Should Canada Direct more Efforts into Recruiting European Immigrants

[Scotty]

There was an article in the Post the other day about how hard economic times are causing a lot of young, educated Irish to want to emigrate again. The outlook in a number of other European nations is even worse than Ireland's. This offers up the opportunity for Canada to redirect its immigration towards nations which tend to produce more economically successful immigrants. Studies have shown that immigrants from Europe are twice as economically successful as immigrants from Asia or the Middle East, for example.

Recent Immigrant Performance By Source Area

Should Canada take such statistics into account when considering where to direct is immigration recruitment?

[nicky10013]

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants."

Hooray for Racism!

[Smallc]

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants."

Pretty much.

[Wild Bill]

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants."

Hooray for Racism!

I guess Phil Lynott, the founding bass player for Thin Lizzy, doesn't count. He was black and Irish too!

Once again, people are confusing race with culture. Perhaps deliberately, come to think of it!

There are MANY visible minorities in Europe that have been there for generations! This is not 1938, after all! So the idea that only white folks will come from Europe is frankly, just nuts!

However, it can't be denied that the mainstream cultures of Canada have been French in Quebec and British/European across the country. Only in the last few decades have we seen significant numbers of immigrants from other areas of the world. One could argue that the past few decades have been the major change and NOT the traditional status quo!

That being said, there's no need to invoke some lib-left conspiracy to fill Canada up with minority cultures, although certainly official multi-culturalism and political pandering to new immigrants for votes have contributed to this idea. The real situation can be explained much simpler.

Canada was founded by France and then Britain. It is therefore not surprising that the bulk of our immigration came from those areas of the world in the early parts of our history. People tend to immigrate to countries with cultures that are familiar, if given a choice.

The World Wars changed all that. When Europe was devastated by artillery many people came to Canada for a new life. Europe accounted for much of our immigrants until the late 60's and early 70's.

After that, fewer Europeans WANTED to come to Canada! Why would they? WWII was long over and most European countries were doing quite well economically, thank you very much! In fact, many provided a BETTER life for the typical worker than Canada! Anybody with Italian or French friends and relations can't help but envy the number of paid holidays given to European workers.

So Canada had little choice but to take her immigrants from areas where people WANTED to come! East Asian and the Third World became our major source, simply because more people in those countries saw Canada as a better life than what they had.

Race has nothing to do with it. Follow the money!

Now Europe is having economic problems. Despite how some posters on this board would have us believe that Harper has dragged Canada into the deepest, blackest pits of despair, to an Irishman or a Portuguese our economy looks pretty good in comparision to their own! For the first time in decades we are seeing a rise in applicants from those areas.

What are we supposed to do? Bar these people from the country because a lot of them are white?

It's a simple fact that Europeans are much more likely to be educated on a par with ourselves, with very similar curricula. They are also much more likely to have relations over here for support. They assimilate faster and tend to do better economically.

Again, race is a null factor. Hopefully, there isn't even a spot on the application for race!

[Scotty]

Pretty much.

On what do you base that thought? Isn't immigration intended to help Canada's economy? People who come here and make very low wages don't pay much, if any taxes. People who come here and prosper pay much more in taxes. Where is your argument?

[CANADIEN]

Interesting statistics are being provided. Now, I have made it clear in the past that what I consider important is EACH INDIVIDUAL capacity to find employment and his/her willingness to obey the laws of this country.

But if we are to base the statistics provided as the mean (or sole) criteria of where we should get immigrants from, then I must come to the conclusion that we should take immigrants from Western and Southern Africa ahead of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, or Oceania.

Since it's all about the stats, wouldn't you agree, Scotty?

[Smallc]

Where is your argument?

Where is your argument? individuals succeed and fail as immigrants, not country blocks. I agree with where the Government of Canada is going, where younger people that can speak English of French get first opportunity. That is the way to create prosperity, not through policies cultural and ethnic bigotry.

[CANADIEN]

I guess Phil Lynott, the founding bass player for Thin Lizzy, doesn't count. He was black and Irish too!

Once again, people are confusing race with culture. Perhaps deliberately, come to think of it!

There are MANY visible minorities in Europe that have been there for generations! This is not 1938, after all! So the idea that only white folks will come from Europe is frankly, just nuts!

