The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[Argus]

No. The problem is that I don't believe "countries" have cultural traits. Countries are abstract political entities. People have cultural traits and there is a large variety of differences in those traits between people from any given country.

In Muslim countries religion is foremost in the culture of the vast bulk of the population. How many female immigrants from Afghanistan are going to be wearing bikinis at the beach? I'd suggest - none. So we can see there is some uniformity of culture in countries, particularly homogenous countries (which is where the bulk of our immigrants come from). You re basing your believe in wide varations on nothing but personal experience in a country like Canada. That's not to say there might not be varations, but they will not be nearly as widespread as in Canada. Even in a less homogenous country like India you will see a general societal culture of conservatism (extreme conservatism by our standards) in social mores and dress, and there will be very few who differ widely in that respect.

Why do you think the chart I posted showed the economic success of people from Asia and the middle east was so much lower - uniformly lower - than from other places? After all, the immigrants represented are widely different from each other, having the single commonality of origin in a particular part of the world. Yet clearly there is a uniformity which affects their economic success as immigrants here.

[eyeball]

Maybe if they're people we like it's because they're people whose values, accomplishments and behaviour we approve of. Doesn't that make sense. And if that's the case it's probably because they're a lot like us. And most humans prefer people who are fundamentally similar to themselves, especially in terms of things like violence and religion.

I couldn't say for sure because I haven't met anyone from Alpha Centauri yet, for all I know they're even better at being humane towards others.

[Guest Peeves]

Like I said above, I agree with Argus's assessment that when accepting immigrants the proportion of them should be greater from countries whose applicants are more successful in our society. However, I don't think that means shutting the door on other countries, regardless of Argus's objection about how much work it is to vet applicants. In other words, someone should not be excluded simply because they are from a particular race or culture.

I'm saying all of this in the context of this thread. All of the arguments about the Roma sound all too much like the arguments made in the 20th century about Jews. There is no reason we should be rejecting applicants simply because they are Roma. If someone meets the criteria for immigrating to Canada, then they should be afforded that opportunity.

Now the question is what are those criteria and how can we ensure that they're fair, while still protecting our country?

Like I said above, I agree with Argus's assessment that when accepting immigrants the proportion of them should be greater from countries whose applicants are more successful in our society. However, I don't think that means shutting the door on other countries, regardless of Argus's objection about how much work it is to vet applicants. In other words, someone should not be excluded simply because they are from a particular race or culture.

I'm saying all of this in the context of this thread. All of the arguments about the Roma sound all too much like the arguments made in the 20th century about Jews. There is no reason we should be rejecting applicants simply because they are Roma. If someone meets the criteria for immigrating to Canada, then they should be afforded that opportunity.

Now the question is what are those criteria and how can we ensure that they're fair, while still protecting our country?

Again andyet again, it is not Roma immigrants that are referenced, it is unqualified refugees some (most of late) that are Roma.

The claims against some CRIMINAL Roma are completely justified.

[login]

I would say all ethnic groups we let in form homogeneous enclaves within our cities where only the home language is spoken insulating themselves from integrating into Canadian society. This isn't what I'd call a multicultural triumph. Roma's are not wanted anywhere because they do this and because they are responsible for a high level of crime. If they were so upstanding of citizens wouldn't every nation want them?

So instead of screaming "racist!" why not look into the facts of why these people are constantly chased out of nations.

Source

This was from Sept.6. Sure seems like these people are pillars of the community. I'm sure their crime is due to some kind of racism from a white person. They commit the same types of crimes all over Europe, this isn't new and limited to Canada.

These people are not refugee claimants. It hurts real refugee claimants that are truly in need with these bogus types of claims being made in the hundreds and thousands.

Yes just because one group is involved in criminal enterprise doesn't mean all people of a Roma background are. Your comments are akin to rascist banter. Just cause MJ13 exists means all latinos are criminals, just because there are gangs with black people in them mean all black people are crimnals, just because there are various european ancestory group criminal organizations means all european anscestory people are criminals. You are so utterly blind and ignorant in your thinking.

