Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers

[Scotty]

Really ? Such as what - the unsupported and inflammatory anti-Muslim blogs you've been posting here ?

If the rest of Canada was as gullible as you, would they be intelligent enough to make that evaluation ?

First of all, we haven't established that I'm gullible. All we've established is your unalterable dedication to defending immigration. I'll remind you that the only reason I posted information about Sweden and Scandinavia is to suggest that this advocacy groups rankings should be considered with some doubt. Second, I posted what was available given Swedish is not a language I'm competent in. Some of those postings had governmental and police cites, which you chose to ignore. I pointed out that no matter what you thought of the unofficial nature of all these sites the mere fact they exist, whereas nothing similar exists with regard to Canada should indicate that at least SOMETHING is wrong over there. A rational you ignored. I have a feeling that unless the Swedish government has Carl Gustav read official statistics taken by an army of sociologists over the course of a few decades you'll still simply dismiss any claims of immigration trouble over there as unsupported. Riots notwithstanding.

So I'll thank you not to insinuate that I'm posting reams of material from hate sites or something.

[Michael Hardner]

First of all, we haven't established that I'm gullible. All we've established is your unalterable dedication to defending immigration.

I'm open to good arguments, not bloggish ones.

I'll remind you that the only reason I posted information about Sweden and Scandinavia is to suggest that this advocacy groups rankings should be considered with some doubt. Second, I posted what was available given Swedish is not a language I'm competent in. Some of those postings had governmental and police cites, which you chose to ignore.

There were some quotes there mixed in, but as I pointed out it was largely unsubstantiated.

I pointed out that no matter what you thought of the unofficial nature of all these sites the mere fact they exist, whereas nothing similar exists with regard to Canada should indicate that at least SOMETHING is wrong over there. A rational you ignored.

Ok, point taken.

I have a feeling that unless the Swedish government has Carl Gustav read official statistics taken by an army of sociologists over the course of a few decades you'll still simply dismiss any claims of immigration trouble over there as unsupported. Riots notwithstanding.

So I'll thank you not to insinuate that I'm posting reams of material from hate sites or something.

As I said, it's up to you to post good information. Some examples might be:

- Statics from established institutions such as governments or established press

- Noted police statistics

- Academic studies

These are available in English too. I think I have seen them on the web myself.

[Scotty]

All I see from the anti-immigration folks here is fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated rumours. I hate to paint the other side's position so plainly, but that's been it so far. Although there are good points to be made from the anti-immigration side, they're really having trouble making them.

Perhaps because the only thing you and the other admirers of mass immigration will even grudgingly accept as being peripherally relevant would be government statistics. But the government keeps no statistics on integration. It makes no effort to even see how well immigrants are integrating. No one does, actually. There have been economic studies (dismissed, of course) by third parties which indicate the associated cost of immigration, and even government statistics which clearly show immigrants today are far more likely to be living in poverty and to be unemployed than immigrants in times past. But we keep no track of, say how many parents send their kids back home to find a proper husband or wife. We rarely take surveys of immigrant attitudes - though I recall the last time we did a sizable number of Muslims expressed enthusiasm for Sharia law. We don't watch to see how many immigrants break the law. We don't even know how many return home to live - aka in Lebanon.

As to my position with regard to this question. I don't know for sure. I don't think things are necessarily going poorly. But I look to the situation in Sweden, in the UK, in France, and I worry about where another decade or two of mass immigration is going to lead.

And I don't think the government or anyone else has really been able to make a very good case that the economic value of mass immigration is worth the risks associated with a huge flood of newcomers.

[Michael Hardner]

Perhaps because the only thing you and the other admirers of mass immigration will even grudgingly accept as being peripherally relevant would be government statistics. But the government keeps no statistics on integration. It makes no effort to even see how well immigrants are integrating. No one does, actually.

Fair enough. Such a thing would be heavily values laden anyway - very subjective. But there are statistics on related things such as crime, economic success and so on.

There have been economic studies (dismissed, of course) by third parties which indicate the associated cost of immigration, and even government statistics which clearly show immigrants today are far more likely to be living in poverty and to be unemployed than immigrants in times past. But we keep no track of, say how many parents send their kids back home to find a proper husband or wife. We rarely take surveys of immigrant attitudes - though I recall the last time we did a sizable number of Muslims expressed enthusiasm for Sharia law. We don't watch to see how many immigrants break the law. We don't even know how many return home to live - aka in Lebanon.

