More Needless Multiculturalism Problems From Immigrants

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
What about the left wing chauvinists who are so keen on assimilation and white man's burden?!?

Your examples consist of Europeans and are quite narrow and biased, I might add. Because we have something called "Black Americans" in the United States who are still identified with a hyphen on physical appearance and a hyphenation is still a hyphenation.

Much like the Chinese have been in Canada longer than certain European ethnic groups but to this day they still remain the "other"

Leave North America and ask locals to draw a picture of an American and Canadian and almost all will draw a white person (or a fat white person with a baseball cap for the United States).

The only change from the status quo is when mixed people become so common in the Canada and the United States that 'White' people, much like in Southern Brazil, become a hyphenation themselves but such a societal preception of what defines American and Canadian won't change within our lifetime

Apparently your knowledge of Canadian culture is as limited as your knowledge of the word chauvinist. You can't be a left wing chauvinist - it is a right wing characteristic - namely super-patriotism carried to the point of stupidity. The term White Man's Burden is also right wing in nature as a way of justifying 19th Century imperialism. During this time period left wingers opposed imperialism. So far as assimilation is concerned that is also a program more favoured by the right wing than left wing. I won't bother with the rest of your post because it makes no sense. Perhaps if you explain why my examples of early immigrants to Canada (who were almost 100% European) are narrow and biased I will try to understand your point.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Nope, I throw it out when I cannot get a clear answer, if you had followed along in my discussions with Colpy you would have seen it and him not denying it.

I've had this conversation before on this site with similar results.

I've had conversations with people face to face with similar results....not many but a few.


The only answer that you want is one that marches lockstep with your views, you've made that perfectly clear. .. And as we've seen, your programmed response to anyone with a different perspective is to scream bigot/racist.



Religion isn't a race so that's impossible.


Thanks for the heads-up on the obvious Sherlock.


Like I said I'm trying to identify what people are saying.

I asked if all Muslims are guilty by association....got a link back about a survey of Imams about 9/11.

I have asked people point blank if they hate all Muslims and they refuse to answer it....what am I suppose to conclude? They're stupid?


You still don't get it, do you?

You are actively leading the conversion in an attempt to corral and manipulate opinion. Once again, if that opinion differs from yours, you revert to pre-programmed McCarthyism attacks with an eye to stopping the discussion in its entirety.


I couldn't care less.Within the current system, funding for religous based schools should be done privately.


Tough sh*t for you I guess. If you opened your eyes just a wee bit, you'd see reality.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,112
3,877
113
Edmonton
''Mark Steyn....America Alone''

I just read some accounts of this book in Amazon. Interesting but highly improbable. After all, Islam has had 1,800 years to do that and hasn't come close to accomplishing what he fears. As for the idea that the USA must spread its ideals more than it has already, I suppose he would have to give concrete examples in his book. But one thing's for sure: the Bush doctrine is not the solution and, in fact, is counter productive to that goal as it radicalizes a great many people. Many books have been written on that matter.


Wait for it...they're working on it! You haven't heard what Iran's President has been saying lately?? Go figure!

JMO
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
The only answer that you want is one that marches lockstep with your views, you've made that perfectly clear. .. And as we've seen, your programmed response to anyone with a different perspective is to scream bigot/racist.

The answer I want is an honest one.

If I ask if all Muslims are guilty by association then it's a pretty simple answer.

Yes or No.

Plus I never screamed it, I typed it and didn't get an argument against it .....in fact I got agreement.

The reaction to Muslims on this site by some seems very pre programed and leads to automatic distrust or hate....same goes for people on here with regards to Jews....I've seen the anti Semite word thrown around when people criticize Israel. don't see the likes of you running to their defense not that you should.


Why is Obama being labeled a Mooooslim if it's not a negative?

YouTube - Iowa Focus Group on Obama Agrees: He's a Muslim





Thanks for the heads-up on the obvious Sherlock.

Seems you needed reminding.

Calm down.




