Screening for Canadian Values

[Argus]

17 hours ago, dialamah said:

I created this thread because the idea of 'screening for values' is interesting to me as a problem to solve, even if I don't think it is necessary and have doubts about how it could be done.    

No, you created this topic to diss the very idea of values screening. Be honest. You have no interest in honest conversation on anything related to Islam. You've already been told that the specific wording of these kinds of screening tests would have to be put together by experts, but you don't care.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I haven't said they need to travel to 'remote location's to conduct on-site interviews for every case. At the very least, though, no one should get a Canadian passport without an in-person interview. Shit, we wouldn't hire someone to work at Dairy Queen without an interview, but we're handing out passports with no interview? Whose asinine idea was that? 

And what standards we have! If you're not a criminal or a terrorist, you're in! Wow! You people think so little of Canada you just don't care who comes in, do you?

I agree that new immigrants should be interviewed before handing out passports visas. That will cost money, but nowhere near the amount of your original suggestion. I do care who comes in, I am just pointing out that there are realities to deal with. 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

Hah, if you vote for Leitch you won't be swiping another problem under the carpet, but rather creating a whole new set of them. If you need bigotry just get it from this thread and leave the federal government out of it.

What is bigoted about screening potential immigrants for their adaptability and likelihood of integrating into Canadian society? It just seems like common sense, to me. But then, you've never understood common sense ideas.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I agree that new immigrants should be interviewed before handing out passports visas. That will cost money, but nowhere near the amount of your original suggestion. I do care who comes in, I am just pointing out that there are realities to deal with. 

Clearly, but there are some things you don't cheap out on because it costs you too much in the long run. Unlike hiring an employee once we get these people over here it's almost impossible to get rid of them. You want to see what failed immigrants cost? Look at any public housing project. Look at the wanted poster from the RCMP. And those are the biggest fails. Tons of others exist, working minimum wage jobs, adding to the numbers of the poor, who will never pay enough in taxes to even pay for their own government services. 

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

What is bigoted about screening potential immigrants for their adaptability and likelihood of integrating into Canadian society? It just seems like common sense, to me. But then, you've never understood common sense ideas.

 

Some folks WANT the Islamic Republic of Canada.

Muslims for example.

[Goddess]

In Japan, the number of immigration permits given to Islamic countries are extremely low.

Any Muslims that are there already are expected to pray at home - no blocking streets for mass prayer showings.

The only Koran allowed there is an adapted version in Japanese.

They don't have riots or disturbances because of cartoons.  No Muslim Rape Games being played there either.

And they make no apologies for it.

I'm sure some here will post all kinds of "crimes" committed in Japan as proof that the Japanese are "no different from Muslims" but Japan has also not experienced Islamic terrorism like the rest of the world.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Some folks WANT the Islamic Republic of Canada.

Muslims for example.

Don't forget their lefty fifth column.

[WestCoastRunner]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

In Japan, the number of immigration permits given to Islamic countries are extremely low.

Any Muslims that are there already are expected to pray at home - no blocking streets for mass prayer showings.

The only Koran allowed there is an adapted version in Japanese.

They don't have riots or disturbances because of cartoons.  No Muslim Rape Games being played there either.

And they make no apologies for it.

I'm sure some here will post all kinds of "crimes" committed in Japan as proof that the Japanese are "no different from Muslims" but Japan has also not experienced Islamic terrorism like the rest of the world.

I guess they don't remember how many Japanese migrants were allowed into North and South America when they wanted to flee Japan. Short memories. 

And there can't be many Muslims to worry about praying in the streets when they only admitted 12 in 2014. 

[Rue]

There was an interesting article in the communist Toronto Star today about this topic and how they are working on a computer program that in theory anyways is supposed to replace what border officers do now in terms of interviewing people. 

I can envision whether we like it or not a system that scans your iris and then looks in a data bank  to see if you come up and also uses certain criteria in your answers to trigger questions to ask and other red flags but I can't see how it could replace the human job, maybe improve it but I can't see a computer having gut intuitive instinct and can read non verbal language.

That said its one thing to screen a potential smuggler or illegal and  another a terrorist.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I hope Kelly Leitch would do a better job of this test than she and her ilk currently manage interviewing candidates for medical residency programs. The Canadians are full of pious and tedious lies about saving humanity which somehow manages to impress Canadian interviewers who probably told the same shameless porkies in their time; it is refreshing to hear bald statements of self interest from the foreigners, the truth at last. 

Edited January 13, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

13 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I hope Kelly Leitch would do a better job of this test than she and her ilk currently manage interviewing candidates for medical residency programs. The Canadians are full of pious and tedious lies about saving humanity which somehow manages to impress Canadian interviewers who probably told the same shameless porkies in their time; it is refreshing to hear bald statements of self interest from the foreigners, the truth at last. 

And yet according to a previous poster many of those foreigners lie through their teeth, cheat on tests and have phony credentials to boot.

I really don't get what has all you lefties up in arms over the suggestion we should at least interview potential immigrants and maybe see if they have the kind of flexible, adaptable mindset which would prosper in Canada, or if they're fundamentalist religious fanatics set in their ways who are unlikely to change.

