Assimilating to Immigrants

[JerrySeinfeld]

Maybe because you don't actually read the thread? Dunno... just a suggestion.

Why bother reading it when I can give everyone the short version:

JerrySeinfeld: Here's a Mark Steyn article about immigrations and why it suxx.

g_bambino: ...and here's my take on why Queen rulz. Sorry: the Queen.

Now, obviously, I'm taking a poke at some of the more monomaniacal tendencies of certain posters here and am not commenting, per se, on the subject at hand. But if I may, the problem is simply this: Canada doesn't have a culture to sacrifice, at least not in any meaningful sense of the word."Canadian" culture is little more than a trite and mostly harmless collection of slogans and symbols that the vast majority of the citizenry regards with a kind of bemused affection and little else . And really, what else can be expected of a country that is barely out of its infancy as an entity, and who's citzens, for the most part, huddle together in far-flung enclaves separated by unimaginable distances filled with damn near nothing at all?

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for trite symbols, be they HRH or the Tragically Hip. But they shouldn't be confused with real values, which Canadians have aplenty and which, I'm sure, are forged of sterner stuff than carpetbaggers like Steyn would have us believe. Equating the rejection of certain symbols with a rejection of values is pure sophistry. Hell, I'll go further: the whole notion of cultural suicide is bunk.

1. The amount of space between people in today's world doesn't impact what they believe as a unit. Just ask Joe afghani who still wants to beat the shit out of his wife even though he lives in Surrey, BC.

2. The age of Canada has no relevence to the quality of it's values OR the symbols of those values. Your criteria that only OLD traditions (by the way - what is the benchmark for "old") command respect would honour things like burning women alive as they do in Pakistan and condemned by amnesty international.

But hey - if those ancient traditions and values trump the newly minted ones in our country, fill yer boots there old pal

3. And your chracterization that "."Canadian" culture is little more than a trite and mostly harmless collection of slogans and symbols that the vast majority of the citizenry regards with a kind of bemused affection and little else" differs from other cultures how exactly?

4. As you confidently say Canadians have "real values, which Canadians have aplenty and which, I'm sure, are forged of sterner stuff than carpetbaggers like Steyn would have us believe"

-Yes - I'm sure you correct, which is why Downtown Vancouver voted for a woman who muses "what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here?" bwaaa

[jbg]

I would say that Anglophone, Brit-descent Canadians have been suffering from a severe case of cultural cringe since the mid 1960s, when we started to buy the revisionist history and propaganda of the Quebec separatists, and felt a collective guilt over what evil things we were all supposedly responsible for.

But, this actually seems to be a more far-reaching phenomenon that's also taking place in the UK, Australia, to an extent the US, and elsewhere; so, it can't just be about Anglo and Franco Canadians.

Part of this, I believe, is guilt for post WW II prosperity. The unfortunate confluence of Marxist and Rousseau-ean (sp) influence at the university level, with the surge in college attendance after WW II taught people, during their formative, impressionable years that prosperity and success were somehow earned at the expense of the underdogs of the day. Thus, people came to believe that US prosperity, and by extension Canadian prosperity, came by virtue of "taking" resources and labor from other parts of the world. The problem with this view is that, for example, oil, is valueless in the absence of a consuming manufacturing economy. And "cheap" labor has no function unless its product can be sold.

As a result of this collective guilt trip, destroying prosperity became fashionable, whether dressed up as "environmentalism", multi-national NGO redistribution or Kyoto.

But, the ironic thing is that in our rush to sprawl ourselves in repentance at the feet of those who were once our "victims," we ignore the broader scope of the world, including the injustices, prejudices, and all-round reprehensible behavior of some of these minority groups, both in the past and still in the present. So guilty do we feel about having bossed them around in the past that we'll now accommodate their discrimination against women, preaching of hatred against other groups, and practice of racism and sexism, even when it's directed right at us.

Exactly. People confuse reactionary beliefs with progressive beliefs. Todays "liberals" are the true reactionaries.

