terrorist hits Manhattan

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

... every media outlet and every political party blankets us with soothing information about how immigration helps our economy and how we need it to combat our aging workforce. 

You know, that *one* article that you post on the topic is quite provocative and has caused me to think however you need to follow my example and keep an open mind on what the economic effects may be.  No academic, and no objective discussion uses the absolutist language that you (tend to) use on the topic.  And indeed, even economists disagree about the various effects of immigration.

You should be commended for finding contrary views on the economic side of this discussion.  Don't rest on your laurels: find more.  Then find more that disagree with those.  

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You know, that *one* article that you post on the topic is quite provocative and has caused me to think however you need to follow my example and keep an open mind on what the economic effects may be.  No academic, and no objective discussion uses the absolutist language that you (tend to) use on the topic.  And indeed, even economists disagree about the various effects of immigration.

You should be commended for finding contrary views on the economic side of this discussion.  Don't rest on your laurels: find more.  Then find more that disagree with those.  

When speaking of our aging workforce I've posted a number of articles over the years which debunk the idea we can address the issue through immigration. The government has never posted any demographic data to support their position. Nor has anyone else. When Stats Canada itself says that 100,000 is enough immigration to stabilize our numbers and when the CD Howe institute baldly says that if we want to stop the rising number of seniors vs workers we'd need 2.6 million immigrants a year by 2020 and SEVEN million a year by 2050 that pretty much absolutely says immigration is not the way to go.

There's also these, which I have posted before. All of which make me feel quite comfortable in absolutely dismissing the government's contention that we need more immigrants in order to combat an aging workforce.

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

http://www.diversityintheworkplace.ca/newsletters/feb_2010/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population

aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=1350

[hot enough]

On 11/1/2017 at 6:38 AM, cannuck said:

Michael, I hoped you would know better.

I knew that you wouldn't know better. You continue with the same old propaganda that was born long long ago. Did your parents fall for the "commie" crap? The US has been duping folks for over two centuries with its stunning lies. 

Quote

It is not the Antioch Baptist Church that is radicalizing NA borne Muslims.  That is a 100% imported problem.  By saying that by being borne here (such as Khadr) that makes them "Canadians" and "Home Grown" is nonsense.   Their families and the commun ity imported from outside has not assimilated, in fact done exactly the opposite.

It is the Antioch Baptist church that shares the blame for these problems because they, like so many other canucks have not spoken out against the illegal invasions, the war crimes, the terrorism that has been committed in their/our names. 

Look at all the Canadians who have been radicalized, canucks who support the above mentioned war crimes/terrorism. 

All based totally on US lies concerning September 11, 2001. You, all of you know of the massive lies - yellowcake, Iraq WMD, OBL responsible for 911, Taliban hiding OBL, 19 Arab hijackers, some of whom are still alive, evidence for their existence on 911 "planes" totally nonexistent. 

And still you gullible folks buy into the USA's lame fable, the world's biggest liars' continued lies.

Who in their right mind would ever want to assimilate to purveyors of planned genocides, war criminals, terrorists, baby killers, ... ?

Quote

Have ALL Muslim immigrtants become radicals?   Of course not.   BUT: were those who did influenced by assimilating long established Canadian (or American) values?  Of course not. 

By comparison, how many US/Cdn/UK/Aussie terrorist soldiers signed up to illegally invade sovereign nations?

 

Quote

Most of all, the community that SEEMS to be "moderate" is in most cases abundantly aware of the radicals within, and does nothing to expose them.

I don't see or hear you doing anything to expose all those who have taken part in the supreme war crime of illegally invading sovereign nations.

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

On 11/1/2017 at 7:42 AM, Hal 9000 said:

What a great reason to accept radical Islam into our lives!

Would you folks please stop repeating mindless propaganda?

[hot enough]

On 11/1/2017 at 8:11 AM, Hal 9000 said:

So, if you have a rat in your house the solution isn't to get rid of the rat, it's "oh well, lets get more rats".

The rats are the ones that illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, ... . Why are you folks so studiously blind to close to a century of US/UK pillaging and terrorizing Middle Eastern countries. 

