Immigration

[Argus]

More like- let's not try to create and maintain an identity we don't agree on or that never existed

I think we do have an identity, a pretty good one. Jokes about Canadian politeness and Canadians standing quietly at red lights on Sunday mornings with no traffic aren't entirely accurate but they do give an indication of an orderly and mannered society which I think most of us value.

No one makes jokes about how polite third world people are. Quite the contrary in fact. They come from disorderd societies, often broken societies where there is no respect for the corrupt nature of the law and those who enforce it, only fear. They come from hardscrabble societies where you grab anything you can get before someone can take it away.

Our identity, our values and mass spectrum cultural preferences aren't influenced positively by bringing over millions and millions of such people with no time or chance to integrate them.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I think Argus is intolerant of people with certain views and beliefs. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's alright to be critical where it's deserved.

I'm intolerant of chaotic societies and belief systems which are violently intolerant themselves. I'm intolerant of the gross ignorance characterized by general societal values, often religiously inspired, which contain brutal injustices towards people who have essentially done little or nothing wrong but to offend some tenet of some religious text.

And I'm intolerant of stupid liberals who get their panties in a knot because I don't speak with respect about such groups.

[On Guard for Thee]

I've done my research. You refuse to do any. You cling stubbornly to the old homilies politicians have been spouting for years without a shred of supporting evidence. You have an absolutely closed mind. Closed, shuttered, and locked tight, a defiant fortress against any information or facts which run counter to your decided beliefs.

Thats funny, Harper seems to be spouting what most of us know, and what the evidence, such as that from statscan shows, that we need immigration to offset our declining population.

[Argus]

Came across this, which was published last year, and points out the idiocy of Justin Trudeau's immigration ideas. People will whine because it's in the Sun, which is a paper I admittedly rarely read, but Gunter is a general political columnist for postmedia and appears in all their papers. He's also generally pro immigration. Anyway, the point is in the numbers.

"Pandering to a crowd of indo-Canadian voters" Gunter writes, Trudeau promised to open up immigration to more family class immigrants (as Mulcair has done) and let people bring over their parents and grandparents.

This is not a tiny problem. Roughly 40,000 of the newcomers Canada admits each year are the older parents or grandparents of new citizens. Under Kenney, the Immigration department estimated Grandma and Grandpa Immigrant were costing Canadian taxpayers between $1.5 and $2 billion annually. That’s the amount left over after adding up the economic and tax contributions of older family-class immigrants and subtracting the social benefits they received.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/26/justin-trudeau-has-the-wrong-idea-on-immigration

[drummindiver]

Heathen - "a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do."

To the best of my knowledge, I believe that there were not too many Christians, Jews or Muslims in the jungles when Christian Missionaries traveled to third world countries.

If you are uncomfortable with meaning of words perhaps you could look up their meanings before commenting.

Oh, that's how you discuss things? you are the epitome of hpypocracy. if you don't think heathen is used in a derogatory manner towards Aboriginal peoples you are as ignorant as you are hypocritical. oh wait, this from the guy with the endless barrage of telling ppl to debate nicely. Again, hypocrite. Don't bother telling me you won't respond, we ALL know how you' won't respond to snarky comments and discussing things with the likes of us mere mortals...btw, it also means uncultured and uncivilized, which is the context in which you used it....taken from the same source as yours. therefore, your comment is racist.

[Argus]

Thats funny, Harper seems to be spouting what most of us know, and what the evidence, such as that from statscan shows, that we need immigration to offset our declining population.

You 'know' what politicians like Harper have been blithely 'spouting' for years, but none of that spouting is based on evidence, and you keep citing Stats Canada even though Stats Canada is not something you've cited. In fact, I've cited them to back up many of my arguments with regard to the economic deterioration of immigrants and immigrant illiteracy. You've ignored those cites, of course, since any criticism of immigration gets your knee jerking in instinctive, mindless rejection.

[drummindiver]

More like- let's not try to create and maintain an identity we don't agree on or that never existed

there is no Canadian identity?

Care to explain?

Why is this Canadian political forum called Mapleleafweb?

[On Guard for Thee]

You 'know' what politicians like Harper have been blithely 'spouting' for years, but none of that spouting is based on evidence, and you keep citing Stats Canada even though Stats Canada is not something you've cited. In fact, I've cited them to back up many of my arguments with regard to the economic deterioration of immigrants and immigrant illiteracy. You've ignored those cites, of course, since any criticism of immigration gets your knee jerking in instinctive, mindless rejection.

I'll leave the mindless knee jerking insult stuff to he who is more adept at such, and leave you with some reading.

http://www.macleans.ca/uncategorized/why-its-time-for-canada-to-grow-up/

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-x/2014001/section04-eng.htm

[drummindiver]

You 'know' what politicians like Harper have been blithely 'spouting' for years, but none of that spouting is based on evidence, and you keep citing Stats Canada even though Stats Canada is not something you've cited. In fact, I've cited them to back up many of my arguments with regard to the economic deterioration of immigrants and immigrant illiteracy. You've ignored those cites, of course, since any criticism of immigration gets your knee jerking in instinctive, mindless rejection.

