Immigration

kraychik · August 22, 2015

Immigration made sense for much of our history. We had wide open spaces, and almost anyone willing to work could be a farmer, fisherman, lumberman, etc. Didn't matter what their education was. Didn't really even matter if they spoke the language. The work wasn't complicated. And if they didn't want to work, well, they starved, or gave up and went back home. No skin off our noses.

Fast forward to the 1970s.

Jobs are getting increasingly complicated. Computers are coming into play. Technology is filtering into every type of job imaginable. Communications skills are starting to become much more important. And at that time the Liberal government pivots our main source of immigration from Europe to the third world. Who's in the third world? Much less sophisticated people than in Europe, with much less education, and far less comparable job skills.

Suddenly, there's a wide gap between the type of people Canada's economy needs, and the kind of people its getting. Further, the implementation of social programs means failed immigrants don't have to go home any more. They can stay and get government subsidies.

Fast forward to the 80s. Mulroney's government decides to triple immigration, despite economists suggesting this will not help the economy, in hopes that it will lure more ethnic voters to the Progressive Conservative party. Even more third world immigrants flood into Canada even as technology assumes an ever growing importance in society and in work.

Here we are in 2015. Virtually every job above minimum wage requires the ability to work with multiple technologies and enhanced communication abilities. The tories announce, out of the blue, that they're increasing immigration this year. The NDP and Liberals promise to increase immigration from the third world even more, and the NDP in particular, promise to abandon screening them for job skills, language skills, and education. No party, with eyes on ethnic votes, appears to give a damn at the possible damage they're doing to Canada, only on what benefits they can get from promising the world to ethnic groups.

This is the sad state of immigration in Canada. Yet anyone who questions its wisdom gets called names by leftists who have, bizarrely, embraced Mulroney's vastly increased immigration numbers as holy writ which only the most evil of racists would dare to question.

Well said. Contemporary immigration policies in Canada are a disaster and have been for decades. Worse, we actively agitate against assimilation with insane "multiculturalism" policies which were bad enough when they were merely targeting English, French, and Aboriginals.

The clincher? We can't even really talk about it in public. The left has been very successful in destroying all honest discussion on the issue. It's become a taboo. There was not ONE mention of it in the last "debate".

Argus · August 22, 2015

just a few posts back, I provided statements directly from Harper that state otherwise. Is it your contention that your boy is misinformed? Damn, just who is feeding him info?

If you want me to say Harper says and does a lot of stuff I don't agree with, then by all means, he does. I don't think I've made much of a secret about that.

Argus · August 22, 2015

?

Statistics are showing that you're wrong.

Number of people going into retirement outnumber those going into the workforce.

Your opinion is not going to change the numbers:

In 2011, census data showed for the first time that there were more people aged 55 to 64, typically the age group where people leave the labour force, than aged 15 to 24, typically the age group where people enter it.

Your substituting irrelevant numbers isn't going to change that either. We know the population is aging. So is the immigrant population, which is largely the same as the regular population since we put no special emphasis into bringing in younger immigrants. Most are middle aged, and we welcome their parents, too. In fact, both Trudeau and Mulcair have promised to broaden the range of relatives an immigrant can bring in.

But that does not mean we'll have a shortage of workers. That's especially so given how many people, particularly younger people, are under employed now.

kraychik · August 22, 2015

Your substituting irrelevant numbers isn't going to change that either. We know the population is aging. So is the immigrant population, which is largely the same as the regular population since we put no special emphasis into bringing in younger immigrants. Most are middle aged, and we welcome their parents, too. In fact, both Trudeau and Mulcair have promised to broaden the range of relatives an immigrant can bring in.

But that does not mean we'll have a shortage of workers. That's especially so given how many people, particularly younger people, are under employed now.

To say nothing of social cohesion or..... what's actually happening.... social fragmentation.

Argus · August 22, 2015

Why aren't the leaders arguing about immigration? It should be in the top ten most important topics.

Because they all want to win points with ethnic groups. And while Canadians care about immigration, they are largely ignorant about problems since the media rarely report on them. Most Canadians will assume that the numbers and types of immigrants we take in are decided after careful study, and the only thing they'll read about immigration are the catch phrases from politicians, none of them backed up by evidence, about how we need immigrants because of our aging population, or for future skills shortages. And they'll read how immigration helps the economy, though again, without any documentary evidence to support that. The media does not challenge any of this, and neither do any of the politicians. They all want to impress ethnic groups with how open and loving and tolerant they are, and how hard they'll work to bring over their relatives.

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

Your substituting irrelevant numbers isn't going to change that either. We know the population is aging. So is the immigrant population, which is largely the same as the regular population since we put no special emphasis into bringing in younger immigrants. Most are middle aged, and we welcome their parents, too. In fact, both Trudeau and Mulcair have promised to broaden the range of relatives an immigrant can bring in.

But that does not mean we'll have a shortage of workers. That's especially so given how many people, particularly younger people, are under employed now.

