Swiss referendum on immigration

[Michael Hardner]

Illiterate ?

[-TSS-]

anyone who is questioning canada's immigration system, which allows around 250k people a year, and calling for more restrictions, has very little knowledge on how the immigration system works and canada's severe need for people. not only common sense but also studies show that canada needs to increase immigration even more.

there are programs in canada to encourage kids to go into engineering and sciences, but not enough are. there is a large gap that canadians are not filling. there are many skilled jobs that canadians are not educated to perform. the only way to respond to the need is to bring in qualified foreign workers as temporary workers and giving them a path to become permanent residents.

more importantly is the fact that canada is growing old. the baby boomers are retiring and there aren't enough people taking their spots. canada needs new blood and the only way to do this is by bringing in immigrants. canada already has a pretty tight immigration policy and people who come into canada, are severely filtered before arriving.

The Canadian population is aging. In 2011, the median age in Canada was 39.9 years, meaning that half of the population was older than that and half was younger. In 1971, the median age was 26.2 years.

Seniors make up the fastest-growing age group. This trend is expected to continue for the next several decades due mainly to a below replacement fertility rate (i.e. average number of children per woman), an increase in life expectancy, and the aging of the baby boom generation. In 2011, an estimated 5.0 million Canadians were 65 years of age or older, a number that is expected to double in the next 25 years to reach 10.4 million seniors by 2036. By 2051, about one in four Canadians is expected to be 65 or over.

link

You must try harder. You are posting outdated propaganda which has been debunked ages ago. The idea of solving the problem of ageing population by importing immigrants is a bit like curing hangover by having another drink.

[Michael Hardner]

You must try harder. You are posting outdated propaganda which has been debunked ages ago. The idea of solving the problem of ageing population by importing immigrants is a bit like curing hangover by having another drink.

How so ? Importing young working-age people would seem to be a logical way to address an aging population.

[-TSS-]

How so ? Importing young working-age people would seem to be a logical way to address an aging population.

They don't get older? Besides they have a habit of bringing their own parents over once they have established themselves in the new country.

[Michael Hardner]

They don't get older? Besides they have a habit of bringing their own parents over once they have established themselves in the new country.

Well, even children get older so how is immigration not an answer ?

Why don't you just give me a cite to where this was debunked as you said.

[-TSS-]

The internet is full of examples how importing immigrants is no solution to the problem of ageing population but one of the best ones I have come across is as follows; it is meant to the UK-context but surely applies to any other country:

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/1.24

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, that was a very interesting link. It seems that according to that study the effect can't be countered by immigration but is the net economic benefit still worthwhile for the effects of immigration - .5 PSRs according to the study ?

[Argus]

Yeah, you missed my point. The point is that you embedded a bad assumption in your question is all.

Yes, I've noticed this habit of yours to get upset whenever reality raises its head. So much kinder and gentler in your make believe world, isn't it?

I don't agree with your values here.

No, you don't agree with my judgement. You know nothing about my values.

As opposed to somebody who declares that there is only one legitimate reason to support immigration ? Your viewpoint is so heavily invested in name calling.

Sorry. You don't get to start whining about name calling after you started the name calling. If you can't discuss immigration like an adult I suggest you find topics which don't upset you so much.

As opposed to you, who assumes Bulgarians (?) are welfare addicts, calls immigrants unwashed...

I assumed you at least had taken a modicum of time to look into things before getting on your high, moral horse. Bad assumption on my part. Henceforth, I will presume you know absolutely nothing about the immigration situation in Europe, and what is behind the rising resentment among many Europeans towards open movement. Note I said nothing whatsoever about Bulgarians or Romanians other than that many people in Europe are upset at their movement. They have been the focus of widespread discussions/anxiety before their free movement was permitted, but again, since you know nothing about the topic I suppose I should have explained it more clearly.

You should come to these discussion with clean hands before bawling about the liberal viewpoint.

You mean I should agree with you. Sorry. I don't. I come to these discussions from a purely logical perspective on what works and doesn't, on what is best for a home country or not, or, in this case, what motivates countries in Europe to oppose immigration. You come to these discussions with nothing but emotion, desperate to be the great protector of brown people - even if they're not brown.

