CITIZEN_2015 Posted January 27, 2020 Report Posted January 27, 2020 Just now, 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. It isn't wise to look down on meager jobs that you too need someone to do. Immigration program is not a charity program. It is supposed to allow in people ALREADY highly educated or those with enough assets to open up new businesses and benefit Canadians. However, by far more important criteria the program is currently lacking is to keep out those who do not believe in Canadian values like respect for women's choice and their equality and respect for other religions and cultures. Quote
taxme Posted January 28, 2020 Report Posted January 28, 2020 On 1/7/2020 at 9:53 AM, Moonlight Graham said: If rent is too high, move to a cheaper city. Will I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for that move also? But of course, you will silly taxpayer, and why not, eh? Quote
taxme Posted January 28, 2020 Report Posted January 28, 2020 22 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Immigration program is not a charity program. It is supposed to allow in people ALREADY highly educated or those with enough assets to open up new businesses and benefit Canadians. However, by far more important criteria the program is currently lacking is to keep out those who do not believe in Canadian values like respect for women's choice and their equality and respect for other religions and cultures. I am very curious as to how those 25,000 Syrian refugees are doing these days thanks to drama teacher feminist Trudeau, G. Soros, and the United Nations who brought all of them into Canada as a gift to the host Canadian people to have to feed and clothe and house? I wonder as to how much it has cost the Canadian taxpayer's of Canada and their tax dollars all these years? I will bet that you and me and thee have forked out at least a hundred billion a year, if not more. A figure that we will probably never be able to get from our anti-Canadian, pro immigrant politicians out there. The taxpayer's should be thinking about how much it is costing them every day when they go to work today and tomorrow, and all next week to help pay strangers who no doubt get to stay at home while they go to work. As far as I am concerned, paying taxes to help support a bunch of unwanted and unneeded refugee strangers is a misuse of taxpayer's tax dollars and is near criminal. After all, it only is just costing the Canadian taxpayer's hundreds of billions of their tax dollars every year, and all for nothing. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 29, 2020 Report Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, taxme said: Will I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for that move also? But of course, you will silly taxpayer, and why not, eh? Sometime in the future the government will probably pay for everyone's toilet paper and for robots to wipe our a$$es 1 Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Rue Posted January 29, 2020 Report Posted January 29, 2020 15 hours ago, taxme said: I am very curious as to how those 25,000 Syrian refugees are doing these days thanks to drama teacher feminist Trudeau, G. Soros, and the United Nations who brought all of them into Canada as a gift to the host Canadian people to have to feed and clothe and house? I wonder as to how much it has cost the Canadian taxpayer's of Canada and their tax dollars all these years? I will bet that you and me and thee have forked out at least a hundred billion a year, if not more. A figure that we will probably never be able to get from our anti-Canadian, pro immigrant politicians out there. The taxpayer's should be thinking about how much it is costing them every day when they go to work today and tomorrow, and all next week to help pay strangers who no doubt get to stay at home while they go to work. As far as I am concerned, paying taxes to help support a bunch of unwanted and unneeded refugee strangers is a misuse of taxpayer's tax dollars and is near criminal. After all, it only is just costing the Canadian taxpayer's hundreds of billions of their tax dollars every year, and all for nothing. Harper brought in 40,000 refugees and they were all privately sponsored and have not cost the country a penny. In regards to the Syrian refugees that have not been privately sponsored some of them are doing miserably and others so-so but still better then what they came from and others have a life far better than what they came from. Why you single them out from all other refugees is interesting. You clearly are concerned for them. Given you have admitted on this forum you only want Caucasians of English descent and "Christian" your comments on this issue are tainted. The statistics as to how refugees are doing is public domain and Taxme could talk to a refugee to find out how they are doing-right. For others, if they do want to investigate the issue of refugees coming to Canada there are many sources: https://www.statista.com/topics/2897/refugees-in-canada/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/syrian-refugees-in-canada-by-the-numbers/article33120934/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrian-refugees-struggling-social-assistance-language-barrier-1.4368833 https://globalnews.ca/news/6223499/canada-refugee-policy/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/syrian-refugees-struggle-financially-but-are-happy-in-canada-1.3912906 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35447113 https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-in-canada-four-years-after-the-welcome-126312 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231588712_How_Are_New_Refugees_Doing_in_Canada_Comparison_of_the_Health_and_Settlement_of_the_Kosovars_and_Czech_Roma