Increased Immigration not needed, will hurt workers

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

 

It is a very small minority of the population who base their voting on wanting more immigration and would stop voting for a party if the party made its stand on immigration stricter.

Unfortunately there is no party with a real chance of being elected to government who dares to address issues related to immigration. Which major party wishes to cut down immigration in less than half and be more selective on immigrants? to save Canada from being swamped by backward medieval  cultures.

Edited March 6, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[AntiConservative]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

And I'd dump the brainless leftoids who hate their country and see our immigration system as yet another opportunity to virtue signal about how noble they are.

Defending people against persecution isn't hating their country. They're actually defending the values that make Canada so great. You're worried about seeing people who have a different skin colour in shopping malls. Well I got news for you. Their DNA is almost exactly like yours. They just happen to have a different skin colour, like dogs have different types of fur. No one is making a big deal over black or white dogs. To most people their just Dogs! So why can't humans treat themselves the same way? I judge people by their character. I know very nice white people, and I know very nice brown people. I know very scary white people, and I know very scary brown people. I've met good people who go to church, and i've met cult-like Christians. I've met good people who go to the Mosque's, and i've met idiots who preach Sharia law. It's time to judge people on the content of their character, instead of the colour of their skin, or their religious background.

Don't act like brown people are invading Canada. I've been to Cusco, Ecuador. The colonial district is full of white people. If you visit certain parts of Central America, there're large clustors of white people buying up property. We live in a differnt world now, and people should be able to enjoy moving to different countries. Treat people how you want to be treated. If you go on vaccation to South America, do you want everyone calling you Gringo, or do you want strangers happy to spark up a conversation with you?

I moved to Canada from Syria. You people keep calling it a shithole. Does this look like a shithole to you?

Edited March 6, 2021 by AntiConservative

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

And I'd dump the brainless leftoids who hate their country and see our immigration system as yet another opportunity to virtue signal about how noble they are.

Ok - here's a question, and this is more about how YOU think than about the topic so I apologize in advanced.  But if a lefty whose values you disagree with put a lot of thought into immigration and came up with an opinion that WASN'T virtue signalling - would you respect that ?  I mean - they are following the democratic process as it was designed, right ?  Weighing the facts, and so on ?

Bonus question:  what if they used values you DISAGREE with, and weighed the option to come up with a conclusion that you AGREE with?  Like Dr. Suzuki determining that because Canadians emit more CO2 per capita from consumption, he would like to decrease our population.

[Michael Hardner]

On 3/1/2021 at 11:32 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I'm ok with modest immigration.  Not 400k a year though, and not during a pandemic where it's hard to get a job or start a business.

That sounds reasonable as a response to the current situation.  

Also, I am open to a true open discussion on immigration as a means to establish a new public forum to weigh complicated questions.  It would be interesting to see a democracy that could actually debate a complex topic without resorting to emotional whinging and yelling, but still holding to values.

[dialamah]

16 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Unfortunately there is no party with a real chance of being elected to government who dares to address issues related to immigration. Which major party wishes to cut down immigration in less than half

What are the issue 'related to immigration'; Argus says it's crime and umm ... driving down wages, I think?   No doubt some would agree with him, yet the evidence contradicting those claims is pretty strong IMO.  

Japan, pretty famous for it's very limited immigration policy, realized that it's aging population and decreasing birth rate would result in not enough workers to sustain the economy, and has begun changing it's policies to allow immigration.  Canada also has an aging population, and decreasing birth rate; why would it be exempt from suffering economically if there were not enough workers to sustain the economy?

Argus claims that we let in too many 'unskilled' workers; facts demonstrate otherwise.  Canada's immigration policy focuses on skilled workers, with good English or French skills.   Eighty percent of these immigrants are working within 6 months.  Refugees and perhaps family members may be less likely to become employed, but even most refugees get jobs.  

Argus thinks that we should only let people in who share our "values"; ie. Western Europeans.  But I don't think there are enough "Western Europeans" who want to move to Canada to offset the effects of our declining birthrate and aging population.  

16 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

and be more selective on immigrants? to save Canada from being swamped by backward medieval  cultures.

