Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) What question is that? FOK, so tell me: what is your system for screening these undesirables out? We're not discussing the methodology. We're discussing the advisability. So far all of you on the left are apalled at the very idea of doing it, never mind whether it's possible. You don't want to do it, whether it's possible or not. Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus 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
guyser Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 The question is why do you want to bring people with abhorrent views into Canada in their thousands?In the interest of accuracy, how many people do we bring with those views and where is evidence to back up such an assertion? Thanks in advance. Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 Not even: they also have to think like you. I'm sure Argus is well-intentioned, but it's very strange to see someone who self-identifies as a pragmatic, small government conservative talking about creating an ideological litmus test, given the impracticalities involved as well as the potential slippery-slope directions such a thing could go. I mean, who gets to decide how much "misogyny, inequality, homophobia, and religious extremism" is too much? I'm sure you decide that every day, as do we all, when we decide who we want to be around We're talking here about a process which involves us deciding what kind of people we want to come here and live amongst us in their hundreds of thousands and millions. Keeping in mind that this will affect our society, why should we not want to screen out people with belief systems which are incompatible with our own? 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
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 Unfortunately in the non-perfect, non rainbow and unicorn filled world we currently occupy, there's no way to perfectly know who will be a radical. We do however know generally speaking from which areas they tend to come. We have to be pragmatic and use surrogate markers because that is the best information we have. It's not wrong for a nation to orient immigration policy towards it's best interests. Ah, so now we're not even talking about barring people based on the beliefs they hold, but what beliefs we think they might hold based on their place of origin. Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 In the interest of accuracy, how many people do we bring with those views and where is evidence to back up such an assertion? Thanks in advance. Why? If I offer you a glass of water, how many drops of urine will you think it's okay for me to drop into it before you belief it's undrinkable? 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 October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 Ah, so now we're not even talking about barring people based on the beliefs they hold, but what beliefs we think they might hold based on their place of origin. Realistically, that would work pretty well. 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
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 We're not discussing the methodology. We're discussing the advisability. So far all of you on the left are apalled at the very idea of doing it, never mind whether it's possible. You don't want to do it, whether it's possible or not. Nice dodge. If something can't be done, then there's no point discussing whether it should be or not. Quote
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 Realistically, that would work pretty well. So a gay person trying to escape a country where homosexuals are persecuted would be rejected because they come from a country where homosexuals are persecuted. Nice. Quote
hitops Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Ah, so now we're not even talking about barring people based on the beliefs they hold, but what beliefs we think they might hold based on their place of origin. Correct. Routinely done all over the world. The more specific you can get on your information, the better. But you can't read minds, so at some point you have to apply generalities, unfortunately. There is a reason why Philippino immigrants have an overwhelmingly good reputation, and Sudanese immigrants have a bad one, to give one example. There are cultural and religions trends that bear out in those communities. IMO, it's fine to discriminate using statistical data even if that's not fair to some individuals. The world is not perfect. You could easier gather data on how many immigrants from a certain country are still on assistance after 5 years, or some other metric. Should be as data-driven as possible. Data unfortunately cannot read minds either, it can only identify trends. Edited October 28, 2014 by hitops Quote
guyser Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Why? If I offer you a glass of water, how many drops of urine will you think it's okay for me to drop into it before you belief it's undrinkable?Ahh....I see. For the record, its sterile anyhow so the point is moot. But let me boil this down for all. You have no idea how many, you have no idea if it is more than 100, you have absolutely no idea what anyone thinks and have no course of action to find out. But you have your feelings, so good for you. Please advise when your feelings are backed up by any sort of evidence, not matter how weak it may be. Edited October 28, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 Correct. Routinely done all over the world. The more specific you can get on your information, the better. But you can't read minds, so at some point you have to apply generalities, unfortunately. There is a reason why Philippino immigrants have an overwhelmingly good reputation, and Sudanese immigrants have a bad one, to give one example. There are cultural and religions trends that bear out in those communities. IMO, it's fine to discriminate using statistical data even if that's not fair to some individuals. The world is not perfect. You could easier gather data on how many immigrants from a certain country are still on assistance after 5 years, or some other metric. Should be as data-driven as possible. Data unfortunately cannot read minds either, it can only identify trends. You've completely dropped the thread about values at this point. Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 So a gay person trying to escape a country where homosexuals are persecuted would be rejected because they come from a country where homosexuals are persecuted. Nice. And this is again where Left and Right part ways in terms of immigration. Right: Immigration program is designed to benefit Canada. Left: Immigration program is designed to help poor and downtrodden foreigners find a beter life. 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
