Goddess Posted January 4, 2017 Report Posted January 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, dialamah said: I can only assume its because they only want to spread fear and misinformation You can't think of any other reason why people would want to limit the number of people entering the country who don't share any of our values? Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: Yes, we could throw much more money at immigration services (and related agencies) and beef up the process. How much should we spend? 300,000/year * ?hours of overseas labour What do you think the loaded cost of overseas labour would be? My guess is $500/hour, and if these agents are travelling to neighbourhoods around countries then don't forget to include that travel time. You have a pretty freaky idea of how much immigration agents get paid. As for the cost. Let's see. According to cites earlier presented it costs us about $2 billion per year to provide health care services to elderly immigrants. Oh, but wait! Trudeau doubled their numbers so it's now $4 billion per year. I wonder how much screening we could do for a fraction of that... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: Sorry, but the Conservatives had 9 years to fix the immigration system. The Conservatives dropped to their knees and covered their heads with their arms whenever anyone mentioned the word immigration. They were so terrified of people calling them racists for wanting to change the system. Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
?Impact Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Argus said: You have a pretty freaky idea of how much immigration agents get paid. I never said that is what they are paid. Do you understand what loaded cost means? These are overseas employees, and I assume you want Canadians to be the ones involved in these interviews. Did you want to hire some locals to do the investigations and reporting? Quote
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Goddess said: You can't think of any other reason why people would want to limit the number of people entering the country who don't share any of our values? Pay attention. What I actually said was -- the lack of reasonable discussion by certain people regarding how a screening system (that they claim to want) can be implemented, who merely continue their anti-Muslim arguments from other threads instead of engaging in discussion, makes me think they aren't really looking for a solution, they just want to spread fear. You are free to misinterpret anything else I say, as suits you. Edited January 5, 2017 by dialamah Quote
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I never said that is what they are paid. Do you understand what loaded cost means? These are overseas employees, and I assume you want Canadians to be the ones involved in these interviews. Did you want to hire some locals to do the investigations and reporting? We have embassies there already. Putting a couple of extra staff in won't be terribly onerous, and your ideas of how much it costs to do that is equally nutty. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Argus said: We have embassies there already. Putting a couple of extra staff in won't be terribly onerous, and your ideas of how much it costs to do that is equally nutty. From the person who cries if JT spends a little extra on secuity or child care, this is laughable. Let's just pretend, for a moment, that your 'couple of extra people' per embassy is accurate. You are paying wages/medical/dental/housing/pension/trips home and possibly security in those countries. Multiply that by 57 countries, and one or two embassies per country - that's 114 people or more. Quote
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: From the person who cries if JT spends a little extra on secuity or child care, this is laughable. I cry whenever JT spends a little extra on security? When have I done that? Just now, dialamah said: Let's just pretend, for a moment, that your 'couple of extra people' per embassy is accurate. You are paying wages/medical/dental/housing/pension/trips home and possibly security in those countries. Multiply that by 57 countries, and one or two embassies per country - that's 114 people or more. Do you think it'll be more than the additional two billion a year JT cost us when he doubled the number of immigrant seniors let into Canada? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, Argus said: I cry whenever JT spends a little extra on security? When have I done that? Do you think it'll be more than the additional two billion a year JT cost us when he doubled the number of immigrant seniors let into Canada? Government of Canada cites for the cost of a "couple of people in a foreign embassy" cites for the two billion you claim JT spent. You have no credibility and without proof I will assume you are just blowing smoke. Quote
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: Government of Canada cites for the cost of a "couple of people in a foreign embassy" cites for the two billion you claim JT spent. You have no credibility and without proof I will assume you are just blowing smoke. I don't owe you anything. You ignore every cite I post anyway. Go back and read your Koran again. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, Argus said: I don't owe you anything. You ignore every cite I post anyway. Go back and read your Koran again. Poor Argus, wrong again. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: Sorry, but the Conservatives had 9 years to fix the immigration system. I did'nt ask if the cons liked it or could have fixed it.....trust me not to happy with their track record either...the question was do you think our Immigration system needs fixing....yes or no. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 28 minutes ago, Argus said: Do you think it'll be more than the additional two billion a year JT cost us when he doubled the number of immigrant seniors let into Canada? Where are you getting that from? The on-line portal only has jan-apr 2016 information. I don't see a significant shift in age categories, but one thing that appears fairly clear is that those 60+ is only about 2-3% of the total. Quote
