The Roma are coming, the Gypsies are coming!

[cybercoma]

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.

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

The problem with that chart is that it doesn't take into consideration the immigration class: economic, family, refugees, etc. Refugees and family members obviously make less than economic immigrants. What the graph also fails to consider is systemic racism in hiring practices that limits the opportunities of visible minorities in a measurable way. In other words, it's easier to get a job if you're white and have an English accent. This variation exists outside of immigrant populations in our Canadian-born population.

You also fail to look at the longitudinal aspect of the numbers you've presented. They clearly indicate that recent immigrants increase their income over time. The earlier immigrants are making more money than the more recent immigrants. Obviously when you first arrive to a country you start a new job or career. If you're an immigrants there's also a number of other things that need to happen, whether it be improving your language skills or getting involved in your community as well. The data you've supplied clearly indicates that their financial capacities increase the longer they are in Canada, which I think you would agree is a good thing.

The other problem with this information that you've ignored or seem to have trouble synthesizing with your views is the actual amount of foreign born people that are in this country. From the 60s until the 90s the foreign-born population remained roughly the same (as a percentage of our population). It is only over the last 20 years that it has increased, but you have to consider that within the context of a declining Canadian birthrate and all the problems associated with a shrinking population.

Running through all of this is an assumption that immigrants and foreign-born citizens are a detriment and i'm still not satisfied with the arguments offered. Certainly some immigrants are, just as some Canadian-born citizens are. However, I don't see that we're importing wholesale detrimental people into this country. It seems that these arguments stem from irrational fears or possibly simple intolerance for multiculturalism.

[cybercoma]

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.

So someone takes a position that the immigration system has harmed Canada and if I don't provide proof that it has helped Canada, then their argument must be true?

I'm sure you can see how this is a logical fallacy. They're two different arguments and i haven't offered one yet (I'm not claiming our immigration system has helped Canada). I'm still just trying to be convinced by the argument that immigration has been detrimental.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

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.

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.

No - Gypsies are a race, as far as I know they are ethnically distinct from white Europeans.

I agree that the board discussion has been better of late.

[Michael Hardner]

I deplore the multi- cultural policies that to me are divisive.

But... you're calling on exclusionary policies that will divide people. There's at least a paradox there.

[Wild Bill]

No - Gypsies are a race, as far as I know they are ethnically distinct from white Europeans.

I agree that the board discussion has been better of late.

I always thought that race and ethnicity were two totally different things, Michael. A quick google says I'm right!

http://www.diffen.co...hnicity_vs_Race

"The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and sociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc. Ethnicity, on the other hand, relates to cultural factors such as nationality, culture, ancestry, language and beliefs."

[Argus]

No - Gypsies are a race, as far as I know they are ethnically distinct from white Europeans.

I agree that the board discussion has been better of late.

I think her point was that people are not doubting the wisdom of bringing Roma to Canada because they don't like the Roma's skin color or ethnicity, but because of their percieved behaviour.

[Argus]

The problem with that chart is that it doesn't take into consideration the immigration class: economic, family, refugees, etc.

Do you have reason to believe the disitrubtion of these categories would be widely different amongst the different source countries?

Refugees and family members obviously make less than economic immigrants

Unqestionable, so it behooves us to ensure that those we let in as refugees are legitimate refugees, which is not the case with the Roma.

. What the graph also fails to consider is systemic racism in hiring practices that limits the opportunities of visible minorities in a measurable way. In other words, it's easier to get a job if you're white and have an English accent. This variation exists outside of immigrant populations in our Canadian-born population.

I see no evidence of this whatever. I certainly agree that communication skills are important in today's workplace, but you'll note that Indian immigrants earn 25% more than Pakistani immigrants and I bet few Canadians could tell the difference without being told. People from the Phillipines earn far more than those from Asia, and for that matter, people from Africa earn more than Pakistanis or Chinese. How do you explain this in terms of your racism response?

You also fail to look at the longitudinal aspect of the numbers you've presented. They clearly indicate that recent immigrants increase their income over time. The earlier immigrants are making more money than the more recent immigrants

The problem with this is that immigrants used to earn more than Canadians almost immediately. That was because we had a very high standard for letting in immigrants. Furthermore, even if this is the case it would be so for all groups more or less evenly, would it not? So one assumes that newcomers from Germany would increase their wages over time, just as those from Pakisan would.

Running through all of this is an assumption that immigrants and foreign-born citizens are a detriment and i'm still not satisfied with the arguments offered. Certainly some immigrants are, just as some Canadian-born citizens are. However, I don't see that we're importing wholesale detrimental people into this country. It seems that these arguments stem from irrational fears or possibly simple intolerance for multiculturalism.

