Should Canada screen potential immigrants/refugees for Canadian Values

[Argus]

Another way for Lawyers of immigrants to make money. Pay me this much and I'll give you the answers.

I doubt there'd be a lot of lawyers in Pakistan or Indonesia who would specialize in figuring out the personality tests for Canada immigration.

[Argus]

Obviously we're all being silly.

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

Even I'm not that stern about things. I'd say it depends on the crime and the person's history while in Canada.

But again, it takes years of legal actions to justify deporting a landed immigrant, and usually very severe crimes or a series of them. And sometimes the courts won't allow it then either.

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

Personality tests. You've never had one when applying for work at a major employer?

[Argus]

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,

That only catches the dumb ones. You don't ask directly like that. You peck around the corners. I once took a personality test when I was applying for a job at a Rogers inbound call centre. It was many pages long and asked sometimes obscure questions. At the end the guy told me I scored excellently for customer service, but unfortunately, not very high for sales, so I didn't get the job (which tells you a lot about Rogers customer service orientation).

[Argus]

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

Not so very different. Don't equate policy preferences with values. They're not the same. Almost all of us are pretty attached to freedom of speech, for example, even when it offends us. We're attached to democracy, and to no one being able to assault anyone for any reason but self defense or the legal force needed to comply with the law. We believe in religious freedom, and tolerance for gays and womens equality (more or less). We vary to some degree on all of these but in the main we support them very strongly. I think most Canadians most basic value is the believe in fundamental justice, fairness and compromise.

I think the lack of those, especially the latter, is one of the great faults of many of the world's other cultures.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

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

No, the questions are not basic, they're psychological and shifty. And no, there can't be litigation. No foreigner who is merely a hopeful applicant for citizenship but who fails a test Canada gives has any right to sue us. For what? We have the right to set our own standards, whatever they are.

[Argus]

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."

Apparently the difference between values and policy beliefs is too complicated for you. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in another conversation?

[poochy]

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

There are differences within a certain range of values, however, stepping off of a plane and calling yourself Canadian does not make you so, and there are certainly values held by some that are not typically Canadian. Your statement stems from the predominantly left wing belief that it's somehow wrong to have any sort of pride in the nation, or somehow believe it's possible for some nations or cultures to have beliefs that appear to be better than others. We can, and we do, and yes, we are better in part because of our inclusiveness, but if you allow yourself to be changed too much by those who disagree, or risk violence against you for your inclusiveness, what actual value have you brought to the nation?

It's that question that is often asked and never answered, why for example are progressives so quick to support cultures that treat homosexuals, and women and quite often their children so badly, but somehow Israel is the focus of attention? Why? Is it because Israel is a better country and should know better or show more restraint? No, that can't be, because all cultures are equal, they can't be better. But can they be more evil, o yes, certainly, broken ideology, and they are in too deep to ever see the light.

I still dont think its realistic to test people, those who are most likely to want to come here for the wrong reasons are most likely able to lie to get here, but if it was possible, it wouldn't be wrong, it just makes good sense.

[poochy]

That only catches the dumb ones. You don't ask directly like that. You peck around the corners. I once took a personality test when I was applying for a job at a Rogers inbound call centre. It was many pages long and asked sometimes obscure questions. At the end the guy told me I scored excellently for customer service, but unfortunately, not very high for sales, so I didn't get the job (which tells you a lot about Rogers customer service orientation).

Yes, i have done those as well, it's all about maintaining a consistent answer while the same question is being asked a dozen different ways, i don't disagree with the idea of testing, im just not sure how feasible it is. I disagree with the idea that we are somehow bad people (racists of course) for wanting the country to stay as good as it is.

[WestCoastRunner]

I doubt there'd be a lot of lawyers in Pakistan or Indonesia who would specialize in figuring out the personality tests for Canada immigration.

Why wouldn't there be? Just cause YOU doubt it?

[jacee]

Tory leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has asked if Canada should start screening immigrants on their values, and in particular on their views of Canadian values.

It will shock no one here that I'm very strongly in favour. As for the suggestion they will simply lie, there are numerous carefully calculated personality screening tests out there which will give us a view of just how hostile potential newcomers are to basic freedoms, to accepting others views, to challenges to their own beliefs, not to mention their views on Jews, gays, and women.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/tory-leadership-hopeful-kellie-leitch-asks-whether-ottawa-should-screen-immigrants-for-anti-canadian-values

Two thoughts:

1)

Argus ... I am quite surprised that you would have that much faith in a simple survey. Do you believe that Social Science research is sophisticated enough to guarantee reliable results on simple surveys of opinions and attitudes?

2)

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b ) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

© freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Hmmm ...

And I suppose my third thought would be ... whose version of "Canadian values"?

Kellie Lietch's?

Argus'?

