I just got an E mail from Jason Kenny

[Argus]

Because you never applied for one but you could have one if you wanted to.

I don't know what the law is in Germany - and probably you don't either. But as far as I know your citizenship in Canada is a right, as long as you are born here. I don't think you should get that right if your parents are just passing through.

[Argus]

That's actually not true, but don't let the facts get in the way of your libellous and insulting comments.

You might look up the word 'libelous' next time, before using it.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Argus

[capricorn]

But as far as I know your citizenship in Canada is a right, as long as you are born here. I don't think you should get that right if your parents are just passing through.

You don't even need to set foot on Canadian soil to become a citizen. A few years ago, a Ugandan woman gave birth on a airplane flying over Canada and the child was granted Canadian citizenship.

[bud]

How so? And if so is that to Canada's advantage?

do you think it's right to accept applications base on certain rules and then comeback a few years later and say we're not accepting you because you don't qualify under the newest rules?

it is already harming canada's reputation.

[Guest Peeves]

do you think it's right to accept applications base on certain rules and then comeback a few years later and say we're not accepting you because you don't qualify under the newest rules?

it is already harming canada's reputation.

That would be contrary to the esteem in which Canada is held by democratic and most of the rest of the world.

If a few theocracies, terrorist states and phony refugee camps are upset, high five to Canada.

[Guest Peeves]

That's actually not true, but don't let the facts get in the way of your libellous and insulting comments.

Libelous? How so. Insulting? So what. You insult constantly, I would think turn a bout fair play.

BTW PEOPLE.

If there's ever an opening in the office of resident

Resident Hypocrite:

Resident Idiot:

Resident Bigot:

Resident Whiner:

or,

Resident Clown, (aka court jester), let me know. I might be interested or perhaps have a nomination.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

do you think it's right to accept applications base on certain rules and then comeback a few years later and say we're not accepting you because you don't qualify under the newest rules?

it is already harming canada's reputation.

Yes. Our house our money our needs our rules. You want immigrants and their advocates to set the rules?

Rules get changed all the time.

[bleeding heart]

Because we're the ones paying for it. Most on the Left here pay few or no taxes.

Where'd you get that little factiod from?

Dredged up from the bottomless well of pique?

[Guest Peeves]

Where'd you get that little factiod from?

Dredged up from the bottomless well of pique?

Every body knows that factoid. It's in the fictionary under sinistra or sinistrality, sinistromanuality, or mancinism.

Now on the other hand.. adroit means right and good aka conservattive

[bleeding heart]

Every body knows that factoid. It's in the fictionary under sinistra or sinistrality, sinistromanuality, or mancinism.

Now on the other hand.. adroit means right and good aka conservattive

Very nicely done, Peeves, and I am forced to give you points for this excellent reply.

But to be fair to the lefties, mancinism is at present only held to be a defect by a smattering of religious fanatics...which does align quite nicely with conservatism, I'll give you that.

On the other hand ( ), the heart tends to the left.

[punked]

I don't know what the law is in Germany - and probably you don't either. But as far as I know your citizenship in Canada is a right, as long as you are born here. I don't think you should get that right if your parents are just passing through.

In Germany before the year 2000 if you were born there you can have a citizenship. They changed some requirements in 2000. Why would you assume I don't know what I am talking about?

[Argus]

Where'd you get that little factiod from?

Life.

[Argus]

In Germany before the year 2000 if you were born there you can have a citizenship. They changed some requirements in 2000. Why would you assume I don't know what I am talking about?

My point is that it's dumb. I know nothing about Germany. I am most assuredly NOT a German. I have not a single drop of German blood in me. It is ludicrous to suggest that I deserve German citizenship.

Just as ludicrous to think someone flying over the country should give birth to a 'Canadian' child.

[eyeball]

Life.

How?

[bleeding heart]

Life.

Ah, in a way, I suppose that's true. A life of petulant perceived victimhood, and all opinions of note plagiarized from this or that (paid) effete reactionary.

[bud]

That would be contrary to the esteem in which Canada is held by democratic and most of the rest of the world.

If a few theocracies, terrorist states and phony refugee camps are upset, high five to Canada.

what are you talking about?

i'm talking about the over 250,000 people applying under the federal skilled worker program whose applications are suddenly being returned after over 5 years of waiting.

[Guest Peeves]

what are you talking about?

i'm talking about the over 250,000 people applying under the federal skilled worker program whose applications are suddenly being returned after over 5 years of waiting.

