Increased Immigration not needed, will hurt workers

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why would it matter if no laws are being broken, and no-one is getting hurt?

It matters if you support the idea of a cohesive society rather than a gathering of separate tribes with separate beliefs, values and customs.

[Guest]

Just now, Argus said:

It matters if you support the idea of a cohesive society rather than a gathering of separate tribes with separate beliefs, values and customs.

Not really.  Another place of worship or mode of dress isn't going to make any difference.  (Always assuming the mode of dress is a choice)

The trick is to get everyone to buy into the laws, not the customs.  If your customs fall within the boundaries set by the laws, then I don't care.  And I don't even agree with all the laws. 

[dialamah]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

https://unherd.com/2021/03/europes-guilty-conscience/

Thanks for that.  She is apparently getting her information from Professor Ruud Koopmans, so I clicked on that link.  In the interview, Professor Koopmans puts the emphasize on religiosity, not specifically Islam, as making it more difficult for a group to assimilate; given that Muslims are pretty religious and are moving in significant numbers into Western countries, his comments focus on them. 

He also points out that it is the radicals who are in the news, and that their activity in demanding ever more "rights" actually harms their group.  Nowhere in the interview did he mention Lebanese Christians vs. Lebanese, but maybe that's in the book which I did not read.

Anyway, I agree with much of what he says.  The reason is I can agree with him in his criticism of Islam/Muslims is that nowhere in the interview (or presumably in the book) does he broad brush Muslims as being barbaric and unfit for Western countries.  He points out the following:

Quote

 

Of utmost importance is that there are many Islams. Just like in Christianity [or any other religion], there are many ways in which you can interpret and live a religion. 

[Historically,] Islamic societies were actually more advanced, more liberal, and more tolerant than Western societies. So, there is nothing intrinsic to Islam that explains these problems. 

It is not Islam as such but Islamic fundamentalism that has recently risen. That is the core of the problem. That’s the message of the book.

 

Oh, and in my opinion, Ms. Ali is playing her own version of the "Misunderstanding Game".  

But I'm happy to have made the acquaintance of Professor Koopman.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

our alleging Christianity is the same as Islam is a twisting of truth to a extreme extent.  I have no way of knowing what Christians do in places like Africa, but Biblical Christianity is the total opposite of what you claim.  Biblical Christianity does not practice polygamy, honour killings, or persecution of gays. 

Well, that's not really what I'm alleging, but whatever.

The vast majority of Muslims deny that terrorism is an acceptable part of Islam.  The vast majority of Muslims deny that murder is an acceptable part of Islam, whether murdering a non-believer, a gay person or a disobedient daughter.  Still, people around the world, mostly non-Muslims, insist that it is part of Islam.

You can claim that "biblical Christianity" doesn't allow for things Christians in Africa do, and I'm happy to believe you.  Still, the people in Africa who follow Christianity find support in their scripture for whatever it is they do that you disagree with.   You all have the same label, and as a non-believer, I can prefer your version of Christianity - but you all believe in the same God and use the same book to define your religion, so you are all Christians.   

 

Christians and Muslims, btw, believe in the same prophets - other than Mohammed.  Islam gives less importance to JC, but he is still among their top personages.  Both Christians and Muslims believe (and practice to varying degrees) in female submission to male.  Modest dress, honoring of parents, disapproval of homosexuality, abortion and divorce are all mainstays of both Islam and Christianity.  The degree to which any of that is practiced is dictated by many things, including the society in which an individual lives.  You live in a secular country; consequently, your Christianity is watered down considerably from the extremism of, for example, burning witches and torturing and killing non-believers or heretics.  Most Muslims live in areas that are still very religious and so they do, of course, have more fundamental beliefs - with some of them taking it to extremes through murder.  

The progression of the world to more rights, freedoms and safety for everyone comes about through secularism, not religion.  

[dialamah]

56 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not really.  Another place of worship or mode of dress isn't going to make any difference.  (Always assuming the mode of dress is a choice)

The trick is to get everyone to buy into the laws, not the customs.  If your customs fall within the boundaries set by the laws, then I don't care.  And I don't even agree with all the laws. 

I agree.  If a Muslim/Christian/animist subjects their daughter to FGM - in country or not - they should be arrested, charged and go to jail.  If a Muslim/Christian/atheist engages in incest, pedophilia or an honor killing, they should be arrested, charged and go to jail.  Etc.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Muslim women do not have the right to deny their husbands. 

Are you sure about that?  Having female Muslim relatives and friends, that does not seem to be the case for them. 

Now sure, there are no doubt Muslim men who expect that women give them sex on demand and become violent if denied; there are also Christian men and non-religious men who do the same.  As a matter of fact, that attitude seems pretty common among men of every color and creed.   Even in Canada marital rape was legal until 1983; as recently as 2017 the courts  failed to hold a man who raped his wife accountable.  

