The new face of hate

[mikedavid00]

This article states, according to a Statistics Canada study:

"...2006 unemployment levels among immigrants who arrived in Canada between 2001 and 2006 was 11.5 per cent, as compared with 4.9 per cent among the Canadian-born population.

The study notes that unemployment rates in 2006 fell to 7.3 per cent among immigrants who had been in the country between five and 10 years."

Oh please.

Don't make me go and refute those numbers.

We're talking about the first years that immigrants arrive in Canada.

How about the first 5 years.

I heard those stats today about how they have double the unemployment rate. Immigrants that enter Canada, for the most part, are not very hard workers. They want hand-outs and feel they are intellectuals who want white collar jobs.

You cant say that about Mexicans who cross the border.

[jennie]

Oh please.

Don't make me go and refute those numbers.

We're talking about the first years that immigrants arrive in Canada.

How about the first 5 years.

I heard those stats today about how they have double the unemployment rate. Immigrants that enter Canada, for the most part, are not very hard workers. They want hand-outs and feel they are intellectuals who want white collar jobs.

You cant say that about Mexicans who cross the border.

I was not referring to the first five years, but the whole big picture: Government money paid out, taxes paid in. On that basis, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out.

[Argus]

Hey Scott,

It all comes down to "the left's" view of society, which is identical to yours in that you think that there are a lot of stupid, and easily led people out there.

Being a student of history, as you are, (.... sorry ... a master teacher of all recorded events of world history ...) you know that it has happened time and again that certain groups blame certain other groups in society for their problems. The results can be horrifying, I don't need to tell you.

Hate laws are a tool to prevent that from happening, and that's all. They need to be used carefully, it's true, but we're better off having them.

The problem is the tool not only does not work, and is dangerous, but there is growing evidence that it helps foster the very hatred, racism and exclusion the Left claims to be against.

[Argus]

Except that with a birth rate of 1.57 children per woman, Canadians will become extinct within 5 generations without immigration.

Complete and utter bullshit, you know.

Without immigration - with zero immigration as from right now, today, our population will fall, in about 30 years, by a minute fraction. It would take centuries to fall back to the level it was when I was born. And that presupposes the cultural values we now hold which prevent us from having more children stay in place.

[Argus]

We need immigration because too many of us chose not to renew our population. The the reasons may vary and be subject to debate but the numbers are not very complicated.

True. They are not very complicated. I have looked at the demographic numbers. Have you?

[Argus]

Exackly. Every wave of immigrants has been abused in some wy by the current crew. Some got off lightly. Some (like the Chinese) suffered horrribly to give us a better country. The 'Cajuns definitely have a grievance.

The major difference, however, was that previous generations of immigrants were expected and required to survive on their own, to adapt or die, or go back where they came from. The many, many immigrants who could not succeed here and returned home are one of the untold stories in our history.

Now, of course, they just go on welfare. In most central Canada slums, the population appears to be something like 75% visible minority, almost all with heavy accents.

[Argus]

You guys need to stop seeing immigrants as a drain on our system and start seeing them as a positive force. We were all (well almost all) immigrants at one time. That's just the way it is here.

They are a positive force as far as providing jobs for security guards, police, prison guards, social and welfare workers go anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

MikeDavid and Argus... please provide proof of your statements.

[jefferiah]

I would have to agree with that one UNLESS he said or implied that it would be immoral FOR HIMSELF.

I think the dividing line is between espousing something for yourself, and placing judgments on others who do it.

I like dill pickle chips, you hate them. Do you say you won't eat them, or do you say nobody should eat them?

It's a matter of who it is directed at, in my opinion.

Saying homosexuality shouldn't exist is offensive to those who are.

If you are not, why does it matter to you?

To them, though, as a population at whom hate crimes are directed, it is part of the atmosphere that validates that.

Only in insane criminal minds perhaps, but denying their right to exist is a bit extreme even just verbally.