Again, this is pure ignorance talking, fueled by xenophobes and racists.  In terms of values and lifestyle, immigrants take on those of their host country.   Within about three generations, the 'immigrant' has become essentially indistinguishable from Canadians with several generations behind them.  In addition, people who willingly leave their home to come to a new country are the least likely to hold medieval cultural beliefs.

Anyway, my neighbor, who wears modest clothing (long dresses) and a hijab when out of the house would make xenophobe's hair stand on end in fear and loathing.   Neither she nor her husband attend Mosque, and they could care less about other people's sexual or marital behavior, what they believe or what God they worship.  They are more tolerant and less hate-filled than than the xenophobes that are triggered just by seeing them in public.  Who wouldn't rather have a tolerant neighbor than an intolerant one, regardless of religion, skin color or ancestry?

Now personally, I think Canada could do a much better job in terms of immigration.  While we are on the right track with focusing on 'skilled' immigrants, we fail to offer a way in which these skilled workers can easily bring their certifications up to Canadian Standards.  So we get people, highly trained, but lacking Canadian Certifications, taking low-paying and low skill jobs.

Dismissing support for immigration and immigrants as virtue signaling is the only way xenophobes can discredit "leftists", since they can't actually do it with facts and evidence.

Edited March 6, 2021 by dialamah

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

Defending people against persecution isn't hating their country. They're actually defending the values that make Canada so great. You're worried about seeing people who have a different skin colour in shopping malls. Well I got news for you. Their DNA is almost exactly like yours. They just happen to have a different skin colour, like dogs have different types of fur. No one is making a big deal over black or white dogs. To most people their just Dogs! So why can't humans treat themselves the same way? I judge people by their character. I know very nice white people, and I know very nice brown people. I know very scary white people, and I know very scary brown people. I've met good people who go to church, and i've met cult-like Christians. I've met good people who go to the Mosque's, and i've met idiots who preach Sharia law. It's time to judge people on the content of their character, instead of the colour of their skin, or their religious background.

Don't act like brown people are invading Canada. I've been to Cusco, Ecuador. The colonial district is full of white people. If you visit certain parts of Central America, there're large clustors of white people buying up property. We live in a differnt world now, and people should be able to enjoy moving to different countries. Treat people how you want to be treated. If you go on vaccation to South America, do you want everyone calling you Gringo, or do you want strangers happy to spark up a conversation with you?

I moved to Canada from Syria. You people keep calling it a shithole. Does this look like a shithole to you?

Since you're anti-Conservative, I assume that means you disagreed with the Conservative's preference to bring in more religious minorities and Christians as refugees instead of all Muslim refugees as Trudeau preferred to do.  Did you know that in Islamic countries, it is the religious minorities that are the ones who are persecuted?  In fact, large numbers of Christians are being killed in different countries around the world constantly.  They are the real refugees, not the majority religions.  Canada was founded and built as a Christian nation.   

Edited March 6, 2021 by blackbird

[dialamah]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

And I'd dump the brainless leftoids who hate their country and see our immigration system as yet another opportunity to virtue signal about how noble they are.

Why are you so scared, Argus?

[Shady]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Why are you so scared, Argus?

Why do you beat your children?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Shady said:

Why do you beat your children?

Because the little bastards won't do as they're told!

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

Why do you beat your children?

Domestic violence is not limited to immigrants. Significant number of Canadian born also beat up their wives or children. It is true that percentagewise it may be higher among recent immigrants, however, the way you say it like all immigrants abusing their wives, beating their children and no Canadian born does that is false at best and a lie at worst.

Edited March 6, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

 

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

What are the issue 'related to immigration'; Argus says it's crime and umm ... driving down wages, I think?   No doubt 

Again, this is pure ignorance talking, fueled by xenophobes and racists.  In terms of values and lifestyle, immigrants take on those of their host country.   Within about three generations, the 'immigrant' has become essentially indistinguishable from Canadians with several generations behind them.  In addition, people who willingly leave their home to come to a new country are the least likely to hold medieval cultural beliefs.

 

Please read my posts in this thread before throwing insults. In my response to Argus i basically in a broader way said the same things!!!!!!