However, it can't be denied that the mainstream cultures of Canada have been French in Quebec and British/European across the country. Only in the last few decades have we seen significant numbers of immigrants from other areas of the world. One could argue that the past few decades have been the major change and NOT the traditional status quo!

That being said, there's no need to invoke some lib-left conspiracy to fill Canada up with minority cultures, although certainly official multi-culturalism and political pandering to new immigrants for votes have contributed to this idea. The real situation can be explained much simpler.

Canada was founded by France and then Britain. It is therefore not surprising that the bulk of our immigration came from those areas of the world in the early parts of our history. People tend to immigrate to countries with cultures that are familiar, if given a choice.

The World Wars changed all that. When Europe was devastated by artillery many people came to Canada for a new life. Europe accounted for much of our immigrants until the late 60's and early 70's.

After that, fewer Europeans WANTED to come to Canada! Why would they? WWII was long over and most European countries were doing quite well economically, thank you very much! In fact, many provided a BETTER life for the typical worker than Canada! Anybody with Italian or French friends and relations can't help but envy the number of paid holidays given to European workers.

So Canada had little choice but to take her immigrants from areas where people WANTED to come! East Asian and the Third World became our major source, simply because more people in those countries saw Canada as a better life than what they had.

Race has nothing to do with it. Follow the money!

Now Europe is having economic problems. Despite how some posters on this board would have us believe that Harper has dragged Canada into the deepest, blackest pits of despair, to an Irishman or a Portuguese our economy looks pretty good in comparision to their own! For the first time in decades we are seeing a rise in applicants from those areas.

What are we supposed to do? Bar these people from the country because a lot of them are white?

It's a simple fact that Europeans are much more likely to be educated on a par with ourselves, with very similar curricula. They are also much more likely to have relations over here for support. They assimilate faster and tend to do better economically.

Again, race is a null factor. Hopefully, there isn't even a spot on the application for race!

You make some good points. That being said, the numbers provided by Scotty do not lie. Immigrants from Africa (outside of Northern and Eastern Africa, that is), do better economically than immigrants from Italy and Poland, to name two European countries.

[Scotty]

Interesting statistics are being provided. Now, I have made it clear in the past that what I consider important is EACH INDIVIDUAL capacity to find employment and his/her willingness to obey the laws of this country.

But if we are to base the statistics provided as the mean (or sole) criteria of where we should get immigrants from, then I must come to the conclusion that we should take immigrants from Western and Southern Africa ahead of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, or Oceania.

Since it's all about the stats, wouldn't you agree, Scotty?

Actually, there is no category for "western Africa" or "southern Africa". You are probably thinking of the "Other Africa" category. And while I'm not sure what geographic zone the bulk of those immigrants represent (I suspect most are from South Africa) I'd agree that we should be taking more people from there than from those areas which do more poorly.

[Wild Bill]

You make some good points. That being said, the numbers provided by Scotty do not lie. Immigrants from Africa (outside of Northern and Eastern Africa, that is), do better economically than immigrants from Italy and Poland, to name two European countries.

Perhaps that is because the culture of South Africa is mostly Commonwealth British?

[Saipan]

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants."

Hooray for Racism!

Hooray for lower crime rate.

[M.Dancer]

The title of this article should be "SHould Canada Direct More Efforts into Recruiting White Immigrants."

Hooray for Racism!

Hooray for Smears!

[Michael Hardner]

I guess that means bringing in as many people from Kazakhstan, Turkey and Roma from eastern Europe too ?

If you want to find a defining characteristic for how immigrants succeed, you could probably find a better way than picking a continent that they come from.

[Saipan]

But if we are to base the statistics provided as the mean (or sole) criteria of where we should get immigrants from, then I must come to the conclusion that we should take immigrants from Western and Southern Africa ahead of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, or Oceania.

Then we will live like in Africa. Is that what you want?

[CANADIEN]

Actually, there is no category for "western Africa" or "southern Africa". You are probably thinking of the "Other Africa" category. And while I'm not sure what geographic zone the bulk of those immigrants represent (I suspect most are from South Africa) I'd agree that we should be taking more people from there than from those areas which do more poorly.