The media of course is not necessarily accurate but it is a starting point. It shows resettling has many problems but nobody claims otherwise. In regards to the cost of refugees it is public domain and no one says government run refugee programs do not cost. We also know the moment the government gets involved there are bound to be deficiencies leading to unnecessary costs..... however does that automatically mean refugees should not come here? Well I would argue it may mean when the government runs a refugee program it might be mismanaging funds but I would argue mismanagement of funds is a separate issue because we know that qhen refugees are privately sponsored they do not cost Canada a damn penny. So given that fact it's not taking in refugees that is necessarily the problem with costs, it's the government's involvement in the process that may be generating inefficiency and unnecessary cost and this is why I argue maybe its time for the government to get out of its current process and let private sponsorship take over and re-route money to actual support of refugees in refugee camps for education, shelter, water, medical services. Here is some stuff on the cost: https://ccrweb.ca/en/pensioners-myth https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-do-refugees-get-more-financial-help-than-canadian-pensioners-1.2670735 https://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/the-high-cost-of-illegal-migrants/wcm/a2cdce17-4808-48df-9569-1247cba8bcf0 https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/11/22/bringing-25000-syrian-refugees-to-canada-cost-385m/ https://ccrweb.ca/en/refugee-healthcare-costs https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/irregular-migrants-on-track-to-cost-canada-almost-400-million-watchdog-says-1.4197552 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-billion-six-years-1.3327780 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/19/cost-of-syrian-refugee-plan-pegged-at-12b-over-six-years.html https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/this-is-how-much-money-syrian-refugees-will-cost-taxpayers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/refugees-give-more-money-to-the-government-than-the-government-gives-to-them-study-says/ 1 Quote
taxme Posted January 29, 2020 Report Posted January 29, 2020 5 hours ago, Rue said: Harper brought in 40,000 refugees and they were all privately sponsored and have not cost the country a penny. In regards to the Syrian refugees that have not been privately sponsored some of them are doing miserably and others so-so but still better then what they came from and others have a life far better than what they came from. Why you single them out from all other refugees is interesting. You clearly are concerned for them. Given you have admitted on this forum you only want Caucasians of English descent and "Christian" your comments on this issue are tainted. The statistics as to how refugees are doing is public domain and Taxme could talk to a refugee to find out how they are doing-right. For others, if they do want to investigate the issue of refugees coming to Canada there are many sources: https://www.statista.com/topics/2897/refugees-in-canada/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/syrian-refugees-in-canada-by-the-numbers/article33120934/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrian-refugees-struggling-social-assistance-language-barrier-1.4368833 https://globalnews.ca/news/6223499/canada-refugee-policy/ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/syrian-refugees-struggle-financially-but-are-happy-in-canada-1.3912906 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35447113 https://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-in-canada-four-years-after-the-welcome-126312 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231588712_How_Are_New_Refugees_Doing_in_Canada_Comparison_of_the_Health_and_Settlement_of_the_Kosovars_and_Czech_Roma The media of course is not necessarily accurate but it is a starting point. It shows resettling has many problems but nobody claims otherwise. In regards to the cost of refugees it is public domain and no one says government run refugee programs do not cost. We also know the moment the government gets involved there are bound to be deficiencies leading to unnecessary costs..... however does that automatically mean refugees should not come here? Well I would argue it may mean when the government runs a refugee program it might be mismanaging funds but I would argue mismanagement of funds is a separate issue because we know that qhen refugees are privately sponsored they do not cost Canada a damn penny. So given that fact it's not taking in refugees that is necessarily the problem with costs, it's the government's involvement in the process that may be generating inefficiency and unnecessary cost and this is why I argue maybe its time for the government to get out of its current process and let private sponsorship take over and re-route money to actual support of refugees in refugee camps for education, shelter, water, medical services. Here is some stuff on the cost: https://ccrweb.ca/en/pensioners-myth https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-do-refugees-get-more-financial-help-than-canadian-pensioners-1.2670735 https://torontosun.com/2017/03/14/the-high-cost-of-illegal-migrants/wcm/a2cdce17-4808-48df-9569-1247cba8bcf0 https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/11/22/bringing-25000-syrian-refugees-to-canada-cost-385m/ https://ccrweb.ca/en/refugee-healthcare-costs https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/irregular-migrants-on-track-to-cost-canada-almost-400-million-watchdog-says-1.4197552 