How many would actually oppose this immigration restriction?

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't care what immigrants think. I care what they do. Here is what they have to do, and it is the exact same thing that citizens have to do:

Work

Pay Taxes

Obey the laws of Canada

Beyond that, do what you wish and enjoy your privileged life here.

Yes, and what causes certain groups of people to stop obeying the laws of Canada to go overseas to Iraq & Syria to start Jihad and commit genocide? Religious extremism. Why obey the laws of Canada, when your version of your religion tells you that their is no higher authority than God, and society should have laws based on the Sharia rather than 'man-made' laws?

[-1=e^ipi]

Pretty much...and what most immigrants have always done in Canada and the U.S. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Dumb cliche.

What if it is about to break? Do you wait for your car to break on the middle of the high way before repairing it, or do you take it to a mechanic regularly to get it fixed so that doesn't happen?

One could make a strong argument that culturally-relativist multiculturalism has failed in France, Germany & Britain. But it hasn't failed in Canada or the US... yet. Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

[guyser]

Dumb cliche.

Pretty apt I would say.

Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

And since pretty much everyone but you thinks it isnt even close to failing, hell there isnt even a crack in the gelcoat yet most everyone can say " what problem" ?

There are doomsdayers aplenty in this world, most seem to be in the US. They are fun to watch, amusing to observe while they scurry around doing this and that and all the while letting their mullet get longer.

Fun times

Edited August 21, 2014 by Guyser2

[Mighty AC]

The U.S. does not exist in a vacuum, and its policies compete with those of other nations, including those espousing to be "secular". Again, why are U.S. policies and restrictions perceived to dominate over the much larger domain that is the "rest of the world", secular or otherwise ?

The US is a secular nation with a majority Christian population. For the most part, the US has managed to keep affairs of the church and state separate though this line has been under more aggressive attack since the Republican party began courting Christian groups for political gain. As a result religion plays an abnormally large role in US politics. Good ideas are elevated and bad ideas discarded through reasonable evaluation of evidence and critical debate. Appeals to faith do not allow for reasonable debate and hamper the policy making process.

Most US policy decisions are strictly felt by Americans and though I may comment on them, they do not directly affect me. Like you said, the US does not exist in a vacuum and some policy does impact on me and the rest of the world. Repubs are fighting tooth and nail against expert opinion on climate change action, in part by using religious arguments. This affects me and the world. Similarly, the US allowed religious arguments to affect medical research and foreign aid decisions.

Excluding certain immigrants because of religious belief systems is not only inconsistent with Charter / Constitutional rights, such a policy would prove to be counterproductive to nations that depend on the contributions of such immigrants at all levels of education and commerce. The hard lessons of discriminatory immigration barriers are easy to find in Canadian and U.S. history.

I don't agree with discriminatory immigration barriers, including the one listed in the OP. Instead I propose we insulate public policy from irrational, faith based initiatives by continuing the secularization of the population. Thankfully, in both our nations this process is accelerating.

[bush_cheney2004]

What if it is about to break? Do you wait for your car to break on the middle of the high way before repairing it, or do you take it to a mechanic regularly to get it fixed so that doesn't happen?

Nope...because my cars are maintained as recommended by the manufacturer and decades of automotive experience. If I choose to modify them then I lose warranty coverage and may cause the vehicle to be less reliable. Your proposed screening question is a custom modification of immigration law that has not been demonstrated to fix anything.

One could make a strong argument that culturally-relativist multiculturalism has failed in France, Germany & Britain. But it hasn't failed in Canada or the US... yet. Do you really want to wait for it to 'fail' before addressing the problem?

Yes...I do...because diversity has served both nations well. The screening question that you proposed reminds me of the very discriminatory practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. No thanks....

[bush_cheney2004]

The US is a secular nation with a majority Christian population. For the most part, the US has managed to keep affairs of the church and state separate though this line has been under more aggressive attack since the Republican party began courting Christian groups for political gain. As a result religion plays an abnormally large role in US politics. Good ideas are elevated and bad ideas discarded through reasonable evaluation of evidence and critical debate. Appeals to faith do not allow for reasonable debate and hamper the policy making process.

In fact, there was no such line at the nation's founding, so it wasn't critical to the nation's success. Ideas, good or bad are often discarded for reasons having nothing to do with religion, but you have no issue with such secular compromises. The policy making process is actually made stronger by inclusion of all parties, regardless of their belief system.

Again, you have not demonstrated the advantages of any secular nation over the U.S. when it comes to actual investment and yield for research, data, policy, and achievement.

Most US policy decisions are strictly felt by Americans and though I may comment on them, they do not directly affect me. Like you said, the US does not exist in a vacuum and some policy does impact on me and the rest of the world. Repubs are fighting tooth and nail against expert opinion on climate change action, in part by using religious arguments. This affects me and the world. Similarly, the US allowed religious arguments to affect medical research and foreign aid decisions.