Quote

In R. v. H.E., an Ottawa man was acquitted of sexually assaulting his wife. Justice Robert J. Smith found that "the accused probably had sex with his wife on many occasions without her specific consent, as both he and she believed that he had the right to do so." With respect to the incident that led to criminal charges, however, the complainant testified she had told the accused to stop several times, and the judge found her to be credible. 

 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Bible believing Christians are actually in a minority which is another thing to consider.  But you don't distinguish. 

I believe I've already noted that I prefer your version of Christianity over that prevalent in Africa or the Middle East.  But just to clear something up, I don't like Islam either.  As far as I am concerned, religion is problematic in creating a society of equality, tolerance and acceptance.

Nonetheless, I have friends who are religious, very devoutly religious.  My personal feelings about religion in general do not translate to disliking every religious person in the world.  The religious friends I have are tolerant and they do not insist that everyone else in the world must believe as they do.  They are accepting of different views and opinions, even mine.    

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

But you don't distinguish.  In your mind they are all bad. 

I don't know about you particularly, but many people do that with Muslims.  They say "they are all the same" and fail to differentiate.  Is that ok with you?  

Edited March 7, 2021 by dialamah

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

My support for my 'tribe' is predicated on my not wanting it to be overrun by people with barbarous cultures and values. Unlike you, I have no confidence such people will come here and immediately abandon the values of their homelands when those values are so heavily reinforced and often originate in their religion.

Where have I ever said they "immediately" abandon their cultural beliefs?   I repeat, endlessly, *over time*, about 3 generations.  Can you at least try some honesty, now and then?  Or would that break your bubble too hard?

Edited March 7, 2021 by dialamah

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Going to a mosque or wearing a hijab doesn't necessarily mean they are extremists, but it does mean they reject our western or Judeo-Christian culture.

Heck, I reject our "Judeo-Christian" culture, mostly because the "Christians" and conservatives (whether calling themselves liberal or conservative) have fought against virtually every progressive policy that Canada has tried to implement.  But once its done, it's pretty funny to then have them take pride in our progressive country, while slamming Muslims and others who come from countries they don't like for believing exactly the same as they did 20 or 40 years ago.

And seriously, thinking what someone wears means they reject an entire society is ridiculous.  If even you thought that was true, you'd object to Nuns wearing habits, Mennonite women and girls wearing long dresses and sunhats, or Buddhists wearing those robes they like.  The claim that a hijab-wearing woman is rejecting Canadian cultures is just one more excuse to hate-on Muslims.

Edited March 7, 2021 by dialamah

[dialamah]

It's been fun guys, but this is supposed to be about immigration generally, not Muslims in particular.  Plus I have a life that doesn't include hours on forums, so I shall bid you adieu for now.

As to topic at hand, I still don't have a strong opinion on whether Canada needs more immigrants or less.  I have a stronger opinion on how Canada should support immigrants who come to our country; in my opinion, this is where we fail.  If we are bringing in health care professionals, engineers, etc., there should be an easy and inexpensive way for them to upgrade their certifications to Canadian standards.  Otherwise, they are underemployed and whatever benefit they may be to the society and the economy is undermined.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Why would it matter if no laws are being broken, and no-one is getting hurt?

Because our Western values didn't separate church and state, silly.  This is why the head of the Canadian Christian Church is also the Prime Minister !

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Why would it matter if no laws are being broken, and no-one is getting hurt?

Having a mindset against our western culture means they will vote Liberal, left, or Marxist and support anti-Christian, anti-west, anti-Israel, anti-American, and possibly pro-Sharia laws and practices.

[blackbird]

55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Heck, I reject our "Judeo-Christian" culture, mostly because the "Christians" and conservatives (whether calling themselves liberal or conservative) have fought against virtually every progressive policy that Canada has tried to implement.  But once its done, it's pretty funny to then have them take pride in our progressive country, while slamming Muslims and others who come from countries they don't like for believing exactly the same as they did 20 or 40 years ago.

And seriously, thinking what someone wears means they reject an entire society is ridiculous.  If even you thought that was true, you'd object to Nuns wearing habits, Mennonite women and girls wearing long dresses and sunhats, or Buddhists wearing those robes they like.  The claim that a hijab-wearing woman is rejecting Canadian cultures is just one more excuse to hate-on Muslims.

