Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[Moonlight Graham]

38 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Not when skilled and educated Canadian IT workers have to seek employment in the "states" and elsewhere because wages and opportunities are depressed by skilled immigrants in Canada.   High immigration numbers are distorting and depressing the labour market.

IT workers are in big demand in Canada.  You can very, very easily find a job as a computer programmer in Canada, i know several, they are hounded by recruiters ever day, they will never be unemployed here.  But if they can get a better salary in the US, like San Fran area, they go there.  Google and Microsoft are not headquartered here.

Maybe some of that has to do with migration depressing wages, i don't know.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't know of any residential requirements under any kind of work permit.  The only thing close would be that they sometimes force you to only work for a specific employer for which you applied under...but if they have offices in Alberta and PEI they don't care where you work.  There are study permits that say you can only attend the specific college you applied under, but doesn't mean you can't do online courses there while living in a different province.

The government doesn't violate Section 6, the government knows that most of these people are not going to be deported, they are here to stay, so the government is happy for them to find work wherever, so long as they pay their taxes.

[Dougie93]

Bear in mind that by rendered judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada, nobody is bound to any particular fealty to Canada anymore.

You can gain your citizenship in Canada without swearing an oath of allegiance now.

So literally all you owe to the Post National State as a resident is the taxes.   That's all the Ottawa Emperor cares about.

[cougar]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Do you think Ghengis Khan was interested in fair fights when he swept across Asia? Were the Huns looking for fairness when they trashed Rome?  Did the Ottoman army look for fairness when they tried to take Vienna? For that matter, would you go to Turkey and Egypt and tell everyone they're just immigrants since they stole the land from the Christians who used to live there? Warring tribes and nations swept back and forth over every bit of territory on this planet right up through Napoleon and Hitler and Stalin, taking what they could hold.

Do you think the Turks wallow in guilt and shame over the deaths of the Christians they stole Turkey from? Does anyone anywhere other than us in the English speaking world have any shame about having defeated others instead of having been defeated?

If you accept all this, we may as well accept rape and murder and start stealing from one another.  I honestly see no difference.

Edited September 11, 2019 by cougar

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, cougar said:

If you accept all this, we may as well accept rape and murder and start stealing from one another.  I honestly see no difference.

If I 'accept' this? If I accept history? What are you even talking about?

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Maybe some of that has to do with migration depressing wages, i don't know.

 

Well, I do know, having interviewed many Canadians and immigrant workers (from Canada).   They use TN and other visa categories to get into the U.S., depressing wages there too.   Immigrants use Canada as a gateway to U.S. employment too.

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I know for a fact that migrants work without a SIN all the time and are still granted PR.  I meet these people all the time.  It's also very, very common for someone here to be granted a work permit and get a temporary SIN # that expires when the work permit expires...and then they renew the WP but forget to renew the SIN# and are technically working illegally but there is no punishment.

A SIN is for your employer and for CRA.  Even a bank can't require you to give them your SIN unless you're earning money from them ie: savings account interest.  If you find an employer who will let you work under the table for cash jobs, IRCC doesn't give a f**k, and CRA isn't going to care and almost never will catch you.

You can enter and stay in Canada illegally, work illegally, commit fraud by avoiding paying taxes illegally, and still be granted permanent residency, they don't care how you've been making a living in Canada.  IRCC doesn't really care, they have a backlog to get through.  Criminal activity is fine, criminals will surely make good permanent residents and citizens!

That’s an exaggeration.  Illegals are sometimes deported.  When you enter Canada your passport is stamped and your identity tracked.  Outlast your visa or, for entrants from countries without visa requirements, outstay your six months, and you are illegal.  That will impact your status on any future applications for citizenship or work permits.  Applying for refugee status looks great at first glance because you get a year for processing, but if your claim is rejected, that’s it.  Hard to make a legitimate application for anything after that.  

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s an exaggeration.  Illegals are sometimes deported.  When you enter Canada your passport is stamped and your identity tracked.  Outlast your visa or, for entrants from countries without visa requirements, outstay your six months, and you are illegal.

 

Hardly a deterrent...hell....even Canadian citizens routinely overstay the six months in the U.S. and other nations.  

[Dougie93]

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Maybe some of that has to do with migration depressing wages, i don't know.

