Immigration

[On Guard for Thee]

It really reveals the low quality of a poster when someone posts detailed cites which show that an argument is wrong, and, never once addressing it, he makes the same claims again and again.

Perhaps you should ponder this closely, and take it to heart.

[Argus]

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.

The problem here is that the insults the Left likes to cast, like racist, bigot, homophobe, etc., have been largely ignored. I don't discount that many of them use these insults because they actually think the people they're arguing with ARE racists, bigots and homophobes. Others use it as a tactic. If they can't address the argument, and many of them lack the knowledge or intelligence to do so, then they simply attack the person making the argument. The problem is I think most, or at least, many of the people who routinely use such terms are cretins and morons, but I'm not allowed to say it.

If they want to tell me what they think of me I'm fine with that just so long as I get to provide my unvarnished opinion of them right back in their smug, sanctimonious faces.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Short of prohibiting international marriages and denying Canadians access to their foreign spouses and children, you'll have to accept at least a certain degree of immigration.

No one has suggested we completely eliminate immigration that I'm aware of.

[Topaz]

Could one say a "racist" is a moron? Or a moron is not a racist?

[Argus]

Well, I'm too lazy to look up any stats on the matter right now, but I grew up in Vancouver and almost all my friends were either 1st or 2nd generation immigrants from Asia (China, HK, Taiwan, etc). I've kept in touch with many of them and probably about half lean conservative these days. I don't think that sample is atypical.

One of the main thrusts behind Barbara McDougal's argument to cabinet back in the 1980s to vastly increase immigration - and, according to the media report, the deciding argument - is that immigrants tend to vote for those who are in power. They left places with nasty governments, and they're more likely to trust the one which brought them here and is keeping things stable. That's why immigration tripled under Mulroney. It wasn't for Canada's benefit, but to supply a stream of PC voters.

But a major study of immigration by the Economic Council of Canada questions the over-all impact. ECC economist Neil Swan told the Commons committee that his tentative results suggested that “the economic impacts of immigration are not nearly as large as the public generally perceives them to be, whether positive or negative.” He said decisions about immigration should be made on non-economic grounds.

...

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

good on ya for acknowledging those statements of yours on immigration have been countered by the leader of your favoured Conservative party.

You should try critical thought some time too.

But the, as you say, "stuff", that Harper stated is specific enough that it has to be fact based... it just can't be a cursory opinion he's providing - or are you really contending that Harper is telling porkies?

All politicians lie. I've said that before many times too. On immigration, politicians will repeat, ad nauseum, the same themes so much that they've become ingrained in Canadian politics. We need immigration because of an aging population and because of a lack of people to fill jobs and to help the economy. None of those statements are supported by the evidence, nor do the politicians who utter them ever attempt to provide such evidence. They're meant to be taken for granted, and anyone who dares to question them will simply be swept away by calling them names like 'bigot' and 'racist'.

[Argus]

Perhaps you should ponder this closely, and take it to heart.

If you ever provide a cite to back up your uninformed opinions be sure that I will. Since most of your posts consist of insults though, I suppose you've rarely given much thought to cites.

[On Guard for Thee]

If you ever provide a cite to back up your uninformed opinions be sure that I will. Since most of your posts consist of insults though, I suppose you've rarely given much thought to cites.

Not my fault if you miss posts. Have you not heard about the Canadian fertility rate? Women are waiting until later in life to become mothers? It all adds up to that our birth rate won't sustain the population, hence, the need for immigration. Even your Mr. Harper sees this.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

Edited August 22, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Argus]

Not my fault if you miss posts. Have you not heard about the Canadian fertility rate? Women are waiting until later in life to become mothers? It all adds up to that our birth rate won't sustain the population, hence, the need for immigration. Even your Mr. Harper sees this.

Ah, I see, so you've done a study or can find a study which says we need to bring over 1% of the population as immigrants each year in order to sustain the population? I look forward to seeing the expert study which has shown us this.

[waldo]

You should try critical thought some time too.

it appears my critical thought in pointing out the disparity between your statements and those statements/positions of Harper/Harper Conservatives on immigration... has caused you to lash out rather than apply your own critical thought as to why you're wwwwwrong!

.

All politicians lie. I've said that before many times too. On immigration, politicians will repeat, ad nauseum, the same themes so much that they've become ingrained in Canadian politics. We need immigration because of an aging population and because of a lack of people to fill jobs and to help the economy. None of those statements are supported by the evidence, nor do the politicians who utter them ever attempt to provide such evidence. They're meant to be taken for granted, and anyone who dares to question them will simply be swept away by calling them names like 'bigot' and 'racist'.

oh my! Has Harper called you a bigot... a racist? I've not been too focused on this thread for some time; accordingly, I guess I missed your supplied evidence. Would it be possible for you to either link me to a previous post(s) where you've provided that cited evidence... or repeat citations again, here? Thanks in advance.