Yes stoping crime is something to do, yes improving the social assistance system such as a better more productive work fare is something to do, but labling all Romani people as criminals is just simply rascist.

http://www.thecanadi...organized-crime

The solution is not to expel and hate, the solution is to compel and make. Canada has plenty of room it is just underdeveloped. Immigraton has to be geared to development and meeting unmet shortages.

Fact is the government has been lazy and only trying to stem off revolt since forever in managing the disenfranchised. That's got to stop. We also can't being one of the largest countries in the world be greedy and keep out the needy, we need to manage a system that integrates and faciliates global needs.

This doesn't advocate for a hand out but it asks for a hand up and puts people to work as the only option. People can't complain about social assitance if those receiving it are assisting society.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

If people don't have anything to offer Canada we shouldn't be taking them. We accept immigrants to benefit us, no other reason. If the people applying are of no benefit to Canada we shouldn't take them. Canada isn't a charity but a business. We mustn't give out our healthcare and welfare system to everyone and anyone. Immigrants shouldn't be coming here and leeching from the system they haven't paid a penny into straight away. They should come here and work for us or no thank you, Canada is already full on welfare abusers.

[login]

If people don't have anything to offer Canada we shouldn't be taking them.

If you can't find something humans can offer then it is your failure at enterprise. Their body alone is worth well over $100,000

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

If you can't find something humans can offer then it is your failure at enterprise. Their body alone is worth well over $100,000

Healthcare and welfare for a lifetime will be much higher cost. We 're not in this to break even but to profit.

Plus I doubt a condition of immigration is to sign over your body after death...lol. That's just twisted.

[login]

Healthcare and welfare for a lifetime will be much higher cost. We 're not in this to break even but to profit.

Plus I doubt a condition of immigration is to sign over your body after death...lol. That's just twisted.

I advocate for a national health insurance plan, that is paid on a premium basis. I think everyone should have to be a donor on death to receive free public health coverage or atleast a reduction on their premiums on a basis of net savings to the system from harvesting after death.

I only think people in poverty should have basic health coverage provide they participate in the total program which would include work and or other streams that are designed to be self supportive that is production based to fill the needs of the program and goods instead of wages within the production of the system to a certain extent. But no its not twisted it is rational it is a cadaver. Further they don't have to die first, disabled people for instance should participate in studies and clinical trials.

Medicare is not sustainable or rational, the government should aim to reduce health costs through leveraging but otherwise they need to get rid of the bulk of public tax dollar cost on health care, and encourage private and alternative medicine. Only the military and the poor should have free medical coverage, other people should pay based on their income amount or buy a private health insurance plan, it should not however be from general government revenue, it has to be seperate to be transparent and people need to be able to choose what type of coverage they want and at what cost to them. Things like voluntary mental health need to be completely removed from the public purse, likewise buying overpriced equipment should be totally not taxpayer funded, the government should cut the crap and make the devices for a fraction of the cost because it is extortion to gouge prices on essential life saving equipment akin to aiding and abbetting murder through cost extortion.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

People in the real world aren't as clinical as yo uare. I doubt anyone looks at a loved on who has passed on as just a cadaver. I lost my father about a month ago and I certainly didn't nor did anyone in my family. People need to be free to do as they wish their remains. It's part of the coming to terms with ones own death. Surely in death the person can be free of politics.

[login]

People in the real world aren't as clinical as yo uare. I doubt anyone looks at a loved on who has passed on as just a cadaver. I lost my father about a month ago and I certainly didn't nor did anyone in my family. People need to be free to do as they wish their remains. It's part of the coming to terms with ones own death. Surely in death the person can be free of politics.

If you can save another person from being looked on that way and arn't willing to swallow your pride so you can see someone one last time then you are only adding to the problem of people dying.

I don't give a crap about people who don't give a crap about their chance to save peoples lives for vanity's sake. I'd sooner piss on them.

Its not like most the good stuff stays in anyway, it just gets pumped full of formaldehyde.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

If you can save another person from being looked on that way and arn't willing to swallow your pride so you can see someone one last time then you are only adding to the problem of people dying.

I don't give a crap about people who don't give a crap about their chance to save peoples lives for vanity's sake.

