Immigration Law Must Change

[Oddman]

Di Fiore believes there is a manipulated process correlating between the new immigrant population and the Liberal party of Canada. The Liberals have often been described or referred to as the party of the immigrant population. The theory is simple yet almost unimaginable - that the Liberals are influencing the less than stand-up influential membesrs of ethnic communities who are able to secure illegal votes in federal elections.

....

What do you think?

Are you suggesting that we refuse immigrants to Canada because our election law is lax?

Oddman, if you feel electoral fraud is a serious issue, and non-citizens are illegally voting, and they are voting disproportionately for the federal Liberal Party, and these illegal votes are causing Liberal MPs to win when they otherwise would not, and this has changed the federal government Canadians want, then start a thread on how the electoral law should be tightened.

Changing immigration law to fix our electoral law seems to me like forbidding the sale of knives to prevent murder.

Oddman, forget about voters. Most Canadians are more concerned about their neighbours. An immigrant to Canada is going to be someone's neighbour. What neighbours should we let into Canada?

Oddman, what neighbours would you like to have?

I am not suggesting we refuse immigrants to Canada because of our lax elections laws...I don't know how you came to that far-reaching conclusion.

What I AM saying is that there is a link between our lax election laws and immigration. As I pointed out earlier, some ridings have a ridiculous % of people showing up who are not on any lists. Also, and I wish I could find the old link to cite, the Star once published a piece by Pierre Kingsley, Director of Elections Canada, which stated that landed immigrants are eligible to vote. The following day there was a correction, but only on the online version of the paper.

[Oddman]

I honestly think that the immigration policy must be over-hauled to be able to handle the new kind of problems.

And the first step is to temporarily FREEZE the borders so we can effectively do an "inventory", take stock and properly process those who are already in-line. The experts can come up with an alternative plan in the meantime...and make all the necessary preparations for the new guidelines.

If we freeze the border we would end up freezing our economy as well. I can see why something like that can be important, but unfortunately it would not be practical.

[Rue]

While the LIberals have traditionally tried to be the party for Immigrants when Brian Mulroney was in charge of the Conservatives, he set up a very active network that relied heavily on new immigrants for votes. I suppose the current Conservative regime being influenced by its Social Crediter/Reformists has quite a few wanting to return to the days of McKenzie King but the fact is in today's political climate all three parties (Tory, Liberal, NDP) pander to anyone who will support them including minorities. In my riding the Siekh people (and it is their perfect right to) flood both the Tory and Liberal riding association meetings to assure one of their people is a candidate no matter which party they run for. For me who is a minority in my riding, I find it discomforting that the candidate who runs provincially or federally is always from the same ethnic group and being chosen because of his ethnicity and not his qualifications but such is life.

[mikedavid00]

I start this thread with a genuine desire to see what posters think. The question has arisen on other threads in the context of Canada's security. Posters have suggested, IMV, crazy, racist, unconstitutionally feasible changes to Canadian immigration law. I happen to think many of the ideas would accomplish nothing but then, what do I know.

Yes.

I feel that we should not eliminate immigration, but we should only let people in under work sponsorships and from countries where people are proven to assimilate well (Europe, South America etc).

I feel the French have a very very good system, but their downfall once again is family sponsorship.

I am not a church freak or even a church go'er or very relegious, but people who are Christian in any part of the world (Hong Kong, Chile, etc) simply assimilate better in our culture and country.

When you start to let in Sikh's, Muslims, Hindu's, etc, THEN you begin to see problems which cultural extremism.

[Riverwind]

I feel the French have a very very good system, but their downfall once again is family sponsorship.

France is absolutely the last place Canada should look for ideas on how to improve its immigration system.

When you start to let in Sikh's, Muslims, Hindu's, etc, THEN you begin to see problems which cultural extremism.

I live in Vancouver where there are a large percentage of 'Hindus' or 'Sikhs'. There are little or no integration problems with 2 or 3 generation Canadians. Look at Ujaal Dosanji - you may not like his politics but you cannot say he has not assimilated.

[Argus]

In my riding the Siekh people (and it is their perfect right to) flood both the Tory and Liberal riding association meetings to assure one of their people is a candidate no matter which party they run for.

