Entitled refugees

[Argus]

40 minutes ago, Rue said:

No. I said Immigration Canada will not give an interview if it already objectively obtained and validated the information it would otherwise ask for in an interview because that would be redundant.

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.

[Argus]

37 minutes ago, Rue said:

Thank you for the source. Now I can properly understand what concern with percentage of interviews you refer to. I will respond to it because you raise a legitimate concern.

One of the problems I know with the above percentage number is it doesn't take into account whether some or many of the interviews were dispensed only because the information was properly obtained and to do an interview would be redundant.

It also does not take into consideration the processes where interviews are done but not calculated in the above percentages because they were "fast tracked".

It is I agree a concern if we are not conducting sufficient interviews when we need to.

It is also a concern when there is little time to check the paperwork even without interviews.

“There’s so much pressure. They want the numbers. They don’t want the waiting times … It’s always about the numbers” (page196).

 

“A Canada-based officer explained that ‘the targets generally work to the advantage of the client. If we didn’t have the demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate. Another Canada-based officer said much the same thing: ‘In some cases, you are “feeding the target beast.” The big buzzword is “risk management.” You just can’t take the time to verify every document. Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. That is why quality assurance exercises are very important. Risk management means closing your eyes” (page 136).

 

Interviews

 

“One consequence of the pressure to meet targets is that visa offices and officers limit their direct contact with applicants and reduce the number of interviews with them. Interviews slow the decision-making process, so International Region encourages officers to ‘waive interviews whenever possible’ (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2011, OP 2: Processing Members of the Family Class). As a result, they are used sparingly and only if an officer has concerns about the credibility of an application or if the risks of making a wrong decision are high” (page 135).

 

“Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork. Interviews for ‘good cases’ might last just a few minutes, but those for refusal cases could consume an hour or two. In the early 2000s, hoping to improve efficiency, the department began to encourage officers to make more decisions solely on the basis of the paper application: strong ones could be accepted without an interview, and certain categories of weak ones could be rejected without an interview, on the grounds that nothing significant would be learned by talking to the individual. Today, interviews are no longer expected or required….” (page 170).

 

“In most cases, an officer’s contact with applicants is solely via their ‘paper’ application. As a result, much of the assessment of credibility and risk occurs without any face-to-face interaction. Though officers interview far fewer applicants than they did before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, they still use interviews to clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies, to assess truthfulness, to gauge credibility, and to measure risk. In a face-to-face interview, credibility is determined by verbal responses but also by demeanor and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer’s concerns can factor into the decision to issue or refuse a visa” (pages 55-56).

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, 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.

I can tell you from what I know if its of any relevance, I know personally from practice,  there is heavy reliance on the point system for skilled workers which causes them not to feel they need to do interviews of skilled workers. I think its very rare for me to have seen an interview of a skilled worker once their applications are verified. Sometimes they are verified that quickly because its employer driven. If the employer asking for a skilled worker, conducted what is called an LMIA (an assessment to show they have the right skills and no Canadian is available to do the job) they try get them into the job. They already tested their French or English. They assume because they have a needed skill and can speak the language, that is sufficient for them to be eligible. I will get back to you further.

[Rue]

Your concerns are part of a large set of complex deficiencies within the immigration system of which the interview process is one of many but not one immigration lawyers fret over because the point system is not as easy as some think to pass.

That said since January  2015 we have had what is called The Canadian Express Entry program. Its all done on-line and takes in applications for immigrants applying under economic immigrant programs,  i.e., the Canadian Experience Class, Federal Skilled Worker and Federal Skilled Trades. Under these categories prospective immigrants create what is called an  Express Entry profile. They have to meet the criteria for at least one of these immigration programs points test  under Express Entry. Then after that they are  placed in what is called an  Express Entry pool and rated again against others in that pool-based on a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS), and the CRS score will determine the applicant’s rank within the pool as to who gets offered the next job. Then, applicants with the highest scores are invited by the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) to apply to immigrate to Canada as permanent residents.

