Immigrant Assimilation

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Right now we are short of skilled and semi-skilled construction workers, engineers, and medical workers.

This is not so. I have many friends that are welders, electricians, and labourers and they are out of work. There is no shortage of workers. There is a shortage of contractors that are willing to pay a fair wage for their labour.

Here in Vancouver, a lot of these contractors are hiring Mexicans to replace unemployed Canadians that will not work for $14 an hour. The Mexican thinks he has died and gone to heaven. Most of these workers have temporary status and will eventually have to return home.

I'm glad the Mexicans are benefitting a little. Perhaps the reason I'm not so nationalist is becasue I'm used to seeing people squatting in the field to do their business because they don't have proper washrooms. Some Canadians just don't know how well they've got it. That's what irritates me most about some Canadians. More worried about trying to get Canadians' wages up with no regard for trying to get food into otehr people's bellies. "Canaqdian first, human second" seems to be the attitude for some, when it ought to be "human first, Canadian second."

Persoanlly, I don't feel Canadians should be held accountable for people who are not here legally or temporarily, that irritates me. I think it's wrong for a builder/contractor to pay up to less than half the normal wage just because he can, don't you? I also think I should get paid more for what I do too.

Also, I have had the pleasure of working in fields picking beans and peas, corn, strawberries and rasberries etc, so I know about the joys of squatting in the bush, no need to throw that back in there. I'd do it again if it I had to, mainly because I put feeding my family first, I'm funny that way.

 

[Toro]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

The common immigrant assimilation is this;

1st generation - The people who come here. These people are attached to their homeland first and Canada or wherever second. They may never learn English or French.

2nd - Their kids. The kids are conflicted. They are torn between the nationalism of their parents and the cultural references that surrond them. They tend to slightly lean towards Canada. (I love it when Indians are nuts over hockey.)

3rd - The grandkids. - They are totally assimiliated. They are proud of their heritage but have virtually nothing or little to do with it.

This is a generalization and there are exceptions of course, like the example of the new Chinese in Canada discriminating against those who've been here for a few generations mentioned earlier.

I think immigration is great, and in theory, anyone should be able to move anywhere. Practically, its not possible as it upsets the locals as differences in culture can alter the norm.

The one thing that bugs me though is when immigrants bring their grievances here. About a decade ago, there was violence between Greeks and Macedonians over some Alexander the Great thing I can't remember in Nathan Phillips Squate. Leave that at home boys and girls. It has nothing to do with Canada. Go fight in your own country.

Though I like multiculturalism, I don't like the official multicultural policy. Its damn hard enough to promote "Canadianism" living next to the mightiest country the planet has ever seen who is almost exactly like you. Official multiculturalism should be scrapped though some of the bleeding hearts and professional complainers will scream racism. We shouldn't promote ourselves as a multicultural place, though I do think that we should promote tolerance and discourage racism. Of course, multiculturalism was a crass way for the Liberals to get more votes.

BTW, several years ago, some Cubans in Miami tried to make Spanish the only official language of the government of Miami. As one might expect, that didn't go very well.

 

[Machjo]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Right now we are short of skilled and semi-skilled construction workers, engineers, and medical workers.

This is not so. I have many friends that are welders, electricians, and labourers and they are out of work. There is no shortage of workers. There is a shortage of contractors that are willing to pay a fair wage for their labour.

Here in Vancouver, a lot of these contractors are hiring Mexicans to replace unemployed Canadians that will not work for $14 an hour. The Mexican thinks he has died and gone to heaven. Most of these workers have temporary status and will eventually have to return home.

I'm glad the Mexicans are benefitting a little. Perhaps the reason I'm not so nationalist is becasue I'm used to seeing people squatting in the field to do their business because they don't have proper washrooms. Some Canadians just don't know how well they've got it. That's what irritates me most about some Canadians. More worried about trying to get Canadians' wages up with no regard for trying to get food into otehr people's bellies. "Canaqdian first, human second" seems to be the attitude for some, when it ought to be "human first, Canadian second."

Persoanlly, I don't feel Canadians should be held accountable for people who are not here legally or temporarily, that irritates me. I think it's wrong for a builder/contractor to pay up to less than half the normal wage just because he can, don't you? I also think I should get paid more for what I do too.