How would you feel if someone decided to flood riding associations with whites to make sure the candidate was white? It doesn't take that many, you know. In many ridings a hundred or two new members will control who gets nominated.

Would you say it was their perfect right, or would you call them racists?

[Argus]

I honestly think that the immigration policy must be over-hauled to be able to handle the new kind of problems.

And the first step is to temporarily FREEZE the borders so we can effectively do an "inventory", take stock and properly process those who are already in-line. The experts can come up with an alternative plan in the meantime...and make all the necessary preparations for the new guidelines.

If we freeze the border we would end up freezing our economy as well. I can see why something like that can be important, but unfortunately it would not be practical.

There is no demonstrated economic advantage to having a large number of immigrants coming here every year, especially when so many of those immigrants use up more tax money in services than they render to the government in taxes.

[Argus]

Demographically speaking, we do not need anywhere near as many immigrants as we now accept. We are, realistically, a small nation, unless you count all that empty land where few if any immigrants have an interest in. We are a narrow strip of land along the US border, with the rest being largely vacation land, farmland, timberland, and wasteland.

Agreed. We don't "need" immigrants but we can accept them. When people talk about reducing numbers (we currently accept about 250,000 but then lose about 80,000 emigrants each year) I'd like to know which type of immigrant we'd cut. It usually means losing skilled immigrants.

But by your own admission only a fraction of immigrants actually are 'skilled", and the usefulness of their skills is highly questionable. We have far too many "skilled' immigrants driving cabs, in large part because either their skills aren't in demand, aren't accepted in Canada, or they do not have sufficient command of the language for anyone to want to hire them for those skills.

I have already stated we should end immigration for at least 30 years to give the immigrants here a time to assimilate. With that in mind, no other changes to immigration are necessary.

Unrealistic. If a government passed such a law, immigrants would go underground, and in the next election the government would lose power.

I don't think so. Remember that a poll taken not too many years ago showed a majority of Canadians, including present immigrants, believed Canada should freeze immigration for just this reason. And who is most likely to agree? Conservatives and middle of the road types. And who is most likely to be outraged? Left Liberals and NDP types who will NEVER vote for the Conservatives anyway. So what do they lose? As for immigrants going "underground" those who can get in illegally already do, in great numbers.

Since that is likely not politically possible at the moment, we should cut back immigration to 100k per year, focussed strictly on immigrants likely to succeed in Canada with as little help and as little disruption to the county as possible. That mean immigrants which are as culturally similar to ours as possible, with the proper education and job skills to succeed. Right now that is not grandiose university degrees, btw, but bricklayers, carpenters, roofers, plumbers, plasterers, welders, etc. And they should all be required to demonstrate a capability in English before being accepted as immigrants.

How do you write into law the phrase "culturally similar"? And 100k is about what we accept in spouses and kids.

You write it into the selection process by granting a lot more points to immigrants who already live in a western capitalist culture on the basis that they will require far fewer adjustments, less help from government, and will cause less cultural disruption. I would also grant far higher points for language skills, which the government would test for.

The refugee determination system needs to be exempted from the constaitution via the notwithstanding clause. We're spending billions on the endless appeals process, and paying their room and board in the meantime. Refugees who arrive without documents should be confined until their hearing, and they must be able to prove their identity and do better than telling a decent story (often a boiler plate story given them by their Canadian-funded lawyer).to prove they deserve refugee status. Furthermore, the government should reserve the right to send them back where they came from in the event that it determines that whatever circusmtances existed which placed them in danger are no longer in place. Refugees should not be automatically be granted citizenship. At the least, we should put back citizenship for ten years after acceptance as a refugee.

Do you think Harper has the courage to invoke the notwithstanding class so that he can refuse the downtrodden, the oppressed a chance to be free?

Most of those who come here as refugees are neither downtrodden nor oppressed. The downtrodden don't have the wherwithal to get here from their miserable hovels in Nigeria and Cairo and Beirut. And most of hte world is oppressed. We don't have room for them all.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Most of those who come here as refugees are neither downtrodden nor oppressed. The downtrodden don't have the wherwithal to get here from their miserable hovels in Nigeria and Cairo and Beirut. And most of hte world is oppressed. We don't have room for them all.

I somewhat agree, and earlier I said something similar, but I'll rephrase it here.