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-billion-six-years-1.3327780 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/19/cost-of-syrian-refugee-plan-pegged-at-12b-over-six-years.html https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/this-is-how-much-money-syrian-refugees-will-cost-taxpayers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/refugees-give-more-money-to-the-government-than-the-government-gives-to-them-study-says/ Hey, I have a website for you to visit also. It is called Immigration Watch Canada. Go and read what they have to say about "Canada taking in one million new immigrants" and see what they have to say about massive immigration. Try checking it out sometime and get the other side of the story that people like you do not want others to know about and as to how much all of this massive amounts of immigration is costing the taxpayer's every year. Probably a minimum of 50 billion a year. Peanuts to you, eh? What you are reading and getting is leftist liberal propaganda information from leftist liberal media outfits. None condemn massive third world immigration. They pretty much promote it. They just tell you that massive immigration is all just so wonderful and great. The damages done to our infrastructures and the environment will be on a massive scale. But you could care less, right? I can only assume by your reply that you are not all that much in favor of any more British/European immigrants immigrating to Canada anymore, now are you? Well? There are plans by Trudeau to bring in another one million more new immigrants into Canada, legal and illegal ones every year, and this will be happening for the next four more years while dumb azz British/European hating Trudeau is in power. Four million new immigrants into Canada in the next four more years, and no doubt new voters to vote for the likes of Trudeau and his liberal leftist ilk. Have Canadians of British/European ancestry gone absolutely bonkers? We are watching the destruction of a British/European country to be now taken over by a bunch of foreign third world strangers that no one ever asked for. I would go as far as to say that this to me is an act of treason being perpetrated here on the British/European people of Canada. We are being warned today, but it certainly looks to me like no one here is listening. After all of those legal and illegal immigrants/refugees are here for three out of five years they get to become a Canadian citizen. Guess who they will be voting for in the next election. One year here, one year there, and so on. What a stupid country Canada has become, and no one seems to care. The people who love massive immigration are immigration lawyers and consultants to be able to fatten their wallets, big business benefits from cheaper labor, banksters make more money, pro-lobby immigration groups get to be able to bring in more of their own kind, and many more will be making money from more massive immigration, while the host British/European people can pay for it all, and can then go take a hike. All these hundreds of billions of tax dollars that are being blown every year could have been better spent on Canada and Canadians and not foreigners. But there is no need for me to ask you if you care? I already know your answer. PS: While I have to pay for my eye or dental care which costs me and my wife hundreds of dollars every year, legal and illegal criminal refugees get it all for free. It's bloody well obscene and deplorable. Quote
jacee Posted January 30, 2020 Report Posted January 30, 2020 Great info, Rue. In sum, all is progressing well. Quote
Argus Posted January 30, 2020 Author Report Posted January 30, 2020 On 1/29/2020 at 10:00 AM, Rue said: In regards to the cost of refugees it is public domain and no one says government run refugee programs do not cost. We also know the moment the government gets involved there are bound to be deficiencies leading to unnecessary costs..... however does that automatically mean refugees should not come here? Well I would argue it may mean when the government runs a refugee program it might be mismanaging funds but I would argue mismanagement of funds is a separate issue because we know that qhen refugees are privately sponsored they do not cost Canada a damn penny. There are several issues with costs. And despite what you say all refugees cost us money unless they happen to be skilled software engineers or have a big bank account in Switzerland. Yes, even your privately sponsored ones. We have to pay for their children's schooling and for their health care and other government services, after all, and it's not like they're going to be paying taxes any time soon. If ever. Generally speaking, third world refugees do not fare well economically. They tend to have lower employment rates and low earnings when they are employed. This means they are, by and large, not paying taxes to help support the government services they are given. Their initial earnings tend to be in the $11k-$15k range, and rarely go much above $30k. Bringing in refugees usually means bringing in poor people. There's no getting around that. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019007-eng.htm There's also the problem that most of the refugees we bring in don't really qualify under the UN asylum agreement as they are not being specifically targeted due to their being a member of a particular group or their political activity. They're a tithe of the masses displaced by war and poverty that we take in to make ourselves feel good. If we wanted to do what was smart for us and better for them, we would instead forward money to the countries which have the huge refugee camps near the borders of the area refugees come from. You can pay to support a lot more people in Turkey and Jordan for what it costs to support one person in Toronto or Vancouver. And then they can go home when the fighting dies down. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted January 30, 2020 Report Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Argus said: There are several issues with costs. And despite what you say all refugees cost us money ..no actually I fully concede they create costs unless they are privately sponsored.....and I also have argued the current system's definition and process for determining who is a refugee is flawed. I just argue different approaches to deal with such problems and my cost analysis of a refugee is different than yours in terms of comparing immediate costs to long term revenue they may earn which may offset those costs. I always concede as well anything a government does wastes money. That's pretty much a given.. Edited January 30, 2020 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted January 30, 2020 Report Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, jacee said: Great info, Rue. In sum, all is progressing well. Honest Jacee I do not claim to speak for refugees, the process, just me. .and I openly admit my bias because I am the son of a refugee who was a badly needed doctor in her day and I would hope I more than paid back in taxes whatever it is say Argus feels the government spent on my mother although I suspect her own payment of taxes more than did that..its a complex issue. I know there are problems but I am one of those people that says work to resolve a problem don't just write off people. I say that because I do not want you to write me off just yet and I have numerous defects (brain, prostate, vision, hearing, to name a few). I am confident my diapers will prevent me from costing our society any unneeded expense due to the burden I might otherwise present in public. Edited January 30, 2020 by Rue Quote
Argus Posted January 30, 2020 Author Report Posted January 30, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Rue said: Honest Jacee I do not claim to speak for refugees, the process, just me. .and I openly admit my bias because I am the son of a refugee who was a badly needed doctor in her day and I would hope I more than paid back in taxes whatever it is say Argus feels the government spent on my mother although I suspect her own payment of taxes more than did that. What DID the government spend on your mother, Rue? Let me make a couple of assumptions here. Your mother came from Europe. And she came here many decades ago. If you look at the cite I posted a few posts back it shows that refugees from Europe have had considerably higher economic success than those from the middle east (which is where most come from now). And most of them arrived long ago, before our public welfare system became as generous as it is now. So they would have cost us far less even if they didn't enjoy such economic success. I would also suggest those from Europe found it far easier to integrate into out society than those from the Middle East given the comparative similarity of the cultures at that time as compared to the middle east and Canada of today. Edited January 30, 2020 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted February 1, 2020 Report Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/27/2020 at 6:15 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said: Immigration program is not a charity program. It is supposed to allow in people ALREADY highly educated or those with enough assets to open up new businesses and benefit Canadians. However, by far more important criteria the program is currently lacking is to keep out those who do not believe in Canadian values like respect for women's choice and their equality and respect for other religions and cultures. You keep saying that but how do you screen for people who respect women? Having criteria to respect women is not the issue and never was. Being able to screen for people with this respect is. Everyone has an opinion of what they want in an immigrant but when it comes to the actual screening process for it , no one gives any thought to howto do that. Quote
Rue Posted February 1, 2020 Report Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) On 1/30/2020 at 5:11 PM, Argus said: I would also suggest those from Europe found it far easier to integrate into out society than those from the Middle East given the comparative similarity of the cultures at that time as compared to the middle east and Canada of today. You are assuming the above. We could also assume the above with anyone from anywhere where the social, economic, political, religious or weather conditions would be different than Canada's. And so? "Easier" is a a relative term. The fact is most immigrants who came or come to Canada have issues integrating. How does anyone measure an immigrant's degrees of difficulty integrating compared to another immigrant's? What criteria would you use to measure their difficulty against one another? I think its safe to say all immigrants do not necessarily find it easy when they come to Canada for many reasons and its not where they come from but their expectations before they come and their ability to deal with change once they come that dictates the degree of their difficulty integrating so assuming religion or geographic site are precursors of their degree of adjustment may not be accurate. I would further suggest this inaccuracy because we know that people who came from the same womb and/or identical social-economic-political- environments or geographic sites and/or religions are not all the same. Edited February 1, 2020 by Rue Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 1, 2020 Report Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) Just