Ok.

As to my position with regard to this question. I don't know for sure. I don't think things are necessarily going poorly. But I look to the situation in Sweden, in the UK, in France, and I worry about where another decade or two of mass immigration is going to lead.

And I don't think the government or anyone else has really been able to make a very good case that the economic value of mass immigration is worth the risks associated with a huge flood of newcomers.

We have an economist as PM and the highest level of immigration ever. That seems to mean something.

As for France - I lived there and it's a very economically static country. It's very difficult to break into some professions, and the top schools are quite exclusive. Also, small business is much harder to break into there. I would attribute the difficulties there at least partially to those things, but that's based on my experience not on objective data.

[Shwa]

Fair enough. Such a thing would be heavily values laden anyway - very subjective. But there are statistics on related things such as crime, economic success and so on.

Sure there are statistics and the key one, which gets completely ignored in this very thread, is the employment rate of immigrants which could be a key indicator of integration don't you think? You know, them working, paying taxes, going to Walmart.

What is subjective is what "integration" means to some people. Working and paying taxes, learning an official language, sending their kids to our schools and buying winter parkas, is NOT considered integration in some circles. Which I find rather odd considering or history.

[Scotty]

The real problem is the ideological polarization of this issue. There are almost no unbiased players studying this, there are pro-immigration groups that carry out studies that inevitably say immigration is great, and anti-immigration groups that come out with studies that show the opposite, and both are considered to be biased to the point of uselessness by those who hold the opposite position.

Actually, there no anti-immigration groups I'm aware of, not which will do academic studies on the affects of immigration.

You're right about the polarization. In other countries, for example, you have similar polarization, but at least there are players on both sides of the issue. American labour unions, for example, are not nearly as supportive of mass immigration as Canadian labour unions. The American unions see the downward impact on wages and don't like it. Canadian unions, by and large, don't care about anything nearly as much as they care about the political correctness of supporting immigration. The Canadian Left, in fact, is united in favour of immigration, the more the better. I hate to pigeonhole them, but this is because most immigrants are non-white. The Left has set itself up as the protectors, defenders and advocates for non-Whites (which is why the NDP is going nowhere, and has gone nowhere for forty years). On the other side, what I could perhaps call the 'organized' conservatives, ie, the conservatism of big business or the churches, is equally supportive of immigration, though for different reasons. Corporate Canada loves mass immigration because it depresses wages, and provides a ready supply of desperate workers. The Churches like it for much the same reason the Left does, because it sees immigration as being an uplifting thing for immigrants - not because it sees it as being positive for Canada. And of course, the political class just sees it as an opportunity to appeal to immigrants (1 in 5 Canadians is now foreign born) and also sees the dangers of daring to be seen as opposing immigration (certain outcries of racism by the Leftist parties). Then we have the immigration industry, which of course, is collectively dedicated to advocating on behalf of immigration and refugees. That's how they make their money, after all.

But there really is NO large, decently funded group working against immigration in this country. There are no spokesperson, no organizations, no media, no one who will say that immigration at these levels is not economically justified and poses a substantial danger to our existing culture and values, much less will do the substantial studies to say so. The Fraser Institute is not against immigrants, per se, but as an economic think tank has done a pretty in depth study which certainly showed that immigration was not either economically beneficial nor the answer to an aging population. And the Leftists simply dismiss it out of hand, unread. So it's very difficult to assail the assumptions of Canadians that immigration is good for Canada. After all, they hear it constantly. No one ever really supports that belief with hard data. But they hear it constantly, much as the headline in the Star which was quoted by the OP. Immigration is good, is wonderful, will save the country, will take care of us when we're old. We're told that by most every player in the field, and don't bother to look beneath the platitudes for actual evidence.

Well, I hope it works out. I hope that twenty years or so from now we're not looking back and shaking our heads wishing we'd done something different. Because it'll be too damned late by then, much as the people of Malmo have discovered.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Sure there are statistics and the key one, which gets completely ignored in this very thread, is the employment rate of immigrants which could be a key indicator of integration don't you think? You know, them working, paying taxes, going to Walmart.