If we helped the 'oppressed' with their 'wherewithal', then they wouldn't need to leave where they were.

[Charles Anthony]

I am genuinely intrigued by the following statements:

I think that the world needs to move towards having no borders whatsoever.

One wacky solution (which might find favour from 'conservatives') would be to let business decide immigration numbers. They could apply for workers of whatever types they needed, and Immigration Canada would simply fill the quotas.

Compared to my personal thoughts on the role of government, I would not say it is a "wacky" idea at all!

Unlike any other directions of this thread, the above statements fit the bill of libertarian and anarchist views of citizenship and migration. I wonder if I am inferring too much or misinterpreting those statements.

The anarchist dismisses the entire notion of nationality, citizenship and borders. These are like telling a vegetarian that they can eat kosher meat. The anarchist treats migration with a free market much as you would any other good or service: the less intervention from government, the better the outcome. I.E., the outcome will represent more closely what people actually want and it will be a fair (with respect to universal human rights) outcome.

I throw this perspective out there specifically because:

I think Argus is right to say that many Canadians feel silenced and cowed about all of these questions. I suspect, Thelonious and Geoff, that even you feel shy to answer honestly.

I wonder if there are more closet libertarians who are reluctant to come out and oppose the status quo.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

and Immigration Canada would simply fill the quotas.

As long as 'the fulfillment of quotas' doesn't involve Immigration Canada setting sail for Africa with a boatload of barracoons and shackles, I suppose.

Unlike any other directions of this thread, the above statements fit the bill of libertarian and anarchist views of citizenship and migration. I wonder if I am inferring too much or misinterpreting those statements.

I think that you, and the points above, are not too far off the mark.

However, the reason I used 'wacky' (or actually, any sort of 'qualifier') was because such a move could only be pondered by the morally bankrupt. Further, with no 'borders', one could not call it 'immigration'. It might be called 'resettlement', or even 'relocation of our assets', but they would create 'reserves' or 'refugee camps' in all but name in a Libertarian system. Worse, some poor Libertarian would have to give up his land to house influxes of 'only the finest, hand picked foreign labourers' untill such time as they could somehow find their own 'property'. The only way for the landowner could make sure money from it would either be from the philanthropic benevolence of big businesses who aren't concerned with profits, or from collecting tribute from the imported workers themselves.

I wonder if there are more closet libertarians who are reluctant to come out and oppose the status quo.

Here is where I think you misinterpret my meaning. I may give the appearance that I am on the other side of the coin as you, but I believe I am in a place where I can see both sides of the coin.

[Charles Anthony]

However, the reason I used 'wacky' (or actually, any sort of 'qualifier') was because such a move could only be pondered by the morally bankrupt.

When you say "move" do you mean:

1) relying more upon the labor market to determine the level of demand for immigrants

or

2) Immigration Canada being in the business of physically meeting the demand (instead of leaving that to the market as well)

?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

When you say "move" do you mean:

1) relying more upon the labor market to determine the level of demand for immigrants

Yes, this would require the abject 'de-humanizing' of not just potential 'labour imports', but to a degree, all of civilization.

[Rue]

Dear August1991,

"One wacky solution (which might find favour from 'conservatives') would be to let business decide immigration numbers. They could apply for workers of whatever types they needed, and Immigration Canada would simply fill the quotas."

Current immigration law and policies are supposed to be achieving the above as we speak.

[Rue]

"Most of those who come here as refugees are neither downtrodden nor oppressed. The downtrodden don't have the wherwithal to get here from their miserable hovels in Nigeria and Cairo and Beirut. And most of hte world is oppressed. We don't have room for them all." (quote from Argus)

1. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that most refugees coming to Canada are not downtrodden or oppressed. I do not doubt people use our refugee determination system to by-pass the regular immigration system simply for economic or medical opportunity, but I find your choice of the words

"downtrodden nor oppressed" amusing.