[bud]

Well perhaps your right Bud, i do not understand it very well, but i am trying to wrap my head around it.

I don't see it as the only way, many other nations have addressed this problem in many other ways, one is to take those jobs like you mentioned and make the entire schooling process free, . or offer tax relief or cash incentives to grow them, you can throw immigrants at the problem all day, but in 10 years from now you'll be stuck with the same option. I'd be interested in how many jobs Canadians are not educated to do....and what the these jobs are doing about getting kids interested in them ?

i agree that we should nurture our immediate population. however, this takes time. at least a decade to get a response.

what about the immediate needs? one look at all the vacant jobs out there, especially in engineering and in healthcare and you'll see how desperate canada is. shortage of skilled workers is being felt in most developed countries. some countries, such as australia and new zealand have adapted their immigration system in order to attract the highly sought after skilled workers to their countries. canada has also made changes, like for example, only accepting skilled workers who have experience in specific occupations and must score a minimum level in an english test. in alberta, there are headhunting companies from north dakota, where there are new oil drilling projects, and they're basically taking workers back with them by giving them more incentives.

in 2015, canada will start a new immigration program called 'expression of interest' which basically allows provinces to pick who they want from a group of immigrant applicants. they comb through the applicants and match their qualifications with what the province is in need of. this is similar to what new zealand recently started.

I can remember when the government offered tax savings or cuts for having children, worked out well as you can tell the baby boomers out number the current generation, and if memory serves me Quebec still does it....like i said their are other options, why not create a new program for the next generation, one that will encourage them to have more than the 1.5 children, but rather 3 or 4....

one of the reasons parents do not have more children is because it is very expensive, time off work due to having a child means less wages being brought in, and many more ...address some of these problems and just maybe you'll see a raise in population.....being dependent on immigrants offers a quick fix, but not the only fix....

canada already offers incentives for having more children, but it's not working that well. they can offer more money to families who have children, like they have done in japan, but i doubt it will have much of an effect, just like in japan. in many ways, both culturally and economically, japan is an interesting test subject to look at. they have an ageing population and their birthrate continues to decrease, despite the incentives they give families. japan, traditionally an anti-immigration country is facing a demographic collapse. they will either have to open their doors to more immigrants or hope that their robots advance fast enough to take over work that is not being done.

did you know that japan sells more adult diapers than child diapers? strange, i know.

we're lucky to be living where we are. we have a lot of land, a good infrastructure and an abundance of natural resources, which, if used with sustainable methods, can grow into an amazing place. one way to achieve that, is to increase our population and meet the needs of our industries.

i should also add that we have some of the most strict and selective immigration systems in the world. contrary to what some people may think, it is extremely difficult to immigrate to canada. refugees, which only made up a fraction of the yearly immigrants, have basically been shut out by the harper government. parents/grandparents sponsorship had been frozen for almost 2 years and it was opened in january of this year with only a 5000 limit in applicants. other grandparents can come here as visitors, but children who are bringing them in must make enough money and they must purchase private healthcare for them.

[bud]

You must try harder. You are posting outdated propaganda which has been debunked ages ago. The idea of solving the problem of ageing population by importing immigrants is a bit like curing hangover by having another drink.

tss? please. why must you lower yourself into one of those ignorant, superficial groups?

i am posting the latest information from statistics canada. those are real numbers of our population and where we're heading. even jason kenney, who was until recently, the immigration minister, has talked about these numbers. none of the numbers have been debunked and you're simply talking out of your ass.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I've noticed this habit of yours to get upset whenever reality raises its head. So much kinder and gentler in your make believe world, isn't it?

No, that's not accurate. Provide me with some facts and I will adjust my viewpoint if it's at odds with reality.

No, you don't agree with my judgement. You know nothing about my values.

This is a value statement: "The only legitimate one in support is the importation of specific skills which are in short supply."

Another person can see legitimate reasons for more immigration such as charity, but for you to say that that isn't legitimate is a reflection of your values, not a fact.

Sorry. You don't get to start whining about name calling after you started the name calling. If you can't discuss immigration like an adult I suggest you find topics which don't upset you so much.

