The Left invites terrorists into our home

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The question is to whom do you wish to be fair?   The taxpayers and citizens of THIS country, of someone from a different country who seeks to come here?

I would prioritize Canada's interests.

 

5 minutes ago, cannuck said:

and, yes, you wish to destroy the culture of this country as it stands.   Inviting radical Islam, and for example Caribbean drug criminals galore for instance is a perfect example.

Hyperbole and setting your hair on fire.  Getting hysterical and ignoring my point about pragmatism makes for shitty discussion.  If you are able to understand the other points, feel free to address them, thanks.

[cannuck]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would prioritize Canada's interests.

 

Hyperbole and setting your hair on fire.  Getting hysterical and ignoring my point about pragmatism makes for shitty discussion.  If you are able to understand the other points, feel free to address them, thanks.

 think you are missing my point.  We can base entry requirements on ANYTHING we wish, no need to be "fair" to anyone.   Immigration is not some international human right, it is a very specific privilege to which we as a sovereign state can specify EXACTLY what we will and will not accept as it suits us...just as every other nation does.

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, cannuck said:

 think you are missing my point.  We can base entry requirements on ANYTHING we wish, no need to be "fair" to anyone.

I'm not missing it.  I acknowledged it above and even agree with it.  

Read my posts, please, if you want to actually discuss anything.  I'm tired of responding to people who just want to argue when there's no argument.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right, but you don't see how ineffective and unfair such a blunt force rule is ? [/quote]

How would it be ineffective? Do you think there is any chance a city with only women would have anything like the violent crime rate of an average city?

As for being unfair, that's unfortunate, but life is unfair. To my mind our immigration system's primary responsibility is to be  fair to us.

Quote

Given the assumption that the government wants immigrants, it's not a good way to screen.

Why not? It would screen out most would-be terrorists. It would screen out most people who have the kind of anti-social views of severe Islam, of Wahhabi islam and Salifists.

Quote

There may be something to that, yes.  But if you're truly looking for fact based you'd have to test it, and test it against some target range.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the most economically successful immigrants come from Europe and the least economically successful come from countries with cultures far removed from ours, such as the middle east and Asia?

Quote

I don't know that it won't become routine here but I'm open to a discussion of how to mitigate/assess the risks.

That's what I'm doing. Either screen them for their social views, or if that's unpalatable, simply screen out everyone from the Middle East. They're poor economic performers anyway. Also make sure no Saudi money gets in, and deny any work permit to Saudi imams or teachers. I think that within the Canadian context, if we minimize Saudi influence and interrupt the continuing stream of newcomers with antisocial views Canada's Muslims will wind up integrating and becoming as Canadian in their attitudes as anyone else here.

Quote

1. So this "Many of our Muslim immigrants came from a time before Saudi influence had achieved the state it has now in the world."   Means many of our Muslims immigrants came before the 1970s ?  Ok on the cite.

No, I said it began in the 1970s, as did the cites I posted. The OPEC price increases of 1973 quadrupled their income, and that was when the Saudis really began to use their money to export Wahhabism. Such things take time to spread and become cultural fixtures. Wahhabi influence is still spreading.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

How would it be ineffective? Do you think there is any chance a city with only women would have anything like the violent crime rate of an average city?

As for being unfair, that's unfortunate, but life is unfair. To my mind our immigration system's primary responsibility is to be  fair to us.

If we agree that the point of immigration is to improve Canada, and bringing the best people over then selecting some immigrants over others based on bad criteria is ineffective.

I don't think life has to be fair, but if you accept unfairness in some aspects of government operations (ostensibly to produce the 'best' result) then you have applied a principle that can apply to you also.  

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why not? It would screen out most would-be terrorists. It would screen out most people who have the kind of anti-social views of severe Islam, of Wahhabi islam and Salifists.

It depends on the weight you want to put on the risk of terrorism.  You could also ban all men from immigrating from anywhere and that would also reduce risk of violence by a large factor.

 

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you think it's a coincidence that the most economically successful immigrants come from Europe and the least economically successful come from countries with cultures far removed from ours, such as the middle east and Asia?

Probably, maybe ?  But... Why are you interested in having us engage in a guessing game when these things could be done by the numbers ?  As I said, there are factors that determine success and if you're truly interested in a fact-based assessment you'd start by finding those factors.

