Canadian Immigration

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

Try googling the IRPA act in Canada and learn a little bit of Canadian law. 

I know enough about Canadian law. It is obvious that you don't. Google it yourself and then come back to me and show me where it says that it is legal to enter Canada illegally. I await your reply. 

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

Geez, you really do have a reading problem alright. I fully know that you are not a criminal if you are invited into a home. You need to think before you speak. It really does work. 

Then why don't you try it?

[taxme]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Indeed. Why bother with taxes?

Good question. Why bother paying taxes when we have politicians who keep stealing our money and blowing that money on their pet liberal/socialist programs and agendas that most Canadians never asked for. Taxes are a ripoff. 

[taxme]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Then why don't you try it?

You are really starting to annoy me with your silly liberal responses. 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

I know enough about Canadian law. It is obvious that you don't. Google it yourself and then come back to me and show me where it says that it is legal to enter Canada illegally. I await your reply. 

Obviously you had no time to read that text, and it's obvious you have no pre knowledge, so, your argument falls on deaf ears, again.

[Omni]

Just now, taxme said:

You are really starting to annoy me with your silly liberal responses. 

Your arguments are so flimsy so I am not surprised you're annoyed.

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

Obviously you had no time to read that text, and it's obvious you have no pre knowledge, so, your argument falls on deaf ears, again.

You got that right. What I am saying here too you is falling on deaf ears. Time to clean yours out. Wax build up will do that to you.  

[taxme]

Just now, Omni said:

Your arguments are so flimsy so I am not surprised you're annoyed.

I thought that whatever I said was falling on deaf ears?  You truly are an exercise in futility. Nighty-night.  

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

You got that right. What I am saying here too you is falling on deaf ears. Time to clean yours out. Wax build up will do that to you.  

All right, so you admit to having no real knowledge of the law in question. So why prattle on causing wax build up in my ears?

[Omni]

Just now, taxme said:

I thought that whatever I said was falling on deaf ears?  You truly are an exercise in futility. Nighty-night.  

Hey but ah, do some reading and come back later.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, Omni said:

And once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of law. I have friends that walk into my house every other day. If they don't steal money, where is the crime?

Some friends have a presumption of an open invitation. Strangers do not. Strangers walking into your home are breaking the law.

[dre]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

Given he was congratulating someone who was responding to me - a response which contained no relevant information and just more blithering social justice warrior drool, and given in the last two days he has repeatedly about people posting unpleasant things about Muslims it's not much of a leap.

 

 

There you are with the SJW insult again. You realize people read what you write here, right? And that you were challenged to name a single position I have taken that supports that and all your avid readers got was crickets.

My stance on immigration is completely centrist.

1. I support more or less the same number of immigrants as we have now, which are geared around maintaining  slow steady population growth.

2. I support increasing the number of immigrants in the economic, which by extension means less immigrants that are not in it. 

Those are my stated positions. What do any of them have to do with Social Justice? Canada is not a social program for the worlds poor. We should help out as much as Canadians feel like helping out but not more. I have NEVER advocated taking in refugees... I do think we should take some refugees but its never something I have argued for on here.

I oppose your little "Canadian Values" quiz, not because I think it would be "unjust" to immigrants (muslim or not), but because I don't think it would be EFFECTIVE. For one thing we are telegraphing to the whole world what it is for, and immigrants will simply be coached through it. The questions and answers would be on the internet within a week, along with hints on how to avoid raising suspicion. You would only every weed out the odd REALLY STUPID person.

I have advocated instead using the money and resources to beef security and traditional screening, etc. Thats not social justice... its common sense.

You labeled me an SJW not because of any position I have ever taken (again... feel free to go find one), but simply because that is your go-to smear for people that poke holes in your xenophobic drivel. Same with this "ultra leftist" insult you like to throw at me. Its just feces thrown at the wall with the hope it will stick if you throw enough. You cannot back up ANY of it.

 

 

[dre]

On 4/23/2017 at 8:53 AM, Argus said:

You social justice warriors can continue to blather on with you inane love of different cultures and societies and how wonderful it will be.

Wow... this is really reaching "comedy act" levels now. Its almost hard to watch...

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, dre said:

Those are my stated positions. What do any of them have to do with Social Justice?

Your angry defense of Islam and opposition to screening newcomers for Canadian values would be one aspect of your leftism. But let's face facts. I've been reading you for some time. All your positions are on the far left. You are not even close to being a centrist. Why do you even pretend otherwise?

42 minutes ago, dre said:

I oppose your little "Canadian Values" quiz, not because I think it would be "unjust" to immigrants (muslim or not), but because I don't think it would be EFFECTIVE. For one thing we are telegraphing to the whole world what it is for, and immigrants will simply be coached through it.

