Why conservatives want tougher laws and less immigration

[cybercoma]

It is in that I was complaining about our lax judicial system as well. The range of sentencing mention in this case is appallingly low.

Indeed this may be the crux of your problem. The argument that "once they're in you can't get them out" doesn't work because there's no reason that they need to leave. We have a criminal justice system that should be handling any criminal behaviour by immigrants, citizens, visitors, and anyone else within our borders. Perhaps the CJS dropped the ball on this case, but I don't know the details to say for sure. I suspect, however, that you're just intolerant of "foreigners" and would be disappointed with any decision rendered by the court.

[Tilter]

For his job, he needed healthcare coverage when he got back, so he couldn't work for 6 months until he got his OHIP re-instated.

Then why did OHIP proclaim, less than a year ago, that immigrants & refugee claimants were covered from day 1?

Are you suggesting that there are many immigrants that come here, get their citizenship, then rent out a home at a Canadian and claim to live here even though they're abroad? The federal government has record of people when they enter and leave the country

Thus, in the Lebanon crisis several years ago the government were the peoplewho stepped forward with the statement that Many of the "Canadians" in Lebanon hadn't been in the country for up to 10 years. We still spent over 100 million to save their asses.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Tilter

[Michael Hardner]

Then why did OHIP proclaim, less than a year ago, that immigrants & refugee claimants were covered from day 1?

I think, if you read the post above, it says that if you *leave* for six months your coverage ends. Refugees who have landed here are not in that category.

Thus, in the Lebanon crisis several years ago the government were the peoplewho stepped forward with the statement that Many of the "Canadians" in Lebanon hadn't been in the country for up to 10 years. We still spent over 100 million to save their asses.

Thus ? Why thus ? Citizenship and healthcare coverage are two different questions.

[PIK]

Harper understands when the earth gets overpopulated and the food and the water starts to disappear, where is everyone going to go, canada. The left in this country are so blind to what is going on out there on this planet, they believe every immigrant is a great person with a hard luck story, but that is far from the truth.

[eyeball]

Harper understands when the earth gets overpopulated and the food and the water starts to disappear, where is everyone going to go, canada. The left in this country are so blind to what is going on out there on this planet, they believe every immigrant is a great person with a hard luck story, but that is far from the truth.

Since when did people like Harper start worrying about the sustainability of the planet or the lack thereof?

Edited April 3, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Since when did people like Harper start worrying about the sustainability of the planet or the lack thereof?

I'm sure he cares about the concept as much as or more than you do, eyeball! He just doesn't share your opinion of how dire is the situation.

This seems to be another logical fallacy that is so humanly common. You have an opinion of the importance of an issue. To you it is of highest priority. Yet not everyone agrees with you. Very quickly the move is made from "Why don't they understand my POV" to "They must understand! It's as plain as the nose on their faces! They must simply be EVIL!"

The technical term is, I believe, righteousness.

[eyeball]

I'm sure he cares about the concept as much as or more than you do, eyeball! He just doesn't share your opinion of how dire is the situation.

This seems to be another logical fallacy that is so humanly common. You have an opinion of the importance of an issue. To you it is of highest priority. Yet not everyone agrees with you. Very quickly the move is made from "Why don't they understand my POV" to "They must understand! It's as plain as the nose on their faces! They must simply be EVIL!"

The technical term is, I believe, righteousness.

Actually I'm pretty certain Harper is an Armageddonist who can't wait to be wafted up to Heaven. You know, the brand new planet that's waiting for the truly righteous.

[Tilter]

I think, if you read the post above, it says that if you *leave* for six months your coverage ends. Refugees who have landed here are not in that category.

Thus ? Why thus ? Citizenship and healthcare coverage are two different questions.

Both mentioned in the post quoted.

If OHIP is covering new immigrants from day one I can't see any reason why they wouldn't apply the same treatment to previous insured.

The Canadian govt should advertise immigration with the words--- "Send us your HIV positive, your Lepers, your lame--- we have lots of money to take care of them."

I see articles in the paper about patients requiring super expensive drugs to sustain life for which OHIP refuses to pay BUT we can pay for the AIDS cocktails that cost up to 3000 bux a month??????????????/

Edited April 3, 2012 by Tilter

[Bonam]

"like him" meaning what ? Immigrants ?

It all goes back to my question - how do you keep people like him (potential murderers) out of Canada ? More to the point, even: what do we need to do that we're NOT doing now.

