The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[capricorn]

43 minutes ago, jacee said:

This was unexpected, there is no military base available to house them temporarily as we did for Syrian families, so the military is constructing temporary camps while they are processed.

Actually, in spite of having spent millions to renovate military bases, they were never used to house Syrian refugees.

Quote

The federal government spent millions of dollars renovating buildings at several military bases in case they were needed to house Syrian refugees, but none of the newcomers have had to use the facilities.

Several buildings were renovated and winterized, making them ready to serve as interim housing for as many as 6,159 Syrian refugees. However, the more than 25,000 refugees that arrived have all found other accommodations.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-government-spent-6-million-upgrading-military-bases-for-syrian-refugees-who-didnt-stay-there/wcm/694a14aa-07f1-4bf3-a376-3b10fdd1b597

[Goddess]

It also wasn't "unexpected".  As soon as Trudeau told them all to come here, we all knew this was going to happen.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It also wasn't "unexpected".  As soon as Trudeau told them all to come here, we all knew this was going to happen.

Oh, some were in denial. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26506-trudeau-invites-refugees-to-canada-taunts-trump/

[marcus]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

One would presume, then, that you have a financial stake in protecting high rates of immigration and refugees.

I don't really need to protect anything. I never advocate for anything unless I truly believe in it. The reason that I speak out is because I have information to share, that an average person may not know.

I deal with many Canadian employers who are starving for workers that they're not able to find in Canada. There is a global fight for skilled workers right now. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UAE and U.S. to some extent, are fighting for skilled workers in some industries, to move to their country. This is why there is such a big uproar in the U.S. about Trump wanting to put a pause on skilled workers coming in. Also,  the stats show that immigration is a vital part of not only Canada, but other Western countries' growth and sustainability. Canada does have one of the highest immigration rates per capita, but we also have one of the strictest. Despite the relatively high intake, we're still going to fall short in filling positions as the baby boomers are starting to retire. Hopefully technology and innovation will also be an answer to that.

Quote

Governments have been trying to select people for these programs based on various ideas of who would be most economically successful in Canada for a long time, to varying degrees of success. The ability of government to determine who will be economically successful in Canada seems vanishingly slim. Do you know what the number one and two 'professions' are among those who apply under the express entry program? Cooks and kitchen staff. Do you know how little cooks and kitchen staff make in Canada?

Yes. But there is still a HUGE shortage. Look at the list of B.C. Labour Market Outlook 2010 - 2020. This gives you a pretty good idea. The hospitality industry is starving for workers. From cooks, as you mentioned, to servers, kitchen help, food counter attendants, cleaners/janitors, etc.

These jobs need to be filled. They're not being filled by Canadians. So they have to look outside. There are endless number of people who would love to take any of these positions. Majority of the immigrants who come to Canada as temporary or permanent residents, live frugal lives. It's common to see them struggle and it's usually their children who end up benefiting from their parents' move. This is why it's important to recognize that the children of immigrants have a much higher rate of going into post secondary education than others. This is valuable information to consider when we debate the success of immigration.

It's nice to be able to 'plug and play'. Meaning, have someone move to Canada and see them continue at the same rate as a Canadian at the same age and with the same qualifications. But that's just not the reality, especially if they are coming from a country where their assets and savings are worth so much less here. An immigrant needs to build and building does happen as time goes by. True, if they are coming from an English speaking country, they have a better chance of immediate success as far as rate of pay, but there aren't enough people from those countries that are applying for immigration. Despite having the advantage of language skills and other advantages, like the open work permits that people under 35 years can receive to come to Canada.

So your concern that you voiced, which was that people from third world countries have an advantage is not correct. It's the opposite. The simple truth is that not enough qualified Western or English speaking applicants are applying.

There are some things I didn't agree with, when it came to the previous government, but I think some of the changes they made to the immigration system were positive ones. But there are still many issues in regards to the immigration system and our settlement policies that can be improved in order to benefit Canada. Those need to soberly discussed.

Quote

I narrowed down your text to this because it is the point of disagreement between us. If you examine the document I posted you will see that the variance between what they 'predicted' they would receive, and what visas they handed out, were, in almost all cases, nil. I'm sorry but I do not credit government with this level of perfection, that at the beginning of the year they predicted they would get 12,307 acceptable applications, and wound up handing out 12,307 visas. 

If the target numbers were simple predictions then we would expect to see in many cases that they had been greatly exceeded or that the numbers of visas handed out would be lower. That didn't happen. In virtually every single case the visa offices handed out 100% of the visas they had targeted. Oh, occasionally it was 99% or 101%, but the perfection of their estimates to what resulted is simply too exact to be the result of anything but CIC executives making sure that whatever the "prediction" was, for a given visa office, that was how many visas were handed out.

