Immigration debate

Agreed hence why I said opposing based on jobs could be racist. That said its also a more understandable one if you have a family and a house to pay for and you're out of work. I still think its tough crap for them but I can empathise. You ignored the rest of my post though where I mentioned opposition based on resources and I'm not talking about jobs; healthcare would be one (I can think of much bigger drains than immigration however), housing another, and energy another one.

Ignoring whether those are actually under threat from immigration for a moment, if those are the sort of reasons you oppose an open-door policy I do not see how it is a racist view over a practical one.
 
Like I say, I don't believe that the drop in healthcare, housing, etc. would actually materialise, nor do I believe that the vast migration from the third world to the first would actually take place.
Also, like I say, I don't believe people who give those reasons for opposing an open-door policy. I think they are racists who need a rationale to hide behind.
 
I agree that that's the reality but I can't fault people for thinking it. I'd happily see them educated that they're wrong but I'm not going to call them a racist for it. See a big difference between misplaced concern and people like the EDL.



Which is quite a massive and somewhat baseless assumption
 
Your argument doesn't hold water, I don't think anyone here is against immigration, we just want the laws obeyed. The laws were put in place to protect the respective nation and it's people, and also protect those who wish to migrate to those nations. As long as those laws are not aimed at excluding a certain race of people then it's not racism. If you would like to debate how someone was discriminated against you should go knock on the door of the president of Iran...we'll see how many pieces you get sent home in.
 
Possibly- I don't think it's actually wrong though.

Yes, and those laws are discriminatory. Hence, so are you
 
Osu Knight Errand,


I am starting to wonder if you ever traveled or lived abroad for any period of time...
Most countries require that visitors or foreigners obey the law ---- and are enforcing it to an extent unknown in western Europe.

Are they racist?


Osu!
 
Well, no. But enforcing the law and chucking people out of the country aren't one and the same thing. How does this compute?
 
Osu,


Try to stay illegally in say........... Singapore or HK...
Guess what?
They'll kick you out after fining you!

Try Dubai, Kuwait, Southern Africa, Costa Rica, Panama, South Korea, Japan........ need I go on?

Does enforcing the law of the land make people racists?
HAve you spent any time abroad at all?


Osu!
 
Yeah, it doesn't count if the only way you're breaking the law is staying there illegally. And racism isn't confined to white people.
 
I agree, racism is not confined to whites, I am well placed to know that but that's really not the point:
Why wouldn't it count that the only laws broken are the immigration or foreign visitor ones?

Have you ever spent any time abroad Knight Errand?


Osu!
 
because it's clearly circular?
Oh sod it, I'm not playing any more. I realised a long time ago I was wrong, but had already argued too long to admit as much. I'm fully aware that I have to accept that most of the world has to starve to support the lifestyle I enjoy- doesn't mean I have to like the fact.
 
Tea Party anyone. I am not a racist I am culturally prejudiced, and everyone is to a degree. Knight you are judging others, you fall into the same catagory. Here I will judge you too. Left wing fanatic, must be a weed smoking tree hugging NDP.

I look at this country like I look at my own home. I have a wife and 4 daughters, I only make so much income so I can't afford to bring others in unless I had a better home with more money. I only want class act people in my home that will contribute. Now if I were to have a larger home, I might bring someone in. However if they didn't fit the criteria, IE no drugs, go to school and or have a job then they are not welcome except for a visit.

I have no problem removing people with cultures that promote violent protest, violence against women, or men. Keep to themselves and not even try to become part of society. Or the drug dealers that have been shipped away and only end up back here, and have their cases paid for by us. I have issues with the hiring of only one sector of society be it white, black or pink. I do feel until Canada can take care of our own our priority should be it's own.
My wife, has been unemployed for a year. They want to incent 10G per new Canadian hire, who are they going to go for.

And as for the native debate. I am native Canadian I was born here. I pay taxes here and I am a productive citizen who abides by the law.

