The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[Smallc]

Simple for anyone to get in and once they are in they get free health care, welfare, odsp, business loans and a multitude of other services.

That's not a proof.

[login]

Personally I think Gypsies are generally friendly and entertaining.

If we had a freeer country I don't think there would be much of an argument against them.

I like them, they are free spirited. They tend to be libertarian in mind. I like that.

Edited October 12, 2012 by login

[eyeball]

Maybe we should micro chip everyone.

Starting with everyone at the top of the government and working our way down from there.

[Mr.Canada]

Personally I think Gypsies are generally friendly and entertaining.

If we had a freeer country I don't think there would be much of an argument against them.

I like them, they are free spirited. They tend to be libertarian in mind. I like that.

Where did you meet gypsies? how many have you personally met? Do the gypsies who break laws and run shoplifting and pickpocketing rings not in Canada?

Do you have a citation of gypsies being law abiding productive citizens?

The safety of real Canadians has to be taken int consideration first before anything else. Canadians shouldn't be victimized in order to fulfill an agenda of blind multiculturalism.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Argus]

Wait a second ? Weren't we just talking about not letting Muslims in and letting more 'Europeans' in ?

Can we finally admit we're just talking about white English speaking people then ?

(Yes, I am being provocative.)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested we abandon the standards the Tories have been upgrading, merely that we refocus our recruitment programs in areas of the world which have been shown to be better at producing economically succesful immigrants. Do you want me to post the chart against showing how economically succesful immigrantrs from various parts of the world are?

[Argus]

Thats hard to agree with.

Italians retain the language, almost universally they speak English and understand Italian. The culture of family every Sunday, large obscene weddings (payback baby!) and the rest live on.

I would still consider all of them integrated.

Hell, my mother kept the old traditions alive for quite some tme......shoe leather roast beef for dinner on Sundays.

Good for her. But was she 5 generations out of wherever it was she came from? Unless they just came over last generation, I'm doubting most speak Italian, just like few who came over from Germany or Poland or Ukraine still speak those languages into the second and third and fourth generation, let alone past that. And frankly, I do know one Italian family who still speak Italian, who send their kids to a special school on weekends to learn Italian. It would be rude, but I really want to say to them "What the hell? If you're so all fired proud of Italy why don't you go back there? You're supposed to be Canadians now. If you want to be Italians then LEAVE.".

[Argus]

Again, easy to say when the ones who are productive are off being productive. This is the danger and why anecdotal evidence is a piss-poor basis for policy (cue kraychik cut and paste rant about experts and studies).

Well, it's true we don't see the ones who aren't criminals and aren't causing trouble. But the supposition there are lots of them is not enough for us to dimiss the clear issues with those we do see. There are few Roma in Canada, and yet everyone who has made acquaintance with them seems to have come away unhappy. Is that coincidence? Europe is full of extremely tolerant nations and cultures but all of them seem to have rapidly become intollerent of Roma. Is that coincidence?

[login]

Where did you meet gypsies? how many have you personally met?

I've met a few in both Canada and the United States.

Do the gypsies who break laws and run shoplifting and pickpocketing rings not in Canada?

I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be wating to say that Gypsies run shoplifting and pickpocketing rings in Canada. I would say that other people do to. I recall hearing a story about two old ladies who used their age to commit numerous shoplifting occurences.

The fact is both gypsies and other people are attributed criminality. I'm not sure of what ethinic group is perfect little angles. I think that they have been a scape goat.

Do you have a citation of gypsies being law abiding productive citizens?

I won't even acknowledge that statement as it is utterly baseless and pervading of ignorance and insult.

Lots of gypsies are adherant members of various churches such as the Catholic church or protestant organizations. They have for well over a thousand years lived and contributed to society.

The safety of real Canadians has to be taken int consideration first before anything else. Canadians shouldn't be victimized in order to fulfill an agenda of blind multiculturalism.

Utterly disciminatory and rascist. Hells and the Mafia have likely committed more crimes than the Roma. So are we going to single out Italians and the A typical Waspy sort as not fit for immigration to Canada? What about Asians or Africans cause they commit crimes too. Your line of reasoning is faulty. Also not all crime is nonproductive, some is directly associated with production. One Gypsie I met happened to be a farm owner in California, he put people to work, not unlike many other people in California employing illegal immigrants. Its illegal but you need to quesiton is the law moral, does it fit in with a whole dharmic construct. Is law really benefiting society. Some laws undoubtly do, other laws are made to oppress people, and that isn't contributing to society, it is detracting from a whole and moral society.

