Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

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.

No they didn't his citizenship away, they said he could renounce it right after, and he took them up on it.   That was their ruling, they said it's not binding, so no matter.

[Zeitgeist]

When Charles the first tried to impose taxation without support of Parliament, he was executed.  Parliament runs the show.  

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

When Charles the first tried to impose taxation without support of Parliament, he was executed.  Parliament runs the show.  

Indeed, a system of governance founded by William of Orange in 1688.  Parliamentary Supremacy.

But it's not about the Queen herself imposing anything, it is about who will be faithful and answer the call to do things on her behalf.

So for example if you asked me to kill and die for Julie Payette, I would decline.  If you tried to impose it on me, I would invoke the American Declaration of Independence.

Which is basically where we at now, because you deny that the Queen is Queen, so I am in your eyes freed from my oaths and allegiances to Canada.

[Dougie93]

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  Americans are my brothers and sisters

As an American, I would say that I'm not necessarily your brother,  

As an American, I am a rugged individualist who only associates at my prerogative.

My loyalty is only to the constitution, there's lots of Americans whom I despise, most of the Democrat Party for example.

[Dougie93]

44 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

. . . because they told tyrants to go eff themselves.

With the British Crown America buried the hatchet long ago, the British Crown and America are brothers in arms in the most powerful and integrated security alliance on earth,

The United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement.

To include Five Eyes and the Anglo-American joint strategic thermonuclear deterrent.

[Dougie93]

47 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

  What a bunch of entitled pricks.  If you don't like the rules and the entire basis of the country GTFO.

But you just said that you only "put up with" the monarchy as a mere formality, so you don't actually believe what is written in the Canadian constitution.

Why should anyone GTFO on the basis of heritage when you don't actually give a shit about that heritage?

[Dougie93]

1 hour 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.

Not at all, the RCMP and the Armed Forces are legally sworn to defend the Crown, and Canadians are utterly bourgeois.

You wouldn't likely do anything, but if you did, you would be shot, plausibly by Joint Task Force 2.

The idea that Canadians would engage in any sort of violent revolution outside of Quebec, is laughable.

English Canadians are docile  sheep who are scared to even look at a gun never mind take one into battle.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're a British nationalist, probably by genetics is what it sounds like. 

British nationalist is the opposite of genetic.   Scots are not English, English are not Scots, Scots are Celts, English are Germans,  yet Scots and English are all British.

[Zeitgeist]

The Queen is sweet and all, but if you joined the Canadian military and refused to defend her 38 million people due to your Buckingham fixation in a war, you’d have to be taken out back and shot.  The lineup of volunteer shooters would be 38 million deep.  No chance of tea and crumpets. 

[Rue]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

And again, you are presuming them erroneous simply because you want the others to be right and Fraser wrong.

Really? Who did I name call? What was the name? I pointed out that a lobby group for corporate Canada is not a disinterested or unbiased party.

Nope. This seems to a debate about your poor communications skills. No one has ever used the term 'all immigrants'. I invite you to go and find a cite. ....You are again repeating a lie.... We have only discussed immigrants as a whole, and the impact of immigration as a whole ...to suggest that ALL immigrants are an economic drain on society. That would be moronic.

When you say I'm an immigrant, and that the only people who aren't are the indigenous you are stating they have more rights to this country than I do. Which is offensive.

I question your economic knowledge because you are so absolutely and completely certain that the Fraser report is wrong.....

The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded .. In 1989, a two-year study..In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion..., the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002...

You are again demonstrating a complete absence of logic. Of course we need to differentiate between immigrants and Canadians, because only in analyzing the economic impact of immigrants can we determine whether our immigration system needs adjusting....

I have removed specific comments of yours from your last response to me for the sake of addressing them directly.

In regards to your first comment, stop projecting your feelings on me. I do not see things as right or wrong, you do., I see two or more view points none wrong or right., Differentiate your cognitive perceptions from mine please. Your inability to do so, and to presume I am you and must think like you is erroneous and it is narcissistic.

In regards to your second comment you again demonstrate the name calling only this time you tone down your last name calling and you make a meaningless comment. How is your opinion any less bias than this group's opinion? How is the Fraser report less bias than the opinions of this group? You believe you quote infallible statistics from a report you necessarily now contend have no bias which is of course absolutely incorrect but simply goes back to showing how you think when you find a self-serving, subjective, bias exercise that suits your opinion, it must be infallible but anyone else's opinion erroneous because they are  "bias".

Your  third comment again starts with you trying to be personal with me with an insult, suggesting because I do not agree with you and debate you I must have poor communication skills. Next you then proceed to contradict yourself denying you make generalizations about all immigrants then continue to do just that in the very response and yes  your exercise is moronic thank you.

