New lobby group wishes to reduce immigration levels

[dumpthemonarchy]

President Eisenhower in the United States warned Americans of the military industrial complex.

Nowadays, we could really use a leader to warn us of the immigration industrial complex. Multiculturalism, which receives propaganda support from the media and government, is institutionalized theft of the tax payers' money. Patronage is so common in our political society and most of these contracts, which provide housing, education and healthcare to refugees, are awarding billions to friends of parliament and the various governmental agencies in our country.

The govt is creating clients, like during the Cold War when the US and USSR had client states and supported their tyrant bastard no matter what Marcos or Castro did. Mutliculturalism is a govt make work machine that is no longer required. Immigrants need to be self-supporting from now on as economic growth will be more modest in the future.

Canadian workers have to lobby for lower immigration levels to keep a robust job market for ourselves, and this will reduce our EI taxes. It's a win win for Canadians in Canada. If business needs workers, let them recruit them on a case by case basis.

One reason these enclaves exists in the first place is their inability to speak the local language. Obviously a Chinese who does not know English or French is sure to settle in Vancouver's Chinese-populated areas and stay there. If we require all of them to have a decent mastery of English, while there is the possibility that some of them will choose to live together anyway, at least they'll integrate.

Immigration policy and cultural policy are unrelated matters. If you require all immigrants to meet minimum language competence skills (which we are not doing right now), then those imigrants will be in a position to learn our culture easily enough and so integrate appropriately. The problem comes when they don't know the local language, resulting in a certian ghettoization.

Just to take an example to show how immiration policy and cultural policy are unrelated matters, compare the British or French immigrant on the one hand, and the Inuit who does not know English or French on the other. According to Statistics Canada, about 15% of the population of Nunavut knows neither English nor French. While this statistic never specified the origin of that 15%, I highly doubt that Nunavut is experiencing an immigration boom right now.

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that boom.

Now this is a separate issue, unrelated to immigration. Again, we're confounding immigration policy with cultural policy. On this front, I absolutely agree with you that we need to cut government funding to multiculturalism.

But again, this is an unrelated matter.

While I don't have an issue with accepting genuine refugee claimants, I think we need to ensue that they really are legitimate refugees as per the most stringent definition in international law. Beyond that, anyone coming to Canada ought to meet the minimal standards required.

As for helping other countries, I believe it would be preferable, rather than give money to poorer countries, to simply open our borders to trade with them, and establish labour-movement agreements with them allowing for the free movement of labour. I'm not a die-hard capitalist by any means, but I do see certain capitalistic and free-market ideas as being beneficial to the development of these countries. by the way, this is often a contentious issue even among socialists, whereby many Canadian socialsits want more trade barriers, whereas socialists in poorer countries want to tear them down. I guess to some degree, poverty brings people back down to basics rather than losing themselves in piein-the-sky theories.

Well, you could use the same argument with the George Bush fiasco. Would you hire a Harvard graduate as a grammar teacher when they come out talking like this:

"Rarely is the question asked:Is our children learning?"

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

So this is by no means a stereotypical 'third world' vs. 'first world' issue.

How can immigration and cultural policy not be related? Language is culture and immigrants have to learn French or English in Canada, or their kids have to, to successfully integrate. Having a blase attitude toward immigrants learning one of the two official languages means you don't give a crap about immigrants. They are just cheap labour. Pretty callous.

Immigrants assimilate at different speeds, no problem there, but we cannot encourage ghettoization, which we are encouraging right now with excessively high immigration levels and multiculturalism. Like the new mayor of Canada, a Muslim, but a Canadian first and cares little about the hopeless issues in the Middle East.

Canada is negotiating a free trade deal with Europe, and we likely won't get a labour movement clause in it. So forget about it with any labour movement caluse with an Asian or African country. Get real. But I would like to see a labour movement clause in a Canada-EU trade deal. Europe is the very multicultural continent where our national languages-English and French, came from. Barriers between countries have to be lowered carefully.

George Bush's English went south because he got a job way over his head and the pressure got to him. He had to learn a lot of new words and fumbled most of them. But he could teach primary school kids from Mexico no problemo.

 

[Machjo]

How can immigration and cultural policy not be related?