[-TSS-]

It is all about creating chaos and under its pretext you can make tight new laws restricting people's freedom's. Easily impulsed muslims are a useful tool to that end. Letting in millions of muslims creates chaos in Europe and the EU can force special laws to curtail liberties of citizens.

Namely, all that muslims are capable of is causing maximum nuisance such as running over people with trucks or blowing themselves up in crowds but surely nobody believes that muslims are in anyway capable of carrying out violent overthrows of western regimes?

Allowing this chaos to continue is just a part of the plan to create the United States of Europe. When the foolish muslims have served their purpose they will be wiped out easily.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

 think you are missing my point.  We can base entry requirements on ANYTHING we wish, no need to be "fair" to anyone.   Immigration is not some international human right, it is a very specific privilege to which we as a sovereign state can specify EXACTLY what we will and will not accept as it suits us...just as every other nation does.

Well to be really fair we shouldn't have bullied the countries our corporations and money migrated too into removing as many barriers to us as we saw fit.

It's pretty obvious what really invited the blowback to that into our lives. The reason why we should have been more fair, ethical and moral in our dealings with other human beings is even more obvious.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

As for being unfair, that's unfortunate, but life is unfair.  

Here's why you can get into trouble using values that aren't yours as a basis for an argument: we argue and discuss intuitively, so in other threads you're likely to have used the "fairness" argument in some other context.  I sense that you valued fairness more than me I suspected as much, so I searched and found that very thing:

On 8/17/2017 at 1:01 PM, Argus said:

Getting 50% more time is unfair to the other students

Whether or not you value fairness, or I do - there is a moral sphere to government activity but as has been pointed out, it falls behind pragmatism and economics when it comes down to a choice.  We hear arguments on here that government programs like affirmation action and even taxation are unfair, and they arguably are, but if there is a pragmatic purpose to something then fairness is a political consideration.

[Michael Hardner]

Another thought: "fairness" is a concept that really has bothered me in the discussions of proportional representation also.  If people can convince others that FPTP isn't "fair" they can alter democracy to produce different results.  The "fairness" of an immigration system, or even democracy itself will be played out in the political context as I said.

My main point is about the pragmatism of criteria used to produce the best immigration system, and as such I'm open to screening or even using religion as one criteria along with others.  But if you're unhappy with the knee-jerk accusation of racism being used against those who question immigration, you will still have to accept that "fairness" as a political obstacle will be there by "the" public that assesses such policy.  And then it comes down again to "publics".  We don't have a "public" that can discuss and assess policies without leaving behind their gut-level reactions of suspicion, or economic ignorance. 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If we agree that the point of immigration is to improve Canada, and bringing the best people over then selecting some immigrants over others based on bad criteria is ineffective.

But I'd be using the same criteria we use now, only restricting it from certain geographical areas. 

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think life has to be fair, but if you accept unfairness in some aspects of government operations (ostensibly to produce the 'best' result) then you have applied a principle that can apply to you also.  

Our government already treats non-citizens differently than it does citizens. And should.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It depends on the weight you want to put on the risk of terrorism.  You could also ban all men from immigrating from anywhere and that would also reduce risk of violence by a large factor.

Well, if I had my choice we'd mainly be importing young Nordic and Irish girls, so....

It isn't just terrorism, though. The risk of terrorism is what would cause a logical person to say "Well, why bring in these people as opposed to those people?" And given their poor economic performance, their greater difficult in assimilating, and social values and views hostile to ours I can't think of a reason.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Probably, maybe ?  But... Why are you interested in having us engage in a guessing game when these things could be done by the numbers ?

Because these are the numbers I have from the government

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 As I said, there are factors that determine success and if you're truly interested in a fact-based assessment you'd start by finding those factors.

We do know what the main factors are. They include strong English language skills,  cultural adaptation (not generally a thing conservative Muslims from the ME possess in strength), and educational and job skills which are desired and accepted by our job market. All of these are found more readily in Europe and places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the US - and to an extent, the Philippines and India, than they are in the Middle East.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, -TSS- said:

It is all about creating chaos and under its pretext you can make tight new laws restricting people's freedom's. Easily impulsed muslims are a useful tool to that end. Letting in millions of muslims creates chaos in Europe and the EU can force special laws to curtail liberties of citizens.

