The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[Argus]

10 hours ago, dre said:

This is exactly right. Economic orthodoxy IS what drives immigration.

There is no economic case to be made in favour of immigration. Posting a chart that shows our population rising is a laughable attempt, but congratulations on at least ATTEMPTING to do so. Well, sort of.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Guess you must be one of the 'Open" types described in the subject article.  Glad you enjoyed it all anyway.  What would possess you to call Abraham a putrid maggot though?  Seems to me he was a famous patriarch of much of civilization and a good man.

Social Justice warriors love mocking religion. It makes them feel intellectually superior.

[dialamah]

Just now, Argus said:

The Koran's talk about being just and fair is intended for the treatment of Muslims, not infidels

*shrugs*  Some Muslims would say that it applies to everyone, not just other Muslims.  Just as Betsy told us in another thread that Christians need only show compassion and love for other Christians, but my Christian friends here in town tell me that Christians should show compassion and love for all people, not just other Christians.  

People are not monolithic single-thinkers just because they share a label or even a few similar characteristics.  I know that's a difficult concept for you, Argus, but perhaps you could try a little harder not to assume everyone fits into your rigid and mostly unkind boxes.  

 

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I was not. Oh, maybe you argued that it was, but you, like the other SJWs here, have never been able to present a coherent argument in favour of immigration, not showed any economic evidence in support. You favour immigration because immigrants are different and non-white. If they were all white anglos you'd quickly lose interest and fasten your mind on some other shiny object.

 

Since the White/European Canadian population is not increasing, how is Canada supposed to progress economically without immigration?

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So it occurs to me to ask - how many people applied in Rome vs Nairobi?

I asked that question, as well, and didn't get an answer. I will be doing a followup, and perhaps appealing to the information commissioner since only part of the information I asked for was provided to me. Suffice to say at the moment that 100% of available visas were handed out.

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 According to this site, Canada does focus on immigrants who will be an economic benefit to Canada.

Canada has been tinkering with immigration for some time to find a way to predict who will be economically successful in Canada - with less than stellar success rates. Of course, their efforts are heavily damaged by politicians who basically want immigrants who are inclined to vote for them. They also want to appeal to ethnic communities here for votes. Thus Trudeau announcing before the election that we would take in more senior immigrants and more family class immigrants. Very few of our immigrants are actually brought in as skilled. 

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

   If Kenya is a terrible place to live and Italy isn't, wouldn't it make sense that more Kenyans would want to leave and that accounts for the difference in numbers?   And given the points system Canada uses that focuses on education and work experience - could it be that the Kenyan immigrants are just as economically viable as the Italian ones?

Not according to what the government has said. The most economically successful immigrants come from Europe, India and the Phillipines. The least successful come from the Middle East and China. This most recent study didn't break down the data further, or at least, the story in the Toronto Star didn't break it down further. I asked the government for it and they couldn't find it. However an older study ranking immigrants by economic success basically echoed this one, but with more details. http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

[Argus]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

*shrugs*  Some Muslims would say that it applies to everyone, not just other Muslims.

Some Muslims no doubt would. Unfortunately there seems to be a vast difference in how willing Muslims are to tolerate and be fair to those of other religions around the world. It seems, in almost all cases, that the more Muslims there are the more reassured they are by their numbers, the less inclined they are to treat other religions with a great deal of respect.

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

People are not monolithic single-thinkers just because they share a label or even a few similar characteristics.

Yes, there are so many enlightened Muslim nations around the world, filled with kindly, gentle, tolerant people...

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Since the White/European Canadian population is not increasing, how is Canada supposed to progress economically without immigration?

First, I haven't argued against immigration. I have argued that we should let demographics people determine how many, not politicians, and that we should be taking in people most suitable to the ability to earn a prosperous life in Canada. Every public housing project in this city is filled with immigrants and refugees. They're certainly not going to help us 'progress' economically. Neither are THESE people.

