Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[Guest]

No one has answered the simple question.... how do you determine what a potential immigrant actually thinks about an issue?

Exactly. That's why deportation once you find out should be an option.

[The_Squid]

Exactly. That's why deportation once you find out should be an option.

It already is an option.

Records prepared by the CBSA show that between the beginning of 2004 and the end of June this year, 148,057 people were deported, more than 70 per cent of whom were failed refugee claimants.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/08/20/canada-deports-more-than-10000-each-year-some-to-wars-and-repressive-regimes.html

[poochy]

My old van full of diesel fuel and fertilizer at the front door of the Dominion Royal Imperial Bank of Scotia Montreal. Do you need to know what day of the week and time?

I didn't say convicted, I said intend. Yes I am being silly, and so is Leitch. I am being silly to point out her dog-whistle politics. Why is she being silly?

No, you're attempting to discredit an entire discussion by turning it into something it isn't, it's a typical tactic when you can actually argue the details.

I doubt anything like this screening would be effective, but for example, lets say you could ask a man if he thought stoning a woman for adultery was the right thing do do, and he agreed, what exactly would the country lose by not allowing him to live here? Tell us, im dying to know, or just build another straw man and argue against it, whatever works for you.

Edited September 2, 2016 by poochy

[Guest]

It already is an option.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2014/08/20/canada-deports-more-than-10000-each-year-some-to-wars-and-repressive-regimes.html

Yes, I didn't mean to imply it was not.

[BC_chick]

No appeal of the deportation. Don't go back to being silly by pretending that you think I mean using insulting language when I talk of deportation for criminal offences.

I've lived continuously in Canada for 40 years and never even visited my birth country after leaving as a small kid. I have Canadian born husband and daughter. Canada is the only I've ever known. Let's say I go to a pipeline protest and get arrested for trespassing. You think I should get deported to a place that is unknown to me, where I don't know anyone? No appeal process, even though I'ved lived 88% of my life in Canada?

This is an example of 'Canadian values' you're trying to protect?

[Guest]

I've lived continuously in Canada for 40 years and never even visited my birth country after leaving as a small kid. I have Canadian born husband and daughter. Canada is the only I've ever known. Let's say I go to a pipeline protest and get arrested for trespassing. You think I should get deported to a place that is unknown to me, where I don't know anyone? No appeal process, even though I'ved lived 88% of my life in Canada?

This is an example of 'Canadian values' you're trying to protect?

No, nor should you go for a parking infraction, as someone else seemed to imply.

Btw, I'm not trying to protect any values.

[BC_chick]

No, nor should you go for a parking infraction, as someone else seemed to imply.

Btw, I'm not trying to protect any values.

But that's exactly what you said:

"Anyone who isn't Canadian by birth should face deportation if convicted of a crime. No appeal."

[Peter F]

No one has answered the simple question.... how do you determine what a potential immigrant actually thinks about an issue?

apparently such a determination is done by asking many indirect questions. Certainly never up front, direct questions. There is also the other problem that official 'Canadian' values would have to be kept secret and not advertised for fear of the immigrant merely answering by rote.

[Guest]

But that's exactly what you said:

"Anyone who isn't Canadian by birth should face deportation if convicted of a crime. No appeal."

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should take more care.

[BC_chick]

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should take more care.

Thanks for that. In a country of immigrants, something as black and white as birthplace doesn't seem like a sufficient barometer IMO.

It's similar to my opinion about Israel's right to exist. In 1948 it wasn't the right thing, but within a generation, absolutely. They are Israelis, that's the only homeland they've ever known.

The same idea applies here. It's inhumane to send someone to country they don't have any connection to. I'd like to think Canada is better than that.

[Guest]

Thanks for that. In a country of immigrants, something as black and white as birthplace doesn't seem like a sufficient barometer IMO.

It's similar to my opinion about Israel's right to exist. In 1948 it wasn't the right thing, but within a generation, absolutely. They are Israelis, that's the only homeland they've ever known.

The same idea applies here. It's inhumane to send someone to country they don't have any connection to. I'd like to think Canada is better than that.

Well, my point was with my wording. I didn't mean to imply any crime. As an immigrant who arrived here in 1984, I would hate to be kicked out for a misdemeanour. I would accept deportation without question were I convicted of a serious crime though. And if an appeal of the conviction was unsuccessful, I don't think an appeal of the deportation should be allowed.

[BC_chick]

Well, my point was with my wording. I didn't mean to imply any crime. As an immigrant who arrived here in 1984, I would hate to be kicked out for a misdemeanour. I would accept deportation without question were I convicted of a serious crime though. And if an appeal of the conviction was unsuccessful, I don't think an appeal of the deportation should be allowed.

I knew what you meant, my thanks was for conceding that your stance was too black or white.

As for serious crimes, I still think there has to be a different barometer than birth. So if a potential terrorist's mother arrived a week before delivery or a week after, it should make a difference?

It's not a very logical stance.