Also, I have had the pleasure of working in fields picking beans and peas, corn, strawberries and rasberries etc, so I know about the joys of squatting in the bush, no need to throw that back in there. I'd do it again if it I had to, mainly because I put feeding my family first, I'm funny that way.

Uh, were's the mention of "illegal" in the post? Was it the word "Mexican" which triggered it? From my experience with Mexicans in Canada, they were here legally, and some even worked for the government! The law itself bans employers from discriminating on the basis of nationality (unless they are here illegally of course). I used to be a socialist, but the main reason I'd abandoned politics was due to all the contradictions. On the one hand, they'd support socialism within the nation's borders, yet would support all inds of protectionism from abroad! So how are the Mexicans and others supposed to compete? That's what I call national socialism (not in the Nazi sense, of course, but in a more literal sense of socialism but restricted to the national level only. If I must choose between that and "universal capitalism" (i.e., capitalism which applies equally across the board internationally, thus giving everyone a chance to compete on an equal footing), then I'd prefer that, sinse at least it makes fewer distinctions between nationalities. But then most capitalists are what I'd likewise call "national capitalists" (i.e., they believe in capitalism within the nation's borders, but then have all kinds of immigration restrictions and so on, and sometimes protectionist themselves, although in the last couple decades, it does seem that free trade has been more of a righht wing thing), thus again not allowing "them" to compete with "us" on an equal footing. So from that perspective, I suppose the best thing I can do is support "universal capitalism" for now, and who knows, maybe it's the key to breaking down the barriers which could eventually allow for universal social democracy or something of the sort. In short, I'll support whatever is more universal, regardless whether it's socialist or capitalist. And I'll tend to reject whatever is too national, again be it capitalist or socialist.

So would such a policy mean western salaries might have to drop? Perhaps, but then again, it would help the poorer economies develop on an equal footing with us. in the end i guess it's a matter of of philosophy. In my case, for instance, I consider myself a human first and formost, and a Canadian by nationality only (I supose i think of it more as a technicality). There's my ten fen (roughly two cents) worth.

 

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Right now we are short of skilled and semi-skilled construction workers, engineers, and medical workers.

This is not so. I have many friends that are welders, electricians, and labourers and they are out of work. There is no shortage of workers. There is a shortage of contractors that are willing to pay a fair wage for their labour.

Here in Vancouver, a lot of these contractors are hiring Mexicans to replace unemployed Canadians that will not work for $14 an hour. The Mexican thinks he has died and gone to heaven. Most of these workers have temporary status and will eventually have to return home.

I'm glad the Mexicans are benefitting a little. Perhaps the reason I'm not so nationalist is becasue I'm used to seeing people squatting in the field to do their business because they don't have proper washrooms. Some Canadians just don't know how well they've got it. That's what irritates me most about some Canadians. More worried about trying to get Canadians' wages up with no regard for trying to get food into otehr people's bellies. "Canaqdian first, human second" seems to be the attitude for some, when it ought to be "human first, Canadian second."

Persoanlly, I don't feel Canadians should be held accountable for people who are not here legally or temporarily, that irritates me. I think it's wrong for a builder/contractor to pay up to less than half the normal wage just because he can, don't you? I also think I should get paid more for what I do too.

Also, I have had the pleasure of working in fields picking beans and peas, corn, strawberries and rasberries etc, so I know about the joys of squatting in the bush, no need to throw that back in there. I'd do it again if it I had to, mainly because I put feeding my family first, I'm funny that way.