The above system is for SKILLED WORKERS. It presumes it has properly screened candidates and they have skills needed in Canada. Its true with this system the need for interviews is not  considered as high because what is called a Labour Market Assessment is conducted to make sure the person has the proper skills he or she claims, the proper language skills, has an employer that needs them and is waiting for them and is not taking a job from a Canadian. It also has already screened for medical or criminal issues.

The initial point system for determining eligibility can be found at:

https://www.canadapravenue.com/canada-immigration-points-calculator/

The Express Entry point system is at:

https://www.visaexperts.com/canada-immigration/canada-points-system.aspx

Let's back up a second.

Anyone coming to Canada goes through 2 screening interviews. At the first one:

• The officer will request to see your visa and travel documents
• He/she will confirm the validity of these documents
• The officer may raise questions concerning your health
• The immigration officer from the CBSA will ask general questions such as:

1. Are you traveling with your family?
2. Have you been convicted of a serious crime?
3. How long is your stay?
4. How much money do you have with you?
5. Are you healthy? Among others.

At the second interview: second interview you are asked what you’re bringing with you to Canada. 

This is where the CBSA is looking for criminals, smugglers, terrorists, etc.

Obviously its not by any means full proof.

With the skilled workers programs there is no real consideration of the individuals Canadian values because the criteria assumes if they speak an official language and will provide a skill we need that makes them valuable and the point system to be passed evaluates language proficiency, education, work experience and transferability,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

The report Argus quotes mentioned these 10 recommendations that best summarize back in 2015 concerns with how we admit immigrants/refugees:

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1 – The Government of Canada establish an oversight body for the CBSA to ensure appropriate compliance with legislation and policy, including adequate protection for Canadians’ privacy rights.
Recommendation 2 – The Government of Canada establish an independent, civilian review and complaints body for all Canada Border Services Agency activities. 
Recommendation 3 – With respect to all interviews conducted by CBSA officers, the CBSA should ensure that interviews are audio and video recorded and that recordings be retained for a period of at least 10 years from the date of recording. 
Recommendation 4 – Building on the Beyond the Border Initiative and in light of national security concerns, the Government of Canada move, as soon as possible, to implement a system to register the entry and exit of all travellers, Canadians and non-Canadians. 
Recommendation 5 – With respect to hearings for persons deemed inadmissible, hearings by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada should incorporate technology such as video conferencing, while individuals are outside Canada, whenever possible.
Recommendation 6 – CIC, the CBSA, CSIS and the RCMP should work closely together to ensure all their databases are utilized in screening all visitors and immigrants to Canada. 
Recommendation 7 – With respect to those seeking to immigrate to Canada (e.g. students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and permanent residents),  CIC should establish a pilot project to examine the feasibility of using secure video conferencing and mobile teams of experienced Canadian immigration officers  to conduct fully recorded face-to-face interviews, in the applicant’s country of residence. Adequate staffing should be put in place to ensure decisions on immigrant or temporary resident visas are always made by Canadian employees.  
Recommendation 8 - The CBSA move to enhance regional intelligence capabilities and information sharing with frontline officers.
Recommendation 9 – Ensure that the CBSA front line officers are provided with the most relevant information on travellers at all times, including updated lookouts in the Integrated Customs Enforcement System database and access to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database at primary inspection. 
Recommendation 10 – The Government of Canada should fully implement a plan to collect biometric information from all foreign nationals arriving in Canada, subject to existing provisions in agreements with other governments. Further, the CBSA should use this biometric information to verify the departure of all foreign nationals, subject to privacy and security safeguards.

[Rue]

What I now can say and I will leave it at this, is that I know from working and speaking with immigration officers, visa officers, CBSA, and immigration lawyers its best summarized like this: immigration lawyers and immigration consultants find the system to harsh, people working in the government find it too lax.

I can tell you that it is very possible to come to Canada and be undesireable of course. The issue is not that. Its how does anyone intend to fix deficiencies noted above. It requires money and commitment. As well there can never be a system that can screen out all undesireables. The Charter of Rights and lawyers can and will defend the right of people Argus and others will not like.

Me personally I would agree with Argus a personal interview other than ones to follow up on application forms might be a good thing...but then?  Let us get real and practical. What so we do at an interview. It brings us back full circle to what devices does anyone think will weed out bad people. 

