Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers

[Shwa]

Uhm, okay.

So the vast majority of immigrants who ought to be working are; they are paying Canadian taxes; buying and using Canadian goods and services; obeying our laws; and adding to the cultural mosaic of Canada. This indicates they are integrating nicely, just like the vast majority of other immigrants over the past 150 years. Any other view is self-delusion.

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

No, what it shows is that all workers have "have earnings for a number of years that are below their eventual peak earnings" You know, since the general trend is for people to earn more as they grow older. I mean seriously, did you did you dig up that gem from the Ministry of Silly Quotes or what?

[Scotty]

So the vast majority of immigrants who ought to be working are; they are paying Canadian taxes; buying and using Canadian goods and services; obeying our laws; and adding to the cultural mosaic of Canada. This indicates they are integrating nicely, just like the vast majority of other immigrants over the past 150 years. Any other view is self-delusion.

Adding to the cultural mosaic? I don't recall Canadians ever being asked if they wanted a cultural mosaic, or if so what they wanted to add into it. I rather doubt, given most of our immigrants come from failed cultures with terrible and often very backward, very intolerant, very misogynistic value systems, that these are the kinds of colors we want to add to our 'mosaic'.

And unsurprising you would ignore the cites about the growing issues with immigrant employment and income. The fact is that bringing in poor people doesn't in any way, shape or form help us economically. We, as a society, wind up paying far more money to poor families in the form of services and income support than we ever get back. They are a drain on our economy, on our GDP, and on the budget.

That's all quite aside from the question of whether or not they're properly integrating. The assumption made by many that they'll integrate the same as immigrants did in the past is not borne out by evidence, and ignores the fact that realities have changed. We don't KNOW how those changed realities, and the changed circumstances of these immigrants, particularly the Muslims, will affect the degree of integration.

[Scotty]

Only? No, where would you get that notion?

Probably from you writing:

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

You mean not integrated like Yarmulke wearing Jews?

You mentioned Orthodox Jews before. Now its yarmulkes. I realize you're using these in a mocking way, but to be honest, Jews in Canada have resisted integration far more than any other group. And the more religiously observant they are, the more they resist integration. In that way they are quite similar to Muslims. However, the two religions vary in that Judaism is not hostile to our Western system of government and values. Judaism does not have the same determination to expand and to proselytize as Islam. You constantly hear from Muslim Islamists how they will take over the world and convert everyone to Islam, but there's never been that desire among world Jews. All the Jews have ever wanted to do, basically, is to be left alone.

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.

Uhm, sure, okay. I recall when the NDP were thrilled to grab the hijab wearing wife of Mahar Arar's wife as a candidate, then horrified to realize that, gol darn it, she insisted on acting like a Muslim! Which meant, she said, there was no way in hell she was going to support gay rights and marriage. Lot of red faces among the NDP there.

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

I didn't give any stat. So what you mean is you lied.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

Probably from you writing:

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

Then English is not a strong suit huh? Ok, not a problem.

You mentioned Orthodox Jews before. Now its yarmulkes. I realize you're using these in a mocking way, but to be honest, Jews in Canada have resisted integration far more than any other group. And the more religiously observant they are, the more they resist integration. In that way they are quite similar to Muslims. However, the two religions vary in that Judaism is not hostile to our Western system of government and values. Judaism does not have the same determination to expand and to proselytize as Islam. You constantly hear from Muslim Islamists how they will take over the world and convert everyone to Islam, but there's never been that desire among world Jews. All the Jews have ever wanted to do, basically, is to be left alone.

Yea h I hear them, that small ....make that tiny fanatical group. So?

You are right, it was mocking , and instead of stopping there, you give me more fodder. Well done.

Yes, they do want to be left alone, much like the Muslims. Some of them even want a Sharia court, like the Jews have.

Uhm, sure, okay. I recall when the NDP were thrilled to grab the hijab wearing wife of Mahar Arar's wife as a candidate, then horrified to realize that, gol darn it, she insisted on acting like a Muslim! Which meant, she said, there was no way in hell she was going to support gay rights and marriage. Lot of red faces among the NDP there.

So the NDP pulls Arars wife out as a candidate to then realize oops...not good. So this is indicative that all Muslim women are the same. Glad you let me know. I best get shifty eyed with every muslim woman around. Ahh geebus, I have lunch scheduled with an Iranian female Muslim non-Hijab wearing. She probably wants to kill me or dominate me.

I didn't give any stat. So what you mean is you lied.

Oh, so pull one out if your backside and its cool, me do it and I lied.