That said there are many in those regions who culturally are backwards who still get through and come over or our immigration policy needs changing and become more selective. You can't possibly deny that most men  in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan or Pakistan just as a few are not respectful of Women or do not believe in women's choice or equal rights or tolerance of other religions examples do you? If you do then you are in denial.

19 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is true that a bad proportion of the population in that region may be as you described but you are totally incorrect to say almost every one. Those who plan to immigrate are the elite and mostly educated and not religious. In addition some countries more advanced than others. Middle east is not summarized in backward dictatorships like Saudi Arabia or Arab Emirates or Kuwait but there are some countries with more progressive people like Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia. You deprive them of a chance of better life and to escape from the culture they may not like or agree with.

Don't take away a chance of freedom and equality from a suppressed woman  who may be forced to wear hijab or happiness from a young man who may hate the culture with dreams of better life just because they happened to be born there. It is not like they had a choice. We owe it not to them but to humanity and basic moral principals and standards.

Edited March 6, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

19 hours ago, -TSS- said:

I guess it must be the case in Canada as well with people who vote for the Liberals but in America with the Democrat-voters most of them are not that keen on immigration but they just don't consider the issue of immigration as a big deal like many other issues.

It is a very small minority of the population who base their voting on wanting more immigration and would stop voting for a party if the party made its stand on immigration stricter.

That's pretty much exactly it here too. The polls tell us the majority of Canadians want less immigration. Almost none wanted more. And yet the Liberals increased immigration and the Conservatives are fine with that. This is because neither figures they'll lose much by supporting more immigration since most people don't base their vote on that. And they get to target demographic groups while avoiding accusations they're 'xenophobic' or 'racist' which anyone who disagrees with mass immigration inevitably draws.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

Defending people against persecution isn't hating their country.

What has immigration got to do with defending people against persecution? Nothing. Our immigration system has no such ambition. You are thinking about the refugee program.

15 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

You're worried about seeing people who have a different skin colour in shopping malls. Well I got news for you. Their DNA is almost exactly like yours.

I already pointed out to you that this is untrue. You didn't even address that point so I'll assume either you lack the honesty or intelligence to do so.

15 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

They just happen to have a different skin colour, like dogs have different types of fur.

Except these dogs have a distressing habit of going rabid and attacking people around them. Not to mention too many of them aren't housebroken and tend to crap on the floor.

15 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

I moved to Canada from Syria. You people keep calling it a shithole. Does this look like a shithole to you?

Syria is not a shithole because of the geography but because of the backward culture and values of the people who live there. People we are bringing here along with their backward culture and values.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - here's a question, and this is more about how YOU think than about the topic so I apologize in advanced.  But if a lefty whose values you disagree with put a lot of thought into immigration and came up with an opinion that WASN'T virtue signalling - would you respect that ?  I mean - they are following the democratic process as it was designed, right ?  Weighing the facts, and so on ?

Sure. But people have been arguing with me (yelling at me and calling me names) for twenty years on the subject and not one has ever come up with a coherent, logical, intelligent basis for our large scale immigration system.

It helps our economy! 

There's virtually no evidence to support that.

We need immigrants because of our low birth rate!

We don't need this many nor these particular immigrants, and besides that they tend to have lower birth rates once here too.

More people will make Canada richer!

The Nordic countries have small populations and are the best places to live on Earth. Then there's Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil...

Quote

Bonus question:  what if they used values you DISAGREE with, and weighed the option to come up with a conclusion that you AGREE with?  Like Dr. Suzuki determining that because Canadians emit more CO2 per capita from consumption, he would like to decrease our population.

What if they did? Bad example, btw, as Suzuki's point is entirely logical. How do you lower your emissions while increasing your population? Far easier to do if your population is stable or getting smaller.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Argus

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That sounds reasonable as a response to the current situation.  

Also, I am open to a true open discussion on immigration as a means to establish a new public forum to weigh complicated questions.  It would be interesting to see a democracy that could actually debate a complex topic without resorting to emotional whinging and yelling, but still holding to values.

As I pointed out, I've been discussing immigration for decades. Those who support it virtually always resort to accusations against those who oppose it. As we've seen here today. Let me borrow from Rex Murphy.

