Jump to content

Liberals to greatly increase immigration in coming years.


Argus

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I wouldn't ban Muslims!  The very thought!

I'm saying more Muslims choose not to ignore the awful parts of the holy books than practitioners of other religions. 

Are you saying that is not the case?

They are the same as others, except in number.  Then they are different.  There's just a lot more of them.

No I'm not.  I only claim to rebut claims that Muslims are inhuman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Don't worry. The numbers of Muslim-Canadian women wearing hijabs and burkas is rising steadily. Soon peer pressure will assure they all wear them.

I see a lot more Middle Eastern and Asian people wearing Western clothes, especially the younger ones who want to assimilate into the society of their friends rather than fulfill any cultural aspirations their parents might have for them. Your fears of cultural takeover are vastly overblown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you understand how Capitalism works?

Oh, the financial gurus. Okay, cite, please. I want to see the economic/demographic studies which say that Canada needs 400k immigrants in order to get by.

The truth is you don't know a bloody thing about economics or demographics or immigration. Nor have you ever bothered to look into it. You're convinced of your position because you've heard a few politicians say these things, or maybe read an editorial or two. But you've never actually looked into it yourself because questioning things is not your thing.

 

In my post, right in front of your eyes, it says capitalism needs cheap labour to work and if Canadians can't supply it, we have to rely on immigrants.

Once again, go ahead and tell actual capitalists your views and we'll see who doesn't know how capitalism works.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minnetonka said:

I see a lot more Middle Eastern and Asian people wearing Western clothes, especially the younger ones who want to assimilate into the society of their friends rather than fulfill any cultural aspirations their parents might have for them. Your fears of cultural takeover are vastly overblown.

Nevertheless, the polls say more are wearing religious garments. And no studies of any kind have been done with regard to how our culture would be impacted by importing so many foreigners in so short a time that half the population is foreign born. But honestly, how can that NOT have enormous influence on our culture and values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minnetonka said:

In my post, right in front of your eyes, it says capitalism needs cheap labour to work and if Canadians can't supply it, we have to rely on immigrants.

Once again, go ahead and tell actual capitalists your views and we'll see who doesn't know how capitalism works.

Not you, evidently. There is nothing in Capitalism which says it needs cheap labour to work. The cost of labour is a function of its scarcity. If there aren't enough people to drive taxis or skin fishes then employers have to raise the rates to attract enough. That's how Capitalism works. What employers in Canada do is short-circuit this function of capitalism by importing huge masses of foreign labour who will work cheaply and can be bullied more easily. This allows them to keep pay rates low.

Tell me, have you ever taken even a single economics course?

Edited by Argus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Minnetonka said:

In my post, right in front of your eyes, it says capitalism needs cheap labour to work and if Canadians can't supply it, we have to rely on immigrants.

Once again, go ahead and tell actual capitalists your views and we'll see who doesn't know how capitalism works.

I thought we were had very high standards for immigrants, such as wealth, education etc., according to the pro immigration members on this forum , these guys are not likely your fruit pickers in Ont . Now refugees are different story and even here there are standards...  reunification you might get some poorly education....

Besides I don't think we are going to have a problem once the cerb runs out and the tax man wants his taxes forcing Canadians that have been riding the system to  get really jobs   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I thought we were had very high standards for immigrants, such as wealth, education etc., according to the pro immigration members on this forum , these guys are not likely your fruit pickers in Ont . Now refugees are different story and even here there are standards...  reunification you might get some poorly education....

Besides I don't think we are going to have a problem once the cerb runs out and the tax man wants his taxes forcing Canadians that have been riding the system to  get really jobs   

Only 15-17% of our immigrants have to pass through the points system. The rest are sponsored, either by those self-same "skilled" immigrants, as spouses and kids (who still enter under the skilled category), or by them or other families afterward under the family class. Then there are the 50k and counting 'refugees' who just show up and hold their hand out for their welfare and apartment key. Trudeau has promised to increase the number of family class immigrants.

This is from a former head of Immigration Canada

In fact, only about 15 to 17 per cent of the annual flow consists of immigrants selected because they have skills, education and experience. Because of the pressure to get high numbers, few of these workers are seen or interviewed by visa officers. The selection is done by a paper review.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I thought we were had very high standards for immigrants, such as wealth, education etc., according to the pro immigration members on this forum , these guys are not likely your fruit pickers in Ont . Now refugees are different story and even here there are standards...  reunification you might get some poorly education....

