Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 Aghanistan was a very different place before the Taliban took over, thanks to US intervention. Your previous post broadbrushed the Middle East as though they never came out of the Middle Ages. It simply shows your ignorance about the history and culture of Middle Eastern peoples. Yeah, Afghanistan was the Paris of western Asia before those awful CIA types came around. And surely everyone knows how enlightened they are in the middle east! Why, in some countries, women are even allowed to go to school! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 Two very fair minded links.... I know that you hate any kind of conservative source, but just what source do you think is likely to present detailed information critical of our immigration system? The government? Perhaps some academic institution like York university? The Immigration industry, no doubt, would be far more fair in your mind. Or something you read over on Rabble.ca Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 No I don't. What are you trying to prove with that assertion ? It's rather narrow and as we've discussed ad nauseum, countries don't compare well to each other. Perhaps countries don't compare well, but we're not talking about one country, we're talking about ALL countries on the planet which have large Muslim minorities. You can't think of a single one where that minority lives in harmony and peace, and isn't agitating for Sharia law, isn't involving in violence, terrorism, separation, or rebellion. And you wonder why people would consider that of some importance in a discussion focused on the implications of an increasing Muslim minority in Canada? Seriously? You presume Muslims in Canada will simply blend in and be like all other Canadians except they'll attend different religious institutions, but you have zero evidence to support that and plenty of contradictory information from all over the world. We can talk about Muslim countries that are richer, poorer... and Christian countries too. Can we talk about the Muslim countries which treat minorities of different faiths with respect and equality? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 Except that there's one thing wrong with this theory. Canada is a country that was completely populated by immigration. Canadian culture changes with each new wave of immigration. And you're comfortable with our culture changing again in line with the culture and value system brought into Canada by Muslims from Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 Other than some anecdotes, is there any real evidence that's happening? How about the large number of Canadian born kids in ESL classes in Vancouver? They enter kindergarten not speaking a word of English and have to go to ESL classes with the immigrants. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 If they're an economic immigrant, they pretty much have to speak it well enough. No, they don't, in fact. You get points for speaking the language, but you don't need to if you have enough points from elsewhere. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) They break themselves up. Second generation immigrants generally become very integrated. Looking back through Canadian history, there has always been concerns about first generation immigrants. I guess this time period is no different. Yes, it IS different. Because unlike those previous second generations this generation can fly home, can watch TV from home, can see internet from home, can mingle with immense populations of their kindred here, and have very little to do with Canadian culture. Wasn't it recently noted that Muslim kids growing up in Canada are more, not less religious and conservative than their immigrant parents? Almost all those Muslims arrested in Toronto for planning to bomb parliament hill and other sites were from your "integrated" second generation, you know. Edited April 7, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 7, 2012 Author Report Posted April 7, 2012 Maybe we need more to support the retiring baby-boomers. That would be acceptable then? Except neither the demographic nor economic information I've seen supports that. Multiple reports on the immigrants we're getting now suggest that they're not contributing to the tax base as much as they take from the government in services, so rather than supporting seniors they have to be supported themselves. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 How would you term the cultures of the middle east? Progressive? Advanced? Inclusive? Depends on the point in time you're discussing and what specific groups you're talking about. Quote
cybercoma Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 Except neither the demographic nor economic information I've seen supports that. Multiple reports on the immigrants we're getting now suggest that they're not contributing to the tax base as much as they take from the government in services, so rather than supporting seniors they have to be supported themselves. BTW, I wasn't suggesting that the above was the case. I just wanted to know if you would be ok with raising immigration in that circumstance. Nonetheless, I would like to see where you're getting that information above. Quote
