The case for a change to Canada's Immigration

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Maybe just say that, then.

Because as soon as you start claiming that Western countries are exactly the same as Muslim countries, that's when there are arguments.

I don't believe I said they were exactly the same.  I don't even recall mentioning Western countries in my comments about Sisi's message of tolerance.  

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree, you do know the Quran better than I do.  Were I ever to convert to Islam, I would reject your version of Islam as being hateful and extreme.  I would choose the version exemplified by moderate/progressive Muslims.  As an atheist, however, I will just call you out as a bigot and Islamophobe.

 

Name calling...the last defense of the desperate. 

I'm also an atheist. I accept your surrender on this subject. Now go back under your rock.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Agree.  I think in large part its because of rhetoric such as that spread by DoP and Goddess and yourself.  A news story about ISIS extremists throwing a gay boy off a roof is used by you and them t

Seriously? You think it's me and DoP and Goddess and not the fucking news story itself, read by hundreds of thousands if not millions and tens of millions of people?

You think it's not one such story after another after another after another: Muslims running trucks over people, Muslims blowing up buses, Muslims stabbing people at random, Muslims blowing up trains, Muslims attacking parliament, Muslims running over soldiers and police, Muslims trying to blow up the CN tower, Muslims blowing up churches, Muslims demanding death for blaspheme, Muslims rioting and killing over cartoons, Muslim gangs raping girls, Muslims terrorists enslaving girls, etc. etc. bloody etcetera?!!

You think MAYBE, just MAYBE years of stories of this, of the problems Europe now has now that it has a lot of Muslims, you think MAYBE that might cause Canadians to reconsider the wisdom of bringing over tens of thousands of Muslim every year?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1.  I offered up more than JWs.  The sermon I linked to for example:  I have no idea what particular Christian sect that is.  I also mentioned my debates with Evangelicals.   

2.  Yes, many Christians do believe it is in their spiritual interest to limit relationships with non-believers.  I have already opined that I don't think its the majority, but that it is pretty common.

"Many" being something on the order of 0.0005% you mean?

[Argus]

I'm going to delete any further post on Muslims on this topic unless it's related directly to immigration. The topic is immigration. One of the reasons it's so difficult to even discuss immigration is people like dialaham instantly change the subject to accusations of bigotry and Islamophobia, and the next thing you know we're trading nonsense. If it were at least original nonsense that would be fine, but it's almost identical to the same shit in the Islam topic anyway, with nothing that hasn't been covered before by the same people.

[Goddess]

I would like to add that although Dia has labelled me "conservative", I show up squarely liberal on every survey, I view myself as liberal.  

The liberal viewpoint is that the rights of minorities should be protected. But I don't believe that means that ALL beliefs must be protected and defended.  Especially beliefs that are just as illiberal as Christian fundamentalism.

There is an inordinate amount of chaos springing from the Muslim world.  Whether this is due to political, social or economic issues or whether this is due to specific religious doctrines, I don't know.  I suspect it's a bit of all and am not as quick to dismiss specific religious doctrines as being a cause, as some others are.  While many Muslims are peaceful and wouldn't dream of violence, it doesn't erase the violence and calls to martyrdom and jihad against unbelievers in the Koran.  There is a lot of violence endorsed by the Koran and to say that Muslim groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda are un-Islamic is being grossly dishonest.  ISIS puts out very accurate statements quoting the Koran that completely fit their actions.

I understand that if you're a Muslim who has had your city and family bombed by the US, you would hate the Americans and want to fight them.  But I don't understand how enslaving and raping 9 year old Yazidi girls protests American actions. Or by forcing non-Muslims to pay jizya or convert or be crucified publicly.  Or beheading Shias or apostates who have left Islam. These aren't the reactions of someone who is just unhappy with US foreign policy.  To deny the religious and doctrinal basis for these actions is foolish, IMO.  There are words in the Koran that command, verbatim, what we see Islamists doing.

The question everyone is afraid to ask (and answer) is: Why do people prone to violence find Islam so appealing for their purpose?