Maybe a variation of the US theme. We let people come in temporarily, and then to stay, they have to demonstrate that they have succeeded, both economically and socially (ie, demonstrated a willingness and efforts to assimilate)

Edited April 22, 2017 by Argus

[blackbird]

It seems like the "open" political types are losing ground in northern Europe.

The subject of Muslim immigration and terrorism has become a hot issue in France right now and the election is tomorrow.  After years of liberals and leftists having their way a sizeable portion of the population seems to be waking up and reacting.  We saw this in the U.S. election and the Brexit vote in the UK.  There seems to be a populist movement of nationalism spreading across northern Europe.  Marine le Pen seems to be in strong position in the election in France.  She wants to stop or reduce immigration and pull France out of the European Union.  This could be the end of the EU as we know it since France and Germany are the major members keeping it going.  Not sure how the election will turn out but we may find out tomorrow evening.

What is puzzling is why ISIS would conduct terrorist attacks during the election campaign and stir up more anti Muslim sentiment in France.  Why would ISIS and Islamic radicals seem to want to help a right wing nationalist party and leader like Marine Le Pen to win?

Edited April 22, 2017 by blackbird

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

What is puzzling is why ISIS would conduct terrorist attacks during the election campaign and stir up more anti Muslim sentiment in France.  Why would ISIS and Islamic radicals seem to want to help a right wing nationalist party and leader like Marine Le Pen to win?

I think ISIS does it because it stirs up anti-Muslim sentiment. Because then ISIS can say to Muslims, "See? Look how the West hates us!!" and Voila!! Fresh recruits to the cause.

[kactus]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I think ISIS does it because it stirs up anti-Muslim sentiment. Because then ISIS can say to Muslims, "See? Look how the West hates us!!" and Voila!! Fresh recruits to the cause.

That has been the mission of ISIS and extremists in US to push harder and blame one amother. Unfortunately the moderate are the ones trapped in between these zealout lots telling us. 'I told you so' 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

It seems like the "open" political types are losing ground in northern Europe.

The subject of Muslim immigration and terrorism has become a hot issue in France right now and the election is tomorrow.  After years of liberals and leftists having their way a sizeable portion of the population seems to be waking up and reacting. 

Entirely predictably in the context of electoral politics. The people have been told since birth that the government was theirs, and ought to be responsive to their wishes and concerns. Yet for some years now the elected politicians have refused to even acknowledge the validity of those fears. Indeed, they've universally condemned everyone who expresses any issue with immigration, particularly with Muslim immigrants. Given that Europe has, for the most part, proportional representation, it was a certainty that concerns that none of the mainstream parties were willing to consider would give rise to new parties.

The rise of Le Pen and her ilk are directly attributable not to Islamic violence and uncontrolled immigration, but to politicians who evidently did not understand why anyone would care about masses of foreigners coming into their countries. In fact, to a political and media class who not only did not share those concerns but saw the expression of such concerns as immoral. Douglas Murray speaks about how Theresa May, now Prime Minister of the UK, got up at the last Tory conference to talk about her favorite verses from the Koran. George Bush and Barrack Obama have done the same. France wrote into law anti-hate legislation which pretty much criminalized any open expressions of resentment or dislike or discomfort for any aspect of Muslim culture. Even Brigitte Bardot has been convicted under it, repeatedly, because she criticizes the way they treat animals!

Needless to say, virtually all the politicians in Europe are  of the 'open' type. Or were. Certainly the media is. The BBC never refers to ISIS without calling them "so called ISIS" to make it clear that they don't believe ISIS has anything to do with Islam. Much like Barrack Obama proclaiming, after one particularly vile incident of murder, that it had less to do with Islam than any other religion. Oh? When they shouted Allah Akbar as they cut a man's head off? How all these liberals can convince themselves that masses of people engaged in bloodletting in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam is something you have to watch or read Haidr's lectures about emotional argument to understand. They want to believe it, and therefore, they DO believe it. They find a way to convince themselves of it.