Depressing wages and so by extension prices is an imperative of the policy stimulus reliant moribund economy.

If wages and prices rise, that will incite inflation, which will then incite the central bank to raise interest rates

At which point all the Canadians living on the edge drowning in debt in the Cost of Living Crisis imposed by the Eastern Elites, will default, inciting a financial crisis across the board.

[Dougie93]

This would however be THE buying opportunity for Millennials.

If you have the income and the down payment, this would be where you swoop in and feast like carrion birds on the misfortune of the Boomers to take property off their hands at distressed prices.

[cougar]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

If I 'accept' this? If I accept history? What are you even talking about?

You've stated that this is how the crown established its presence in North America and that all this is fine and dandy and acceptable.

[Dougie93]

37 minutes ago, cougar said:

You've stated that this is how the crown established its presence in North America and that all this is fine and dandy and acceptable.

But it was the rule of the Indians as well, they weren't anymore noble than the British Crown, the Indians were imperialists too, the Indians were slave holders, the Indians were rapacious.

The Indians recognized the power of the British and French monarchies and embraced it

The Indians who were wiped out, were the ones who sided with the losing side, and the people who wiped them out, were other Indians.

Wasn't British Crown who wiped the Huron out, it was the Iroquois.

[Rue]

49 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

But it was the rule of the Indians as well, they weren't anymore noble than the British Crown, the Indians were imperialists too, the Indians were slave holders, the Indians were rapacious.

The Indians recognized the power of the British and French monarchies and embraced it

The Indians who were wiped out, were the ones who sided with the losing side, and the people who wiped them out, were other Indians.

Wasn't British Crown who wiped the Huron out, it was the Iroquois.

The indigenous people had their inherent weaknesses yes. They were far from perfect. My sole point is that other than them who is not from somewhere on this planet. Even they technically are from I suppose Mongolia but does that make them immigrants as well? I mean I suppose it depends on the way one constructs the term immigrant right?

I don't have an argument for you because your points as usual are well stated and factual as usual.

My only debate is with the snap shot in time as to how Argus is determining whether "immigrants" are a drain to Canada.

If I was using your terms, no doubt you would in your distinct way find a way to illustrate we are all the serfs of someone but who determines our usefulness? How do we do that? If your great grand child goes on to cure cancer but in your generation you were a poor schmuck does that mean we ignore where the great grandchild was able to come from?

Does Argus think the great people of any country (by great I leave that to others to define as great) simply are born there and didn't come from descendants from elsewhere? Shit we all come from somewhere and where our dna ends up who the phack knows is the point and how that dna evolves in later life forms is not caught in his ridiculous snap shot which necessarily distorts time and the span we use to measure benefits made to a country.

Using Argus' analysis the Indians and Chinese that came and built our railroads were what? A drain? Well we taxed them. We put a head tax on them. Should we put one on immigrants again?

Where do we go with this sweeping definition that all immigrants are a drain?

 

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Rue said:

Where do we go with this sweeping definition that all immigrants are a drain?

Well, I follow a policy of no enemies on the right, so I do not throw Argus under the bus for his views, but I do not share them.

I embrace all those who embrace the British Crown,  and I offer to lay down my life as necessary in their defence, on behalf of Her Majesty.

Those who swear fealty to my sovereign, Elizabeth Windsor, are British the moment they do.

Those who defend and uphold British as not a race, not a place, but a system of governance founded by William of Orange in 1688, are my people, no matter what race, creed, or faith.

[Dougie93]

In terms of immigrants swamping the Canadian socialist nanny police state?

Bring it on, f*ck the Post National State, bunch of disloyal commies mostly, let's replace them with better people, starting with the Hong Kong Chinese.

Milton Friedman knows.

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

My sole point is that other than them who is not from somewhere on this planet.

Well indeed, and I do not discount the plausibility of the fall of the British Crown in North America.

There is however a fall back position.

There is one place where all the peoples on the planet can find sanctuary.

Empire of Liberty.

Manifest Destiny.

Flight to Quality.

The Fenian Papists know.

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

If I was using your terms, no doubt you would in your distinct way find a way to illustrate we are all the serfs of someone but who determines our usefulness?

Not at all, I say work is bullshit jobs are jails, defend your laziness, time is a commodity unto itself.

Be useful to yourself, as my favorite communist Slavoj Zizek says;  Don't act.  Just think.

