What unites Canadians?

[Michael Hardner]

You think I haven't looked? You will find bland, cheerful statements about how wonderful immigration is and how it does this or does that. But nothing in the way of actual economic analyses other than the one from the Fraser Institute.

Here you go:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=economics+of+immigration&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl

Did the Fraser Institute report list any benefits at all ?

I have worked in government for years. EVERY program has to have clear-set goals, costing, and measurable results.

Uh.... no. I worked for the government and there were no point to a lot of what I did, so I think you're trumping this up.

And is that supposed to be what you're doing as our Facilitator? Isn't the One True Law which comes down from on high to be to play the ball and not the man, to deal with the question and not to insinuate motivations to the person who poses the question?

Well, I am supposed to be promoting discussion. I also participate in discussions and when we argue around something and you evade questions beyond a certain point, then - yes - I have a right to question your motives. I don't call you nicknames, though, or claim you have a 'shitick'.

you have never accepted that Canada should alter its immigration to suit ITS best interests, as opposed to the best interests of would-be immigrants.

I have never said that. You're putting arguments on me, presumably because you don't have anything better to add.

What I have said is that it's in Canada's interest to have immigration, according to economic orthodoxy. I'm more than willing to entertain arguments against immigration that run deeper than "I don't like immigrants".

It's hard to believe you approach discussions on this with anything like openness.

Except that I answer questions, as opposed to your refusal to explain your "Why are Muslim countries violent ?" question. You implied that a certain religion causes one to be violent, then refused to complete the thought.

And if you want me to deal respectfully with you try playing the ball, right?

I can deal with you respectfully, even if you think I have a 'shitick'...

[dre]

You think I haven't looked? You will find bland, cheerful statements about how wonderful immigration is and how it does this or does that. But nothing in the way of actual economic analyses other than the one from the Fraser Institute.

And the Howe Institute, and the Economic Council Of Canada, and DRI-McGraw Hill Inc, and the Royal Bank of Canada...

Theres pretty strong concensus that a rapidly declining would be problematic for our economy, and unless Canadians start having kids immigration is the only other option.

[Argus]

And neither is Newfoundland.

And for that matter, neither is Alberta.

Drivel. The people of Newfoundland and Alberta are proudly Canadian. Have you ever been to either province?

What you are really saying Argus is that Ontario is not Canada. [sarcasm]Wow.[/sarcasm]

Maybe you need to improve your English. What I said was that QUEBEC is not, emotionally, a part of Canada.

And why does a proud separatist find that to be something worthy of a snippy response?

The fact is that Canada is the 21st century, new World version of the 19th century Austrian-Hungarian empire - without the burden of history.

Uh, if you leave aside the fact we're a democracy and that we don't have any conquered parts of an empire, then... no, no, Canada still isn't the 21st century version of the Austro Hungarian empire. I have no idea what you're on about.

Canada is proof that a bilingual, multicutural state can exist and thrive.

I've said it before, and no one has really contradicted me. The INSTANT Quebec feels it doesn't need Canada economically it will be out the door.

If Quebec discovered oil like Alberta, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland, and someone suggested they share that with Canada their heads would explode!

Edited July 3, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Did the Fraser Institute report list any benefits at all ?

Of course there are benefits. How many benefits and what type of benefits depends upon what type of immigrants you bring over. Obviously skilled immigrants with the qualifications and language skills to work in Canada will provide a lot more benefits than the great mass of immigrants we get - which are unskilled immigrants from the third world who don't speak much, if any English. Bear in mind I'm counting all immigrants, not just those who come in under the family reunification program and refugee program but the families of skilled immigrants.

Bear in mind that even jobs like farming, tradesmen and logging now make extensive use of technology. We are in an era of technology and communication skills. These are what command high salaries. Immigrants from the third world typically fare poorly in these (and yes, there are exceptions). Which is why they command progressively lower wages than immigrants of decades past.

Uh.... no. I worked for the government and there were no point to a lot of what I did, so I think you're trumping this up.

What did you do in government? I was a program officer. Every time we wanted to bring in a new program there was reams of paperwork to get done to justify the spending (I did some of this myself). And oversight is something of a fetish with the public service now. You need to measure the value of even your ongoing program in order to justify keeping it. Managers need to justify what they do to justify staff and budgets, and so on up the ladder.

Well, I am supposed to be promoting discussion. I also participate in discussions and when we argue around something and you evade questions beyond a certain point, then - yes - I have a right to question your motives. I don't call you nicknames, though, or claim you have a 'shitick'.

Really? You actually weren't part of this discussion prior to today, and your very first post was talking about my motivation.

