Immigration of religious fanatics

[Argus]

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

No, I said the situation is far worse. I didn't say it was hopeless, or that it affected everyone. What is more important, what I clearly did say but you refused to listen is that people do change. I have seen this change during my lifetime here in Canada.

Sure, sometimes they do. But where is the sense in bringing over a hundred thousand people every year in HOPES that they change, as opposed to bringing in a hundred thousand people who don't need to?

[Argus]

Let's keep the discussion  on topic. The G20 was discussed endlessly and if anyone wants to continue they can start a new threat or resurrect the old ones.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

Let's summarize. Many tens of millions of people would like to come and live in Canada. That means we can be very careful about who we decide to let in, screening out all but the best. Unfortunately, we don't do that. As has already been shown, we don't prioritize the best immigrants. Immigration agents almost never even meet the potential immigrants. Instead they must rapidly peruse their paperwork, do routine checks for criminal backgrounds and terrorist associations, and then pass the file through so they can get to work on the next one. Often they only have a few minutes to do this.

We accept what's in the documents unless something triggers suspicion. Potential immigrants don't have to prove their language ability through actually speaking to a Canadian immigration officer, but simply supply a local school's attestation to that affect. Their social values or views have no part in any of the screening, and they are not asked any questions about this. That immigrants from certain countries and regions might adapt to life in Canada much easier than those from other countries and regions is not a fact we pay any attention to. We accept their credentials for their educational level and job history largely without questioning or investigation, or without determining if they'll be accepted by employers here in Canada.

We also know that the economic success of immigrants continues to deteriorate, as it has for the last couple of decades. 

[drummindiver]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Sure there is an easy way to make people happy. Arrest the criminals, and leave innocent people alone. The dumb cops did the exact opposite.

So all thw anarchy was the cops fault. Of course.

They were prepared the second day. Leared the lesson. 

[GostHacked]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Then I'm sure you'll agree we don't want it re-introduced by bringing over hundreds of thousands of people with deeply misogynistic cultural beliefs.

How do you propose we screen for that?

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Many tens of millions of people would like to come and live in Canada.

Cite please.  I understand that when Canada was selecting refugees, not very many wanted to come to Canada and  I certainly doubt that there are "many tens of millions of applicants" that CIC is dealing with. 

 

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Cite please.  I understand that when Canada was selecting refugees, not very many wanted to come to Canada and  I certainly doubt that there are "many tens of millions of applicants" that CIC is dealing with. 

 

I guess throwing around those phony "yuuuge" numbers is an attempt to promote the fear factor.

[Army Guy]

41 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

How do you propose we screen for that?

Here is an awesome idea, lets not recruit from that region.

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Here is an awesome idea, lets not recruit from that region.

Why should that kind of blatant discrimination be allowed?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Cite please.  I understand that when Canada was selecting refugees, not very many wanted to come to Canada and  I certainly doubt that there are "many tens of millions of applicants" that CIC is dealing with.

No, it doesn't have to deal with that many because that's not how the system is set up. CIC sends a certain number of immigration visas to each of its visa offices and only accepts as many applications from that region as it has visas to award. Once that number of visas is gone they don't accept further applications.  Most of the visas are awarded to offices in third world countries, specifically, Asia and the middle east. This means if the office in London, for example, gets a million people wanting an application, but only has 5,000 visa applications, that's as many as they can grant.

Given the economic/political situation in many European countries, like Ukraine, like Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. There is no question we could enormously increase the number of applications granted to Europe and still fill any quota we chose to set.

In addition, of course, life kind of sucks in much of the third world. The people you refer to who didn't want to come to Canada were, by and large, ignorant, uneducated rural folk who had barely even heard of Canada. The more cosmopolitan and educated people in big cities from Bombay to Durban, from Bejing to Lago, would certainly like to come here in enormous numbers.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Why should that kind of blatant discrimination be allowed?

Because immigration is supposed to be designed to bring across the best possible immigrants. Immigration Canada itself says that immigrants from the middle east are the least economically successful of any region. Add in the cultural factors and I would think basic logic would suggest we decide to focus our efforts elsewhere. It's not discrimination based on colour. It's discrimination based on numbers.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

I guess throwing around those phony "yuuuge" numbers is an attempt to promote the fear factor.

I'm interested in your strange logic. How is suggesting a lot of people want to come to Canada and we can thus pick and choose 'promoting the fear factor'?