When people say, "I'm doing this in the name of Allah" and quote verses - "Strike the disbelievers from the neck and strike them from every finger tip!" and they are doing that very thing - why do Westerners believe, No!  It must be politics!  No!  It must be mental illness!  No!  It must be a video game they were playing!  We never deny the political grievances.  So why deny that the religion itself, the verses themselves can be a driver in these atrocities?

An example:  When Pakistan banned YouTube for a viral film that mocked the Prophet.  If they had told the people, "We're banning YouTube to quash political dissent." (which was the truth) there would have been an uproar.  But instead, they told the people, "We're banning YouTube to stop blasphemy against our beloved Prophet." and not a peep was heard from the public.

The divinity and infallibility of the Koran is about the only thing every denomination and sect in Islam agree on.  As Ali Rizvi (an athiest Muslim) described it:

 

Quote

One thing Christians and Jews don’t always understand, because it’s hard to relate to, is that most Muslims do revere their holy text very differently from them. It’s not just divinely inspired or written by men of God. It is written by God himself, every letter, every punctuation mark. It’s literal, and it’s infallible. You can’t even touch the book unless you’ve performed an ablution ritual. It’s very serious.

This is why I say I believe in Muslim reform, not Islamic reform. I don’t think using mental gymnastics to reinterpret scripture is convincing. You can’t keep saying “kill” actually means “love,” or “beat your wife” is misinterpreted and actually means “kiss your wife,” and stay credible. In the internet age, everything is exposed. It's online, you can look it up in a dozen languages, multiple translations, the context and syntax and etymology of every word — any 12-year-old can dig that up today.

The Muslim Brotherhood LOVES the word Islamophobia.  Muslim reformers, almost to a person, know Its only purpose is to censor criticism of Islam.  When you fall for that, you're not helping to curb terrorism.  You're a victim of it.  

I remember reading one Muslim reformist who said, "There are many voices that need to be heard in this conversation".  Shutting down the voices you just don't like or want to hear is very Islamist.

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Dead wrong.  Show me a post where I was harsh or draconian towards Harper.  I actually appreciated his leadership and flexibility for keeping a steady course during the 2008 crisis.  So you're wrong there.

I'm not about to waste my time researching your posts. That's work. I don't come here to work. Besides, Harper was mister pragmatism and worked hard at getting the immigrant vote. He wasn't about to say or do or allow his party members to say or do anything which was, or which could be construed or twisted into suggesting they were hostile towards immigrants or immigration.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Not a lazy error but outright negligence.

Borderline. It was sloppy. I'll give you that. Where we depart is in your belief this construes such evil intent on her part that the entire chain needs to be consigned to the outer regions of hell.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I never said Peterson was evil, but that he abrogated his role as a potential public intellectual.

Your attitude towards Peterson has been one of fulminating fury and contempt since then, because in your mind this associated him (however slightly) with the Rebel, and the Rebel is associated in your mind (however peripherally) with that nasty business in Charlottesville last year, and that nasty business in Charlottesville had you looking for clubs and balaclavas to go and fight nazis in the streets.

 

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm going to delete any further post on Muslims on this topic unless it's related directly to immigration. The topic is immigration. One of the reasons it's so difficult to even discuss immigration is people like dialaham instantly change the subject to accusations of bigotry and Islamophobia, and the next thing you know we're trading nonsense. If it were at least original nonsense that would be fine, but it's almost identical to the same shit in the Islam topic anyway, with nothing that hasn't been covered before by the same people.

Sorry, Argus. 

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Sorry, Argus. 

No need. She gets me into it too. It's what she does every single damn time.

Because it's true that Muslims ARE the principle group that are causing so much doubt and suspicion in Canada about immigration. Because unlike other groups a lot of Canadians have a strong suspicion there is not going to be that same assimilation from them, and because their social values are so hostile to ours - extreme, in fact.