When questioning is law good you need to ask, is it infringing freedom or is it enhancing freedom? What grounds exist to take away personal liberties so a small subclass can benefit from that.

However this is about Gypsies not a discourse on crime and justification for breach of a given law.

There are many gypsies who are very wealthy and very much are involved in providing services to people.

They actually have a very traditional ethos, and are at times very tied into mainstream religions, well spoken and friendly.

The key is being prepared for visitors, and being a good host. If you arn't prepared for them and you know they are coming then you can't complain things are issued when they get here.

Here is some mass media

...

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/wealthy-roma/oneill-text

Edited October 13, 2012 by login

[-TSS-]

Here in Europe we have the Schengen-area which allows unrestricted movement across the continent. Therefore it is easy to undertsnad how the Roma people manage to move around. However, in North-America you are supposed to have some of the strictest immigration-laws and unless you can convince the authorities that you can support yourself you have no chance of moving to the USA or Canada. So, how on earth have you managed to get these people in your country?

[Mr.Canada]

I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be wating to say that Gypsies run shoplifting and pickpocketing rings in Canada. I would say that other people do to. I recall hearing a story about two old ladies who used their age to commit numerous shoplifting occurences.

The fact is both gypsies and other people are attributed criminality. I'm not sure of what ethinic group is perfect little angles. I think that they have been a scape goat.

Gypsies are known for it. Numerous citations of such proofs. A large percentage of gypsies are criminals compared to non criminals.

I won't even acknowledge that statement as it is utterly baseless and pervading of ignorance and insult.

Lots of gypsies are adherant members of various churches such as the Catholic church or protestant organizations. They have for well over a thousand years lived and contributed to society.

if gypsies are so upstanding for over a thousand years why haven't we let them into Canada before now? I mean since they are the perfect picture of a Canadian.

Utterly disciminatory and rascist. Hells and the Mafia have likely committed more crimes than the Roma. So are we going to single out Italians and the A typical Waspy sort as not fit for immigration to Canada? What about Asians or Africans cause they commit crimes too. Your line of reasoning is faulty. Also not all crime is nonproductive, some is directly associated with production. One Gypsie I met happened to be a farm owner in California, he put people to work, not unlike many other people in California employing illegal immigrants. Its illegal but you need to quesiton is the law moral, does it fit in with a whole dharmic construct. Is law really benefiting society. Some laws undoubtly do, other laws are made to oppress people, and that isn't contributing to society, it is detracting from a whole and moral society.

Sorry but I don't see how wanting the government to put the safety of Canadians first ahead of Canadian applicants is racist. We're talking about gypsies in this thread.

[login]

Gypsies are known for it. Numerous citations of such proofs. A large percentage of gypsies are criminals compared to non criminals.

Where are these Canadian Statistics?

if gypsies are so upstanding for over a thousand years why haven't we let them into Canada before now?

BS.. there are 80,000+ gypsies in Canada.. they've been here for some time now.

I mean since they are the perfect picture of a Canadian.

Totally offensive and discriminatory statement.

Sorry but I don't see how wanting the government to put the safety of Canadians first ahead of Canadian applicants is racist. We're talking about gypsies in this thread.

Dude you are utterly rude.

More mass media from the NFB for you

http://www.nfb.ca/film/Opre_Roma_Gypsies_in_Canada/

Edited October 13, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

I'd like to think that the federal government's job is partly to protect its citizens from dangers foreign and domestic. Let's agree that simply not every applicant is suitable for Canadian citizenship. We don't need to take in every applicant. if coming to Canada is in such demand then we, as a country, should demand only the very best of the world darken our doorway. Everyone else need not apply.

If some gypsies have some money or skills we need then come on in otherwise, no thank you, we're full. We have our own unemployment probelsm we don't need more people to leech of the system. We have enough Canadians doing that already.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[login]

I'd like to think that the federal government's job is partly to protect its citizens from dangers foreign and domestic.

Their job is to follow the law that effects their jobs. It is up to the citizens to protect themselves from domestic dangers and foreign dangers. If people depend on government they loose their own security, because the government doesn't care about Joe Public. They are a machination.

Let's agree that simply not every applicant is suitable for Canadian citizenship.

That is what the citizenship test is for.

The issue here is discriminating based on an ethnic or racial basis. That is strickly wrong, and offensive. Everyone is equal and free.

Your racial stereotyping is just not sane for the basis of applying the law. Racist and discriminatory law is unconstitutional.