We have a mix of immigrants. Canada, when compared to other Western countries, is renowned for having an extremely difficult immigration system to go through. This has been the case since Harper/Kenney implemented major changes into our system. Skilled worker applications, which make up a majority of our applications, go through a point system where people who are young, have post secondary education and have high English skills are able to make it through the competitive system. 

Step 1 - Meet the minimum requirement of one of the skilled worker programs and go into a pool called Express Entry
Step 2 - Sit in the pool and hope to be picked. Currently, there are around 150K applications in this pool and each month, 7-9K application are selected (and more replace them). Meaning that over 95% of applications that met the minimum requirement, will not be selected and have no chance.

The competition has created a situation where, someone without a job offer or Canadian work experience, must have at least a Master's degree, be under 30 years old, and have at least 9 (out of 12) in English/French, through IELTS/TEF, which are international language tests.

Of course, the main applicant's family can come into Canada as dependents.

Quote

Besides I don't think we are going to have a problem once the cerb runs out and the tax man wants his taxes forcing Canadians that have been riding the system to  get really jobs   

You will always have people who will find ways to take advantage of any system. 

As far as Canadian employers and the job opportunities in Canada, from my own experience, many companies, whether it's food processing plants, farms or high skilled workers, they really don't have anyone in Canada who are willing to take the jobs OR have the skills to do them. They not only have to show that they have advertised to find Canadians, but they are also bound by strict wage rules. They cannot pay the workers below the prevailing salary for that position. If they are caught breaking the law, there are heavy fines. Immigration Canada has put in processes to audit companies to make sure that their foreign worker, who they have sponsored, are being paid correctly. 

If I recall, you're from the east coast. From what you see, how are immigrants viewed? Are they looked at as stealing jobs? Lowering pay? Or are they seen as being a positive?

Edited by marcus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No I'm not.  I only claim to rebut claims that Muslims are inhuman.

Some of them are.  I believe I posted a picture of one recently.  Maybe in the other thread.  I don't think there should be a problem saying so if it's true. 

The problem lies in the line between the inhuman and the human.  What does one call a person who would never commit an inhuman act, but is happy to support those who do?  Even if it's only by opinion?  Not inhuman.  Some other disparaging term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Some of them are.  I believe I posted a picture of one recently.  Maybe in the other thread.  I don't think there should be a problem saying so if it's true. 

The problem lies in the line between the inhuman and the human.  What does one call a person who would never commit an inhuman act, but is happy to support those who do?  Even if it's only by opinion?  Not inhuman.  Some other disparaging term?

The other problem is in the fact Canada makes no distinction between the two, or for that matter, a Muslim who thinks they're both nuts. We do not ask. We do not care. If you hate Jews, if you think any woman who doesn't cover herself should bed raped, if you think gays should be imprisoned, if you want to overthrow western society and implement an Islamic state - it's all the same to us. We don't check and don't care when it comes to our immigrants. We don't even interview them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Some of them are.  I believe I posted a picture of one recently.  Maybe in the other thread.  I don't think there should be a problem saying so if it's true. 

The problem lies in the line between the inhuman and the human.  What does one call a person who would never commit an inhuman act, but is happy to support those who do?  Even if it's only by opinion?  Not inhuman.  Some other disparaging term?

What is inhuman to you?

Many find bombing a country indiscriminately where thousands of civilians are killed as collateral damage as inhuman. 

Are those who have supported military actions in other countries inhuman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, marcus said:

What is inhuman to you?

Many find bombing a country indiscriminately where thousands of civilians are killed as collateral damage as inhuman. 

Are those who have supported military actions in other countries inhuman?

Bombing a country indiscriminately would be inhuman.  Collateral damage when bombing an enemy while trying to mitigate that damage as much as possible would not be. 

As for support, like I said, it would be described as something other than inhuman.  It would depend on what they support. 

But now that you have that off your chest, what's your view of what I said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Bombing a country indiscriminately would be inhuman.  Collateral damage when bombing an enemy while trying to mitigate that damage as much as possible would not be. 

As for support, like I said, it would be described as something other than inhuman.  It would depend on what they support. 

But now that you have that off your chest, what's your view of what I said?

In one breath, you justify attacks committed by the West, like drone attacks, where a large number of those killed are civilians, as "oh well, collateral damage", and then you turn around and condemn a family member/countryman of those killed in the drone attack, who cheers a terrorist attack on the West.

That's called double standard.

I believe majority of the wars we have seen in our lifetime did not have to happen and they are inhuman. Pretty much all of these conflicts are not based on altruistic reasons.