It's as though Canadian identity and values from before 1982 - when the magical Charter came into effect (of course nobody has a clue what the Bill of Rights was) - are now viewed as the identity and values of racist, old, English men. The thinking then says that now we must move away from that past and establish a new epoch of tolerance and accommodation - the supposed exact opposite of what came before - which began with the establishment of official multiculturalism. Well, sure, multiculturalism is great - who wants to live in a banal society of automatons? And sure, we shouldn't necessarily hold on to every belief and every value of our predecessors. But, this sterilization of history in the name of remorse has left us as a lobotomized country - as Steyn says: now we're nothing more than who stands here at any given moment; a transient, rootless society. Everything from the past is sacrificed in the name of political correctness and reconciliation, and so the only thing we stand for is not-standing-for-anything. Because this makes us the most tolerant, we take a macabre pride in this gutless attitude.

Exactly. Abandoning the Canada of Vimy Ridge, of General Wolfe was an abdication, pure and simple.

Following quickly in our footsteps, of course, is Britain, where guilt over their imperial past has given fuel to the destruction of British traditions, devolution, and a closer integration with the socialist EU; Australia, where guilt over terra-nullis and the White Australia Policy has had similar effects.

Canada can be a tolerant nation. In comparison to many others throughout history, it always really has been; an end-product of the British Empire, which, despite our modern view of it, did actually accommodate local customs, cultures and languages much more than the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, Japanese and others empires did.

The Anglosphere has been the best mixing bowl of other nationalities, bar none. My ancestors arrived in New York City, speaking only Yiddish, between 1890 and 1910. Their children only wanted to speak English, and did not even speak Yiddish with their siblings, despite their parents' native tongues. The Anglosphere gave the downtrodden of all nationalities chances and opportunities where they had none, life where they faced death. The US and Canada, pre-WW II, only cared what people had to offer, not what their heritage was, and gave them a chance. In the place of that ideology, we now have government sponsored Somalian Gay Pride Parades and handgun play.

As well, Canada's always being a nation of immigrants has had an effect. But a country that willingly lets its foundations in history blow away in the winds that bring in a multitude of newly imported cultures, many of which themselves continue to practice what the WASP Canadian majority has been making every effort to stop themselves, is a dangerous experiment in social engineering. Our history is our history, for good or bad. We should absolutely acknowledge the bad, but should not lump the entirety of the past into a negative category. Our proud traditions should remain, our functioning constitutional system should be protected, and we should indeed, in no uncertain terms, expect immigrants to this land to accept this country's past, accept this country's proud traditions, accept the values of our society, and live by the rules. They can add their flavour to the societal make up, add their bit to the national debate, but this sick cultural suicide on the part of Canada has to stop.

A society that abandons its greatness has a hard time reclaiming same. Great post.

[Remiel]

Exactly. Abandoning the Canada of Vimy Ridge, of General Wolfe was an abdication, pure and simple.

The greatest lesson of Vimy Ridge has unfortunately been lost on the hawks on todays generations.

The proper way to win a battle is not to charge in guns blazing expecting you can overpower the enemy through brute force. You consider the terrain, formulate an innovation plan, prepare, prepare, prepare, and then prepare some more. And then, and only then, when you have as foolproof a strategy as can be said to exist in a time of war, you go in and KICK SOME ASS.

I do not think Canadians are adverse to fighting; we prefer to wait for the fog to lift, and when we can see clearly what needs to be done, then we are willing to do it. Hawks just want to jump into it and get their hands dirty, putting off the doubting for later, when the time for doubt is before you begin.

[jbg]

I do not think Canadians are adverse to fighting; we prefer to wait for the fog to lift, and when we can see clearly what needs to be done, then we are willing to do it. Hawks just want to jump into it and get their hands dirty, putting off the doubting for later, when the time for doubt is before you begin.

You and I rarely agree, but not a bad point.

But what about when there is no choice?

[Black Dog]

1. The amount of space between people in today's world doesn't impact what they believe as a unit. Just ask Joe afghani who still wants to beat the shit out of his wife even though he lives in Surrey, BC.

Way to miss the point completely.

The age of Canada has no relevence to the quality of it's values OR the symbols of those values.

Yes it does. Identities take time to form. Symbols gain meaning over time.

Your criteria that only OLD traditions (by the way - what is the benchmark for "old") command respect would honour things like burning women alive as they do in Pakistan and condemned by amnesty international.

You clearly have no idea what I'm saying.

But hey - if those ancient traditions and values trump the newly minted ones in our country, fill yer boots there old pal

WTF are you on about?

And your chracterization that "."Canadian" culture is little more than a trite and mostly harmless collection of slogans and symbols that the vast majority of the citizenry regards with a kind of bemused affection and little else" differs from other cultures how exactly?

