The new face of hate

[Argus]

I fail to see what this information has to do with immigrant contribution to the economy of Canada which, as we know, is on the positive side of the ledger.

You have proven nothing.

You have failed to prove immigrant contribution to the economy is positive.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Argus

[Argus]

Immigrants have to pass a test in one of our official languages to get citizenship

Yes, it's fairly basic. It doesn't mean you can carry on a complicated conversation. I called up Bell Canada the other day. I think their call centre is in some foreign country. I could barely understand the East Asian sounding guy who I was talking to. When I called back I got another East Asian sounding guy I could barely understand. I'm sure that they passed language tests, though.

That is patently wrong. I learned a foreign language from very little foundation after only a few months.

Really? Write me out a philosophical theory on the politics, will ya?

[Argus]

Regardless of your irrational terror of what MIGHT happen, the facts remain: IMMIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE ECONOMY THAN THEY TAKE OUT.

Evidence?

[Argus]

MikeDavid has consistently ignored requests that he back up the information that he's posting.

I think we should stop responding to his arguments until he does so.

Lots of people fail to back up the arguments they make. Like it's a FACT that immigrants contribute more economically than they cost.

[Argus]

Actually, it is just stupid. If an immigrant can afford to own and operate a vehicle he is obviously gainfully employed and paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Pimps and drug dealers have cars. Do you call that gainful employment?

I remember seeing a front page story in the Ottawa Citizen about a Jamaican woman being deported who was furious that she couldn't bring her van and big screen TV with them. She'd lived all her life on welfare here.

[jennie]

You have failed to prove immigrant contribution to the economy is positive.

You have even failed to show one single piece of evidence, in fact.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=252940

Perhaps you missed it.

[Argus]

Just a few things from the report.

QUOTE

Immigrants also have higher levels of educational attainment than people born in Canada. Yet, in virtually every urban region, a far higher proportion of recent immigrants were employed in jobs with lower skill requirements than the Canadian-born.

Immigrants are much more likely to have university degrees than Canadian-born, but this is a misleading statement. Many of those degrees are from institutions which are are not internationally respected or recognized, and in addition, immigrants are much more likely than Canadian-born to have no education, or less than a grade eight education. In addition, the communications skills of immigrants tend to be sadly lacking.

QUOTE

The report also points to potential implications of immigration for public services. For example, in all census metropolitan areas, recent immigrants aged 25 to 54 were far more likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to attend school.

That would be because Canadians are finished school well before this age, and immigrants come here, realize their poor education gets them nowhere, and need to go back to school. Do you not see the contradiction between this quote and your first one? Why do you think older immigrants are in school anyway? A great thirst for knowledge?

QUOTE

Within six months of arriving in Canada, just under one-third of new immigrants had already taken at least one course in either English or French.

In all age groups between 18 and 54, recent immigrants were more likely than people born in Canada to have attended school in the academic year 2000/01

Which again shows their poor education when they arrive - else they wouldn't all be going to school - at our expensive, I might add.

QUOTE

In addition, recent immigrants were less likely to be employed in occupations typically requiring a university degree. In fact, recent immigrants with a university degree were much more likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to be working in occupations that typically require no formal education.

In Vancouver, for example, 31% of recent immigrants with a university degree were employed in jobs with low-skill levels, compared with only 13% of Canadian-born graduates. In most other urban centres, there was a difference of at least 10 percentage points between these groups.

Yes, because their university education in many cases is worthless, especially in view of their poor language skills. So what exactly is it you're trying to show by these quotes?

[Argus]

Well I'll give you something to respond to.

This is a bit dated, but it quelled the 'debate' about immigration at the time:

It did? An unsupported paper by a pro-immigrant group whose data and methodology is unknown? This is nonsense, you know. And as you said, more than twenty years old. All the recent papers and studies I have seen suggest that the economic performance of immigrants has plunged in the last twenty five years as compared to the Canadian mainstream

On economic performance

However, the evidence shows that despite having high levels of education, the economic performance of immigrants relative to the Canadian-born population has deteriorated. Many immigrants find it difficult to secure well-paying jobs and their earnings tend to be well below those of the Canadian-born population.

On literacy

Immigrants aged 16 to 65 performed significantly below the average for the Canadian- born population in all four domains.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, duration of residence in Canada appeared to have no significant impact on the average performance of immigrants in any of the four domains.

