Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers

[Scotty]

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.

They don't generate any taxes. They don't have the money to pay any. And a better way would be to get them up to speed BEFORE they get here, since most observers agree one of the major, if not THE major problems with economic performance is their very poor language skills.

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!"

If you had bothered to read the cites you would have seen that immigrant economic performance has been steadily deteriorating for thirty years, and that virtually EVERYONE agrees on that, from Stats Canada on down.

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.

I don't think so. I am going by general observation and media reports as to the extremely conservative nature of many of these immigrants on social matters, as well as their hostility towards female emancipation.

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?

A few clowns who blew up porn stores a quarter century ago somehow refutes all concern with Muslim terrorism?

Do fourteen percent of the Canadian population believe in violent terrorist behavior in the name of their God?

[CANADIEN]

Do fourteen percent of the Canadian population believe in violent terrorist behavior in the name of their God?

Don't have the Canadian numbers, but they cannot be that different from the following.

In 2006, the Program on International Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a survey asking a sample of Americans and Iranians the following question (amongst others): "are bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians sometimes justified?" Interestings results..

Often justified: 3% of Iranians, 5% of Americans

Sometimes: 8% of Iranians, 19% of Americans

Rarely: 5% of Iranians, 27% of Americans

Never: 80% of Iranians, 46 of Americans

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/23/polls

This is not to say, of course, that Americans are bloodthirsty would-be murderers of innocent civilians. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Muslims are just that until proven otherwise.

[guyser]

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'.

You need to get out more then.

In Iran , women wear the hijab most of the time. And on any typical Saturday night the moment they walk through a door at a private house party they remove the covers to reveal the beautiful dresses, make up, shoes you will ever see. Being Persian they are born with a certain flair that other cultures do not posess.

Apart from the obvious skin tones and and hair colour, you would think you were in a high society party in anyone of Toronto, New York or London.

[Shwa]

They don't generate any taxes. They don't have the money to pay any.

What a completely absurd and dumb thing to write. Serious dumb.

Not to mention those that are working are having income taxes deducted and all the sales tax "they" pay.

And a better way would be to get them up to speed BEFORE they get here, since most observers agree one of the major, if not THE major problems with economic performance is their very poor language skills.

And all those million of of other immigrants throughout history that had very poor language skills. The people of Wilno, Ontario salute you.

Witame dlo Wilno. That's "Welcome to Wilno" in the dialect still spoken by local descendants of the Kashubian Poles who first settled these beautiful rocky hills in the early 1800's

BTW, they are Polish. Poland is in Europe.

If you had bothered to read the cites you would have seen that immigrant economic performance has been steadily deteriorating for thirty years, and that virtually EVERYONE agrees on that, from Stats Canada on down.

Yeah, so we need to improve the services we give to them so they perform better. I've said that already.

I don't think so. I am going by general observation and media reports as to the extremely conservative nature of many of these immigrants on social matters, as well as their hostility towards female emancipation.

Judging by your opening comment, what you "think" appears to be of little value.

A few clowns who blew up porn stores a quarter century ago somehow refutes all concern with Muslim terrorism?

What have the Muslims in Canada blown up lately? What's that you say? Nothing?

You need to know your Canadian history more. Especially about the FLQ, and the biker wars in Montreal.

But then again, someone that has the crazy notion that the exception is the rule would probably mistake a hydro substation for a porn store wouldn't they?

Do fourteen percent of the Canadian population believe in violent terrorist behavior in the name of their God?

I dunno, have you asked them?

[Scotty]

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.

If by 'prejudices' you mean my 'prejudice' in a discussion about the economic performance of immigrants to bring in those immigrants who perform better economically, well then, guilty.

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

I don't disagree. Which, by the way, is one reason why we should be concerned with the deteriorating economic circumstances of newcomers. As I pointed out, the Muslim immigrants in Europe who are expressing hostility towards their new 'homelands' tend to be in poor economic circumstances too. And as the link I placed in the above post indicates, immigrants from the middle east are among the worst performers, economically, of all immigrants.

[Scotty]

Don't have the Canadian numbers, but they cannot be that different from the following.

In 2006, the Program on International Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a survey asking a sample of Americans and Iranians the following question (amongst others): "are bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians sometimes justified?" Interestings results..

Often justified: 3% of Iranians, 5% of Americans

Sometimes: 8% of Iranians, 19% of Americans

Rarely: 5% of Iranians, 27% of Americans

Never: 80% of Iranians, 46 of Americans

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/05/23/polls

This is not to say, of course, that Americans are bloodthirsty would-be murderers of innocent civilians. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Muslims are just that until proven otherwise.