Please show where I did this, and I'll recant it if it is so. The only thing I can remember doing is giving an example of an assumptive question, and I even explained that I didn't agree with the embedded statement.

They have been the focus of widespread discussions/anxiety before their free movement was permitted, but again, since you know nothing about the topic I suppose I should have explained it more clearly.

The issue here is that you made a generalization of the liberal viewpoint, as being somehow biased against Anglos, while making statements against Bulgarians. My issue is that you made generalizations about liberals, but you seem to think you should have provided a cite for Bulgarians being ... I don't know ... vagabonds.

You mean I should agree with you. Sorry. I don't. I come to these discussions from a purely logical perspective on what works and doesn't, on what is best for a home country or not, or, in this case, what motivates countries in Europe to oppose immigration.

Then show your work. Don't come here and make arrogant statements about the only valid reason for immigration, then trumpet your steely logic when I correctly call your statements out as reflecting your values.

[eyeball]

I think, there are other options out there aside from increasing our immigration numbers. And sooner or later we are going to have to either increase our population or face reality that Candians will eventually get a new face, new culture, new everything...

Well that is one of the problems we have in this country, Jobs are leaving because labour is cheaper else where, cheaper labor means higher profit margins for companies, with very little trickling down to the consumer....Now we want to bring in the cheaper labor to further eliminate these jobs nobody wants sounds like a good policy to me..sounds like the solution....are we saying that Canadians can not do these jobs? or are we telling immigrants these are the only jobs you can have....

We're caving to the desires of the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet - we're saying they can do whatever they want.

[cybercoma]

Illiterate ?

Sometimes these discussion aren't even worth having.

[Army Guy]

i agree that we should nurture our immediate population. however, this takes time. at least a decade to get a response.

what about the immediate needs? one look at all the vacant jobs out there, especially in engineering and in healthcare and you'll see how desperate canada is. shortage of skilled workers is being felt in most developed countries. some countries, such as australia and new zealand have adapted their immigration system in order to attract the highly sought after skilled workers to their countries. canada has also made changes, like for example, only accepting skilled workers who have experience in specific occupations and must score a minimum level in an english test. in alberta, there are headhunting companies from north dakota, where there are new oil drilling projects, and they're basically taking workers back with them by giving them more incentives.

in 2015, canada will start a new immigration program called 'expression of interest' which basically allows provinces to pick who they want from a group of immigrant applicants. they comb through the applicants and match their qualifications with what the province is in need of. this is similar to what new zealand recently started.

canada already offers incentives for having more children, but it's not working that well. they can offer more money to families who have children, like they have done in japan, but i doubt it will have much of an effect, just like in japan. in many ways, both culturally and economically, japan is an interesting test subject to look at. they have an ageing population and their birthrate continues to decrease, despite the incentives they give families. japan, traditionally an anti-immigration country is facing a demographic collapse. they will either have to open their doors to more immigrants or hope that their robots advance fast enough to take over work that is not being done.

did you know that japan sells more adult diapers than child diapers? strange, i know.

we're lucky to be living where we are. we have a lot of land, a good infrastructure and an abundance of natural resources, which, if used with sustainable methods, can grow into an amazing place. one way to achieve that, is to increase our population and meet the needs of our industries.

i should also add that we have some of the most strict and selective immigration systems in the world. contrary to what some people may think, it is extremely difficult to immigrate to canada. refugees, which only made up a fraction of the yearly immigrants, have basically been shut out by the harper government. parents/grandparents sponsorship had been frozen for almost 2 years and it was opened in january of this year with only a 5000 limit in applicants. other grandparents can come here as visitors, but children who are bringing them in must make enough money and they must purchase private healthcare for them.

Yes our government has offered several programs, like offering both parents time off work to be with their infants, but do not pay the full wage to cover off while they are away, not sure of the % they do cover i think it's around 75%....but they do allow almost a full year off of work plus parents can split that time off if they feel like it ...this system could be improved even further, bringing the payout to 100 % of current wage, or beyond....Like you said it has become a crisses that requires immigration to make up the short fall.

Another program is the Child tax benifit, currently available to those who's income is below a certain level....this could be revamped to make it available to all Canadians or perhaps increase it's value....