But ordinary people clearly think otherwise. The opinion polls say growing numbers of people in Europe, the US and Canada, the majority, in fact, have major issues with Islam, regardless of what the politicians and media say.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I think ISIS does it because it stirs up anti-Muslim sentiment. Because then ISIS can say to Muslims, "See? Look how the West hates us!!" and Voila!! Fresh recruits to the cause.

ISIS did not plan this nor organize it. It looks like another lone wolf things. I doubt he had any rational political idea behind what he was doing, either.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

What is puzzling is why ISIS would conduct terrorist attacks during the election campaign and stir up more anti Muslim sentiment in France.  Why would ISIS and Islamic radicals seem to want to help a right wing nationalist party and leader like Marine Le Pen to win?

Whether they conducted it is debate-able but why they'd claim credit isn't, it's to goad and trigger western right-wingers into going to war against Islam. Right-wing governments of the sort you're cheering for are like pure oxygen for radical political Islam - perfect enemies.  Western societies have been warned about going in the direction we're headed for decades now and what's really puzzling is why you're so puzzled.  I'm chalking it up to Christian obliviousness myself but you can be quite certain many of your political cohorts have been chomping at the bit to get to this point.  Careful what they wish for.

[dre]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

There is no economic case to be made in favour of immigration. 

That's your opinion, which you have never backed up. Regardless, that IS the prevailing view whether its incorrect or not.

[dre]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

I was not. Oh, maybe you argued that it was, but you, like the other SJWs here, have never been able to present a coherent argument in favour of immigration, not showed any economic evidence in support. You favour immigration because immigrants are different and non-white. If they were all white anglos you'd quickly lose interest and fasten your mind on some other shiny object.

Can you name a single SJW position I have ever taken? One single one. You cant... because as usual you are arguing against strawmen that exist only in your head. I dont care who we do or don't let in. I have advocated dozens of times that we increase the number of immigrants chosen to benefit the economy. I have never a single time argued that we owe anybody anything. Same thing with you calling me an "ultra leftist" in some other thread. Name one single position.

The reality is... Everyone that isnt a hardcore xenophobic, islamaphobic, nationalistic, racist, coward that installs bars on his windows to protect himself from the invading swarthy unwashed immigrant horde... fits your definition of "ultra leftist", or "sjw". You are arguing against imaginary people inside your head.

I could care less if we let a single muslim into this country or not... Its not even an interesting topic to me. I don't even know of a single muslim in the city where I live. I'm sure there is some...

I just find your position fascinating. Its bizzare that a Canadian would worked up into such a frenzy about this topic. You brag and boast over and over and over again how successful you are, your income, etc... But we have had the same immigration policy since about 1970. Same immigration rates... It obviously hasnt stopped you from turning out so great LOL. So what is it? Did your parents die in 911? Were your children beaten or robbed by immigrants? Did your wife have an affair with an easterner?

What is the big fvcking deal man?

Edited April 23, 2017 by dre

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dre said:

Can you name a single SJW position I have ever taken?

This one will do. All your positions are hard left.

Quote

The reality is... Everyone that isnt a hardcore xenophobic, islamaphobic, nationalistic, racist, coward that installs bars on his windows to protect himself from the invading swarthy unwashed immigrant horde... fits your definition of "ultra leftist", or "sjw". You are arguing against imaginary people inside your head.

The reality is that well over 70% of the people in this country told two different polls that they like Kellie Lietch's ideas and want immigrants tested for values, clearly demonstrating that the majority of Canadians have an enormous concern for what kind of immigrants are coming here.

YOU and those like you are responsible for Donald Trump being in power down south. Your kind caused Brexit, and your kind might very well lead to Marie Le Pen getting elected in France, and other far right leaders getting elected throughout the West. Your prissy sanctimonious sense of moral superiority over anyone who questions immigration - always accompanied by the requisite sneering insults of the social justice warrior "Xenophobe! Racist!" are what have caused people to give up on politically correct politicians who fear such insults and so do not act on the people's concerns, and turn to the fringe.

Quote

I could care less if we let a single muslim into this country or not...

And yet your head explodes and you froth at the mouth at anyone who doesn't want them here. Interesting. I wonder what you do if you do care about something.