Well, gosh, if that's the case, why are we having this discussion at all? What difference does it make if we swear allegiance to the Queen or the ghost of PET?

Some people think symbols matter.

4. As you confidently say Canadians have "real values, which Canadians have aplenty and which, I'm sure, are forged of sterner stuff than carpetbaggers like Steyn would have us believe"

-Yes - I'm sure you correct, which is why Downtown Vancouver voted for a woman who muses "what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here?" bwaaa

So she is totally representative of all or at least most Canadians?

[Remiel]

You and I rarely agree, but not a bad point.

But what about when there is no choice?

Hard to say, but generally speaking, when there is no choice, you can clearly see why, right? These days, only in wars between significant state actors do you really have no leeway in how long you can wait and prepare to begin your offensive.

Unfortunately, at this point it would be like beating a dead horse to point out that the lack of success in Afghanistan and failure in Iraq can be attributed to the lack of preparation, planning and sufficient resources (when and where they were needed), the three things that allowed us to win the day at Vimy.

In terms of resources, I was reading just yesterday that there was so much artillery pounding the Germans at Vimy that the barrage could be heard over 100 miles away. Today though, that particular resource is the one we have more of than we could ever need.

[mikedavid00]

My view? We could learn a thing or two from the USA on this subject.

This isn't a problem in the US becuase the small amount of people they do let in each year (per capita compared to Canada), are only there to work and then get kicked out when their permits expire.

What I'm trying to say is that the US does not let 'low quality' peoople into their country as we do here in Canada. Not only this, we let them live here indefinately and let them sponsor in their relatives who have no means of supporting themselves.

I really, really wish people would read up on our immigration policy and compare it to those of other countries before speaking on these subjects. They would be very suprised. I should also mention that most countries - not some contries - but MOST countries barely even have an immigartion policy. Many do not even issue citizenships. There's logical reasons for this.

Canada *only* does well because we are neighbours to the US. We are held back and poorer from immigration. Immigation in Canada is like a world charity that we all pay for. If we didn't have to, I assure everyone we would have a better quality of life than the Americans, live in larger homes, and have better medicare.

[guyser]

What I'm trying to say is that the US does not let 'low quality' peoople into their country as we do here in Canada. Not only this, we let them live here indefinately and let them sponsor in their relatives who have no means of supporting themselves.

Yea we know, those 20million illegals that poured over the southern border are very high quality.

I really, really wish people would read up on our immigration policy and compare it to those of other countries before speaking on these subjects.

Yes yes , we all do.

Of course that would include you .

Edit- I missed this....md00 says "and let them sponsor in their relatives who have no means of supporting themselves."

And then castigates us for not reading up.

Sponsoring relatives means they provide support in housing, food transport et al. IOW, they are not to feed off the public teat.

But I suspect you didnt know that.

Ergo.......must read...must read

[mikedavid00]

Sponsoring relatives means they provide support in housing, food transport et al. IOW, they are not to feed off the public teat.

Schooling, healthcare, transit, etc, etc

[guyser]

Schooling, healthcare, transit, etc, etc

Schooling is funded by property taxes .

Healthcare is not to be accessed freely.

Transit is provided by the sponsor.

Next...

[JMH]

Has anybody heard about this Charles Roach fellow who refuses to take the oath of citizenship because he and his fellow blacks were "colonized as a people by the British throne, enslaved as a people by the British throne..."?

This article by Mark Steyn discussed it in more detail. You have to register before you can read it. Use your "junk only" email address (don't we all have those?) to register if you don't want their spam.

It's worth the 45 seconds to read it. The oddest thing is that Mr. Roach is from Trinidad which makes him already a British subject.

The gist of what Steyn argues (and I am inclined to agree) is that

1. Roach doesn't HAVE to become a citizen of Canada

2. Aren't imigrants suppose to come here and assimilate to Canada - not Canada assimilate to immigrants?

3. What is Canada? Just a hotel where people can just show up and start demanding we change our values to suit them?

This to me is a bizarre case.

To quote Steyn:

"Canada is nothing other than whoever happens to be standing around in it at any particular time. M. Chrétien used to dignify this as "da Canadian values," but in practice "da Canadian values" boils down to forswearing the very notion of Canadian values. As Hedy Fry was wont to say from time to time, what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here? In seeking a constitutional right to reject Canadian sovereignty, Mr. Roach is in an oddly profound way the apotheosis of a Canadian value system that values the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority.

