The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[cybercoma]

The majority of Canadians use more services than what they contribute to general revenues. Moreover, government revenues are not comprised solely of tax revenues. They also make money by selling goods and services, as well as investment income. Also, the services for immigrants is not a zero sum game. Funding that they receive gets redistributed into the economy by helping them out. So, I'm not really sure I follow your argument on this point that it's detrimental and I certainly don't think it's such a detriment that it should be classified as a problem worthy of concern.

On your question, I don't necessarily think that the system is serving us well. Right now, I'm just trying to understand your argument by considering its validity.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

The majority of Canadians use more services than what they contribute to general revenues.

Very true, and this is an important point. What must be said here, critically, is that when it comes to native-born Canadians, we are pretty much stuck with them, even if they are a net drag. Nothing much to be done there except trying to make them as productive as possible (not if one respects basic human rights anyway). However, when it comes to immigrants, the whole reason we are bringing them in is (supposedly) for the benefit of the nation. We should take in only those most likely to make the greatest contribution. But, instead, they are doing worse than average Canadians that are already here, that hardly helps the economy.

Moreover, government revenues are not comprised solely of tax revenues. They also make money by selling goods and services, as well as investment income. Also, the services for immigrants is not a zero sum game. Funding that they receive gets redistributed into the economy by helping them out.

You're not exactly gonna convince me by expounding on the benefits of "redistributing" things

So, I'm not really sure I follow your argument on this point that it's detrimental and I certainly don't think it's such a detriment that it should be classified as a problem worthy of concern.

How much of a detriment is enough to be worthy of concern?

On your question, I don't necessarily think that the system is serving us well. Right now, I'm just trying to understand your argument by considering its validity.

Fair enough, if you really have an open mind on the issue.

[cybercoma]

I mean, even we are operating at a loss with some immigrants, particularly refugees, there is moral value in defending human rights. Is there not? If you want to be able to stand on a pedestal and try to dictate to other nations "proper" ways of treating their citizens and respecting human rights, then you need to demonstrate those values, imo. So even if there's a financial disparity, money is only one form of value in the overall enterprise of immigration.

[Bonam]

I mean, even we are operating at a loss with some immigrants, particularly refugees, there is moral value in defending human rights. Is there not?

Some value perhaps, but how much? Why do we not intervene in Syria to stop the bloodshed?

If you want to be able to stand on a pedestal and try to dictate to other nations "proper" ways of treating their citizens and respecting human rights, then you need to demonstrate those values, imo.

I have no particular interest in standing on a pedestal and preaching to other nations.

So even if there's a financial disparity, money is only one form of value in the overall enterprise of immigration.

If your argument is that our immigration system is worthwhile because, regardless of the economic cost, it lets us walk some kind of moral high ground, I would ask you to at least find some support for the notion that the world's perception of Canada has been somehow boosted due to the nature of our immigration system. And I would further ask for your argument at to why you believe that said moral high ground is worth the cost.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Some value perhaps, but how much? Why do we not intervene in Syria to stop the bloodshed?

They're not mutually exclusive. Intervention is a different issue.

I have no particular interest in standing on a pedestal and preaching to other nations.

You know what I mean. If we're going to be international "peace keepers" or intervene in other nations to defend human rights, then we need to set an example.

If your argument is that our immigration system is worthwhile because, regardless of the economic cost, it lets us walk some kind of moral high ground,

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's a number of different kinds of value, as well as financial, that we get from allowing people to immigrate here.

[Bonam]

They're not mutually exclusive. Intervention is a different issue.

The point is we don't do everything that is "morally right" (that's subjective anyway). We pick and choose, and do the things that are worth doing.

You know what I mean. If we're going to be international "peace keepers" or intervene in other nations to defend human rights, then we need to set an example.

The example we set should be the example of ensuring the human rights and prosperity of all Canadian citizens. And that prosperity should be partially ensured by having an immigration system that best serves the nation. The example other nations need to see is one of how to build a strong and solid economy, not of vague moral values that somehow support unneeded levels/types of immigration.

But as for being "international peace keepers", I do not particularly covet that role, nor do I believe our immigration system enhances our credibility in that role if and when we choose to undertake it.

That's not my argument. My argument is that there's a number of different kinds of value, as well as financial, that we get from allowing people to immigrate here.

You have yet to substantiate this point. I do not see that we are get anything of real value, either net financial value or "moral value", as a result of our immigration system.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

I haven't established anything because I'm only trying to understand what you're establishing, namely that our immigration system is currently detrimental to Canada, and how you back that up. So far it seems like you don't. It's just a hunch.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[login]

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?