This goes back to the steps I mentioned earlier.

Many of these applicants' immigration applications have already been accepted at a central intake (target) and then they are forwarded to the visa office responsible for background and security check and a final verdict (actual). Sometimes, some of the applicants end up being refused just before they receive a landing visa, because their names pop up in one of the security risk lists that Immigration Canada receives from various countries and organizations. Or the immigration office finds new information about misrepresentation.

Quote

Then there's that little thing about reality. How often have I read stories of the numbers of Irish who have been working illegally in Canada, of how many Irish would love to immigrate here, but can't? The unemployment rate for those under thirty has hovered around 40%-50% in much of southern Europe for a decade now yet we're to believe Rome had just 3700 successful applicants in all categories!? Even though Rome is also the visa processing centre for other countries, including Greece? How many Greeks do you think would like to get the hell out and come to Canada? Almost none? Ukraine is a mess, but only 1777 Ukrainians tried to emigrate to Canada last year? Really?

Three reasons for this:

1) Population - Look at the population of India vs Ukraine - How many Indians apply compared to the number of Ukrainians? There is a higher population of more educated, wealthier and better English speaking Indians vs Ukrainians.
2) English level - I have seen Italians apply and they end up bombing the language exam. Many of them don't have high enough English.
3) Interest level - Even though the interest level has gone up, Europeans, in general, still see Canada as an underdeveloped, somewhat uncultured destination. There is an increasing of movement within Europe, but it's not common for them to want to move to Canada. By the time some of them realize they want to come to Canada, their age is too old for immigration standard and they end up not getting enough points because of their age. In contrast, in a country like India, people begin planning their move to Canada early. The higher middle class begin grooming their children with English classes and education in Canada so that immigration to Canada/Australia/New Zealand can be easier to achieve.The high skilled European workers who are looking for jobs and money, they usually end up moving to the UAE or Singapore or Hong Kong, where the income level is much higher than Canada. 

Quote

It seems patently obvious to me that that cite you dismissed as being too old, is right on the money. CIC bureaucrats decide how many visas will be issued from various visa offices, and that's that.

The article from 2006 made some good points, but it's no longer relevant as the immigration policy and system have changed immensely.

Edited August 15, 2017 by marcus

[Hal 9000]

6 hours ago, jacee said:

We still do. 

If you have proof of that, you would have provided it, so I think it's just racist lies, white supremacist propaganda. You certainly have that attitude about you in everything you say here.

This is a unique situation that has more to do with Trump's USA: Haitian people who have made lives in the US will likely be deported when their permits there expire in January. 

This was unexpected, there is no military base available to house them temporarily as we did for Syrian families, so the military is constructing temporary camps while they are processed. Some will be able to stay, some will not.

Good grief, is this gonna be your new word?  You're getting as one dimensional as hot enough or Omni.

[jacee]

5 hours ago, capricorn said:

Actually, in spite of having spent millions to renovate military bases, they were never used to house Syrian refugees.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-government-spent-6-million-upgrading-military-bases-for-syrian-refugees-who-didnt-stay-there/wcm/694a14aa-07f1-4bf3-a376-3b10fdd1b597

Interesting. That's good then.

 

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, jacee said:

Interesting. That's good then.

 

It might be good, but it also could show a waste of money and possibly there was no real intention of housing said Syrian refugees. Might was well use it if it is paid for.

[Rue]

18 hours ago, marcus said:

I don't really need to protect anything. I never advocate for anything unless I truly believe in it. The reason that I speak out is because I have information to share, that an average person may not know.

I deal with many Canadian employers who are starving for workers that they're not able to find in Canada. There is a global fight for skilled workers right now. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UAE and U.S. to some extent, are fighting for skilled workers in some industries, to move to their country. This is why there is such a big uproar in the U.S. about Trump wanting to put a pause on skilled workers coming in. Also,  the stats show that immigration is a vital part of not only Canada, but other Western countries' growth and sustainability. Canada does have one of the highest immigration rates per capita, but we also have one of the strictest. Despite the relatively high intake, we're still going to fall short in filling positions as the baby boomers are starting to retire. Hopefully technology and innovation will also be an answer to that.

Yes. But there is still a HUGE shortage. Look at the list of B.C. Labour Market Outlook 2010 - 2020. This gives you a pretty good idea. The hospitality industry is starving for workers. From cooks, as you mentioned, to servers, kitchen help, food counter attendants, cleaners/janitors, etc.