I think the real assumption is that there are major problems with how Canada selects immigrants, and who it allows to stay here, and that overall economic performance could be greatly improved by improvements to that process.

[cybercoma]

I'm saying that I think those problems you identify with immigration lie with the selection of individual applicants. I don't see it beneficial at all, or even really fair to create a priori exclusions (or inclusions for that matter) on the basis of race, ethnicity, or country of origin. Immigrants need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they do now. The only time, as far as I'm aware, that people are not vetted on an individual basis is when they are refugees in a time of crisis where there is a mass exodus.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

I think her point was that people are not doubting the wisdom of bringing Roma to Canada because they don't like the Roma's skin color or ethnicity, but because of their percieved behaviour.

I think some might be missing the point. These aren't immigrants.

There are hundreds of Roma that have been claiming refugee status without success since they come from a democratic countries like Hungary or Israel for example They thought they would have a breeze because of Canada's FORMER refugee handling. Finding they will be turned down, they leave on their own. BUT, the process takes time and is costly.

Kenny is attempting to close the floodgates at the source.

[Guest Peeves]

But... you're calling on exclusionary policies that will divide people. There's at least a paradox there.

Not so. I'm dealing with illegitimate, bogus, fraudulent claims not exclusionary policies at all.

However I agree there should be exclusionary policies, just that the Roma case is based on NOT being legitimate refugees. If there is a legitimate Roma refugee claim verified I would not exclude them nor suggest they should be.

[Mr.Canada]

I'm saying that I think those problems you identify with immigration lie with the selection of individual applicants. I don't see it beneficial at all, or even really fair to create a priori exclusions (or inclusions for that matter) on the basis of race, ethnicity, or country of origin. Immigrants need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they do now. The only time, as far as I'm aware, that people are not vetted on an individual basis is when they are refugees in a time of crisis where there is a mass exodus.

No one is talking about excluding people based on race except for you. You're trying to put words into others mouths here, you should be ashamed of yourself and you definately know better....shame on you!

[Michael Hardner]

I always thought that race and ethnicity were two totally different things, Michael. A quick google says I'm right!

http://www.diffen.co...hnicity_vs_Race

"The traditional definition of race and ethnicity is related to biological and sociological factors respectively. Race refers to a person's physical appearance, such as skin color, eye color, hair color, bone/jaw structure etc. Ethnicity, on the other hand, relates to cultural factors such as nationality, culture, ancestry, language and beliefs."

Ok... well what race are they then ? Is discrimination based on ethnicity fair ?

[Michael Hardner]

I think her point was that people are not doubting the wisdom of bringing Roma to Canada because they don't like the Roma's skin color or ethnicity, but because of their percieved behaviour.

Uh.... well... do racists object to such things as a mainstay of their ideas ? Did the Nazis persecute races because of how they looked of because of their perceived behavior ?

[Michael Hardner]

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

Very interesting - I wouldn't have suspected that Jamaicas do so much better than Chinese. What do you think of this study ?

[Mr.Canada]

Ok... well what race are they then ? Is discrimination based on ethnicity fair ?

I think everything needs to be look at equally when decideding whether to let people in or not. You have to remember that everytime we let another stranger into our country we're putting all of its citizens at risk. That is a huge responsibility. If someone wants to kill all westerners and that is part of the culture should we shouldn't let those people in. This is one example. if ones culture calls for the mutilation of females genitals then we shouldn't let them in either. If it is part of ones culture to gang rape women then astone them to death we shouldn't let them in either. Culture is very much part of the equation.

The protection of our citizens should be the most important thing toi consider when looking at immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

You have to remember that everytime we let another stranger into our country we're putting all of its citizens at risk.

Your standards are unmanageable and they overstate the risks of letting people in from many large countries. You don't want to let people from India or China in because they don't have gender equality ?

In reality, it seems to me you have prejudices around certain types of people that you just expect others to buy into.

[Mr.Canada]

Your standards are unmanageable and they overstate the risks of letting people in from many large countries. You don't want to let people from India or China in because they don't have gender equality ?

In reality, it seems to me you have prejudices around certain types of people that you just expect others to buy into.

I expect the people we let in to not kill our citizens. Until they earn their citizenship they are in Canada to serve me and prove to me that they deserve to belong to my country. Citizenship should be earned not given out freely like it is now.

We must take great care in who we let in. Not all people are equal in nature and we must only let in the very best we can find. No matter what race, gender, sexual orientation, or culture. We must choose the best, most skilled and richest immigrants to come to Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

I expect the people we let in to not kill our citizens. Until they earn their citizenship they are in Canada to serve me and prove to me that they deserve to belong to my country. Citizenship should be earned not given out freely like it is now.