I suspect the reason you are these days dissing your guy Harper a bit is because he disagrees with you on immigration. Some of those immigrants may have non-white skin, Oh My! Take a look at the fertility rates in Canada and compare to the ageing/retirement rates, and it becomes quite obvious we need immigration. Funny eh how I agree with Harper on the one thing you don't agree on. Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say.

kraychik · August 22, 2015

I suspect the reason you are these days dissing your guy Harper a bit is because he disagrees with you on immigration. Some of those immigrants may have non-white skin, Oh My! Take a look at the fertility rates in Canada and compare to the ageing/retirement rates, and it becomes quite obvious we need immigration. Funny eh how I agree with Harper on the one thing you don't agree on. Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say.

Pretty nasty for you to accuse Argus of opposing modern immigration policies because of racist motivations. But hey, you're a leftist - you must see racism everywhere.

I also think that Harper has been awful on immigration and "multiculturalism". Unfortunately, the left has been successful in training the sheep that populate our political culture that critical discussion of either issue amounts to "racism" or "Islamophobia" or "bigotry". They've become taboos. Not forever, though. As Ernest Hemingway say, "the truth has a certain ring to it".

Keep chasing those phantoms. Keep tilting at those windmills.

Edited August 22, 2015 by kraychik

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

Pretty nasty for you to accuse Argus of opposing modern immigration policies because of racist motivations. But hey, you're a leftist - you must see racism everywhere.

I also think that Harper has been awful on immigration and "multiculturalism". Unfortunately, the left has been successful in training the sheep that populate our political culture that critical discussion of either issue amounts to "racism" or "Islamophobia" or "bigotry". They've become taboos. Not forever, though. As Ernest Hemingway say, "the truth has a certain ring to it".

Keep chasing those phantoms. Keep tilting at those windmills.

I'm talking about facts and you are quoting Hemingway. Who is tilting at windmills?

kraychik · August 22, 2015

I'm talking about facts and you are quoting Hemingway. Who is tilting at windmills?

The fact that Argus hates people who aren't white? Right. Character assassination is your only card, I don't blame you for playing it.

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

The fact that Argus hates people who aren't white? Right. Character assassination is your only card, I don't blame you for playing it.

And what exactly is your card then? Please, we are all wondering.

Michael Hardner · August 22, 2015

Please keep the comments away from personal insinuations. Unless someone calls themselves a racist don't insinuate that they are.

WestCoastRunner · August 22, 2015

Please keep the comments away from personal insinuations. Unless someone calls themselves a racist don't insinuate that they are.

Is racist a bad word? Is calling someone homophobic, anti-feminist, mysogynist not allowed either?

Machjo · August 22, 2015

Ignore this post.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Machjo

Smallc · August 22, 2015

Is racist a bad word? Is calling someone homophobic, anti-feminist,

They're all subjective of your own opinion, which may not be shared by others, or the person you're directing your label at.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Smallc

Michael Hardner · August 22, 2015

Is racist a bad word? Is calling someone homophobic, anti-feminist, mysogynist not allowed either?

If they admit that they are those things then no.

WestCoastRunner · August 22, 2015

If they admit that they are those things then no.

If they don't but they continue to post statements that are mysogynist or homophobic or racist, why shouldn't they be called out on it? For example, they have been told that gays don't like being called 'homo', but the poster continues to call them 'homo', should they not be called out for being 'homophobic'?

Edited August 22, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Michael Hardner · August 22, 2015

Go after the argument not the person is a better way, unless you want to end the discussion.

On Guard for Thee · August 22, 2015

If they don't but they continue to post statements that are mysogynist or homophobic or racist, why shouldn't they be called out on it? For example, they have been told that gays don't like being called 'homo', but the poster continues to call them 'homo', should they not be called out for being 'homophobic'?

Certain folks get a bye here.

Michael Hardner · August 22, 2015

As to your question- you can report it to see if the mod considers it an insult.

WestCoastRunner · August 22, 2015

Go after the argument not the person is a better way, unless you want to end the discussion.

Calling someone homophobic raises the self-awareness of that person to reflect on their thoughts, don't you think? 'Homophobic' or 'Racist' is simply a label. It may be derogatory in your mind but it may be accepting for someone who actually is 'homophobic'.

kraychik · August 22, 2015

Please keep the comments away from personal insinuations. Unless someone calls themselves a racist don't insinuate that they are.

Take away character assassination and he won't be able to post. I prefer my leftists unhinged. Let them show who they are. That goes for you, as well. I doubt Argus needs your benevolent protection.

WestCoastRunner · August 22, 2015

As to your question- you can report it to see if the mod considers it an insult.

No, I don't care if a mod considers it an insult. I care that we are being censored.

kraychik · August 22, 2015

Calling someone homophobic raises the self-awareness of that person to reflect on their thoughts, don't you think? 'Homophobic' or 'Racist' is simply a label. It may be derogatory in your mind but it may be accepting for someone who actually is 'homophobic'.

"Homophobia".

Ah, the lovely lexicon of the left.