That can not be said for some citizens of this country. I also have no problem with ejecting our own native born citizens if they become an issue.
Create a new island. Australia did well with it given the time

Take care of Canada 1st.

That being said, there are jobs that unfortunatly we are too pansy to do (me included) the lottery system is in place for that. I am fine. If an immigrant wants to come and work, and enjoy Canada legally. All OK with me.

Just becuase you wish to be careful with the country you live in doesn't make you systemic racist.
 
Conversation level only - but I do not live in Quebec so it is not relevant. Rest assured if I was going to move there my French would have to be parfait....and if you want to talk about enforcement of requirements check Quebec out.

The requirement is that you prove competency in one of the two national languages so I am still in full compliance.
 
I liked your post Bujingodai except this bit. In an earlier post I said I sympathise with people who are unemployed and see jobs being given to immigrants but its really is tough luck really Its a capitalist world which means people will take the cheapest labour they can so they can maximise their profits. Migrants aren't hired because their employers love their culture or whatever, they hire them because they'll do the same work cheaper than we will and, apparently, better.

Your country doesn't owe you a job and if you're losing out on business to immigrants you need to adjust the same way any business does when it gets rival competitors. Tesco doesn't write into papers sulking about all the customers Asda gets, it sits down and figures out how to make better deals to get those customers through their own doors.*

*yes its a poor example
 
I understand that. I don't think the country owes us jobs. There are certainly enough pieces of trash that want to live off the dole and do nothing. However the priority to me should be given to willing Canadians seeking the work. That are best qualified for the position.
I do take issues with my tax dollars, and I should have a say about that being given to companies that will now put priority on hiring people here a short time so that they get the incentive.

Think about it. Small business, can hire 1 of 2 people. 1 has been here 2 years does speak English one has been here whole life. Both equally qualified. The one who has been here 2 years could also be better off financially however now the business owner will hire him based on their financial benefit.
 
If cost is a major factor in the recruitment, then the immigrant is better qualified if it works out to be cheaper.

I think that a job should go to the applicant who can do the job for the least amount of money. Anything else is bad business and badly run businesses end up eventually employing nobody.
 
Well that arguement works 2 ways.

In an equal society why would we pay the immigrant less?
in the same statement, why would we give the advantage to the immigrant to get the job by paying him less. Again then the initiative from the gov't only suits to populate our companies with lower paid labour not from here.

I take issue with those who come from cultures where less quality of life is expected, then curbing the norm here so we have to accept it.

Take when our premier wanted to quantify sharia law into our province. It is due to a population being brought here with their cultural beliefs.
It is the people with the beliefs that one should burn our women for looking at a man or other of those silly beliefs to me that justify the idea of dragging them behind a car down the highway.
They shouldn't be here in the 1st place.

Nor should that calibre of a person have an opportunity to have a job my Canadian friends should have. Let alone my gov't pay for it.
 
A couple of new cans of worms get open when you talk about wages being adjusted for immigrants, and little communities that parallel other societies.

In hind site I think Europe, in particular the UK, regrets allowing Muslim communities to grow at the rate they have. This will have a direct impact on their society no doubt.

Also if a company is looking to hire for a particular job and they hire an immigrant due solely on the ability to pay them less, that is discrimination and unethical behavior.

To hire an immigrant for a low paying job that a nationalist is not likely to do is a different ball game, and is not unethical.
 
The racist, xenophobic set regrets it, but I'd sooner have a million muslims than one of those scum living next door.

No it isn't.
Applicant A wants $30k, Applicant B wants $35k, Applicant C wants $38k. They are all equally qualified. Who do you employ?

That immigrants are more likely to demand less money doesn't make it discrimination, since those conditions are being set by the applicants.

Americans want free markets, but they don't want any of the trouble that comes with free markets.
 
OK so let my arguement not stem to who will do it cheaper

the job pays 20 bucks an hr.

you have 2 people in front of you. both qualified, one a nationalist one a 2 yr resident

one comes now with a 10G incentive package

who do you pick
 
Back
Top