guyser Posted October 30, 2014 Report Share Posted October 30, 2014 Not if the tradition includes despising behaviours we consider normal. You hold onto that and you aren't going to be integrating at all.While that may be true, children have a natural tendency to want to fit in, and they have and will continue to do so, all the while mitigating and finally removing most any not normal behaviours. Will every single one do so? No, but the vast majority will . And thats what we want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 While that may be true, children have a natural tendency to want to fit in, and they have and will continue to do so, all the while mitigating and finally removing most any not normal behaviours. Will every single one do so? No, but the vast majority will . And thats what we want. The point remains that there are risks here. There's the risk of terrorism. And then there is the risk that this sort of antisocial behaviour will persist through generations (remember it's based on religion, and a lot of mideast parents send their kid 'home' to get a 'proper' husband/wife). When you take into account that the economic information we have at hand shows immigrants from the middle east fare very, very poorly as compared to other areas, why exactly should we be continuing to take people from this region as opposed to other regions where there is virtually no terrorism or social risk, and where the immigrants are more economically succesfull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 The point remains that there are risks here. There's the risk of terrorism. And then there is the risk that this sort of antisocial behaviour will persist through generations (remember it's based on religion, and a lot of mideast parents send their kid 'home' to get a 'proper' husband/wife). When you take into account that the economic information we have at hand shows immigrants from the middle east fare very, very poorly as compared to other areas, why exactly should we be continuing to take people from this region as opposed to other regions where there is virtually no terrorism or social risk, and where the immigrants are more economically succesfull? Do you mean the Middle East specifically, or Muslim immigrants generally? Because we take in relatively few immigrants from the Middle East. In 2013, for instance, we admitted fewer than 20,000 people from all Middle Eastern countries. By comparison, we had about 33,000 immigrants from China, 32,000 from the Philippines and 28,000 from India. Of course, there's more Muslim countries than just those in the Middle East (Somalia and Pakistan notably) that are more significant sources of immigrants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 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? Hitler would be proud of that analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 There's the risk of terrorism. Risks can be quantified. Let's do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Do you mean the Middle East specifically, or Muslim immigrants generally? Immigrants from the middle east, north africa and western Asia (hello Pakistan) all fair poorly in Canada as far as earnings and contributions go. Some other parts of Asia are not generally very good, either. I know I've posted the cite several times during previous discussions. http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm Edited October 31, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Hitler would be proud of that analogy. Hitler loved dogs. Therefore, everyone who loves dogs is just like Hitler. (gostHacked logic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 Risks can be quantified. Let's do that. They can also be avoided in this case. Why not do that instead? I see a benefit (far lower risks of terrorism and social problems) and no costs. So why not? Again, I'd like to point out that as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY point to our immigration system is to benefit Canada. Thus whatever policy most benefits Canada ought to be employed. I am not interested in whether the system is or is not fair to foreigners be they applicants or potential applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 I don't want to go "Biblical" here but there is the story of the tower of Babel. what does that have to do with anything? We take in refugees, people that are suffering. We house them, clothe them, feed them and teach them a language and unemployable skills. Then they go off to live their lives in peace as they see fit. Are you suggesting that God will strike down Canadian immigration policy as it relates to teaching a language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 The entire history of the human race is a quest for betterment in all things. Cultures which do not seek to improve things stagnate and die. Actually, almost our entire history is a quest to control and dominate individuals within our own culture, and to impose our will on other cultures. Cultures which fail to do this are eliminated by other cultures.. Try as we might to rationalize it, we are social and tribal animals way back in our lizard brains. We forget that at our peril. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 They can also be avoided in this case. Why not do that instead? I see a benefit (far lower risks of terrorism and social problems) and no costs. So why not? Again, I'd like to point out that as far as I'm concerned, the ONLY point to our immigration system is to benefit Canada. Thus whatever policy most benefits Canada ought to be employed. I am not interested in whether the system is or is not fair to foreigners be they applicants or potential applicants. No - you will have a risk of terrorism regardless. You can't quantify those far lower risks, since we have domestic terrorists of various stripes too. Yes, if you want to be cynical (and honest) the only point to immigration is to benefit Canada. This is why Harper continues to bring immigrants to Canada - the economic benefit. The risk of terrorism does not weigh meaningfully against economic growth, unless you go to unorthodox anti-growth theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 No - you will have a risk of terrorism regardless. You can't quantify those far lower risks, since we have domestic terrorists of various stripes too. Yes, if you want to be cynical (and honest) the only point to immigration is to benefit Canada. This is why Harper continues to bring immigrants to Canada - the economic benefit. The risk of terrorism does not weigh meaningfully against economic growth, unless you go to unorthodox anti-growth theories. Actually, I suspect that as far as Harper is concerned the only point to immigration is to benefit the Conservative Party. And I'm still looking for why we should be bringing people over here from areas of the world where potential immigrants have a much higher risk of terrorism and extremist social views as well as poor economic performance as opposed to others who would fit in better and not present these risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 What does that even mean? You're acknowledging it's a negative impact, but say it's not 'significant'. It's significant to the people who encounter them. And anyway, shouldn't we seek for it to be positive, not negative? Why allow these people in if the impact is negative? Especially when their economic contribution is also negative (as shown in a number of posted cites)? Again, to my way of thinking, our immigration system should be dedicated to improving Canada, not making foreigners happy. What is more significant than the odd person with disagreeable beliefs is to have an immigrations system that is fair and tolerant, and to do our part in helping refugees. This greatly benefits Canada's reputation internationally. Making the world a better place is also a benefit to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Actually, I