So much generalities these past couple of days.

[Evening Star]

Adding to the cultural mosaic? I don't recall Canadians ever being asked if they wanted a cultural mosaic, or if so what they wanted to add into it.

It has been government policy for four decades. We live in a democracy. Surely this could have changed by now, if Canadians wanted it to.

[Evening Star]

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.

I suspected that factors like these would enter into it...

It means not wrapping your daughters in bed sheets, and not sending them back 'home' to find a proper husband.

Honestly, it doesn't seem reasonable to try to regulate/legislate how people dress or who they can marry. Someone already gave the example of Orthodox Jews wearing yarmulkes.

By the way, I can say from direct observation and experience that one of the great things about Canada is that even when traditional parents try to control their children's lives in terms of dating and marriage, the children tend to exercise their freedom of choice anyway.

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,

Do you see any contradiction here?

accepting that religion plays no part in government, just like Canadians do.

I'm not sure that all Canadians have accepted this, including our present ruling party. (It's plain fact that many American people have not accepted this.)

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

I would also oppose this. Sadly, many Canadians do still believe in the death penalty.

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.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with learning languages. It's a valuable skill that more people could benefit from (myself included).

We have established compulsory educational standards as it is.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Evening Star

[William Ashley]

Newcomers aren't given that right. I don't think that happens anywhere actually.

I don't think that option is even in question, really.

residents (newcomers) can vote in provincial and municipal elections. (citizenship is not required.)

check the applicable legilsation or type of vote in question.

Directly it is complex --- many laws state the explicit requirement to be eligible for voting.. however there are loopholes including things Like Canadian Commonwealth citizens being eligible to vote in British elections. And the legal capacity of the British Parlaiment to Ammend the Canada Act. Recognition of this fact is largely a legacy that is perhaps becoming aged out, but still a very political point of consensus that wouldn't abrogate the actual capacity to annex Canada by ammending the Canada act.. the recognition of that is completely left to conjecture as well as the effect. In time though Canada's own population may outnumber the UK... then that inequalty of democratic input could be fliped.. especially with those commonwealth canadians still having voting rights in the UK.. it is a closing door no doubt perhaps.

Canada has more than half the population of the United Kingdom. Together they would sum some 90+ million people. (if population rates stabalized)

I'm not sure how many of the 30 million comprise as commonwealth citizens (those Canadians born before 1982) .. but I am geussing it is a sizable number. It is actually quite an enfranchisement in the UK for Canada.

It is getting more and more difficult though... leave to remain

Edited March 4, 2011 by William Ashley

[Scotty]

Then English is not a strong suit huh? Ok, not a problem.

I realize that sort of cliche'd juvenile insult is used routinely, but i can't recall ever seeing it where the user clearly said exactly what was claimed. I guess what you meant to say is that I should have read words into your words which you weren't clever enough to put there.

Yea h I hear them, that small ....make that tiny fanatical group. So?

Obviously, Tareen was not aware of the Environics poll of 2007 that found 12 per cent of Canada's Muslims having a favourable disposition towards the Toronto 18 terrorists and 14 per cent who identified themselves with "extremists" within the Muslim community.

This means there could be as many as 100,000 Muslim Canadians who are hostile to Canada and western civilization. A scary number by any measure.

Winnipeg Free Press

Not to mention that an even larger number of Muslims, and their religious and community leaders remain committed to the idea of Sharia law.

You are right, it was mocking , and instead of stopping there, you give me more fodder. Well done.

Well, for all that fodder, you don't appear to be doing anything with it except producing waste products.

Yes, they do want to be left alone, much like the Muslims. Some of them even want a Sharia court, like the Jews have.

Muslims don't want to be left alone. Islam is an expansionary religion and proselytizing and conversion are integral to it. and since it has such a long history of converting others by the sword its adherents do not have the sort of feeling about forcing their beliefs on others as more pacifistic groups.

So the NDP pulls Arars wife out as a candidate to then realize oops...not good. So this is indicative that all Muslim women are the same. Glad you let me know. I best get shifty eyed with every muslim woman around. Ahh geebus, I have lunch scheduled with an Iranian female Muslim non-Hijab wearing. She probably wants to kill me or dominate me.

Do you really think this sort of sullen, snotty response is even remotely suitable for a forum where adults discuss issues in a mature fashion?

Oh, so pull one out if your backside and its cool, me do it and I lied.

I didn't invent a number. That was your doing.

[guyser]

I realize that sort of cliche'd juvenile insult is used routinely, but i can't recall ever seeing it where the user clearly said exactly what was claimed. I guess what you meant to say is that I should have read words into your words which you weren't clever enough to put there.