Now that I can see what Argus is focusing on and its not the initial interview process, but the lack of them with skilled workers, all I can say is, the Charter of Rights most certainly limits what questions can be asked in an interview-in particular they would have to be questions on merit. The Charter won't allow questions that discriminate based on negative generalizations about a culture, race, religion, social group, gender. Read it yourself to see why.

[eyeball]

On 1/23/2020 at 10:40 AM, Goddess said:

Lands that are at war with the West.  Innocent civilians die in all wars.  It happens on both sides.

Islam is at war with the West.  I know which side I would choose.

Can you provide a copy of the official declaration of this war?

This is like saying The War on Drugs was actually a war that Drugs declared. It's another example of how dodgy sloppy thinking makes it virtually impossible to keep a conversation moving in any kind of straight line anymore. It's got to be deliberate because ignorance is certainly no excuse.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Your concerns are part of a large set of complex deficiencies within the immigration system of which the interview process is one of many but not one immigration lawyers fret over because the point system is not as easy as some think to pass.

I'm aware of how the point system works. BUT... I'm also aware that corruption and fraud are endemic in much of the third world, and that false documents, especially false credentials and degrees, are easy to come by. When review officers are pushed to approve things fast so that they have but three minutes to go over applications they really can't ascertain whether the people in question have the credentials they claim. Everyone I know in industry and business talks about running into immigrants who are alleged engineers or have other credentials who clearly know little or nothing about their professed profession. Three minutes is not enough time. An interview would ascertain people's validity with regard to credentials, and not just on values.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

With the skilled workers programs there is no real consideration of the individuals Canadian values because the criteria assumes if they speak an official language and will provide a skill we need that makes them valuable and the point system to be passed evaluates language proficiency, education, work experience and transferability,

That someone might have a legitimate skill does not, to my mind, suggest that makes up for values which consider women as dogs and which has contempt for Canada's culture and beliefs. As in my neighbour's family who so disapproved of the morals of young Canadians they sent their children back 'home' to be properly educated when they became teenagers. Further, an interview can very quickly determine how valid someone's language abilities are since at present we rely on them meeting very minimal abilities in tests administered by foreign language schools.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

What I now can say and I will leave it at this, is that I know from working and speaking with immigration officers, visa officers, CBSA, and immigration lawyers its best summarized like this: immigration lawyers and immigration consultants find the system to harsh, people working in the government find it too lax.

I can tell you that it is very possible to come to Canada and be undesireable of course. The issue is not that. Its how does anyone intend to fix deficiencies noted above. It requires money and commitment. As well there can never be a system that can screen out all undesireables. The Charter of Rights and lawyers can and will defend the right of people Argus and others will not like.

The Charter of Rights does not apply to foreigners living in foreign countries applying to become immigrants to Canada. And no one suggested you could possibly weed out all undesirables. However, no organization hires people sight unseen, despite the fact they can fire them fairly easily if they prove to be a poor fit. Yet here we are willing to undertake a lifelong commitment to someone, to supply them with government services from health care to education to welfare if needed, without even giving them an interview, and without spending more than three minutes validating their documents. I find that absurd.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Me personally I would agree with Argus a personal interview other than ones to follow up on application forms might be a good thing...but then?  Let us get real and practical. What so we do at an interview. It brings us back full circle to what devices does anyone think will weed out bad people. 

We determine if their language ability claimed is true. We determine if they can answer a few (constantly changing) questions about their profession. We try to determine what their attitude is towards tolerance and openness towards others. You claim that is impossible but countries like France and Switzerland have found that simply requiring a handshake with a person of the opposite sex is enough for some to reveal themselves as unwilling to adapt to our values. Every other nation that has an immigration system (as far as I'm aware) conducts interviews.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Now that I can see what Argus is focusing on and its not the initial interview process, but the lack of them with skilled workers,

Not JUST skilled workers. Family class immigrants don't get interviewed either. And even when people are interviewed; family, skilled, refugee, or whatever, no one makes any attempt to determine if the individual has suitable personal characteristics and values for life in a pluralistic, secular society.

By saying this I do not suggest that people with views inimical to ours cannot succeed here. But we have a choice. We can bring in someone who is MORE likely to fit in, more likely to succeed economically, less likely to cause societal problems. Why, in that case, shouldn't we try?