I believe using collateral damage is an excuse to give your support a pass and inhuman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, marcus said:

In one breath, you justify attacks committed by the West, like drone attacks, where a large number of those killed are civilians, as "oh well, collateral damage", and then you turn around and condemn a family member/countryman of those killed in the drone attack, who cheers a terrorist attack on the West.

That's called double standard.

I believe majority of the wars we have seen in our lifetime did not have to happen and they are inhuman. Pretty much all of these conflicts are not based on altruistic reasons.

I believe using collateral damage is an excuse to give your support a pass and inhuman.

You do not condemn a family member/countryman of those killed in the drone attack, who cheers a terrorist attack on the West.  Me neither.  I think that would be understandable.  Just like anyone who has a family member killed in a terrorist attack would be okay to support the indiscriminate bombing of the country where the terrorist came from.  Lots of innocent people get killed either way, but violently losing a loved one does that.

What about what I said though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You do not condemn a family member/countryman of those killed in the drone attack, who cheers a terrorist attack on the West.  Me neither.  I think that would be understandable.  Just like anyone who has a family member killed in a terrorist attack would be okay to support the indiscriminate bombing of the country where the terrorist came from.  Lots of innocent people get killed either way, but violently losing a loved one does that.

What about what I said though?

Who said I don't?

I don't have to pick a side. I am just trying to show you that you are no different than the person who cheers on a terrorist attack. At the end, you are both justifying the death of innocent people.

I condemn the cycle of violence.

Edited by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, marcus said:

Who said I don't?

I don't have to pick a side. I am just trying to show you that you are no different than the person who cheers on a terrorist attack

I condemn the cycle of violence.

I would have to differ with you there.  I would never cheer on a terrorist attack.  I would understand those who have lost loved ones condoning a violent response. 

I would not understand those who are upset with a cartoon condoning a violent response.  How about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would have to differ with you there.  I would never cheer on a terrorist attack.  I would understand those who have lost loved ones condoning a violent response. 

So you are okay with people who cheered the 911 attack, or other attacks, who were, one way or another effected by West's attack on their country and people.

Quote

I would not understand those who are upset with a cartoon condoning a violent response.  How about you?

Obviously that is ridiculous.

I have no time for idiots who whine about and get so angry about cartoons. 

Then you have some fxckhead who are willing to kill someone because of it... damn... Please fxck off.

People are easily insulted and are looking for excuses to feel insulted.

I'm going to stop talking about this topic. We're derailing the subject. Sort of.

Edited by marcus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, marcus said:

So you are okay with people who cheered the 911 attack, or other attacks, who were, one way or another effected by West's attack on their country and people.

No.  I would understand someone who violently lost a loved one in the west's attacks on their country and their people cheering it on though.  I would understand someone who lost a loved one in the 911 attack, or other attacks, cheering on indiscriminate attacks on Muslims.  I would condone neither, of course.

34 minutes ago, marcus said:

Obviously that is ridiculous.

I have no time for idiots who whine about and get so angry about cartoons. 

Then you have some fxckhead who are willing to kill someone because of it... damn... Please fxck off.

People are easily insulted and are looking for excuses to feel insulted.

I'm going to stop talking about this topic. We're derailing the subject. Sort of.

Actually we just got back on to it.  The post of mine that you initially responded to was about whether or not it was okay to say what you just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No.  I would understand someone who violently lost a loved one in the west's attacks on their country and their people cheering it on though.  I would understand someone who lost a loved one in the 911 attack, or other attacks, cheering on indiscriminate attacks on Muslims.  I would condone neither, of course.

Actually we just got back on to it.  The post of mine that you initially responded to was about whether or not it was okay to say what you just said.

Great. Common ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, marcus said:

We have a mix of immigrants. Canada, when compared to other Western countries, is renowned for having an extremely difficult immigration system to go through. This has been the case since Harper/Kenney implemented major changes into our system. Skilled worker applications, which make up a majority of our applications, go through a point system where people who are young, have post secondary education and have high English skills are able to make it through the competitive system. 

Step 1 - Meet the minimum requirement of one of the skilled worker programs and go into a pool called Express Entry
Step 2 - Sit in the pool and hope to be picked. Currently, there are around 150K applications in this pool and each month, 7-9K application are selected (and more replace them). Meaning that over 95% of applications that met the minimum requirement, will not be selected and have no chance.