Uh, were's the mention of "illegal" in the post? Was it the word "Mexican" which triggered it? From my experience with Mexicans in Canada, they were here legally, and some even worked for the government! The law itself bans employers from discriminating on the basis of nationality (unless they are here illegally of course). I used to be a socialist, but the main reason I'd abandoned politics was due to all the contradictions. On the one hand, they'd support socialism within the nation's borders, yet would support all inds of protectionism from abroad! So how are the Mexicans and others supposed to compete? That's what I call national socialism (not in the Nazi sense, of course, but in a more literal sense of socialism but restricted to the national level only. If I must choose between that and "universal capitalism" (i.e., capitalism which applies equally across the board internationally, thus giving everyone a chance to compete on an equal footing), then I'd prefer that, sinse at least it makes fewer distinctions between nationalities. But then most capitalists are what I'd likewise call "national capitalists" (i.e., they believe in capitalism within the nation's borders, but then have all kinds of immigration restrictions and so on, and sometimes protectionist themselves, although in the last couple decades, it does seem that free trade has been more of a righht wing thing), thus again not allowing "them" to compete with "us" on an equal footing. So from that perspective, I suppose the best thing I can do is support "universal capitalism" for now, and who knows, maybe it's the key to breaking down the barriers which could eventually allow for universal social democracy or something of the sort. In short, I'll support whatever is more universal, regardless whether it's socialist or capitalist. And I'll tend to reject whatever is too national, again be it capitalist or socialist.

So would such a policy mean western salaries might have to drop? Perhaps, but then again, it would help the poorer economies develop on an equal footing with us. in the end i guess it's a matter of of philosophy. In my case, for instance, I consider myself a human first and formost, and a Canadian by nationality only (I supose i think of it more as a technicality). There's my ten fen (roughly two cents) worth.

Firstly, please seperate paragraphs, it would make your reply much easier to read. I don't mean to be rude, so don't read anything into that.

Secondly, I was commenting on the term "temporary" and I added "illegal" at my own free will. Is that, uuuuhhhh ok with you?

Thirdly, in the matter of salaries dropping, you are basing your "theroy" on the assumption that the cost of living will magically drop?

 

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

The common immigrant assimilation is this;

1st generation - The people who come here. These people are attached to their homeland first and Canada or wherever second. They may never learn English or French.

2nd - Their kids. The kids are conflicted. They are torn between the nationalism of their parents and the cultural references that surrond them. They tend to slightly lean towards Canada. (I love it when Indians are nuts over hockey.)

3rd - The grandkids. - They are totally assimiliated. They are proud of their heritage but have virtually nothing or little to do with it.

This is a generalization and there are exceptions of course, like the example of the new Chinese in Canada discriminating against those who've been here for a few generations mentioned earlier.

I think immigration is great, and in theory, anyone should be able to move anywhere. Practically, its not possible as it upsets the locals as differences in culture can alter the norm.

The one thing that bugs me though is when immigrants bring their grievances here. About a decade ago, there was violence between Greeks and Macedonians over some Alexander the Great thing I can't remember in Nathan Phillips Squate. Leave that at home boys and girls. It has nothing to do with Canada. Go fight in your own country.

Though I like multiculturalism, I don't like the official multicultural policy. Its damn hard enough to promote "Canadianism" living next to the mightiest country the planet has ever seen who is almost exactly like you. Official multiculturalism should be scrapped though some of the bleeding hearts and professional complainers will scream racism. We shouldn't promote ourselves as a multicultural place, though I do think that we should promote tolerance and discourage racism. Of course, multiculturalism was a crass way for the Liberals to get more votes.

BTW, several years ago, some Cubans in Miami tried to make Spanish the only official language of the government of Miami. As one might expect, that didn't go very well.

Excellent post, couldn't have said it better. :salute:

 

[Machjo]

RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

Sorry, Said. I was lazy about the paragraphs.

Secondly, fair enough about the illegal reference, though I see nothing wrong with temporary workers bringing the money back home to their families; after all, they did work for it, didn't they?

And thirdly, I never said the cost of living would magically drop. The point is, we ought to all be living on an equal playing field. I can certainly understand why nationalism prevails. We're all well aware that if we opened our borders, while poorer countries would benefit due to a willingness to work for lower wages, wealthier countries would suffer as a consequense. The issue here in my opinion is ethics. Yes, we ought to open our borders regardless, and let the market adjust. After all, this is something I would think both socialists and capitalists would agree on; socialists because it would distribute wealth between rich and poor countries; and capitalists because it would be more open to supply and demand. but then I suppose this is precisely why some would oppose opening the borders so much (i.e., Canadian first, human second). Of course it would involve sacrifice, but util that is done, we will continue to have extremes of wealth and poverty in the world, along with all the other problems accompanying it. this is a question of sacrifice and justice, not home comforts.