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) And this is again where Left and Right part ways in terms of immigration. Right: Immigration program is designed to benefit Canada. Left: Immigration program is designed to help poor and downtrodden foreigners find a beter life. Shorter Argus: We shouldn't let people in who hate gays or women, nor should we let in gays or women. Obviously I'm being glib, but come on. It's not an either/or and your attitude sure makes your concerns about immigrant values look like crocodile tears. It's more important for you to keep people who might think bad thoughts about gays and women out than to actually do something to help those people in places where those bad thoughts are put into action. Edited October 28, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Ahh....I see. For the record, its sterile anyhow so the point is moot. No, it's not. One drop, you wouldn't even notice if you didn't know it was there. But the more drops there the more you're going to notice it. And anyway, would you drink it if it was just one? When there were other glasses around free of urine? Why? You have no idea how many, you have no idea if it is more than 100, you have absolutely no idea what anyone thinks and have no course of action to find out. On the contrary, we know there are thousands and thousands of people who have already arrived and live amongst us with those views. There have been surveys done of Canadian Muslims in the past which have told us as much. Those surveys have been posted here and I know you've seen them. Granted, Canadian Muslims aren't surveyed a lot, not as much as Muslims in other countries, including Europe. But even there, why would we think people immigrate to European nations with such views but never come to Canada with them? That's utter nonsense. For example, the Environics survey done in 2006 (being updated now) suggested that, in the struggle between moderates and extremists 80% of Canadian Muslims identify with the more 'moderate' side. Just 14% identified with the extremists. Which sounds good, except 14% of 1 million Muslims is 140,000 people in Canada who identify with extremist Muslim groups. Slightly more than your '100' figure. When questioned about the so-called 'Toronto 18' 73% of Canadian Muslims said those attacks were not justified. 5% said they were completely justified. 7% said they were somewhat justified. Do the math. That's 150,000 people we let into our country who believe that the attacks the Toronto 18 planned were either completely justified, or somewhat justified. http://www.environicsinstitute.org/institute-projects/completed-projects/survey-canadian-muslims As far as attitudes towards gays and women, I think we can pretty much discern what those are based on surveyes of worldwide Muslims. The only specific mention I've seen was of a study of women who wear the full shroud, the niqab, which said "For instance, the majority of respondents did not agree with the practice of dating and did not believe that homosexuality was an acceptable practice" but it gave no numbers or discussed just how severe their judgements were. Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus 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 October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 Shorter Argus: We shouldn't let people in who hate gays or women, nor should we let in gays or women. Obviously I'm being glib, but come on. It's not an either/or and your attitude sure makes your concerns about immigrant values look like crocodile tears. It's more important for you to keep people who might think bad thoughts about gays and women out than to actually do something to help those people in places where those bad thoughts are put into action. Yes, you are being glib. And YES, you're quite right. I do believe it's more important to keep bad people out of Canada than to help foreigners who are living with the bad people. This is a self-serving belief which puts Canadians ahead of foreigners in terms of importance, and I bet most Canadians would agree that our government ought to do just that. 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
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 Yes, you are being glib. And YES, you're quite right. I do believe it's more important to keep bad people out of Canada than to help foreigners who are living with the bad people. This is a self-serving belief which puts Canadians ahead of foreigners in terms of importance, and I bet most Canadians would agree that our government ought to do just that. That's a false choice. Quote
Argus Posted October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) del Edited October 28, 2014 by Argus 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 October 28, 2014 Author Report Posted October 28, 2014 That's a false choice. The only way to reconcile them is to screen out potential immigrants who hold those 'bad' views. Which you don't want to do. 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
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) The only way to reconcile them is to screen out potential immigrants who hold those 'bad' views. Which you don't want to do. Uh. No. Because your method of screening by society of origin would keep out people who are looking to escape, remember? MNot that you have the slightest interest in letting them in anyway. Edited October 28, 2014 by Black Dog Quote
Big Guy Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) You cannot have a logical argument with an xenophobe. The best course is to allow them to babble on. Let their own words bury them. Edited October 28, 2014 by Big Guy 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.
jbg Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 Agreed, and that screening for 'pluses' is already in place happens for the most immigrants, the majority who come here as economic migrants with verified education, language and skills. I don't see what an immigrant wear or does not wear as relevant in any way, before they arrive or after, as long as it complies with Canadian law. It does not matter for citizens, why should it matter for future citizens. This is what is required of immigrants: work, pay taxes, obey the law. That's it. Beyond that, it is simply bigoted arrogance to insist they look like you. There is no reason not to consider willingness to fit in with a new culture. If they can't fit in it's a minus. Insistence on wearing non-Canadian garb should be considered a minus. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 You cannot have a logical argument with an xenophobe. The best course is to allow them to babble on. Let their own words bury them.Is it a xenophobe or someone who wants to preserve the country? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Black Dog Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 There is no reason not to consider willingness to fit in with a new culture. If they can't fit in it's a minus. Insistence on wearing non-Canadian garb should be considered a minus. Out go the saris, kilts, lederhosen, in comes the flannel shits and denim jackets. Even your own country with its vaunted melting pot never had a dress code. Quote
overthere Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 There is no reason not to consider willingness to fit in with a new culture. If they can't fit in it's a minus. Insistence on wearing non-Canadian garb should be considered a minus. That is pretty funny. Maybe I should open a John Deere ball cap franchise in Khartoum, I'll make a fortune disguising Dinkas a goold old boys from Estevan. But you have hit on the nub of a difference between Canada and the US. The American melting pot requires that everybody more or less leave it behind and become true blue Americans. I don't think many in Canada feel that way. We don't require anything of immigrants other than: get a job, pay taxes, obey the law. It's what we require from all citizens in the end, not just those who happen to have been born here. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
guyser Posted October 28, 2014 Report Posted October 28, 2014 But you have hit on the nub of a difference between Canada and the US.Really? Hassidic Jews in NYC.? Jews in general.? Pennsylvania Dutch? Latinos from south of the Border? Hawains? Natives...all the diff ones? There really isnt much of a diff at all. Quote
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.