Every person admitted into Canada should be admitted for a specific reason. Not "just because" or to fill some quota. Every potential immigrant must have a permanent job offer or financial resources to start their own business that will put them solidly in the taxpaying middle class or higher. Any employer that provides such offers without the intention to go through with them should be fined heavily. Further, every potential immigrant should undergo a very thorough background investigation and psychological evaluation. Any sign (not proof) of criminality, terrorist ties, mental instability, or communicable or genetic disease should automatically disqualify one. Admittance to Canada is not a human right, and there is no reason that we can not be very discriminating in picking only the very best candidates.

The potential immigrant should only be able to bring in their spouse and minor children as dependents, no one else, unless they independently meet the same stringent criteria. There are plenty of potential immigrants to choose from, we can and should set the highest standards possible.

These measures would increase the cost of admitting immigrants, but at least these immigrants would actually be of a quality that would then benefit Canadian society, rather than many of them being a drain. And, we don't need the 300k immigrants per year that we are currently importing, not even close, especially in times of slow economic growth.

As for refugees: first, it is not Canada's duty to provide a safe haven to all the unfortunate folk of the world that face some danger in their home country. However, if we do admit refugees, unless they become productive members of society, they should be returned to their country of origin as soon as the danger that they fled is no longer applicable.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

If OHIP is covering new immigrants from day one I can't see any reason why they wouldn't apply the same treatment to previous insured.

It's likely a matter of funding.

I see articles in the paper about patients requiring super expensive drugs to sustain life for which OHIP refuses to pay BUT we can pay for the AIDS cocktails that cost up to 3000 bux a month??????????????/

Wait - don't these two examples contradict each other ?

[Michael Hardner]

Every person admitted into Canada should be admitted for a specific reason. Not "just because" or to fill some quota.

I don't think the refugee program falls into either of these categories.

Every potential immigrant must have a permanent job offer or financial resources to start their own business that will put them solidly in the taxpaying middle class or higher. Any employer that provides such offers without the intention to go through with them should be fined heavily. Further, every potential immigrant should undergo a very thorough background investigation and psychological evaluation. Any sign (not proof) of criminality, terrorist ties, mental instability, or communicable or genetic disease should automatically disqualify one. Admittance to Canada is not a human right, and there is no reason that we can not be very discriminating in picking only the very best candidates.

Nice ideas but they pretty much destroy the economic objectives of immigration, at least at initial view. You want to do a multi-thousand dollar assessment (it seems) on every immigrant) ? I don't think this happens now, and the cost and process implications are big.

Also, they bring in immigrants to do work for cheaper. That's how it works, just the same as exporting jobs works. If you don't like the idea of reducing labour costs, take it up with the Liberals and Conservatives.

As for refugees: first, it is not Canada's duty to provide a safe haven to all the unfortunate folk of the world that face some danger in their home country. However, if we do admit refugees, unless they become productive members of society, they should be returned to their country of origin as soon as the danger that they fled is no longer applicable.

Well, they can't work until they're landed immigrants though... Again, you're coming up with expensive processes that you suspect will reveal the nature of someone's soul but bureaucracy doesn't work that way.

[Wild Bill]

Actually I'm pretty certain Harper is an Armageddonist who can't wait to be wafted up to Heaven. You know, the brand new planet that's waiting for the truly righteous.

I'm still waiting for someone to build a "B" Ark!

[Argus]

Wow, what a spaz. I didnt even take a position I just asked if you had any evidence to support yours. You dont.

And your mumbo jumbo about liberals banning statistics gets you the facepalm of the week award.

I guess I hadn't counted on your massive ignorance of the subject. That's my error, since in reading your previous posts I should have assumed it. In point of fact Canada does not collect statistics based on race or country of origin. In fact, many of our governments, particularly the ones most on the left of the political spectrum, have been something near hysterical at the mere mention of anyone daring to do so. Toronto in particular has basically said it will fire any police officer collecting such statistics, and will not cooperate with anyone else, be it the RCMP or Statistics Canada which wants to collect them. Other cites, such as Vancouver, have been similarly zealous on ideological grounds in opposing any collection of criminal data based on racial or national origin. Most people even glancingly familiar with this would be aware of it. But again, it's clear you're completely knowledge-free and just belching forth hot air.

Did it even occur to you that you might be able to type something like "Canada Immigrant Crime" in google to get some information? Heres a study on the very first page of results. Read it.

Heres the abstract...

The authors of that paper speak of old surveys done decades ago, however, what they fail to point out is the great difference between today's immigrants and those in the fifties and sixties. They also fail to point out that even those old studies focused on 'immigrants', and that in our system, you're only an immigrant for three years. After that you're a Canadian citizen. Thus even a study of 'immigrant crime' grossly underrepresented the issue, especially since immigrants are generally likely to be on their best behaviour while waiting their papers.