You still don't get it, do you?

You are actively leading the conversion in an attempt to corral and manipulate opinion. Once again, if that opinion differs from yours, you revert to pre-programmed McCarthyism attacks with an eye to stopping the discussion in its entirety.


I'm trying to get an answer on a position.

If I called someone a commie and they say yeah, I'm a commie ....I guess I was wrong?

You are doing the same thing people unlike Colpy did....running around in circles avoiding it.

I'm not surprised.

I've been called an anti Semite, a racist and a bigot. I then proceed to explain why this isn't true....I don't say...."your damn right I'm a bigot"...just like Colpy did.

Is this difficult for you to comprehend old fella?





Tough sh*t for you I guess. If you opened your eyes just a wee bit, you'd see reality.

What a stunningly brilliant come back. :roll:
 

Trotz

Electoral Member
May 20, 2010
893
1
18
Alberta
Apparently your knowledge of Canadian culture is as limited as your knowledge of the word chauvinist. You can't be a left wing chauvinist - it is a right wing characteristic - namely super-patriotism carried to the point of stupidity. The term White Man's Burden is also right wing in nature as a way of justifying 19th Century imperialism. During this time period left wingers opposed imperialism. So far as assimilation is concerned that is also a program more favoured by the right wing than left wing. I won't bother with the rest of your post because it makes no sense. Perhaps if you explain why my examples of early immigrants to Canada (who were almost 100% European) are narrow and biased I will try to understand your point.

I see that your intellect is struggling. I recomemnd putting down the Manifesto and stop listening to Trotskyists. Finish a degree in Nineteenth Century European History and come back to me.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Point of order: Chauvinism comes from a guy named Chauvin who was a soldier in the Grand Armee during the Napoleanic Wars. Wasn't the French Revolution left wing in nature? Correct me if I am mistaken por favor.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I see that your intellect is struggling. I recomemnd putting down the Manifesto and stop listening to Trotskyists. Finish a degree in Nineteenth Century European History and come back to me.

No thanks, I already have a degree in history and the 19th century is my specialty. Just to be nice to you I won't point out your spelling errors.

BTW - nice comeback - I notice that in spite of my struggling intellect you were not able to respond to a single one of my points with anything other than an insult in an attempt to hide your ignorance. Get back to me when you have reviewed your high school social studies.

Point of order: Chauvinism comes from a guy named Chauvin who was a soldier in the Grand Armee during the Napoleanic Wars. Wasn't the French Revolution left wing in nature? Correct me if I am mistaken por favor.

Yes, the French Revolution was left wing in nature, but as in many cases the use of a word changes over time. Here are two links to the word chauvinist - I think you will find its modern use describes most right wing nut cases. Since left wingers tend to be internationalist in nature it should be impossible for a left winger to be a chauvinist.

Chauvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
chauvinist - definition of chauvinist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
...
Yes, the French Revolution was left wing in nature, but as in many cases the use of a word changes over time. Here are two links to the word chauvinist - I think you will find its modern use describes most right wing nut cases. Since left wingers tend to be internationalist in nature it should be impossible for a left winger to be a chauvinist.

Chauvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
chauvinist - definition of chauvinist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Thanks for the info.

Leftists down here either fall into the liberal internationalist school of thought or they are neo-isolationists.
 

Trotz

Electoral Member
May 20, 2010
893
1
18
Alberta
Bar Sinister,
if you do have a degree in European History than you would otherwise be aware of the chauvinism which existed under Revolutionary France, to the extent that the French had indeed seen everyone who had not experienced the revolution as being "backwards", "inferior" and needing uplifting.

The same is true for the Internationalists of today, who consider anyone who doesn't follow their belief system as being "backwards, racist subhumans who should be killed" - the same attitude I might add is what led Stalin and other Communists to murder millions in the Gulag.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Fact is, Canada needs immigrants. As the baby boomers (myself included) retire and become invalids in old folks homes drooling in their bibs, who is going to run the country and look after all the old people? Canada's population growth is 100% attributable to immigration.