The competition has created a situation where, someone without a job offer or Canadian work experience, must have at least a Master's degree, be under 30 years old, and have at least 9 (out of 12) in English/French, through IELTS/TEF, which are international language tests.

Of course, the main applicant's family can come into Canada as dependents.

You will always have people who will find ways to take advantage of any system. 

As far as Canadian employers and the job opportunities in Canada, from my own experience, many companies, whether it's food processing plants, farms or high skilled workers, they really don't have anyone in Canada who are willing to take the jobs OR have the skills to do them. They not only have to show that they have advertised to find Canadians, but they are also bound by strict wage rules. They cannot pay the workers below the prevailing salary for that position. If they are caught breaking the law, there are heavy fines. Immigration Canada has put in processes to audit companies to make sure that their foreign worker, who they have sponsored, are being paid correctly. 

If I recall, you're from the east coast. From what you see, how are immigrants viewed? Are they looked at as stealing jobs? Lowering pay? Or are they seen as being a positive?

The Maritimes had a shaky start with our Syrian/ Asian  immigrants/ refugees, and there was problems on all sides, problems with the language, some refusing, and most of the teachers were women which created another problem that may have reached the main stream media.

We rarely have immigrants here, until a few years ago, so to counter problems that big cities have already solved was a huge learning curve for both sides here...yes there was problems on both sides with racism and there still is a few hardcore cases on both sides. Religion was one , finding them a space to get set up was one, they did not have the funding for a mosque, so they converted some large homes...which caused parking problems which increase tensions. . like i said lots of red necks... Small issues...

i don't think there are here forever, once they get a chance they'll leave. lack of jobs and opportunities is one of the biggest drivers, red necks and lack of government funding for business etc are another.   I don't have an issue with them stealing jobs, a lot of people here take advantage of the system, meaning poggy, or welfare, to lazy to get off their asses and work, and it's generational,  dad was on welfare , kids are on welfare, their kids will be on welfare.  their not lowering pay that i know off, average income is about 36,000 a year .... are they seen as positive by the majority, I'd say its neutral, we have an over abundance of rednecks here that do not like change so that will be with us for years to come... 

Maritimes is a hard place to thrive, let alone when your an outsider, you won't find to many million dollars homes here, i think you could buy NB for a million... Most of the people are good , honest, hard working,  but a lot of them struggle to make ends meet 

All that being said many people do not agree with our current immigration policies, me included.  Argus does not paint it very favorable picture which is some what how i see it... I still think there is other alteratives out there, but it is going to take some major investment.   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Army Guy said:


i don't think there are here forever, once they get a chance they'll leave. lack of jobs and opportunities is one of the biggest drivers, red necks and lack of government funding for business etc are another. 

Couple of comments:  "lack of GOVERNMENT funding for business"?!?!?!   Surely, you have to be kidding.  Government has no business sticking its nose anywhere near business.  And business has no business sucking up government frigging welfare.  MARKETS choose winners and losers, not bureaucrats.

First generation newly arrived might leave, but they might stay.  In my experience, you can't really expect them to do much adapting, but similarly, many second generation immigrants seem to be motivated by their parents to become very successful.  Of course, when success if measured by being a better gangster or drug dealer, Canada doesn't exactly win (courtesy of more than just Sunny Ways immigration free-for-all) but choosing the right immigrants can indeed be a good thing.   Just not a half million a year of them!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2020 at 3:09 PM, Argus said:

Not you, evidently. There is nothing in Capitalism which says it needs cheap labour to work. The cost of labour is a function of its scarcity. If there aren't enough people to drive taxis or skin fishes then employers have to raise the rates to attract enough. That's how Capitalism works. What employers in Canada do is short-circuit this function of capitalism by importing huge masses of foreign labour who will work cheaply and can be bullied more easily. This allows them to keep pay rates low.

Tell me, have you ever taken even a single economics course?

It's interesting how people don't understand this. 

I don't know your opinion on minimum wage but if all business is required to pay at least this amount the economy will adjust. Why isn't minimum wage tied to inflation? 

TFWs make minimum wage (less in some circumstances, way less in a few), they pay their taxes and living expenses then send the rest home, how does that help our economy? 

A side note... If we need to import so much foreign talent, ambition and money what does that tell us about how we are raising the next generation worker? To me it seems we are not doing a very good job, we should be ashamed of ourselves. What is so bad about starting at the bottom and working up? 

Another thought... If a hamburger at McDonald's costs twenty bucks is that really a bad thing? We are constantly told fast food is bad for us maybe that would make it a luxury we can only afford on special occasions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...