Whites to Attain Minority Status?

[Scotty]

I agree. History has proven that immigration has been good for Canada.

The question was not whether immigration was good for Canada in the past. The question was is it good for our economy NOW.

That being said,it is not hard to see why some today disagree. If you base your definition of history as ONLY the past 5-10 years you get a quite different picture than if you look at the past 100.

Actually, you can't really show it's been good for our economy or the country as a whole over the past *thirty* years. That's how long Stats Canada says the economic quality, participation, and success of immigrants has been falling.

Most of our immigrant happened during periods of strong growth! Immigrants literally carved out and built most of this country! Without their contributions it could never have happened.

Yes, we needed a lot of strong backs and weak minds a century ago. We stopped needing them when the use of farm machinery and automation took hold in industry and commerce. Unfortunately, that shift coincided, to some degree, with the shift in our immigration from Europe only, to pretty much the third world. The first shift meant we really needed people with technical expertise. The second shift meant we got fewer and fewer such people.

Right now we need people with technical expertise and, because we are largely a service economy, people with superior communications skills. Immigrants, by and large, possess poor communication skills and rarely have the kind of technical expertise the economy requires. That is particularly so when the immigrants are from very backward parts of the world such as the middle east and Africa.

These are valid arguments ONLY in the context of these few specific years! Surely these times are only a blip in Canada's history.

No. Things have changed permanently. The need for uneducated, unskilled people is just not there and isn't coming back. We need people with familiarity with the kind of technology we consider routine, and with superior communication skills. That's not going to change.

An examination of how much our population growth has dipped below the replacement value clearly shows that our population will be shrinking, at a rate that we couldn't possibly significantly reduce by increasing immigration.

The rate of population shrinkage is not that great, really. If we completely ended immigration - completely - our population would still grow for about twenty or thirty years (been a bit since I saw the demographics) and then shrink very, very slowly. It would take more than a century to get back to the population we had when I was growing up.

And we seemed to be doing pretty well back then.

We may not need as many labourers to build houses

.

In my experience, and the experience of men I know who are in construction/renovation, immigrants rarely seek or find jobs in the trades, and on the rare occasion they do, rarely last long.

[Scotty]

Not very likely, as Helen Keller was very much a liberal and advocate for social justice.

So being an advocate for social justice requires that one embrace immigration regardless of flaws?

Do you consider yourself to be an advocate for social justice? If so, you're probably the only person on this site who would think of you in those terms.

[Scotty]

Employment Equity exists because of the disadvantaged position "visibly different" people face in getting jobs. As such,

Like having no job skills and being unable to speak, read or understand English?

[M.Dancer]

But I don't accept that population growth is good for the economy.

You should, because it is.

A simple way to look at it is: if an economy(and population) can create a demand for 100 new homes, once that level is met, the demand for new homes is close to zero, which means the demand for new washers, dryers etc etc, is also close to zero. The demand for perishables will remain the same but other areas will stagnate the decline.

[Scotty]

Is that what I am saying? Or is that all you are getting? There is a difference.

For one, you asked for "evidence" and I have suppplied a whole category of evidence.

You said "look at history". If that's your definition of supplying evidence then perhaps your command of the English language needs some work.

I was going to supply links to sources about Canada being in the G7, G8, G20, etc. How our economy is doing comparatively worldwide, how it has grown and so forth, but I suspect that you would prefer your internal fiction over anything I can cite. In other words, reality is overmatched against your fixed ideas.

Translation: You have no evidence of any kind.

Even what you seem to be indicating you "considered" looking up and supplying doesn't actually constitute evidence. "We are rich, and we have immigration" seems to you, to be evidence that "Immigration = rich". The idea of justifying a causal relationship apparently is not something which has ever occurred to you.

[Scotty]

You should, because it is.

A simple way to look at it is: if an economy(and population) can create a demand for 100 new homes, once that level is met, the demand for new homes is close to zero, which means the demand for new washers, dryers etc etc, is also close to zero. The demand for perishables will remain the same but other areas will stagnate the decline.