Stats Canada on Immigrants and Literacy

also

Analysis of census data as of 2000 shows that immigrant incomes were at 80% of the national average after 10 years of residing in Canada.[10] In previous decades, immigrant income levels did rise to the national average after 10 years, but in recent years the situation has deteriorated. A 2003 study published by Statistics Canada noted that "in 1980 recent immigrants had low-income rates 1.4 times that of Canadian born, by 2000 they were 2.5 times higher, at 35.8%."[6] The study noted that the deterioration was widespread and affected most types of immigrants. The 2003 study explains that the low-income rate among non-immigrants declined in the 1990s, but this was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net rise in Canada's total low-income rate. An updated January 2007 study by Statistics Canada, explains that the deterioration continued into the next decade, with the low-income rate of recent immigrants reaching rates of 3.5 times that of Canadian born in 2002 and 2003, before edging back to 3.2 times in 2004.[7] The 2007 study explains that this deterioration has occurred even though Canada implemented changes in 1993 to encourage more highly educated immigrants, with 45% of new immigrants having university degrees as of 2004, compared to 13% in the early 1990s.

Economic impact of immigration

Excuse me for using data from this century, btw.

[jefferiah]

The essential difference in the argument is not people who should be how to deal with insult, but the action of laws. The essential action of laws is to keep everything in order. Such as a teacher instructs a classroom discussion. Telling his pupils what can say or what cannot say is not a good way, but telling a kid how to express his opinion by correct way is his duty. .

In a school the teacher is the boss of what subjects are to be discussed. Life is different. When you are not in school you do not have to abide by this. The teacher's ruling is also not a rule of law. A teacher cannot fine a child 5000 dollars for saying something. Now I have said Xul that I believe homosexuality is a sin, do you think that I should owe money to anyone who is offended by this?

I have a friend who is teaching school in China. Apparently he can be reprimanded if he ever mentions Tian An Men Square to his Social Studies class.

Jennie, still waiting on an answer to my question.

Edited September 27, 2007 by jefferiah

[kengs333]

Yes, because their university education in many cases is worthless, especially in view of their poor language skills. So what exactly is it you're trying to show by these quotes?

Yes, exactly, I've seen this first hand, but there are ways of getting around it, though. No educational institution wants to make an issue about this however because it would give them bad press.

[jennie]

It did? An unsupported paper by a pro-immigrant group whose data and methodology is unknown? This is nonsense, you know. And as you said, more than twenty years old. All the recent papers and studies I have seen suggest that the economic performance of immigrants has plunged in the last twenty five years as compared to the Canadian mainstream

On economic performance

However, the evidence shows that despite having high levels of education, the economic performance of immigrants relative to the Canadian-born population has deteriorated. Many immigrants find it difficult to secure well-paying jobs and their earnings tend to be well below those of the Canadian-born population.

On literacy

Immigrants aged 16 to 65 performed significantly below the average for the Canadian- born population in all four domains.

Perhaps contrary to expectation, duration of residence in Canada appeared to have no significant impact on the average performance of immigrants in any of the four domains.

Stats Canada on Immigrants and Literacy

also

Analysis of census data as of 2000 shows that immigrant incomes were at 80% of the national average after 10 years of residing in Canada.[10] In previous decades, immigrant income levels did rise to the national average after 10 years, but in recent years the situation has deteriorated. A 2003 study published by Statistics Canada noted that "in 1980 recent immigrants had low-income rates 1.4 times that of Canadian born, by 2000 they were 2.5 times higher, at 35.8%."[6] The study noted that the deterioration was widespread and affected most types of immigrants. The 2003 study explains that the low-income rate among non-immigrants declined in the 1990s, but this was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net rise in Canada's total low-income rate. An updated January 2007 study by Statistics Canada, explains that the deterioration continued into the next decade, with the low-income rate of recent immigrants reaching rates of 3.5 times that of Canadian born in 2002 and 2003, before edging back to 3.2 times in 2004.[7] The 2007 study explains that this deterioration has occurred even though Canada implemented changes in 1993 to encourage more highly educated immigrants, with 45% of new immigrants having university degrees as of 2004, compared to 13% in the early 1990s.

Economic impact of immigration

Excuse me for using data from this century, btw.

That is interesting data.

These correlations make it difficult to separate the effect of rising shares from that of increasing

rates within groups.

In other words, larger groups of immigrants there were more low income people ... because there were more people. That is not an astounding finding.

What is bothersome about Canada's point system is that it credits people for education and skills that cannot be used in Canada without requalifying in English or French.

Also bothersome are the badly needed skilled tradespeople who can do everything but read the manuals (in English).

[jefferiah]

It seems you have been by this thread a few times since I asked you a very simple question and yet you were somehow unable to answer it. I wonder why. Perhaps you missed it. Here I will help you out.

