Entitled refugees

[jacee]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:48 PM, Argus said:

Yes, yes, in the three minutes desk officers are given to 'validate' an application. None of which is devoted to determining what kind of a person that potential immigrant is, which is why we get people like the Khadrs.

Interviews are only as effective as the interviewer, and we don't fund the process sufficiently to hire professionally competent interrogators. 

In fact, it's unlikely that people exist who can detect criminality (terrorism is criminality) by that method.

Sociopaths are very adept at charm and persuasion, most likely to succeed in an interview and any other contacts with authority, law enforcement and justice. Placing too much emphasis on interviews would be likely to result in more terrorists/criminals immigrating to Canada. 

Your assumptions that interviews are useful are not necessarily valid. 

[jacee]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is a secular society. There is no separation of the sexes here. Anyone who comes here to work will be routinely working with, around, and for people of the opposite sex. If you recoil from the thought of touching someone of the opposite sex then perhaps you ought not be considered for membership in this society.

Perhaps, as a white supremacist,  you are not the best judge of people nor the best authority on ways of judging people. 

The law does not allow for subjective, unreliable judgements of people as you suggest. Criminal and employment records are more reliable indicators. 

It's so ironic that far right conservatives in Canada have fought viciously against every piece of liberal legislation entrenching equal rights, human rights, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself. And now they invoke all of those rights of marginalized people to use against visible minority  immigrant applicants in attempts to define them as undesirables ... in prejudiced ways that defy Canadian law.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by jacee

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Your assumptions that interviews are useful are not necessarily valid. 

And yet every organization in the world uses interviews to determine who they want to hire as employees. And every other immigration system (to my knowledge) also interviews prospective citizens. So it seems my assumptions are held by just about every organization in the world.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

Perhaps, as a white supremacist,  you are not the best judge of people nor the best authority on ways of judging people. 

Even a white supremacist would probably be a better judge of people than a simple minded cretin who practices the politics of division, hatred and jealousy.

[jacee]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

And yet every organization in the world uses interviews to determine who they want to hire as employees. And every other immigration system (to my knowledge) also interviews prospective citizens. So it seems my assumptions are held by just about every organization in the world.

There are good interview techniques, and bad ones.

Define your preference. 

[jacee]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

Even a white supremacist would probably be a better judge of people than a simple minded cretin who practices the politics of division, hatred and jealousy.

Most white supremacists probably are "simple minded cretin(s) who practices the politics of division, hatred and jealousy. "

Other white supremacists are sociopaths.

Your recommendation that white supremacists conduct interviews of visible minority immigrant applicants is noted.

Edited January 26, 2020 by jacee

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

Most white supremacists probably are "simple minded cretin(s) who practices the politics of division, hatred and jealousy. "

Other white supremacists are sociopaths.

Are you confessing to being a white supremacist?

[jacee]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Are you confessing to being a white supremacist?

Are you? 

[Marocc]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well then, let's look at at immigration from the middle east. According to the government's own statistics, people from that part of the world (in general) fare quite poorly in economic success here. If we simply use logic should we not turn our attention to recruiting immigrants from other areas of the world which supply immigrants who enjoy above average economic success?

I wasn't talking about logic. Also it is debatable whether immigrants tend to have poor economic success.

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

Are you? 

My whole life doesn't revolve around race and identity the way yours clearly does.

[Argus]

Just now, Marocc said:

I wasn't talking about logic. Also it is debatable whether immigrants tend to have poor economic success.

Debatable? The government took note of people who arrived from various source countries and then checked their income years later. People from the ME performed very poorly, with very low incomes, incomes half to a third that of European immigrants, for example.

[Marocc]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

we know that such reluctance to touch or even sit next to someone of the opposite gender is a reflection of a mass of extreme beliefs.

Or extreme anxiety.

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

Hundreds of thousands would be.

Not all Muslim restrain from shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex

It is permissable if the woman is wearing gloves.

Russian women traditionally do not shake hands

 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

Or extreme anxiety.

Not all Muslim restrain from shaking hands with a member of the opposite sex

No, nor all Jews. I am merely suggesting those who do show an aversion to adapting to a modern, secular society and should thus be considered less attractive as immigrants than those more flexible.

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

Russian women traditionally do not shake hands

We're not speaking of traditions but prohibitions.

[Marocc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

People from the ME performed very poorly, with very low incomes, incomes half to a third that of European immigrants, for example.

An erupean Immigrant is likely to go to Canada already wealthy. Poor people rarely up and go to another country where they have no security.

how many years later and how low incomes?

Are you convinced the fact that an immigrant finds it more difficult to find work in the first place than a native (or in this case, the wealthy European) has no effect to these things?

 

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I am merely suggesting those who do show an aversion to adapting to a modern, secular society

Based on what?

[Marocc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

We're not speaking of traditions but prohibitions.

Relevance? We're talking about handshakes. A Russian woman walks toward you, doesnt shake your hand. You don't care. A Muslim woman walks toward you, doesn't shake your hand. You think she should leave the country.