Since the "Other Africa" category excludes Northern and Eastern africa, it is a logical conclusion that it refers to the Western and Southern part of the continent, isn't it?

Now, since you admit to the possibility that immigrants of some African countries fare better than immigrants of some European country, we can of course count on you to change the title of your thread to "Should Canada direct more efforts into recruiting immigrants from Western and Northern Europe, the United States, and African countries (other than Northern and Eastern Africa)". right?

[Wild Bill]

I guess that means bringing in as many people from Kazakhstan, Turkey and Roma from eastern Europe too ?

If you want to find a defining characteristic for how immigrants succeed, you could probably find a better way than picking a continent that they come from.

Hence my premise, Michael. We aren't picking any particular continent! We take what we can get!

For the past few decades, it has been a lot from the Third World. For a little while it might be Europe again, at least until the EU gets some of those countries' economies back on track.

Given the current troubles, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more middle east immigrants as they flee to safer climates to raise their families.

[Saipan]

I guess that means bringing in as many people from Kazakhstan, Turkey and Roma from eastern Europe too ?

1) Kazakhstan & Turkey is not Europe.

2) As for Gypsies, we have far more problem with indian gangs like in Winnipeg etc, that Gypsies.

Besides NATO helped Albanians to exterminate lot of Gypsies from the Balkans.

[Michael Hardner]

1) Kazakhstan & Turkey is not Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

2) As for Gypsies, we have far more problem with indian gangs like in Winnipeg etc, that Gypsies.

How about integration of that group versus groups from another continent ? Koreans ? Japanese ?

Besides NATO helped Albanians to exterminate lot of Gypsies from the Balkans.

Not sure how that's relevant.

[Saipan]

3) Lot of Gypsies came here from Czech Republic en masse under pretense of "discrimination". Most went back since because there were no "free homes and money" as they were told by the rumours there.

[CANADIEN]

Then we will live like in Africa. Is that what you want?

Don't blame me for following Scotty's logic, using his stats and finding the flaw.

BTW, is it your argument that unless we get immigrants from white err I mean European countries, we will sink to the kind of living conditions encountered in Africa? Please feel free to provide your proof - I need the laugh.

Edited March 6, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Michael Hardner]

3) Lot of Gypsies came here from Czech Republic en masse under pretense of "discrimination". Most went back since because there were no "free homes and money" as they were told by the rumours there.

If they are from Czech Republic then they are definitely European right ?

So they should be part of the group targeted for recruitment into Canada as per the poll question.

[CANADIEN]

Hooray for lower crime rate.

Indeed. After their history for most of the 70's. 80's and 90's, I would be very careful about admitting anyone from Northern Ireland, wouldn't you agree?

Edited March 6, 2011 by CANADIEN

[Saipan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe

Look AGAIN on the map.

Never mind the fact European geography is different from yours. Iceland is not Europe either.

How about integration of that group versus groups from another continent ? Koreans ? Japanese ?

How about it? Do Koreans or Japanese ask to be dependent?

Not sure how that's relevant.

True, you're not. We helped exterminate Gypsies in the Balkans.

[Smallc]

Iceland is not Europe either.

Where is it then?

[Scotty]

Where is your argument? individuals succeed and fail as immigrants, not country blocks.

And yet, very clearly, vast numbers of immigrants from China and the Middle East are performing very poorly vs those from Europe. In fact, they are only half as successful. And you feel this shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

Do you commonly buy products that are only half as good as others even though they're the same price, stubbornly insisting that just because they have a much higher failure rate, on average, that doesn't mean THIS one will?

I agree with where the Government of Canada is going, where younger people that can speak English of French get first opportunity. That is the way to create prosperity, not through policies cultural and ethnic bigotry.

No one has suggested policies based on cultural or ethnic bigotry. Instead I've suggested policies based on proven economic performance.

I can buy ACME spark plugs or BES spark-plugs. They cost exactly the same. However, I've noticed that a lot of the BES spark-plugs fail pretty quickly. In fact, they seem, on average, to only last half as long as the ones from ACME. Notwithstanding the fact SOME BES spark-plugs perform quite well, wouldn't my knowledge guide me to buy ACME and not BES spark-plugs?