1 hour ago, Rue said:

all I can say is, the Charter of Rights most certainly limits what questions can be asked in an interview-in particular they would have to be questions on merit. The Charter won't allow questions that discriminate based on negative generalizations about a culture, race, religion, social group, gender. Read it yourself to see why.

Again, the Charter does not apply overseas. Which is where such interviews would be conducted. And such interviews need not be based on generalization or religion or race or culture, but on whether the individual seems adaptable, open and tolerant towards aspects of OUR culture, whether that individual is a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Sikh or a Jew. There are plenty of highly religious members of all those groups I would just as soon not be bringing into Canada in large numbers. Or at least, who I would rather find someone else instead.

People who love immigration seem to think that once someone comes to this country they abandon all their old cultural attitudes and beliefs. I have no such faith. The world outside Canada is filled with extraordinarily intolerant and violent people I do not want to bring here.

[jacee]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

And such interviews need not be based on generalization or religion or race or culture, but on whether the individual seems adaptable, open and tolerant towards aspects of OUR culture,

"whether the individual seems ..."  ?

What are your criteria for "seems" ? 

What professional qualifications would an interviewer require to make those judgements about how someone "seems"? 

And if we are to require all Canadians to be "adaptable, open and tolerant towards aspects of OUR culture" wouldn't we have to get rid of all white supremacists? How would we do that? 

Edited January 25, 2020 by jacee

[Rue]

Argus the determination of all immigration processes  the way it works now is not binding or finalized or begin to become applicable until you step foot on Canadian soil so from that  practical perspective its a moot point whether the Charter applies.

Getting back to the interview process, it has been seen as redundant if you use a point system and verify the information obtained on the point system. Whether that is right or wrong I leave to others.

I myself think an interview process of any kind leads to people prepping for it and giving canned answers. This brings us also back to other issues such as:

1-what questions would you ask

2-how would you know the answers are not true.

The fact is to try determine 1 is a dog's breakfast. Good luck getting agreement on that.

In regards to 2,  its a huge problem because forensically at this time, the specialists we do have who detect lying or look for possible violent individuals have specialized training that is costly and would not necessarily be accurate.

Also for the Charter to not apply you would have to do the interviews overseas and even that is not a guarantee because the Supreme Court of Canada could still say the Charter applies to anything a Canadian legal process or official does anywhere since it originated from a decision in Canada.

Interestingly Donald Trump stated to Congress he likes our points system for economic class immigrants. In the US they still interview everyone.

Quick as you come up with an interview process, bingo:

https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immigration-law/preparing-for-your-immigration-interview-plus-25-sample-questions/

Now may I be serious without getting into a dispute. I do have a Master's in Applied Psych and a Master's in Law and some profiling training. I never use it to say I am smarter or more educated than anyone when they have opinions. All I will tell you from it is I would love to finish my doctorate so lend me another 80,000. From my knowledge of it which I make  no claims is 100% absolute, I do know that criminal profiling used to detect criminal characteristics to create a profile can be quite accurate. I know for example one of the first psychological profiles ever done, was by a Harvard Psychologist hired by the OSS in WW2 and you can find that profile on the internet and it was about Hitler and historic hindsight has proven it quite accurate. The problem is criminal profiling would not use techniques germaine to determining whether someone had the "right" cultural values. That would be too general in concept for it too work. It's a complex exercise requiring any profiler to have had experience in investigation for many years before they train to use profiling techniques: http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/605/383-392.pdf and for that reason even if it was to be used on all prospective immigrant applications it would be costly, time consuming and require sending highly trained profilers overseas. So its just not going to happen.

Psychological profiling of criminals is NOT the same as psychological personality testing for personality types like the ones used to determine if you are compatible with others or even the ones used taking a test where the person chooses from a list descriptions that best describe how they are feeling (used to try predict the likelihood of a mental illness)

The self identifying inventory tests are not stand alone. You then need to follow up with an extensive psychiatric evaluation that could take months, even years. People with specific personality disorders identified may not have disorders relevant to determining their suitability to be Canadian or that would prevent them necessarily from working or being compatible with others.