now, Rue said: You keep saying that but how do you screen for people who respect women? Having criteria to respect women is not the issue and never was. Being able to screen for people with this respect is. Everyone has an opinion of what they want in an immigrant but when it comes to the actual screening process for it , no one gives any thought to howto do that. The religion being practiced by applicant should be added to the questionnaire. Those religion(s) forcing women what to wear, marry at 9 years, inherit less than half, allows a man have more than one wife ...... if anyone commits alliance in writing should be screened out of the immigration system. Edited February 1, 2020 by CITIZEN_2015 1 Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 1, 2020 Report Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 4:11 PM, Argus said: I would also suggest those from Europe found it far easier to integrate into out society than those from the Middle East given the comparative similarity of the cultures at that time as compared to the middle east and Canada of today. I agree with this but there has been also good immigrants from Middle East so we can't imposed a regional ban from that region without probing further. Quote
Argus Posted February 1, 2020 Author Report Posted February 1, 2020 7 hours ago, Rue said: How does anyone measure an immigrant's degrees of difficulty integrating compared to another immigrant's? Well, I'm given to understand that in order to obtain citizenship in Switzerland a person is required to demonstrate to the interviewer what efforts they have made to integrate, to meet people not of their ethnic background, to join clubs, or to insinuate themselves into Swiss society, to learn the local language and customs and and adapt to them. An immigrant who arrives, spends all their time in an ethnic ghetto among his own kind, reads newspapers and watches movies and TV from "Home", and has no Swiss friends or acquaintances not of his own ethnic background would be told to try again some other time. Just as one who refuses to shake hands with a member of the opposite sex would be presumed to have rejected elements of Swiss custom in favor of his previous nation's customs and would be refused citizenship. 7 hours ago, Rue said: What criteria would you use to measure their difficulty against one another? Basically, how difficult it is to adjust to a new society would be based upon how adaptable an individual is but also just how widely that society and its values and customs differs from your own. Well let's see, the Europeans used the roman alphabet as we did. And as the Chinese and Arabs do not. European languages, as English is, tend to have a certain number of common roots, which those from Asia or the middle east generally would not share. So communicating would be more difficult. Muslims from the middle east - where secularism is absolutely NOT a custom, might have difficulty with the concept. Especially with regard to fundamental values from their homeland which are considered to be a mandated part of their religion, such as how women are to be treated. This is unlikely to be as big a problem among Europeans, and not at all from today's Europeans. They would be unaccustomed to people rejecting their stated religious-based values, sometimes rudely, or to hearing criticism of them, or accepting same. Today (though this would hot have been an issue 50-70 years back)they would have more issues with things being taught to their children, especially with regard to morals and sex. I use the example of my neighbour, whose parents sent him back 'home' when he became a teenager so he wouldn't be polluted by the poor morality of Canadian teens. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Rue Posted February 2, 2020 Report Posted February 2, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 5:11 PM, Argus said: What DID the government spend on your mother, Rue? Let me make a couple of assumptions here. Your mother came from Europe. My mother came from Shanghai (but would in your reference be defined as someone of Western or European values) and cost the government zero. I appreciate why you asked the question. I did not take it the wrong way. I got you. I got your point too. With that reference, and so based only on my subjective anecdotal observation of my mother's success, I can only say her having an occupational skill Canada needed and language skills as well as a strong work ethic were the 3 factors to success .( that and of course having such a wonderful son who never gave her a problem ever and inspired her to greatness) (shut up that was a joke) So based on that which I knew you already knew, what I am saying is those qualities are universal qualities and so I would argue they could exist or be lacking in literally anyone not just Europeans. You also know the eligibility criteria is based on points based on verified transferable education, needed skills and of course language skills. It does get more lenient with language skills for trade workers compared to skilled professional workers as the level of language does not have to be as complex but still be fluent. It does expedite entry for people who invest 2 million in Canadian ventures. You can buy your way into Canada with no education if you can show a net worth of 50 million and invest 2 million in the country or with an education have a net work of 10 million and invest 2 million in the country. Otherwise it has a points system trying to screen eligibility based on education, skills and language. It tries to do that. None of that applies to refugees. I fully agree our current system can NOT accurately predict someone has proper work and ethical values which is what you are really getting