JENNIE, IF A PERSON WHO (FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES) WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS A WHITE PERSON WERE TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A PERSON WHO MADE DEMEANING COMMENTS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT HE WAS OFFENDED, WOULD YOU THEN SUPPORT THAT LAWSUIT?

Edited September 27, 2007 by jefferiah

[Wilber]

It seems you have been by this thread a few times since I asked you a very simple question and yet you were somehow unable to answer it. I wonder why. Perhaps you missed it. Here I will help you out.

JENNIE, IF A PERSON WHO (FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES) WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS A WHITE PERSON WERE TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A PERSON WHO MADE DEMEANING COMMENTS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT HE WAS OFFENDED, WOULD YOU THEN SUPPORT THAT LAWSUIT?

I get the impression the answer would be no.

[ScottSA]

In my opinion, the hate espoused by some people results in incidents like this:

http://www.californiachronicle.com/article...articleID=38547

Fourth Grade Student Beaten and Tortured By Teacher

Mike Graham

September 25, 2007

A fourth grade student attending a rural Oklahoma school could not get out of bed one morning to go to school. His mother not knowing what was wrong with her son was concerned. She asked if he was sick and the child replied, “I don't want to go to school”.

The boy's mother became concerned after hearing this from her son who always loved going to school and being around all his friends. The mother told her son he did not have to go to school if he did not feel like going that day. The young boy replied, “I don't ever want to go back to school”.

At this time the boy's mother asks her son to tell her what was going on at school. He said he did not want to get into any more trouble. The boy's mother assured her son that he would in no way be in trouble no matter what the problem was. She told her son she would take care of the problem no matter what it was and make it go away.

The boy then told his mother he was in a lot of pain, and could not move without hurting real bad. He told her his teacher had whipped him the day before and it really hurt bad. The mother pulled back the covers and saw black and blue strap marks on her son from the stomach down.

In shock, the mother asked “how did this happen to you”? The boy said his teacher whipped him every week during the school year because the teacher did not like me because I had Indian blood and said I should not be allowed in his school. He said I should be in an Indian school; I did not deserve to be in his classroom because I had Indian heritage.

You forgot the violins. Oh, wait, it's an anecdote. Told secondhand from the claims of a fourth grade student. That sounds convincing. Anyone recall the "Wenatchee Witch Hunt"? Here: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/wenatchee.htm Here's a few more: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_case.htm Oh wow, close to home: http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/timeline.htm

In fact, "Results 1 - 10 of about 240,000 for witch hunt child abuse daycare canada."

240,000, eh? Better run right out n' git the teacher, right now!

http://www.truthinjustice.org/child-abuse.htm

[rogue state]

delete

Edited September 27, 2007 by Charles Anthony
obnoxious content

[scribblet]

Betsy,

I may have pigeonholed you without cause. Sorry if I did.

I took this comment of yours to indicate that you're anti-immigration: "This multi-culturalism is only adding fuel to the fire. "

I don't think most people are simply 'anti-immigration' they are simply against accommodating various cultures at the expense of our own. Immigration is not a 'right', it should be geared to the economic need of the country and immigrants should adapt to their adopted country, for the most part. That doesn't mean they have to give up their own culture etc., but they should not make demands of the host country and we should not be financing immigrant's cultural needs. The only thing we should finance is teaching our official languages.

The problem today is that it is hard to have a rational debate on immigration without the name calling, and that of course is what it is all about, stifling debate and making it hard for people to talk about the issue.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think most people are simply 'anti-immigration' they are simply against accommodating various cultures at the expense of our own. Immigration is not a 'right', it should be geared to the economic need of the country and immigrants should adapt to their adopted country, for the most part. That doesn't mean they have to give up their own culture etc., but they should not make demands of the host country and we should not be financing immigrant's cultural needs. The only thing we should finance is teaching our official languages.

The problem today is that it is hard to have a rational debate on immigration without the name calling, and that of course is what it is all about, stifling debate and making it hard for people to talk about the issue.

Scrib,

Well, we should be able to have that debate here.

I'm glad to see that Argus has posted some good arguments to support his case, and we should pursue those next.

I understand that immigrants are expected to adapt. They do adapt, and will continue to do so. A 2nd generation immigrant is more "Canadian" than the parent. But as was posted in another thread - the devil is in the details.

Many of the decisions with regards to accommodating cultures come from the courts. We can decry those decisions, but how would we change things so that this didn't happen ? We would probably have to enshrine Christianity as a heritage religion into the constitution, and give it some kind of favoured status in Canadian society.

[xul]

The "anti-hatred" laws are far more severe in Europe, especially in places like France and the UK. Accommodation of minorities is also far more advanced there. All this has done is cause the immigrants and their children and children's children to feel as though they are not really a part of those nations, and has caused violence and resentment on both sides.

