Ottawa's secret consultations on racism

[Rue]

On 10/30/2018 at 1:42 PM, h102 said:

You refused to read studies, but I am closed minded because I realized the discussion was useless because you just wanted to push your opinion and not consider facts.

You are doing what you accuse others of. In a discussion about immigration it is unfortunate if you or anyone else can not see the middle ground on the issue, I.e., not all immigration is bad but not all of it is good.

The current government is being absolutely irresponsible in assuring a legitimate immigration criteria of eligibility is allowed to be made a mockery of by cue jumpers. It has deliberately created a policy to welcome illegal entry migrants and let them access the refugee system to circumvent the legitimate process. It's done so to encourage illegals from the US to cue jump into Canada and in so doing undermines the regular immigration process and refugee process.

This government is creating an unfair swamping of government facilities by illegal entry migrants meaning legitimate refugees and immigrants are the first people to suffer.

That is why this black and white approach that one is either for or against immigration is b.s. and you have entered that extremist dialogue world.

I call you out as having the very same bias you accuse others of having and the same reason I called out Argus when in these discussions he made references that could be inferred to lump all immigrants in one category of negative reference although he was quick to deny his words. You do the same.

Can you please understand some of us want a balanced immigration policy and that does not make us anti immigrant and writing off the Fraser Institute as right wing and therefore you don't read it is ignorant to say. Using your reasoning you are a left winger and quote left wing sources so I can just write you off. No I don't. I take what you say seriously as I do Argus because both sides are required in a salient debate. I just wish you and he would spend more time enunciating what you think should be the policy instead of engaging in rhetoric only as to what is wrong.

I repeat again migrants illegally entering Canada from the US should be sent back. If they claim refugee status they have a legal obligation to due so in the first designated country, i.e., the US or Mexico or other nation they first travelled to outside their country of origin if is is a UN Convention Treaty member  and apply for refugee status there.

This is the way to assure the legitimacy of our immigration entrant system for both refugees and immigrants. People who push in front of them both by breaking the law and entering illegally should not be rewarded for doing so. The government of the day has sent a message loud and clear  that to enter Canada illegally means you can cue jump and in so doing has caused an escalation of illegal crossings as well as provides preferential treatment for these illegal entrants that hurts and negatively impacts on those who choose to obey our laws and enter legally.

.

To say what I did does not make me anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant or anti African as some on this forum would suggest.

I argue what I do to safeguard the refugee and immigration systems which do work and are designed to try be fair and stop cue jumping.

Our lawsmay not be perfect but they work. Trudeau's government has deliberately undermined them because he does not have the integrity to admit his true policy which is to welcome anyone.

Trudeau thinks he will win ethnic votes by making a mocckery of our immigration laws. I argue in so doing he mocks most Canadians who other than aboriginals came here as immigrants and we were not rewarded for breaking laws when we came here. Immigrants are not asking for preferential treatment, just fair consideration.

Don't claim you defend all immigrants. Many of us believe in following the laws not breaking them for personal gain. We do not need the left patronizing us as victims in need of cue jumping or as the extreme right does as criminals and parasites. We are neither.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Rue

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, Rue said:

You are doing what you accuse others of. In a discussion about immigration it is unfortunate if you or anyone else can not see the middle ground on the issue, I.e., not all immigration is bad but not all of it is good.

That is why this black and white approach that one is either for or against immigration is b.s. and you have entered that extremist dialogue world.

Ah, but you apparently fail to understand the "progressive" catch-all mentality that castigates as racist and bigoted any/all criticism of our open-ended immigration and refugee policies. Rational economically-justified criticism isn't permitted. The progressive assumption reverts to the notion that the motivation of the critics is always grounded in horrible, awful and deplorable intent. You can't argue with these self-styled progressives as their arguments and positions are grounded in emotion rather than logic.

[Rue]

Progressives mistake who the Queen of Canada is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[capricorn]

19 hours ago, turningrite said:

Ah, but you apparently fail to understand the "progressive" catch-all mentality that castigates as racist and bigoted any/all criticism of our open-ended immigration and refugee policies. Rational economically-justified criticism isn't permitted. The progressive assumption reverts to the notion that the motivation of the critics is always grounded in horrible, awful and deplorable intent. You can't argue with these self-styled progressives as their arguments and positions are grounded in emotion rather than logic.

In the same vein as in your comment, the following applies just as well in Canada as it does in the US.