Everyone who takes a personality test for a job knows the purpose of the test is to screen out those with undesirable traits and bring in those with the best traits. They all try to fool the tests. The tests are designed with that in mind. The US does in-person interviews. So do other countries. Your belief they wouldn't work is based on no evidence.

42 minutes ago, dre said:

You labeled me an SJW not because of any position I have ever taken (again... feel free to go find one), but simply because that is your go-to smear for people that poke holes in your xenophobic drivel.

No I use it for people who fail to poke holes or even try to poke holes in my fact-based positions and instead resort to slurs like 'xenophobic'.

[hot enough]

16 hours ago, Omni said:

Your arguments are so flimsy so I am not surprised you're annoyed.

You may well be right, but wow, the stunning hypocrisy!

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

screening newcomers for Canadian values

"Patriotism" "the last refuge of a scoundrel".

[dre]

47 minutes ago, Argus said:

Your angry defense of Islam and opposition to screening newcomers for Canadian values would be one aspect of your leftism. But let's face facts. I've been reading you for some time. All your positions are on the far left.

 

LOL. What angry defense of Islam? Wanna back that accusation up too? (get ready for more crickets).  I think Islam is a bogus belief in a false god, that encourages all kinds of behavior I don't like. 

If I have so many ultra leftist positions, why is it you cant name a single one? And once again... Absolutely no supporting evidence for this SJW claim.

Again... these accusations are simply the result of a construct you have created inside your own mind. You subconsciously put people that don't agree with your bitter, cowardly world view into this neat little slot, to re-enforce  your own beliefs. It has no real basis in reality which is why when challenged to provide any evidence... even a single post or position... you have nothing at all. 

Its basically just a mental version of the bars you have installed on your windows.

[taxme]

11 minutes ago, hot enough said:

"Patriotism" "the last refuge of a scoundrel".

Patriotism is the last refuge for scoundrels? Thank gawd for those "scoundrels' otherwise Canada would be in worse shape than what it is today. At least patriots fight for Canada, not the rest of the world like you appear to do here. Patriotism is something leftist liberal SJW's know nothing about. Personally, you have it all wrong again. It is the leftist liberal SJW's who are the scoundrels, and the anti-Canadians here. Believe it or not. 

[Argus]

I was wondering the other day, in a conversation with a friend, why we have immigration. It seems to me that those who support immigration do so for the following reasons:

It's good for the economy.

It's because of our aging population.

It's because of our declining birthrate

It's because of an impending skills shortage

I can understand why people would believe these. The political parties have been parroting these themes for decades, and the media has been repeating them ad nauseum. But they are demonstrably untrue. So would anyone else care to posit an additional reason why we have such massive and expensive immigration?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

I was wondering the other day, in a conversation with a friend, why we have immigration. It seems to me that those who support immigration do so for the following reasons:

It's good for the economy.

It's because of our aging population.

It's because of our declining birthrate

It's because of an impending skills shortage

I can understand why people would believe these. The political parties have been parroting these themes for decades, and the media has been repeating them ad nauseum. But they are demonstrably untrue. So would anyone else care to posit an additional reason why we have such massive and expensive immigration?

They're not "themes" they are facts. We now have more people in this country over 65 than we do under 15. The declining birthrate has been doing so for years. Get your head out of the sand.

[Argus]

Just now, Omni said:

They're not "themes" they are facts. We now have more people in this country over 65 than we do under 15. The declining birthrate has been doing so for years. Get your head out of the sand.

Canada has an aging population. That is a fact. Canada has a declining birthrate. That too is a fact. Immigration will do virtually nothing about either of those situations. That is the fact you ignore.

There is no skills shortage nor is one foreseen.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Canada has an aging population. That is a fact. Canada has a declining birthrate. That too is a fact. Immigration will do virtually nothing about either of those situations. That is the fact you ignore.

There is no skills shortage nor is one foreseen.

Immigration is what has stopped our population from declining even more. That seems to be at least one fact you ignore.

[Omni]

Just now, Omni said:

Immigration is what has stopped our population from declining even more. That seems to be at least one fact you ignore.

And guess what, it ain't gonna change any time soon because cooler heads realize that we are headed for trouble if we end up with a bunch of old biddies trying to collect OAP, CPP with nobody working and paying taxes to support it.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

And guess what, it ain't gonna change any time soon because cooler heads realize that we are headed for trouble if we end up with a bunch of old biddies trying to collect OAP, CPP with nobody working and paying taxes to support it.

Good point.  Make sure there's enough for the next thirty years or so.  After that, who cares?

Edited May 9, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

Immigration is what has stopped our population from declining even more. That seems to be at least one fact you ignore.

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

 

Edited May 9, 2017 by Argus