I don't think a lot of immigrants come to Canada hoping to spend their lives unemployed. I think they truly want to work. Unfortunately, many do not have the skills or education to be successful here. The incidence of poverty amongst immigrants has greatly increased over the past twenty years, and continues to deteriorate. More immigrants are living in poverty, which does not bode well for the future, or for their children s future as proudly integrated citizens. One does not have to look far to see that poverty and the failure to penetrate the job markets successfully by immigrants in the UK, in France, and in Sweden has led to marked levels of resentment by immigrants towards their purported homeland

Statistics Canada

Almost all new arrivals in Canada have earnings for a number of years that are below their eventual peak earnings. In the case of recent immigrants, these peak earnings are below the incomes of comparable other Canadians for the rest of their lives in the country. As a result, under the progressive income tax system, they pay proportionately less taxes than do other Canadians, on average. A very large fraction pays no personal income taxes at all.

Fraser Report on Immigration

[kimmy]

Well, semantics aside, I don't see any evidence from you or anyone else disputing the opinion of the cut 'n paste headline.

Quite simply, the "MIPEX" index doesn't rank how we're doing at "integrating newcomers" at all.

It ranks policies. (you can easily verify that by checking the Migration Policy Group website that I linked to earlier.)

Canada is deemed to have the 3rd most immigrant-friendly policies.

No claim at all is offered as to how newcomers are actually integrating in Canada. It's misrepresentation to say that the MIPEX makes such a claim.

So I'll assume that some information is more accurate than no information.

That "information" didn't come from MIPEX, it came from either Nicholas Keung or the editor who wrote that headline.

Again, you can play games, but what is the employment rate of immigrants and can that be used as an indicator of immigrant integration? I noticed that you neatly avoided this question, even though I posed it several times already.

Immigrants are integrating really well, except for the ones who aren't. It seems to me we did a thread not too long ago where we discussed that question at some length.

You presented a StatsCan paper that argued that recently-arrived visible minority immigrants were hard done-by. As I recall the numbers said that recently-arrived visible minority immigrants have significantly higher unemployment rates than the population at large.

I am betting you are afraid to accurately answer because it will force you to change sides. Unless you agree that Canada does a good job at integrating immigrants.

By the way, I don't have a "side" here, other than to point out that the information being presented here doesn't support the claim that is being made.

Well when I Googled all those troubles, by far the most information was from right-wing bloggers and more blather about Muslims. But when I look at the demographics it appears that the foreigners in Sweden are overwhelmingly European and most f them Finns. So, other that the so-called 'Muslim Problem' are there other problems, especially with the overwhelming number of European immigrants in Sweden. And yet, despite these troubles, the damned Swedes keep their doors open. What the hell is wrong with them, eh?

Swedish immigrants are integrating great, except for the ones who aren't.

The test of how well Sweden is integrating immigrants isn't how well they're coping with Finns and Norwegians, any more than the test of how Canada is doing is how well we're "integrating" Brits and Aussies.

-k

[Evening Star]

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean when they talk about the "integration" of immigrants? Just finding employment, participating in elections, and obeying the law? Or does this mean something more?

[kimmy]

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean when they talk about the "integration" of immigrants? Just finding employment, participating in elections, and obeying the law? Or does this mean something more?

That's a pretty important question to this whole debate.

-k

[Shwa]

I don't think a lot of immigrants come to Canada hoping to spend their lives unemployed. I think they truly want to work. Unfortunately, many do not have the skills or education to be successful here. The incidence of poverty amongst immigrants has greatly increased over the past twenty years, and continues to deteriorate. More immigrants are living in poverty, which does not bode well for the future, or for their children s future as proudly integrated citizens. One does not have to look far to see that poverty and the failure to penetrate the job markets successfully by immigrants in the UK, in France, and in Sweden has led to marked levels of resentment by immigrants towards their purported homeland

Nice non-answer, one of the best I have seen in awhile. Now, what is the employment rate of immigrants? And I know why you dare not answer. It's because I am going to knock your argument to pieces with it. But go ahead, I dare you.

Almost all new arrivals workers in Canada have earnings for a number of years that are below their eventual peak earnings. In the case of recent immigrants, these peak earnings are below the incomes of comparable other Canadians for the rest of their lives in the country. As a result, under the progressive income tax system, they pay proportionately less taxes than do other Canadians, on average. A very large fraction pays no personal income taxes at all.

There, I fixed it for you. Simply changed one word and the whole shootin' match applies to every single Canadian with the exception of a very few.

[Shwa]

Quite simply, the "MIPEX" index doesn't rank how we're doing at "integrating newcomers" at all.

It ranks policies. (you can easily verify that by checking the Migration Policy Group website that I linked to earlier.)