So the hatred to Jews in Europe before WW2 was caused of Jews not Nazi and their supporters? Because of Jews are immigrants, their ancestor lived in Mideast, not in Europe. So they were the cause of rousing hatred?

The anti-hatred laws are far more severe in Europe now, because there were a lot of hatred and European people and politicians has learned a lot from their history.

There actually WERE such laws in Germany, and Adolph Hitler and other Nazis went to jail because of them. But it did nothing to stop them. In some ways those laws actually helped them. And once they were in power the Nazis found those laws very convenient as they turned them around and used them against Jews and Communists and other opponents.

Hitler was in jail because of Beer Hall Putsch, not because of he advocating hatred. I have never heard there were an anti-hatred law in Germany at that time. In fact, he decided to use hatred as a tool to gain his politic interests when he was in the jail. He wrote his book "Adolf Hitler- Mein Kampf" in the jail.

Edited September 27, 2007 by xul

[xul]

In a school the teacher is the boss of what subjects are to be discussed. Life is different. When you are not in school you do not have to abide by this. The teacher's ruling is also not a rule of law. A teacher cannot fine a child 5000 dollars for saying something.

If a neo-nazi was not in Canada but in some countries he could also yell "destroy Israel" or "Jews are Satan" without being punished by anti-hatred law. See, teacher rules in a school and law rules in a country.

A school with a such teacher is a good school and a country with a such law is a civilized country. On the contrary, a school with teacher let his pupils "speeching free" to insult others is a bad school and a country let hatred speech free is an uncivilized country.

Now I have said Xul that I believe homosexuality is a sin, do you think that I should owe money to anyone who is offended by this?

I think it depend on how we interpret the word "sin". My dictionary's explaination is"A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate" or "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God", so what you said is fact, not insult.

I have a friend who is teaching school in China. Apparently he can be reprimanded if he ever mentions Tian An Men Square to his Social Studies class.

If you interested in discussing the fault of China, you could go "The Rest of the World " board and I would be very willing to tell you a lot of faults of China, honestly.

[jefferiah]

If a neo-nazi was not in Canada but in some countries he could also yell "destroy Israel" or "Jews are Satan" without being punished by anti-hatred law. See, teacher rules in a school and law rules in a country.

A school with a such teacher is a good school and a country with a such law is a civilized country. On the contrary, a school with teacher let his pupils "speeching free" to insult others is a bad school and a country let hatred speech free is an uncivilized country.

I think it depend on how we interpret the word "sin". My dictionary's explaination is"A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate" or "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God", so what you said is fact, not insult.

If you interested in discussing the fault of China, you could go "The Rest of the World " board and I would be very willing to tell you a lot of faults of China, honestly.

Of course law rules in a country. But because law is not perfect it should only deal in the more important matters. The speech of individuals should never come under the power of the government. Who has the right to be such a teacher?

If the speech is a threat or a call to violence against a particular person or group, then it is already a crime--perhaps this would cover the destroy Israel case. Saying "Jews are Satan", while I would think it is not a very nice thing to say, should never be punishable by law. It is an insult. You make the comparison to what happened in Germany. But insulting someone and actually doing something are two different things. I do not agree with insulting someone, on a personal level. But there is not one of us here who has not been guilty of that. And if you take away all the meaningless crap about race and protected groups....why should it be any different if it is a race or a group which is insulted, or even an individual human being. There is no one who is free from this. And I cannot speak on behalf of Jewish people, but I know a few (and I am sure there are quite a few) who agree with me on the free speech issue. In fact I think there are a few who would say they would rather have free speech so that people's racism does not get whitewashed over, and in this way they can figure out who is a Nazi or not and allow them to make an ass of themselves.

On the level of individual insult people have called George Bush Satan, or the antiChrist.

As for calling homosexuality sin, you say that what I said was a fact. Many people are not religious though and to them it is not a fact. But even so, I don't think it should matter. Whether the morality of it is fact or simply opinion. People are entitled to having a moral opinion and to profess that opinion. This is freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. And as long as all they are doing is having it and professing it (not committing violence or calling for crimes to be committed) it does not in anyway infringe upon someone else's right to disagree and to say the complete opposite and do the complete opposite. But none of this matters. Even though you agree with me on this matter, people can be sued for saying they believe homosexuality is a sin. A line in the Bible which refers to homosexuality as "unnatural relations" has been deemed hate literature as well.

[mikedavid00]

For example, a boy kicked a ball at his neighbour's window and broke the glass. Usually the neighbour would not ask his family to pay for the event because the loss is small and he is a kid.