What I have said is that it's in Canada's interest to have immigration, according to economic orthodoxy. I'm more than willing to entertain arguments against immigration that run deeper than "I don't like immigrants".

And when have I ever said I don't like immigrants? That's simply the kant spilled out by the Left towards anyone who questions the value, the efficiency, the effectiveness or the sense of our immigration system. For one thing, I've never said we should eliminate immigration. I've said we should be far more careful about who we let in. And yes, that includes favoring people from some parts of the world due to demonstrated facts regarding the economic success of immigrants from those parts of the world. And that success varies widely even on the same continents. I'm guessing, but I would suggest that certain cultures have more drive and fare better here because of that.

Except that I answer questions, as opposed to your refusal to explain your "Why are Muslim countries violent ?" question. You implied that a certain religion causes one to be violent, then refused to complete the thought.

Oh brother. Are you still on that? Yes, I suggested there was a pretty heavy correlation between Muslim populations and religious violence, to which you had no good response other than to doggedly pursue a line of discussion regarding economic failure in Africa. I don't know why, but you seemed to think this was a brilliant bit of comparison even though I frankly thought it was completely irrelevant and explained why.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

And the Howe Institute, and the Economic Council Of Canada, and DRI-McGraw Hill Inc, and the Royal Bank of Canada...

Theres pretty strong concensus that a rapidly declining would be problematic for our economy, and unless Canadians start having kids immigration is the only other option.

Actually, there isn't. The average age of immigrants and the average age of Canadians (native born) is not dissimilar. I have seen some pretty strong statements from demographers that in order to actually counterbalance the aging trend and the low birthrate we would to bring in massive numbers of immigrants, like four or five times what we do now, and that would really just basically be replacing Canadians with foreigners. Further, there would not be a rapid decline. The decline I've seen would be extremely gradual. Basically, if we completely halted immigration, the population would continue to rise for a couple of decades, then level off, then over the following decades, begin to slowly decline. Not that I'm advocating a complete stop to immigration, btw.

And anyway, this is just more stupid laziness on the part of government. It's like instead of training Canadians to fill skilled jobs they bring over temps. Only here, instead of trying to understand what is influencing lower birth rates and moving to counter them they just bring in masses of foreigners.

[On Guard for Thee]

Except we're not bilingual.

A couple of pieces of Canada are bilingual, the Canada as a "state" is not.

Oh yes it is.

[jacee]

oh yes it is!

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry, but I made it through the "feel good" ads and then really tried to listen to that garbage. Made it to 3:00 and then all I wanted was to stab myself with a styptic pencil.

That has to be some of the worst radio I've ever heard. Our tax dollars paid for that?

Perhaps your sense of humor is more slanted toward FOX where you are fed pablum from the Corp. com.

[jacee]

And some who are just plain smarter than you are,

You're not smarter than anyone here Argus.

You just get insulting when you're losing.

.

[Bob Macadoo]

You're not smarter than anyone here Argus.

You just get insulting when you're losing.

.

That is the cold hard truth.

[jacee]

Yes I think by now we've figured out that whatever it is that unites Canadians ... well it isn't Argus.

Chris Hadfield & brother have some thoughts:

[Michael Hardner]

Of course there are benefits. How many benefits and white type of benefits depends upon what type of immigrants you bring over.

White type of benefits ? Dr. Freud is here with a nice couch for you to lie on...

Obviously skilled immigrants with the qualifications and language skills to work in Canada will provide a lot more benefits than the great mass of immigrants we get

Ok.

What did you do in government? I was a program officer.

I worked in IT, as a student. Justification and oversight was political, and though there were numbers used to justify, none of it was real or traceable. It was all political and pretend.

Really? You actually weren't part of this discussion prior to today, and your very first post was talking about my motivation.

It's not the first time we've discussed this topic.

And when have I ever said I don't like immigrants?

I didn't say that you said this.

And yes, that includes favoring people from some parts of the world due to demonstrated facts regarding the economic success of immigrants from those parts of the world.

You've gone beyond that to advocate for reducing immigrants from certain religious groups.

And that success varies widely even on the same continents. I'm guessing, but I would suggest that certain cultures have more drive and fare better here because of that.

Oh brother. Are you still on that? Yes, I suggested there was a pretty heavy correlation between Muslim populations and religious violence, to which you had no good response other than to doggedly pursue a line of discussion regarding economic failure in Africa. I don't know why, but you seemed to think this was a brilliant bit of comparison even though I frankly thought it was completely irrelevant and explained why.

You didn't explain why that religion causes people to behave badly. The example of colonialism that I used in my analogy could easily apply to places like Iran and Iraq and the middle east where countries were conquered, and managed remotely to ensure stability for the economic interests of the US. But you are fixated on the idea of being prejudicial based on someone's religion - regardless of other factors. It's not reasonable.