Canada is deemed to have the 3rd most immigrant-friendly policies.

No claim at all is offered as to how newcomers are actually integrating in Canada. It's misrepresentation to say that the MIPEX makes such a claim.

And also quite simply, one can infer from the immigrant-friendly policies that we are doing quite well, that things are working. Maybe even third-ish in the world like. Perhaps this is the best such an organization can do given the diversity of the meaning of the concept of integration?

That "information" didn't come from MIPEX, it came from either Nicholas Keung or the editor who wrote that headline.

Sure. So do you believe it yet?

Immigrants are integrating really well, except for the ones who aren't. It seems to me we did a thread not too long ago where we discussed that question at some length.

The youth of Canada are integrating really well, except for the ones who aren't. It seems to me we have ahd several threads on youth crime, criminals, etc.

You presented a StatsCan paper that argued that recently-arrived visible minority immigrants were hard done-by. As I recall the numbers said that recently-arrived visible minority immigrants have significantly higher unemployment rates than the population at large.

Do you remember what that unemployment rate was? Was it like 25%? 35%? 51% Or was it something like 12%? Which would indicate to a layman like me, that immigrants have an 88% employment rate, which would further indicate that they are paying taxes and shopping here and that - it might be a bit of a stretch to some - they are integrating somewhat.

By the way, I don't have a "side" here, other than to point out that the information being presented here doesn't support the claim that is being made.

Yes, I know your tactics kimmy. And I am using them to make advance my impression that all things being equal, Canada does pretty good integrating our immigrants - and always has - despite all the complaints from some members of this message board.

Swedish immigrants are integrating great, except for the ones who aren't.

Swedish youth are integrating great, except for the ones who aren't.

The test of how well Sweden is integrating immigrants isn't how well they're coping with Finns and Norwegians, any more than the test of how Canada is doing is how well we're "integrating" Brits and Aussies.

Well to be fair, the Swedes appear to have special considerations for 'Nordic' immigrants as opposed to non-Nordic ones. But the test - overall - is the examine their policies and then examine their immigration numbers - overall. And overall - they seem to be doing it pretty good too.

[kimmy]

And also quite simply, one can infer from the immigrant-friendly policies that we are doing quite well, that things are working. Maybe even third-ish in the world like. Perhaps this is the best such an organization can do given the diversity of the meaning of the concept of integration?

Can we infer from the number of environmental initiatives we've undertaken that the environment is in great shape? Can we infer from the number of programs available to assist unemployed Canadians that unemployment in Canada isn't a problem?

I think the inference you're making is a stretch, Shwa.

Sure. So do you believe it yet?

Since Keung or his editor posit the MIPEX index to represent something that it clearly doesn't, no.

The youth of Canada are integrating really well, except for the ones who aren't. It seems to me we have ahd several threads on youth crime, criminals, etc.

Maybe this idea has some merit. However, the idea that we're not doing as well at "integrating" young Canadians into society doesn't actually demonstrate that we're any more successful at integrating immigrants.

Do you remember what that unemployment rate was? Was it like 25%? 35%? 51% Or was it something like 12%? Which would indicate to a layman like me, that immigrants have an 88% employment rate, which would further indicate that they are paying taxes and shopping here and that - it might be a bit of a stretch to some - they are integrating somewhat.

I believe the figure was a 10% unemployment rate. I think you're well aware that a 10% unemployment rate doesn't mean that 90% are employed, as the unemployment statistic only includes those who are actively looking for work. I'd also offer that having a job doesn't necessarily make one "integrated". If someone is working for their uncle's business and never meets anybody outside their family, are they really "integrated" in any meaningful sense of the word?

Yes, I know your tactics kimmy. And I am using them to make advance my impression that all things being equal, Canada does pretty good integrating our immigrants - and always has - despite all the complaints from some members of this message board.

Complaints on the subject are probably overblown.

However, you started this thread saying that this study was a great shut-up to those who say immigrants aren't integrating. And it turns out that the study at the heart of this claim doesn't actually measure how well immigrants are integrating at all.

If your great shut-up to the anti-immigrant crowd is to point out that Canada has the 3rd-most immigrant-friendly policies in the world, I'm not sure that will actually make them shut up. It would probably make them complain louder.

Well to be fair, the Swedes appear to have special considerations for 'Nordic' immigrants as opposed to non-Nordic ones. But the test - overall - is the examine their policies and then examine their immigration numbers - overall. And overall - they seem to be doing it pretty good too.