There are a lot of other reasons to be concerned about immigration, though, including some fairly obvious economic ones. The emotional ones, though, are about assimilation and culture. And so that's what gets people angry.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

So the government is revamping the family immigration system to do away with the lottery system that didn't work. They're also doubling the number of parents/grandparents allowed to be sponsored into Canada to 20,500. This is after doubling it to 10,000 as an election promise last election.

Now is a good time for all you immigration supporters to start talking about how immigration is needed because of an aging population...

When Kenney capped the numbers of elderly immigrants at 5,000 per year he said the costs were getting out of hand, and that health care costs alone averaged $200,000 per immigrant. Doubling this as the Liberals did, added at least a billion dollars a year to health care costs. Doubling it again, will add two billion more to health care costs. Plus the costs of providing other services, including social services to parents whose children refuse to support them. About 25% of elderly immigrants wound up on welfare prior to the cap being imposed.

But hey, all worth it in the name of getting more immigrant votes for Trudeau!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-canada-family-reunification-1.4963900

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-t-bring-parents-here-for-welfare-kenney-says-1.1351002

 

[Argus]

Yet another in a string of polls, this one from Ipsos, indicating the rising anti-immigration sentiment in Canada. In this one, 56% of people polled felt Canada was too welcoming to immigrants, vs 20% who disagreed.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4794797/canada-negative-immigration-economy-ipsos/

[Argus]

Douglas Todd is one of the few journalists who routinely talks about immigration and the issues it creates.

“Ethnic enclaves and in-group exposure slows the pace of their integration.”

Given the stark reality, the question of ethnic enclaves, sometimes referred to as self-imposed ghettos, is no small matter.

According to other research, in 1981 Canada had only six ethnic enclaves, which are defined as neighbourhoods where more than 30 per cent of the population is of one visible-minority ethnicity.

Now there are more than 260 such enclaves.

https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/ethnic-enclaves-hurt-canadian-belonging

[Argus]

Interesting story from Switzerland. Two Muslim immigrant girls were denied citizenship when it was discovered they refused to swim with boys at school. Another Muslim father was fined thousands of dollars for not letting his daughters swim with boys, and two boys were denied citizenship for refusing to shake hands with a woman.

The Swiss aren't mucking around. If you want to become Swiss you need to BECOME Swiss, and if you won't do that then forget about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-citizenship-muslim-girls-refuse-swim-boys-islam-immigration-europe-a7111601.html

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Interesting story from Switzerland. Two Muslim immigrant girls were denied citizenship when it was discovered they refused to swim with boys at school. Another Muslim father was fined thousands of dollars for not letting his daughters swim with boys, and two boys were denied citizenship for refusing to shake hands with a woman.

The Swiss aren't mucking around. If you want to become Swiss you need to BECOME Swiss, and if you won't do that then forget about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-citizenship-muslim-girls-refuse-swim-boys-islam-immigration-europe-a7111601.html

Seems reasonable.  If I wanted to become a Pakistani they probably wouldn't want me to blaspheme.

[Goddess]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Interesting story from Switzerland. Two Muslim immigrant girls were denied citizenship when it was discovered they refused to swim with boys at school. Another Muslim father was fined thousands of dollars for not letting his daughters swim with boys, and two boys were denied citizenship for refusing to shake hands with a woman.

The Swiss aren't mucking around. If you want to become Swiss you need to BECOME Swiss, and if you won't do that then forget about it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-citizenship-muslim-girls-refuse-swim-boys-islam-immigration-europe-a7111601.html

I recently met a Swiss gentleman while I was on holiday and he talked about this.  The Swiss do not put up with any crap, that's for sure.  They're very happy their government listens to them and acts on their wishes.  He mentioned at Ramadan there's more arrests and deportations - because they break into farms and petting zoos, behead the sheep, leaving the heads behind and taking the carcasses. When they are caught by the law, they are deported immediately.  And the citizenry is good with that.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

I recently met a Swiss gentleman while I was on holiday and he talked about this.  The Swiss do not put up with any crap, that's for sure.  They're very happy their government listens to them and acts on their wishes.  He mentioned at Ramadan there's more arrests and deportations - because they break into farms and petting zoos, behead the sheep, leaving the heads behind and taking the carcasses. When they are caught by the law, they are deported immediately.  And the citizenry is good with that.