suspect that as far as Harper is concerned the only point to immigration is to benefit the Conservative Party. Why would Harper choose this one issue to reach out to the liberal, Toronto, immigrant lovers ? Answer: he wouldn't. This is about economics, which is what he cares about. And I'm still looking for why we should be bringing people over here from areas of the world where potential immigrants have a much higher risk of terrorism and extremist social views as well as poor economic performance as opposed to others who would fit in better and not present these risks. It's supply and demand. There are only so many Americans, French etc. who want to live here and maybe if you opened the gates you'd just get more of those "types" that you find so objectionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 Further to that - he cut off healthcare for refugees, which is far more politically dangerous than simply reducing immigration. Even David Suzuki would get behind a reduction in immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 What is more significant than the odd person with disagreeable beliefs is to have an immigrations system that is fair and tolerant, and to do our part in helping refugees. This greatly benefits Canada's reputation internationally. Making the world a better place is also a benefit to Canada. Japan allows no immigrants and takes no refugees. How has that harmed its international reputation? Iceland takes none either. Anyway, we're talking immigration, not refugees. And we're not talking 'the odd person' with disagreeable beliefs, but many tens of thousands of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Why would Harper choose this one issue to reach out to the liberal, Toronto, immigrant lovers ? Answer: he wouldn't. This is about economics, which is what he cares about. He's reaching out to ethnic groups in the Toronto suburbs, as well as in Vancouver and across the country. It's supply and demand. There are only so many Americans, French etc. who want to live here and maybe if you opened the gates you'd just get more of those "types" that you find so objectionable. Given the economic state of many parts of Europe these days Canada could probably take its entire immigrant quota from there with little effort. Edited November 1, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Further to that - he cut off healthcare for refugees, which is far more politically dangerous than simply reducing immigration. But immigrant groups don't really mind that because a lot of them think refugees are nothing more than lying queue jumpers. Edited November 1, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 He's reaching out to ethnic groups in the Toronto suburbs, as well as in Vancouver and across the country. I don't buy that. Given the economic state of many parts of Europe these days Canada could probably take its entire immigrant quota from there with little effort. How many Muslims from Europe do you think would come ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Japan allows no immigrants and takes no refugees. How has that harmed its international reputation? Iceland takes none either. Anyway, we're talking immigration, not refugees. And we're not talking 'the odd person' with disagreeable beliefs, but many tens of thousands of them. Japan is a homogeneous society that is declining in its influence and headed for demographic disaster. Thanks to our multicultural society, Canada has a major edge in international business. Icelend is not a good comparisson as it is too small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Japan is a homogeneous society that is declining in its influence and headed for demographic disaster. Thanks to our multicultural society, Canada has a major edge in international business. Watching how Japan does would probably be an interesting experiment in what happens when a country follows the 'no immigrants, no population growth' path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/bank-of-japan-80-trillion-yen-economy "As for the wider economy, this doesn’t really solve the issue of low growth expectations in the longer term, which is the main reason behind the negative real wage growth, sluggish demand and investment. As always, monetary policy is not the only answer but it will keep the markets pleased for now.” As the US closes off their QE programme, Japan expands theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) Watching how Japan does would probably be an interesting experiment in what happens when a country follows the 'no immigrants, no population growth' path. You are both deliberately missing the point. The argument was that not having an open and generous immigration system would harm our reputation. That is clearly nonsense. Nor have I advocated having NO imimgration. What I'd like to see is an actual study by demographers and economists into what would be the proper number of immigrants, and then the proper skillset and social types who would most profit Canada. Given the importance of this program and the vast costs involved, it's simply incredible that no such study has ever been undertaken. Edited November 2, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Japan is a homogeneous society that is declining in its influence and headed for demographic disaster. Thanks to our multicultural society, Canada has a major edge in international business. Icelend is not a good comparison as it is too small. Why should countries like Canada, the U.S. and Europe have to absorb such a disproportionate amount of the dislocation caused by turmoil in Africa and Asia? I say that the U.S. does more than enough for its Latin American neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 You are both deliberately missing the point. The argument was that not having an open and generous immigration system would harm our reputation. That is clearly nonsense. First of all, when you say that I am *deliberately* missing the point, you are saying that I'm being intellectually dishonest. As much as I disagree with your points, I do think that you are intellectually honest, that you build supported arguments based on your own values, and that you argue in good faith. That is why I discuss things with you, and therefore do not block you on MLW. If you think that I'm being dishonest, then I suggest you block me. Secondly, I don't remember ever saying anything about Canada's "reputation". Certainly Canada has been noted by other countries (notably Germany) as having the ability to absorb large numbers of immigrants with less social strain but I don't see that as anything other then a phenomenon, an attribute of our peculiar necessity to accommodate large numbers of diverse groups from before Confederation. The argument that we were making was about whether immigration is good for Canada, and I was making the case that economic orthodoxy and business interests push for more immigration. Nor have I advocated having NO imimgration. What I'd like to see is an actual study by demographers and economists into what would be the proper number of immigrants, and then the proper skillset and social types who would most profit Canada. Given the importance of this program and the vast costs involved, it's simply incredible that no such study has ever been undertaken. Fair point. I do know, though, that arguments from the left and right argue for reduction or elimination of immigration. I also wonder - and you can perhaps fill in the gaps - as to whether there is a supply of immigrants from the countries that you want to target for human imports. Also this new term "social types" needs to be elaborated on your part a little more. It's not incredible that no such study has ever been undertaken, though. There are other things that we don't study because it's not politically tenable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.