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

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

2. GDP growth

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I don't care what race the people are but they should speak English and be crime free. The Roma are anything but a crime free society. They cause nothing but problems everywhere they go. We don't need that in Canada but ofc we always let everyone in. Is the Roma a cultural trait Canada should embrace?

You're taking the next logical step, though, to preventing someone from entry using race as a factor. To say "I dont' care about your race as long as you're a crime free society" ... makes no sense.

Virulent racists believe that there are "bad" races that should be kept out.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you want me to post the chart against showing how economically succesful immigrantrs from various parts of the world are?

Yes please.

[Peter F]

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.

Ah, so our immigration policies should have nothing to do with cultural/ethnic/whatever background of the immigrants. That I agree with.

[Mr.Canada]

Ah, so our immigration policies should have nothing to do with cultural/ethnic/whatever background of the immigrants. That I agree with.

Correct. I'm not too interested in what nationality someone is. I'm interested in how they can benefit Canada. If they are of no benefit and bring nothing to the table I don't want them here. For me it is mostly about money. If they can bring a lot of money and business to Canada they are welcome. If they wish to become dependent on welfare for multi generations they are not. Canada has enough free loaders now we need good smart, well educated people who have money to spend in Canada. If the person can respect Canada's traditions and leave any backward cultural practices at home and they have money to spend in Canada they are welcome here. Slam the door shut on refugees, let them go someplace else. My tax dollar can only go so far and we have real Canadians who are in need now, which is more important than some non Canadian. We need to look after Canadians first and put Canadians first.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Argus]

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."

I have no issue with discrimination in targeting source countries or groups based on valid statistical data of success in Canada. So how succesful have the Roma been in Canada?

Edited October 13, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

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.

And now, a word from that despised person named REALITY.

Certain groups have traits which are integral to their culture, certain traits we do not want in Canada. That doesn't mean that everyone in that group has that unpleasant trait, but it does mean that if you bring in people from that group you are, without question, also importing people with that trait. If you bring in people from Pakistan, you are, without question, bringing in Islamists who support terrorism. If you bring in Roma, you are, without question, bringing in criminals. Now you can be an ivory tower intellectual and state (accurately) that just because we know a much higher proportion of certain groups have this unpleasant cultural trait that doesn't mean all the people have it. True. But that, of course, accomplishes nothing in our interest. Or you can be a realist and say "This group has a high degree of economic and social failure in Canada so we will no longer accept people from this group".

Edited October 13, 2012 by Argus

[kimmy]

I learned everything I know about gypsies from the movies "Snatch" and "Drag Me To Hell", so I certainly don't have much to offer on that issue, specifically.

But I notice this discussion seems to be drifting back and forth between immigration and refugee claims, which are two different topics. Immigration is something we do with a goal of improving our country. We're allowed and supposed to be greedy-- take the ones we think will be best for Canada, turn down the losers. That's the whole point. Refugees are something we agree to as part of our duty to the international community and our values. I agree with Argus that not every hard-luck story is a legitimate refugee claim and that we could hold to more traditional idea of what constitutes a refugee.

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 kind of had the opposite reaction, Michael... there's been this persistent charge that the bias is about race, not culture. I think the concern about the Roma demonstrates otherwise.

I'd also like to say that Argus and Black Dog have had a great discussion in this thread. Higher-quality of discussion than has been the norm on this board for a while.

-k

[Argus]

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.

People who wind up in government housing on welfare or in prisons.

[Guest Peeves]

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?

" 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."

Hardly accurate.

Canada's immigration and refugee policies have been a farce for 50 or ore years that I know of. Anyone with a knowledgeable (professional} advocate could circumvent the system by setting up phony residences and 'required' residency when the immigrants weren't even here for most of the time. Thousands of cases are NOW under our current government being investigated and the false cases, having they're citizenship revoked.

Our former governments took no action.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...itizenship.html

The federal government has started the process of revoking the citizenship of 3,100 people suspected of lying to become Canadians.

Speaking at a news conference on Ottawa Monday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said the federal government is "applying the full strength of Canadian law" to crack down on individuals suspected of obtaining citizenship fraudulently or falsifying information required for permanent residency.

"Canadian citizenship is not for sale," Kenney told reporters. "We are taking action to strip citizenship and permanent residence status from people who don't play by the rules and who lie or cheat to become a Canadian citizen."

Refugees were handled even more cavalierly if that's even possible.

A foreign citizen would simply board a plane and destroy any i.d. then claim whatever they wanted to for 'sanctuary'.

They'd be told to return for a hearing, but many thousands never did. Those that did and were denied were told to report back for deportation. Thousands never did and disappeared into various communities that supported their violation.

Crooked advocates were given lectures and info to 'refugees' in other countries so they could get into Canada through our VERY lax policies. The cost has been staggering since we set them up with housing and food and expenses while waiting sometimes 2-3 years for their hearing.