These jobs need to be filled. They're not being filled by Canadians. So they have to look outside. There are endless number of people who would love to take any of these positions. Majority of the immigrants who come to Canada as temporary or permanent residents, live frugal lives. It's common to see them struggle and it's usually their children who end up benefiting from their parents' move. This is why it's important to recognize that the children of immigrants have a much higher rate of going into post secondary education than others. This is valuable information to consider when we debate the success of immigration.

It's nice to be able to 'plug and play'. Meaning, have someone move to Canada and see them continue at the same rate as a Canadian at the same age and with the same qualifications. But that's just not the reality, especially if they are coming from a country where their assets and savings are worth so much less here. An immigrant needs to build and building does happen as time goes by. True, if they are coming from an English speaking country, they have a better chance of immediate success as far as rate of pay, but there aren't enough people from those countries that are applying for immigration. Despite having the advantage of language skills and other advantages, like the open work permits that people under 35 years can receive to come to Canada.

So your concern that you voiced, which was that people from third world countries have an advantage is not correct. It's the opposite. The simple truth is that not enough qualified Western or English speaking applicants are applying.

There are some things I didn't agree with, when it came to the previous government, but I think some of the changes they made to the immigration system were positive ones. But there are still many issues in regards to the immigration system and our settlement policies that can be improved in order to benefit Canada. Those need to soberly discussed.

This goes back to the steps I mentioned earlier.

Many of these applicants' immigration applications have already been accepted at a central intake (target) and then they are forwarded to the visa office responsible for background and security check and a final verdict (actual). Sometimes, some of the applicants end up being refused just before they receive a landing visa, because their names pop up in one of the security risk lists that Immigration Canada receives from various countries and organizations. Or the immigration office finds new information about misrepresentation.

Three reasons for this:

1) Population - Look at the population of India vs Ukraine - How many Indians apply compared to the number of Ukrainians? There is a higher population of more educated, wealthier and better English speaking Indians vs Ukrainians.
2) English level - I have seen Italians apply and they end up bombing the language exam. Many of them don't have high enough English.
3) Interest level - Even though the interest level has gone up, Europeans, in general, still see Canada as an underdeveloped, somewhat uncultured destination. There is an increasing of movement within Europe, but it's not common for them to want to move to Canada. By the time some of them realize they want to come to Canada, their age is too old for immigration standard and they end up not getting enough points because of their age. In contrast, in a country like India, people begin planning their move to Canada early. The higher middle class begin grooming their children with English classes and education in Canada so that immigration to Canada/Australia/New Zealand can be easier to achieve.The high skilled European workers who are looking for jobs and money, they usually end up moving to the UAE or Singapore or Hong Kong, where the income level is much higher than Canada. 

The article from 2006 made some good points, but it's no longer relevant as the immigration policy and system have changed immensely.

I think your comments on Israel show an underlying need to protect  Muslims from Jews. That is my take. On this subject while I disagree with some of what you say and do think your job creates a bias in some of what you say, you do a good job. You've done a good job of providing neutral non bias information to the discussion. I  thank you for that.

I probably have not done as much immigration as you have so do not claim any expertise in the area. I've only worked with refugees and some family reunification. I do know lawyers that only specialize in specialists going back and forth, i.e., athletes, physicians, specific computer experts, scientists. Its a different world of rules.

My impression is it is now easier for skilled professionals in need in either the US or Canada can travel easier now than before free trade. I think Canada has a crisis in that it needs to replace its aging baby boomers if the huge deficits Trudeau is running up based on the assumption someone will pay taxes.

The problem is we are heading to a time where people will have to stay in school much longer and  will be specialized and those specializations will be quicker to become outmoded meaning a constant need to keep learning and switch jobs. As it is  the average Canadian stays in a job about 2.8 years now and most are on contracts with no benefits.

If we place too many unskilled labourers into the pool its not going to help our economy. Closer tie in between skills and economic needs have to be incorporated into the system.

Everytime it tries to do that a politician comes along like Trudeau and undermines the entire system.

I know for a fact his open doors are trampling legitimate immigrants and refugees now.They are economic migrants no different than the millions of Africans feeing shortage of water in Africa to Europe. The idea you can just assimilate 60,000 Hatiens in Montreal is naivre. There is at least 3 generations of transition for an adjustment to independence to come about from social benefits.  It makes more financial sense to send them home and build housing for them in Haiti.

Trapping them to 3 generations or so of marginalization does what?  It robs Haiti of manpower needed to rebuild its own country and puts  huge strain on our medical and benefits systems.

