Entitled refugees

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah, okay there, sport. Trump loves black people, Mexicans and Muslims.

 

Trump deports white illegals too...including Canadians.

 

[Yzermandius19]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah, okay there, sport. Trump loves black people, Mexicans and Muslims.

Record unemployment among those groups, if Trump doesn't love them, he sure has a funny way of showing it.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

Congratulations! You have successfully shown that refugees - who come from strife-torn countries where they have lost everything - take longer to do well in Canada than voluntary business class immigrants who enter the country with considerable assets. 

Give the man a star!  Lol 

[jacee]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't think the law would have a problem with setting criteria which put potential immigrants who seem flexible and adaptable as more desirable than those who showed a rejection of Canadian mores and values.

It's very odd that a far-right conservative like yourself chooses liberal values as the ones that define Canada. It's also very odd that you would like to see such liberal "values" entrenched as law, an idea that is a total non-starter, since such infringement on individual rights would never be upheld by Canadian courts. 

I am gob-smacked that you would think that anyone in Canada would accept a law that forced them to shake anybody's germy hands. Lol 

You have truly lost contact with reality.

I go no closer than a fist bump with mitts on during these cold/flu ridden days. Lol 

Edited January 26, 2020 by jacee

[Argus]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Congratulations! You have successfully shown that refugees - who come from strife-torn countries where they have lost everything - take longer to do well in Canada than voluntary business class immigrants who enter the country with considerable assets. 

Give the man a star!  Lol 

Ah, if you want to talk refugees stats Canada did another study showing that, depending on where they come from, refugees don't make much and have low employment rates even fifteen years after arrival. A couple of groups, Somalis being one noted for failure, actually have lower earnings and a lower employment rate after 15 years than they had when they first arrived!

[Argus]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

It's very odd that a far-right conservative like yourself chooses liberal values as the ones that define Canada.

Are you talking 'liberal' or "Liberal". Do please note your values are in no way liberal. They're strongly illiberal, in fact.

1 hour ago, jacee said:

It's also very odd that you would like to see such liberal "values" entrenched as law, an idea that is a total non-starter, since such infringement on individual rights would never be upheld by Canadian courts. 

I've never said anything about entrenching values in law. You appear to be even more confused than usual.

1 hour ago, jacee said:

I am gob-smacked that you would think that anyone in Canada would accept a law that forced them to shake anybody's germy hands. Lol 

I'm not proposing any such law. I'm proposing that we try to discern what sort of values potential immigrants have, and how well they will fit in.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

That's what statistics do. That's what businesses do when they prioritize hiring from the better schools. That's what you do when you decide to buy a brand name because you know it's good and its reliable, or when you shop in a higher class store, or decide you're not going to buy a certain brand of car or appliance because - statistically - they have more problems. This is basic logic in trying to get the best for ourselves.

You don't have much of an idea about how to use statistics then.  There's a much higher correlation between transferable education/skills and economic success in Canada than the correlation between country of origin and economic success in Canada.

What you're saying is the same as a landlord saying "well statistically black people commit more crime so i'm not going to allow any black people to live in my building".  The stat may be true, but it's completely ridiculous to use it to discriminate against an entire group of people.  There's some black tenants with steady jobs and good manners and other black tenants who may only work part-time and hang out doing drugs and have bad manners.

You're thinking like Jim Crow proponents used to think.

6 hours ago, Argus said:

We are clearly not capable of discerning which individual is going to be best. I see nothing wrong with 'painting with a broad brush' as long as statistics back me up. We owe nothing to potential immigrants. If we feel bringing in more Irish than Iranians would be better for us because they'll perform better economically and fit in better then we ought to do that.

Who would be more economically successful in Canada?:  a poor, uneducated Irish person who only has cashier experience, or an english-speaking Iranian with an engineering degree and work experience whose skills and education are transferable to Canada?  Sorry but the stats say the Iranian.

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

From your article:

"The study explained the struggles these poorer immigrants face: They’re more recent newcomers; are less likely to speak English or French fluently; are younger, urban and working age; possibly less educated; and come from countries that produce more refugees.

“Those with better language skills and already with jobs here can assure economic success,” said immigration policy analyst Richard Kurland, who obtained the data through a freedom of information request. “It is all about their skills, not their skin.”

There you go.  So statistically we should be discriminating against people based on if they know english/french, their education, skills, age, and jobs prospects/employability.  Which we already do unless they're immigrants.  That's why I would remake our refugee system to not allow people to permanently live in Canada if they can't sustain themselves here, so I would relocate them to a country where they could (if at all possible) and if they refuse i'd just make them leave Canada.  We'd probably have to pull out of the UN Refugee Convention.  We can make Canada and its immigration system better while still being humane to refugees and not being racist/ignorant.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

He was a child ffs. I don't see any shred of balance in your positions at all.