Child daycare program , this is proably one of the largest cost a new family occurs during the early years, in todays enviroment the majority of parents are both working to be able to sustain a moderate living standard....in know this was a election promise years back, but have not been tracking currently, a new program that addresses this or atleast assists with these cost could make couples re think family plans....

I know that Canada has the room to expand, and that we could easily fit in millions upon millions of new immigrants but at what cost....someone said that we allow in a 1/4 of a million a year, ,

[Army Guy]

We're caving to the desires of the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet - we're saying they can do whatever they want.

Your right on the money, we the consumer allow them to get away with it , because we think we are getting better prices for our products...or so the big companies say ....but at what cost do we allow this to happen, well fewer jobs, meaning fewer people to share the taxs with....our manufacture and industrial complex is disappearing, every thing is made in China, I think we allow it to happen because we are as greedy as they are....Canadians need to buy local, even if it is more expensive....but it takes disipline to do that.

[Rue]

To the poster who asked me where I got my population numbers from I actually I got the info from Chinese students who corrected me when I said 1.4 billion. They say it is an openly accepted fact in their country that they are over 2 billion and maybe as high as 2.5 or 2.8 because of people hidden from the estimates or not detected when the population census is taken..

I have been told by colleagues in India there is no way anyone can say there population is less than a billion and for all they know its far higher because

they believe the amount of inaccuracy is as much as 30% or 40% i.e.,40 people missed per 100 people registered.

Oh I read the population numbers. It depends what you read. I think the population reports from China and India are way off base because once you hit a billion people, its no longer possible to be accurate. The notion you can even accurately get to a billion is silly.

Yes I see those little numbers moving every 10 seconds for a birth.

Whatever number we use, China and India have no water and food for their people. That and the continuing famines and desertification in large parts of

Africa and Asia are causing huge population movements to Europe and North America.

The no.l reason for population movement is climate. Its naïve to think people will sit where they are without water or food.

The exodus out of Africa through Spain prthrough Tunisia to Italy, etc., is at a point where the Italian government is in crisis and so is Europe.

Canada and many other countries are going to put up walls as more and more people look for food and water but have no skills.

[Argus]

i should also add that we have some of the most strict and selective immigration systems in the world. contrary to what some people may think, it is extremely difficult to immigrate to canada.

And you base this on what, exactly? You have comparative information about how hard it is to immigrate to, say, England or Germany or Norway?

[Argus]

tss? please. why must you lower yourself into one of those ignorant, superficial groups?

i am posting the latest information from statistics canada. those are real numbers of our population and where we're heading. even jason kenney, who was until recently, the immigration minister, has talked about these numbers. none of the numbers have been debunked and you're simply talking out of your ass.

Jason Kenney is a politician. You're not going to find honesty from him. The Conservatives support immigration because it would create a firestorm if they opposed it. However, all the demographic analyses I've seen say that immigration cannot address falling birth rates. Nor did the statistics you quote state otherwise. In fact, I've seen suggstions that the high immiration levels help bring about lower birth rates.

The noted French-Canadian demographer Jacques Henripin (1988) examined the consequences of such a plan, that is, to build up the population of Quebec through high levels of immigration. His conclusion was simple. The plan would not work! His reasoning was straightforward. At the level of immigration necessary to restore population growth to past rates, the effect would be to change the composition of that which its proposers sought to protect. By the early decades of the twenty-first century, he predicted that at these levels of inflow the foreign-born arrivals would dominate the population. For example, at levels of inflow that would eliminate the fertility deficit, the population of Montreal Island by mid twenty-first century would be 60% foreign-born. It was his contention that such inflows would have a profound effect on the cultural or ethnic or language composition of the host region/country.

http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Immigration%20and%20an%20aging/what-is-the-role-of-immigration-in-canadas-future-alan-g-green-mcgill-queens-university-press.pdf

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86I27UJJ_BwJ:https://www.fraserinstitute.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D4062+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

[Argus]

No, that's not accurate. Provide me with some facts and I will adjust my viewpoint if it's at odds with reality.

Your viewpoint appears to me to be that anyone who has any opposition to immigration derives their motivation from racism. I don't see how I can adjust that viewpoint. As for facts, they've been prsented numerous times in the past, and while not questioning them, you continue to suggest racism every time the immigration question arises. I see no likelihood of that changing, regadless of how much information is presented.

