to do to Canadianize & Americanize ALL immigrants, allowing for the least variance & the most hegemony, is to adopt Aboriginal ways immediately, intermarry, & farm collectively, hunt in packs, & control territories.

[Mr.Canada]

As long as they can flip burgers or give change, they are trainable for our economy. Plus, it is useful if prospective immigrants have the skills and dexterity to zip up a parka.

The cold assimilates.

People like to feel superior to immigrants, this helps to further those aims.

If the immigrants were more like the majority in this country there'd be less to hate.

[Scotty]

People like to feel superior to immigrants, this helps to further those aims.

If the immigrants were more like the majority in this country there'd be less to hate.

Are you suggesting no one is inferior or superior? Are you saying all cultural and national groups are equal, none being more advanced or sophisticated than others?

[Scotty]

As far as I can tell, you're all a bunch of Xenophobes

It simply is not possible to have any type of intelligent debate or discussion when one begins a post with that sort of dismissive contempt, so I won't even try.

[Jack Weber]

Are you suggesting no one is inferior or superior? Are you saying all cultural and national groups are equal, none being more advanced or sophisticated than others?

No..

I'd submit Mr.Falan...Canada is saying that if immigrants acted more like "Canadians" they would be so disliked....

At least,in a Fascists mind...

[Mr.Canada]

Are you suggesting no one is inferior or superior? Are you saying all cultural and national groups are equal, none being more advanced or sophisticated than others?

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is that if immigrants acted more like UK centric Canadians they would fit in better and would give a smaller target to hate. And their would be less animosity as well.

The more non white, non UK immigrants want to cling of the ways of their homelands the more racism will exist in my opinion.

For example, if Indian immigrants didn't wear turbans, cut their hair, learned proper English and did their best to fit in people would be less apt to target them as different. To the white psyche different = inferior.

This is all imho and I could be completely wrong. That's fine, it's just my opinion on the matter.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Mr.Canada