I can tell you the idea of using criminal profilers to search for a particular criminal type in all immigrant applications is impractical and not designed for it.

I took one class in Virginia City on hand-writing analysis but it was only an introduction level course. I do know you can train a CBSA officer to detect possible forgery from looking at handwriting and signatures on a passport. I do know the course and info they provide CBSA and Visa officers on examining passports and hand-writing for possible forgery and counterfeiting and they do give them interview technique training but there is a limit to what they can teach and this training is not the training a true profiler or  forensic investigator would have.

I do know the very experienced CBSA  and Visa officers are better at detecting people "lying" then less experienced ones because years of investigative experience has made them more aware or in tune with non verbal language or more aware of  certain repeating patterns of answers that serve as a red flag to them of possible lying. That is why the research we have as to the accuracy of profiling says even if you want to screen someone accurately you can't just rely on a test you still  need to have a very experienced questioner using the test who has years of  investigative experience.

Manipulative personalities, people who lie, who are anti-social, might be terrorists, they learn to feedback what you want to hear to escape detection. It is by no means easy to pick up. Some of the best homicide and sex crimes officers, some of the best doctors have missed the signals. I know some profilers say criminals lack empathy which they look for.

Is our immigration system defective? Yes of course. So  now when I found out what report you refer to it refers specifically to a concern you have I now better understand it. I  originally thought you were complaining about CBSA procedures. Now I know your concern, and all I can say is the Senate report you raised has recommendations that I think are of course valid. Few if any have been followed up on and should be but as you see they focus on many issues. The best way to see this issue is there will be no one quick fix.

Argus in certain jobs I have witnessed mistakes about people we were sure were "bad" who were innocent and vice-versa. That did not make me righteous, just the opposite, humiliated. Humility is what you are hearing in me not righteousness. I do not claim to speak for anyone but me but I do at times speak to the history of Jews when it becomes necessary not as a preacher but as someone trying to prevent myths or generalizations that might lead to unfair assumptions.

Its hard to wash the blood of the innocent off one's hands even years later. That is not righteousness talking, its humility. Like I said I scrub toilets. I just know the shit gets under the fingernails and won't come out easy. The job also makes me smell. I am well aware of that and try shower.

I would not be alive if non Jews did not challenge the negative generalizations about Jews to give my grandparents a way to escape what they did and come to Canada. I have had to do and witness things that make me deliberately know hating Muslims or anyone else will not win or achieve anything just keep the cycle of violence going.  Its the people who do not doubt things I worry about. A person without doubt as to decisions that lead to violence or death is the person I watch.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus the determination of all immigration processes  the way it works now is not binding or finalized or begin to become applicable until you step foot on Canadian soil so from that  practical perspective its a moot point whether the Charter applies.

Yes, but by the time you land the decision has largely been made. All that is left is some cursory validation of what you wrote and what you're bringing in. How many people are approved and arrive in Canada with their families and then get turned away by such interviews? Any at all?

6 hours ago, Rue said:

Getting back to the interview process, it has been seen as redundant if you use a point system and verify the information obtained on the point system. Whether that is right or wrong I leave to others.

Three minutes to review a file does not allow for much verification.

6 hours ago, Rue said:

I myself think an interview process of any kind leads to people prepping for it and giving canned answers. This brings us also back to other issues such as:

1-what questions would you ask

2-how would you know the answers are not true.

The fact is to try determine 1 is a dog's breakfast. Good luck getting agreement on that.

In regards to 2,  its a huge problem because forensically at this time, the specialists we do have who detect lying or look for possible violent individuals have specialized training that is costly and would not necessarily be accurate.

Perhaps I'm being arrogant in presuming most of the people we ought to keep out of Canada are not terribly sophisticated. Oh I'm under no illusion some would not try to figure out what the interview questions would be like and figure out what to say (lie) to pass the interview. Of course that would happen! Just as everyone asks what to say to job interviewers. Yet still, every single company and organization finds it important to conduct those interviews. If we use someone like the Israeli Haredi as an example. These men are largely uneducated except in the Tora, and refuse to sit next to women on airplanes. Do you really think many of them would be able to sit through an interview with a woman and shake her hand at the end without revealing just what kind of antisocial attitudes they have? Do you think most would smilingly say they have no issue with homosexuality or women's equality? Especially if the questions are somewhat subtly directed? Do you think a reasonably capable interviewer would not be able to detect that most of them are not particularly flexible or tolerant or adaptable?