I am gobsmacked. I cannot believe that you are really pushing for the government to determine what happens to people's remains when they die. I've never heard of this before from the left, it is new for me. is this a platform plank of the NDP?

[Guest Peeves]

Quote

Canada’s uniquely welcoming refugee system makes the Roma our problem: In the first two quarters of this year, there were an absurd 1,389 claimants from Hungary — 13% of the total and nearly double the second-highest source, which was China. But it is the Roma’s situation in Eastern Europe that drives them abroad. That’s Europe’s problem. And that cradle of modern human rights can’t solve it.

OPERATIVE WORDS..REFUGEE CLAIMS. ROMA REFUGEE PROBLEM FOR CANADA.

Not on point..IMMIGRATION of ROMA.

[The Right One]

born and bred criminals.

its in their genetics.

[login]

I am gobsmacked. I cannot believe that you are really pushing for the government to determine what happens to people's remains when they die.

No I'm pushing for people to make rational decisions in life, as well as requiring those who expect the government to care for them to care for the public that allows for their care.

So yes I think people who depend on the government for their needs in life should provide for the publics needs in death.

I've never heard of this before from the left, it is new for me. is this a platform plank of the NDP?

I'm not the left I am a Social Libertarian. (Fiscally Right, Socially Left but in essenance a moderate. I am Rational)

I advocate for:

-removal of blanket taxation, give the people a choice what they pay for on an individual basis except essential services.

-government management of essential public services

-eradication of poverty though proactive government measures

-government non interferance in private matters.

-giving the family their authority back

-reduction of government to only the essential services

-fiscal duty to not place a burdeon on the public, i.e. removal of the public debt, and 0 deficit budgetting, raise emergency taxes if you need to spend more but never spend more. Also through currency manipulation more equality in taxation can be acheived by taxing the dollar rather than the man.

etc..

Rationality is key and we need people to help save other peoples lives through being a donor on death. This will be reduced as time progresses because of artificial cloning and artificial blood that exists, but we are still waiting for costs to come down. Peoples last act in life should be selfless not an act where they choose to keep body parts they don't need that could help people live, it all turns to dust anyway, you'd rather feed insects than give someone a second chance at life?

Its a body, it is our spirit that matters.

" A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem." The problem with the left and right is that they arn't rational they are objectivist, but not socially inclined, they are partisan. I believe in total endevour for societies gain rather than just a segment of society.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Argus]

OPERATIVE WORDS..REFUGEE CLAIMS. ROMA REFUGEE PROBLEM FOR CANADA.

Not on point..IMMIGRATION of ROMA.

True, because few would have the skills or education to qualify as immigrants.

The issue is that many are coming here, claiming refugee status, and then bugering off before their hearings or before they can be sent back.

And after a while, guess what happens? They have kids here, marry here, and then it's almost impossible to deport them. So eventually, they become Canadian citizens anyway.

[Argus]

born and bred criminals.

its in their genetics.

Know a lot of about genetics, do you?

[login]

True, because few would have the skills or education to qualify as immigrants.

The issue is that many are coming here, claiming refugee status, and then bugering off before their hearings or before they can be sent back.

And after a while, guess what happens? They have kids here, marry here, and then it's almost impossible to deport them. So eventually, they become Canadian citizens anyway.

Lock them in then. If they claim refugee status make them protected persons and don't let them leave the country without a very good explanation.

The Roma just need a solid management program to remove their integrative faults.

If you want to settle the Roma, than settle the Roma. You can't leave if there is no way out. Give them freedom at the end of a stick. They'll like it.

Example high risk refugee claimant must sign peace bond which includes not leaving the country without judicial permission. Breach results in work camp time.

Stoping them from coming here isn't the problem it is making sure that they are cared for once they are here, if they choose to come here, but they need to know where they are coming first.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Argus]

Lock them in then. If they claim refugee status make them protected persons and don't let them leave the country without a very good explanation.

That would be illegal. Besides, I don't want to lock them in, I want to kick them out.

The Roma just need a solid management program to remove their integrative faults.