D

Edited August 24, 2015 by drummindiver

[Argus]

I'll leave the mindless knee jerking insult stuff to he who is more adept at such, and leave you with some reading.

http://www.macleans.ca/uncategorized/why-its-time-for-canada-to-grow-up/

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-520-x/2014001/section04-eng.htm

Uhm, what you've posted is, first the opinion of a columnist that we should triple our population, and second, a conclusion from Statistics Canada that our population is aging. The first is just an opinion, no better, no worse than anyone else's, with no cited evidence in support. Its general logic seems to be along the lines of 'the bigger the better', which frankly, is nonsense.

The second cite... well how about that, we have an aging population! Who knew!?

Except I've never argued we don't have an aging population. I've argued, and the studies I've posted have argued, that immigration is not going to change that. And by the way, even your own cite from Stats Canada has the same conclusion.

Indeed, the results of the various scenarios highlight above all the powerful momentum present in the dynamics of the Canadian population: even with major shifts in the components of population growth such as fertility and immigration, the continuation of population aging and slowing growth will not be reversed—only the pace will quicken or slow.

[On Guard for Thee]

Uhm, what you've posted is, first the opinion of a columnist that we should triple our population, and second, a conclusion from Statistics Canada that our population is aging. The first is just an opinion, no better, no worse than anyone else's, with no cited evidence in support. Its general logic seems to be along the lines of 'the bigger the better', which frankly, is nonsense.

The second cite... well how about that, we have an aging population! Who knew!?

Except I've never argued we don't have an aging population. I've argued, and the studies I've posted have argued, that immigration is not going to change that. And by the way, even your own cite from Stats Canada has the same conclusion.

Indeed, the results of the various scenarios highlight above all the powerful momentum present in the dynamics of the Canadian population: even with major shifts in the components of population growth such as fertility and immigration, the continuation of population aging and slowing growth will not be reversed—only the pace will quicken or slow.

And your SUN article isn't just an opinion,and a rather typically nasty one, but certainly not out of character, and with no back up? The cite concludes, at least according to our government body which should know such things, that we need immigration to offset ageing and low birthrate. I ca't state any simpler, or more often, to help you get that.

[Michael Hardner]

there is no Canadian identity?

Care to explain?

Why is this Canadian political forum called Mapleleafweb?

To Drum and Argus - there is a Canadian identity and we can even promote aspects of it that we want to but it is largely out of our control

[Big Guy]

Oh, that's how you discuss things? you are the epitome of hpypocracy. if you don't think heathen is used in a derogatory manner towards Aboriginal peoples you are as ignorant as you are hypocritical. oh wait, this from the guy with the endless barrage of telling ppl to debate nicely. Again, hypocrite. Don't bother telling me you won't respond, we ALL know how you' won't respond to snarky comments and discussing things with the likes of us mere mortals...btw, it also means uncultured and uncivilized, which is the context in which you used it....taken from the same source as yours. therefore, your comment is racist.

If your perception of a debate is to call people ignorant and hypocritical, then you are correct, I cannot see debating you. I also suggest that when one uses a word it is up to the author which definition of the word is being utilized and in which context. I do agree that the reader of a post has the freedom to interpret it as they wish - but I also suggest it depends on the predisposition of the reader. There is enough racism already being dressed as debate in this thread.

I will admit that relative to pervious posts, that you have previously made directed at Big Guy, I assumed you were taking but yet another opportunity for name calling and demeaning his position. If I was incorrect then I apologize.

If I am mistaken, then I look forward to your next civil comment regarding one of my posts.

[Moonlight Graham]

II think it's better for the people to realize that culture can't be defended...

I disagree. Just look at Quebec.

...and that it's better for all people if we let people immigrate as freely as capital does.

So you're in favour open borders essentially?

[Michael Hardner]

I disagree. Just look at Quebec.

So you're in favour open borders essentially?

1. True but Quebec is different in many ways. Also they promote their culture with positive measures such as grants and negative ways such as banning English.

2. Yes I essentially support open borders but a massive change such as that would require a massive transition plan and not be done unilaterally

[Moonlight Graham]

Canada was originally built by people from North-Western Europe, who spoke english or french, were Christian in religion, and believed in liberal democracy. They were also Caucasian yes, but I don't think people who wish to maintain the above necessarily do it because of race, I think a lot of it has to do with culture. Remember, our national anthem was created with the word "God" in it without anyone thinking twice about it, because pretty much everyone was Christian. When someone from the dominant culture(s) sees someone walking down the street wearing a Sikh dastar (turban) or a hijab or niqab and speaking a different language, they don't understand that culture and see at as a possible threat to their own culture if the are in high enough numbers to where they can begin to make political and social changes.