You loose your own freedom when you subject yourself to government. The citizens are the highest order of government. It is the Queen who owes us duty, but we owe duty to ourselves and to government. It is only when we our ourselves strong that our government is strong, because we are the government. You have a split brain conception of government and the people. We are the government because we are responsible for the people, and when all people are responsible we are free.

Edited October 13, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

Their job is to follow the law that effects their jobs. It is up to the citizens to protect themselves from domestic dangers and foreign dangers. If people depend on government they loose their own security, because the government doesn't care about Joe Public. They are a machination.

No we aren't allowed to protect ourselves or property. If I shoot a burglar who is raping my daughter and killing my wife then I will be charged with a crime.

That is what the citizenship test is for.

The issue here is discriminating based on an ethnic or racial basis. That is strickly wrong, and offensive. Everyone is equal and free.

Your racial stereotyping is just not sane for the basis of applying the law. Racist and discriminatory law is unconstitutional.

it's the duty of Canadian government to screen applicants to make sure that we only let in worthy people. not everyone is welcome in Canada regardless of criminal record. Once your NDP gets in they can change it to let everyone in if they wish.

[login]

No we aren't allowed to protect ourselves or property. If I shoot a burglar who is raping my daughter and killing my wife then I will be charged with a crime.

Only if you can't kick his *** without shooting him. You are fully entitled to apprehend the person for tresspass and/or in the process of committing an indictable offence, but like the police, you may only use as much force as is reasonably justifiable to stop the contiuance of the offence and apprehend the person. If he attempts to flee you would be lawfully able to use deadly force to prevent the flight.

Police power is only different in that they may increase the use of force by default to the next highest level of the force they face, although still they are only suppose to use reasonable amount of force. If you do what a police officer does lawfully you should not be concerned, but if you are unreasonable in your application of force you could face civil penalties, but if you can justify your assault on justifiable grounds you would have a defence. So no you are wrong.

it's the duty of Canadian government to screen applicants to make sure that we only let in worthy people.

no its not, CIC screens on a basis of admisability. It has nothing to do with being worthy.

worthy = Deserving effort, attention, or respect

admissable = Acceptable or valid, esp. as evidence in a court of law

This does not relate to worthyness. It relates to qualifying.

http://www.cic.gc.ca...en/CIT0002E.pdf

see:

admissibility

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf

http://www.cic.gc.ca...f/enf02-eng.pdf

Edited October 13, 2012 by login

[Mr.Canada]

Only if you can't kick his *** without shooting him. You are fully entitled to apprehend the person for tresspass and/or in the process of committing an indictable offence, but like the police, you may only use as much force as is reasonably justifiable to stop the contiuance of the offence and apprehend the person. If he attempts to flee you would be lawfully able to use deadly force to prevent the flight.

Police power is only different in that they may increase the use of force by default to the next highest level of the force they face, although still they are only suppose to use reasonable amount of force. If you do what a police officer does lawfully you should not be concerned, but if you are unreasonable in your application of force you could face civil penalties, but if you can justify your assault on justifiable grounds you would have a defence. So no you are wrong.

no its not, CIC screens on a basis of admisability. It has nothing to do with being worthy.

worthy = Deserving effort, attention, or respect

admissable = Acceptable or valid, esp. as evidence in a court of law

This does not relate to worthyness. It relates to qualifying.

http://www.cic.gc.ca...en/CIT0002E.pdf

see:

admissibility

http://www.cic.gc.ca...f/enf02-eng.pdf

Lol. Now you've gone so far as to argue semantics...ok that tells me I've won the argument completely. Thank you for the validation.

login, you're new here. I suggest you read some posts and hang around a while before you start mouthing off to long term members. many people have been banned because of this. Iwish you the best of luck. Thanks again.

[cybercoma]

it's the duty of Canadian government to screen applicants to make sure that we only let in worthy people.

Worthy of individuals. We do not discriminate people based on their cultural or ethnic background. What you're suggesting would be akin to US immigration saying, "Sorry, Mr. Canada. You can't come to the US because just last week we had some Canadians kill people here. There's a higher likelihood that you're a murderer because of that."

[login]

Lol. Now you've gone so far as to argue semantics...ok that tells me I've won the argument completely. Thank you for the validation.

login, you're new here. I suggest you read some posts and hang around a while before you start mouthing off to long term members. many people have been banned because of this. Iwish you the best of luck. Thanks again.

That was not an argument that was me educating you.

[Mr.Canada]

Worthy of individuals. We do not discriminate people based on their cultural or ethnic background. What you're suggesting would be akin to US immigration saying, "Sorry, Mr. Canada. You can't come to the US because just last week we had some Canadians kill people here. There's a higher likelihood that you're a murderer because of that."