NO , the problem is you assumed I dont watch any other TV. I said I had AlJezeera on now and no local is watched. I also watch BBC, NG, HGTV etc etc.

Obviously, Tareen was not aware of the Environics poll of 2007 that found 12 per cent of Canada's Muslims having a favourable disposition towards the Toronto 18 terrorists and 14 per cent who identified themselves with "extremists" within the Muslim community.

This means there could be as many as 100,000 Muslim Canadians who are hostile to Canada and western civilization. A scary number by any measure.

They can posit that, but frankly we dont have much to worry about. I live in the highest concentration of Muslims in North Am (accroding to wiki) and have nmo fears , real or perceived.

Theres about 750G Muslims in Canada. What are they waiting for?

Not to mention that an even larger number of Muslims, and their religious and community leaders remain committed to the idea of Sharia law.

Some canucks are commited to the death penalty. Aint getting it are they?

Same with sharia law, and even then, it would be at worst only an arbitration court, not a court of law.

Well, for all that fodder, you don't appear to be doing anything with it except producing waste products.

Your argument is weak. You take one example and ascribe it to the rest of them as gospel.

Muslims don't want to be left alone. Islam is an expansionary religion and proselytizing and conversion are integral to it. and since it has such a long history of converting others by the sword its adherents do not have the sort of feeling about forcing their beliefs on others as more pacifistic groups.

I worry more about the Mormons. They come knocking on my door. No Muslims yet.

Do you really think this sort of sullen, snotty response is even remotely suitable for a forum where adults discuss issues in a mature fashion?

Then discuss as an adult and all will be good. I mock when someone takes a minor example, sets up a premise using that one example and runs with it.

Anyhow, asalaam alakem Scotty

[kimmy]

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?

Not necessarily a disaster or a crisis. But generally we don't set out to find solutions unless we perceive there to be a problem, yes?

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

That might be a useful piece of information, but...

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.

Nonsense, Shwa. I'm proposing a scenario that counters your suggestion that somebody who has a job must be "integrated".

If somebody has his nieces and nephews living in his basement and working full time for his business and they never talk to anybody outside the family, those nieces and nephews could be considered employed, but don't think anybody would suggest they're "integrated", so employment alone isn't adequate.

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.

Set the bar low enough and practically everybody is "integrated". Adopting employment as your chief metric might be an example of doing just that.

All of this is pretty meaningless without an agreement of what "integrate" actually means.

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

"Working for us" is also pretty vague.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Seems to work well here. Never had Israeli Apartied Week celebrations before until this year. Now my little corner of Canada hates Jews, too. That's on par with other university towns...finally.

"Israel Apartheid" is, in my view, an incorrect and not especially helpful way to think about the I-P issues.

But it is not Jew-hating.

[bloodyminded]

Uhm, sure, okay. I recall when the NDP were thrilled to grab the hijab wearing wife of Mahar Arar's wife as a candidate, then horrified to realize that, gol darn it, she insisted on acting like a Muslim! Which meant, she said, there was no way in hell she was going to support gay rights and marriage. Lot of red faces among the NDP there.

True, but they could get the same response from Mr. English-descendent fifth generation Canadian from Alberta. So what?

I certainly don't think that the minority of Canadians opposed to same sex marriage aren't "proper" Canadians.

Edited March 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

"Israel Apartheid" is, in my view, an incorrect and not especially helpful way to think about the I-P issues.

But it is not Jew-hating.

Sure it is.

[Shwa]

Adding to the cultural mosaic? I don't recall Canadians ever being asked if they wanted a cultural mosaic, or if so what they wanted to add into it. I rather doubt, given most of our immigrants come from failed cultures with terrible and often very backward, very intolerant, very misogynistic value systems, that these are the kinds of colors we want to add to our 'mosaic'.

Valueless rant. May Allah have mercy on your soul.

And unsurprising you would ignore the cites about the growing issues with immigrant employment and income. The fact is that bringing in poor people doesn't in any way, shape or form help us economically. We, as a society, wind up paying far more money to poor families in the form of services and income support than we ever get back. They are a drain on our economy, on our GDP, and on the budget.

You are equating immigrants with "poor families" when those "poor" families could be primo home-grown good ol' Canucks. Fact is poor people, mentally ill people, sick people, physically challenged people, etc., etc. are "are drain on our economy, on our GDP, and on the budget."