Only in the past couple of years has the ministry under Kenny tried closing loop holes.

Roma caught on to the ease of refugee claim and they above all of late have been abusing our hospitality.

They aren't the only ones though. Thousands and thousands have been taxing our system and our tax payers..cheats that jump the queue and tie up our immigration/refugee hearings.

Canada has encouraged immigration, unfortunately until lately with few controls.

Criminals too are now being deported.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...es-forward.html

They should be vetted before allowing them out of airports or off ships. Our citizens deserve due diligence on these issues.

A few crooked advocates have now been charged as well.

It's about time.

I don't blame the Roma. If they have a legitimate refugee claim fine they are due the same rights as any other claimant. However, they seem to be attempting to claim status then find it's now not so cut and dried and they leave.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Peeves

[Argus]

Yes please.

Very well. You'll note that the economic performance of European and American immigrants is vastly superior to that of anywhere in Asia, be it east, west, or China. In fact, it's clear the very best place for us to be recruiting immigrants is the UK, which to me shows just how important language and cultural assimilation is. But aside from that, northern and western europe was better than eastern europe. And southern Europe wasn't especially good except for Italy.

http://global-econom...rant_region.htm

Edited October 13, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

People who wind up in government housing on welfare or in prisons.

And do you have any sort of evidence to support your claim that this varies by culture or country of origin in a statistically significant way?

[Guest Peeves]

You're taking the next logical step, though, to preventing someone from entry using race as a factor. To say "I dont' care about your race as long as you're a crime free society" ... makes no sense.

Virulent racists believe that there are "bad" races that should be kept out.

Yes virulent racists in many countries of late are making that stand. Unfortunately it's now the Muslims it has been Jews, Italians, Irish, over the years in the Democracies. In other countries like some we all know of, no one other than their own followers are allowed.

I want those immigrants that will eventually become Canadians with Canadian values. I deplore the multi- cultural policies that to me are divisive.

[GostHacked]

So worried about this when we have bankers robbing us blind and government eroding our privacy.

[Argus]

And do you have any sort of evidence to support your claim that this varies by culture or country of origin in a statistically significant way?

Can we agree that a group of people whose average income is say, $14,000 a year, is going to include a much higher number of welfare claimants than a different group whose mean income is $42,000 a year?

[GostHacked]

Can we agree that a group of people whose average income is say, $14,000 a year, is going to include a much higher number of welfare claimants than a different group whose mean income is $42,000 a year?

What currency are you using for those numbers?

[Argus]

What currency are you using for those numbers?

I would have thought the Canadian dollar would be the obvious one.

[Guest Peeves]

I haven't established anything because I'm only trying to understand what you're establishing, namely that our immigration system is currently detrimental to Canada, and how you back that up. So far it seems like you don't. It's just a hunch.

Can you provide positives and proof that our historical lax and abused immigration/refugee system helped Canada?

Obvious to the most hard headed is the cost of fraud, cheaters and criminals to our country.

In addition to the 3,100 people who have been told that their citizenship is being cancelled, Mr. Kenney said there are 5,000 people who have obtained permanent resident’s status, but who have not been living in Canada and who will be flagged for additional scrutiny if they apply for citizenship. For the most part, said Mr. Kenney, these are wealthier individuals, many of whom reside in tax havens like the Arab Gulf states.

http://www.theglobea...article4532222/

“In many jurisdictions around the world, simply having a Canadian passport can double your salary. It can give you access to some of the highest quality health care in the world at no cost,” he said. “It can give your children access to subsidized post-secondary education at our excellent colleges and universities, and, of course, can represent a political insurance policy.”

In addition to the 3,100 people who have been told that their citizenship is being cancelled, Mr. Kenney said there are 5,000 people who have obtained permanent resident’s status, but who have not been living in Canada and who will be flagged for additional scrutiny if they apply for citizenship. For the most part, said Mr. Kenney, these are wealthier individuals, many of whom reside in tax havens like the Arab Gulf states.

“This is an economic calculation for many of them,” he said. “If you can make big money in a tax haven while letting your kids go to McGill [university] for a fraction of a non-resident fee, and if you can come to Canada for expensive surgery when you need it, why wouldn’t you do it?”

Some of the schemes for fabricating Canadian residency have been easy to expose as fraudulent. Mr. Kenney said his favourite trick was one concocted by a Montreal consultant who literally created a fake address for his clients. “There was a door and a post box, but if you opened the door, there was a brick wall behind it,” he said.

Your habitual "I'm from Missouri" position never accepts anything as proof.

Never let the facts satisfy or dissuade you.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Peeves