MACKER Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 (edited) What Canada needs is an easy way to remove people who obviously don't want to be Canadians. I agree with this but it shouldn't be Canada removing people who don't want to be Canadians, it should people having the ability to remove their own citizenship if they don't want to be Canadians. Your twisting of this enables loyal Canadians to have their citizenship removed for political reasons, which is totally reprehensible. CIC only allows citizenship to be removed by a citizen in the event that they transfer their citizeship to a list of allowable countries. This is completely wrong. People should be able to simply revoke their own citizenship if they do not wish to be Canadian citizens. The government shouldn't be able to decide who is Canadian and who isn't, it should be a very straight forward legal principle such as jus sanguis or allegiance. Allegience should be of free will not forced by endebiture. Enslavement of people to a soceity they do not wish to belong is contrary to civil rights and the constitution. Free association and freedom of belief -charter rights should be upheld in totality. There is no issue of fundamental justice in forcing citizenship on people who don't want it. People shouldn't be forced to be lumped in with values they don't share or laws they don't share. Sadly that is the way citizenship in Canada works and it is wrong. It is cult BS. For example people like the Khadr family most of whom had in one way or another fought against Canada and our allies, and when one of their sons was paralyzed in Pakistan while in a terrorist safe house they decide to bring him to Canada so he can get health care. Honestly if you want quality immigrants fine improve the standards, there are enough qualified immigrants to meet the criteria. But also make a way to throw away the garbage, make a point that a Canadian Passport does not guarantee sating in Canada if an immigrant/refugee decides to live a life of crime. The Khadr's were upstanding good citizens your example is a bad one. All they had on Omar was self defence. There was nothing dishonurable about the Khadr's conduct except being on the wrong side of the fence. They were good people, and those Khadr's that remain in Canada have no reason to be poisoned by ignorant people such as yourself. If you didn't realize what Omar did would be legal to do in Canada. If people without lawful authority try to kill you you can kill them. He was one of hte only people left alive in there, what the help do you thing hte special forces were doing, avon calling? The US doesn't have the right to enforce justice in other coutries contrary to their constitutions and laws, sorry you are wrong. The directed lethal force against him, he responded there is nothing immoral about that. Notice his charges were only related to his self defence against unlawful use of lethal force. I applaud him for defending himself. If the US did that in Canada i would applaud Canadians who defended themselves here against unlawful use of lethal force. Where in here does it say the US can kill Canadians they see? . Resolution 1368 of September 12 “unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks… and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security.” The preamble to this resolution recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter.” Though, as we have seen, the terms of the Charter do not apply to the Afghan war, this language in the preamble of the resolution allowed the United States to claim legitimacy for its actions. Then, on 28 September 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, which sets forth certain antiterrorism measures that all states must apply. Neither Resolution 1368 nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word “Afghanistan.” I don't see the US cutting funding to the CIA or Mossad in all this Under terms of the text, the Council decided that all States should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the wilful provision or collection of funds for such acts. The funds, financial assets and economic resources of those who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts and of persons and entities acting on behalf of terrorists should also be frozen without delay. The CIA and mossad routinely engage in terrorist acts in conducting assasinations, kidnappings and bombings. Edited April 7, 2012 by MACKER Quote
-TSS- Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 I must say from my European point of view that if I ever wanted to move to a country which has as little as possible to do with muslims but I would still want to retain the standard of living I currently have I'd choose Canada. If I weren't so fussy about the standard of living but wanted to have nothing to do with muslims then I'd choose Brazil. Imagine, a country of 190m people with only 200,000 muslims. I guess theirs is a country which takes no shit from immigrants how the host-country should respect the culture of the immigrants. On the contrary; adapt to our way of life or piss off. Quote
Jack Weber Posted April 7, 2012 Report Posted April 7, 2012 I must say from my European point of view that if I ever wanted to move to a country which has as little as possible to do with muslims but I would still want to retain the standard of living I currently have I'd choose Canada. If I weren't so fussy about the standard of living but wanted to have nothing to do with muslims then I'd choose Brazil. Imagine, a country of 190m people with only 200,000 muslims. I guess theirs is a country which takes no shit from immigrants how the host-country should respect the culture of the immigrants. On the contrary; adapt to our way of life or piss off. Brazil has a horrendous record of the way it treats its black population... It also has a horrid record of sending in goon squads (police) to smash down shanty towns... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.