That's too simple. There will always be a demand for new products and new construction, especially given how short-lived the products we now use are. And as I said, a bigger economy means more jobs, but that doesn't necessarily improve the lot for anyone living in that economy. If there's more people, then more jobs does not equate to a lower unemployment rate or more wealth for individuals. But then again, maybe we're talking about two different beasts. My measure of the health of an economy is not so much bigger numbers, but how well-off the people living in that economy are.

[Shwa]

You said "look at history". If that's your definition of supplying evidence then perhaps your command of the English language needs some work.

No, I said read a history book and then qualified it by saying IF you are the type that can accept history as an indicator. The secondary thought would be that by using the historical category, you might be able to see some connection - both in the distant and recent past - that would show how immigration has been beneficial to the economy. You failed on two counts: English comprehension and basic historical analysis.

Translation: You have no evidence of any kind.

Oh no, you see, by merely indication what I was going to supply you with, I gave you a hint as to how you might proceed to give yourself a clue. That you missed this indicates more of your high functioning internal fiction engine. Nothing more. That is why the poster above said that "it is widely accepted."

Even what you seem to be indicating you "considered" looking up and supplying doesn't actually constitute evidence. "We are rich, and we have immigration" seems to you, to be evidence that "Immigration = rich". The idea of justifying a causal relationship apparently is not something which has ever occurred to you.

The idea of deconstructing causual relationships has and, in this case, there is no warrant. If you think there is then - as the other posters have requested - it is incumbent on you to show how there isn't a causual relationship, no linkages and no connections. So far you haven't given any account of your side of the argument whatsoever except for your 'impression.' You'll have to do better than that.

Here, let me help you out: CIC Research and Statistics

This is the official governmental site dealing with Immigration and related issues, research and statistics. Show me how - in this research material - that immigration isn't beneficial to the economy because all these experts are saying that it is.

[bush_cheney2004]

So being an advocate for social justice requires that one embrace immigration regardless of flaws?

No, but it does require the support and defense of landed immigrants and their relative socio-economic standing. Keller lived in a different time and just fighting for women/disabled rights was a full plate.

Do you consider yourself to be an advocate for social justice? If so, you're probably the only person on this site who would think of you in those terms.

LOL! Of course not....I just wanted to defend Helen Keller's honor from that cheap shot and also point out that you were probably not of the same political persuasion.

[Remiel]

But I don't accept that population growth is good for the economy. A bigger economy is not necessarily a better economy. A bigger pie gets divided into more mouths, but if each mouth isn't getting more pie then there's no improvement.

The population of this country was much lower when I was growing up, and I have not seen any improvement in our economic fortunes since that time.

It may actually be a mistake to assume that the object of growth is to make things better. It is entirely possible that the object is merely to keep them from getting worse.

But there is another problem. You seem to be under the assumption that if we stop accepting immigrants we will be okay because our population will not really change that much. But you have completely overlooked the makeup of that population. The important question is not how many people we have, but the ratio of young to old.

Take Japan and China for instance. There is a very real danger of those economies turning into giant clusterfucks in the forseeable future because everyone is old.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Remiel

[Bonam]

It may actually be a mistake to assume that the object of growth is to make things better. It is entirely possible that the object is merely to keep them from getting worse.

But there is another problem. You seem to be under the assumption that if we stop accepting immigrants we will be okay because our population will not really change that much. But you have completely overlooked the makeup of that population. The important question is not how many people we have, but the ratio of young to old.

You might want to look at the average age of our immigrants, which are now only a couple of years younger than the average age of our existing population. That's not exactly going to reshape our age demographics. Not to mention people who have lived much of their lives in backward nations have a lower life expectancy and will require more costly medical care at a younger age compared to people who grew up in Canada.

[Remiel]

You might want to look at the average age of our immigrants, which are now only a couple of years younger than the average age of our existing population. That's not exactly going to reshape our age demographics. Not to mention people who have lived much of their lives in backward nations have a lower life expectancy and will require more costly medical care at a younger age compared to people who grew up in Canada.

True enough, but that would equally support the notion that we need different immigration, as oppossed to no immigration.

[Bonam]

True enough, but that would equally support the notion that we need different immigration, as oppossed to no immigration.

Sure, "different immigration" could also certainly be an improvement over our current situation.