Quote

“The logic that drives each turn of our revolutionary spiral is Progressive Americans’ inherently insatiable desire to exercise their superiority over those they deem inferior. With Newtonian necessity, each such exercise causes a corresponding and opposite reaction. The logic’s force comes not from the substance of the Progressives’ demands. If that were the case, acquiescing to or compromising with them could cut it short. Rather, it comes from that which moves, changes, and multiplies their demands without end. That is the Progressives’ affirmation of superior worth, to be pursued by exercising dominance: superior identity affirmed via the inferior’s humiliation. It is an inherently endless pursuit.

The logic is rooted in disdain, but not so much of any of the supposed inferiors’ features or habits. If it were, the deplored could change their status by improving. But the Progressives deplore the “deplorables” not to improve them, but to feel good about themselves. Hating people for what they are and because it feels good to hate them, is hate in its unalloyed form.”

https://americanmind.org/essays/our-revolutions-logic/

Justin's Liberal party has mastered the art of denigrating their critics by accusing them of being anti this and anti that. For example if you speak about the economic downside of raising immigration levels, you are a bigot and anti immigration. If you disagree with the carbon tax, you believe pollution should be free, if you ask questions about Statscan mining our financial information you are anti data and make decisions based on ideology rather than science. It's quite a masterful technique actually and does influence a large swatch of voters.

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/1/2018 at 3:02 PM, turningrite said:

1. Ah, but you apparently fail to understand the "progressive" catch-all mentality that castigates as racist and bigoted any/all criticism of our open-ended immigration and refugee policies.

2. Rational economically-justified criticism isn't permitted. The progressive assumption reverts to the notion that the motivation of the critics is always grounded in horrible, awful and deplorable intent. You can't argue with these self-styled progressives as their arguments and positions are grounded in emotion rather than logic.

1. I don't think that's true across the board.

2. Maybe a good first step would be for left-of-centres to acknowledge immigration can be examined critically and rationally and right-of-centres to denounce xenophobes and cloaked marauders pretending to care about our 'traditions'

Edited: An economic argument is a good way to start building trust, as it can more easily go to a numbers-based discussion..

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

On 11/1/2018 at 12:02 PM, turningrite said:

Rational economically-justified criticism isn't permitted. 

That's because there are no rational economically-justified criticisms, just bullshit.

Rational racism is on par with the newfound respect dictatorships and authoritarians have come to enjoy.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's because there are no rational economically-justified criticisms, just bullshit.

 

Just because the economic health of the hosting country is bullshit to you, doesn't mean it's not a rational consideration.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Just because the economic health of the hosting country is bullshit to you, doesn't mean it's not a rational consideration.

That's not bullshit to me at all. The concern for our economic health or what that even means is as selective as it gets.  To underscore what I'm getting at consider the disconnect between degrading our ecosystems to grow our economy. 

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's because there are no rational economically-justified criticisms, just bullshit.

Rational racism is on par with the newfound respect dictatorships and authoritarians have come to enjoy.

If you don't understand economics or the legitimate economic critique(s) regarding our immigration program - and, yes, they are rational - perhaps you shouldn't comment on this topic. I suspect, however, that you're not at all interested in rational debate. Thanks anyway for so exquisitely illustrating the validity of my post.

Edited November 3, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, turningrite said:

If you don't understand economics or the legitimate economic critique(s) regarding our immigration program - and, yes, they are rational - perhaps you shouldn't comment on this topic. I suspect, however, that you're not at all interested in rational debate. Thanks anyway for so exquisitely illustrating the validity of my post.

How typically condescending. Hey let me guess, I bet you're one of these people who think the environment is just some thing that exists outside our economy.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

How typically condescending. Hey let me guess, I bet you're one of these people who think the environment is just some thing that exists outside our economy.

Well, if your real concern is the environment then you too should be an opponent of Canada's high immigration levels. The well-known environmentalist David Suzuki has noted that "Canada is full" and argued on environmental grounds that we shouldn't pursue an increased population for the sake of so doing. And he's also criticized the argument that our future economic growth is tied to immigration. He's noted too the negative impacts of emigration for the countries from which Canada now receives most of its immigrants, whereby Canada (as are some other Western countries) is stripping these societies of the professional and leadership classes they require to assure their current and future well-being. So, there are strong and completely rational arguments to be made against high immigration levels, grounded in economics, the environment and humanitarian considerations.

[eyeball]

I'm well aware of and support arguments that lead to zero growth. The problem is that as soon as you try using them in the real world the crying about lefties wanting to destroy the economy starts up, apparently we can survive without an environment but not an economy. That's why the arguments always default to the racist/cultural values horseshit. Always.