PoliticalAtheist Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Yes but as you well know our government actually caters to the interests of people well above our pay-grade - our interests are clearly outweighed by people with more influence than you or me. Perhaps a better question would be what's in it for our so-called representatives? You and me are just Earthlings, cogs in an economic world which is practically border-less for money and corporations seeking to improve their lives. Why it shouldn't be just as border-less for human beings is beyond me, after all we're people too. Incidentally... Corporations are people, I assure you none of them are owned by aliens or cyborgs... Quote
guyser Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 When people speak a language you don't understand, do you not feel excluded?No, not in my own office. If I speak, they switch to English. It poses no problems at all. If you are at someone's house and they're all speaking French or Chinese, don't you just sit there with a stupid smile on your face, wondering what they're saying, wishing they would speak English, and maybe checking your watch as you imagine being somewhere else?Not really. Its a social courtesy and one that is extended to me. If I walk into the room, they switch back. Unless one of the kids is in trouble and my Latin sis-in-law is allhotheaded about something...then its always spanish. I get the gist of what she says anyhow, so no worries. How do you/would you feel if you were sitting at a table speaking to two Chinese people, and a third Chinese person sits down and all three start speaking Chinese? Do you sit there pretending to understand or do you get up and walk away?I dont have rude friends. Quote
Argus Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Incidentally... Corporations are people, I assure you none of them are owned by aliens or cyborgs... Do they vote? Do we put a corporation in prison for breaking the law? I don't think corporations are people. They are institutions. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 No, not in my own office. If I speak, they switch to English. It poses no problems at all. Not really. Its a social courtesy and one that is extended to me. If I walk into the room, they switch back. Unless one of the kids is in trouble and my Latin sis-in-law is allhotheaded about something...then its always spanish. I get the gist of what she says anyhow, so no worries. I dont have rude friends. Well, I can tell you that during my years in government I experienced such things on too many occasions to even count. Once was actually at a table at a restaurant where my colleagues had taken me for my birthday, believe it or not. I can remember actually considering just leaving in the middle. It certainly happened innumerable times at meetings, and at lunch. On more than one occasion I chased them out of my office, after waiting a decent amount of time for them to switch back to English. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Incidentally... Corporations are people, I assure you none of them are owned by aliens or cyborgs... Regardless, we encourage them to operate and move about the world as freely as possible and make it as border less as we can for them. Alienating human beings seems downright inhumane not too mention unequal. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
PoliticalAtheist Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Do they vote? Do we put a corporation in prison for breaking the law? I don't think corporations are people. They are institutions. no you can't put a corporation in jail... you can only put the people operating it in jail... likewise when a corporation pays taxes... who pays it? the walls of the building of the coporation? no, they come directly from the leadership operating the corporation... Corporations are people and you validated that fact with your own example. Edited July 10, 2014 by PoliticalAtheist Quote
guyser Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Well, I can tell you that during my years in government I experienced such things on too many occasions to even count. Once was actually at a table at a restaurant where my colleagues had taken me for my birthday, believe it or not. I can remember actually considering just leaving in the middle. It certainly happened innumerable times at meetings, and at lunch. On more than one occasion I chased them out of my office, after waiting a decent amount of time for them to switch back to English.Ok, they were rude and you should have told them. But in the grand scheme of things, what to make of it other than rudeness?. Quote
PoliticalAtheist Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Regardless, we encourage them to operate and move about the world as freely as possible and make it as border less as we can for them. Alienating human beings seems downright inhumane not too mention unequal. well no... any corporation wanting to go anywhere must seek the approval of the country... some countries ban GMO crops... consequently Monsanto can't grow food there... I don't understand your point here... Quote
eyeball Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 That human beings are people too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) All this immigration is the inevitable result of globalism and free trade. Portability of goods and labor ammount to roughly the same thing and the same people want both for the same reasons. If you look at the groups that support both mass immigration and lax immigration laws its institutions like banks, the chamber of commerce etc. Groups that for obvious reasons would like to dilute the labor pool, drive down wages, etc. Besides that theres also the desire to remain a growth economy with a growing population, lots of new homes and businesses being built, new roads, new bridges, airports, etc. If that growth stopped we would have to switch to some kind of permanent money system and whole new economic framework. Edited July 10, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Big Guy Posted July 10, 2014 Author Report Posted July 10, 2014 Well, I can tell you that during my years in government I experienced such things on too many occasions to even count. Once was actually at a