There is a difference.  Islam is very demanding and want to take over once they get in large enough numbers.  Liberals and left especially removed any remnants of Christianity from public schools 40 years ago and said we couldn't have religion in schools because schools should be secular.  Liberals and left want to be the first in the world to be "progressive" which means being against tradition families, against Christianity, and supporting same-sex marriage, medical assistance in dying, abortion on demand and being soft on crime.   A guy in B.C. was recently given 5 months in prison for killing a 20 year old girl with his car; an absurd sentence.  Liberals let criminals out who have gone on to kill people. There is perverse law and order and no public safety under Liberals.   Canada is becoming a heathen nation.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

But just to clear something up, I don't like Islam either.  As far as I am concerned, religion is problematic in creating a society of equality, tolerance and acceptance.

On this one point, we can agree.  I find moderately religious people almost everywhere share the same moderate points of view and levels of tolerance.   The problem comes with those who are fundamentalist anything.  In my travels, I have found those in most Islamic countries to be exceedingly tolerant...IF you are not challenging their beliefs and customs directly.  It was always told to me that THIS was the "true Islam" and those people soundly reject fundamentalists.  I was also taught by one of my closest friends (who is a Qur'anic scholar) exactly WHERE and HOW this part of interpretation of Mohammed's words led to Wahhabism and modern day KSA.   BTW: he also points out that the ACTUAL words of the qur'an required to listen to ALL of the prophets equally, and that JC is mentioned far more than any other in the literature of the time.  The Wahhabists consider ONLY the words of Mohammed.

It is all confusing to me, as I can't tolerate ANY of these religious fairy tales.  BUT: I DO condone their overall message of good faith towards others.

[Right To Left]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

So let me see if I get your... thinking, right, if I can use that adjective. Immigrants hold down wages and so the 'common louts' are 'knuckle draggers for opposing immigration. Is that it?

Because by your 'logic' those common types are absolutely right to oppose immigration.

 

Yes.....if you eliminate every step in between to reach a conclusion!

Problem is the employers...aka the bourgeoise know full well that if there are hundreds of people standing outside of the temp employment office early in the morning, they have lots of men and women who are desperate for work, and will not be in any position to negotiate for better wages!

Now, the problem with rightwing knuckle draggers starts with their resentment and loathing of the immigrant and YES refugee who has snuck in through border defenses to try to start a new life in a new land so they can earn enough money for their family members stuck in some hellhole that's more often than not, a victim of US foreign policy regardless of whether a D or an R is in charge! 

Sure, it's ironic that someone (and I know and have talked to a few) who arrived in the US as refugees from the murderous genocide against Mayans in Northwest Guatemala that the CIA presided over back in the  80's.....and yet for some reason, kept going north....through Mexico and across the US border and somehow much later, were naturalized as legal Canadian immigrants-then citizens of Canada. Same story for many who fled other Central American hellholes!  Worth noting that the socialist countries (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba) don't produce massive refugee outflows except those forced out  when rightwing death squads are operating. But Ahmurika doesn't want to allow the threat of a good example leading peasants astray in their economic colonies. So they establish and increase economic sanctions warfare to try to destroy living standards in countries that are socialist....and even slightly left but not fully cooperating with the demands of foreign capital looking for resources to plunder and exploit....Bolivia, Ecuador.

[Right To Left]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

Which is something the Arab world is most DEFINITELY not known for.

How much do you actually know or understand about the Middle East? The problem of ethnic cleansing and civil wars did not occur until the Brits and the US started establishing proxy colonial regimes in the Arab World. In Arabia, Egypt, Syria, that meant fighting republican movements that rose up when Arabs under the thumb of the Turkish dominated Ottoman Empire, and instead trying to force them under the thumb of the most extreme Islamic authoritarians - Ibn Saud (received his tanks and heavy guns directly from the British at the close of WWI, and creating monarchs like King Farouk).

Especially as the extent of the Arabian Peninsula's oil wealth was being assessed after the Great War, it was realized that favoring and forcing Arabs under the rulership of the Saud warlords meant that England and America would have a useful tool who would always be dependent on his foreign infidel "friends" to stay in power.

Think of it every time one of you rightwingers starts blathering on about fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism anywhere! 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Having a mindset against our western culture means they will vote Liberal, left, or Marxist and support anti-Christian, anti-west, anti-Israel, anti-American, and possibly pro-Sharia laws and practices.

They can vote what they want.  I don't think much of your western culture if there are pro-Sharia laws and practices they can vote for.  As for anti Christian, I've been here quite a while and I would probably vote for those.  Just the ones that involve controlling others though.

[blackbird]

23 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

Like I said, what I don't understand is why the men of these countries would want woman to have their clitoreses removed. It sounds like a great way to have their wives lose interests in sex, so they're end up with blue balls.

If you are an immigrant from Syria,  how is it you seem to speak perfect English on here?

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

If people object to Muslims bringing these kind of anti-Canadian values to Canada, then they should also be objecting to Christians bringing those values to Canada.  

But they don't because the goal isn't to protect Canada from anti-Canadian values, its to demonize Muslims.