I'm not sure examining policies and looking at the number of immigrants being accepted is a good measure of integration. In fairness, at least Swedish immigrants have not engaged in mass rioting the way the French immigrants have.

-k

[cybercoma]

To be fair, I think evaluating the number and quality of programs for immigrants is a fair indicator of how well we try to integrate immigrants into society. If we had no programs and allowed them to fend for themselves, that's not a very pro-active way of helping immigrants integrate.

IOW, I agree with kimmy that simply counting the number of programs does not actually show how well immigrants are integrating. We could be throwing tons of money down the toilet trying to integrate newcomers into Canada, but could be failing miserably. In fact, at a certain point more programs may indicate newcomers have a considerably difficult time integrating and need these programs.

Nevertheless, it's fair to say, in general, that the more programs that are available to immigrants, theoretically the easier it should be to integrate. No programs would be a barrier to integration. Likewise, at a certain point, too many programs is probably does little more to help and other factors helping or hindering integration kick it. We shouldn't just write off this study as though there is no relationship between number of programs available and integration.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not sure examining policies and looking at the number of immigrants being accepted is a good measure of integration. In fairness, at least Swedish immigrants have not engaged in mass rioting the way the French immigrants have.

-k

Maybe not as much as in France...but Sweden has had its share of riots. The most notorious being the Davis Cup riot.

[Evening Star]

If someone is working for their uncle's business and never meets anybody outside their family, are they really "integrated" in any meaningful sense of the word?

See, this gets at why I asked my question upthread. The term "integration" is a little problematic... I'm mainly interested in whether immigrants are finding employment and obeying laws. (So I'm totally fine with this hypothetical fellow working for his uncle.) I suspect that some of the immigration sceptics want more than this however...

[Scotty]

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean when they talk about the "integration" of immigrants? Just finding employment, participating in elections, and obeying the law? Or does this mean something more?

i would say ti means watching local television, and not Al Jazeera. It means cheering for local hockey, football or basketball rather than being obsessed with soccer back home. It means not wrapping your daughters in bed sheets, and not sending them back 'home' to find a proper husband. It means having pretty much similar societal and cultural attitudes towards a wide basket of issues as the bulk of Canadians. It means accepting differences of opinions and beliefs in the same way the majority of Canadians do, accepting that religion plays no part in government, just like Canadians do. It does not mean, as in the case of a Muslim man born and raised in Germany, arrested the other day for murdering two American airmen, feeling more kinship with Muslims abroad than with your own countrymen. It does not mean that you believe in violent, vindictive punishments for all people based on the words in your ancient religious texts. It does not mean wanting to raise and keep your children away from Canadian children because of their presumed inferior morals, or wanting your children segregated at schools by gender, or even insisting they go to special courses to learn the old country's language and ways.

[Scotty]

Nice non-answer, one of the best I have seen in awhile. Now, what is the employment rate of immigrants? And I know why you dare not answer. It's because I am going to knock your argument to pieces with it. But go ahead, I dare you.

Uhm, okay.

As the chart above illustrates, the unemployment rate of recent immigrants was almost twice that of their Canadian-born counterparts in 2009 (15.0% to 7.8% respectively). This gap varies depending on level of education. The unemployment rate for new immigrants without a degree, diploma or certificate was 19.5% – 1.2 times the rate of 15.9% for Canadian-born workers with the same education. In comparison, the gap is four times wider for university-educated workers (13.9% for new immigrants compared to 3.4% for Canadian-born workers).

Unemployment bad and getting worse for immigrants

In addition, the participation rate (employment) of immigrants is lower, substantially lower in their earlier years here, than Canadian born workers. And while that participation rate rises after some years it never reaches the same level as that of native born Canadians.

Stats Canada Labour Force Survey Immigrants

There, I fixed it for you. Simply changed one word and the whole shootin' match applies to every single Canadian with the exception of a very few.

No, it doesn't, unless you're going to suggest that 'every single Canadian' fails to reach the average income level of Canadians.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

If the below is a definition then plenty of 20th generation Canucks have not integrated.

i would say ti means watching local television, and not Al Jazeera.

Have Al Jezeera on the TV right now in my office. Dont watch local tv either.

It means cheering for local hockey, football or basketball rather than being obsessed with soccer back home.