You have no idea what the procedures are now. You would have had us bar all Italians because the mafia existed.

I don't think you give very much serious thought to your opinions.

. No matter what ... sexual orientation,

Speaking of 'rich'... you have stated on here that you preferred them in the closet. Have you changed then ?

[Wild Bill]

Ok... well what race are they then ? Is discrimination based on ethnicity fair ?

As far as I know, Roma are caucasians! Essentially, they are of Punjabi stock from long ago when they migrated into Europe. Through intermarriage most today are Hungarian. Here's a link for you:

http://www.chgs.umn....ti/gypsies.html

"The Gypsy race originated in the northern part of India near the Punjab Region [Demand 1980:31]. They refer to themselves as Roma which has mistakenly been called a cognate for wanderer. Roma is instead derived from the word, "Rom," meaning man. The Gypsy language is called Romani and is derived from the oldest written language, Sanskrit."

As to your second question, ethnicity is cultural. I have always believed that you cannot approve of a culture in toto. There are too many different cultural beliefs, customs and values for that kind of blank cheque.

Some cultural traits are negative when compared with own's own culture. Do you have a bias against female circumcision? How about the suppression of women's rights?

You have to pick and choose, Michael. You always have to consider such things in context. The answer to your question must always be "which specific ethnic trait do you mean?".

[Michael Hardner]

As to your second question, ethnicity is cultural. I have always believed that you cannot approve of a culture in toto. There are too many different cultural beliefs, customs and values for that kind of blank cheque.

Some cultural traits are negative when compared with own's own culture. Do you have a bias against female circumcision? How about the suppression of women's rights?

You have to pick and choose, Michael. You always have to consider such things in context. The answer to your question must always be "which specific ethnic trait do you mean?".

Right... context... why don't we just 'flip over all the cards' as they used to say, and specify the people we DON'T want, then work backwards to come up with criteria hm ? Is somebody at some point going to define Black inner city Americans as an 'ethnicity' or is that still a "third rail" for people who are against ethnicity/cultures ?

Anybody can answer that one...

[cybercoma]

they are of Punjabi stock

You're quite offensive and insulting, referring to people's heritage the way one refers to cattle and hogs. It's a short to abusing people when you can so easily dehumanize them by referring to their ancestry as "stock."

[Guest Peeves]

You're quite offensive and insulting, referring to people's heritage the way one refers to cattle and hogs. It's a short to abusing people when you can so easily dehumanize them by referring to their ancestry as "stock."

Stock in this usage is completely acceptable except possibly by those not familiar with its meaning.

http://www.biology-o...y/Racial_stocks

Would you have a similar opinion for these?

http://www.answers.c...lated-word-list

Edited October 13, 2012 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

Right... context... why don't we just 'flip over all the cards' as they used to say, and specify the people we DON'T want, then work backwards to come up with criteria hm ? Is somebody at some point going to define Black inner city Americans as an 'ethnicity' or is that still a "third rail" for people who are against ethnicity/cultures ?

Anybody can answer that one...

I think the racists say it's about "culture" now not race, since it's not just African Americans that are part of it. You know... all those inner-city white kids acting "black" are part of the "culture."

Sorry about all the quotes. I broke the irony meter.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Stock in this usage is completely acceptable except possibly by those not familiar with its meaning.

http://www.biology-o...y/Racial_stocks

Would you have a similar opinion for these?

http://www.answers.c...lated-word-list

Denotation, Connotation.

[Argus]

I'm saying that I think those problems you identify with immigration lie with the selection of individual applicants. I don't see it beneficial at all, or even really fair to create a priori exclusions (or inclusions for that matter) on the basis of race, ethnicity, or country of origin. Immigrants need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they do now. The only time, as far as I'm aware, that people are not vetted on an individual basis is when they are refugees in a time of crisis where there is a mass exodus.

We vet people now. Unfortunately, it seems that the immigration people find it impossible to properly differentiate who will make a succesful immigrant and who will not. Evidently from the statistics, most of those from Asia do not.

You know, I was looking for a small SUV early this year, a crossover. I would have preferred to buy from one of the north American companies, but the only one that had the kind of vehicle I was interested in was Jeep. And I had no interest in looking at Jeeps because of their poor reliability. Now using your selection criteria, I should have ignored the statistics on Jeeps, and gotten a mechanic to take my potential jeep apart and inspect it top to bottom before deciding.

I spared myself the trouble and bought a Hyundai.