No he didnt say for himself. But why should he have to. If he believes it is immoral for him and everyone else, that is not stopping gay people from being gay. They don't have to believe him. He did not incite violence. If I said nobody should eat dill pickle chips, you are right it would probably be stupid, but do you think my saying it would warrant a lawsuit? Of course not. You don't have to agree with me.

It would be ridiculous to say that the dividing line is between espousing something for yourself or for others. You would be creating a great limit on free speech then. You don't have to agree with what people say if you don't like it. But they should be able to say it. If someone believes something is immoral for themselves or for everyone, they should be able to say it. Or else how would they be able to communicate it. If there were a religious group which forbid its adherents to drink alcohol, they would have to be able to communicate that they believe drinking is wrong. Drinking is perfectly legal in society and saying that drinking is bad might offend some people who drink. So what. They don't have to be adherents of this particular religious sect. Simple as that.

So what if saying homosexuality is a sin is offensive to homosexuals. Offensive is not a crime. If there is no call to violence then it should not matter. And if homosexuals believe it is ok, then they should be fine with it and ignore it.

Edited September 25, 2007 by jefferiah

[Argus]

The Canadian birth rate is 1.57 per woman. The bare minimum required to renew the population is 2.1. Two to replace the parents and .1 for unforeseen mortality. Lets round if off to 1.5 per couple. If every two couples average 3 children in their lifetimes, that is a drop of 25% per generation. Who needs a newspaper article to figure that out.

Yu is so durn smart! Ya don't need none a that fancy demographic data er nuthin! You gots it all figured out!

[Argus]

I find your singling out certain peoples extremely distastefull, and you are absolutely wrong about the 'drain' on the welfare system: Immigrants put more money into the economy that they take out. Period. Case closed.

You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support that would you? Or does your Royal Majesty get to simply declare something a fact which thus precludes argument?

[Argus]

I was not referring to the first five years, but the whole big picture: Government money paid out, taxes paid in. On that basis, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out.

Depends. If you're poor, you pay little or no taxes, and are far more likely to be consuming taxes in the form of social assistance, unemployment, medical benefits, etc. So whether you are an economic plus or minus really depends on your value as a worker. Far too many new immigrants have very little value as workers. Their language skills are very poor in a work world which values communications skills more than at any time in history, and while many have some job skills it often isn't applicable to Canada, and their education often isn't transferable. In addition, while immigrants tend to be more likely to have a university degree than native born Canadians it is also true that immigrants are more likely than native born Canadians to have less than a high school education, and even more likely to have less than a grade eight education.

Such people will never be economic pluses to our economy. They will always suck up more in tax dollars for their care than they contribute.

[Argus]

MikeDavid and Argus... please provide proof of your statements.

Care to be more specific?

[mikedavid00]

The Canadian birth rate is 1.57 per woman. The bare minimum required to renew the population is 2.1. Two to replace the parents and .1 for unforeseen mortality. Lets round if off to 1.5 per couple. If every two couples average 3 children in their lifetimes, that is a drop of 25% per generation. Who needs a newspaper article to figure that out.

It's proven we have a lower birthrate becasue we cannot afford to have children.

We cannot afford children because we are taxed too high and real estate is too expensive.

We are taxed so high and real estate is over prices because.. .we.... let... in... immigrants.

[mikedavid00]

I was not referring to the first five years, but the whole big picture: Government money paid out, taxes paid in. On that basis, immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out.

That is false.

Canada's issue with immigrants being a drain more than a help is a newrer phenomenon that has been persent in the last 15 years.

The stats you should be looking it are how many are living in poverty right now.

Those that are lviing in poverty are simply not paying into the system.

Ok Jennie. Lets try and make this more simple.

Jennie, do you think it's appropriate to let people wander out of pearson airport with no job prospects, and have never paid into our system with free and easy access to our services when we do not have jobs for them? (keeping in mind that almost NO OTHER COUNTRY DOES THIS EXCEPT US)

[Michael Hardner]

Care to be more specific?