[Guest]

I offered my hand to a Muslim women earlier this year.  It was a simple reaction to being introduced to someone and by the time I realised who she was it was too late to do anything about it.  She took it and shook it.  I think she was uncomfortable. 

But obviously well mannered.

[jacee]

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

Debatable? The government took note of people who arrived from various source countries and then checked their income years later. People from the ME performed very poorly, with very low incomes, incomes half to a third that of European immigrants, for example.

Link?

[jacee]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, nor all Jews. I am merely suggesting those who do show an aversion to adapting to a modern, secular society and should thus be considered less attractive as immigrants than those more flexible.

We're not speaking of traditions but prohibitions.

Whether one chooses to transmit germs  through skin contact or not is a personal choice, not a criterion for 'choosing' immigrants.

What a very strange and irrelevant idea, certainly not defensible in law.

And criteria for accepting immigrants must be defensible in law, of course. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by jacee

[Yzermandius19]

If you think better interviews is going to fix this issue, you have way too much faith in interviews to weed out bad applicants. There is no screening process which will eliminate all the bad apples, it is wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Misplaced faith in the immigrant screening process, especially in cultural values tests, is leading to some silly conclusions about how easy it is to fix problems with immigration, many around here want there to be an easy answer, but there isn't.

Canada already has merit based immigration, and refugees are not a large proportion of immigrants to the country, we have a better screening process than most and already take more the good apples and less of the bad apples, it's not like no one in Canada has thought of trying to take in more good immigrants and less bad immigrants, that's already in place and has been for quite a while.

People who think that any bad apples getting through is just a sign that they haven't come up with a better screening process are fooling themselves, thinking the government is capable of doing something that it will never achieve or come close to achieving.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Well then, let's look at at immigration from the middle east. According to the government's own statistics, people from that part of the world (in general) fare quite poorly in economic success here. If we simply use logic should we not turn our attention to recruiting immigrants from other areas of the world which supply immigrants who enjoy above average economic success?

You're stereotyping an entire region of people. People with good skills and education that allow them to work in Canada will often succeed no matter where they're from. and people without good skills and education will not succeed.

I know Muslims from the ME that are poor, and I know Muslims from the ME in Canada that have done very well.  Stop painting these people with a broad brush. 

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We need to balance "hard-line condemnation" with compassion.  You can't be too much one or the other.  You can and should be tough, but you can't be completely heartless to the point that you infringe on people's rights.  For instance, the Harper gov basically let Khadr rot in Gitmo.  He should have been rotting in a Canadian prison, where he was free from torture and other inhumane treatment while also being punished and kept from the public for safety reasons.

Being too tough can be dangerous, but so can too much compassion.  It's the same when raising a child or a pet:  don't be too harsh, but don't spoil them either.  Always remember:  Good medicine turns poisonous when the dose is too high.

Key above all else though is that Khadr should have been rotting? I think of all the positions I've seen people take on this issues it's the most repellent. There's political correctness then there's political pandering. You must think medicine needs to taste awful to work.

It reminds me of the perennial Liberal sensitivity to charges they're never tough enough on terror or drugs or whatever - notice how even Trudeau talks about Khadr's compensation in regretful tones and the same tone is apparent when asked about the sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

It's why I can't stand Liberals.  I honestly think the only thing worse than an outright asshole is a reluctant one.  Being one certainly doesn't do anything to alleviate the things causing the proliferation of refugees or terrorists - if anything it only perpetuates them longer.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

An erupean Immigrant is likely to go to Canada already wealthy. Poor people rarely up and go to another country where they have no security.

how many years later and how low incomes?

Are you convinced the fact that an immigrant finds it more difficult to find work in the first place than a native (or in this case, the wealthy European) has no effect to these things?

From what I've seen there are two basic reasons why people from some countries make more than from others. The first is language. Europeans (and Americans) obviously have a huge advantage. It's also not a coincidence that the countries whose immigrants perform best here except for Europeans are Indians and Filipinos. Both have a lot of familiarity with English, as do the Europeans of course. Australia found that when it made language requirements stronger its immigrants performed better economically.

The second is that Europeans fit in better. Their languages, cultures, values and educations are the most similar to that of Canadians. Thus they make friends (connections) better and faster and integrate faster.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Based on what?

Based on their rejection of the tenets of that society.

[Moonlight Graham]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Key above all else though is that Khadr should have been rotting? I think of all the positions I've seen people take on this issues it's the most repellent. There's political correctness then there's political pandering. You must think medicine needs to taste awful to work.

Rotting is not literal.  He should have been serving hard time in prison is the point.  He was a terrorist who killed a US soldier who was trying to defend the West from these terrorists. Khadr made EID's to kill NATO soldiers, which includes Canadians.  Khadr and his family was at war with Canada and he was a national security threat, so yes he should have been serving  hard time.  But he should not have been tortured or treated inhumanely.  That's the balance I'm talking about.