[Guest]

I knew what you meant, my thanks was for conceding that your stance was too black or white.

As for serious crimes, I still think there has to be a different barometer than birth. So if a potential terrorist's mother arrived a week before delivery or a week after, it should make a difference?

It's not a very logical stance.

And I appreciate your civility.

It's logical if one considers the options. If one is born here, the option doesn't exist. It would be nice if it did, but it does not. That's no reason not to use the tool when the option does exist.

Edited September 3, 2016 by bcsapper

[taxme]

I'm closing in on 60 years old and there have been people of differwnt ethnicities and languages since I was a kid. How far back are we going to preserve Canada as it "once was"?

Canada needs to go back before the sixties to preserve Canada as it once was. After the sixties papa Trudeau changed our immigration policy and decided that he wanted more new immigrants to come from the third world to Canada rather than from what was our regular source of new immigrants before the sixties which again were from Britain,Europe and Australia.

[eyeball]

Orientation for prospective immigrants who apply to come here already are given documentation to that effect. The booklet has 148 pages.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/welcome.pdf

There you go then. Maybe what we really need is a general public education refresher program aimed at old stock Canadians who seem to have forgotten.

[BC_chick]

And I appreciate your civilty.

It's logical if one considers the options. If one is born here, the option doesn't exist. It would be nice if it did, but it does not. That's no reason not to use the tool when the option does exist.

Got it. So like we have to draw the line somewhere so why not somewhere concrete.

To me a person's agency is more important. If they applied and came to Canada on their own accord as an adult, sure it's fair to be stripped of that privilege if they don't conduct themselves properly.

However, if someone comes to Canada as a child there is no agency, they are coming with their immigrating parents. It seems unethical to hold them to a different set of rules than anyone else who lacked the agency to be Canadian (ie through birth).

[CITIZEN_2015]

Canada needs to go back before the sixties to preserve Canada as it once was. After the sixties papa Trudeau changed our immigration policy and decided that he wanted more new immigrants to come from the third world to Canada rather than from what was our regular source of new immigrants before the sixties which again were from Britain,Europe and Australia.

The reactionary forces at play again. You mean Canada should go back to this? Shame.

...or Canada in the 20's, 30's, or 40's.

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2013/02/15/canadas_immigration_history_one_of_discrimination_and_exclusion.html

Canada has a less than stellar record historically when it comes to immigration policy, having rejected or excluded Indians, Chinese, Jews and Blacks during various periods over the past century.

Edited September 3, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

Got it. So like we have to draw the line somewhere so why not somewhere concrete.

To me a person's agency is more important. If they applied and came to Canada on their own accord as an adult, sure it's fair to be stripped of that privilege if they don't conduct themselves properly.

However, if someone comes to Canada as a child there is no agency, they are coming with their immigrating parents. It seems unethical to hold them to a different set of rules than anyone else who lacked the agency to be Canadian (ie through birth).

Fair enough, except that I think that if it is made perfectly clear what the repercussions of certain activities are, once a person has come of age, then there can be no complaints about them. I don't refrain from speeding because I'm a good citizen, or because I can't pay a ticket. I do so because my employer has a policy of firing people who get too many. As long as I know that, I can take the necessary steps not to get one. Go above and beyond, so to speak. I think the same can be expected of immigrants, if they are made fully aware of the condition.

[dre]

Really? Name a few major values (as opposed to policies where we strongly differ.

I don't believe in military interventionism, I don't think of people in terms of race or religion. There's a couple of core beliefs right there.

We agree on almost nothing... who's values do we test on?

[square]

The better question is what is meant by "Canadian Values". Everyone's "Canadian Values" are different.

[The_Squid]

But that's exactly what you said:

"Anyone who isn't Canadian by birth should face deportation if convicted of a crime. No appeal."

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should take more care.

Parking tickets are not a criminal matter. BCSapper didn't really need to clarify this.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The questions would have to be very basic and command near unanimous agreement. I could see much litigation arising from this.

One of the refreshing aspects of interviewing foreign medical grads compared to their Canadian peers is their candour. Some of them will actually admit that they want to make money and stay in the big city when they finish. I think such screening would make foreigners lie like Canadians.

[BC_chick]

Parking tickets are not a criminal matter. BCSapper didn't really need to clarify this.

That's why I provided a more serious crime in my example.

[dialamah]

I don't believe in military interventionism, I don't think of people in terms of race or religion. There's a couple of core beliefs right there.

We agree on almost nothing... who's values do we test on?

Maybe we should let immigrants who share Argus' values in?

"Do you believe in judging and excluding entire groups of people because of their religion or beliefs?" Yes. "Welcome to Canada."

[Argus]

All you do is make it plain that anyone who misbehaves will get sent back from whence they came with no right of appeal. And then stick to that.

Easy.

I'm sorry, but what country do you live in? This is not an option for me because I live in Canada, where it takes seven years of expensive legal manoeuvres to deport a serial killer who sneaks across the border. Maybe it's different in your country. Maybe you have no lawyers there....