This is a value statement: "The only legitimate one in support is the importation of specific skills which are in short supply."

Another person can see legitimate reasons for more immigration such as charity, but for you to say that that isn't legitimate is a reflection of your values, not a fact.

The concept of 'charity' in immigration goes to that paternalistic liberal bigotry I mentioned earlier, a suggestion that we magnanimously lift up the unwashed from their nasty hellholes and out of the goodness of our righteous, noble hearts, allow them to live amongst us.

The only legitimate reason to endorse a massively expensive, complex nastional program to bring millions of people into Canada would be that those people are economically neccessary or beneficial to this country's well-being. No such evidence has ever been presented by the government. In fact, to my knowledge, the government has never made any scientific, economic or sociological studies to determine why we have immigration at the levels we have them. That is because immigration is a political program, not really intended to be beneficial to Canada.

Please show where I did this, and I'll recant it if it is so. The only thing I can remember doing is giving an example of an assumptive question, and I even explained that I didn't agree with the embedded statement.

You immediately raised racism in response to my statement about what Canada's reaction would be if large numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians started driving into Canada. I found that insulting and ignorant, the kind of knee-jerk response you've displayed before on immigration. Every time, you demand evidence. Every time evidence is presented. But your mindset changes not in the slightest. Your position has always been that the only motivation for opposing immigration is racism, and that anyone who opposes immigration is a racist.

The issue here is that you made a generalization of the liberal viewpoint, as being somehow biased against Anglos,

That's not an issue. The issue is immigration. And my statement was that liberals are inherently ignorant about immigration, and support it because it 'feels good' to them, stroking their ego as noble and generous people.

while making statements against Bulgarians.

I made no statements against Bulgarians. But don't let that stop you mounting your white charger, and nobly coming to their defense. They need your help, after all, poor things.

My issue is that you made generalizations about liberals, but you seem to think you should have provided a cite for Bulgarians being ... I don't know ... vagabonds.

My statements was about your ignorance about the topic under discussion, nor did I make any accusations against Bulgarians or anyone else. I was merely using them as a frame of reference given the long discussions about them and the fears of being innundated by their people which has been taking place in Europe.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/amid-eu-immigration-fears-romanians-bulgarians-gain-full-rights-to-jobs-20140101-hv7af.html

[Michael Hardner]

Your viewpoint appears to me to be that anyone who has any opposition to immigration derives their motivation from racism.

I don't think that is true. If I see a racist viewpoint in an argument, I will point it out but I don't assume that such an attitude drives all such views.

I don't see how I can adjust that viewpoint. As for facts, they've been prsented numerous times in the past, and while not questioning them, you continue to suggest racism every time the immigration question arises. I see no likelihood of that changing, regadless of how much information is presented.

If you can find an example where I called out somebody for racist without reason then please do so. I make the best efforts to not make any assumptions, and certainly not assuming that someone I don't know is racist.

The concept of 'charity' in immigration goes to that paternalistic liberal bigotry I mentioned earlier, a suggestion that we magnanimously lift up the unwashed from their nasty hellholes and out of the goodness of our righteous, noble hearts, allow them to live amongst us.

The only legitimate reason to endorse a massively expensive, complex nastional program to bring millions of people into Canada would be that those people are economically neccessary or beneficial to this country's well-being.

You responded to my assertion that you made a value statement by making another value statement, but I thought you were saying that you're making fact based arguments ? Just repeating your value statement doesn't move us forward here.

You immediately raised racism in response to my statement about what Canada's reaction would be if large numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians started driving into Canada.

No I did not. I said this:

I reject the premise of your question anyway. Here's a similar question on the other side:

"If immigration opponents expressed their racist thoughts, how many Canadians would see that immigration laws are simply based on negative stereotypes ?"

I don't accept that question either.

I was trying to show you how someone would embed a false assumption in a question from the other side, in the same way you did with your supposition. Note my final sentence in the post above.

That seems to be what is driving you to make an accusation that I do this. Again, I didn't do it with that post and I'm not aware that I do it generally.

That's not an issue. The issue is immigration.