 

[Zeitgeist]

I enjoy those kinds of stream of consciousness riffs on topics.  My take away from Slovoj and other thinkers like him is that we always have to ask ourselves what kind of world do we want?  What is the good life?  The Greek Epicureans understood the importance of this central question, because if it’s all about productivity, we will never produce enough and we essentially become slaves to a future that never arrives.  

There’s much to be said for enjoying life and living in the moment.  That means not working all the time or constantly chasing goals.  However, one of the fundamental first steps to overcoming depression and a sense of futility is goal setting, because goals give us purpose.  

So, I think the key to lasting happiness is striking the right balance between working towards a greater purpose and taking time to live it up.  Too much living for tomorrow puts us on a hamster’s wheel.  Too much pleasure in the moment leads to feeling empty.  

Bringing this back to immigration, there’s nothing wrong with immigration unless it is managed in such a way that it no longer adds value to the society because it overwhelms the capacity of the society to absorb the impacts.  I love having a bit of every part of the world in my backyard.  It makes life richer, as long as I can get from one place to another reasonably easily and the cost of living doesn’t rise too high (because wages are driven down or home prices are too high, for example).  The air and water have to be clean.  There has to be greenery and fairly attractive architecture and streetscapes, as well as amenities, but if our cities become too congested and costly to support with infrastructure and housing due to the speed and volume of new arrivals to the country, we’re going to lose the very qualities that make Canada so liveable.  That breeds resentment and racism, especially if people who grew up locally no longer feel that they can relate to the people in the community because it changed too quickly.  

We need to find the right amount of influx.  It’s going to require creative and careful public policy.  I certainly don’t want my kids working constantly and never being able to afford housing as their communities deteriorate because they are strained to the breaking point.

Immigration has to serve Canada, not the other way around.  I compare it to technology, which was supposed to make life easier and free up more of our time.  In fact we are just demanding more from each other.  Higher immigration levels may simply be forcing us to do more for less.  It needs more careful consideration.  

I stand by my idea of adding a residency condition on a category of immigration and I’m surprised this isn’t already in place.  We’ve been asleep at the wheel.  We have to manage growth better.  There’s so much room for expansion in Canada north of the major centres, yet we seem determined to water one small patch of the garden.  That patch of soil is eroding.  

Edited September 12, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I enjoy those kinds of stream of consciousness riffs on topics.  My take away from Slovoj and other thinkers like him is that we always have to ask ourselves what kind of world do we want?  What is the good life?  The Greek Epicureans understood the importance of this central question, because if it’s all about productivity, we will never produce enough and we essentially become slaves to a future that never arrives.  

There’s much to be said for enjoying life and living in the moment.  That means not working all the time or constantly chasing goals.  However, one of the fundamental first steps to overcoming depression and a sense of futility is goal setting, because goals give us purpose.  

So, I think the key to lasting happiness is striking the right balance between working towards a greater purpose and taking time to live it up.  Too much living for tomorrow puts us on a hamster’s wheel.  Too much pleasure in the moment leads to feeling empty. 

So long as a communist starts where Zizek does, which is that capitalism is the status quo because it is, like democracy,  the least worst option at this juncture, and that the left does not actually have the solution as of yet, then there is middle ground between us and parley can ensue.

I don't see happiness as an end state, journey not a destination.. Without hardship, there is no happiness. The key is to be able to endure hardship gladly, happy warrior

Edited September 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Bear in mind that by rendered judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada, nobody is bound to any particular fealty to Canada anymore.

You can gain your citizenship in Canada without swearing an oath of allegiance now.

What are you referring to?  Never heard of this.  Link?

[Dougie93]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

What are you referring to?  Never heard of this.  Link?

I don't bother to link, do your own research.

IIRC, the case was an Israeli professor who wanted Canadian citizenship but refused to take the oath of allegiance because he wouldn't swear an oath to the Queen.

So the SCC ruled that it was no problem, no loyalty oath required, that was optional, otherwise you can receive your citizenship having never taken a binding legal oath to Canada.

[Dougie93]

To be clear tho, I don't oppose this decision by the SCC, I agree with it,  as a  monarchist.

Nobody should be forced to swear fealty to the Queen

It is an issue of conscience, nobody should be forced by the state to make false oaths they do not undertake of their own free will.