That's all quite aside from the question of whether or not they're properly integrating. The assumption made by many that they'll integrate the same as immigrants did in the past is not borne out by evidence, and ignores the fact that realities have changed. We don't KNOW how those changed realities, and the changed circumstances of these immigrants, particularly the Muslims, will affect the degree of integration.

Meaningless rant and fairly typical of those misguided cranks who truly believe that the exception is the rule.

Fact is most immigrants are working, paying taxes, buying our good and services, obeying our laws and buying parkas so they don't freeze. I spent 12 hours in our local mall yesterday and not only did I observe first hand the excellent integration going on in our country, but quite a few "mixed" couples pushing strollers full of little new Canadians. Quite a nice sight to see.

[bloodyminded]

Sure it is.

No. It isn't.

Even when you determine to use political correctness for purposes of your argument, it's better to back up your bland assertions with something palpable.

Edited March 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

No. It isn't.

Even when you determine to use political correctness for purposes of your argument, it's better to back up your bland assertions with something palpable.

Oddly enough, I don't take orders from you.

[Shwa]

Not necessarily a disaster or a crisis. But generally we don't set out to find solutions unless we perceive there to be a problem, yes?

I don't think emmigration, environment or unemployment are problems, do you? I see initiatives to address specific problems, but overall immigration is working fine, unemployment is manageable and the environment is doing pretty good.

That might be a useful piece of information, but...

Nonsense, Shwa. I'm proposing a scenario that counters your suggestion that somebody who has a job must be "integrated".

If somebody has his nieces and nephews living in his basement and working full time for his business and they never talk to anybody outside the family, those nieces and nephews could be considered employed, but don't think anybody would suggest they're "integrated", so employment alone isn't adequate.

But that applies to anyone in Canada, not just immigrants. So your scenario is a titch too broad to be useful as any sort of measure of any particular demographic such as immigrants.

Set the bar low enough and practically everybody is "integrated". Adopting employment as your chief metric might be an example of doing just that.

Most immigrants are employed, paying taxes, buying Canadian good and services, obeying Canadian laws, sending their kids to Canadian schools, etc. What sort of bar do you require? Oh, certainly you do not require them to cheer for the Argos as opposed to Juventus or Rangers right?

All of this is pretty meaningless without an agreement of what "integrate" actually means.

Supposing that is true, then why not propose what integrated means? I have given you some ideas, how about you give some ideas too?

"Working for us" is also pretty vague.

It always has been except in retrospect.

[bloodyminded]

Oddly enough, I don't take orders from you.

Oddly enough, I didn't give you an order. I made a suggestion...that you stop making dishonest, politically-correct assertions without even bothering to try to back them up.

And oddly enough, you're having as much trouble reading as you are in presenting a coherent argument for your stance.

[DogOnPorch]

Oddly enough, I didn't give you an order. I made a suggestion...that you stop making dishonest, politically-correct assertions without even bothering to try to back them up.

And oddly enough, you're having as much trouble reading as you are in presenting a coherent argument for your stance.

Meh...I was plenty clear.

[bloodyminded]

Meh...I was plenty clear.

Clear? You offered no argument at all; just a bland statement, free of supporting argument.

Are you waiting for your little friend, Bush_Cheney2004, to inform you of what your argument is?

Edited March 5, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

True, but they could get the same response from Mr. English-descendent fifth generation Canadian from Alberta. So what?

I was not suggesting being against gay-rights meant you weren't integrated. He said that a Hijab wearing woman could well be very progressive. I find that highly unlikely. Few people who wear overt signs of religious dedication to that degree are going to be what our society considers 'progressive'.

[Scotty]

Valueless rant. May Allah have mercy on your soul.

You could have just said 'I disagree' but you had to work some smarmy comment in there, didn't you.

You are equating immigrants with "poor families" when those "poor" families could be primo home-grown good ol' Canucks.

The point is that far too many new immigrants we are bringing in are living below the poverty line and likely to remain so their entire lives. Thus the costs associated with bringing them in are extremely high. We would be better off to restrict immigration to those individuals likely to prosper in Canada. And that means fewer people from Asia and the Middle East, and more from Europe.

Immigrant Economic Performance by Area of Origin

Fact is most immigrants are working, paying taxes, buying our good and services, obeying our laws and buying parkas so they don't freeze.

You continue to reduce the argument over integration to whether or not they are working. Very well. I've already posted a number of cites pointing out that immigrant economic performance is low and getting worse. This suggests major changes need to be done to the immigration system.