The problem with that sort of question is how broad an interpretation one can place on it. There are a whole world of possibilities and circumstances that ones imagination can raise which would allow for the possibility of saying 'yes'. And the more sophisticated your mind, the more open to a variety of possibilities there are, the more likely you can see where it might be justified.

However in the case of the Canadian poll, people were specifically asked about the Toronto 18, and 12% of Muslims sympathized with them and agreed with their aims, while 14% expressed support for other types of violent extremist causes.

I'd also like to point out that the Koran forbids attacks on innocent civilians. However, as dedicated as the Muslim world is to Islam that seems to be a prohibition which is widely ignored in practice.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

However in the case of the Canadian poll, people were specifically asked about the Toronto 18, and 12% of Muslims sympathized with them and agreed with their aims, while 14% expressed support for other types of violent extremist causes.

But you see , The problem with that sort of question is how broad an interpretation one can place on it. There are a whole world of possibilities and circumstances that ones imagination can raise which would allow for the possibility of saying 'yes'. And the more sophisticated your mind, the more open to a variety of possibilities there are, the more likely you can see where it might be justified.

Pretty sure you see it.

[Scotty]

You need to get out more then.

In Iran , women wear the hijab most of the time.

Wearing the hijab in public in Iran is not a matter of choice, but of law. Any woman caught not wearing it would be arrested, beaten and imprisoned.

In Canada, wearing the hijab is a matter of choice. It is a statement with regard to ones dedication to certain religious and cultural ideals.

[Scotty]

But you see , The problem with that sort of question is how broad an interpretation one can place on it. There are a whole world of possibilities and circumstances that ones imagination can raise which would allow for the possibility of saying 'yes'. And the more sophisticated your mind, the more open to a variety of possibilities there are, the more likely you can see where it might be justified.

Pretty sure you see it.

You'd be mistaken.

[guyser]

Wearing the hijab in public in Iran is not a matter of choice, but of law. Any woman caught not wearing it would be arrested, beaten and imprisoned.

In Canada, wearing the hijab is a matter of choice. It is a statement with regard to ones dedication to certain religious and cultural ideals.

Well first off, no they would not, at least not always.

Secondly you cannot establish your point, which is hijab wearers cannot be progressive, by simply stating the law or choice is the reason.

Some choose to wear it in this country in deference to elderly, parents or otherwise.

[guyser]

You'd be mistaken.

Those were your own words.

The questions are fundematally the same, yet different answers from you. Careful your bias is showing.

Lets see then.....

"are bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians sometimes justified?"

asked about the Toronto 18, and 12% of Muslims sympathized with them and agreed with their aims, while 14% expressed support for other types of violent extremist causes.

Lets make a hybrid of the both questions and see where we end up......

"are the Toronto 18 bombers and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians sometimes justified?"

Yet you have a different answer.

Did you read about the high school survey?

Asked who had sex with an opposite sex partner in the last week , 98% of the boys said yes. Only 12% of the Girls said yes.

I wonder what the truth was.

[CANADIEN]

The problem with that sort of question is how broad an interpretation one can place on it. There are a whole world of possibilities and circumstances that ones imagination can raise which would allow for the possibility of saying 'yes'. And the more sophisticated your mind, the more open to a variety of possibilities there are, the more likely you can see where it might be justified.

The only problem is with your interpretation, and the naked bigotry behind it. !4% of Canadian Muslims expresses support for extremist causes means that each and every Muslim in this country is to be considered a would be terrorist until proven otherwise. A majority of Americans believing that targetting civilians can be justified is a sign of sophistication.

Excuse me while I laugh. And while I prepare myself for my next fit of laugher, which shall come when you make a fool of yourself by arguing that, since I don't share your islamophobia, I am either soft on terrorism or oblivious to the threat.

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't have the Canadian numbers, but they cannot be that different from the following.....

....This is not to say, of course, that Americans are bloodthirsty would-be murderers of innocent civilians. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Muslims are just that until proven otherwise.

Well, if Americans are to be proxies for Canadian thought, then why not?

[bloodyminded]

The only problem is with your interpretation, and the naked bigotry behind it. !4% of Canadian Muslims expresses support for extremist causes means that each and every Muslim in this country is to be considered a would be terrorist until proven otherwise. A majority of Americans believing that targetting civilians can be justified is a sign of sophistication.

Bingo.

I have had similar discussions--with mainstream, establishment-minded liberals almost as often as with conservatives--about Western involvement in terrorism.

It goes this way (not as analogy; not as rhetorical exaggeration to get my point across; I'm being literal here): Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC...in other words, "official" enemies as determined by the State...are purely bad, purely unjustified in their actions, and anything other than such a view is apologetics for terrorism; meanwhile, complaints about direct, intentional, material support, by the West, for far worse acts of terrorism is not so bad.