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, it doesn't have to deal with that many because that's not how the system is set up. CIC sends a certain number of immigration visas to each of its visa offices and only accepts as many applications from that region as it has visas to award. Once that number of visas is gone they don't accept further applications.  Most of the visas are awarded to offices in third world countries, specifically, Asia and the middle east. This means if the office in London, for example, gets a million people wanting an application, but only has 5,000 visa applications, that's as many as they can grant.

Given the economic/political situation in many European countries, like Ukraine, like Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc. There is no question we could enormously increase the number of applications granted to Europe and still fill any quota we chose to set.

In addition, of course, life kind of sucks in much of the third world. The people you refer to who didn't want to come to Canada were, by and large, ignorant, uneducated rural folk who had barely even heard of Canada. The more cosmopolitan and educated people in big cities from Bombay to Durban, from Bejing to Lago, would certainly like to come here in enormous numbers.

At the time I was applying to go to the US, they were allocating 750,000 applications a year - 250,000 went to China, 250,000 went to Mexico and the last 250,000 was for the rest of the world (which included me).  They were quite a number of years behind in issuing, but my mother is American and she signed papers for me that shot me to the shortest line - still a 5 year wait.

Our system is similar.  Why can't Canada just limit the amount of applications from certain areas? Good question, Argus.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

My guess would be some globalist agenda forcing Islam on everybody...but that's jus' l'il ol' me.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

Why should that kind of blatant discrimination be allowed?

So what are you saying , that our immigration policies are set up to take a little from around the entire globe so we don't offend anyone.....Just a question during the Somolia crisis did we send a immigration team down to help the thousands of Somolians who were dying of starvation and insurgency warfare.....Nope....IS that racist, blatant discrimination....WTF was that.....same thing in Rwanda.....still no team ......But that was then, a different time, like Canada just grew out of it's racists past....like being born again or something. Poof no more racism or at least blatant discrimination.....some one stood up on his soap box and demanded from all Canadians , we will no longer be racist or discriminatory to any one.....Send them in by twos, one male , one female....

We are in charge of our own destiny, we can recruit people from any where around the globe....it does not say we have to stop at each stop and bring in thousands, whos culture does not mix well with ours.

 

 

[Smallc]

We should base it on individuals, not regions.  That makes more sense.

[Goddess]

41 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So what are you saying , that our immigration policies are set up to take a little from around the entire globe so we don't offend anyone.....Just a question during the Somolia crisis did we send a immigration team down to help the thousands of Somolians who were dying of starvation and insurgency warfare.....Nope....IS that racist, blatant discrimination....WTF was that.....same thing in Rwanda.....still no team ......But that was then, a different time, like Canada just grew out of it's racists past....like being born again or something. Poof no more racism or at least blatant discrimination.....some one stood up on his soap box and demanded from all Canadians , we will no longer be racist or discriminatory to any one.....Send them in by twos, one male , one female....

We are in charge of our own destiny, we can recruit people from any where around the globe....it does not say we have to stop at each stop and bring in thousands, whos culture does not mix well with ours.

 

 

We didn't help the Yazidis either.  

[Rue]

23 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Arrwesting  thousands of thugs trashing the city usung Black Block tactics is hardly fascist. 

It was an absolute abuse of power and as far as I am concerned a disgrace to a democratic nation. It resulted in the wrongful arrest, detention and imprisonment of innocent people. It was an idiotic display initiated by a few police officials who were not properly held accountable. It is precisely the kind of behaviour we claim to be above and be offering freedom from.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

My guess would be some globalist agenda forcing Islam on everybody...but that's jus' l'il ol' me.

Lol come on Porch take out the name Islam and insert homosexual, Jew, illuminati, shapeshifter aliens, etc. Its a tad overkill. The only globalist agendas I see are from the IMF, China, Coca Cola, MacDonald's, oil and other multi-nationals who don't exactly hide their agenda.

[Argus]

50 minutes ago, Smallc said:

We should base it on individuals, not regions.  That makes more sense.

 

Canadian immigration apparently has no real way of determining who will and won't be a succesful immigrant in Canada. Mind you, since reading Leitch's note about how immigrants are processed I suppose that's understandable. What CIC does know is that by studying their documents the least economically sucessful immigrants - by a wide margin - come from the Middle East and China. Therefore, taking immigrants from those regions is detrimental to Canada's interests.

We should instead take immigrants from the areas of the world which provide us with our most economically successful immigrants, namely Europe, India and the Philippines.

Though I think they should still be screened much better than they are now.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Cite please.  I understand that when Canada was selecting refugees, not very many wanted to come to Canada and  I certainly doubt that there are "many tens of millions of applicants" that CIC is dealing with. 