I don't think religious fundamentalists from third world countries would fare any better, be they Muslims from Afghanistan or Sikhs from the Punjab Yes, there would be talk around about what to say during the interviews, just as there are for job seekers, but a capable interviewer ought to still be able to discern much about a person's attitude and thoughts. I've done interviews on job seekers. These are people who have already passed tests, sometimes long and repeated tests, and whose resumes have been deemed acceptable. Still we interview. I remember one French guy walking into the room, talking French as he did, and sitting down and I knew we were going to hire him before he said his first word of English. And I am very, very far from fluent in French. It took maybe 20 seconds to know he'd fit in great. Which he did. You can tell a lot from how a person talks, and not just what he says.

6 hours ago, Rue said:

Also for the Charter to not apply you would have to do the interviews overseas and even that is not a guarantee because the Supreme Court of Canada could still say the Charter applies to anything a Canadian legal process or official does anywhere since it originated from a decision in Canada.

I'd be more than happy to pass all immigration related laws under section 33. As far as I'm concerned until they are invited and arrive here charter rights should not apply to them.

6 hours ago, Rue said:

Interestingly Donald Trump stated to Congress he likes our points system for economic class immigrants.

Donald Trump is a moron. I think we agree on that, do we not?

 

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you really think many of them would be able to sit through an interview with a woman and shake her hand at the end without revealing just what kind of antisocial attitudes

Not shaking a woman's hand is not antisocial. What's the big deal? I insist you touch my hand or you're a bad person? Hey, Jews don't touch either. Yikes.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Not shaking a woman's hand is not antisocial. What's the big deal? I insist you touch my hand or you're a bad person? Hey, Jews don't touch either. Yikes.

It depends where you are.  Some societies shake hands, some don't.  If you're okay with a woman walking into your mosque in a mini skirt, don't shake hands with her.

I remember those Jews who refused to sit next to women on a plane.  The airline made the women move.  I would have kicked the Jews off the plane.

But hey, that's me.  I'm not afraid of women.

Edited January 26, 2020 by bcsapper
Men never do silly so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - not Blaise Pascal

[Moonlight Graham]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:32 PM, dialamah said:

I do tend to choose compassion over hard-line condemnation, that's true.  But also, I think it's important to uphold Canada's laws which tend to focus on human rights regardless of the human in question: in Khadr's case, we did not as evidenced by losing several court decisions. 

How some people can be so willing to simply throw our own laws out the window because they don't like an individual's religion or politics is beyond me.  Might as well live in an Islamic country, if that's where Canada is headed.

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.

[Rue]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Yes, but by the time you land the decision has largely been made. All that is left is some cursory validation of what you wrote and what you're bringing in. How many people are approved and arrive in Canada with their families and then get turned away by such interviews? Any at all?

Three minutes to review a file does not allow for much verification.

Perhaps I'm being arrogant in presuming most of the people we ought to keep out of Canada are not terribly sophisticated. Oh I'm under no illusion some would not try to figure out what the interview questions would be like and figure out what to say (lie) to pass the interview. Of course that would happen! Just as everyone asks what to say to job interviewers. Yet still, every single company and organization finds it important to conduct those interviews. If we use someone like the Israeli Haredi as an example. These men are largely uneducated except in the Tora, and refuse to sit next to women on airplanes. Do you really think many of them would be able to sit through an interview with a woman and shake her hand at the end without revealing just what kind of antisocial attitudes they have? Do you think most would smilingly say they have no issue with homosexuality or women's equality? Especially if the questions are somewhat subtly directed? Do you think a reasonably capable interviewer would not be able to detect that most of them are not particularly flexible or tolerant or adaptable?