at. We debate this but we agree a person who works hard, follows the laws, helps contribute to the tax basin and economy is not the issue. The issue comes with people who want to live off the state or come to Canada and be intolerant to others with their values but demand tolerance in return using our multi-cultural policies or concept of human rights to do that. I get all that. I do. I just think these are complex issues. Not because I am politically correct-in fact and odor I am a rude smelly old man.... but because I think human behavior is complex and the methods we use now to assess human behavior all are imperfect. Do I personally think someone from Britain would have an easier time assimilating in Canada then an itinerant shepherd from Afghanistan, probably. I would guess that but I would not necessarily build that assumption into an eligibility requirement for this reason and caution- just because the person is from Britain doesn't mean they won't end up a criminal, a bum, a shmuck and just because that goat herder has an attraction to kids (baby goats) doesn't mean they can't end up doing something good in Canada. All I am saying is we have to look a little bit further than these assumptions which I do not necessarily disagree with but on the other hand can not accept as absolutes. That said I continue to argue with refugees, they are expensive short term to settle, yes but not if they are privately sponsored. Private sponsors pay their expenses, teach them the language and social skills they will need and give them work and serve as their mentors until they successfully assimilate. With other refugees I have argued we are not properly supporting them once making them Canadian citizens. We are not properly assessing their psychiatric, medical and education limitations and so setting many up for failure as they have no transferable language, social, or work skills (life skills) which traps them into cycles of repeating poverty and dependence on provincial social benefits. I am also arguing I now believe our government knows when refugee claimants are rejected we do not deport them forcing them to go into a twilight zone of no rights where now they can be exploited as cheap labour below minimum wage. Our government knows this. In the name of Liberal compassion it is creating cheap illegal labour for Canadian businesses. It also is creating a first generation of dependent refugees with major adjustment issues by not having a program that provides an incubation period prior to coming to Canada to teach them language and life skills. This is why I argue the current refugee system should be scrapped and we have two replacement systems, one private which is not broke and works and another where we spend our money now being spent on the current system to provide instead education, shelter, medical services and fresh water to refugee camps and from those camps choose certain candidates to be prepared for coming to Canada and matching them up to the private sponsors. This way we help the private sponsors and we help refugees and we no longer have a loophole for persons coming to Canada to leap frog the immigration system. As for your wanting to screen people to have the right values, short of assuring they have work life and language skills I am all ears but simply asking people if they like beards but mo mustaches probably won't work. 1 1 Quote
dialamah Posted February 2, 2020 Report Posted February 2, 2020 22 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: The religion being practiced by applicant should be added to the questionnaire. Those religion(s) forcing women what to wear, marry at 9 years, inherit less than half, allows a man have more than one wife ...... if anyone commits alliance in writing should be screened out of the immigration system. The religion you are referring to does not force women to wear anything, marry at 9, inherit less than half .... etc. Those are all choices made by some of the people who practice the religion. For example, my Muslim sister owns the apartment she bought in Alexandria outright; her husband's name is not on it. She can will it to whomever she wants - even if it leaves him on the street, and if they divorce he gets none of it unless she chooses otherwise. My sister's stepdaughter is in her mid-20s, still not married. My sister is the only wife, not one of her husband's 4 brothers have more than one wife, and all of the daughters have graduated university before marriage for them has been considered. Your question would seek to exclude them, based only on the fact that they're Muslim, even though they'd fit very well with your 'cultural values'. Just like Christians, Muslims come in many different flavors and practices; your suggestion that asking someone if they follow a certain religion as a way of determining if they'd be a cultural fit for Canada is extremely discriminatory. 1 1 Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 2, 2020 Report Posted February 2, 2020 (edited) Just now, dialamah said: Those are all choices made by some of the people who practice the religion. It is completely the reverse of what you say. The religion has all those rules but choices made by some (educated) individuals not to practice the rules or obey by it. Like divorce in Christianity strictly forbidden and now we have a situation where most of marriages in Christian countries ends up in divorce. Ask them the religion if they are not committed to a religion or strictly practicing or fanatic about the rules or believing in them they would answer no religion. Edited February 2, 2020 by CITIZEN_2015 1 Quote