Politics, for some people today, is what fundamentalist religions were in days past: a field of doctrines and dogmas, along with punishments and secular hellfire for those who do not believe. Politics, especially from the high liberal or “woke” perspective, is a call, something close to an actual order, to agree with a set of opinions on certain subjects that are handed down from above.

On these matters, politics is not a call for debate, and certainly not one for compromise. To oppose or dissent on these topics is seen as a moral failure, and summarily leads to accusations that the dissenter is “racist” or a “denier,” these being the favourite terms of what passes for a rebuttal.

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why are you so scared, Argus?

I don't know about Argus but I am scared of"

1 -Those with backward values like lack of respect for women's rights and choice or lack tolerance of other cultures and religions bring their medieval values here and my nightmare is that with time in decades from now they become a majority and wish to impose their backwards values upon the rest of us. 

2 -At the time that millions of Canadians are out of work, it is not the right time to increase immigration but to cut it significantly as Pierre Trudeau did in 1983 when immigration was reduced to 70,000 annually.

3 -There may be a backlash against those immigrant looking population even if they have been here for long and contributed very positively to Canada in the long term. As disgusting as it is in some part of Europe some out of work or extreme right wing elements attack especially colored immigrants physically in public and private places. I do not wish to live in a Canada like that even though myself though long time immigrant I have a very white.(pale) skin so most likely I won't be targeted myself but the society as a whole will become a hell to live in full of hate and no tolerance.

Edited March 6, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sure. But people have been arguing with me (yelling at me and calling me names) for twenty years on the subject and not one has ever come up with a coherent, logical, intelligent basis for our large scale immigration system.

It helps our economy! 

 1. There's virtually no evidence to support that.

 2. What if they did? Bad example, btw, as Suzuki's point is entirely logical. How do you lower your emissions while increasing your population? Far easier to do if your population is stable or getting smaller.

 

1. Ok, but if you are being honest here you are going against the grain of economic orthodoxy.
2. I agree.  But my bias is that I want a better class of debate on any economic topic.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

What are the issue 'related to immigration'; Argus says it's crime and umm ... driving down wages, I think?   No doubt some would agree with him, yet the evidence contradicting those claims is pretty strong IMO.  

Since you have been an unbridled supporter of mass immigration on this site for years you know full well the arguments I've made against immigration. So I regard the above as just pure dishonesty.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

 Canada also has an aging population, and decreasing birth rate; why would it be exempt from suffering economically if there were not enough workers to sustain the economy?

There is no evidence we have a shortage of workers or will have in the near future. Quite the contrary. With rapidly increasing automation the great risk for us is a mass of unemployable people with no jobs available.

Perhaps the most insidious argument still being advanced by government and other advocates of mass immigration is the belief that we need immigration to provide the workers needed to replace our aging population. This argument is obviously flawed if, as in Canada, the immigration movement has a similar age structure as the receiving country; then, immigration does not help the aging problem – indeed it may well exacerbate it.

In 2009, a study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that to offset our declining birth rate and maintain the ratio of five taxpayers to support the benefits of one pensioner until 2050, our immigration levels would have to reach 165.4 million. And in that single year, 2050, the annual movement would have to be seven million immigrants. The study recommended that raising the retirement age to 67 would be much more effective.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Argus claims that we let in too many 'unskilled' workers; facts demonstrate otherwise.

Really? The facts that almost any crap job you find will be filled with an immigrant? Who are our cleaners? Our taxi drivers? Our security guards? Who fills up our public housing areas? Who is gunning people down in the streets?

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Canada's immigration policy focuses on skilled workers, with good English or French skills. 

Simply not true.

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. The remainder of the movement is made up of the spouses and children accompanying the workers, family members sponsored by relatives in Canada, immigrants selected by the provinces (who do not have to meet federal selection criteria ), refugees and humanitarian cases.

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

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Argus thinks that we should only let people in who share our "values"; ie. Western Europeans.  But I don't think there are enough "Western Europeans" who want to move to Canada to offset the effects of our declining birthrate and aging population.  