No. Any one will do.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(American Woman @ Sep 24 2007, 05:02 PM) *

This article states, according to a Statistics Canada study:

"...2006 unemployment levels among immigrants who arrived in Canada between 2001 and 2006 was 11.5 per cent, as compared with 4.9 per cent among the Canadian-born population.

The study notes that unemployment rates in 2006 fell to 7.3 per cent among immigrants who had been in the country between five and 10 years."

Oh please.

Don't make me go and refute those numbers.

We're talking about the first years that immigrants arrive in Canada.

How about the first 5 years.

I heard those stats today about how they have double the unemployment rate. Immigrants that enter Canada, for the most part, are not very hard workers. They want hand-outs and feel they are intellectuals who want white collar jobs.

You cant say that about Mexicans who cross the border.

MikeDavid - somebody posted stats from stats Canada.

If you have anything REAL to add other than anecdotal evidence then post it now. Immigrants are adding to the economy - producing, buying goods, and investing in Canada.

Provide some counter evidence that amounts to anything better then pure rhetoric.

[mikedavid00]

MikeDavid - somebody posted stats from stats Canada.

If you have anything REAL to add other than anecdotal evidence then post it now. Immigrants are adding to the economy - producing, buying goods, and investing in Canada.

Provide some counter evidence that amounts to anything better then pure rhetoric.

Fine then. I'll do so tommorow at work.

Right I have to go to bed.

I'm tried of always having to post facts to back my claims. It's very time consuming but I have't done so in a while so I'll do so again tommorow.

[Wilber]

Stats Can

Just a few things from the report.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sure sound like a bunch of bums to me.

[jennie]

Fine then. I'll do so tommorow at work.

Right I have to go to bed.

I'm tried of always having to post facts to back my claims. It's very time consuming but I have't done so in a while so I'll do so again tommorow.

Well I'll give you something to respond to.

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

http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Libr...20al/loc2d.html

Subject to the limitations described at the outset of this section, our analyses show that Toronto's immigrants admitted between 1980 and 1995 do not obtain social assistance in excess of income tax they pay. In other words, there is no evidence that these immigrants are an economic drain on the host society; instead, they as a whole make positive net contributions to Canada's treasury. At the same time, our analyses show that immigrants in general have not been able to contribute to Canada's treasury at the same level as average Canadians do. Since a low T-B ratio is usually caused by low income and insecure employment, it is also indicative that immigrants have not achieved levels of economic performance and security comparable to those of native-born Canadians. Among other things, this may be attributed to the fact that 57 percent of the target immigrant population had been in Canada for less than 6 years when their 1995 tax return was filed. As length of residence in Canada increases, the gap in economic contributions between the target immigrant population and the native born Canadians should reduce, if not diminish.

. . .

Contrary to popular belief, immigrants admitted for family reunification, especially assisted relatives, also make positive contributions to Canada, though their T-B ratio is lower than that for economic immigrants. Thus, they are not economic burdens to Canada, as many have perceived. The only classes of immigrants who seem to receive more benefits than the amount of taxes they pay are refugees and their dependants. This seems to agree with Lui-Gurr's (1995) observation that refugees are at a greater risk of welfare dependency. The high welfare dependency rate for Toronto's refugees may be explained by both their lower level of education and their shorter length of residence in Canada. For instance, 64 percent of refugees came to Canada with 12 or less years of education (25 percent with 0-9 years; 39 percent with 10-12 years), and only 9 percent with university degrees. As well, 66 per cent of all refugees arrived in Canada in 1990 and after. Nonetheless, refugees and their dependants are admitted into Canada for political and humanitarian reasons, not for their economic potential. Moreover, they account for only 7 percent of the target immigrant population, and the cost of providing benefits to refugees and their dependants can be adequately offset by the positive income tax transfers from other immigrants in the Toronto CMA.