Argus Posted February 2, 2020 Author Report Posted February 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Rue said: My mother came from Shanghai (but would in your reference be defined as someone of Western or European values) and cost the government zero. I appreciate why you asked the question. I did not take it the wrong way. I got you. I got your point too. With that reference, and so based only on my subjective anecdotal observation of my mother's success, I can only say her having an occupational skill Canada needed and language skills as well as a strong work ethic were the 3 factors to success .( that and of course having such a wonderful son who never gave her a problem ever and inspired her to greatness) (shut up that was a joke) So based on that which I knew you already knew, what I am saying is those qualities are universal qualities and so I would argue they could exist or be lacking in literally anyone not just Europeans. Agreed. The problem is determining which of those who want to come here have them and which do not. Although my asking was based more on my guessing that your mother's arrival was many decades in the past when the government provided basically nothing in the way of support for immigrants/refugees or anyone else. Back in the 'sink or swim' days. 2 hours ago, Rue said: You also know the eligibility criteria is based on points based on verified transferable education, needed skills and of course language skills. It does get more lenient with language skills for trade workers compared to skilled professional workers as the level of language does not have to be as complex but still be fluent. It does expedite entry for people who invest 2 million in Canadian ventures. You can buy your way into Canada with no education if you can show a net worth of 50 million and invest 2 million in the country or with an education have a net work of 10 million and invest 2 million in the country. Otherwise it has a points system trying to screen eligibility based on education, skills and language. It tries to do that. None of that applies to refugees. Yes, and this topic is primarily about refugees. But I would also argue that despite all those points systems the fact we require no interviews, no confirmation of language or job skills, and that the file gets a 3 minute review before approval does not convince me that we are not bringing in an awful lot of people destined for life in poverty here - along with the successful ones. 2 hours ago, Rue said: I fully agree our current system can NOT accurately predict someone has proper work and ethical values which is what you are really getting at. And I would agree that there is no sure way of determining that. But, we should spend more than 3 minutes attempting to do so. 2 hours ago, Rue said: We debate this but we agree a person who works hard, follows the laws, helps contribute to the tax basin and economy is not the issue. Agreed. So long as they have an interest in adapting to and integrating with the rest of us. 2 hours ago, Rue said: .Do I personally think someone from Britain would have an easier time assimilating in Canada then an itinerant shepherd from Afghanistan, probably. Probably? As in 99.99% likely? 2 hours ago, Rue said: just because the person is from Britain doesn't mean they won't end up a criminal, a bum, a shmuck Well, if we're speaking of immigrants as opposed to refugees the points system you speak of ought to largely screen out criminals and bums in favour of those with sufficient energy to acquire skills and education. And that they speak the language and know the culture would make it far easier to integrate. 2 hours ago, Rue said: That said I continue to argue with refugees, they are expensive short term to settle, yes but not if they are privately sponsored. Private sponsors pay their expenses, teach them the language and social skills they will need and give them work and serve as their mentors until they successfully assimilate. There is no question privately sponsored refugees do better than the government ones. At the very least they wind up becoming acquainted with a number of Canadians and come to understand more about us and our culture and values while being guided through the strangeness which is a country halfway around the world from their own. 2 hours ago, Rue said: With other refugees I have argued we are not properly supporting them once making them Canadian citizens. We are not properly assessing their psychiatric, medical and education limitations and so setting many up for failure as they have no transferable language, social, or work skills (life skills) which traps them into cycles of repeating poverty and dependence on provincial social benefits. And crime. The street gangs shooting things up in major cities in Ontario tend to be the children of refugees and failed immigrants. In Ottawa primarily Somalians, in Toronto, primarily Jamaicans. 2 hours ago, Rue said: This is why I argue the current refugee system should be scrapped and we have two replacement systems, one private which is not broke and works and another where we spend our money now being spent on the current system to provide instead education, shelter, medical services and fresh water to refugee camps and from those camps choose certain candidates to be prepared for coming to Canada and matching them up to the private sponsors. This way we help the private sponsors and we help refugees and we no longer have a loophole for persons coming to Canada to leap frog the immigration system. agreed. 2 hours ago, Rue said: As for your wanting to screen people to have the right values, short of assuring they have work life and language skills I am all ears but simply asking people if they like beards but mo mustaches probably won't work. No, I would imagine it would be somewhat more sophisticated. But at rock bottom minimum it would assure they are actually capable of speaking the language they claim to, and that they actually do know something about the profession they claim to be a part of. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Modest Posted February 3, 2020 Report Posted February 3, 2020 (edited) On 1/7/2020 at 10:29 AM, Argus said: Entitled refugees? Yes, it seems so. There is an ironic story in the G&M today undoubtedly designed to raise sympathy for the plight of poor refugees trying to find housing in Toronto. [...] Then there's the Syrian refugee and his wife and five kids. He's thinking of moving, but darn it all, he wants to live around Muslims where his wife and daughter won't be stared at in their hijabs. And another Afghani who came here six years ago and is still living in his subsidized bachelor apartment, only now with a wife and toddler. He's on the list for a bigger place but there's only so much subsidized housing to go around, what with so many new refugees coming in every day. YESSSSSS, dispatch them to Montreal ! I for one need them: pack as many Muslim families you find there and send them here. In return I encourage you to take some Haitians, there are plenty in Mt. Maybe the liberals are creating a mess with mass immigration, but les imbeciles governing the Quebec province are worse. Edited February 3, 2020 by Modest Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted February 3, 2020 Report Posted February 3, 2020 13 hours ago, dialamah said: The religion you are referring to does not force women to wear anything, marry at 9, inherit less than half .... etc. Those are all choices made by some of the people who practice the religion. It's a choice for some, not a choice for others. Depends on which country and which adherents in that country. Even in Canada some women are forced to wear a niqab or hijab by their parents or spouses. Other women in Canada do have a choice. It all depends. But you're right, the religion itself is open to interpretation by the people who follow it. 1 Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Goddess Posted February 3, 2020 Report Posted February 3, 2020 https://tnc.news/2020/02/02/malcolm-canadas-borders-are-wide-open/?fbclid=IwAR3ZHmwAdjRtEYBuUbfC3MD9fUtv6ZagO-Al05yd9IpD5U42NRCxmUxwbsY Some interesting numbers in the above article. Quote Last year was the worst year on record for asylum claims. In 2019, Canada received 63,830 asylum applications from people who entered the country illegally or under false pretenses. This represents a 16% jump from 2018 when 55,040 claims were filed, and 27% more than in 2017 when Canada received 50,390 refugee applications. This represents a 400% annual increase in asylum claims since Justin Trudeau became prime minister. In fact, more asylum seekers submitted refugee applications from inside Canada in 2019 than in the final four years of Stephen Harper’s government. As reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, an independent investigative news organization based in Ottawa, there are currently 52,109 illegal immigrants in Canada with outstanding deportation orders. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the Trudeau government to deport these bogus asylum seekers. Canada only managed to deport 648 illegal immigrants last year, and only 495 the year before. 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Goddess Posted February 3, 2020 Report Posted February 3, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, dialamah said: The religion you are referring to does not force women to wear anything, marry at 9, inherit less than half .... etc. Those are all choices made by some of the people who practice the religion. For example, my Muslim sister owns the apartment she bought in Alexandria outright; her husband's name is not on it. She can will it to whomever she wants - even if it leaves him on the street, and if they divorce he gets none of it unless she chooses otherwise. My sister's stepdaughter is in her mid-20s, still not married. My sister is the only wife, not one of her husband's 4 brothers have more than one wife, and all of the daughters have graduated university before marriage for them has been considered. Your question would seek to exclude them, based only on the fact that they're Muslim, even though they'd fit very well with your 'cultural values'. Just like Christians, Muslims come in many different flavors and practices; your suggestion that asking someone if they follow a certain religion as a way of determining if they'd be a cultural fit for Canada is extremely discriminatory. But the disturbing fact is that Islam offers them the "choice" at all. Any time your BIL wants to - he can make a different choice - he can choose to force your sister to wear hijab, he can choose to take another wife or three, he can choose to beat her, he can choose to keep her trapped in the house. While it's lovely that he doesn't do those things - the fact is that Islam offers him that choice. Ask the many women who have married Middle Eastern men and had their children spirited away to Islamic countries where they are never seen or heard from again. Edited February 3, 2020 by Goddess 1 Quote "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
Marocc Posted February 3, 2020 Report Posted February 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, Goddess said: Any time your BIL wants to - he can make a different choice - he can choose to force your sister to wear hijab, he can choose to take another wife or three, he can choose to beat her, he can choose to keep her trapped in the house. While it's lovely that he doesn't do those things - the fact is that Islam offers him that choice. Where does it offer that choice? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.