Also, Canada is not a republic, the citizens of Canada are subjects of the Crown

Thus Canada is not their responsibility per se, if they wish to be passengers only, that is entirely their prerogative

It's not an absolute monarchy, Her Majesty is not a totalitarian, Her Majesty defends the right, including the right to not have to defend the state as you see fit.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Moonlight Graham]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I embrace all those who embrace the British Crown,  and I offer to lay down my life as necessary in their defence, on behalf of Her Majesty.

Those who swear fealty to my sovereign, Elizabeth Windsor, are British the moment they do.

Those who defend and uphold British as not a race, not a place, but a system of governance founded by William of Orange in 1688, are my people, no matter what race, creed, or faith.

Canada isn't ruled by the British Crown, we have no more legal links to the British.  Canadians swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada as the physical embodiment of the state but with very little actual power, because if she did exercise it (or her representative the GG) without our consent and we didn't like it, her head would be rolling in the streets like some of her family members of centuries past.  That's because the Crown, in practice, is our b!tch.

Unless you are a British subject, swearing loyalty to the British Crown doesn't mean much legally i'm afraid.  But they are good for hand-waving and magazine covers.

The British system of governance isn't all that great anyways.  We seem to be electing quasi-Kings every 4-5 years now anyways.  I prefer a republic.  You're a British nationalist, probably by genetics is what it sounds like.  Americans are my brothers and sisters, because they told tyrants to go eff themselves, and then brought the tyrants in the USSR to their knees and will do so again if shit hits the fan.  Now they're trying to make China their bitch...not so optimistic about that, but fully supportive.  I, like most, put up with a monarchy because it's largely just symbolic and a piece of our heritage at this point.

[Moonlight Graham]

27 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't bother to link, do your own research.

IIRC, the case was an Israeli professor who wanted Canadian citizenship but refused to take the oath of allegiance because he wouldn't swear an oath to the Queen.

So the SCC ruled that it was no problem, no loyalty oath required, that was optional, otherwise you can receive your citizenship having never taken a binding legal oath to Canada.

I heard about this case and apparently it was thrown out and didn't even get to the SCC.  He also took the oath, but recanted the monarchy part right afterwards...which should have made them take his citizenship away...sounds like they didn't, i dunno.  What a bunch of entitled pricks.  If you don't like the rules and the entire basis of the country GTFO.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-allegiance-queen-dror-1.3343188

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-allegiance-queen-dror-1.3343188

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada isn't ruled by the British Crown, we have no more legal links to the British.  Canadians swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada as the physical embodiment of the state but with very little actual power, because if she did exercise it (or her representative the GG) without our consent and we didn't like it, her head would be rolling in the streets like some of her family members of centuries past.  That's because the Crown, in practice, is our b!tch.

Unless you are a British subject, swearing loyalty to the British Crown doesn't mean much legally i'm afraid.  But they are good for hand-waving and magazine covers.

The British system of governance isn't all that great anyways.  We seem to be electing quasi-Kings every 4-5 years now anyways.  I prefer a republic.  You're a British nationalist, probably by genetics is what it sounds like.  Americans are my brothers and sisters, because they told tyrants to go eff themselves, and then brought the tyrants in the USSR to their knees and will do so again if shit hits the fan.  Now they're trying to make China their bitch...not so optimistic about that, but fully supportive.  I, like most, put up with a monarchy because it's largely just symbolic and a piece of our heritage at this point.

For a civilian, the oath is entirely optional.

To serve the Crown in government it is not.   There you must swear the oath "to bear true and faithful allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II"  and that is legally binding.

For the RCMP it empowers them to report only to the Queen, so that they can uphold Peace & Order, to include arresting and charging anyone in government as they see fit.

For the armed forces, this also means were are not bound to the government where they do not obey the Queen, moreover the oath in the armed forces is legally binding to the threshold of High Treason upon violation on behalf of hostile foreogn powers, on pain of life imprisonment.

For me personally, if you don't take the oath, you're not British, and so not my responsibility to defend on behalf of HM, as I am now retired from the armed forces.

In terms of America, I am an American, dual citizen, but my oath to the British Crown does not conflict with that, America takes no position against American citizens undertaking obligations to foreign sovereigns, that extra obligation is mine, America is not burdened.