Do not look for conspiracy in policies designed through stupidity, ignorance, and short-sighted political expedience.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Whether or not you value fairness, or I do - there is a moral sphere to government activity but as has been pointed out, it falls behind pragmatism and economics when it comes down to a choice.  We hear arguments on here that government programs like affirmation action and even taxation are unfair, and they arguably are, but if there is a pragmatic purpose to something then fairness is a political consideration.

I very strongly value fairness and justice. But as you point out, pragmatism is a necessary function of government. Taxation is necessary for the upkeep of society. How it is divided can and often is unfair and political. Everything is a political decision, but when you're speaking of fairness to foreigners vs fairness to Canadians then you're confusing the purpose of government. The government is not there to do what's best for foreigners, but to do what's best for Canada. It's nice when it CAN help foreigners, but where that harms the interests of Canadians then the government is working against its own purpose.

The government wanted to be 'fair' in opening up immigration to third world residents, and 'fair' to even low income third world people, like all those Jamaican nannies who were working temporarily in Canada. How nice. So it let them have Canadian citizenship and let them bring their kids over. Those kids, who hadn't seen much of their mothers in years, and who arrived angry, resentful, pulled away from their families and friends and all they knew to this cold land. Thus began a new era in violent street gangs which has killed many Canadians. So our government being 'fair' to foreigners cost some Canadians their lives.

Let's look at all these migrants crossing the border, or better yet, the Syrians the government brought in. It wanted to be nice and generous. Awww, look at those wonderful selfies of Trudeau welcoming Syrians. Awwwww. 

But... where did those Syrians go after the selfies? In every city in this country there are long waiting lists for public housing. And in every city I know, those who are homeless go immediately to the top of the list.  If you were a single mother with three kids living in a one bedroom apartment waiting for three years to get a three bedroom house, how nice do you think Trudeau was when suddenly your name is pushed several hundred places down the list as the city's public housing staff struggled to find places for all these foreigners to live? Again, government being fair to foreigners at the expense betraying its responsibilities of doing what's best for Canadians.

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

But I'd be using the same criteria we use now, only restricting it from certain geographical areas. 

Without testing the factors, then you're just using intuition.

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Our government already treats non-citizens differently than it does citizens. And should.

Right.  But you rejected "fairness" on the whole as being applicable, ie. "life isn't fair"

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, if I had my choice we'd mainly be importing young Nordic and Irish girls, so....

It isn't just terrorism, though. The risk of terrorism is what would cause a logical person to say "Well, why bring in these people as opposed to those people?" And given their poor economic performance, their greater difficult in assimilating, and social values and views hostile to ours I can't think of a reason.

If you go with fact-based, then I guarantee you that you won't be 100% happy with the results.

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Because these are the numbers I have from the government

It's not a full analysis.

 

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

We do know what the main factors are. They include strong English language skills,  cultural adaptation (not generally a thing conservative Muslims from the ME possess in strength), and educational and job skills which are desired and accepted by our job market. All of these are found more readily in Europe and places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the US - and to an extent, the Philippines and India, than they are in the Middle East.

How do we know it ?  You're trusting the government, implicitly, on some things but not on others.  I'm all for fact-based inclusion criteria, but as I say you (or I) won't be 100% happy with the results.

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I very strongly value fairness and justice. ...

Let's look at all these migrants crossing the border, or better yet, the Syrians the government brought in. It wanted to be nice and generous. Awww, look at those wonderful selfies of Trudeau welcoming Syrians. Awwwww. 

 

Generally agree with the first part of the post.  Second part is refugees which is a different discussion.  Those people are brought in on ostensibly humanitarian grounds.  Not much to discuss other than security/safety concerns.  They are screened, but maybe it's not good enough.  I don't know.

[drummindiver]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well to be really fair we shouldn't have bullied the countries our corporations and money migrated too into removing as many barriers to us as we saw fit.

It's pretty obvious what really invited the blowback to that into our lives. The reason why we should have been more fair, ethical and moral in our dealings with other human beings is even more obvious.

 

Please cite how the trillions of oil dollars  the west has spent has bullied the Saudis into blow back.

Also please cite how this makes middle east immigrants poor economical risks. 

It is obvious the dots do not connect with your assessment.

[GostHacked]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would prioritize Canada's interests.