He was 15 y/o.  Do you let teens who are at war with NATO and Canada and kill US soldiers just walk around on the street?

I'm fine with treating him with less severity because yes he was a child, but he still needed to be punished.  What would you have done with Khadr?  Give him a stern talking to and ground him for a week?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

He was 15 y/o.  Do you let teens who are at war with NATO and Canada and kill US soldiers just walk around on the street?

I doubt the GC calls for that.  Are you suggesting it does?

I'm fine with treating him with less severity because yes he was a child, but he still needed to be punished.  What would you have done with Khadr?  Give him a stern talking to and ground him for a week?

I'd do whatever was in accordance with the GC - the same as anything else that spells out how we conduct ourselves at war.

And I'd tell our allies to go piss up a rope if they didn't like it.

[eyeball]

28 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

We can make Canada and its immigration system better while still being humane to refugees and not being racist/ignorant.

Not with so many assholes rolling their eyes while ROTFLTAO. It's like preventing climate change while producing as much fossil fuels as we possibly can.

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

He was 15 y/o.  Do you let teens who are at war with NATO and Canada and kill US soldiers just walk around on the street?

I'm fine with treating him with less severity because yes he was a child, but he still needed to be punished.  What would you have done with Khadr?  Give him a stern talking to and ground him for a week?

He was punished very severely, torture isn't enough for you? You think that's getting off light because he was a kid?

Edited January 27, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He was punished very severely, torture isn't enough for you? You think that's getting off light because he was a kid?

You didn't follow our whole convo.  I'm not saying that, I don't think he should have been tortured.  I'm saying he should have been removed from gitmo ASAP so he wasn't treated inhumanely and transferred to a Canadian detention facility.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You don't have much of an idea about how to use statistics then.  There's a much higher correlation between transferable education/skills and economic success in Canada than the correlation between country of origin and economic success in Canada.

Oh good. Since you're sure of that I'm sure you can provide evidence to that effect.

Mind you, the more transferable education/skills and economic success in Canada seem to be coming from certain countries of origin anyway.

Quote

What you're saying is the same as a landlord saying "well statistically black people commit more crime so i'm not going to allow any black people to live in my building".  The stat may be true, but it's completely ridiculous to use it to discriminate against an entire group of people. 

No, it's not ridiculous at all. You might say it's terribly unfair to those blacks who are NOT criminals, and you'd be completely correct. It would be terribly unfair to them. But it's not ridiculous. It makes perfect sense from the landlord's perspective. Even if the landlord is Black too. And if you think, btw, that Blacks don't discriminate against Blacks for just this reason you haven't been paying attention. A black taxi driver will serve across the street to pick up a white lady up the block rather than picking up a black guy.

Quote

Who would be more economically successful in Canada?:  a poor, uneducated Irish person who only has cashier experience, or an english-speaking Iranian with an engineering degree and work experience whose skills and education are transferable to Canada?  Sorry but the stats say the Iranian.

And you can show those stats, can you? Because I rather doubt it.

Anyway, no one is arguing for bringing over poorly educated people from ANYWHERE. That's a straw man you built yourself. The better question would be who is more economically successful in Canada, the Irishman with an engineering degree and work experience whose skills and education are transferable to Canada or the Iranian with the same. And I'm betting the Irishman, simply because his language skills are bound to be better, and his cultural fit certainly would be. He would also adapt and integrate into Canada much easier.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There you go.  So statistically we should be discriminating against people based on if they know english/french, their education, skills, age, and jobs prospects/employability. 

And to a certain extent I have argued just that. I have pointed out that the source countries which produce more economically successful immigrants tend to have a strong familiarity with English, whereas those in the middle east don't even use the roman alphabet. I've also pointed out Australia improved the economic performance of immigrants by prioritizing those with better English skills.

I would also add that the educational credentials of people from some countries are much more respected here than from other countries, and that they can be validated better, and that they are less likely to be faked. If you put together a degree from some third rate, third world university nobody here has heard of and a recent immigrant speaking broken English, what you get is an uber driver.

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 That's why I would remake our refugee system to not allow people to permanently live in Canada if they can't sustain themselves here, so I would relocate them to a country where they could (if at all possible) and if they refuse i'd just make them leave Canada.  We'd probably have to pull out of the UN Refugee Convention.  We can make Canada and its immigration system better while still being humane to refugees and not being racist/ignorant.

I'm certainly in favour of that. If we want to be generous we could help support far more refugees nearer where they came from than the cost of putting them in bloody Toronto.

[jacee]

On 1/26/2020 at 1:29 PM, Argus said:

My whole life doesn't revolve around race and identity

Really? You spend a huge amount of time on here arguing that 'certain groups' (ie, non-'Europeans', especially Muslims) should not be accepted as immigrants or refugees to Canada. 