Well yes anyone bringing these values to Canada should be criticized regardless of religion.  It should be illegal.  I don't know if it is in Canada, but it should be.  You don't need to be a fundamentalist Muslim to want to control women or cut off her lady bits, that's for sure.

For me, I don't give beliefs special treatment whether they are religious or not.  Bad ideas are bad ideas.  People's bad ideas or cultural practices don't get a free pass just because they are "religious" or not.  Canada used to not let women vote and not let them divorce, those were bad ideas too.

[Moonlight Graham]

23 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

Like I said, what I don't understand is why the men of these countries would want woman to have their clitoreses removed. It sounds like a great way to have their wives lose interests in sex, so they're end up with blue balls.

Some men don't care if their wives are interested in sex.  Some men will have sex with their wives no matter if they really want it or not, therefore don't care if their wives get pleasure.  Some men are very controlling and rape their wives.

Talk to women from 3rd world countries and you will hear some terrible stories from some of them.  The concept of equality among the sexes does not exist in some cultures.  They're 50 to 100 years behind us on that front.

[Moonlight Graham]

You can be tolerant of other beliefs, up until a point.  Go look at France, and to an extent Britain, there are certain points where you have to stand up for our basic constitutional human rights against people from other countries who refuse to abide by them and will even murder people over free speech.  Charlie Hebdo is an example.  Blasphemy should never, ever be a death sentence, but we all know that it is in certain countries even under the law.

If you want to wear a hijab i don't care, because it's harmless.  If you want to cut off the clitoris of your wife/daughter or murder someone over some cartoons you have crossed the line, and you need to follow the local laws or else go to jail, or go back to your country of origin.  It's that simple.  When you move to a new country you required to follow the local laws.  If a Canadian woman moved to Saudi Arabia she wouldn't be allowed to go topless there, and she should respect those laws too.  If someone wants to change a law, you do it through the democratic process.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Right To Left said:

How much do you actually know or understand about the Middle East? The problem of ethnic cleansing and civil wars did not occur until the Brits and the US started establishing proxy colonial regimes in the Arab World.

Yeah... bullshit. Islam grew BY ethnic cleansing, by the sword. Whole countries had their populations wiped out or made to flee. That's why places like Turkey are Muslim now after being Christian for a thousand years. Ethnic cleansing? Have a look into the centuries of Arab attacks into the Indian sub-continent, and the wanton slaughter they engaged in there because the people were regarded as infidels.

[Argus]

21 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Yes.....if you eliminate every step in between to reach a conclusion!

Problem is the employers...aka the bourgeoise know full well that if there are hundreds of people standing outside of the temp employment office early in the morning, they have lots of men and women who are desperate for work, and will not be in any position to negotiate for better wages!

Indeed. Capitalism regulates wages in that manner. Increase supply and prices go down. Increase demand and prices go up. Has nothing to do with the 'bourgeoise' or greed.

21 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Now, the problem with rightwing knuckle draggers starts with their resentment and loathing of the immigrant and YES refugee who has snuck in through border defenses to try to start a new life in a new land so they can earn enough money for their family members stuck in some hellhole that's more often than not, a victim of US foreign policy regardless of whether a D or an R is in charge! 

I don't resent people who come here to earn a better life. I'd try to do the same if I were in the middle east. However, from my perspective, what many of these people are to me are unskilled labour, people who will be unlikely to ever earn enough money to be capable of contributing to the national fisc because of our progressive tax system. Which means people like me will have to pay for their health care and other government services, including the roads they will drive on or the public transit they will use, including their children's schooling, and THEIR health care. I don't need more poor, noon-contributing citizens here always voting for whichever political party offers them more free stuff, thanks.

 

 

[Argus]

21 hours ago, cannuck said:

  In my travels, I have found those in most Islamic countries to be exceedingly tolerant...IF you are not challenging their beliefs and customs directly.

Right. Lot of gay rights parades in the Islamic world? Lot of gay bars? Can you name one Islamic country where non-Muslims have the same rights as Muslim? Or one where women have the same rights as men?

Blaspheme - and an ignorant foreigner can do that by accident given their sensitivity - can be beaten to death on the street, burned, or arrested by the government. Atheism is illegal.

The Koran is an all-encompassing political and cultural philosophy which deals with every aspect of life. It's almost impossible for a non-Muslm to NOT find themselves going against some of its requirements.

[dialamah]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Islam grew BY ethnic cleansing, by the sword. Whole countries had their populations wiped out or made to flee.

Kinda like Europeans and Native North Americans; we were stronger and more advanced, so of course we'd take over, as you've explained previously.  This is as natural as the tribalism that results in persecution of minorities, which you also support.  So why hate on Islam for doing exactly what you praise and support for Europeans?  

Edited March 9, 2021 by dialamah