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Where are you getting that from? The on-line portal only has jan-apr 2016 information. I don't see a significant shift in age categories, but one thing that appears fairly clear is that those 60+ is only about 2-3% of the total. But they're a costly group. I've posted the cite before, but couldn't easily find it so I found this other one. It's from 2013 so you'll have to consider how health care costs have risen in the last four years. At that time, the cost of allowing in immigrant seniors (mainly in health care costs) was $300,000 each. That's why the conservatives greatly limited the numbers. It made absolutely no sense to increase them. http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion+Aging+immigrants+expensive+problem+Canada/9257730/story.html Interestingly, while I was looking around, I discovered that Australia only allows the immigration of seniors on compassionate grounds, and the fee is $50,000! The charge in Canada - $490. Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: I posted a source for the Harvard Implicit Bias test, which I would consider the closest to a workable "values" test. Nobody contested that at all or posted a values test of their own for discussion. I suggested the HIB test might need to be modified for use in immigration. Nobody remarked on that. I suggested the O'Hare psychopathy test, or something similar as another possible tool for screening immigrants. Nobody commented. I posted a link to an article that addressed shortcomings of corporate personality tests. One person responded that they didn't consider it applicable. The Islamaphobes instead brought up all the same stuff they do in other threads; the Islamaphobes didn't suggest any existing system that is in use or could be used for screening immigrants for values. Why is that? I can only assume its because they only want to spread fear and misinformation and don't really want a solution - even if that solution is their own and even if its just a discussion on a forum. And, btw where are your good ideas? Thats simple, nobody knows of any existing one, that would work in this situation, I did say with over 40 million people in this country you think that one could be made, i think so....what it looks like , how it works, i just don't know. Sorry....but i also don't buy into the issue that it can not be done, shit someone once said we could not go to the moon either...yet we manged that, but some how we can not come up with some questions, hard to believe..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
?Impact Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 44 minutes ago, Argus said: We have embassies there already. Putting a couple of extra staff in won't be terribly onerous, and your ideas of how much it costs to do that is equally nutty. How many people will a couple of extra staff be able to screen? Your criteria of travelling to remote locations, and arranging and holding interviews with employers and neighbours could easily add several work days, lets put the average at 24 hours. That is about 80 candidates per employee. What is the acceptance rate, because that will affect how many actual immigrants it will be but obviously somewhere below the 80. Are you saying that an embassy is only responsible for 160 immigrants, and that is assuming a ingle employee can cover everything for a single candidate. You realize that is only about 9000 or so immigrants total or about 3% of our current immigrants. If you have better estimates, then please explain them and as your math teacher used to say: show your work. Quote
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 Just now, Army Guy said: Thats simple, nobody knows of any existing one, that would work in this situation, I did say with over 40 million people in this country you think that one could be made, i think so....what it looks like , how it works, i just don't know. Sorry....but i also don't buy into the issue that it can not be done, shit someone once said we could not go to the moon either...yet we manged that, but some how we can not come up with some questions, hard to believe..... 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. And yeah, with 40 million people in this country, maybe someone will have a brilliant idea that would be worth Kellie Leitch's time, if her party gets the nod next time. Maybe that brilliant idea is even here, but when the participants who keep going on about how screening is necessary to protect the country won't even participate, what does that say about them? They just want to bitch, and aren't interested in a solution, regardless of what they claim. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 33 minutes 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. And yeah, with 40 million people in this country, maybe someone will have a brilliant idea that would be worth Kellie Leitch's time, if her party gets the nod next time. Maybe that brilliant idea is even here, but when the participants who keep going on about how screening is necessary to protect the country won't even participate, what does that say about them? They just want to bitch, and aren't interested in a solution, regardless of what they claim. I think you said it all in the first line, you brought it up, and had convinced yourself that screening would not work....it's very clear in your posts, and somehow you find it surprising on how it turned out.... Maybe your right screening for values is not worth it....but in light of what we did learn, through this discussion is our immigration system is far from perfect, maybe even flawed or broken.....and nobody has the will to fix it....not the cons, not the libs, not the NDP.....if not them who then....only one that is talking about it is who again.....Kellie leitch..oh and Argus ( i'm voting for you buddy).....or we can swipe another problem under the carpet, and do the Canadian thing, bitch about it..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dialamah Posted January 5, 2017 Author Report Posted January 5, 2017 22 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I think you said it all in the first line, you brought it up, and had convinced yourself that You are wrong, but who the fvck cares. Quote