15 years, over 47,000 posts, Argus, mostly anti-Muslim: "Muslims make me very uncomfortable." (Argus, 2004)

Some things don't change. Lol 

A question: If you support immigration from "some countries" (eg, 'European') over others, how could you weed out and deny immigration to Muslims from European countries? Wouldn't it serve your purposes more directly to simply deny immigration to Muslims from any/all countries? 

Edited January 27, 2020 by jacee

[jacee]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

1) Are you talking 'liberal' or "Liberal". Do please note your values are in no way liberal. They're strongly illiberal, in fact.

2) I've never said anything about entrenching values in law. You appear to be even more confused than usual.

I'm not proposing any such law. I'm proposing that we try to discern what sort of values potential immigrants have, and how well they will fit in.

1) You seem to be referring to assessing candidates for immigration according to Canadian "values" that reflect the (Liberal) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bitterly fought by Conservatives and still not accepted by some (eg, Harper). It's just laughably self-serving to hear ultra-conservatives like yourself now so strongly embracing those Liberal  Charter "values" ... to serve your purpose of discriminating against Muslims.   Lol 

2) Argus: "I don't think the law would have a problem with setting criteria which put potential immigrants who seem flexible and adaptable as more desirable than those who showed a rejection of Canadian mores and values."

I do think "the law" would have a problem with that as it violates the Charter right to freedom of expression, a right heavily defended by the Supreme Court (ie, "the law"), and also by white supremacists to protect their own 'hate speech', for example. 

I also think you yourself would never pass such criteria for immigration ... unless you lied! (And lying is grounds for denial of immigration, and for deportation if discovered later.) 

'Oh what a tangled web you weave, when first you practice to deceive' people into thinking it's ok to discriminate against the freedom of expression of 'some people', while defending your own right to the same.

Just weirdly disingenuous - ie, deceitful.

Edited January 27, 2020 by jacee

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

No, it's not ridiculous at all. You might say it's terribly unfair to those blacks who are NOT criminals, and you'd be completely correct. It would be terribly unfair to them. But it's not ridiculous. It makes perfect sense from the landlord's perspective. Even if the landlord is Black too. And if you think, btw, that Blacks don't discriminate against Blacks for just this reason you haven't been paying attention. A black taxi driver will serve across the street to pick up a white lady up the block rather than picking up a black guy

Argus, it's racist.  That's why it's illegal.  You can't judge an individual simply based on the colour of their skin or the country they were born.  It's lazy.  People should be judged on their individual merits, not what large demographic group they happen to belong to.

You don't like Muslims, we get it.  But that doesn't mean they're all bad, or even most of them bad.  Your broad brush of all Muslims is just ignorant and ridiculous.  I work with some, they aren't all poverty-stricken religious extremists.

[kactus]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

And to a certain extent I have argued just that. I have pointed out that the source countries which produce more economically successful immigrants tend to have a strong familiarity with English, whereas those in the middle east don't even use the roman alphabet. I've also pointed out Australia improved the economic performance of immigrants by prioritizing those with better English skills.

So based on this logic those people who come from Middles East that use Hebrew, Farsi, Turkish or Arabic are economically less successful immigrants in Canada just because they are from Middle East and don't use Roman alphabet? Really!? is that your benchmark to assess if someone is a successful immigrant? 

 

Quote

I would also add that the educational credentials of people from some countries are much more respected here than from other countries, and that they can be validated better, and that they are less likely to be faked. If you put together a degree from some third rate, third world university nobody here has heard of and a recent immigrant speaking broken English, what you get is an uber driver.

I'm certainly in favour of that. If we want to be generous we could help support far more refugees nearer where they came from than the cost of putting them in bloody Toronto.

That doesn't make sense....A university credential is based on its academic achievements, number of pupils in employment, amount of money it spends on research and development..... That is regardless if this university is in a third world country or a developed country. There are in fact some universities from those third world countries that get scholarship and have exchange students in place...The merits of a university credentials is measured based on academics' achievement not on the premise that it qualifies as English speaking country. Your blanket statement is just a generalisation that whoever comes from a certain region of the world cannot possibly have a good degree because a) their alphabet is not roman b) they are from third world country therefore not educated enough c) If a person comes from that Middle East region then they must be unworthy immigrants that can only speak broken English.

 

Is it only me here or does anyone else agree that this sentiment is a generalisation on a group of people that borderlines racism. Enquiring mind likes to know....  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

1) You seem to be referring to assessing candidates for immigration according to Canadian "values" that reflect the (Liberal) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bitterly fought by Conservatives and still not accepted by some (eg, Harper). It's just laughably self-serving to hear ultra-conservatives like yourself now so strongly embracing those Liberal  Charter "values" ... to serve your purpose of discriminating against Muslims.   Lol 

Notice too how Islamophobia has vastly improved the regard western conservatives have for homosexuals.