table at a restaurant where my colleagues had taken me for my birthday, believe it or not. I can remember actually considering just leaving in the middle. It certainly happened innumerable times at meetings, and at lunch. On more than one occasion I chased them out of my office, after waiting a decent amount of time for them to switch back to English. We certainly have experienced different colleagues. The few times that this situation occurred I told them that I would like to be part of their conversation and could they please speak English. It ALWAYS worked for me. I have been in situations in peoples homes where English was a second language and someone at the table would translate for me if/when the situation warranted. In your situation, I would assume that your colleagues did not know that them speaking their native language in front of you made you uncomfortable. Perhaps if you made them aware then that might not have happened. When one is left out of a conversation in group because of language I suggest that those using a language other than English either do not know that you feel uncomfortable or they do know and do not want you in their conversation. Why would a group of colleagues who enjoy your company do something that they know would make you uncomfortable? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 The first two suggest 350,000:http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/ff912_immigration_levels.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp6743.pdf The first link is a TD article that just considers demographics, makes the absurd claim that the Labour Force Participation rate should be maintained at current/historic levels for some reason, and then concludes that immigration must be increased to 350,000 people per year. This methodology is absolute trash. The second link is a very decent and well researched study and literature review, and it shows how complicated the issue of immigration is. But I think you should read the paper that you linked to, because I don't think it supports your claims. - The paper recognizes that issues of poverty and assimilation for immigrants are getting worse in recent years and that the quality of immigrants relative to the domestic population has been increasing. - The paper recognizes that you can't theoretically derive if immigration levels are too high or too low and have to appeal to empirical evidence (this is obvious, but I wish most of the posters in this thread would realize this). - The paper recognizes that low skilled immigrants are a much greater burden than high skilled immigrants and emphasizes the differences between Canada's immigration policy and that of other countries (and that Canada has been more successful due to emphasis on skilled workers). - It recognizes that the effect of immigration on Canada's age structure is not that significant, so arguments that immigration should be justified based on demographic effects are not that justified. - The methodology seems decent overall. Maybe they should have estimated more values for different immigration levels (cause I would really like to use those to do a quadratic estimation of the optimal immigration level) and they should have discounted GDP per capita over all time periods plus projected more than a decade into the future to get a more accurate picture of the net effect of immigration on expected quality of life. - Probably the biggest result is that they find that if immigration is increased to 350,000 people per year, then GDP per capita will decrease and it will be 0.3% lower in a decade from now than under the current 250,000 people per year. So from this paper, I cannot understand how people can claim that immigration levels should be increased from 250,000 people per year to 350,000 people per year. - On the other hand, they find that if you fix immigration quality issues then 350,000 people per year is more than justified and if anything it should be much higher than that. So immigrant quality issues are significant and need to be addressed. There is definitely room for improvement in our system: http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/ff0212_immigration.pdf Wow, another trash td article. You are making me really skeptical of ever trusting the banking or business community on the issue of immigration. But the government seems to be planning:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2013/2013-06-21.asp All this link does is state what the current immigration policy is. It doesn't help the discussion. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 I lived in rural Ontario and see the difficulty people have with minority groups and other cultures. Most do not understand and I believe fear what they do not understand. They see what is happening in cities and are afraid that their way of life is being threatened. I certainly do not discount their feelings and understand why they feel the way that they do. And where do you live now? I live in major cities where there are lots of immigrants. And being a younger Canadian, there is an even higher proportion in my age group. In some environments where the percentage of immigrants gets really high like 80%+ you start to see significant integration issues and it also puts lots of stress on the domestic population to help achieve that integration. Furthermore, different immigrant groups integrate differently; some groups integrate very well while others integrate poorly. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 When people speak a language you don't understand, do you not feel excluded? No, I'm used to it. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Perhaps we are not all talking about the same thing. I suggest that we accept the definition as prescribed by our federal government; http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp That isn't really a definition... As I said earlier, there are many forms of multiculturalism, and it is probably better to distinguish between different types. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 It is very difficult to produce measureable advantages of multiculturalism. To me the evidence that Canadian multiculturalism is advantageous is the fact that Canada is successful relative to almost all other countries in the world. This argument doesn't make sense. South Korea is successful relative to almost all other countries in the world and is mono-cultural. Canada was relatively successful to almost all other countries prior to 'multiculturalism' as well. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Again... this isn't really concrete or specific, it's more a sort of weak theoretical skeleton... Also... If we accept that all cultures are equal... then in what way does having people from OTHER cultures benefit us? What does it matter if the difference between a native canadian and a haitian say are ZERO. Why make it a point to bring Haitians in then? How did we come to the conclusion that a monoculture is INFERIOR or less desirable to a multiculture? Yay, another person that realizes the logical absurdity of it all. Also, try asking these cultural relativism activists if they think that Canadian society is superior to South Korean society since Canada is multicultural and South Korea is mono-cultural. They will never respond to such a question. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) All this immigration is the inevitable result of globalism and free trade. Ahh... no. Countries control their borders. Japan and South Korea for example are wealthy and have low immigration levels. Edited July 10, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Hello everyone, I'm new here... But I've been debating this topic with my brother lately.. and I would actually like to hear concrete, REAL, MEASURABLE advantages brought on to us by multiculturalism and also the diversity that it brings. I've always been on the side that multiculturalism is a strength, but when challenged on it... I invariably fail at citing good arguments... especially when it comes to trying to convert others (like my brother)... I'm beginning to doubt my own reasons in fact.... So can anyone can produce a shortlist ? Multiculturalism is neither inherently a strength nor a weakness; that depends greatly on the cultures involved. Furthermore, definitions of multiculturalism vary as I explained earlier in the thread. Also, are you confusing immigration policy with multiculturalism? Quote
PoliticalAtheist Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 so far I've posed my question... and not a single person attempted to answer it directly... this is the problem I'm having when I talk about this... surely someone has SOMETHING beyond different ethnic restaurants... right? Quote
overthere Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Japan is a wealthy country but their extremely low birthrate and refusal to allow significant immigration are strong factors in changing that, and quickly. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Bob Macadoo Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Well, I can tell you that during my years in government I experienced such things on too many occasions to even count. Once was actually at a table at a restaurant where my colleagues had taken me for my birthday, believe it or not. I can remember actually considering just leaving in the middle. It certainly happened innumerable times at meetings, and at lunch. On more than one occasion I chased them out of my office, after waiting a decent amount of time for them to switch back to English. The same situation as I feel when in a conversation with 40 something caucasians and all they talk about is their golf game and bbq'd steak, things I am not conversant in. Know what I do.....politely interject....know what they do.....apologize and include me. Being pleasant does wonders. You've related these experiences before and it explains alot..... Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 so far I've posed my question... and not a single person attempted to answer it directly... this is the problem I'm having when I talk about this... surely someone has SOMETHING beyond different ethnic restaurants... right? Your question is too poorly defined to provide a decent answer. Quote
dre Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Ahh... no. Countries control their borders. Japan and South Korea for example are wealthy and have low immigration levels. Countries used to directly control trade as well and control which goods could move across the border and which ones couldnt. My point is the exact same forces pushing for the portability of goods are driving the push for the portability of labor. One is a natural extension of the other. For canadian business free trade deals have opened up access to other markets, so the next thing they need to compete in these new markets is access to cheap labor, and downward pressure on domestic wages. Thats why the push for mass immigration is the biggest from banks, businesses, the chamber of commerce etc. This is all just part of globalism. And some people might be confused and upset that government policies seem to effect them in an adverse way, but the government only makes SOME decisions for the benefit of Canadian workers. It makes an awful lot of decisions on behalf of various other special interests, and many of them could care less about social cohesion, and are pushing for policies that will weaken labor... whether those policies are union busting, offshoring, or mass immigration. These things are all just different parts of the same "machine". Edited July 10, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted July 10, 2014 Report Posted July 10, 2014 Multiculturalism is neither inherently a strength nor a weakness; that depends greatly on the cultures involved. Furthermore, definitions of multiculturalism vary as I explained earlier in the thread. Also, are you confusing immigration policy with multiculturalism? One thing leads to the other. The reason we are "multicultural" is not because anyone every said "Hey!!! Lets build a community of different races!". It happened because we wanted workers and population growth, and there wasnt enough white anglo saxons that wanted to come here. So we start letting in Asiatics, Irish, Italians, etc etc. As long as you have immigration policy that calls for hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year that policy is DEFACTO multi-cultural. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.