Rue Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Army Guy I would say this. Testing for "Canadian values" was the point of the Citizenship test which became a joke with people memorizing the answers. Not sure you can prevent people from cheating let alone simplying parroting back the expected answers. Now that said, screening is necessary for security reasons. Problem is it has to be kept secret so as not to be compromised and made obsolete. It also has to be accurate. Now I would imagine screening is going on as we speak and we won't be told what criteria is being used. I think age, gender, source country, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, membership in specific governments, criminal records, all would be referred to. Just a guess. How effective is it though. We don't have a large enough CSIS to do proper screening. We don't have enough Imigration andCustoms people to possibly screen everyone either. Its like looking for a needle in a haystack. I wish I could say something more constructive and not whine. So I will say improved computer technology, iris scans, maybe dna and other forms of identity will have to be stored and used now. Is profiling required? Hell it may not be fair but of course. The probability of risk goes up when you come from a conflict or terrorist producing zone. So does being Islam in itself justify profiling. Well I would saargue yes its a red flag bit it oesn't mean you block someone simply because they are Muslim but it does mean you doing further investigation.. Now can you test for extremism or terrorism?. If its just based on oral opinions that might be too subjective by itself but if you use a point system and oral or written responses are part of a greater testing scheme, well maybe we might have to live with that. The problem is terrorists are masters at altering their physical appearances and even speech patterns and contents. Even age by itself is misleading. Hezbollah for example has many members who are in their 40's to 70's and are highly educated, i.e., engineers. Setting a profile to look for has to be a flexible one with a sliding scale of variables on a point spread to be most efficient. The more rigid the criteria is the less efficient or accurate it is. Man look at how many nut cases slip through psychological testing and then we ask, how did that happen. Well its the nature of the beast. Now I went through some profile training for my job for screening possible pedophiles.. Way way much lower than say forensic psychologists/psychiatrists, the FBI profilers, etc. but enough at my low level to know its not carved in stone its just a guideline of possible red flags.. Writing analysis I was amazed to see is very very accurate when profiling pedophiles, serial killers, criminals, but I am not sure what the stats are on it detecting terrorists. I know in Israel you have these guys trained to look into crowds, and I mean large crowds and be able to accurately spot a terrorist in a crowd. They have them at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv.. I know the Secret Service for example are trained to do the same thing looking in crowds. We know our border guards develop a sixth sense when screening people but I am not sure how any of that might help other than to say there are psychological profiling techniques that are being developed and I am sure in the years to come they will be used and I am not sure if cross cultural differences distort their accuracy or not. Edited January 5, 2017 by Rue Quote
Army Guy Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 33 minutes ago, dialamah said: You are wrong, but who the fvck cares. WOW, i'm stepping away from the chain saw....nobody is going to cut down your tree sir....move along people nothing to see here, just another liberal melt down.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Omni Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: I think you said it all in the first line, you brought it up, and had convinced yourself that screening would not work....it's very clear in your posts, and somehow you find it surprising on how it turned out.... Maybe your right screening for values is not worth it....but in light of what we did learn, through this discussion is our immigration system is far from perfect, maybe even flawed or broken.....and nobody has the will to fix it....not the cons, not the libs, not the NDP.....if not them who then....only one that is talking about it is who again.....Kellie leitch..oh and Argus ( i'm voting for you buddy).....or we can swipe another problem under the carpet, and do the Canadian thing, bitch about it..... 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. Quote
eyeball Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said: Islamophobe...being the typical response to such concerns. You're right, it's time for something that really captures and celebrates the politically incorrect tone of the times. I suggest Islamotard. Quick, someone quote me before this is deleted. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Goddess Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 14 hours ago, Army Guy said: I think you said it all in the first line, you brought it up, and had convinced yourself that screening would not work....it's very clear in your posts, and somehow you find it surprising on how it turned out.... I don't think we ever really got to discussing actual testing/questioning because of ^^^THAT^^^. Every time one of us said screening was necessary, Dialamah screamed "You're talking about Muslims! Islamophobe!" She doesn't feel there's anything unusual going on in the world of Islam right now, so feels no need for extra screening. Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Argus Posted January 5, 2017 Report Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, ?Impact said: How many people will a couple of extra staff be able to screen? Your criteria of travelling to remote locations, and arranging and holding interviews with employers and neighbours could easily add several work days, lets put the average at 24 hours. 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? Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.