I am surprised to hear that it balances out so well within six years. It takes at least 5 years to become literate in English.

I thought it might balance out over a lifetime. This is very encouraging.

There is no question immigration is a boon for Canada.

And there is no question that refugees arrive with more emotional than physical baggage.

Many have lived in war circumstances for years.

Kids have not been to school because it was bombed, or there was too much gunfire in the streets.

Famine, disease, war, disaster.

It may take a generation for them.

And refugees are only 7% of immigrants. I would have thought 50 50. Hhm.

There is certainly nothing bleak about this, nor worthy of concern economically.

The anti-immigration stance, which does strike as odd in a country of immigrants, must rest on evidence other than economic, imo.

Edited September 25, 2007 by jennie

[kengs333]

Stats Can

Just a few things from the report.

Sure sound like a bunch of bums to me.

They may have higher levels of education, but many of them do not have sufficient knowledge of the English language. My mom came from Europe when in her late 20s with a grade 8 education and almost no knowledge of English and still managed to become quite fluent in English. Yet I know university educated immigrants from China who will never be as fluent, partially because they don't really want to integrate; Canada is just a place for them to make money, much of which is sent back home so their parents can live better and to fund business ventures there. Why Canada can't encourage emigration from Europe where most university students have an excellent command of English is beyond me.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure sound like a bunch of bums to me.

I think Wilbur was being ironic here.

To add to what Jennie says:

BBC News

According to many sources, over 50% of Torontonians were born outside Canada. Toronto is the economic engine of Canada. People work hard here, and you constantly have to retrain to stay employable.

As a former recruiter, I have witnessed the typical cycle that an IT worker from, say, Indian will go through in order to get a good job in Canada. They will go from a top management position at, say, Microsoft India to working at a call centre in Toronto at nights while taking classes during the day. It can take five years for such talented people to finally regain their former level of employment.

There are a lot of foreign born people working in IT because it is one of the few professional jobs that do not have systemic barriers to entry, unlike law, and medicine. The other field that has a lot of immigrants is business, especially small business. The entrepreneurial spirit of the immigrant in Canada has a long tradition, and it reinvigorates our economy.

I had a similar argument with someone on ScottSA's board once, wherein my opponent was trumpeting an Alberta company as being an example of Western Canadian entrepreneurship. It took only a few minutes of Google research for me to discover for him that the company was started by a woman from Hong Kong.

[mikedavid00]

Well I'll give you something to respond to.

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

I am familiar with that report.

I also said that it's a RECENT phenomina in the lat 10-15 years.

You are quoting numbers from almost 20 years ago and are not valid now.

You can spend a LOT of time researching this stuff and trying to draw conclusions. If you research well enough, you will find that immigrants are draining our social services over time. It's not in 1 year.

The report you cited is a moot point.

In the 1980's Canadians could still buy big homes and had a choice of job. Education was worth something back then. Canadians were also in charge of their political franchise and during this time it was not over taken by immigrant votes. See Richmon Hill Ontario as an example.

edit: See this video as an example of what it was like back then. The video will bring back memories of 'ahhh.. yes that's how it was when we were canucks).

Lets talk about 2000 and up and focus on the this time frame.

And also, use your head - of course immigrants between 25-50 years old are attending far more school than Canadian borns.

At 25 years old we are DONE school. When immigrants are attending school in Canada, *WE* are fotting the bill.

See Arar as an example.

You have done very, very little research. Go ahead and spending months researching this. Look at all the data and you'll see for yourself.

Edited September 25, 2007 by mikedavid00

[mikedavid00]

Stats Can

Just a few things from the report.

Sure sound like a bunch of bums to me.

I never said they were bums, I said that they have an unusually high unemployment rate and are bankrupting our social services.

[jennie]

I never said they were bums, I said that they have an unusually high unemployment rate and are bankrupting our social services.

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.

Edited September 25, 2007 by jennie