Your argument about a declining birthrate is nonsense, as I've already shown. And we don't need to find 400k immigrants every year. 100k would do fine. I bet we could find 100k Ukrainians, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, etc. who want to come to Canada every year. And given the unemployment rate has been in double digits in many other western European countries for some time I bet we could get a lot there, too.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Again, this is pure ignorance talking, fueled by xenophobes and racists.

There's the most often used argument in favor of immigration. Anyone who disagrees must be a 'xenophobe' or a 'racist'. It's not intelligent or logical but it's all you've got.

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

In terms of values and lifestyle, immigrants take on those of their host country. 

That used to be the case, but most immigrants today wind up in cities where the majority of the population are foreign born. They wind up in enormous enclaves of their own people and their kids go to schools where 75% of the other kids are immigrants or the kids of immigrants like them. They watch TV from 'home' in their own language, and are in 24/7 contact with 'home'.

Indeed, the internal report, obtained under an access to information request, shows that immigration analysts are worried that the “absorptive capacity” of Canada is going down.

“Declining outcomes of recent immigrants have shown that integration is not automatic,” says the report, which surveys emerging problems with immigration flows and the pressure it’s putting on Canadian sectors.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

In addition, people who willingly leave their home to come to a new country are the least likely to hold medieval cultural beliefs.

There's no evidence to support this.

“There have been unintended consequences of (Pierre Trudeau’s) multiculturalism: The foremost being the belief in the minds of many immigrants, if not too many other Canadians, that Canada really has no culture of its own. In a very serious sense, it has led to the near demise of the idea of Canadian culture.”

As an immigrant from India, Dosanjh said he did not come to “cultureless” Canada to “civilize Canadians.” But he has met recent immigrants who believe that is their role.

These new immigrants are battling to preserve their old country’s conservative traditions, Dosanjh said. They cite multicultural policy to prove Canada is a culturally relativistic country.

https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/is-canada-a-blank-slate-with-no-culture-many-beg-to-differ

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Anyway, my neighbor, who wears modest clothing (long dresses) and a hijab when out of the house would make xenophobe's hair stand on end in fear and loathing.   Neither she nor her husband attend Mosque, and they could care less about other people's sexual or marital behavior, what they believe or what God they worship.  They are more tolerant and less hate-filled than than the xenophobes that are triggered just by seeing them in public.

Area you really dumb enough to think these fundamentalist Muslims, so fundamentalist they govern everything they wear by Islam, don't care what Islam has to say about other religions, about women, about gays? You realize they're simply not going to talk about that stuff around an infidel like you, don't you? They'll smile and nod and say polite things, to the demented old lady down the street who'll die soon anyway, that's all.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why are you so scared, Argus?

Why are you so dumb, dialamah?

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, but if you are being honest here you are going against the grain of economic orthodoxy.

Economic orthodoxy focuses on the overall growth of an economy. Larger GDP means bigger economy. It means more work being done to provide houses, cars, etc. for the new workers, but those workers need jobs too, so there's little if any net gain. That does not mean the people living within that economy are individually better off, nor does economics say so. Economic orthodoxy also focuses on having bigger markets, but we have free trade. The whole US market is available for us to sell into. So we don't need a larger one here.

There is no evidence that immigration is essential for economic growth. The 1985 MacDonald Royal Commission Report concluded that immigration did not contribute to economic growth and, in fact, caused a decline in per capita income and real wages. In 1989, a two-year study by the Department of Health and Welfare supported the MacDonald report and stated there was no argument for increased population growth and that immigration was not the answer to the aging of the population. In 1991, the Economic Council of Canada reached the same conclusion.

A more recent study by Prof. Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University and economist Patrick Grady found that in the year 2002 alone, the costs in services and benefits received by the 2.5 million immigrants between 1990 and 2002 exceeded the taxes paid by these immigrants by $23 billion. It is not surprising that this study has received little media coverage in Canada.

Studies outside of Canada have come to the same conclusion about the economic value of immigration. In Britain, a report by the House of Lords in 2008 warned that the government’s plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and would seriously affect the availability of housing and the quality of public services. The report also criticized the government for misleading the people by justifying immigration levels when they provided no economic benefit, were not needed to fill labour shortages and did not help the state’s pension fund.

