Immigrant's qualities

[Guest Peeves]

oh well, that's much better.

I'll give you points for honestly stating you don't give a shit about women over there.

Now how did you leap to that conclusion? I give a shit about many things that cannot be changed with rhetoric as yours. I likely care more than you, and I really don't give a shit about those that throw accusations around on assumptions and speculation. There's a vast difference between not giving a shit and facing the reality that there are a billion people that are facing suffering and it's a problem beyond our capacity to correct. That doesn't in any way reflect on one's charity or caring.

[Black Dog]

Now how did you leap to that conclusion? I give a shit about many things that cannot be changed with rhetoric as yours. I likely care more than you, and I really don't give a shit about those that throw accusations around on assumptions and speculation.

Now where would I have gotten that idea....

So you'd rather they just kill their wives and daughters over there so you can't see it and where they can get away with it?

In a word, YES! Since it's their problem and beyond our means to correct it anymore than the dowry murders or FGM or sharia law forbiding womens rights

I can just feel the compassion.

[Guest Peeves]

Question for you, and maybe peeves can answer it too:

How would you identify the men who might murder wives/daughters, in the immigration process before they come to Canada?

Is what you're proposing even possible?

Good question. You obviously can't do that entirely.

However vetting a family or the adults with fixed questions would be a start. I think that has been started. And, if a question is posed that elicits a lie, that would be grounds for deportation. I'm in no way qualified to pose a question, but there are those that are.

I.E Q: do you or others in your family condone FGM?

Q: Do you or anyone in your culture or family have any problems with equal rights for women.

I certainly think in todays world certain methods might be used to find legitimate fault with some applications.

For example when a male from a country that allows polygamy shows up with a wife and another woman, or within a few months sponsors a nanny, we might be suspicious.

The thing is Canada has long been considered an easy mark.

Many Nazis got in. War criminals-terrorists- other criminals, and liars got in.

It's time the word got around that now you WILL BE vetted.

[guyser]

LOL!

how can you be certain that they already know that? Did you tell each and every one of them personally that you may not kill, maim or hit your wives and girlfriends? Who told them that and were they directly told or in some sort of round about politically correct way?

I see....hmm...ok...

These people here "multiculturalism" and think hey great my culture as it is is welcome in Canada I don't need to change a thing. This is wrong and dangerous and women are being killed because of it. The women want to assimilate and their men will not allow it and would rather kill them for trying to be Canadian.

How do you know they here (sic) it and think that.

Did you ask every single immigrant? I want to know who heard that for every case.

Thanks,I'll wait.

If they cannot follow Canadian Laws they aren't welcome here. Why do you lefties argue with that? You want criminals living in Canada?

They do follow CDN laws .

They commit a crime, they are charged following the law of Canada.

D'oh!

[Argus]

That only worked when economies were national in their nature, but a Canadian shortage might not be a global shortage.

Companies have more options today than simply bidding up the cost of labor. They can move operations to where the affordable labor is, or they can move the affordable labor to where the operations are.

That's where tax policy comes into place. But the fact is, most of the skilled labour shortages are not in areas where the production can be profitably moved away, such as the oil industry. As for others, it's up to those businesses to see to it they train new employees. It's not up to ME to help him import them from some other country while I'm at the same time paying other people through welfare and pogey to sit on their asses.

[Argus]

I wonder if there's ways to deport or otherwise dispose of native-born people who are sick, unable or unwilling to work and who otherwise don't conform to our values. It stands to reason that if we shouldn't bring them in, we shouldn't keep the ones we have.

It does? So let me get this straight. If I'm paying for my aged mother, It's somehow hypocritical of me to say "I'm not paying for someone else's aged mother"? We look after our own sick, but that doesn't mean we're honour bound to bring in sick people from overseas to look after. The same for unable or unwilling to work.

[jacee]

Good question. You obviously can't do that entirely.

[/Quote]

No you can't.

However vetting a family or the adults with fixed questions would be a start. I think that has been started. And, if a question is posed that elicits a lie, that would be grounds for deportation. I'm in no way qualified to pose a question, but there are those that are.

I.E Q: do you or others in your family condone FGM?

Q: Do you or anyone in your culture or family have any problems with equal rights for women.

I certainly think in todays world certain methods might be used to find legitimate fault with some applications.

For example when a male from a country that allows polygamy shows up with a wife and another woman, or within a few months sponsors a nanny, we might be suspicious.

The thing is Canada has long been considered an easy mark.

Many Nazis got in. War criminals-terrorists- other criminals, and liars got in.

It's time the word got around that now you WILL BE vetted.

So you really have nothing constructive to offer, just broad xenophobic accusations.

Thanks for making my point.

[Mr.Canada]

No you can't.

So you really have nothing constructive to offer, just broad xenophobic accusations.

Thanks for making my point.

Any criticism of our immigration policy isn't xenophobic. We 're letting in more poor immigrants when we have unemployment problems already. The door should be slammed shut on poor immigrants and refugees until our situation is better. We should accept wealthy immigrants of course.