It is the moral and proper thing to do for the parent of the child who broke the window to offer to pay for the broken glass.

And replacing a window in Canada is very expensive.

[Argus]

That is interesting data.

These correlations make it difficult to separate the effect of rising shares from that of increasing

rates within groups.

In other words, larger groups of immigrants there were more low income people ... because there were more people. That is not an astounding finding.

You are misreading the statement. All of the quotes make it clear that the economic performance of immigrants is well below that of Canadians. Immigrants are much less likely to be paying taxes - because poor people do not pay taxes. They are much more likely to be consuming government services. A visit to any social housing complex should demonstrate that to even your satisfaction.

What is bothersome about Canada's point system is that it credits people for education and skills that cannot be used in Canada without requalifying in English or French.

That is extremely bothersome. I believe you get 22 points for having a degree or skill of some sort but only 16 points for knowing English - and how well do you know it? The statistics again make it quite clear that literacy levels among immigrants are much lower and STAY lower despite how long they have been here. Immigrants have a tendency to learn just enough to get by - but often not enough to really prosper in a society which increasingly values communication skills.

[Argus]

Scrib,

Well, we should be able to have that debate here.

I'm glad to see that Argus has posted some good arguments to support his case, and we should pursue those next.

I understand that immigrants are expected to adapt. They do adapt, and will continue to do so. A 2nd generation immigrant is more "Canadian" than the parent. But as was posted in another thread - the devil is in the details.

A 2nd generation is more Canadian, but how much more? I recall Irshad Manji talking about growing up as a young Muslim girl in Canada - born here, but forced into an "ethnic" school, taught a foreign language, taught foreign concepts, like Jews being evil, all trying to perpetuate the old third world culture. She rebelled, but how many don't? When a lot of ethnic kids like her are being shipped "home" to get a mate and "re-learn" their old culture, then sponsor that mate to Canada - and so on - and so on?

Many of the decisions with regards to accommodating cultures come from the courts. We can decry those decisions, but how would we change things so that this didn't happen ? We would probably have to enshrine Christianity as a heritage religion into the constitution, and give it some kind of favoured status in Canadian society.

I think I've made it fairly clear what I think of the courts - stuffed with political ideologues from the Liberal party. But i don't think they're the major source of problems here. The real problem is politicians sucking up to the ethnic vote. We see it in Ontario, for example, with John Tory's idiotic promise to divert funding to religious schools. We saw it in Dalton McGuinty's support for Sharia law - until the polls showed him this was a losing proposition. We see it in municipal politics and we especially see it in federal politics where, for the most part, the Liberals (the Mulroney tories did it too) funnel money to "ethnic representatives in exchange for organizing their ethnic group to vote for the party. And in aid of that they toss out all kinds of money for programs to entice ethnic groups to vote for them. Our immigration policies are not designed to benefit Canada. They are designed to prove loyalty to ethnic groups in exchange for votes.

[Argus]

So the hatred to Jews in Europe before WW2 was caused of Jews not Nazi and their supporters? Because of Jews are immigrants, their ancestor lived in Mideast, not in Europe. So they were the cause of rousing hatred?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I am speaking about present day laws in the UK and France, and present day violence among ethnic groups, principally Muslims and Blacks, towards the rest of their country.

The anti-hatred laws are far more severe in Europe now, because there were a lot of hatred and European people and politicians has learned a lot from their history.

The anti-hatred laws have been in place for many, many years. What good have they done? Ethnic and racial hatred are far worse now than in the past, and far worse than in north America.

Hitler was in jail because of Beer Hall Putsch, not because of he advocating hatred. I have never heard there were an anti-hatred law in Germany at that time. In fact, he decided to use hatred as a tool to gain his politic interests when he was in the jail. He wrote his book "Adolf Hitler- Mein Kampf" in the jail.

Yes, but he was also under a gag order issued by the Bavarian government after a 1925 speech threatening Jews, Marxists, etc. He was not allowed to give any public speeches or writings for 2 years. It did nothing to stop him from organizing and increasing his popularity. Bans like that simply do not work.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus,

A 2nd generation is more Canadian, but how much more? I recall Irshad Manji talking about growing up as a young Muslim girl in Canada - born here, but forced into an "ethnic" school, taught a foreign language, taught foreign concepts, like Jews being evil, all trying to perpetuate the old third world culture. She rebelled, but how many don't? When a lot of ethnic kids like her are being shipped "home" to get a mate and "re-learn" their old culture, then sponsor that mate to Canada - and so on - and so on?

Every culture that comes to North America eventually melts in. The Muslim woman I had drinks with after my night class last fall was no different. I suspect you think they're different because you don't know any of them like my friend...