[-1=e^ipi]

You've gone beyond that to advocate for reducing immigrants from certain religious groups.

Is that necessarily bad? I'd rather have less people that believe in crazy fairy tales. Especially if their beliefs go so far that they do not respect Canadian law or want to cause violence.

[-1=e^ipi]

Chris Hadfield & brother have some thoughts:

Oh look, some middle-aged privileged white people talking about the past. Very little of their video resembles my life.

[PIK]

Many nations. And.... didn't you just say the FN ARE Europeans ?

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/12/03/dna-shows-ancient-european-link-to-north-american-aboriginals/

[PIK]

Oh look, some middle-aged privileged white people talking about the past. Very little of their video resembles my life.

How about a white guy that worked hard to get where he is now. Are you non white or just suffering from white man's guilt?

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/12/03/dna-shows-ancient-european-link-to-north-american-aboriginals/

They share some European DNA, and Siberian too. Not the same as saying they're Europeans.

[Argus]

You're not smarter than anyone here Argus.

You just get insulting when you're losing.

.

And you start out shrill, ignorant and unpleasant and then just go downhill from there.

[Argus]

I worked in IT, as a student.

Okay, then you never worked for government, really. Students know nothing about how programs are justified, or what kind of documentation has to be drawn up, what meetings are held, and what approvals are needed to spend money.

It's not the first time we've discussed this topic.

That's irrelevent.

You've gone beyond that to advocate for reducing immigrants from certain religious groups.

Yes, it's called judgement. You look at how groups performs over the years, and decide which of them is performing better and which aren't, then favour those performing better.

Economic performance of immigrants to Canada broken down by country of origin...

http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

You didn't explain why that religion causes people to behave badly.

People who are zealous in pursuit of their religion will behave accordingly. When that religion is extremely intolerent, to the point of not merely disrespect but violence towards non-believers or offenders of its code of conduct then the followers are going to be trouble. This is not rocket science. In addition, if you check the cite I reposted above, you'll find the economic performance of immigrants from the middle east is worse than amost all other immigrants. Pakistan isn't much better.

The example of colonialism that I used in my analogy could easily apply to places like Iran and Iraq and the middle east where countries were conquered,

Using that as an excuse might work if every country which had been colonized was filled with violence. They're not. . . With rare exceptions all the most violent ex-colonies are Muslim countries. And those rare exceptions are normally related to intertribal fighting or crime. The violence in Muslim countries is usually religious in nature.

And in Western countries? What major social issues have we seen with regard to immigrants? I personally can't think of a country with a large number of Muslim immigrants who haven't experienced issues with Muslim terrorism and violence. We've so far escaped the riots of the UK, France and Sweden, and police have interupted would-be terrorist groups, but then our Muslim % is still low, though they're doubling every ten years. Can you think of any other immigrant group which has caused the same difficulties throughout the West? Any group at all? Any religion at all?

If we're going to bring in immigrants they ought to be the immigrants who are most likely to adapt and thrive here, and become productive citizens. Why does that concept alarm so many on the Left? You always assume it's about colour. I would rather bring in a million Japanese than a hundred thousand Arabs.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Using that as an excuse might work if every country which had been colonized was filled with violence. They're not. . . With rare exceptions all the most violent ex-colonies are Muslim countries. And those rare exceptions are normally related to intertribal fighting or crime. The violence in Muslim countries is usually religious in nature.

Not an excuse but a reason. You only need an excuse if you're blaming, and blaming groups of people is fraught with logical problems. If you take the time to look at places like Iraq and Iran and how they ended up where they are today then you will see there are reasons, just as there are for Africa's poverty and lack of productivity.

If you were objective about looking at these things then you wouldn't focus on one group.

Can you think of any other immigrant group which has caused the same difficulties throughout the West? Any group at all? Any religion at all?

Blaming groups isn't new. It's been done with the Irish, with African Americans... Again, I submit that the same criteria could be used in other circumstances and most would find the conclusions to be racist. I don't point this out to make a moral judgement on the conclusions, but to point out that groups encounter challenges based on many factors. To blame them is equally incorrect as to deny such differences exist.

If we're going to bring in immigrants they ought to be the immigrants who are most likely to adapt and thrive here, and become productive citizens. Why does that concept alarm so many on the Left? You always assume it's about colour. I would rather bring in a million Japanese than a hundred thousand Arabs.

I'm not alarmed by the concept, and I don't assume it's about colour - that's an analogy. If you can get a million Japanese to come here, then that would probably be a good thing for Canada but people are generally motivated to leave worse situations for better ones. That's why we're all here, right ?