[Argus]

They are conservatives. They're ultraconservatives.

They're not like you...I absolutely agree.

But to say they're not conservatives is to make the word meaningless..

Do you suppose conservatives are so good, that bad guys can't fit the bill?

That's a fantasy.

I disagree. I had this conversation not long ago about the Republican presidential contenders. All of them called themselves conservatives. In fact, they tried desperately to outdo each other in which was most conservative. But to them, that meant God, and God's morality. It meant being anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro gun, and cracking down on those filthy poor people consuming tax dollars. There didn't seem to be a single actual conservative in the batch. Conservatism is about careful, considerate decision making based on proven methods of government and operations. No conservative, for example, would propose cutting taxes in the midst of a massive deficit and debt crisis, but all of those guys do. I don't care how often you shout Hallelujah. That doesn't make politically conservative.

[Argus]

Aside from collecting GST and child benefits while living abroad (I assume they have someone here collecting those cheques at a Canadian mailing address then sending it abroad), I'm not sure how those other situations contradict my point about residency requirements.

You probably think that there's some big computer over at Border Services that records the comings and goings of Candadians across the border, right? You probably even think its information is made available to agencies like Canada Revenue, or Service Canada, or even your local municipal welfare office? Well, there is no such computer, and what information Border Services collects it refuses to share with others. So in point of fact there's nothing stopping you from setting up to collect all manner of government cheques here (conveniently deposited in your bank account - from which you can withdraw funds anywhere or transfer them on the internet). It's really quite easy to establish residency here even while not being here. Especially since so many things can now be done electronically.

The federal government has record of people when they enter and leave the country.

As I suspected. But don't feel bad. It's such a common sense thing that of course you'd assume the government keeps track of such things. But they don't.

[Argus]

Did you know that interviews may be a horrible predictor of job performance? I imagine similar mechanisms would make it a poor predictor of immigrant "suitability," if you will.

Interviews and tests are not perfect, but you'll note that EVERY organization continues to devote considerable effort and money into using and improving them. I don't think they'd do that if simply hiring anyone off the street was as good.

The problem with your thinking here is that we do only allow refugees in cases of demonstrated danger. Those examples you listed were of people that faced serious threats to their lives or well-being in their home countries

.

Did they? If you can say that ALL people of a given region face serious threats than what business do we have accepting them as refugees? They really don't face any more threat than millions or tens of millions of their compatriots and we can't accept them all. We can't just say "Well, Somalia is a shit hole, so anyone who says he's from Somalia should be let into Canada."

In the interest of humanitarian aid, we work with the international community by sharing the burden of accepting refugees.

And yet the numbers we take in, the rights we give them, the acceptance rates we have, are far higher than anyone else.

When someone's life is in danger, especially when it's large groups of people, such as the mass exoduses that have occurred in Africa, you don't have the resources on the ground or the time to engage in a thorough review process to see if each and every individual can "show" that they can be "trusted." The people on the ground handling the refugees in these situations do the best they can with the resources they have.

I don't think Canada should be getting involved in mass exodus situations except in providing aid.

Once they're in Canada and begin their life anew here with all the opportunities our society affords individuals,

Realistically, what opportunities does our society afford individuals who can't speak the language and have little or no education or job skills? The opportunity to be on welfare for most of your life? The opportunity to work at washing dishes or emptying trash?

it would be quite unfair and inhumane to ship them back to a country going through reconstruction as soon as the bombs stop falling or the bullets stop flying

.

Why? We provide them a safe haven when needed, but we don't guarantee they can stay here forever. Lots of people work in other countries temporarily, for a month, a year, or several years, then return home. These are not Canadians we're talking about, and Canada does not owe them the right to maximize their economic potential.

So you go from individual profiles to attributing a nation's politics to individuals. Would you have immigrants do psychological profile tests in a language that they don't understand?

That would be kind of a waste, wouldn't it? And I'm sure our phsycological screening tools have come some distance since the 1920s and would be helpful in painting a portrait (along with background checks) of what manner of individual is seeking lifelong residence here.

Moreover, you're asking that psychology determine the future behaviour of an individual, whether he or she will engage in criminality. If they're high risk, you would sentence refugees to death or torture

.

I'm looking at assessment of their adaptability, their intelligence, their flexibility, their world-view, if you will, their ideological/religious beliefs towards core Canadian values and freedoms. And to repeat, we can't take more than a miniscule fraction of those in places of upheaval anyway, so it's absurd for us to set ourselves up as some sort of international lifeboat for all the world's wretched.