 

Interestingly the vast majority of refugees head to a refugee site as close to their former home as possible and get caught in a paralysis so to speak where they go into a group depression and  most have no energy to contemplate moving anywhere else due to lack of proper food, hygiene, hope which strips them of any sense of purpose.

I've seen it up close. Most refugees don't like you say want to go anywhere. Things like diaheria, cholera, dystentary   from poor hygiene and lack of clean water are their no.1 cause of death. They have very close social and psychiatric problems to aboriginals in Canada in isolated communities.

Now refugees are in a different category than immigrants. Refugees are defined by a UN Convention we agree to abide by.

I really do wonder if we cause more harm moving refugees.

I know privately sponsored refugees have support networks so are more likely to adjust than public refugees.

Our federal government does not support them after the first year. That is a set up for failure. You bring someone in who can't speak English and has no work skills of course they fail and end up on welfare.

I prefer private sponsorship where non profit organizations bring in refugees and support them. They do a far better job than governments.

Now refugees are fast tracked due to necessity n to skills. Immigration was always based on tests that were supposed to  encourage qualified people who would not become dependent on the state, to come. Slowly over the years we've lowered the standards for immigrants. Basically if you have $400,000 you leave in a bank account for 5 years, you are in.

Immigration policies are a mess.

Let's be clear. Qualified immigrants who will help build Canada we need. So the question remains how do we find them and define them.

Not sure religion alone is the best way to do that. If we have a need for a medical specialist and he's Muslim should we say no because he's

Muslim no of course not. If he has affiliations with terrorists, uh no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, GostHacked said:

How do you propose we screen for that?

Well, we could make them have an interview with an attractive blonde in a sleeveless dress... or a very obviously gay man...

[dialamah]

@Rue   I see your point regarding the issues refugees face, and whether moving them really is the best thing, especially since things like PTSD are likely to be endemic, never mind the difficulty of landing in a strange country.   There are refugees who come to Canada and really do well; I've seen stories recently - but I highly doubt they're the norm.   And, as bad as life is in refugee camps, is it really any better to leave them there?   It does seem like a catch-22.

Regarding private sponsorship, I have also heard stories of the private organization or group was unable to carry the cost of the sponsorship and it fell back to the government anyway.   Perhaps there also needs to be more stringent standards for private sponsors; that way, the government can project more reliably what refugees will cost (as reliably as any government is able/willing to do, at least).

40 minutes ago, Rue said:

Qualified immigrants who will help build Canada we need. So the question remains how do we find them and define them.

Not sure religion alone is the best way to do that. If we have a need for a medical specialist and he's Muslim should we say no because he's

Muslim no of course not. If he has affiliations with terrorists uh no.

It's also true that the more highly educated the person is, the more likely they are to be interested in and open to more progressive societies eh?   

Yes, I think that if background checks indicate affiliation with terrorists, then it's an automatic rejection for sure.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

It was an absolute abuse of power and as far as I am concerned a disgrace to a democratic nation. It resulted in the wrongful arrest, detention and imprisonment of innocent people. It was an idiotic display initiated by a few police officials who were not properly held accountable. It is precisely the kind of behaviour we claim to be above and be offering freedom from.

I was disgusted by the people trashing people's livelihoods. Burning police cars. Anarchy.

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

We should base it on individuals, not regions.  That makes more sense.

We already had this discussion, when some one asked if they believed all germans were Nazi's....at the start of the war their was plenty of germans that did not believe in the Nazi movement...some where arrested, sent to prisons, or to their deaths, or fled germany....."i can not live under this regime", as the war progressed most germans were afraid not to be Nazi's trying not to suffer the same fate as the others , by mid war almost all germans was supporting german Nazi cause be it working in the factories, force conscription into the services, etc etc.....while some kept their hands clean, or at least blood free, alot took their roles in the movement seriously.

One could substute the term Nazi's for Muslims in a lot of muslim countries, one could say not all muslims are bad,  but how many muslims fear for their lives and are forced to lived they way they do,  to live their lives according to the law of the land is pure survival...where public stonings are common, as well as honor killings, beating of women, cutting hands off of thieves, the list goes on and on.....and those good muslims we talk about do nothing about it, they take no action, nor talk about it .... they life in fear.....  they are just as guilty as those that take part in those activities, everyone has choices, everyone is judged by the choices they make...Not that we are perfect, but i doubt many Canadians have taken part in a stoning,or cut the hands off a thief, or had their wifes killed because YOU cheated on her.....

So why not just gloss over that region and move on to the next region, where morals and values are some what similar to ours.