 

Hyperbole and setting your hair on fire.  Getting hysterical and ignoring my point about pragmatism makes for shitty discussion.  If you are able to understand the other points, feel free to address them, thanks.

Canada's interests as in the average Canadian? Or Canada's interests as in the government?

[Rue]

Nice to see 2 board members who know how to debate, i.e., Argus + Michael Hard. Good salient points from both sides of the table.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Canada's interests as in the average Canadian? Or Canada's interests as in the government?

The point of the exercise is to better align what the people are asking for with government policy.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

Please cite how the trillions of oil dollars  the west has spent has bullied the Saudis into blow back.

Also please cite how this makes middle east immigrants poor economical risks. 

It is obvious the dots do not connect with your assessment.

Your questions have nothing to do with what I said so go fetch your own cites.

[GostHacked]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The point of the exercise is to better align what the people are asking for with government policy.

I would love to see that, but that does not seem to be how things work.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I would love to see that, but that does not seem to be how things work.

No, which is why we should all be asking for more engagement, more transparently and more open and persistent reporting.  If we keep asking for it, they will have to stop saying 'no'.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The point of the exercise is to better align what the people are asking for with government policy.

Certain ethnic communities have asked for more immigration to bring in their relatives, and corporations have asked for immigration to expand their profits. But the 'people' as a whole have never asked for immigration, nor ever been consulted on what they expect or want from it.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Certain ethnic communities have asked for more immigration to bring in their relatives, and corporations have asked for immigration to expand their profits. But the 'people' as a whole have never asked for immigration, nor ever been consulted on what they expect or want from it.

I don't think we need to ask IF there is to be immigration.  Maybe if we were going to eliminate it, but come on...

And the exercise we're discussing is exactly about what the people would expect/want from it.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Without testing the factors, then you're just using intuition.

Intuition and logic are not synonyms.  If we use the same system yet exclude countries known to produce the least economically successful immigrants - and the most religious fanatics - I fail to see how things could not improve.

 

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you go with fact-based, then I guarantee you that you won't be 100% happy with the results.

When is anyone 100% happy with the results of any government program? Is that a reason not to want to improve it?

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not a full analysis.

No, the only full analyses was done by the Fraser Institute, which spoke of the $30+  billion gap between what immigrants pay in taxes and the services government must supply to them.

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Generally agree with the first part of the post.  Second part is refugees which is a different discussion.  Those people are brought in on ostensibly humanitarian grounds.  Not much to discuss other than security/safety concerns.  They are screened, but maybe it's not good enough.  I don't know.

A substantial number of our newcomers now come in as refugees - who become immigrants - who become Canadians. They should not be excluded from the discussion when most of them are coming from parts of the world filled with religious fanaticism. They are not screened for their religious fanaticism, either. I"m not against humanitarian assistance, but we could have helped many times more people there for what we spent to bring them and support them here. 

[drummindiver]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think we need to ask IF there is to be immigration.  Maybe if we were going to eliminate it, but come on...

And the exercise we're discussing is exactly about what the people would expect/want from it.

The past year has shown the politicians will not do the people's wishes. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Intuition and logic are not synonyms.  If we use the same system yet exclude countries known to produce the least economically successful immigrants - and the most religious fanatics - I fail to see how things could not improve.

No, they're not.  You are using your intuition, not logic and implicitly setting a metric for 'improvement' that I suspect precludes risk in an illogical way.

1 minute ago, Argus said:

When is anyone 100% happy with the results of any government program? Is that a reason not to want to improve it?

Exactly.  If you accept that a fact-based analysis may in fact result in results you disagree with, such as male Muslims being admitted then we could theoretically begin.

 

1 minute ago, Argus said:

No, the only full analyses was done by the Fraser Institute, which spoke of the $30+  billion gap between what immigrants pay in taxes and the services government must supply to them.

That report was about immigration in total, but there have been flaws pointed out in that and our exercise would be separate exercise.

 

1 minute ago, Argus said:

A substantial number of our newcomers now come in as refugees - who become immigrants - who become Canadians. They should not be excluded from the discussion when most of them are coming from parts of the world filled with religious fanaticism. They are not screened for their religious fanaticism, either. I"m not against humanitarian assistance, but we could have helped many times more people there for what we spent to bring them and support them here. 

Maybe but it's two discussions.  I think it has been pointed out before that they are screened though.