Even after all the bald faced lies you have been told you still pretend you don't know.

[marcus]

On 11/1/2017 at 1:13 AM, taxme said:

The left wing liberals are responsible for this incident, not the conservatives or Trump. Trump was trying to do something about stopping all new immigrants coming from some of those terrorist Muslim countries but lost, thanks to the liberal/dumbocrat/RINO's. There will be more incidents like this happening time and time again until someone can put some common sense and logic into those dumb liberal dumbocrats and RINo's foolish heads of theirs. It's almost as though they want this carnage to continue.  

Most of the terrorists who have killed in the U.S. have come from Muslim countries that Trump has business deals with, like Saudi and Egypt. These countries are not banned. I recommend that you look at Trump's actions with a little more honesty, instead of your blind and unconditional love for him.

Edited November 6, 2017 by marcus

[marcus]

On 10/31/2017 at 9:08 PM, cannuck said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html

and the left-leaning media criticize Trump for identifying the problem as a Muslim problem.

Meanwhile, another "white guy" goes on a killing spree. Yep, it's a "Muslim problem".

[taxme]

1 hour ago, marcus said:

Most of the terrorists who have killed in the U.S. have come from Muslim countries that Trump has business deals with, like Saudi and Egypt. These countries are not banned. I recommend that you look at Trump's actions with a little more honesty, instead of your blind and unconditional love for him.

It's not Trump that is responsible for those terrorists that entered the USA and who have killed American citizen's long before Trump came along. It was Obummer that let them in because he favored immigration from Muslim countries. Trump inherited that Muslim morons mess. I do look at Trumps actions and I see him trying to do something about the problem that America is facing with this Muslim terrorist problem. At least he tried to ban new immigrants from some Muslim countries. Your heroes did nothing except made things worse. 

It is you who needs to stop listening to the fake and phony liberal bias media that will always try and find something bad on Trump because of their hatred for him. You need to show a little more honesty yourself in what you say and think, and stop parroting what those media fools on CNN, MSNBC or CBC keep pushing on you. Your blind hatred for Trump is your problem, not mine. If you choose to want to let the lying media do all the talking for you, well go for it and enjoy. I prefer to support a man like Trump than a lying and crooked thief like Hillary. You should be thankful that Trump is the President. Why people like you fear him is beyond me. Did he take one of your toys away from you at onetime? 

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, marcus said:

Most of the terrorists who have killed in the U.S. have come from Muslim countries that Trump has business deals with, like Saudi and Egypt. These countries are not banned. I recommend that you look at Trump's actions with a little more honesty, instead of your blind and unconditional love for him.

Nice qualification, "most". The USA is under threat of attack by an organized terror group. They have the right to step up their defences, which in this case must include more screening. "Extreme Vetting" is the buzz word tossed around in the media.

What is Extreme Vetting, and who does it apply to?

Regarding selection of so-called "banned" countries, if you had bothered to really look into it, actually read the "letter of the law" you would understand why it was those countries and not the others.

Secondly, and before we leave this point which is off-topic, can we now agree it was not a Muslim ban?

Edited November 6, 2017 by OftenWrong
increased niceness

[marcus]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

It's not Trump that is responsible for those terrorists that entered the USA and who have killed American citizen's long before Trump came along. It was Obummer that let them in because he favored immigration from Muslim countries. Trump inherited that Muslim morons mess. I do look at Trumps actions and I see him trying to do something about the problem that America is facing with this Muslim terrorist problem. At least he tried to ban new immigrants from some Muslim countries. Your heroes did nothing except made things worse. 

You didn't read what I said, because you went off on a tangent and didn't respond to my comment. Instead, you got into the typical rant about liberal, obama, fake news rant that has nothing to do with my comment.

What I said was: Trump has not banned people from countries where most of the terrorists have come from. This so-called Muslim ban was made by Trump and has nothing to do with Obama or congress. He made the decision. The origins of most of the terrorists who have committed crimes in the U.S. is Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Trump did not ban people from those countries. What he did was ban people from countries that are not friendly to Israel and Saudi Arabia and where he wants to have business deals. Think about that.