[Argus]

Not an excuse but a reason. You only need an excuse if you're blaming, and blaming groups of people is fraught with logical problems. If you take the time to look at places like Iraq and Iran and how they ended up where they are today then you will see there are reasons, just as there are for Africa's poverty and lack of productivity.

Is this a response to what I wrote? You ignored my point about violence being a Muslim nation thing.

If you were objective about looking at these things then you wouldn't focus on one group.

Here's an idea. Why am I focussing on that particular group? I'm not a very religious person, by and large. So why am I focussing on them? It couldn't be due to their observed behaviour pattern, could it?

Blaming groups isn't new. It's been done with the Irish, with African Americans... Again, I submit that the same criteria could be used in other circumstances and most would find the conclusions to be racist. I don't point this out to make a moral judgement on the conclusions, but to point out that groups encounter challenges based on many factors. To blame them is equally incorrect as to deny such differences exist.

Another bland, politician-type answer which evades a direct response to my question.

I'm not alarmed by the concept, and I don't assume it's about colour - that's an analogy. If you can get a million Japanese to come here, then that would probably be a good thing for Canada but people are generally motivated to leave worse situations for better ones. That's why we're all here, right ?

I was born here.

Yes, people tend to come here to improve their lives, to come from a 'worse' situation. In fact, that was one of the main reasons for widening our immigrant target group in the sixties. There weren't enough people from an economically improved Western Europe who wanted to come here (Eastern Europeans not being permitted to come). I submit that due to economic circumstances and turmoil in a number of European countries right now Canada could redirect its efforts to Europe with considerable success.

Tons of Europeans speak English, have compatible educations, and come from societies similar to ours, and they come with a lot less cultural and religious baggage. Further, the economic prospects for young in many European countries, inc Ireland, France and Spain and Italy, are pretty damned bad right now.

What makes more sense, bringing in a bunch of young, university educated Europeans, or a bunch of middle aged third world people with familes who speak no English and whose lack of skills will likely make them a permanent burden on our government?

Edited July 3, 2014 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Is this a response to what I wrote? You ignored my point about violence being a Muslim nation thing.

What do you want me to say ? I can post you murder rates by country, as I have done in the past, and you come back with a different definition of violence to reinforce your preconceived idea that they're worse.

Here's an idea. Why am I focussing on that particular group? I'm not a very religious person, by and large. So why am I focussing on them? It couldn't be due to their observed behaviour pattern, could it?

Maybe because you're not religious ? I don't know - only you can answer that. You're an intelligent person, and your response is reasonable but it doesn't withstand analysis. People should be judged on individual merits, and they should pledge to uphold the values of the country they're coming to. That should take care of most of your concerns about violence.

Another bland, politician-type answer which evades a direct response to my question.

Sometimes bland is the the way to go.

Yes, people tend to come here to improve their lives, to come from a 'worse' situation. In fact, that was one of the main reasons for widening our immigrant target group in the sixties. There weren't enough people from an economically improved Western Europe who wanted to come here (Eastern Europeans not being permitted to come). I submit that due to economic circumstances and turmoil in a number of European countries right now Canada could redirect its efforts to Europe with considerable success.

Tons of Europeans speak English, have compatible educations, and come from societies similar to ours, and they come with a lot less cultural and religious baggage. Further, the economic prospects for young in many European countries, inc Ireland, France and Spain and Italy, are pretty damned bad right now.

What makes more sense, bringing in a bunch of young, university educated Europeans, or a bunch of middle aged third world people with familes who speak no English and whose lack of skills will likely make them a permanent burden on our government?

It's a false choice. There aren't a million British or French citizens interested in coming here. If I'm wrong then let me know, and I will change my stance on this.

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you non white or just suffering from white man's guilt?

Neither. I just felt like the video doesn't represent Canada as it is today and I dislike the idea of people trying to define what it is to be 'Canadian'. The population of Canada is too diverse to define.

[guyser]

I dislike the idea of people trying to define what it is to be 'Canadian'. The population of Canada is too diverse to define.

We arent. We are discussing our shared values for the most part.

Being Canadian is easy.

Be born here.

Get Citizenship after a few years if not born here. Voila.

But things like , cautious, pragmatic , non boastful, forgiving, studious are all things we mostly share.

Oh and we say 'sorry ' a lot.

[PIK]

Neither. I just felt like the video doesn't represent Canada as it is today and I dislike the idea of people trying to define what it is to be 'Canadian'. The population of Canada is too diverse to define.

Good pt, but really ,if you work hard, abide by the rules of the country ,treat your fellow man with respect, and do not kill in the name of the lord, and be polite , you are Canadian. LOL.