Someone coming from China, India, Somalia, wherever, who uses the refugee determination system to seek economic advantage or medical services ...how do you know they are not oppressed or downtrodden. The last time I looked being dirt poor was and is oppressive. So while I understand you may be trying to suggest the refugee determination system is probably being exploited by persons seeking economic and medical advantage-I think it is safe to say the vast majority of the world lives in an oppressive environment and would literally die for the chance to come to Canada and so if you create a permeable refugee determination system don't be suprised if someone with cancer or in need of an operation or is in desperate need of work takes advantage of the system. You leave a pie out on your window sill, don't be suprised if some homeless person walking by with an empty stomach feels tempted to eat it.

2. " We don't have room for them all". I love this comment. It is a fairly typical one that comes up in immigration discussions. Again the fact is geographically this country has plenty of space and of course can

take people in-the real issue is how do you create an immigration policy that prevents all immigrants from simply settling in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Please don't tell me Northern Ontario and Northern Canada and numerous small towns and villages across Canada could not do with doctors, nurses, and certain categories of workers. There is a need-the problem is our current immigration policy in fact unintentionally has contributed to over condensation of new Canadians in certain cities due to a lack of cooperation and vision between federal, provinicial and municipal level governments.

3. The Refugee Determination System in my personal opinion has always been a travesty and is an invention of some soft people in Canada who feel guilty they live better then people in third world countries and conflict zones. This system created by some academics was supposed to make the first world feel better about all the conflict zones their imperialism has created.

The fact is if we genuinely wanted to help refugees we wouldn't have this system we would take the money we spend on this system and fund programs on the actual refugee sites where the vast majority of refugees are trapped in tents dying from minor ailments that prove devastating to immune ravaged bodies.

We like to mix our guilt for what is going on in the world with a determination system that is supposed to make up for McKenzie King turning down how many Jews who tried to escape Germany?

The fact is an immigration policy should not be confused with say a foreign assistance policy.

The Refugee Determination System sucks the intelligentsia from third world countries and turns them into our taxi drivers and menial labourers condemning these third world countries to perpetual poverty by draining their future potential.

We are nothing more then guilt ridden idiots when it comes to how we treat refugees. We should take the money and spend it on programs to help people become self-sufficient and stabilize their countries economies because when it comes down to it, the source of all conflicts is poverty.

4.Now as for our immigration policy, and what August said earlier, many people criticize the notion that families include parents, etc.

Again the problem is not in bringing grandfathers and grandmothers over. These same grandparents look after young grand-children enabling their children to work and freeing up money otherwise spent on child-care for spending on other aspects of the economy. No the problem here is in sponsorship and the fact that there is a huge defect in allowing people to bring people over and claim they will sponsor them, and then

being able to get out of having to sponsor them. I think we are confusing two issues.

Sponsorship indeed is a defective area in need of reform.

All I am saying is yes our immigration policy needs fixing but no don't mix that issue up with this notion we do not need immigrants. Uh hello- we do not have sufficient population growth to pay into CPP and maintain the economy. Take a look at this country's demographic profile before making statements such as "we should freeze immigration". Do that and this country all ages and dies at the same time leaving no one to maintain the economy. The stats are there to back that point up.

If youd on't believe me, good luck expecting your CPP to look after you 15 years from now.

[Argus]

Someone coming from China, India, Somalia, wherever, who uses the refugee determination system to seek economic advantage or medical services ...how do you know they are not oppressed or downtrodden. The last time I looked being dirt poor was and is oppressive.

Okay, if you're going to interpret the phrase broadly enough that everyone in the third world qualifies then I suppose they are oppressed and downtrodden. I was, however, referring more to the United Nations definition of refugees, which requires more of an individualized experience.

2. " We don't have room for them all". I love this comment. It is a fairly typical one that comes up in immigration discussions. Again the fact is geographically this country has plenty of space

The country has plenty of space if you include the frozen tundra, yes. If you include just the areas where refugees and immigrants tend to live, that is, the 100 mile strip along the American border, we're getting pretty damned crowded.

All I am saying is yes our immigration policy needs fixing but no don't mix that issue up with this notion we do not need immigrants. Uh hello- we do not have sufficient population growth to pay into CPP and maintain the economy.

Yes, in fact we do.

Take a look at this country's demographic profile before making statements such as "we should freeze immigration".

I have done so. Have you?

Do that and this country all ages and dies at the same time leaving no one to maintain the economy. The stats are there to back that point up.

Not really.

If youd on't believe me, good luck expecting your CPP to look after you 15 years from now.