I think the judge should have told Mr. Roach to take a hike. Immigration is discretionary. That's to say, no state is obliged to take in this or that alien and then confer citizenship upon him. And for an immigrant to say he's prepared to accept citizenship only if in doing so he can reject the constitutional order is, even by the standards of our postmodern multiculti identity, almost too exquisite a parody.

Which is probably why Mr. Roach is a shoo-in. "

Thoughts?

I suspect that shortly after altering immigration law in Canada, he will lobby to be knighted by the Queen

as any self respecting jack-ass would do. My God , what a turd.

[M.Dancer]

Has anybody heard about this Charles Roach fellow who refuses to take the oath of citizenship because he and his fellow blacks were "colonized as a people by the British throne, enslaved as a people by the British throne..."?

This article by Mark Steyn discussed it in more detail. You have to register before you can read it. Use your "junk only" email address (don't we all have those?) to register if you don't want their spam.

It's worth the 45 seconds to read it. The oddest thing is that Mr. Roach is from Trinidad which makes him already a British subject.

The gist of what Steyn argues (and I am inclined to agree) is that

1. Roach doesn't HAVE to become a citizen of Canada

2. Aren't imigrants suppose to come here and assimilate to Canada - not Canada assimilate to immigrants?

3. What is Canada? Just a hotel where people can just show up and start demanding we change our values to suit them?

This to me is a bizarre case.

To quote Steyn:

"Canada is nothing other than whoever happens to be standing around in it at any particular time. M. Chrétien used to dignify this as "da Canadian values," but in practice "da Canadian values" boils down to forswearing the very notion of Canadian values. As Hedy Fry was wont to say from time to time, what right have we to say who can come here and what they should do when they get here? In seeking a constitutional right to reject Canadian sovereignty, Mr. Roach is in an oddly profound way the apotheosis of a Canadian value system that values the absence of values as proof of one's moral superiority.

I think the judge should have told Mr. Roach to take a hike. Immigration is discretionary. That's to say, no state is obliged to take in this or that alien and then confer citizenship upon him. And for an immigrant to say he's prepared to accept citizenship only if in doing so he can reject the constitutional order is, even by the standards of our postmodern multiculti identity, almost too exquisite a parody.

Which is probably why Mr. Roach is a shoo-in. "

Thoughts?

I suspect that shortly after altering immigration law in Canada, he will lobby to be knighted by the Queen

as any self respecting jack-ass would do. My God , what a turd.

I knew an Irish fellow who worked devotedly to get Mulrooney elected and re-elcted, yet he was landed and could not vote.

He would not swear allegence to te queen. I told him that this queen is the queen of Canada, which allows Micks like him to work in politics righjt beside arch consrvative asshole orangemen...but he would nae listen to reason......

[geoffrey]

...then you're saying you won't give your life for Canada.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't give my life for anything. It's a highly counter-productive exchange.

[betsy]

If he doesn't want your system or Queen why is he there?

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

But that is not the point.

[geoffrey]

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

But that is not the point.

Yup. It kind of is.

[g_bambino]

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

But that is not the point.

Yup. It kind of is.

No, it really isn't. People aren't granted Canadian citizenship on their terms.

[ScottSA]

...then you're saying you won't give your life for Canada.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't give my life for anything. It's a highly counter-productive exchange.

That's a sorry statement, but I guess it's reflective of much that ails our society.

[normanchateau]

I wouldn't give my life for anything.

I'd give my life for my wife or children without hesitation. Assuming that you had a wife or children, wouldn't you?

[Guest chilipeppers]

I don't want our Queen either. Does anyone here actually want to swear their allegiance to the Queen?

But that is not the point.

Yup. It kind of is.

No, it really isn't. People aren't granted Canadian citizenship on their terms.

Good point.

[normanchateau]

...then you're saying you won't give your life for Canada.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't give my life for anything. It's a highly counter-productive exchange.

That's a sorry statement, but I guess it's reflective of much that ails our society.

It's also reflective of the libertarian position.

[jbg]

No, it really isn't. People aren't granted Canadian citizenship on their terms.

They shouldn't be but they are. Just ask the Khadrs, the Arers or similar pond scum.