.

[Argus]

it appears my critical thought in pointing out the disparity between your statements and those statements/positions of Harper/Harper Conservatives on immigration... has caused you to lash out rather than apply your own critical thought as to why you're wwwwwrong!

I know I'm right. I would suggest Harper knows I'm right too. I was merely pointing out your shock that I'd disagree with Conservative policy is simply because you are incapable of considering the actual merits of a policy, law or regulation since by your way of thinking, anything your party does is "Good" and anything anyone else does is "Bad".

.

oh my! Has Harper called you a bigot... a racist?

I think you've simply gone off on some kind of strange tangent in an effort to cover the complete lack of information you have on the topic under discussion. Might I suggest you either acquire such information or stop trying to take part?

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[waldo]

I think you've simply gone off on some kind of strange tangent in an effort to cover the complete lack of information you have on the topic under discussion. Might I suggest you either acquire such information or stop trying to take part?

oh my! I truly wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt... apparently, in line with your typical unsubstantiated opinions, you haven't provided any evidence/citation, at all. If you had, surely in the interests of reinforcing your position you would have no hesitation in pointing to it or providing it again. Surely!

[cybercoma]

I said that going after the argument is the preferred way. "Your argument is racist because...." is ok. "You are a racist..." not ok, as it's pejorative unless the person self identifies that way anyway.

Fair enough, but is it not fair to say that someone who makes racist arguments and doubles down on them when it's pointed out is clearly a racist?

Edited August 22, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

If the statement is so blatantly racist that it's self evident maybe, but then why would the claimant deny their racism? ... We're trying to split the atom of subjectivity I think.

[cybercoma]

I'm just trying to better understand your thoughts here.

[Argus]

oh my! I truly wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt... apparently, in line with your typical unsubstantiated opinions, you haven't provided any evidence/citation, at all. If you had, surely in the interests of reinforcing your position you would have no hesitation in pointing to it or providing it again. Surely!

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?

[waldo]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?

youbet... you repeatedly talk of evidence in regards to "no need for immigration increases". I mentioned to you I hadn't been actively following the thread; I asked (twice now) if you might consider pointing me to your post(s) where you provided/cited that evidence. Apparently, this post of yours that I've quoted is the best you can do.

[Bonam]

Fair enough, but is it not fair to say that someone who makes racist arguments and doubles down on them when it's pointed out is clearly a racist?

Except that there are plenty of arguments that to one person might seem not racist but to you seem racist. Those steeped in social justice ideology have a different conception of what constitutes racism than those not steeped in said ideology. Like MH says, if you have a problem with a particular argument, explain what you think is wrong with the argument rather than simply screaming racist and bigot, as is so sadly typical on this forum.

[Machjo]

I wonder to what degree religious beliefs affect beliefs about immigration, especially the belief in one God who created man from the same dust and to love our neighbour as the second commandment that is like the first, to love God.

[Machjo]

For example, I can imagine that those who have replaced religion with an secular ideology of nationalism would tend to oppose immigration far more than a religionist would.

[Vega]

Question; can the PM raise immigration like some are saying? I thought we had a point system without caps?

[Smallc]

Question; can the PM raise immigration like some are saying? I thought we had a point system without caps?

Parliament can change the system however they like.

[marcus]

Except that there are plenty of arguments that to one person might seem not racist but to you seem racist.

Someone can counter that they are not racist, but when it comes to some comments and positions, it's pretty clear whether that person is a racist or not. For example, when someone speaks out against immigration and their reason is the following bigoted, stereotyped and blanket comment:

No, we owe our children to preserve what we made for them, not to bury it in a mass of illiterate foreign goat herders who have no job skills, will never pay any taxes

That person is clearly a racist and a bigot.

[Smallc]

That might be bigotry, but it isn't racism. It's about cultural differences, not skin colour. Because of your reflexive horror, you can't tell the difference.

[Big Guy]

Fair enough, but is it not fair to say that someone who makes racist arguments and doubles down on them when it's pointed out is clearly a racist?

I agree with that statement but I think that what the mods are struggling with is context. I have told someone that what they are saying is racist in nature and they may be considered as racist if they continue. That is in a helpful tone assuming that the person does not realized how far they have gone in their argument.

Those having been notified and continue in their racist rhetoric already know what they are saying and just refusing to accept the label. Any subsequent labelling of racist is considered an insult by both parties.

The idea of thinking that your race is superior to other races is not illegal and fairly common among those looking for simple reasons for their own shortcomings. Most racists, misogynists and xenophobes seldom share their views in public because they know the possible repercussions of their statements of hate. They tend to spread their vile on anonymous public access bulletin boards - there are no negative consequences of using that medium. To challenge them on this medium is also futile since they seem to thrive on the ability to see their own distasteful views in print.