[Argus]

On 1/5/2017 at 6:37 PM, Rue said:

I can envision whether we like it or not a system that scans your iris and then looks in a data bank  to see if you come up and also uses certain criteria in your answers to trigger questions to ask and other red flags but I can't see how it could replace the human job, maybe improve it but I can't see a computer having gut intuitive instinct and can read non verbal language.

Since we apparently don't conduct any interviews at present anyway I don't see how this would be any worse.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

And yet according to a previous poster many of those foreigners lie through their teeth, cheat on tests and have phony credentials to boot.

I really don't get what has all you lefties up in arms over the suggestion we should at least interview potential immigrants and maybe see if they have the kind of flexible, adaptable mindset which would prosper in Canada, or if they're fundamentalist religious fanatics set in their ways who are unlikely to change.

I am not up in arms about that, actually.

This particular 'lefty' (not very left, mind you, by any reasonable standard) is merely pointing out the failure to detect nonsense in standard interviews of Canadians within Canada, interviews that Leitch would certainly have conducted herself. If you really want to hear PC gibberish, attend some of these.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I am not up in arms about that, actually.

This particular 'lefty' (not very left, mind you, by any reasonable standard) is merely pointing out the failure to detect nonsense in standard interviews of Canadians within Canada, interviews that Leitch would certainly have conducted herself. If you really want to hear PC gibberish, attend some of these.

The idea is not to ask a direct question but to ask questions which infer the answer. Plus the people who least want in are the ones most likely to be too unsophisticated (backwards) to understand such tests, much less properly lie on them.

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

The idea is not to ask a direct question but to ask questions which infer the answer. Plus the people who least want in are the ones most likely to be too unsophisticated (backwards) to understand such tests, much less properly lie on them.

The people you most want to keep out are the ones that are most likely the most sophisticated and able to defeat such tests. They may even go to flight school in the destination country to learn how.

[dre]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The idea is not to ask a direct question but to ask questions which infer the answer. Plus the people who least want in are the ones most likely to be too unsophisticated (backwards) to understand such tests, much less properly lie on them.

This kind of inference basically amounts to having an army of civil servants reading tea leaves. You are better off spending that money on more real investigation targeted at high risk areas.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The people you most want to keep out are the ones that are most likely the most sophisticated and able to defeat such tests. They may even go to flight school in the destination country to learn how.

We do screen for terrorists and those who are associated with them. This would be screening for values and personality, not to keep out terrorists but to keep out religious fanatics who are unlikely to ever change or embrace our values.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dre said:

This kind of inference basically amounts to having an army of civil servants reading tea leaves. You are better off spending that money on more real investigation targeted at high risk areas.

They take the test, and its corrected by computer. It doesn't take an army. I think Chris Axworthy, who used to be minister of immigration, and who opposes values screening, though it might cost $1000 more per immigrant. I think he was exaggerating by at least double, but I'd say $500 more per immigrant was more than worth it if it kept any substantial number of losers out of the country. Such losers are unlikely to ever make enough money to pay income taxes anyway. I still can't believe we don't test them for language but rely on a document from a local school. Such documents can easily be forged or the school or its employees bribed.

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

The idea is not to ask a direct question but to ask questions which infer the answer. Plus the people who least want in are the ones most likely to be too unsophisticated (backwards) to understand such tests, much less properly lie on them.

Perhaps. What country has successfully used this model? 

[SpankyMcFarland]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

And yet according to a previous poster many of those foreigners lie through their teeth, cheat on tests and have phony credentials to boot.

That's true in some cases. It's also true that the best foreigners are as good as any one in Canada and they are not that hard to spot. However, the hurdles that foreign grads must get through to work in Canada are now deterring some of the best candidates from even applying here. It's simply not worth the trouble. 

[dialamah]

Interesting article in the Intercept, regarding the LGBT community and anti-Muslim rhetoric. 

It seems that a Pew survey found US Muslims were more accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage than were some Christian religious groups; overall, American Christians and American Muslims scored about the same in terms of LGBT rights.   

It looks like Muslims who immigrate to Western countries are either already progressive, or become more progressive, after all.   Given that information, is there any need to screen for 'values'?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Even if effective, this would be a short-term solution. I presume kids wouldn't be subjected to this test. Kids grow up. The Pakistani community in Britain used to suffer serious discrimination yet had very few extremists in its ranks. Now a small number of the descendants of those immigrants have very different views. 

Edited January 14, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Even if effective, this would be a short-term solution. I presume kids wouldn't be subjected to this test. Kids grow up. The Pakistani community in Britain used to suffer serious discrimination yet had very few extremists in its ranks. Now a small number of the descendants of those immigrants have very different views. 

Do you suppose the discrimination the parents endured contributed to the extremism in their youth?    

It seems that in America, at least, the opposite has happened at least to this point, as the younger generation has generally been more progressive than the older generation.   Do you suppose that if discrimination increases in the States (and Canada) that will contribute to the radicalization of young people?

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 

It looks like Muslims who immigrate to Western countries are either already progressive, or become more progressive, after all.   Given that information, is there any need to screen for 'values'?

No, all we need to do is point at right wing Christians so Muslims have a clear example of how not to behave.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, all we need to do is point at right wing Christians so Muslims have a clear example of how not to behave.

That's what I say, too. Let immigrants know that barbaric cultural practices will not be tolerated.