 

[Machjo]

RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

"BTW, several years ago, some Cubans in Miami tried to make Spanish the only official language of the government of Miami. As one might expect, that didn't go very well."

One Taxas town has in fact already adopted Spanish as its sole official language:

http://www.englishfirst.org/elcenezo/elcenezoreuters81699.htm

Now while I don't believe in breaking the law, I can also understand that as long as one country is rich, and its neighbour isn't, this will happen. Consider likewise that historically, Texas was in fact hispanic. So I would't be surprised if some hispanics would justify this by just claiming that they're just reclaiming historical land which belonged to them in the first place, very much in the same way many Zionists argue for Israel, saying they had been there three thousand years ago before the Arabs had arrived, and so are just taking the land back.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this viewpoint, but have read some comments of the sort before on occasion, and so am just pointing out that it is out there. I must clarify, however, that I've never heard or read any hispanic comparing it to Israel, though; that's just a connection I made, sinse it seems to me that the two arguments are quite parallel.

 

[Machjo]

RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

Maybe that's why we're seing the growth of organizations such as:
http://www.englishfirst.org/
amd
http://www.us-english.org/

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

Sorry, Said. I was lazy about the paragraphs.

Secondly, fair enough about the illegal reference, though I see nothing wrong with temporary workers bringing the money back home to their families; after all, they did work for it, didn't they

I didn't say I had a problem with anyone sending money home to their families, I could care less, and understand the many reasons for doing that. I said I had a problem with employers capitalizing on their willingness to work, why shouldn't they get the same pay as everyone else? What I did say was that I don't feel Canadians should be held accountable for their welfare. If they plan to stay, fine, there are programs designed to help the poor. If their intent is coming here, making a few bucks and leaving I think they should come prepared. I'm not going to feel bad for feeding my family first.

And thirdly, I never said the cost of living would magically drop. The point is, we ought to all be living on an equal playing field. I can certainly understand why nationalism prevails. We're all well aware that if we opened our borders, while poorer countries would benefit due to a willingness to work for lower wages, wealthier countries would suffer as a consequense. The issue here in my opinion is ethics. Yes, we ought to open our borders regardless, and let the market adjust. After all, this is something I would think both socialists and capitalists would agree on; socialists because it would distribute wealth between rich and poor countries; and capitalists because it would be more open to supply and demand. but then I suppose this is precisely why some would oppose opening the borders so much (i.e., Canadian first, human second). Of course it would involve sacrifice, but util that is done, we will continue to have extremes of wealth and poverty in the world, along with all the other problems accompanying it. this is a question of sacrifice and justice, not home comforts.

I'm was asking you specifically how markets would adjust, I'm not following you at all. Your saying open boarders, lower wages for all and things will naturally even out due to supply and demand? Like an "invisible hand"? Give me an example, like a scenario.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

And thirdly, I never said the cost of living would magically drop. The point is, we ought to all be living on an equal playing field. I can certainly understand why nationalism prevails. We're all well aware that if we opened our borders, while poorer countries would benefit due to a willingness to work for lower wages, wealthier countries would suffer as a consequense. The issue here in my opinion is ethics. Yes, we ought to open our borders regardless, and let the market adjust. After all, this is something I would think both socialists and capitalists would agree on; socialists because it would distribute wealth between rich and poor countries; and capitalists because it would be more open to supply and demand. but then I suppose this is precisely why some would oppose opening the borders so much (i.e., Canadian first, human second). Of course it would involve sacrifice, but util that is done, we will continue to have extremes of wealth and poverty in the world, along with all the other problems accompanying it. this is a question of sacrifice and justice, not home comforts.

I'm was asking you specifically how markets would adjust, I'm not following you at all. Your saying open boarders, lower wages for all and things will naturally even out due to supply and demand? Like an "invisible hand"? Give me an example, like a scenario.[/quote]

First off, while I see benefits to capitalism, I'm certainly not dogmatic about it and can see certain strengths in socialism also.