Immigration when matched to the skills our country needs is a positive thing. Private sponsored refugees has worked. Its other forms that can cause serious problems. My discussions are limited to economic concerns. I don't claim to know which immigrants will become successful and productive or not. No one really knows. We tend to fear the worst with immigrants.

Every generation of immigrant has sparked distrust and fear of the people before them.

Some of our policies are permanently creating a 3rd and fourth world by brain draining them. Some of our policies are just a disguise to bring in cheep marginal labour. Some of our policies are well planned out and help grow the economy creating jobs. Some of our policies are creating serious strains on housing, education and health systems. 

[Machjo]

On 4/18/2017 at 5:48 PM, Argus said:

Kevin O'Leary is, I think an 'open' personality type. He flies around the world constantly and seems to delight in it, rarely staying in the same place for long. Trudeau is much the same, also an "open" personality type. And I think this explains their enthusiastic support for immigration.

I've been discussing immigration here for almost fourteen years. The continuing discussion (angry disagreement) on immigration which pits almost all conservatives (O'Leary is not a conservative) and almost all liberals on opposite sides with little agreement or compromise between them seems to me to be an argument over something other than just immigration. After all, immigration ought to be a fairly dry subject based on statistics, economics and demographics. But it rarely is. And it often gets emotional.

My thinking on this is an outflow from a discussion recently held in the political philosophy area on a VIDEO presentation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Haidt explains how his studies generally say people can be divided into two groups, which he calls "open" and "closed". Open people value change and diversity, like novelty, variety and travel, and speak for the oppressed, wanting change and justice, even if that causes chaos. Closed people, on the other hand, are traditionalists, and like things which are familiar, safe and dependable. They value order and speak for institutions which maintain that order.

And clearly, as Haidt says, open people have an affinity for liberal political views while closed people tend to be conservatives.

Haidt puts our sense of social morality into five distinct categories.

Harm/care  (protecting from harm, caring for the helpless)
Fairness/reciprocity
Ingroup/loyalty (tribal feelings, affinity for and loyalty to the group
Authority/respect
Purity/sanctity

Open people ie liberals, only embrace the first two, and generally place little value or even oppose the last three. Closed people, ie conservatives, embrace all five. So it's not that they don't value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, but they have these other values which they take into consideration.

So now we look at how open people will treat immigration vs closed people. Open people love diversity, change (even if it causes chaos) and novelty. They don't have much respect for traditions and don't have much group loyalty. Conservatives are almost the opposite. They embrace group loyalty and respect for institutions and traditions.

So if masses of immigrants from wildly different cultures are brought to Canada on a continuing basis, open people love it. They have no care or concern for how that might dammage or diminish our traditional institutions since they don't have much respect for them to begin with. Their care and concern, aside from loving the change and novelty, is an earnest desire to help those foreigners, be they immigrants or refugees, to lead a better life here.

Conservatives place much higher value on our traditions and on loyalty to the group. They like things more or less the way they are and don't want our 'tribe' swamped by members of other tribes. They fear chaos and a lack of order.

Since 'open' people( those on the left) place no real importance on the concerns which affect 'closed' people (those on the right) they tend to simply dismiss their concerns as racism or xenophobia. Conservatives, in turn, tend to regard the enthusiasm for immigration/refugees from those on the Left as the result of short sighted idiocy, with overtones of treason (betrayal of the need to be loyal to and protect the group).

Douglas Murray talked rather eloquently about this in another video I recently saw, where he spoke of how liberals swooned with admiration for foreign cultures and were deeply respectful of them, while at the same time being dismissive of and mocking towards our own culture.
What happens, he says, when the place we know, the place we grew up in, is swamped so much it changes beyond all recognition? Where do British people (this was a discussion in the UK) go to find a home when their home has been swept out from under them and they no longer feel welcome there? And why should anyone think they would simply accept that happening without resistance?

So is it even possible to hold a reasonable discussion on immigration between two groups which have different social values?

Historically, some closed states established 'free ports' (or what we might call 'free economic zones' today).

Essentially, the free port was wide open, allowing free trade and unrestricted free movement of people. Outside of that was a no-go zone for foreign nationals.

I suppose we might be able to bring that concept back and so make all sides happy. For example, Canada could declare its port cities Free Economic Zones or FEZ's, but then restrict movement outside of those zones.

It could be an idea worth considering.

[-TSS-]

Life is too short to read the whole thread so someone may have already said what I say that immigration is an issue which most poignantly shows how obsolete the traditional right/left-division is.