In regards to your next statement about indigenous people you become personal, project a personal impression of a comment I made giving it a meaning I never gave it and clearly explained, chose to ignore the explanation, and reverted right back to a position of personal petulance discussing your feelings.

In regards to the next comment, you made a personal remark to me that was inappropriate just as it would be inappropriate to question whether you are an economist and again you fail to show any understanding of why when you do that you do not debate, you become personal and name call and do not show an ability to debate different view points without becoming personal and attacking he person not discussing the views or issues.

You then demonstrate your lack of economic understanding, You again pop off antiquated reports and act as if their brief time span analysis can be extrapolated to support your position that all immigrants are a drain on the economy. I have repeated several times and you clearly can't grasp it, any report that only limits its time span of analysis to a very limited time period can not by its inherent time limitation be accurate. That is not a matter of economics, its a matter of a basic principle of extrapolation and quantitative statistics which you clearly do not understand and ignore continuing to pose reports you find as if they are infallible and the only possible explanation of the  view point you offer.

You then accuse me of being illogical when in fact to date all you have done is present a flawed report stating it is the only possible explanation. Then you try soft-pedal your routine denying you are against all immigrants coming to Canada and what your  actual agenda is suggesting you only want to justify "adjusting" the immigration system,

Readers can decide for themselves whether the totality of your comments to date smeer all immigrants or just some.

As for your taking offence to suggesting you are an immigrant, that is illogical let alone laughable.

 

 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Queen is sweet and all, but if you joined the Canadian military and refused to defend her 38 million people due to your Buckingham fixation in a war, you’d have to be taken out back and shot.  The lineup of volunteer shooters would be 38 million deep.  No chance of tea and crumpets. 

Canadians wouldn't do a thing, we could stage a coup de tat and Canadians would complain, but they wouldn't do shit about it.

Go eat some more fat pills at Tim Horton's Canada. you don't scare nobody and you know it.

[Dougie93]

The idea that the military is some sort of citizens defence force for the Canadian lefties is naive.

The troops will do as they are told, and they could very easily be told to shoot Canadians down in the streets, make no mistake.

What can be done to the Indians can be done to you too, the military doesn't answer to you, and ultimately it can defy the government and invoke the Queen as its authority.

You can say its symbolic, but guess what hippies, those symbols are what soldiers have always killed and died and staged coup de tats to overthrow left wing governments for,

All it would take is the green light from Washington. 

If Washington told the Canadian military that it was time for the left wing kooks in Ottawa to go?

The Canadian brass would obey their real masters; Anglo-American alliance.

The troops refuse the order?  No.

Canadians suddenly become the Viet Cong? Get real.

Why do you think it is that the Canadian government is dismantling its own military?  What are they afraid of?

Edited September 12, 2019 by Dougie93

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

When you say I'm an immigrant, and that the only people who aren't are the indigenous you are stating they have more rights to this country than I do. Which is offensive.

Argus said this, but I copied from Rue's post.

This looks like Argus being honest:  he believes immigrants have fewer "rights" to this country than non-immigrants.  This isn't true,  according to the law, of course. 

But for those who do believe immigrants have fewer rights than non-immigrants, it's easy for them to assume every white looking person is not immigrant, and every non-white looking person is immigrant, regardless of the individual's birthplace, or their parent's/grandparent's birthplace.  No doubt this personal bias results in an assumption of their own duperior entitlement vis a vis non-white Canadians.  This attitude is discrimnatory and racist.

Edited September 12, 2019 by dialamah

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

But for those who do believe immigrants have fewer rights than non-immigrants, it's easy for them to assume every white looking person is not immigrant, and every non-white looking person is immigrant, regardless of the individual's birthplace, or their parent's/grandparent's birthplace.  No doubt this personal bias results in an assumption of their own superiority and entitlement vis a vis non-white Canadians.

Indeed,   all my neighbors are immigrants, but they're Russian, so nobody views them as being immigrants

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Readers can decide for themselves whether the totality of your comments to date smeer all immigrants or just some.

The more interesting question is what is it that Argus is defending?

He doesn't believe in the monarchy, he thinks Canada is a republic, okay fine, but where do we find the constitution for this supposed Republic of Canada?

Thus why I reject Canadian de facto republicans, they have no constitution.

Zeitgeist can say I should be taken out and shot for being loyal to the Queen of Canada, but on whose authority, who is ordering me shot?

The Republic of Canada?  What is the capital city of the Republic of Canada? Where does the Congress of Canada meet?  When do they hold elections?

[Dougie93]

It's like MoonlightGraham says "the Queen is our bitch"

But it's actually the other way round.