Some groups of people seem predisposed to crime or unlawfulness that we don't support in Canada. Sure everyone should be treated as individuals and discounted if any criminal record is found. We only should import those people we need. people with money or skills useful to us. Otherwise no thank you. We shouldn't be taking in people to go on assistance and just to pump up our population numbers.

[cybercoma]

Some groups.

Don't be vague. You're saying some ethnicities, cultures, and races. You're not talking groups. Yes, there's criminal organizations and people that belong to those groups should be rejected. You're not talking about that though. You're speaking from a deterministic racist epistemology, which frankly does not matter. What I'm saying is that people are (and should continue to be) evaluated on an individual basis because there's no reason the "exceptions" shouldn't be allowed in. I'm only adopting your language to try and get through to you. I don't for a minute subscribe to the philosophy that underpins your argument, so I wouldn't call them exceptions.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

What I'm saying is that people are (and should continue to be) evaluated on an individual basis because there's no reason the "exceptions" shouldn't be allowed in.

Except that this "individual evaluation" is direly flawed, and results in the entry of large numbers of immigrants and refugees that are detrimental to Canada. The evaluation needs to be reviewed and made considerably more selective, and further, detailed statistics should be kept on the economic success, criminal activity, etc, of individuals accepted into Canada through this system, so that it can continue to be fine-tuned. Unfortunately, this is not done. And until it does work well, many Canadians will continue to be suspicious and distrustful. And the knee-jerk reaction is to focus that on certain groups which are seen to have elevated levels of crime, cultural incompatibility, etc.

Now, as for the Roma, I think that discrmination based on ethnic group is completely unacceptable. I believe that any individual, including a Roma, who qualifies to immigrate to Canada under its lawful immigration system should be treated equally. I also believe that immigration should exist for the benefit of Canada, and that we are not obligated to accept refugees, and any refugee applicant should have to demonstrate that they will be of use to Canada, just like any other category of immigrant.

[cybercoma]

Except that this "individual evaluation" is direly flawed, and results in the entry of large numbers of immigrants and refugees that are detrimental to Canada.

I don't believe this to be true until you can prove it with evidence to backup your claim that "large numbers of immigrants and refugess that are detrimental to Canada" are allowed in. You're going to need to define what you mean by large numbers and why. As well as what you mean by detrimental and why. Then you need to show with evidence that this is actually happening.

Keep in mind, if you use crime as your measurement for detriment, that it's the lowest it has been in 40 years and continues to fall. So you might want to operationalize detriment in another way.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

I don't believe this to be true until you can prove it with evidence to backup your claim that "large numbers of immigrants and refugess that are detrimental to Canada" are allowed in. You're going to need to define what you mean by large numbers and why. As well as what you mean by detrimental and why. Then you need to show with evidence that this is actually happening.

I do not agree with this onus. The onus should be on the government to prove that its immigration policies are good for Canadians.

But as for definitions, here you go:

Large numbers: How about 10% of immigrants or more (that's about 30,000 per year). Why? Because a 10% failure rate or higher is unacceptable in just about any important undertaking.

Detrimental: Either (1) Have a higher likelihood of committing crime than the existing Canadian population AND/OR (2) cost more to the economy than they give back.

If the definition of "detrimental" as described above applies to 10% or more of immigrants ("large numbers"), then I say that our immigration system needs an overhaul.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

I appreciate you expanding on your theory. Now you need to apply it to support your statement that the government is letting in "large numbers of immigrants and refugees that are detrimental to Canada."

[Bonam]

I appreciate you expanding on your theory. Now you need to apply it to support your statement that the government is letting in "large numbers of immigrants and refugees that are detrimental to Canada."

Leaving aside the issue of crime and cultural incompatibilities, lets look at economics:

(1) Immigrants make considerably less average income than native-born Canadians,

http://www12.statcan...SC=13&SO=99&O=A

(2) The average immigrant household consumes $10,558 annually in direct government program spending

http://en.wikipedia....rnment_finances

(3) While the average immigrant household pays more than $10,558 in taxes, more than 10% of immigrant households pay less than that. It is hard to find stats on this but I'll look around, but it's true of Canadians in general, and immigrants have lower than average incomes, so it would be true of them as well. That means that more than 10% of immigrants pay less than they use, fitting my definitions above.

(4) A recent study shows that recent immigrants (from the 70s onwards) cost the government about $23 billion more than they pay in taxes, a net drain on the economy:

http://news.national...stitute-report/

Now where's your argument that our immigration system is serving us well?

Edited October 13, 2012 by Bonam