[Marocc]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

I would also add that the educational credentials of people from some countries are much more respected here than from other countries, and that they can be validated better, and that they are less likely to be faked. If you put together a degree from some third rate, third world university nobody here has heard of and a recent immigrant speaking broken English, what you get is an uber driver.

A University degree from the Middle-East is equal in Canada compared to one earned elsewhere. Now, if you or anyone else is unable to respect that degree, that's a whole other issue.

"Recent immigrant" I suppose it'd be fair to give the immigrant a bit of time to find an apartment, learn the language and possibly farther educate himself before you judge his poor economical success. It isn't wise to look down on meager jobs that you too need someone to do.

 

1 hour ago, kactus said:

Is it only me here or does anyone else agree that this sentiment is a generalisation on a group of people that borderlines racism. Enquiring mind likes to know....  

I agree.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

Really? You spend a huge amount of time on here arguing that 'certain groups' (ie, non-'Europeans', especially Muslims) should not be accepted as immigrants or refugees to Canada.

No, I actually spend very little time on that. Whereas it really does seem your whole live revolves around fanatic far-left identity politics.

4 hours ago, jacee said:

15 years, over 47,000 posts, Argus, mostly anti-Muslim: "Muslims make me very uncomfortable." (Argus, 2004)

Mostly? You took a count did you? A fraction of a fraction would be on Muslims. And yes, religious fanatics do make me uncomfortable. They make most sane people uncomfortable. And from a secular viewpoint most of the Muslim world is made up of fanatics.

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, jacee said:

1) You seem to be referring to assessing candidates for immigration according to Canadian "values" that reflect the (Liberal) Charter of Rights and Freedoms, bitterly fought by Conservatives and still not accepted by some (eg, Harper).

That's simply your interpretation as you believe Canada has no values, other than those expressed in terms of aspirational messages of togetherness, equality and tolerance.

What I'm asserting is that regardless of how you see Canada, it is in no way improved by bringing over massive numbers of people with 16th century social views. If you had any honest you'd agree, and not want to bring over large groups of people who despise homosexuals and think women are about as important as cattle. I suppose I use those particular views more often because they show the incredible degree of hypocrisy among the Left in arguing furiously for bringing as many such people into Canada as possible even while expressing profound hatred for Canadians who hold such views.

Quote

2) Argus: "I don't think the law would have a problem with setting criteria which put potential immigrants who seem flexible and adaptable as more desirable than those who showed a rejection of Canadian mores and values."

Again, you're probably confused by the definition of those terms. I, for example, do not consider your views and values to be any more flexible, tolerant or adaptable than the Taliban.

Quote

I do think "the law" would have a problem with that as it violates the Charter right to freedom of expression,

Foreigners who do not live in Canada are not protected by your precious Charter.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Argus, it's racist.  That's why it's illegal.

It's racist for a black taxi driver to prefer to pick up white passengers over black ones? Really? No, it's not racist, it's prejudiced. And the motivation for those two attitudes is entirely different.

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You can't judge an individual simply based on the colour of their skin or the country they were born. 

I'm not suggesting you can. I'm suggesting, however, that you can just a GROUP of people based on where they come from and the culture and values where they grew up and now live.

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You don't like Muslims, we get it.  But that doesn't mean they're all bad, or even most of them bad.  Your broad brush of all Muslims is just ignorant and ridiculous.  I work with some, they aren't all poverty-stricken religious extremists.

Nobody has suggested they are. And I don't like people whose religious views don't like me. When you are devoted to a religion and half the stuff in that religion is about how to treat unbelievers - and very little of that is good, and much of it is violent - then yeah, I'm not going to want more of them living around me. That doesn't mean some aren't nice people. It means as a group their values are hostile to me. Now, if we made some effort at only choosing the ones who don't take their religion so seriously, and aren't likely to be hostile towards me and values I believe in I wouldn't have as much problem. But alas, we make NO effort to do anything like that. Therefore, if we bring in 10,000 people from Afghanistan or 50,000 from Syria, we can be relatively assured that in general, their values reflect the values of Afghanistan and Syria.

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, Marocc said:

A University degree from the Middle-East is equal in Canada compared to one earned elsewhere.

You clearly know nothing about this. I can assure you that even Canadian university degrees are not considered equal within Canada. Some are more respected than others.

42 minutes ago, Marocc said:

"Recent immigrant" I suppose it'd be fair to give the immigrant a bit of time to find an apartment, learn the language and possibly farther educate himself before you judge his poor economical success

Why? He or she ought to already know the language and have their education in order to get in.