Immigrants have a charter right to preserve their language and culture which adds and enhances Canada's culture.

One of my main clients set up a call center in Toronto because of multicultural society. They could have set up their call center much cheaper in India, but they chose the Toronto area because it was easy to find educated people who speak English and Mandarin, English and Spanish, English and French, English and Punjabi, English and Russian....

Overall, immigrants tend to create jobs or take jobs Canadians don't want.

Also, most immigrants are well educated. Immigration requirements and the cost of moving tends to filter out the poor and ignorant. Effectively Canada is taking in the brightest and most resourceful from around the world.

The rest of us are going to have to accept some changes and compromises. Meanwhile I plan to drive to an Indian restaurant in my Japanese car where I'll order Tandoori Chicken for takeout and wash it down with fine German white wine at my in-laws where we probably speak Spanish and watch the news on Aljazeera.

I love Canada!
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Fact is, Canada needs immigrants. As the baby boomers (myself included) retire and become invalids in old folks homes drooling in their bibs, who is going to run the country and look after all the old people? Canada's population growth is 100% attributable to immigration.

Immigrants have a charter right to preserve their language and culture which adds and enhances Canada's culture.

One of my main clients set up a call center in Toronto because of multicultural society. They could have set up their call center much cheaper in India, but they chose the Toronto area because it was easy to find educated people who speak English and Mandarin, English and Spanish, English and French, English and Punjabi, English and Russian....

Overall, immigrants tend to create jobs or take jobs Canadians don't want.

Also, most immigrants are well educated. Immigration requirements and the cost of moving tends to filter out the poor and ignorant. Effectively Canada is taking in the brightest and most resourceful from around the world.

The rest of us are going to have to accept some changes and compromises. Meanwhile I plan to drive to an Indian restaurant in my Japanese car where I'll order Tandoori Chicken for takeout and wash it down with fine German white wine at my in-laws where we probably speak Spanish and watch the news on Aljazeera.

I love Canada!

I suggest you do some reading.

Start with Ayaan Hirsi Ali....Infidel. Then go on to Mark Steyn's America Alone. Then trip back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Nomad. Try telling her she doesn't understand Islam, multiculturalism, or the Muslim Brotherhood (she used to be a follower, a devout Muslim)

Muslim immigrants have imported to liberal western nations many things: Jew hatred, genital mutilation, honour killings, self- censorship born of fear, political terror, bombings, infidel hatred, and the severe oppression of women, while we lean over backwards to accomodate them and their cult of murder and hatred.

Assimilate or GTFO.

As I have said from day one, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a joke. Mish mash for the brain-dead. It needs to go.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,216
13,543
113
Low Earth Orbit
Once upon a time the USA tried a quota system for immigration. It was labelled eugenic, racist and religio-xenophobic.

National origins quota
The Immigration Act made permanent the basic limitations on immigration into the United States established in 1921 and modified the National Origins Formula then. In conjunction with the Immigration Act of 1917, it governed American immigration policy until 1952 (see the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952).
For the next 3 years, until June 30, 1927, it set the annual quota of any nationality at 2% of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the United States in 1890. That revised formula reduced total immigration from 357,803 in 1923-24 to 164,667 in 1924-25. The law's impact varied widely by country. Immigration from Great Britain and Ireland fell 19%, while immigration from Italy fell more than 90%.[4]
The Act provided that beginning July 1, 1927 the formula would no longer use a percentage. As of that date, total immigration would be limited to 150,000, with the proportion of the total admitted from any country based on that country's representation in the U.S. population according to the 1920 Census.
The change from 2% to 150,000 planned for 1927 was later postponed to July 1, 1929.
The Act established preferences under the quota system for certain relatives of U.S. residents, including their unmarried children under 21, their parents, their for spouses aged 21 and over It also preferred immigrants aged 21 and over who were skilled in agriculture, as well as their wives and dependent children under age 16.
Non-quota status was accorded to: wives and unmarried children under 18 of U.S. citizens; natives of Western Hemisphere countries, with their families; non-immigrants; and certain others. Subsequent amendments eliminated certain elements of this law's inherent discrimination against women.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 accomplished a comprehensive revision of the Act.
The 1924 law established the "consular control system" of immigration by mandating that no alien may be permitted entrance to the United States without an unexpired immigration visa issued by an American consular officer abroad. Thus, the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service shared responsibility immigration.
It introduced the provision that, as a rule, no alien ineligible to become a citizen shall be admitted to the United States as an immigrant. This was aimed primarily at Japanese and Chinese aliens.
It imposed fines on transportation companies who landed aliens in violation of U.S. Immigration laws.
It defined the term "immigrant" and designated all other alien entries into the United States as "non-immigrant", that is, temporary visitor. It established classes of admission for non-immigrants.
[edit] Purpose of the act

Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Southern Europeans in order to "maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population".[5] Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation "disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard-that is, the people who were born here."[6] Southern and Eastern Europeans, he believed, arrive sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.[5]
[edit] Results


Relative proportions of immigrants from Northwestern Europe (red) and Southern and Eastern Europe (blue) in the decades before and after the immigration restriction legislation.


The Act halted "undesirable" immigration by quotas. The Act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines (then under U.S. control), Siam (Thailand), French Indochina (Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia), Singapore (then a British colony), Korea, Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Malaysia.[7] Based on the Naturalization Act of 1790, these immigrants, being non-white, were not eligible for naturalization, and the Act forbade further immigration of any persons ineligible to be naturalized.[7]
In the 10 years following 1900, about 200,000 Italians immigrated annually. With the imposition of the 1924 quota, 4,000 per year were allowed. At the same time, the annual quota for Germany was over 57,000. 86% of the 155,000 permitted entries were from Northern European countries, with Germany, Britain, and Ireland having the highest quotas.
The Act set no limits on immigration from the Latin American countries.
The quotas remained in place with minor alterations until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Fact is, Canada needs immigrants. As the baby boomers (myself included) retire and become invalids in old folks homes drooling in their bibs, who is going to run the country and look after all the old people? Canada's population growth is 100% attributable to immigration.

Immigrants have a charter right to preserve their language and culture which adds and enhances Canada's culture.

One of my main clients set up a call center in Toronto because of multicultural society. They could have set up their call center much cheaper in India, but they chose the Toronto area because it was easy to find educated people who speak English and Mandarin, English and Spanish, English and French, English and Punjabi, English and Russian....

Overall, immigrants tend to create jobs or take jobs Canadians don't want.

Also, most immigrants are well educated. Immigration requirements and the cost of moving tends to filter out the poor and ignorant. Effectively Canada is taking in the brightest and most resourceful from around the world.

The rest of us are going to have to accept some changes and compromises. Meanwhile I plan to drive to an Indian restaurant in my Japanese car where I'll order Tandoori Chicken for takeout and wash it down with fine German white wine at my in-laws where we probably speak Spanish and watch the news on Aljazeera.

I love Canada!

You do draw a higher educated class of immigrants, but bottom line they come in controllable numbers with so called illegal immigration included in that statement. What happens to the less or uneducated immigrants, are they accepted or sent back to their country of origin?

I do agree that most immigrants are a positive influence on any country they migrate to.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,216
13,543
113
Low Earth Orbit
Accepting the highly educated immigrants is the worst possible thing. If they were encouraged to stay at home to better their own country's economy and social status on the world stage then there would be no reason to come here.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Fact is, Canada needs immigrants. As the baby boomers (myself included) retire and become invalids in old folks homes drooling in their bibs, who is going to run the country and look after all the old people? Canada's population growth is 100% attributable to immigration....

I think immigration to Canada is a realistic option for millions of Americans and Mexicans. Seriously. Canada has opportunities for all North Americans. It's a win/win situation.