Because there is "nuance to foreign relations that I just don't understand."

And actually, I'm generally inclined to agree with the "terrorism is always bad" view. I don't justify Hamas's terrorism, for example. Unlike my opponents in these sorts of debates, who hate only the terrorism that their betters order them to hate.

It is precisely those who shout msot loudly about the evils of terrorism who will become defensively supportive of terrorism. So long as the "right" countries are behind it, of course.

That's the sophisticated view, as you say.

Edited March 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

In a movie about submarines, you'd root for the depth charge.

[bloodyminded]

In a movie about submarines, you'd root for the depth charge.

You missed the point entirely.

The point is that I wouldn't; and you would.

I had thought that clear enough:

And actually, I'm generally inclined to agree with the "terrorism is always bad" view. I don't justify Hamas's terrorism, for example. Unlike my opponents in these sorts of debates, who hate only the terrorism that their betters order them to hate.

[DogOnPorch]

Aren't you late for your dead mother's funeral, Albert?

Make sure you cry...

[bloodyminded]

Aren't you late for your dead mother's funeral, Albert?

Make sure you cry...

...the fuck are you talking about?

[Shwa]

It is precisely those who shout msot loudly about the evils of terrorism who will become defensively supportive of terrorism. So long as the "right" countries are behind it, of course.

That's the sophisticated view, as you say.

It would be interesting to see if this flip-flop phenomenon about terrorism could be applied to immigration too. That is, those who shout the loudest against our current immigration policies and numbers would be inclined to offer sophisticated arguments for immigration so long as the immigrants come from the "right" countries.

Angus-Reid ought to do a poll.

[bloodyminded]

It would be interesting to see if this flip-flop phenomenon about terrorism could be applied to immigration too. That is, those who shout the loudest against our current immigration policies and numbers would be inclined to offer sophisticated arguments for immigration so long as the immigrants come from the "right" countries.

Angus-Reid ought to do a poll.

It is done quite often, it seems to me. Although "sophisticated" is evidently in the eyes of the beholder.

[Scotty]

Those were your own words.

The questions are fundematally the same, yet different answers from you.

I disagree. The one to Americans and Iranians is entirely theoretical and philosophical. The one to the Muslims in Canada is far more specific. We know what the Toronto 18 did and planned, and we know why. The other is completely open. Are attacks against civilians always wrong? The Americans did that in WW2 against the Japanese, and arguably against the Germans, as well. Most Americans would be aware of this.

[Scotty]

The only problem is with your interpretation, and the naked bigotry behind it. !4% of Canadian Muslims expresses support for extremist causes means that each and every Muslim in this country is to be considered a would be terrorist until proven otherwise

.

I've never really understood why people think that just because they don't have enough knowledge to discuss a subject they can substitute childish insults and then 'interpret' what the discussion is about in order to feel they have 'won'. Does it give you some sort of inner satisfaction?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Scotty

[CANADIEN]

I disagree. The one to Americans and Iranians is entirely theoretical and philosophical. The one to the Muslims in Canada is far more specific. We know what the Toronto 18 did and planned, and we know why. The other is completely open. Are attacks against civilians always wrong? The Americans did that in WW2 against the Japanese, and arguably against the Germans, as well. Most Americans would be aware of this.

Nice try. The issue is not whether or not one can justify delibarate targetting of civilians in some circumstances. It is that yout "Oh my, 14% of Canadian Muslims identify with the Toronto 18, so we should treat all Muslims as would-be terrorists until proven otherwise" has been debunked as the bigoted non-sense it is.

Edited March 6, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

.

I've never really understood why people think that just because they don't have enough knowledge to discuss a subject they can substitute childish insults and then 'interpret' what the discussion is about in order to feel they have 'won'. Does it give you some sort of inner satisfaction?

Good point. I too have never understood why the likes of you feel the need to be and remain ignorant and bigoted.

If you want us to believe the Muslims in Canada are to be considered would-be terrorists/enemies of the West/etc. etc. etc. until proven otherwise, you better come with something a lot better than "14% of them identify with the Toronto 18". Like actual proof that the other 86% do so as well.

Edited March 6, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Shwa]

Nice try. The issue is not whether or not one can justify delibarate targetting of civilians in some circumstances. It is that yout "Oh my, 14% of Canadian Muslims identify with the Toronto 18, so we should treat all Muslims as would-be terrorists until proven otherwise" has been debunked as the bigoted non-sense it is.

Smells similar to the exception-as-the-rule fallacy.