Canada is certainly not a leader when it comes to climate change action, and does not invest in or yield the basic research data provided to date by U.S. government and private institutions. It is not only Republicans that resist changes perceived to be an economic threat, which really drives this issue in the U.S., not religion. Canada has one of the highest per-capita GHG emissions in the world, and changes to address this issue have not been forthcoming regardless of ruling party.

I don't agree with discriminatory immigration barriers, including the one listed in the OP. Instead I propose we insulate public policy from irrational, faith based initiatives by continuing the secularization of the population. Thankfully, in both our nations this process is accelerating.

No, it is only changing. Their will always be strong faith or spirituality based belief systems in both nations. I do not worry about the minority of godless commies taking over Canada, because it's not going to happen.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

And yet you have chosen not to explain the dominance of U.S. research, development, and execution of such policies concurrent with the impact of religious beliefs at the local, state, and federal level. Simply put, why don't more "secular" nations have more impact on "data and evidence" ? The "Godless" Soviets also did well, but no longer exist and arguably did not do as well as the religious Americans.....there is no correlation to a supernatural penalty.

Perhaps it has something to do with the US being the 3rd most populous country on the planet and being by far the most populous developed country. The US has the equivalent population of Canada, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria combined.

With respect to the Soviets, perhaps it had something to do with totalitarian communism. Just saying...

far more per capita than in "secular" nations.

What is your definition of 'secular' here? Because you seem to think that the united states, with its first amendment, isn't a secular country, where as you think Britain, where its head of state is the leader of the Anglican church, is.

Excluding certain immigrants because of religious belief systems is not only inconsistent with Charter / Constitutional rights

No it isn't, because the charter does not apply to non-citizens. Potential immigrants are non-citizens.

[-1=e^ipi]

And since pretty much everyone but you thinks it isnt even close to failing

No, not really. Did you not see me reference people like Tarek Fatah, David Cameron, Merkel or Sarkozy?

I guess all those foreign fighters from Calgary currently fighting in Iraq and Syria are just my imagination...

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't agree with discriminatory immigration barriers, including the one listed in the OP. Instead I propose we insulate public policy from irrational, faith based initiatives by continuing the secularization of the population. Thankfully, in both our nations this process is accelerating.

And how do you propose to do that if you keep importing religious extremists that do not integrate and that out breed the rest of the population?

[-1=e^ipi]

Your proposed screening question is a custom modification of immigration law that has not been demonstrated to fix anything.

According to this logic, no new 'untested' policies should ever be implemented because they haven't been implemented in order to test them yet. This sounds like the European precautionary principle.

Yes...I do...because diversity has served both nations well. The screening question that you proposed reminds me of the very discriminatory practices of the late 19th and early 20th century. No thanks....

How am I against 'diversity'? As expected, you are mixing up culturally-relativist multiculturalism with multiculturalism.

And nice guilt by association fallacy btw.

[guyser]

No it isn't, because the charter does not apply to non-citizens.

Yes it does.

[guyser]

No, not really. Did you not see me reference people like Tarek Fatah, David Cameron, Merkel or Sarkozy?

1 canuck, a Brit, a german and a frenchman.

3out of 4 have no standing.

I guess all those foreign fighters from Calgary currently fighting in Iraq and Syria are just my imagination...

All those? How many?

Heres the main problem with your thinking, in a nutshell.

You want to spend $100 to save $20.

No thanks

[bush_cheney2004]

According to this logic, no new 'untested' policies should ever be implemented because they haven't been implemented in order to test them yet. This sounds like the European precautionary principle.

No...your idea is DOA because it would never survive a "Charter Politics" court challenge.

How am I against 'diversity'? As expected, you are mixing up culturally-relativist multiculturalism with multiculturalism.

And nice guilt by association fallacy btw.

Do you really want to exclude the potential of other human beings based on a single, poorly thought out question about the theory of evolution ?

How many brilliant and productive people would never have emigrated to Canada because they answered such a question honestly and according to their belief system(s) ?

[-1=e^ipi]

No...your idea is DOA because it would never survive a "Charter Politics" court challenge.

The fact that people applying for Canadian Citizenship had to pledge allegiance to the Queen recently withstood a Charter Challenge.

Tell me, why would requiring people to pledge allegiance to the Queen to obtain citizenship be allowed, but requiring people to agree with the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor in order to immigrate not be allowed?

You keep claiming that such a question is discriminatory and violates freedom of belief. In that case, would requiring people to pledge allegiance to a flag or monarch not also be discriminatory and violate freedom of belief?

How many brilliant and productive people would never have emigrated to Canada because they answered such a question honestly and according to their belief system(s) ?

Brilliant people do not believe in fairy tales.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes it does.

Even if the charter does not explicitly say so, it cannot apply to non-citizens.

All those? How many?

Various estimates put the number of western foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria at around 2000-3000.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/why-are-so-many-westerners-joining-isis/

[bush_cheney2004]

The fact that people applying for Canadian Citizenship had to pledge allegiance to the Queen recently withstood a Charter Challenge.

Different issue....the pledge is not a screening question based on protected rights.