On the other hand, don't make judgements about Sikhs/Hindus/Indians or Muslims/Arabs/Persians etc. until you've actually spent some time getting to know some of them. Otherwise its just assumptions based on ignorance and fear. Irish-Canadians and Italian-Canadians were treated poorly too when they first arrived in Canada because they were "different"

Edited August 24, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[PIK]

Canada was originally built by people from North-Western Europe, who spoke english or french, were Christian in religion, and believed in liberal democracy. They were also Caucasian yes, but I don't think people who wish to maintain the above necessarily do it because of race, I think a lot of it has to do with culture. Remember, our national anthem was created with the word "God" in it without anyone thinking twice about it, because pretty much everyone was Christian. When someone from the dominant culture(s) sees someone walking down the street wearing a Sikh dastar (turban) or a hijab or niqab and speaking a different language, they don't understand that culture and see at as a possible threat to their own culture if the are in high enough numbers to where they can begin to make political and social changes.

On the other hand, don't make judgements about Sikhs/Hindus/Indians or Muslims/Arabs/Persians etc. until you've actually spent some time getting to know some of them. Otherwise its just assumptions based on ignorance and fear. Irish-Canadians and Italian-Canadians were treated poorly too when they first arrived in Canada because they were "different"

You missed the main pt in your argument. Sikhs/Hindus/Indians or Muslims/Arabs/Persians are of different religion and mixing religions does not work well. And it is only going to get worse.

[Moonlight Graham]

2. Yes I essentially support open borders but a massive change such as that would require a massive transition plan and not be done unilaterally

What would be the benefits to that compared to the costs of such a plan?

[Michael Hardner]

What would be the benefits to that compared to the costs of such a plan?

It would equal the rules between capital and people- and create a system where people could leave countries with fewer rights as well as taking steps to better coordinate global regulations

Costs would be transitional- more infrastructure for monitoring security for example

[Moonlight Graham]

You missed the main pt in your argument. Sikhs/Hindus/Indians or Muslims/Arabs/Persians are of different religion and mixing religions does not work well. And it is only going to get worse.

I think sometimes mixing different cultures when they're in large numbers can create problems. Look at the problems we've had historically between Quebec and the rest of Canada for example. Look at the problems in European countries with large Muslim immigration. It's nice to think we'll all be one big happy family but reality doesn't work like that.

[Michael Hardner]

Look at the problems we've had historically between Quebec and the rest of Canada for example. Look at the problems in European countries with large Muslim immigration. It's nice to think we'll all be one big happy family but reality doesn't work like that.

What is the alternative? The world is getting smaller- why not get ahead of the game? It would be better for people

[Argus]

And your SUN article isn't just an opinion,and a rather typically nasty one, but certainly not out of character, and with no back up? The cite concludes, at least according to our government body which should know such things, that we need immigration to offset ageing and low birthrate. I ca't state any simpler, or more often, to help you get that.

Why is it nasty? Do you think it's wise to bring in tens of thousands of seniors every year? Are you prepared to wait in line at the hospital behind them? Do you think Trudeau is being nice by promising to expedite that to bring in even more? The one thing my cite had yours didn't was numbers - well, and thought. And I remind you, even your one cite from Stats Can concluded that bringing over however many immigrants wasn't going to substantially alter an aging population. I also remind you that I've said before that the average age of immigrants, given we bring over middle aged folks who sponsor their grandmas, is not that much different from the average age of the Canadian born.

Your position isn't merely simple, it's simple-minded.

[Argus]

To Drum and Argus - there is a Canadian identity and we can even promote aspects of it that we want to but it is largely out of our control

True. But do we help it in the direction we want it to move by bringing in millions of people whose beliefs and cultural value sets are intrinsically opposed to most of what we believe in?

[Moonlight Graham]

Costs would be transitional- more infrastructure for monitoring security for example

Who's going to pay the costs? Immigrants who are subsistence farmers with little education/skills and no money after they sold everything for a plane ticket?

IMO our immigration policy should mainly bring in people who are net benefits to our economy. Most of the countries in the world, especially ones with people who would want to immigrate, are filled with people who are poor, violent, corrupt, unskilled, poorly educated etc. That's why their countries aren't very successful, that's why they'd want to leave them in the 1st place to come a country with universal healthcare and of course welfare benefits when they inevitably can't find a job here.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why is it nasty? Do you think it's wise to bring in tens of thousands of seniors every year? Are you prepared to wait in line at the hospital behind them? Do you think Trudeau is being nice by promising to expedite that to bring in even more? The one thing my cite had yours didn't was numbers - well, and thought. And I remind you, even your one cite from Stats Can concluded that bringing over however many immigrants wasn't going to substantially alter an aging population. I also remind you that I've said before that the average age of immigrants, given we bring over middle aged folks who sponsor their grandmas, is not that much different from the average age of the Canadian born.

Your position isn't merely simple, it's simple-minded.

You choose to ignore the actual stats to promote your own simple minded position, so I will leave it there. As has been pointed out, even Harper gets the idea when it comes to immigration. So there is some hope.