So how do you explain the 15% of Nunavummiut who know neither English or French (I'm unaware of any immigration boom in Nunavut myself), and the British and French immigrants who integrate quite effortlessly?

Language is culture and immigrants have to learn French or English in Canada, or their kids have to, to successfully integrate.

Of course.

Having a blase attitude toward immigrants learning one of the two official languages means you don't give a crap about immigrants. They are just cheap labour. Pretty callous.

What blase attitude. Read my post again and you'll see that I was criticizing the fact that Immigration Canada does not make knowledge of the local language a strict precondition to immigrate. Sure I can see certain exceptions for genuine refugees or those married to Canadians, but in principle they should not even be able to set foot on Canadian soil without first meeting that most basic of requirements.

Immigrants assimilate at different speeds, no problem there, but we cannot encourage ghettoization, which we are encouraging right now with excessively high immigration levels and multiculturalism. Like the new mayor of Canada, a Muslim, but a Canadian first and cares little about the hopeless issues in the Middle East.

Again, nothing to do with multiculturalism. If we had a flood of immigrants from the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and France, they'd blend in no problem, even more easily than a monolingual Inuit from Nunavut in Toronto. As you can see, place of origin has no bearing on cultural integration.

Canada is negotiating a free trade deal with Europe, and we likely won't get a labour movement clause in it. So forget about it with any labour movement caluse with an Asian or African country. Get real. But I would like to see a labour movement clause in a Canada-EU trade deal. Europe is the very multicultural continent where our national languages-English and French, came from. Barriers between countries have to be lowered carefully.

I'd rather a Canadian pilot flying in France and a French car mechanic working in Canada rather than have both collecting social asistance because they can't find work in their own countries. A free-labour-movement agreement is really just an international 'we'll scratch your back if you scratch ours' agreement.

Of course there may be times when we must provide assistance to the unemployed, especially by way of education, especially in a trade or profession. But that ought to be a last resort, once all free-market alternatives have been exhausted, and free-labour movement agreements would merely be an extension of the free market.

George Bush's English went south because he got a job way over his head and the pressure got to him. He had to learn a lot of new words and fumbled most of them. But he could teach primary school kids from Mexico no problemo.[/QUOTE]

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

So how do you explain the 15% of Nunavummiut who know neither English or French (I'm unaware of any immigration boom in Nunavut myself), and the British and French immigrants who integrate quite effortlessly?

What blase attitude. Read my post again and you'll see that I was criticizing the fact that Immigration Canada does not make knowledge of the local language a strict precondition to immigrate. Sure I can see certain exceptions for genuine refugees or those married to Canadians, but in principle they should not even be able to set foot on Canadian soil without first meeting that most basic of requirements.

Again, nothing to do with multiculturalism. If we had a flood of immigrants from the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and France, they'd blend in no problem, even more easily than a monolingual Inuit from Nunavut in Toronto. As you can see, place of origin has no bearing on cultural integration.

I'd rather a Canadian pilot flying in France and a French car mechanic working in Canada rather than have both collecting social asistance because they can't find work in their own countries. A free-labour-movement agreement is really just an international 'we'll scratch your back if you scratch ours' agreement.

Of course there may be times when we must provide assistance to the unemployed, especially by way of education, especially in a trade or profession. But that ought to be a last resort, once all free-market alternatives have been exhausted, and free-labour movement agreements would merely be an extension of the free market.

George Bush's English went south because he got a job way over his head and the pressure got to him. He had to learn a lot of new words and fumbled most of them. But he could teach primary school kids from Mexico no problemo.

[/QUOTE]

I don't think all immigrants need to speak English or French upon arrival, some family class wouldn't have to, or educated people who are learning English/French. But our family class of immigrants is about 75% of all immigrants and that is too high. A large percentage of these people can't speak English arriving in Canada, or not good enough for a job here. In India and China, the English spoken there is is "HInglish" and "Chinglish". Not the English that is spoken in Toronto or Vancouver, so it is not good enough for a good job.

Place of origin has plenty to do with integration, it depends how you look at it. We know Aussies very well, but aboriginals are a mystery to us.

Of course a trade agreement is about mutual benefit. This is classic good globalization as people from both countries see opportunities due to lowering of barriers. It is glob for people, because people can move around easier. To date, glob has been about capital and the rich. Regulation is still required more freer movement of people to get better jobs is good.