I don't think religious fundamentalists from third world countries would fare any better, be they Muslims from Afghanistan or Sikhs from the Punjab Yes, there would be talk around about what to say during the interviews, just as there are for job seekers, but a capable interviewer ought to still be able to discern much about a person's attitude and thoughts. I've done interviews on job seekers. These are people who have already passed tests, sometimes long and repeated tests, and whose resumes have been deemed acceptable. Still we interview. I remember one French guy walking into the room, talking French as he did, and sitting down and I knew we were going to hire him before he said his first word of English. And I am very, very far from fluent in French. It took maybe 20 seconds to know he'd fit in great. Which he did. You can tell a lot from how a person talks, and not just what he says.

I'd be more than happy to pass all immigration related laws under section 33. As far as I'm concerned until they are invited and arrive here charter rights should not apply to them.

Donald Trump is a moron. I think we agree on that, do we not?

 

Again I agree on much of what you say as I always have. We disagree on what method detection should take place or how to define things I can't say I have perfect solutions for you. Never.

 

[Rue]

10 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.

Thank you for being precise. I tend to babble too much. The above is the paradox and point.

[Rue]

13 hours ago, Marocc said:

Not shaking a woman's hand is not antisocial. What's the big deal? I insist you touch my hand or you're a bad person? Hey, Jews don't touch either. Yikes.

Please do not throw in the Jew card. Certain Orthodox Jew sects may indeed not touch each other not all Jews the way you threw it out. This Jew shakes hands with many people including Muslims who do shake hands.

The practice of not shaking hands might be based on religion or many other reasons. I suspect with the corona virus from China people will not shake hands anymore and is in fact why the fist pump became popular back in the Sars outbreak.

It should not be a big deal no.  I wish. At this point in time I have been told as a Professor I am not to shake the hands of any woman or  man in class. I have been told as part of zero tolerance against harassment policies never to shake hands with any student of either gender. I am a radical. I still shake hands if students initiate this. I was actually sent up before a disciplinary board  in one university for shaking hands with students at Christmas .I shook a female student's hand wishing me Merry Christmas. I  did not take offence because she did not say Happy Chanukah.  Her boyfriend did take offence claiming I sexually harassed her and should not have touched her hand and filed a complaint. The university wanted to hold a disciplinary hearing with me based on his complaint. The female student never complained. This is how insane its become.

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Please do not throw in the Jew card

It's not a jew card or anything offensive for that matter. I know not all Jews do it, but that is obvious hence I sometimes neglect to stress that fact.

If shaking hands is a requirement the list of people unsuitable to live in Canada is going to grow to surprising amounts.

[Marocc]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We need to balance "hard-line condemnation" with compassion. 

As such, that doesn't and should never enter politics. Secular politics work in what are considered laws of objective morality and ethics. The entire idea of attaching any sentiments to it is hypocritical. People are condemned as though by machines – there can be no emotion attached to the decision. Similarly people receive as is their right as though decided by machines – there can be no emotion attached to the decision.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Marocc said:

but that is obvious hence I sometimes neglect to stress that fact.

That can get you into trouble around here...

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, Marocc said:

As such, that doesn't and should never enter politics. Secular politics work in what are considered laws of objective morality and ethics. The entire idea of attaching any sentiments to it is hypocritical. People are condemned as though by machines – there can be no emotion attached to the decision. Similarly people receive as is their right as though decided by machines – there can be no emotion attached to the decision.

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?

[Argus]

57 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It's not a jew card or anything offensive for that matter. I know not all Jews do it, but that is obvious hence I sometimes neglect to stress that fact.

If shaking hands is a requirement the list of people unsuitable to live in Canada is going to grow to surprising amounts.

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.

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

There is no separation of the sexes here.

There is also no forcing one to touch another.

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Anyone who comes here to work will be routinely working with, around, and for people of the opposite sex

Obviously only if their job requires it. They can apply to jobs where they don't have to touch anyone.

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

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.

There's a lot of people who "recoil from the thought of touching someone" (at all) who are not immigrants or religious. Some people just don't like it.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Marocc said:

There is also no forcing one to touch another.

Obviously only if their job requires it. They can apply to jobs where they don't have to touch anyone.

There's a lot of people who "recoil from the thought of touching someone" (at all) who are not immigrants or religious. Some people just don't like it.

And yet using that logic you speak of 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. A few of those people are not a problem. Hundreds of thousands would be.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Argus