The average age of immigrants is roughly the same as the average age of Canadian born people. So if you're using that as an argument, ie, all those "young" immigrants paying for old, retired Canadian pensioners, you can forget it.

If we completely freeze immigrations - not one single immigrant comes here, our population will drop, in thirty years time, by .7%. That's about 1/4 million people. I think we'll survive.

[August1991]

rue, you're all over the map and I don't really know where you're going. In kind, here are some random responses.

So while I understand you may be trying to suggest the refugee determination system is probably being exploited by persons seeking economic and medical advantage-I think it is safe to say the vast majority of the world lives in an oppressive environment and would literally die for the chance to come to Canada and so if you create a permeable refugee determination system don't be suprised if someone with cancer or in need of an operation or is in desperate need of work takes advantage of the system.

The great injustice or absurdity in our refugee determination system is that we do not accept "refugees" as such. Instead, we accept economic migrants ("refugees") according to their ability to get through all the various barriers we design to keep refugees away.

The fact is if we genuinely wanted to help refugees we wouldn't have this system we would take the money we spend on this system and fund programs on the actual refugee sites where the vast majority of refugees are trapped in tents dying from minor ailments that prove devastating to immune ravaged bodies.

That's an interesting concept. But do we owe the world anything? And a better question, is anything we are doing making any difference?

The Refugee Determination System sucks the intelligentsia from third world countries and turns them into our taxi drivers and menial labourers condemning these third world countries to perpetual poverty by draining their future potential.

That's a grotesque stereotype.

Again the problem is not in bringing grandfathers and grandmothers over. These same grandparents look after young grand-children enabling their children to work and freeing up money otherwise spent on child-care for spending on other aspects of the economy. No the problem here is in sponsorship and the fact that there is a huge defect in allowing people to bring people over and claim they will sponsor them, and then

being able to get out of having to sponsor them. I think we are confusing two issues.

Sponsoring adult parents is an expensive proposition.

All I am saying is yes our immigration policy needs fixing but no don't mix that issue up with this notion we do not need immigrants. Uh hello- we do not have sufficient population growth to pay into CPP and maintain the economy. Take a look at this country's demographic profile before making statements such as "we should freeze immigration". Do that and this country all ages and dies at the same time leaving no one to maintain the economy. The stats are there to back that point up.

The stats are not there to back you up. It's an exaggeration.

[Riverwind]

Uh hello- we do not have sufficient population growth to pay into CPP and maintain the economy.

The CPP is fine with the current contribution rates.

Take a look at this country's demographic profile before making statements such as "we should freeze immigration". Do that and this country all ages and dies at the same time leaving no one to maintain the economy. The stats are there to back that point up.

The survival of the human race (or at least our industrial society) depends on humans finding a way to have a stable economy that does not depend on population growth.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

The survival of the human race (or at least our industrial society) depends on humans finding a way to have a stable economy that does not depend on population growth.

Indeed it does, lest we 'pave paradise and put up a parking lot'.

[Kindred]

Read the Immigration Act and the definition of refugee and how a person qualifies to be considerd a refugee. Do some research on how many people are being held in refugee camps around the world. Only certain countries are recognized countries of origin for refugess claimants.

Because they are fleeing wars, torture and persecution they dont arrive with documents, and many travel under false documentation for their protection.

For many refugees it is difficult, dangerous or impossible to acquire identity documents after their arrival in Canada.

Governments in some countries cease to exist or will refuse to provide identity documents to certain nationals, including those fleeing as refugees. In countries at war, official records may be destroyed or there may be no bureaucracy available to answer requests for information.

It can be dangerous for refugees or for their families in their homeland if identity documents are requested. Alerted to the refugee's situation, the persecutors may renew their attacks. Refugees should never be expected to approach the government of the country they have fled.

Immigrants coming to Canada have to prove financial stability, required to show proof of having a certain amount of money available to them, approximately $250,000.00, and/or have family members who can support them and are prevented from accessing Social Programs for a certain number of years. The only exception is in cases of marital breakdown or family abuses.

FYI China has an EXCELLENT medical system and resources, just recently a group of doctors from Canada visited the country to observe their system. Their medical technology is as advanced, if not more so than is Canadas. I can tell you they have a helluva lot more MRI machines than Canada has, and no waiting lists.