The Republic of Canada doesn't exist.  

The Parliament of Canada is not the American Congress.

It's not adversarial, it's not the role of the MP's to keep the Queen in check on behalf of Canadians.

The role of the MP's is to keep Canadians in check in the name of the Queen.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

But you just said that you only "put up with" the monarchy as a mere formality, so you don't actually believe what is written in the Canadian constitution.

Why should anyone GTFO on the basis of heritage when you don't actually give a shit about that heritage?

I do give a shit, it's our heritage and much more importantly it's the rules of the game as determined by the people in our democracy.

These new citizens are saying "I don't care what 36 million Canadians want or how they have wanted to run their country the last 150 years, I want to determine the rules and the basis of the entire government and it's institutions and I'm not even a citizen yet".  I can't think of anything more arrogant and entitled.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

No they didn't his citizenship away, they said he could renounce it right after, and he took them up on it.   That was their ruling, they said it's not binding, so no matter.

I can;t find any link for that.

Either way, he broke his legal verbal contract and should have his citizenship renounced.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I do give a shit, it's our heritage and much more importantly it's the rules of the game as determined by the people in our democracy.

These new citizens are saying "I don't care what 36 million Canadians want or how they have wanted to run their country the last 150 years, I want to determine the rules and the basis of the entire government and it's institutions and I'm not even a citizen yet".  I can't think of anything more arrogant and entitled.

Well Canada is not a republic, there is no public rule, the Republic of Canada doesn't exist.

So I reject the Israeli professor, but not on grounds of entitlement, on grounds that he said he was only loyal to "the Canadian People"

I reject that categorically, as that is the rule of a mob.

I am a free individual, I don't report to the People of Canada, I don't even like most of them.

I have autonomy from them, because Canada's constitution says that the people are not in charge, the MP's are in charge, and those MP's don't actually answer to the public.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Either way, he broke his legal verbal contract and should have his citizenship renounced.

Okay, why wasn't that done then?

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Indeed, a system of governance founded by William of Orange in 1688.  Parliamentary Supremacy.

But it's not about the Queen herself imposing anything, it is about who will be faithful and answer the call to do things on her behalf.

So for example if you asked me to kill and die for Julie Payette, I would decline.  If you tried to impose it on me, I would invoke the American Declaration of Independence.

Which is basically where we at now, because you deny that the Queen is Queen, so I am in your eyes freed from my oaths and allegiances to Canada.

This is why we shouldn't have dual citizenship,  Choose your true allegiance, and choose wisely.  You sound like you just want to take advantage of your dual citizenship and snake away to whichever country is more convenient to you at the time.

This is also odd...you said you're all about the British Crown but would decline to fight for her chosen representative GG and disobey the Queen.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

So I reject the Israeli professor, but not on grounds of entitlement, on grounds that he said he was only loyal to "the Canadian Peopl

I reject him because what he did isn't legal.  That's really the basis of it.  The Queen is the embodiment of the state.  If you reject her, you reject Canada and its institutions.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is why we shouldn't have dual citizenship,  Choose your true allegiance, and choose wisely.  You sound like you just want to take advantage of your dual citizenship and snake away to whichever country is more convenient to you at the time.

This is also odd...you said you're all about the British Crown but would decline to fight for her chosen representative GG and disobey the Queen.

I am American, I can do whatever I please, so long as I defend and uphold the constitution

The constitution doesn't bind me to the American people, doesn't bind me to the American government neither.

I have a constitutional right to tell the American people where to go, I have a constitutional right to advocate for the overthrow of the American government.

The American government takes no position against me undertaking further obligations to Canada, that doesn't burden America.

You will note that Wayne Gretzky is a dual citizen and Wayne's family is all American.

Good enough for Wayne Gretzky, good enough for me.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I reject him because what he did isn't legal.  That's really the basis of it.  The Queen is the embodiment of the state.  If you reject her, you reject Canada and its institutions.

But you're not really loyal to the Queen, it's just lip service, at least the Israeli guy has the courage of his convictions when most Canadians clearly don't.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I am American, I can do whatever I please, so long as I defend and uphold the constitution

The constitution doesn't bind me to the American people, doesn't bind me to the American government neither.

I have a constitutional right to tell the American people where to go, I have a constitutional right to advocate for the overthrow of the American government.

The American government takes no position against me undertaking further obligations to Canada, that doesn't burden America.

You will note that Wayne Gretzky is a dual citizen and Wayne's family is all American.

Good enough for Wayne Gretzky, good enough for me.

Sure you're allowed to do all that.  I'm saying it shouldn't be allowed, dual citizenship, because of people like you and many others.  But Canadians are wimps and have hundreds of years of history of taking up the behind.