Our country, our needs, our cost for immigrant, our rules and rules change as required whether on taxes, driving, refugees, gun control, death penalty,....or immigration.

[capricorn]

i'm talking about the over 250,000 people applying under the federal skilled worker program whose applications are suddenly being returned after over 5 years of waiting.

bud, why should Canada show any sympathy to people wanting to immigrate here, when immigrants who come here don't show similar concern for the country and simply leave when it suits them?

Many immigrants leave within the first year of arrival

About 6 out of 10 of those who leave do so within the first year of arrival. This suggests that a large fraction of immigrants who leave choose to do so within a relatively short period of time after arrival.

Accounting for other factors, the departure rates were higher for those landing during business cycle downturns.

The highest out-migration rates occurred among the group that arrived in 1980 at the onset of a business cycle downturn, and those who arrived around the 1990 recession. The groups with the lowest out-migration rates were those who arrived in 1986 and 1993, periods of much more favourable labour market conditions.

Immigrants who arrived in 1990, for example, were about 50% more likely to leave than those who arrived in 1986.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060301/dq060301b-eng.htm

We need an immigration policy that will ensure a greater number of immigrants stay once they are admitted.

[punked]

bud, why should Canada show any sympathy to people wanting to immigrate here, when immigrants who come here don't show similar concern for the country and simply leave when it suits them?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060301/dq060301b-eng.htm

We need an immigration policy that will ensure a greater number of immigrants stay once they are admitted.

Now you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want immigration policy they ensures great number of immigrants stay? But defend a government who has cut and slashed programs which immigrants who have stayed help them through the toughest years which would be the first 3. So which is it?

Unless you are saying we need an immigration policy that brings in people who are "more Canada" then other immigrants thus they will be more likely to stay. Is that what you are saying?

[capricorn]

You want immigration policy they ensures great number of immigrants stay? But defend a government who has cut and slashed programs which immigrants who have stayed help them through the toughest years which would be the first 3.

Which immigrant settlement programs have been "slashed"?

Unless you are saying we need an immigration policy that brings in people who are "more Canada" then other immigrants thus they will be more likely to stay. Is that what you are saying?

No.

[punked]

Which immigrant settlement programs have been "slashed"?

No.

Did you read the budget?

The government indicated last fall that overall funding for settlement services across Canada — excluding Quebec which handles its own immigration program — would dip to $577 million in 2012, from $583 million the year before and $622 million in 2010.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Feds+centralize+immigrant+settlement+services/6444071/story.html

Again you speak out of both sides of your mouth. Saying on one had we need policies to help immigrants settle, and on the other hand supporting this governments decisions on immigration.

[capricorn]

Again you speak out of both sides of your mouth. Saying on one had we need policies to help immigrants settle, and on the other hand supporting this governments decisions on immigration.

To be clear, you're the one who raised immigration settlement policies, not me. I can understand though that the agencies providing such services who'll be receiving less funding would be up in arms about having to be more effective and accountable.

I doubt the cuts announced will make a big difference in how many immigrants decide Canada is not their cup of tea and bail out of Canada.

[cybercoma]

immigrants who come here don't show similar concern for the country and simply leave when it suits them?

What immigrants? All of them?

[Argus]

To be clear, you're the one who raised immigration settlement policies, not me. I can understand though that the agencies providing such services who'll be receiving less funding would be up in arms about having to be more effective and accountable.

I doubt the cuts announced will make a big difference in how many immigrants decide Canada is not their cup of tea and bail out of Canada.

Perhaps if we were more careful in selecting our immigrants we wouldn't need to spend a half billion dollars teaching them what a toilet is for, that they can't build campfires in their living rooms, and that women wearing short sleeve shirts are not to automatically be considered prostitutes. Maybe a proper selection of immigrants would not require us to teach them that when they're supposed to be at work at nine that means AT nine, not sometime in the morning. And maybe they'd be able to communicate in the local language without us paying for classes to teach them. And maybe they'd have some sort of skill which is in demand so they wouldn't need help finding a job.

[punked]

Perhaps if we were more careful in selecting our immigrants we wouldn't need to spend a half billion dollars teaching them what a toilet is for, that they can't build campfires in their living rooms, and that women wearing short sleeve shirts are not to automatically be considered prostitutes. Maybe a proper selection of immigrants would not require us to teach them that when they're supposed to be at work at nine that means AT nine, not sometime in the morning. And maybe they'd be able to communicate in the local language without us paying for classes to teach them. And maybe they'd have some sort of skill which is in demand so they wouldn't need help finding a job.

Racist much?