However, beyond economics there remains the question of immigrant social integration. I'd like to see some agreed-upon means of measuring that, but until we do the best I can say, in a broad way, is that until they have the same generalized respect for the rights of others, including sexual rights, including female rights, including morality rights, I will not consider them integrated.

And no, I don't consider Mennonites or the Amish or for that matter, a lot of Ultra-Orthodox Jews to be integrated into our culture either. But the difference is none of those groups have any hostile intentions towards our society and do not have a history of expansion by violence and forced assimilation. They might have their own language and lead separate lives but they're not likely to blow up buildings or markets when unhappy.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Scotty

[CANADIEN]

I was not suggesting being against gay-rights meant you weren't integrated. He said that a Hijab wearing woman could well be very progressive. I find that highly unlikely. Few people who wear overt signs of religious dedication to that degree are going to be what our society considers 'progressive'.

Oh really? My experience is anecdotal, but those hijab-wearing women I know hardly wout fit the definition of "non-progressive" or "anti-progressive". Not that relgious belief or the wearing of religious symbols or clothing is by definition the opposite of progressive anyway.

[CANADIEN]

You could have just said 'I disagree' but you had to work some smarmy comment in there, didn't you.

The point is that far too many new immigrants we are bringing in are living below the poverty line and likely to remain so their entire lives. Thus the costs associated with bringing them in are extremely high. We would be better off to restrict immigration to those individuals likely to prosper in Canada. And that means fewer people from Asia and the Middle East, and more from Europe.

Immigrant Economic Performance by Area of Origin

You continue to reduce the argument over integration to whether or not they are working. Very well. I've already posted a number of cites pointing out that immigrant economic performance is low and getting worse. This suggests major changes need to be done to the immigration system.

However, beyond economics there remains the question of immigrant social integration. I'd like to see some agreed-upon means of measuring that, but until we do the best I can say, in a broad way, is that until they have the same generalized respect for the rights of others, including sexual rights, including female rights, including morality rights, I will not consider them integrated.

And no, I don't consider Mennonites or the Amish or for that matter, a lot of Ultra-Orthodox Jews to be integrated into our culture either. But the difference is none of those groups have any hostile intentions towards our society and do not have a history of expansion by violence and forced assimilation. They might have their own language and lead separate lives but they're not likely to blow up buildings or markets when unhappy.

Interesting that, at long last, the little secret is out. The problem is immigrants, but hey european immigrants are just fine. Good for them that they do not offend your prejudices. Although, we should be careful about where these European immigrants come from - nit too long ago, irish, Italian or slavic immigrants were unwelcome for about the same reasons you put forward today.

BTW, as the past decades has demonstrated, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants to Canada are unlikely to blow things up when unhappy.

Edited March 5, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

You could have just said 'I disagree' but you had to work some smarmy comment in there, didn't you.

Just don't tell the mods on me ok?

The point is that far too many new immigrants we are bringing in are living below the poverty line and likely to remain so their entire lives. Thus the costs associated with bringing them in are extremely high. We would be better off to restrict immigration to those individuals likely to prosper in Canada. And that means fewer people from Asia and the Middle East, and more from Europe.

Immigrant Economic Performance by Area of Origin

Or it could mean that we find ways to get them up to speed once they get here. I agree we need to make changes to some of our immigration system. More programs focused on people from Asian and the Middle East. We can use all that tax money that most of them generate to pay for these programs. We could call it a 'head tax.' Or something.

You continue to reduce the argument over integration to whether or not they are working. Very well. I've already posted a number of cites pointing out that immigrant economic performance is low and getting worse. This suggests major changes need to be done to the immigration system.

The economy has gotten worse, so it only stands to reason. The economy will bounce back and we can look at all that Fraser Institute data in five years and say "whew, good thing we didn't over-react!"

However, beyond economics there remains the question of immigrant social integration. I'd like to see some agreed-upon means of measuring that, but until we do the best I can say, in a broad way, is that until they have the same generalized respect for the rights of others, including sexual rights, including female rights, including morality rights, I will not consider them integrated.

In a broad way "they" already have the same generalized respect for the rights of others, including sexual rights, female rights, morality rights, etc. Again, you are citing the exception as the rule.

And no, I don't consider Mennonites or the Amish or for that matter, a lot of Ultra-Orthodox Jews to be integrated into our culture either. But the difference is none of those groups have any hostile intentions towards our society and do not have a history of expansion by violence and forced assimilation. They might have their own language and lead separate lives but they're not likely to blow up buildings or markets when unhappy.

Oh you mean the Squamish Five? I don't think they were immigrants though. Of course the FLQ, Hells Angels and Rock Machine - well, that's different right?