 

Quote

I just find your position fascinating. Its bizzare that a Canadian would worked up into such a frenzy about this topic. You brag and boast over and over and over again how successful you are, your income, etc...

I've never bragged or boasted about anything. My income only enters the conversation in terms of conversations about taxation. I believe I've pointed out I live in a bungalow and rive a Hyundai. If that sounds like bragging then you lead a sad life.

Quote

But we have had the same immigration policy since about 1970.

This just demonstrates either how ignorant you are about how immigration policy has changed over the years, or your basic dishonesty.

Quote

What is the big fvcking deal man?

The deal is I care about this country, and you don't.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

For an intelligent discussion about immigration - in the states, but which bears enormous similarity to the issues in Canada and Europe, the Atlantic carried a conversation between David Frum and Conor Friedersdorf. I found Frum's position illuminating on several levels. It's somewhat similar to the one made by Jonathan Haidr about personality types who are liberal and conservative, open and closed. The definitions are different but the sentiments are very similar.

Your argument reached me just as I was returning to the work of Karen Stenner, who wrote a book about the forces that tear countries apart. Some people, who she calls “libertarians,” strongly prefer freedom and diversity, she wrote, while others, who she calls “authoritarians,” possess a perhaps innate discomfort with difference. They prize sameness and unity, even if coercion is needed to enforce it. Countries devolve into conflict when the predispositions of the authoritarians are activated.

They hire fascists to do jobs that liberals won’t do.

In her telling, showily, absolutely insisting on unconstrained diversity “pushes those by nature least equipped to live comfortably in a liberal democracy not to the limits of their tolerance, but to their intolerant extremes.” And once authoritarians are activated, the outcome depends in part on how its conservatives react. If they side with the authoritarians, repressive policies follow. But under the right conditions, conservatives can be counted on to rally behind pluralism and tolerance. One condition is that they feel reassured "regarding established brakes on the pace of change, and the settled rules of the game.”

Thus my alarm. When it comes to immigration, many conservatives presently fear that there are no breaks on the pace of change, and that the rules of the game are being broken.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/debating-immigration-policy-at-a-populist-moment/518916/

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Argus

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, dre said:

That's your opinion, which you have never backed up.

You have noticed this too, have you?

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

The deal is I care about this country, and you don't.

Canada has depended on immigration to keep it's economy firing on all cylinders from pretty much day one. And even more so now that we have significantly slowed our birth rate and  getten older. Of course you will find a way to deflect from any of the data that shows that I guess because it doesn't suit your mood.  So maybe it's you who doesn't care about the country.

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

The deal is I care about this country, and you don't.

You only care about maintaining your racist quotients. That is exactly what this, and Frum, are all about. That you would sidle up to such a war mongering piece of "humanity" says a lot. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Canada has depended on immigration to keep it's economy firing on all cylinders from pretty much day one.

We're not at day one. And most countries do not have anywhere near the level of immigration we have.

Quote

 

And even more so now that we have significantly slowed our birth rate and  getten older. Of course you will find a way to deflect from any of the data that shows that I guess because it doesn't suit your mood.  So maybe it's you who doesn't care about the country.

What data? You HAVE no data.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Argus

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

We're not at day one. And most countries do not have anywhere near the level of immigration we have.

Most countries aren't spread over such a vast landscape as we are. Those that are tend to welcome immigrants Sir. 

[hot enough]

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

And most countries do not have anywhere near the level of immigration we have.

What data? You have no data.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Omni said:

Most countries aren't spread over such a vast landscape as we are. Those that are tend to welcome immigrants Sir. 

We are not spread over a 'vast landscape' as far as immigrants are concerned. 99% of them wind up in a few large cities close to the US border.

[Omni]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

We are not spread over a 'vast landscape' as far as immigrants are concerned. 99% of them wind up in a few large cities close to the US border.

Your #s are a little inflated as usual, it's more like between 60-70% are in the 3 largest cities, but overall they are spread from Nova scotia to BC. Some would consider that a vast distance.