[jacee]

As for others, it's up to those businesses to see to it they train new employees. It's not up to ME to help him import them from some other country while I'm at the same time paying other people through welfare and pogey ...

I totally agree. Canadian businesses don't do much training of potential employees - ie, the unemployed. They seem to expect the government to do it all, and instantly.

The key is for employers to accurately predict future needs, to afford time for training.

[jacee]

Any criticism of our immigration policy isn't xenophobic.

No ... but yours is. And you don't seem to know current policy.

We 're letting in more poor immigrants when we have unemployment problems already. The door should be slammed shut on poor immigrants and refugees until our situation is better. We should accept wealthy immigrants of course.

Our situation is better than most.

I suggest you learn what our current immigration policy is.

You are opposed to Canada accepting any refugees it appears.

And of course wealthy people never murder their wives, and are never criminals.

Edited October 18, 2012 by jacee

[Mr.Canada]

I suggest you learn what our current immigration policy is.

You are opposed to Canada accepting any refugees it appears.

And of course wealthy people never murder their wives.

I am indeed against it right now. We cannot afford any more charity cases right now as we have enough of our own. The Billions upon Billions it costs every year for refugees can be better spent on Canadians right now.

Wealthy people aren't taxing our social assistance system to death. That's enough for me. They can start businesses and employ people while most refugees cannot even speak English and are a constant drain on our welfare system.

[jacee]

I am indeed against it right now. We cannot afford any more charity cases right now as we have enough of our own. The Billions upon Billions it costs every year for refugees can be better spent on Canadians right now.

Wealthy people aren't taxing our social assistance system to death. That's enough for me. They can start businesses and employ people while most refugees cannot even speak English and are a constant drain on our welfare system.

Prove it.

[Mr.Canada]

Prove it.

That's easy. 50,000 Refugee and compassionate immigrants per year times about 30 years since all this began in the Trudeau era when I was a child. That's 1.5 million refugees.

Refugees need welfare or disability plus healthcare and whatever other social services they need. That has to add up to Billions of dollars. Just do the math, it doesn't lie guys. Being a bleeding heart is expensive and it bankrupting Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

Being a bleeding heart is expensive and it bankrupting Canada.

Link please.

[Mr.Canada]

Link please.

Just to process a single successful refugee/compassionate grounds claim costs $100,000 at 50,000 successful ones a year that's $5 Billion a year!

It costs us $50,000 for each refused claim. Roughly 60% of all claims get rejected. That's $1.5 Billion a year

These are the costs of just processing the application.

We've spent $6.5 Billion and we haven't looked at welfare, housing, healthcare, education, ESL etc yet.

Our total yearly Refugee budget is something like $18.6 Billion.

That is insane. To spend that much money on a bunch of freeloaders who aren't even citizens!

We have seniors eating cat food, poor people having to rely on food banks and long ER wait times, services continue t oget cut while our taxes go up to pay for people who aren't even citizens.

This is a disgrace. We need to look after our own first before trying to help others.

The $18.6 Billion is the federal money this doesn't include the cost to the provinces and municipalities. Crazy....Seems like it doesn't matter who is in power that they just keep letting in more and more people.

[Smallc]

You're going to have to show me some links, I think.

[Michael Hardner]

Just to process a single successful refugee/compassionate grounds claim costs ...

I asked for a link - do you have one ? I looked for one and gave up after 10-20 pages.

[Argus]

I totally agree. Canadian businesses don't do much training of potential employees - ie, the unemployed. They seem to expect the government to do it all, and instantly.

The key is for employers to accurately predict future needs, to afford time for training.

If they can do studies predicting where labour shortages are and demanding the government import more people then they can damn well go to the provinces and tell them to start training people in those skills.

[login]

Any criticism of our immigration policy isn't xenophobic. We 're letting in more poor immigrants when we have unemployment problems already. The door should be slammed shut on poor immigrants and refugees until our situation is better. We should accept wealthy immigrants of course.

This is just idiotic, money doesn't equate enterprise. Take this scenario

Poor people earn less than rich people

Employers don't want to pay more

Employers claim lower wages let them hire more people

More people taking lower wages forces people getting too high wages to take lower wages.

This expands productivity and causes GDP growth.

So the key is simply to make training cost less then hire poor people. Better yet it will keep people on good behaviour knowing that Iqmoud is gonna take their job if they get sloppy.

As such poor immigrants actually IMPROVE the work environment and make Canada more productive. Plus it also creates a boom in consumer goods sector growth, which could allow for more regionalized industry and service sector provision due to increased domestic population.

Canada underwent enormous growth during the Industrial Revolution fueled by poor drunk immigrants, perhaps even your relatives. Poor immigrants are good, and you seem to be perpetuating an uneducated biased position.

The immigration just needs safe gaurds like work camps in the north of Canada.