Ridiculous, plenty of TO folks are Habs fans, and frankly so what?

It means not wrapping your daughters in bed sheets,

Nobody does that.

and not sending them back 'home' to find a proper husband.

Grant you that one, but frankly less than one quarter of a half percent is nothing to worry about.

It means having pretty much similar societal and cultural attitudes towards a wide basket of issues as the bulk of Canadians.

Which they do, and those that dont have there reasons why, none of which changes a thing in this country. We all have viewpoints

It means accepting differences of opinions and beliefs in the same way the majority of Canadians do, accepting that religion plays no part in government, just like Canadians do.

Exfcept they dont. So Alberta is full of non-canadians including the ones born here? Assuming of course that gays being married is not widely held as cool in Alta (not sure anyhow) Plenty of oldtimer Candaians want religion in politics.

It does not mean that you believe in violent, vindictive punishments for all people based on the words in your ancient religious texts.

Why that sounds like the CPC ....

It does not mean wanting to raise and keep your children away from Canadian children because of their presumed inferior morals, or wanting your children segregated at schools by gender, or even insisting they go to special courses to learn the old country's language and ways.

Very very few ascribe to keeping their kids away from others. Why do you hate Orthodox Jews?

Lastly, learning the "old country's" language and ways is a good education that benefits the child. Learning the "new country's" language and ways is by rote .

[Scotty]

If the below is a definition then plenty of 20th generation Canucks have not integrated.

Have Al Jezeera on the TV right now in my office. Dont watch local tv either.

So you only watch TV from the middle east? You don't watch TV from Canada?

Nobody does that.

You are being deliberately obtuse. I would say categorically that any woman wearing a hijab, much less the more conservative versions, in Canada is not integrated into Canadian society.

Grant you that one, but frankly less than one quarter of a half percent is nothing to worry about.

Oh, you have statistics on how often this happens? Good! I'd like to see them, please.

Exfcept they dont. So Alberta is full of non-canadians including the ones born here? Assuming of course that gays being married is not widely held as cool in Alta (not sure anyhow) Plenty of oldtimer Candaians want religion in politics.

I'm sure there are a lot of people in Canada who are conservative Christians. They might believe in the morality as preached by their churches, but I doubt you'd find many of them who want people to be executed for working on the Sabbath, or want six hundred year old religious laws incorporated into the Criminal Code and Family Law.

Lastly, learning the "old country's" language and ways is a good education that benefits the child. Learning the "new country's" language and ways is by rote .

When immigrant kids grew up in Canada decades ago there was a total commitment to this country, and to becoming Canadians. There was no television or newspapers from home, no calls home, no routine visits back to see family. they grew up amidst Canadians and they blended in. I think immigrant kids today do not enjoy that same opportunity of immersion. Many go to schools where there are few Canadian kids, watch TV at home on the satellite dish from their "homeland" in their homeland's language, visit 'home', and are otherwise inundated by their old homeland's culture and values and language and religion to the point its very hard for them to get the advantages of that immersive experience immigrants used to get. I don't see how this could fail to resist integration.

[Michael Hardner]

i would say ti means watching local television, and not Al Jazeera. It means cheering for local hockey, football or basketball rather than being obsessed with soccer back home. It means not wrapping your daughters in bed sheets, and not sending them back 'home' to find a proper husband. It means having pretty much similar societal and cultural attitudes towards a wide basket of issues as the bulk of Canadians. It means accepting differences of opinions and beliefs in the same way the majority of Canadians do, accepting that religion plays no part in government, just like Canadians do. It does not mean, as in the case of a Muslim man born and raised in Germany, arrested the other day for murdering two American airmen, feeling more kinship with Muslims abroad than with your own countrymen. It does not mean that you believe in violent, vindictive punishments for all people based on the words in your ancient religious texts. It does not mean wanting to raise and keep your children away from Canadian children because of their presumed inferior morals, or wanting your children segregated at schools by gender, or even insisting they go to special courses to learn the old country's language and ways.

Ok, on the not murdering part. As for the cultural programming part, I don't agree with it.

I would hope immigrants would be smart enough to come to Toronto and not watch the Leafs.

[cybercoma]

I wish more Canadians would stop supporting the Leafs so they can start making meaningful changes to the team.

[guyser]

So you only watch TV from the middle east? You don't watch TV from Canada?

Only? No, where would you get that notion?