As for feeding ones family first, that's fine... until we start to use the power of the state to shift the balance inour favour. As for social assistance, I used to be a social democrat until I realized that that ideology itself was dividing people; people would argue that they did not want to pay taxes just for immigrants to come and benefit from those same taxes. I'm a universalist first and foremost, so if these taxes and services are dividing nations that way, then I'd ratehr we cut the taxes, scrap the services, and then no one could compain tha the immigrants are bumming off us any more. Then if you want to give your money to charity, fine. You'd even be free to earmark it to Canadians only if you wanted to.

As for the invisible hand reference, you'll hate my anser. I'm not going to pretend that the free market would just suddenly make everyone rich. On the contrary, if you're among the wealthier classes (by international standards, sinse we are talking about internaitonal borders disappearing here), then you'd probably be struggling in this new market, with the pooorer benefitting (How terrible!), but I can understand family first, even if it means using the political power of the wealthy Canadians (again, by international standards, most Canadians are wealthy) to prevent the poorer segments of mankind to live on an equal footing (Man, what would the world come too then?). So no, I'm not going to pretend this will benefit you; in fact I'll say flat out, that if you're wealthier, you'd suffer. The issue here is not economic, but moral. Perhaps the reason I don't value the economic argument so much anymore is because I've lived in a few places and have indeed been exposed to 'poverty' beyond that which most Canadians witness. The amazing thing is, however, how people adjust, and still manage to find the money to send their kids to school.

And as for the cost of living, I'm sure if more money began to flow from wealthy to poor country, then the cost of products would need to follow. After all, poorer people can't pay much money for houses, so the housing market has no choice but to drop, or not sell. Wages would need to drop too. And I can guarantee that government would also need to start thinking about its spending in a radically different manner too. And this would certainly help us to better understand the rest of humanity, this understanding being the greatest wealth to come out of this.

Now, to understand what I said, you must first gnore the material benefits of opening up our borders, because for Canada, there wouldn't be many. To understand what I just typed, you must look elsewhere, sinse this is a matter of the heart, not of money.

Just one reason why English Canadians can have such a hard time understanding the world. We don't always make decisions based solely on money. Sometimes we will even make decisions which could make us poorer, not because the decision was stupid. Not because we hadn't realised initially that it would make us poorer (we might already have been very aware of its impact before even making the decision). But we sometimes make decisions out of a sheer belief that it is just! Once English canadians can forget the math now and then, and listen to the heart, then you will start to understand the world much better. (I'm not referring to every English Canadian here (I'm one myuself) but to most that I've met in life, including in my own family.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

As for feeding ones family first, that's fine... until we start to use the power of the state to shift the balance inour favour.

State control, forced redistribution? The idea is to shift the balance in their favor, so they can compete isn't it? I thought the idea was lowering our standards?

As for the invisible hand reference, you'll hate my anser. I'm not going to pretend that the free market would just suddenly make everyone rich. On the contrary, if you're among the wealthier classes (by international standards, sinse we are talking about internaitonal borders disappearing here), then you'd probably be struggling in this new market, with the pooorer benefitting (How terrible!), but I can understand family first, even if it means using the political power of the wealthy Canadians (again, by international standards, most Canadians are wealthy) to prevent the poorer segments of mankind to live on an equal footing (Man, what would the world come too then?).

Giving ulimate power to the state is not a good idea. This will not create Utopia, it will create corruption, because that's what ultamite power does.

And as for the cost of living, I'm sure if more money began to flow from wealthy to poor country, then the cost of products would need to follow. After all, poorer people can't pay much money for houses, so the housing market has no choice but to drop, or not sell. Wages would need to drop too. And I can guarantee that government would also need to start thinking about its spending in a radically different manner too. And this would certainly help us to better understand the rest of humanity, this understanding being the greatest wealth to come out of this.

Housing would be reserved for those who can pay. The wealthy would buy up properties, like they do now. Just because the poor can't pay, doesn't mean prices will drop. Just because wages are lower, it doesn't mean the cost of products will drop, in fact, once the money starts flowing to poorer nations, the cost of lliving will more than likely rise without strict government control. How can you guarantee the government would spend money differently? Again, just saying so won't make it happen....examples please.

Now, to understand what I said, you must first gnore the material benefits of opening up our borders, because for Canada, there wouldn't be many. To understand what I just typed, you must look elsewhere, sinse this is a matter of the heart, not of money.