The number of people from China claiming "refugee status" is quite low, for the last 5 years between 1.8% to 5.6% of the total number of people arriving from China, the majority come as "skilled workers" which means they are on a "skills shortage" list.

Immigrants from China most often come here because they can have more than one child.

Canadians are not producing enough children to ensure the continuation of our Social Programs, including Senior Pensions.

If you want to stop immigration you better be prepared to father at least 16 children to pay for your pension benefits when you retire - of course you will personally have to feed those 16 children and put them through college so they can earn the money they need to support your pension.

The CPP is fine with the current contribution rates

and what happens when an aging Canadian population retires?

[JMH]

I start this thread with a genuine desire to see what posters think. The question has arisen on other threads in the context of Canada's security. Posters have suggested, IMV, crazy, racist, unconstitutionally feasible changes to Canadian immigration law. I happen to think many of the ideas would accomplish nothing but then, what do I know.

Should Canadian citizens, living here now, accept anyone into this country? And if we don't, who should we accept? How should we decide? The MSM refuses to deal with this issue openly yet many Canadians (French/English) talk about it à vive voix.

For example, there's Parizeau's comment on a night in 1995 and an outsider journalist reporting on suburban English-Canada:

Comment les jeunes perçoivent-ils les musulmans au lendemain du battage médiatique entourant les attentats planifiés? La Presse est allée dans les écoles de Mississauga, d'où provenaient six des 17 suspects arrêtés vendredi dernier, pour leur poser la question. Les ados rencontrés ont des opinions différentes, mais le plus étonnant est sans doute qu'ils ne les expriment jamais ouvertement parce qu'aucun professeur n'aborde la question, et que les différents groupes ethniques de l'école sont divisés...

La Presse

Boy oh boy, thats a deep topic put so eliquently.

The answer is no one person should enter this country for a visit or be allowed amnesty, imigration or any other status that would allow them to be here. Thats the way it is right now. If Canadian Muslims have a problem with that .....tough .........leave. Your not welcome here any more. These people should have done more to protect Canadian/western societel values. Afterall , thats why their here right? RIGHT. They dont talk to police, they dont integrate like the rest of us..........Fuck em. GET OUT NOW

Let's discuss this. Here. Newspapers, radio, TV, the CBC can't deal with this. It's too non-PC. No other English-Canadian forum can deal with this issue because they are too slanted - either posters will inundate a thread with racism or posters will be banned.

MLW may be able to offer a forum of honest, open opinion in English. Let's try.

[JMH]

I see no reply but the obvious.

These people are the enemy right now. No other enemy in my lifetime purports the foolishness that they do

and while where at it............try to drive it down my throat.

They are the enemy to freedom and common sense.

[Michael Hardner]

JMH:

try to drive it down my throat.

You're one to talk. You come in here and start jamming threads with blue language and add nothing to the conversation.

Dear theloniusfleabag:

Yes, this would require the abject 'de-humanizing' of not just potential 'labour imports', but to a degree, all of civilization.

Are you saying that getting rid of all borders would dehumanize the planet ? The idea of fences keeping the filthy immigrants out seems less than human to me. Anyway, if you look around you'll see that the erasure of borders has been well under way for about 18 years now. The results are mixed, but some proponents of the new order are: companies that love paying lower wages for more work, and liberals whose jobs will never be threatened by immigrants because they're in protected labour markets. Those against it include: people who have seen their careers evaporate due to lower demand for their services, reactionaries who have relocated their dislike for Irish, Quebeckers, and Italians to Blacks, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.

Auguste, thanks for starting this thread, I've been following it and it's been interesting.

[rogue state]

the anglosaxon criminals cannot and never survived without immigrants.

they are simply too idiots, incompetents to live on their own.

Mahmoud Ghalehnoii

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Are you saying that getting rid of all borders would dehumanize the planet ?

No, I think you misunderstood. I am for the dissolution of borders. I am contending that, with the retention of borders, tying immigration 'quotas' solely to market demand for labour 'dehumanizes' us all. There would be no such classification as 'refugee', and and 'prospective immigrants' would be viewed as 'product' and not people. This would entail viewing all people as 'cogs, widgets, and Delta Upsilons'.