?

.

Edited September 3, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

No, the questions are not basic, they're psychological and shifty. And no, there can't be litigation. No foreigner who is merely a hopeful applicant for citizenship but who fails a test Canada gives has any right to sue us. For what? We have the right to set our own standards, whatever they are.

I can guarantee you that your "standards" and mine are not the same.

.

[poochy]

I can guarantee you that your "standards" and mine are not the same.

.

So what? Judging by some of the conspiracy theory posts you start your opinions should be about the last ones that are considered.

[CITIZEN_2015]

These are values most Canadians (not all) believe in and not respected by most (not all) in certain regions (middle east, asia, south America, Africa) so I say they are Canadians values:

keep out those who do not believe in values which included respect for human rights, respect for women's right, equality regardless of gender, race, skin color, religions, freedom of view and expression, care for neighbor and democracy. We must refuse those who wish to disturb any or all of above values or wish to change our way of life.

Edited September 3, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[poochy]

Why wouldn't there be? Just cause YOU doubt it?

So you somehow think that people who aren't Canadian should somehow be allowed to fight to become Canadian under the laws of the country they are currently from that has absolutely nothing to do with and no influence at all over our own laws? So in a way another country would be telling us what people we have to take...which would be no more valid or somehow different than if they tried to do that now, in which case we would laugh at them and refuse.

Nah, don't think so.

[eyeball]

So what? Judging by some of the conspiracy theory posts you start your opinions should be about the last ones that are considered.

You're suggesting we use your values as the template?

[Guest]

Even I'm not that stern about things. I'd say it depends on the crime and the person's history while in Canada.

But again, it takes years of legal actions to justify deporting a landed immigrant, and usually very severe crimes or a series of them. And sometimes the courts won't allow it then either.

Yeah, I was taken to task and had to admit I should phrase things with more care. I mean the option should exist for all immigrants, and if Canada deems it necessary, it should be easily done.

[WestCoastRunner]

So you somehow think that people who aren't Canadian should somehow be allowed to fight to become Canadian under the laws of the country they are currently from that has absolutely nothing to do with and no influence at all over our own laws? So in a way another country would be telling us what people we have to take...which would be no more valid or somehow different than if they tried to do that now, in which case we would laugh at them and refuse.

Nah, don't think so.

Come again?

[Argus]

Do you believe that Social Science research is sophisticated enough to guarantee reliable results on simple surveys of opinions and attitudes?

I'd be willing to try it. God knows we need to try something to ensure the people we bring in are more interested in adapting to life in Canada than perpetuating their old life here but with more money. Of course, another solution is to simply ban immigration from regions with backwards social values like, well, the Muslim world.

Fundamental freedoms

The Canadian charter has no application to foreigners living abroad.

[Argus]

I can guarantee you that your "standards" and mine are not the same.

.

Well, given mine is preoccupied with the protection of Canada and yours with spreading fundamentalist Islam I suppose not.

[SpankyMcFarland]

No, the questions are not basic, they're psychological and shifty. And no, there can't be litigation. No foreigner who is merely a hopeful applicant for citizenship but who fails a test Canada gives has any right to sue us. For what? We have the right to set our own standards, whatever they are.

Psychology is not an exact business. Any permanent resident of Canada who was refused citizenship on the basis of these extremely ingenious questions would be suing all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination disguised as science. The lawyers would have a field day.

[Argus]

Psychology is not an exact business. Any permanent resident of Canada who was refused citizenship on the basis of these extremely ingenious questions would be suing all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination disguised as science. The lawyers would have a field day.

Under an intelligent system the tests would be given upon application, before anyone even comes to Canada.

[SpankyMcFarland]

I prefer the Dutch approach: this is who we are, so let's be clear you understand what you have signed up for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/world/europe/16iht-dutch-5852942.html?_r=0

[BC_chick]

Oh the irony:

Leitch says she feels "very strongly" about the proposal to screen potential immigrants for "intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms."

[taxme]

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

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.

Historically Canada had to do what it probably had to do. Canada probably rejected most people from coming to Canada because they were not required or needed at the time. Would you flood your home with tenants that left no place for you to move around in? Today we now flood Canada with immigrants that we don't need or want, and are flooding Canada with immigrant tenants where there is no room for them. Historically, I am pretty sure that there are many countries around the world that most likely have had less than stellar immigration policy. So, leave Canada out of that equation. Canada was no better or worse than any other country in the world.

[jacee]

Well, given mine is preoccupied with the protection of Canada and yours with spreading fundamentalist Islam I suppose not.

You may be overrating yourself just a wee tad, Argus, or maybe a big dram or two.

And I challenge you to support your straw man false nonsense about me.

Sheesh! Talk about an extremist!

.

Edited September 4, 2016 by jacee