Canadian law needs at least 7 years just to deport a serial killer. And we certainly don't deny citizenship just for breaking a few laws.

[Argus]

Just gonna park this here for future reference. It's American, but it has the same blunt message for all those lefties who keep insisting we need to have mass immigration to address an aging population. It won't work.

After looking at all the population projections prepared by the United Nations, Oxford demographer David Coleman has concluded, “There are no feasible migration solutions to the age-structure change and its effects on social security.” Coleman and others have pointed out that immigration can prevent population decline — that is, it can add a lot of people to the country — but it does not significantly change the age structure in the way that many immigration advocates seem to imagine. If we wanted to use immigration to offset population aging, the level necessary would have to be truly enormous.

A recent paper I coauthored based on the most recent Census Bureau population projections examined the impact of immigration on the nation’s age structure. Assuming current levels of immigration continue, the latest projections indicate that the total U.S. population will reach 404 million in 2060 — 79 million larger than in 2017. Future immigrants and their descendants account for nearly all (75 million) of the increase. Under this scenario, 59 percent of the population will be working-age (16 to 64). By contrast, in a zero-immigration scenario, 57 percent of the population would be working-age in 2060. More realistically, if immigration were limited to half of the expected level, 58 percent would be working age.

In fact, it is likely that the current Census Bureau projections, on which our analysis is based, overstate the impact of immigration on aging. In a new paper authored by myself and Karen Ziegler, we find that immigrants are coming to America at much older ages than in the recent past. The Census Bureau’s projections do not fully reflect this change. The average age of newly arrived legal and illegal immigrants has increased from 26 in 2000 to 31* in 2017. The share of newly arrived immigrants who are 55 or older doubled from 5 percent to 12 percent. In other words, about one in eight new immigrants are now arriving in America old enough to move directly into a retirement community.

*The average age of newcomers to Canada is 31.7 years.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/immigration-cannot-fix-challenges-aging-society/

Edited July 10, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

David Frum has been right on everything he's written about immigration. This is a long writeup for The Atlantic, and it points out the present and future problems with refugees and economic migration as well as legal immigration in high numbers.

Demagogues don’t rise by talking about irrelevant issues. Demagogues rise by talking about issues that matter to people, and that more conventional leaders appear unwilling or unable to address: unemployment in the 1930s, crime in the 1960s, mass immigration now. Voters get to decide what the country’s problems are. Political elites have to devise solutions to those problems. If difficult issues go unaddressed by responsible leaders, they will be exploited by irresponsible ones.

Across the developed world, very high levels of immigration have coincided with widening class divisions, the discrediting of political and economic elites, and the rise of extremist politics. And immigration pressures will only intensify in the decades ahead, for reasons obscured by media coverage of immigrants as poor and desperate. That coverage isn’t entirely wrong. Many immigrants are poor and desperate, especially refugees fleeing war or famine. But immigration is accelerating so rapidly in the 21st century less because of pervading misery than because life on our planet is improving for so many people. It costs money to move—and more and more families can afford the investment to send a relative northward. “Every boat person I’ve met has been ambitious, urban, educated,” says Doug Saunders, a Canadian journalist who has reported extensively on global population movements. “They are very poor by European standards, but often comfortable by African and Middle Eastern ones.”

One-quarter of young male Egyptians would work abroad if they could, according to the Egyptian government’s own statistical agency. More than half the populations of South Africa and Kenya wish to leave home, according to the Pew Research Center, as do three-quarters of Nigerians and Ghanaians. In all these countries, it is the best-educated who most yearn to leave.