[Argus]

Indeed this may be the crux of your problem. The argument that "once they're in you can't get them out" doesn't work because there's no reason that they need to leave.

No reason? What if they come here and prove to be nothing but a total failure insofar as good citizenship is concerned? They go on welfare, and contribute nothing to the nation? They become drug addicts and petty criminals? We don't deport such people once the three year waiting period is passed and they have their passports. We're stuck with them. Whether they're complete trash or not.

[Argus]

I think, if you read the post above, it says that if you *leave* for six months your coverage ends. Refugees who have landed here are not in that category.

And how would OHIP know if you had left unless you told them?

[Michael Hardner]

I think there is some sharing of data, although you seem to know more about this than I do. I have heard of EI people who received suspended payments because records showed they were out of the country. Am I wrong ? Did that not happen ?

[bleeding heart]

I disagree. I had this conversation not long ago about the Republican presidential contenders. All of them called themselves conservatives. In fact, they tried desperately to outdo each other in which was most conservative. But to them, that meant God, and God's morality. It meant being anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro gun, and cracking down on those filthy poor people consuming tax dollars. There didn't seem to be a single actual conservative in the batch. Conservatism is about careful, considerate decision making based on proven methods of government and operations. No conservative, for example, would propose cutting taxes in the midst of a massive deficit and debt crisis, but all of those guys do. I don't care how often you shout Hallelujah. That doesn't make politically conservative.

All you're saying is that a lot of conservatives behave badly, and/or contradict commonly-held conservative principles. Fair enough.

But I would no more try to claim that the Soviet tyrants weren't leftists than I would try to claim the Islamists aren't conservatives.

Of course the Soviets were leftists...and aside from some wilfully ignorant figures and intellectuals at the time, most leftists consider them to be exactly what they were. It doesn't reflect on contemporary leftism...rather, it does, as does, say, Cuba...but it doesn't indict leftists generally (right-wing smear attempts along just these lines notwithstanding.)

Put another way: when leftists acts as raving sexists, which they presumably do at approximately comparable rates to the population generally...well, we can say they're contradicting pretty common, even cherished, left-wing principles. And they are! But that sure as hell doesn't mean they aren't leftists."

Such arguments are too convenient by half.

Similarly, the awful behaviour of the arch-conservative fanatics doesn't indict conservatism, or conservatives.

Poster Bob once tried to inform me (along similar lines as yours, but without the thoughtfulness and considered remarks) that all the bad behaviour of conservatives (re his complaints about both Harper and Netanyahu) were actually all the fault of the Left...which is an infection, evidently, that ruins otherwise decent conservatives.

So much for the political stance of "personal responsibility!

At bottom, conservative is what conservative does, Argus.

Edited April 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Bonam]

I don't think the refugee program falls into either of these categories.

Nice ideas but they pretty much destroy the economic objectives of immigration, at least at initial view. You want to do a multi-thousand dollar assessment (it seems) on every immigrant) ? I don't think this happens now, and the cost and process implications are big.

A "multi-thousand" dollar assessment is peanuts compared to the taxes a productive immigrant will pay over their lifetime or to the social safety net costs that they will have to be provided with. The expensive parts of the assessment should only be carried out on those who already have been identified as good candidates. Even at a $10-20k per potential immigrant it would still be more than worth it.

Further, there would also be nothing unreasonable about charging these processing costs as a fee to the potential immigrant, to be paid either upfront or later after they have immigrated and commenced work at their new employer.

Also, they bring in immigrants to do work for cheaper. That's how it works, just the same as exporting jobs works.

Actually that's a complete lie. Nations like the US specifically take great pains to make sure that that is not the case (at least with the legal aspect of their immigration). For example, the most common method to get a green card is through a job offer. The company making that offer must prove, among other things, that the wage they are offering to the immigrant is no less than the prevalent wage for that type of work that is generally paid to Americans, and that no qualified American applied for the job. That is the right idea.

The immigration system exists (err: should exist) to benefit the nation. What is the nation? That would be the collection of its individual citizens. Driving down their wages and reducing their job opportunities does not benefit them.

Immigrants should only be brought in when there are more jobs than qualified people to take them.

Well, they can't work until they're landed immigrants though... Again, you're coming up with expensive processes that you suspect will reveal the nature of someone's soul but bureaucracy doesn't work that way.

The entire immigration system is a bureaucratic system. That is its inherent nature, you can't get around it. Are you saying that because bureaucracies are inefficient that we should just throw up our hands and give up and let anyone in? No, we have a system, and we must strive to make it work for the benefit of Canadians to the best extent possible.

And bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrations without proven employment prospects and without careful screening procedures is not for the benefit of Canadians. And if someone wants to make the claim that it is, I challenge them to provide proof.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

A "multi-thousand" dollar assessment is peanuts compared to the taxes a productive immigrant will pay over their lifetime or to the social safety net costs that they will have to be provided with.

Fine, but it's millions and millions of dollars a year.

Further, there would also be nothing unreasonable about charging these processing costs as a fee to the potential immigrant, to be paid either upfront or later after they have immigrated and commenced work at their new employer.

This will just make it undesirable for some, and impossible for others to come.

Why not just tax them at a higher rate for their lifetimes here too ?

Actually that's a complete lie.

Please refrain from calling me a liar unless you can prove that I'm not just mistaken. It's not conducive to dialogue to have posters calling each other liars, i.e. you calling me one here.

Nations like the US specifically take great pains to make sure that that is not the case (at least with the legal aspect of their immigration). For example, the most common method to get a green card is through a job offer. The company making that offer must prove, among other things, that the wage they are offering to the immigrant is no less than the prevalent wage for that type of work that is generally paid to Americans, and that no qualified American applied for the job. That is the right idea.

That's the way the system is said to work, but it doesn't work that way. The US is built on cheap labour, and illegal labour in many cases.

The immigration system exists (err: should exist) to benefit the nation. What is the nation? That would be the collection of its individual citizens. Driving down their wages and reducing their job opportunities does not benefit them.

Then why do we engage in trade deals that do just that ? You don't seem to understand the economic benefits of lower wages. Most Conservatives support these programs as being good for business.

The entire immigration system is a bureaucratic system. That is its inherent nature, you can't get around it. Are you saying that because bureaucracies are inefficient that we should just throw up our hands and give up and let anyone in? No, we have a system, and we must strive to make it work for the benefit of Canadians to the best extent possible.

You're the one suggesting massive change to the system, not me. Don't pin me with the idea that I want to "let anyone in" or that I want to change things at all, as I haven't said that.

You seem to be another one of those confused conservatives whose biggest beef is with the current government, if I'm guessing right.

[-TSS-]

Canada receives quite a lot of asylum-seekers but otherwise the Canadian immigration-policy is fairly tough. It has always been cited as an example by our so-called sceptics of immigration as to how the immigration-policy should be organised. Canada has a point-based system where various factors such as age, one's relations to Canada and most importantly, one's skills concerning professions where there is a labour-shortage in Canada. To put it shortly, if you are over 35, you have no special skills which are needed in Canada and you have no relatives already living in Canada, you can just about forget about being allowed to emigrate to Canada.

However, Canada is such a popular destination for emigration worl over that it is in a position to pick and choose which immigrants it wants.

[dre]

Wow, what a spaz. I didnt even take a position I just asked if you had any evidence to support yours. You dont.

And your mumbo jumbo about liberals banning statistics gets you the facepalm of the week award.

Did it even occur to you that you might be able to type something like "Canada Immigrant Crime" in google to get some information? Heres a study on the very first page of results. Read it.

Heres the abstract...

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/MigrationAndCrime.pdf

The study even mentions YOU!

Thats really what we are up against. You make all kinds of claims about immigrants but when youre asked for some evidence to support your claims you balk. Thats because like the study says xenophobia is often based on these common fears, a lot of assumptions, and "conventional wisdom".

So it "feels right" to you to throw immigrants under the bus and to just assume they cause more problems and behave worse than natural Canadian citizens. And once you get THERE, and youve fortified all these assumptions, its natural for you to assume that if there is no evidence around to back up your claims then the evidence MUST be suppressed, since clearly the evidence must exist, because youve already fully accepted that the afformentioned claim is true so how could evidence for it NOT exist?

The "rightness" of the claim are proof that evidence supporting the claim must exist!

Now all we need is an antagonist for your little story to name as the suppressor of all this evidence... queue the GREAT LIBERAL CONSPIRACY! Why theyve banned the statistics of course!

Bump

[Argus]

Canada receives quite a lot of asylum-seekers but otherwise the Canadian immigration-policy is fairly tough. It has always been cited as an example by our so-called sceptics of immigration as to how the immigration-policy should be organised.

By whom? Who has cited the current immigration system as a good thing?

Canada has a point-based system where various factors such as age, one's relations to Canada and most importantly, one's skills concerning professions where there is a labour-shortage in Canada

.

Nice in theory. Doesn't work in practice. And only a minority of actual entrants to Canada are ever assessed under it, in any case.

The fact is, as has been suggested by Stats Canada figures, it doesn't matter how many degrees you have, if you don't have fluent English you're going to be driving a taxi.