Accepting rich immigrants is also good of course, but we should be warry of letting all our enterprise being bought out by non loyal individuals. If people are making money in those places, what does it say of them...

The challenge is making sure productivity is directed well enough to prevent shortages in specific required goods and that it matches export capacities and demands, as well as domestic demands and filling import needs competetively to out compete foreign products being imported.

Edited October 19, 2012 by login

[Guest Peeves]

Some here may recall the Tamil boat load of people that claimed refugee status, with more boats then on the way. Our government and theirs had to address the issue that was simply unacceptable. Suddenly faced with housing and supporting and having hearings for over 500 boat people is not in Canada's interest. It was even discovered that war criminals were also in the 500.

Certainly we might not know the cost, but, I am sure it could be calculated and it is unacceptable to entertain a refugee claim when after receiving social assistance the claimant then either returns to their homeland or disappears into the community. No country should be expected to find this acceptable, and, most have changed their rules.

"According to UNHCR estimates, the number of refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe in the first 10 months of 2008, is already approaching the total for the whole of last year – and we are not talking about 26 people.

We’re talking about:

• 30 000 people arrived by boat in Italy
  
• 2600 in Malta
  
• 15 000 in Greece
  
• 10 700 in Spain and the Canary Islands."
  

Edited October 19, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

This is just idiotic, money doesn't equate enterprise. Take this scenario

Poor people earn less than rich people

Employers don't want to pay more

Employers claim lower wages let them hire more people

More people taking lower wages forces people getting too high wages to take lower wages.

This expands productivity and causes GDP growth.

POST TRUNCATED FOR BREVITY IN REPONSE>

The challenge is making sure productivity is directed well enough to prevent shortages in specific required goods and that it matches export capacities and demands, as well as domestic demands and filling import needs competetively to out compete foreign products being imported.

I posted a link on Canada's policy but doubt anyone read same. Still I think our current government is taking the right course in tightening the rules so they reflect our needs in a better way.

http://www.expatforu...-integrity.html

Kenney spoke alongside Mark Harper, the UK Minister of State for Immigration. Delivering his address to an audience composed of border management, immigration, customs and security policy makers and practitioners, he highlighted Canada’s integrity measures in border and migration management.

‘When I became Minister, I was acutely aware that Canada had a reputation, fairly or not, as an international soft touch when it came to immigration and border security. In recent years, we have worked very hard to change this impression. We have done so, in part, by introducing a good number of tough but fair initiatives to bolster the security of our immigration system,’ Kenney explained.

He spoke of the many changes to Canada’s immigration system, including stronger laws to combat human smuggling, reforms to deter unfounded refugee claims and other abuses of the refugee determination system and cracking down on immigration fraud.

He also mentioned the tabling of a new law that would allow Canada to remove foreign criminals more quickly by limiting appeal mechanisms, proposed tougher penalties for those who commit immigration fraud and the introduction of biometric screening of visitors to Canada.

Kenney also told the audience about recent efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse in Canada’s immigration system, including residency fraud and fraudulent asylum claims, help restore Canadians’ faith in the immigration system, which ultimately allows Canada to continue to have the most generous system in the world.

He pointed out that since 2006 the Canadian government has maintained the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history.

‘Canadians are rightly proud of our generous approach to refugee protection. As one example, at a time when other countries are reducing their programmes to resettle refugees from overseas, Canada maintains one of the largest such programmes in the world,’ Kenney said.

It certainly became obvious that our lenient if not entirely irresponsible immigration program was badly in need of a responsible overhaul. Canada and Canadians have every right and expectation for our government and our ministries to do due diligence when allowing anyone to enter for citizenship. Or as a refugee.

Anyone that disputes that had better show good sane, sensible reasons.

[bleeding heart]

From Kenney's remarks:

When I became Minister, I was acutely aware that Canada had a reputation, fairly or not, as an international soft touch when it came to immigration and border security. In recent years, we have worked very hard to change this impression. We have done so, in part, by introducing a good number of tough but fair initiatives to bolster the security of our immigration system,’ Kenney explained.

"We're going to toughen policy to "change the impression"....whether the impression is "fair or not."

Speaking of "good sane, sensible reasons."

Edited October 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

From Kenney's remarks:

"We're going to toughen policy to "change the impression"....whether the impression is "fair or not."

Speaking of "good sane, sensible reasons."

So the impression was to discourage abuse and to be more reasonably akin to other democracies, particularly the USA which shares a common border and might be impacted by those immigrants with an agenda.

As to fair or not, most sensible people would consider the changes fair. Your summation says nothing to the contrary beyond the usual attack dog mentality.

[bleeding heart]

As to fair or not, most sensible people would consider the changes fair.

But Kenney's not so sure.

Your summation says nothing to the contrary beyond the usual attack dog mentality.

Yes, I forgot that you're well known for your civlity and friendliness on this forum.

[Argus]

del

Edited September 28, 2013 by Argus