We are talking here about astonishingly large numbers of potential immigrants—large and fast-growing. Egypt will add 50 million people to its population over the next three decades. Bangladesh will reach 200 million people; Pakistan, 300 million. The populations of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, countries that have already sent so many people northward, will rise by 50 percent by 2050, to more than 47 million. Twenty-six African countries will double their population by the time today’s college seniors celebrate their 50th birthday. Altogether, the population of Africa in 2050 will almost equal the entire population of the world in 1950: 2.5 billion people.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/david-frum-how-much-immigration-is-too-much/583252/

[scribblet]

That`s a question reasonable people ask, but if you do, then you are a  `racist`or these days a `white supremacist`...   use your own slur.    There is a limit, there has to be or we will become a third world country.   We do need the conversation and we do need to make sure we bring in people who suit Canada`s needs.

 

[dialamah]

On 7/29/2019 at 12:57 PM, Argus said:

In all these countries, it is the best-educated who most yearn to leave

Yes, the people who are most likely to agree enough and support our progressive Western values.

41 minutes ago, scribblet said:

There is a limit, there has to be or we will become a third world country. 

Yes there is a limit - 300,000 or so.  Up about 50,000 from Conservative goverment levels.   

41 minutes ago, scribblet said:

We do need the conversation

Perhaps the "conversation" could happen if conservatives didn't always frame it as liberals want open borders, liberals don't care about Canada, liberals love terrorists.

41 minutes ago, scribblet said:

we bring in people who suit Canada`s needs.

See above.  Also our system of approving immigrants is based on age and employability, and it's considered one of the most successful in the works. 

41 minutes ago, scribblet said:

We do need the conversation

Perhaps the conversation could happen if conservatives actually paid attention to how the immigration system works instead of claiming it's a failure and using anomalies to "prove" it.

Edited August 2, 2019 by dialamah

[scribblet]

Sure, anomalies - but go ahead believe what you will if it keeps you happy. 

The increase to nearly a million every 3 years under the Trudeau regime is too high for Canada to handle. 

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Sure, anomalies - but go ahead believe what you will if it keeps you happy. 

How many immigration applications get refused every year?  Any idea?

33 minutes ago, scribblet said:

The increase to nearly a million every 3 years under the Trudeau regime is too high for Canada to handle. 

What will happen, do you think?  We have 37 million people here now, what is going to change if we add another million over 3 years?  

[BubberMiley]

I can agree with concerns about letting in too many people over 30. Immigration should focus on younger people to replace our aging population. I don't, however, buy the rhetoric about lesser quality "third world" immigrants who will destroy our society. It's pretty obvious where that sort of sentiment is coming from.

[scribblet]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

How many immigration applications get refused every year?  Any idea?

What will happen, do you think?  We have 37 million people here now, what is going to change if we add another million over 3 years?  

Doesn't matter, not the issue, those figures don't include a planned 60,000 refugees either.  so  the cost is one issue which is a big one now and growing. 

First off, you can't complain about Canada warming up or carbon footprints and tax people because of it while increasing the no. Of Carbon footprints at the same time, that's hypocrisy at least.  More people, more pollution, more development and green areas needed for housing and as we know there is a shortage of housing where immigrants mainly prefer to go.  taking millions of people in can only increase urban sprawl and overcrowding in cities

I don't believe there are enough jobs to sustain a huge increase in population...   better all way round to keep it steady at around 150,000 per year.    more but too hard on a tablet right now. 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes, the people who are most likely to agree enough and support our progressive Western values.

There is no guarantee whatever that more educated people will support our western values. Any number of university educated Muslims have involved themselves in terrorism against western European targets.

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes there is a limit - 300,000 or so.  Up about 50,000 from Conservative goverment levels.   

Canada Struggling to absorb immigrants, new report says.

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps the "conversation" could happen if conservatives didn't always frame it as liberals want open borders, liberals don't care about Canada, liberals love terrorists.

And what sort of response do you expect when you accuse everyone who wants to lower immigration of being a white supremacist?

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

See above.  Also our system of approving immigrants is based on age and employability, and it's considered one of the most successful in the works. 

By us. And Donald Trump. I don't regard either as being very convincing.

No one else has imitated our system except Australia, and they recently changed it because it wasn't working.