You are being deliberately obtuse. I would say categorically that any woman wearing a hijab, much less the more conservative versions, in Canada is not integrated into Canadian society.

You mean not integrated like Yarmulke wearing Jews?

One thing I try to remember , dont judge a book by its cover. The hijab wearing woman could be highly progressive and yet subservient to her religious doctrine.There is a dichotomy but also the truth.

Sicilian wives wear black and veils for a year after the husband dies. I'm guessing you get the point.

Oh, you have statistics on how often this happens? Good! I'd like to see them, please.

Just the same stat you showed, but more importatnly , far too small to see with a magnifying glass.

I'm sure there are a lot of people in Canada who are conservative Christians. They might believe in the morality as preached by their churches, but I doubt you'd find many of them who want people to be executed for working on the Sabbath, or want six hundred year old religious laws incorporated into the Criminal Code and Family Law.

I agree , you wont find many of any religion and/or background wanting that.

When immigrant kids grew up in Canada decades ago there was a total commitment to this country, and to becoming Canadians. There was no television or newspapers from home, no calls home, no routine visits back to see family. they grew up amidst Canadians and they blended in. I think immigrant kids today do not enjoy that same opportunity of immersion. Many go to schools where there are few Canadian kids, watch TV at home on the satellite dish from their "homeland" in their homeland's language, visit 'home', and are otherwise inundated by their old homeland's culture and values and language and religion to the point its very hard for them to get the advantages of that immersive experience immigrants used to get. I don't see how this could fail to resist integration.

Welcome to the internet age, the reduced cost of flying age,the satellite tv age.

Lets not forget some of my buddies growing up could read Courier Canadese, my cottage neighbour got rich publishing a Hungarian/Ukraine paper.....and some of them listened to CHIN.

All of them integrated and enriched this country just fine. Not to mention they all speak more languages than most people born here. Theres a wealth no one planned .

[guyser]

I wish more Canadians would stop supporting the Leafs so they can start making meaningful changes to the team.

Better than the Senators! Woo Hoo !....oh wait....

[Shwa]

Can we infer from the number of environmental initiatives we've undertaken that the environment is in great shape? Can we infer from the number of programs available to assist unemployed Canadians that unemployment in Canada isn't a problem?

I think the inference you're making is a stretch, Shwa.

Do you infer from the environmental intiatives that the environment is in terrible shape or that because of the unemployment programs, unemployment is a disaster?

Since Keung or his editor posit the MIPEX index to represent something that it clearly doesn't, no.

Well what other evidence do you require? How about immigrant employment rate?

Maybe this idea has some merit. However, the idea that we're not doing as well at "integrating" young Canadians into society doesn't actually demonstrate that we're any more successful at integrating immigrants.

No, what is shows is that broad statements can be stated broadly and really don't tell us much.

I believe the figure was a 10% unemployment rate. I think you're well aware that a 10% unemployment rate doesn't mean that 90% are employed, as the unemployment statistic only includes those who are actively looking for work. I'd also offer that having a job doesn't necessarily make one "integrated". If someone is working for their uncle's business and never meets anybody outside their family, are they really "integrated" in any meaningful sense of the word?

The person working for the uncle, are you talking about immigrants or are you talking about a 4th generation Canadian? Seriously, now you are trying to apply a specific scenario ast evidence of a general condition. Your're making me dizzy now kimmy.

But we do know that the immigrant employment rate is pretty good and shows that most immigrants that ought to be working, are. Now, when you have a newcomer than has been here a couple of years do you expect them to be buying Justin Bieber tickets, visit the ballet once a month with and know Neil Young tunes? All you can do - after employment rates and taxes is move the goalposts, nothing more. Raise the bar high enough and you can make it look like NO immigrants integrate whatsoever you yourself know this not to be true.

Complaints on the subject are probably overblown.

However, you started this thread saying that this study was a great shut-up to those who say immigrants aren't integrating. And it turns out that the study at the heart of this claim doesn't actually measure how well immigrants are integrating at all.

If your great shut-up to the anti-immigrant crowd is to point out that Canada has the 3rd-most immigrant-friendly policies in the world, I'm not sure that will actually make them shut up. It would probably make them complain louder.

I'm not sure examining policies and looking at the number of immigrants being accepted is a good measure of integration. In fairness, at least Swedish immigrants have not engaged in mass rioting the way the French immigrants have.

Of course not. But is an indication - especially when the numbers of immigrants increase - that immigration is working for Sweden and Canada.