[Tilter]

I like how you chide the other poster for being racist then drop that giant turd ripped from the Minutemen manifesto right in the middle of your post.

If the turd is the truth is it still a turd?

[Bonam]

If the turd is the truth is it still a turd?

Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (which created our so-loved HRCs):

Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence

[fellowtraveller]

Translation: You have no evidence of any kind.

We both know you have no interest in evidence, but try this: Japan has almost no immigration, a very low birth rate and a moribund economy. And because of these three and a rapidly aging population again related to no immigration, they are about to enter a world of prolonged economic hurt.

I just wanted to defend Helen Keller's honor from that cheap shot

Hey, that was no cheap shot on Keller, it was aimed at Old Scotty, the deaf dumb and blind kid. Keller enjoyed sushi though she struggled with chopsticks, so I assume she supported immigration too.

[Jack Weber]

Hey, that was no cheap shot on Keller, it was aimed at Old Scotty, the deaf dumb and blind kid. Keller enjoyed sushi though she struggled with chopsticks, so I assume she supported immigration too.

Those waffle irons are murder also...Very hard to read!!!

[cybercoma]

Hey, that was no cheap shot on Keller, it was aimed at Old Scotty, the deaf dumb and blind kid. Keller enjoyed sushi though she struggled with chopsticks, so I assume she supported immigration too.

Deaf and dumb is offensive to the Deaf community. I would ask that you not use it. Deaf people aren't dumb. They use visual language to communicate and are as intelligent as any other person.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, that was no cheap shot on Keller, it was aimed at Old Scotty, the deaf dumb and blind kid. Keller enjoyed sushi though she struggled with chopsticks, so I assume she supported immigration too.

So it was your intention to insult another member with the disabilities of a very accomplished person and American? What's next...Helen Keller jokes? Let me guess....there is no equivalent Canadian reference?

I nominate Terry Fox if that be your pleasure.

Edited July 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[fellowtraveller]

Deaf and dumb is offensive to the Deaf community. I would ask that you not use it. Deaf people aren't dumb. They use visual language to communicate and are as intelligent as any other person.

Point taken.

Is deaf and mute more acceptable for the differently abled?

[cybercoma]

Point taken.

Is deaf and mute more acceptable for the differently abled?

Just deaf is fine or hard of hearing, rather than hearing impaired. Deaf people, as a rule, are not mute. They just don't speak most of the time because they can't hear audio communication, so there's no point. Deaf people do shout, holler, and laugh when the situation warrants it, however. That's why mute is not really appropriate either.

I know you don't mean any offence by it. Deaf and dumb seems to be a common phrase that culture has adopted and hearing impaired (which you didn't say) is an attempt at political correctness gone bad. I just wanted to raise your awareness on the subject.

[fellowtraveller]

What's next...Helen Keller jokes?

Only because yoiu asked so nicely.

Why can't Helen Keller drive? Because she is dead!

What do Hitler and Tery Fox have in common? Neither one could finish a race.

[fellowtraveller]

Just deaf is fine or hard of hearing, rather than hearing impaired. Deaf people, as a rule, are not mute. They just don't speak most of the time because they can't hear audio communication, so there's no point. Deaf people do shout, holler, and laugh when the situation warrants it, however. That's why mute is not really appropriate either.

I know you don't mean any offence by it. Deaf and dumb seems to be a common phrase that culture has adopted and hearing impaired (which you didn't say) is an attempt at political correctness gone bad. I just wanted to raise your awareness on the subject.

One of the defintions of the word dumb is mute, as in cannot speak, it is not a word that is recently adopted but is very old. It also means stupid. I don't think many would interpet deaf and dumb as deaf and stupid.

What is the PC term for a person who does not speak?

[bush_cheney2004]

What is the PC term for a person who does not speak?

Mime.

[WWWTT]

Wow this thread has turned real ugly.

Someone please spare us and yank this thread before it gets more ugly.

Thank you

WWWTT

[Jack Weber]

"Deaf,dumb,and,blind...

You just keep on pretendin'...

That everyone's expendable...

And no one has a real friend..."

Dogs...Off the Animals album...Pink Floyd...1977...