Actually, your style of argument is indeed the issue and you can't just discount it - especially after explaining how you use fact-based arguments etc.

I made no statements against Bulgarians.

Ok, upon rereading it, I will take that back. There was an assumption in your question but the people of Europe are making assumptions, not you. Fair enough.

My statements was about your ignorance about the topic under discussion

If the anti-immigrant gang here largely fails to provide cites, then perhaps that's why I'm ignorant as to their reasoning.

[bud]

For example, at levels of inflow that would eliminate the fertility deficit, the population of Montreal Island by mid twenty-first century would be 60% foreign-born. It was his contention that such inflows would have a profound effect on the cultural or ethnic or language composition of the host region/country.

finally, the real reasons of this fear of immigration is coming out.

there is no way of stopping the always changing cultural and ethnic makeup of majority of countries. this is especially true for a country like canada, which is only 200 years old.

you will not be able to keep canada white. the whites are not having enough children and studies have shown that no amount of incentives will change this. you have to understand that the economical and cultural system that has been created in canada discourage people from having more than 2 children, which is what you need in order to increase the population. people are marrying later and having less children. it's a reality that cannot be changed.

the fastest growing immigrant population in canada are the philippinos. this is because they are doing jobs that others in canada do not want to do. this is about supply and demand. they are the mexicans of canada. there is no way of stopping this, because no one else is willing to work for minimum wage to work at fast food restaurants, cleaning hotels and working as helpers at hospitals. they are also having more children because they don't think they need to have a bedroom for each person in the family. they don't think they need to have more than one car. they raise their children together, as opposed to what most whites do, which is alone and far away from family.

reality is in front of us. one visit to a hospital and you will see how the doctors are mostly first or second generation immigrants. indians, chinese, persians. the engineers, the same thing. go to a university and see who is studying to become an engineer or a doctor. ride the train in vancouver, toronto and montreal and you will see what canada really is.

canada does not belong to the natives and it does not belong to the whites. it belongs to whoever that is willing to put an effort to being here and contribute to society.

[overthere]

The Swiss are not a good example of anything to do with immigration. The numbers admitted for any reason are small, It is not easy to get residency there, and citizenship is really hard to get for anybody.

They are xenophobes compared to most Western democracies.

[guyser]

the fastest growing immigrant population in canada are the philippinos filipinos.

FIFY

(and dont call them flips either)

Edited February 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[-TSS-]

The Swiss are not a good example of anything to do with immigration. The numbers admitted for any reason are small, It is not easy to get residency there, and citizenship is really hard to get for anybody.

They are xenophobes compared to most Western democracies.

About 25% of the Swiss population are foreign-born. The highest rate in Europe.

[Rue]

TSS that was interesting. I forgot all about that in Switzerland than 25% of their population is now foreigner.I have a solution, give all the stolen.laundered money back to the countries where it was plundered from and those 25% will go back home and try live off it there instead.

I am no fan of Switzerland. Its whole creation was built on stolen money.

Now in regards to changing demography, the sheer numbers of people who are Chinese and Indian by itself is causing a shift, The world is shrinking and as it does the different peoples are going to start breeding more and more until we are all one mocha java people.

I am not sure how that can be stopped.

As for Bud's white conspiracies with Argus he of course missed the point. Argus may not win any politically correct awards but he is far more honest and direct about this debate than some. The reality is as the demography shifts due to climate and weather and politics, cultures are going to clash and no as much as Bud thinks white people are xenophobic what white people and all people are concerned about is not people turning mocha java but people who express views like Bud's about whites or anyone else.

As our population changes, people will want to come here and bring their values with them and as Canadians surely we have a right to say, certain values we don't want here. You want to be fundamentalist extremist preaching hatred, get the phack out.

White people? I know as many non white people just as concerned as to the kinds of values Bud advocates in this and other discussions on this forum.

None of us like extremists.

I have no problem Argus living next door and telling me not to run around naked and chant at the moon late at night.

At least I know he states that not based out of hatred but his need for sleep.

I think Canada has to look at its immigration policy. Its a mess. Its not coordinated with the needs of provinces and we are not doing immigrants a faviur having them come over here and fail to assimilate because of unrealistic expectations.