The Europeans have been trying that for a long time. The problem is the Roma don't like to stick around. Their whole culture is about moving around. When you move around a lot, you don't get very good jobs and your kids don't get very well-educated.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Argus

[eyeball]

I am gobsmacked. I cannot believe that you are really pushing for the government to determine what happens to people's remains when they die. I've never heard of this before from the left, it is new for me. is this a platform plank of the NDP?

I've never heard of it either but I guess if it's from the left I'll have to be for it now whether I like it or not.

Goddamn...I hate it when that happens.

[login]

That would be illegal. Besides, I don't want to lock them in, I want to kick them out.

Letting them in to kick them out is the fault in your rationality, but locking them out isn't the option so locking them in is the solution. Hopefully you understand.

The Europeans have been trying that for a long time. The problem is the Roma don't like to stick around. Their whole culture is about moving around. When you move around a lot, you don't get very good jobs and your kids don't get very well-educated.

Well then you shouldn't be worried about them leeching off the government just include conditions in any handouts. Its a a pretty simple solution. I think we do need more public space for people such as the Roma though, free campgrounds etc.. for all the public.

Canada isn't the EU, the conditions both geographically and administratively are not the same the line of reasoning is not equivolent.

Edited October 14, 2012 by login

[Michael Hardner]

And who said they were noble or ignoble? You're asking a question based on your own never argued proposition.

Then how would you describe the evaluation of these characteristics ?

Actually, no, it hits the point directly. I'm pretty floored at how basic logic so floors you. Everything we do in life is based on our experiences. That most especially includes everything we select. If we have to select anything whatever, it's generally based on previous experience. If we're going to eat a certain food, go to a certain restaurant, watch a certain tv show, buy clothing, cars, appliances or electronics, if we're going to visit certain resorts, cities, countries, if we're going to accept invitations to events, including personal parties, or hang around with certain people, ALL of it takes into consideration our degree of satisfaction with previous encounters. What you're saying is that you're floored anyone would suggest doing this with regard to immigration. Which, as I said, floors me at how divorced from reality you immigration supporters can be.

I'm not floored that anyone would consider such things, just that people seem to be missing the point that racism isn't about physical characteristics only.

[Michael Hardner]

Wow! So it was never about Michael making an unconnected and unfair inference about ME! He DID imply that my argument was racist! His defense is an obvious obfuscation.

I never made a defence. I clarified my motivation for asking you questions - questions that remain unanswered by the way.

Now it seems, it is all MY fault! Unbeilevable!

I'm not quitting. I just need some time to cool off. I truly feel I have been unfairly insulted. As I said, to me MLW has been showing a definite slide not just into illogical emotional thinking but outright rudeness!

Insulted how ? If my summary of your criteria is wrong then just correct me.

However, I myself might feel better! For me, that's enough!

I do think you're a thoughtful and careful poster. Look, WB, these aren't easy questions but we need to ask them of ourselves and each other. I don't think any less of you either way.

Argus' position is a lot more clear than yours, and he has come out directly in answer of my question. You may not like what he has to say but this board is about discussion of issues.

[Argus]

I'm not floored that anyone would consider such things, just that people seem to be missing the point that racism isn't about physical characteristics only.

I'm floored that you don't understand what racism is about.

Hint: It's about race.

[login]

That would be illegal. Besides, I don't want to lock them in, I want to kick them out.

It wouldn't be illegal, peacebonds are a perfectly legal mechanism to prevent breach of peace. Adding a clause requiring refugee claimaints to remain in Canada in absence of a court order to leave would in no way be illegal if it were enacted. As stated Europe is not Canada, the EU rules for mobility do not apply to Canada. Roma from Europe claiming refugee status in Canada, have fled Europe, Canada cannot allow them to return without good reasons, otherwise it is fraud.

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

"Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada."

Refugees should be comfortable staying until they have their court hearing to leave or gain citizenship and gain the right by cause of citizenship.

Edited October 15, 2012 by login

[Guest Peeves]

Our appeal process is so out of wack you can put in a claim and apparently appeal for years.

Most other countries have changed their refugee/immigration policies over the past ten years. Canada certainly needs to tighten up ours. What might have lit a fire under Canada was the USA insisting we follow some enhanced security measures and passports at borders.