Tell me, why would requiring people to pledge allegiance to the Queen to obtain citizenship be allowed, but requiring people to agree with the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor in order to immigrate not be allowed?

Because people are free to believe whatever the hell they want to as long as there is no criminal intent or purpose. "Common ancestor" is so vague that it could be an amino acid or base nucleotide. That's why the question is silly.

You keep claiming that such a question is discriminatory and violates freedom of belief. In that case, would requiring people to pledge allegiance to a flag or monarch not also be discriminatory and violate freedom of belief?

No....emigration is not the same as citizenship. See above.

Brilliant people do not believe in fairy tales.

I can say with certainty that you (and I ) do not speak for all "brilliant people", many of whom had/have religious belief systems.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Even if the charter does not explicitly say so, it cannot apply to non-citizens.

Really? A simple google will prove yourself wrong.

ANYONE on canadian soil is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Its taught in grade school.

Various estimates put the number of western foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria at around 2000-3000.

Wonderful.

And how many from Calgary? 5? 8? 20? IOW...you worry about anywhere bewt 0.0000056% and 0.0000162% of the population?

Wow...just wow.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Guyser2

[Mighty AC]

The policy making process is actually made stronger by inclusion of all parties, regardless of their belief system.

All parties are welcome however non-evidential arguments are not.

Again, you have not demonstrated the advantages of any secular nation over the U.S. when it comes to actual investment and yield for research, data, policy, and achievement.

The US is a secular nation.

Canada is certainly not a leader when it comes to climate change action, and does not invest in or yield the basic research data provided to date by U.S. government and private institutions.

I agree. Though administration responsible for this problem avoids dealing in evidence to the point of shutting down bodies responsible for producing data.

[-1=e^ipi]

Different issue....the pledge is not a screening question based on protected rights.

No, it's the exact same thing. In order for people to obtain citizenship, they must pledge allegiance to a flag/queen. How would making a pledge that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor be discriminatory, but a pledge to the flag/queen not be discriminatory? How is the latter violating freedom of belief but the previous is not?

It's inconsistent. I get that you agree with the pledge of allegiance and disagree with any perceived threat to your belief in magic, but be honest here. You aren't disagreeing because it is 'discriminatory & violates rights'.

I can say with certainty that you (and I ) do not speak for all "brilliant people", many of whom had/have religious belief systems.

And I'm sure many of these 'brilliant people' are certain that they have 'experienced god' and that their 'religion is true'. Somehow, these claims of 'certainty' are not very convincing.

[Mighty AC]

And how do you propose to do that if you keep importing religious extremists that do not integrate and that out breed the rest of the population?

We continue to reduce the influence of religion. Only a small percentage of immigrants will be "extremists" and it is difficult to continually indoctrinate new generations in a highly secular population. Religion and racism are very similar that way.

[-1=e^ipi]

ANYONE on canadian soil is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Its taught in grade school.

Even if I accept this, immigrant applicants are usually not on Canadian soil, so the point is moot.

And also, see why point about the requirement to pledge allegiance to the Queen. How can agreeing that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestry be discriminatory, but pledging allegiance to the Queen not be discriminatory?

And how many from Calgary? 5? 8? 20?

If you look at Canada's population share of muslims relative to the rest of the West, there should be over 100 foreign fighters. Here is an outdated source about Syria:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/17/as-many-as-100-canadians-could-be-fighting-in-syria-against-assad-regime-think-tank-says/

[waldo]

Notice that my wording was specifically 'humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor'. It wasn't 'accept the theory of evolution'.

do you have evidence of a transitional species to support the premise of your question?

[Peter F]

Its a silly question. People can study for tests and answer correctly. The question has no bearing whatsoever on their suitability for citizenship.

ETA: then, after I've correctly answered the question, I can enrol my kids in the proper religious school and have them taught all about the truth regarding creation and religious text.

The question is a pointless exercise in feeling superior.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Peter F

[-1=e^ipi]

do you have evidence of a transitional species to support the premise of your question?

Yes, it is called the fossil record:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Also, the ERV similarities between chimpanzees and humans is very compelling:

http://www.skepticink.com/humesapprentice/2013/10/18/proving-darwin-fun-with-endogenous-retroviruses/

[bush_cheney2004]

All parties are welcome however non-evidential arguments are not.

Non-evidential arguments are routinely considered because of historical precedent, culture, politics, etc. Rarely are policy decisions based solely on empirical data or evidence. Rationalists can and do prevail in such settings or political processes.

The US is a secular nation.

The U.S. is less secular than Canada and many other nations, but it invests in and yields much more "data and evidence". I say again...no strong correlation has been demonstrated.

I agree. Though administration responsible for this problem avoids dealing in evidence to the point of shutting down bodies responsible for producing data.

I do not care about any specific Canadian government, but historically Canada has not been a leader on "climate change" research and actions because of any secular perspective or motivation. I suspect that your opinion on this matter is driven by acute events and decisions by the present ruling government vs. "secularism" in general.

Edited August 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004