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

Most Canadians don’t follow the economists who track how immigration and temporary workers have an impact on Canada. If they did, they’d soon realize economists’ findings often conflict with the views championed by corporate executives and politicians.

Canada’s traditionally high immigration rates actually cut many unpredictable ways. The more than 300,000 immigrants and 700,000 temporary migrants recently arriving in the country help expand the overall economic pie. But to most economists that doesn’t mean much.

Economists, instead, mine data to discover whether average wages rise or fall because of migration, which types of migrants do best, whether a foreign education or offshore work translates to Canadian success and how much it matters to be proficient in English or French.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-immigration-may-lift-economy-but-not-peoples-wages-plus-other-economists-lessons

Quote

2. I agree.  But my bias is that I want a better class of debate on any economic topic.

We can't have that while one side ascribes morality to people's political views and denounces them for their presumed immorality rather than trying to argue against the ideas they put forth.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

We can't have that while one side ascribes morality to people's political views and denounces them for their presumed immorality rather than trying to argue against the ideas they put forth.

Right - and all of this is tenable including your take on the economics *BUT* you haven't backed up the claim that economists, on the whole, support the idea that immigration is unrelated to growth.  Unless things have changed, it's controversial at best.  Certainly the banks in Canada push for more immigration and it's hard to see why they would care about votes.

[Argus]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right - and all of this is tenable including your take on the economics *BUT* you haven't backed up the claim that economists, on the whole, support the idea that immigration is unrelated to growth.  Unless things have changed, it's controversial at best.  Certainly the banks in Canada push for more immigration and it's hard to see why they would care about votes.

Growth is not always a good thing. It means more crowded cities, less farmland, more pollution, more need to build more infrastructure. And the benefits to us here are... what? How are Canadians going to be better off with a population of 50 million rather than 40 millions? How are we better off now than we were when our population was 25 million?

Big business will always push for more immigration. They get benefits from more customers and more industry but (especially in Canada where they need not fear new competition springing up to take some share of that) they get none of the drawbacks. And the thing with immigration is, as per the Economic Council of Canada, what economic impact they have depends on who you bring in. Statistical studies have shown the same, that immigrants/refugees from some parts of the world thrive while those from other parts are barely treading water.

What is the economic case for 400,000 immigrants a year?

Edited March 6, 2021 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Except these dogs have a distressing habit of going rabid and attacking people around them. Not to mention too many of them aren't housebroken and tend to crap on the floor.

There's a million+ Muslims in Canada.  How many have gone rabid and attacked people in the last .. oh  25 years?   Can you demonstrate that it is any higher than random non-Muslims Canadians going rabid and attacking people in the same time period?  Unless you can show that, your continued insistence that Muslims are inherently more violent than non-Muslims is merely islamophobic misinformation.

[AntiConservative]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Did you know that in Islamic countries, it is the religious minorities that are the ones who are persecuted?  In fact, large numbers of Christians are being killed in different countries around the world constantly.  They are the real refugees, not the majority religions.  Canada was founded and built as a Christian nation.   

I havn't persecuted any Christians. My parents are Muslim. I go to the Mosque a few times a year. It's time to judge people on their actions, instead of their religious background. As far as racism is concerned, it's a double-edge sword. Treat people the way you want to be treated. How would you like to visit our countries, and see creepy locals calling you "Whitey". You wouldn't feel comfortable. No one wants to be singled our because of the colour of their skin, or religious background. I don't preach any of that nonsense. I own a construction company. Three of my employees are Irish-Canadians. My father tought me everything I needed to know about construction back in Syria. Now I support seven employees. Five of them were born in Canada. I think i'm helping your economy.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There's a million+ Muslims in Canada.  How many have gone rabid and attacked people in the last .. oh  25 years?   Can you demonstrate that it is any higher than random non-Muslims Canadians going rabid and attacking people in the same time period?  Unless you can show that, your continued insistence that Muslims are inherently more violent than non-Muslims is merely islamophobic misinformation.

How many of them have sent their daughters abroad to be married to a man they have never met, or have their genitals mutilated?

I don't know either.