Look where? Communism and open boarders is not the answer. Using specific examples would help your argument a lot more. I really am intersted in this topic, don't take my remarks as critisism.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

As for feeding ones family first, that's fine... until we start to use the power of the state to shift the balance inour favour.

"State control, forced redistribution? The idea is to shift the balance in their favor, so they can compete isn't it? I thought the idea was lowering our standards?"

Not at all. Right now, the government has laws to shift the balance in our favour (or at least in yours, sinse I'm not in Canada right now). What I was proposing was not new laws to benefit the immigrants and the poor, but rather scrap all laws whcih stand in their way, thus effectively taking us to extreme capitalism bordering on anarchism, with the government relinquishing nearly all control excpept maybe for the most crucial services of the state. So Iin this case, it would be unfair to say that the government would be helping the poor, so much as just stepping out of the way and let the free market take over and help the poor naturally. What you were talking about was the government actually having immigration and other laws to benefit us rich (like I said, most Canadians, including possibly yourself, are rich by international standards) not naturally through the market, but rather through artificial government intervention.

As for the invisible hand reference, you'll hate my anser. I'm not going to pretend that the free market would just suddenly make everyone rich. On the contrary, if you're among the wealthier classes (by international standards, sinse we are talking about internaitonal borders disappearing here), then you'd probably be struggling in this new market, with the pooorer benefitting (How terrible!), but I can understand family first, even if it means using the political power of the wealthy Canadians (again, by international standards, most Canadians are wealthy) to prevent the poorer segments of mankind to live on an equal footing (Man, what would the world come too then?).

"Giving ulimate power to the state is not a good idea. This will not create Utopia, it will create corruption, because that's what ultamite power does. "

What?! It seems to me you're the one suggesting we give the government more power. What I'm suggesting, is that we go to extreme capitalism going on borderline anarchism, with the government relinquishing nearly all power! What you're suggesting is that we put a tremendous amount of power in the government's hands to decide who can and who can't enter the country, although I still am not sure of your position on social assistance, except that you seem irate at the fact that some immigrant might benefit from it. So to solve that problem, I'd even suggested scrtapping all social services. So then the government would have nearly no power to corrupt whatsoever. You're right, pwer corrupts, and with the power the government has now, it can even choose to devide people according to where their motehr was when they came out.

And as for the cost of living, I'm sure if more money began to flow from wealthy to poor country, then the cost of products would need to follow. After all, poorer people can't pay much money for houses, so the housing market has no choice but to drop, or not sell. Wages would need to drop too. And I can guarantee that government would also need to start thinking about its spending in a radically different manner too. And this would certainly help us to better understand the rest of humanity, this understanding being the greatest wealth to come out of this.

"Housing would be reserved for those who can pay. The wealthy would buy up properties, like they do now. Just because the poor can't pay, doesn't mean prices will drop. Just because wages are lower, it doesn't mean the cost of products will drop, in fact, once the money starts flowing to poorer nations, the cost of lliving will more than likely rise without strict government control. How can you guarantee the government would spend money differently? Again, just saying so won't make it happen....examples please. "

Obviously, if the Mexicans are willing to work for a lower salary, then factories will move there (thus many selling factories in Canada, few wanting to buy, resulting in a real estate price drop there. People in Canada would then have the choice of either honing their skills or lowering their salary expectations. For many, salaries would drop, and the final result would be that if anyone wants to sell their house, since most people's salaries would have dropped, most couldn't afford the house. So if someone really wants to sell their home, they might have to consider lowering the price, or they simply won't sell.

As for the cost of products, I can see two options. One option is that the price of products does drop. And the other is that the industrialists pocket it. If they pocket it, then the government can solve the problem through taxation. And considering that salaries would be loer, it would mean that profit is higher. So the government could tax them considerably, and then use that money for education or waht have you. And if you consider that salaries are lower, it could also mean that the government's money itself could stretch further. you also brought up government spending. Certainly if people's salaries are lower, they're not going to be too supportive of wasted government money in terms of little pretty projects, with the money going back to basics, but htis time, countries like Mexico will have more money in their borders to help their people.

Now, to understand what I said, you must first gnore the material benefits of opening up our borders, because for Canada, there wouldn't be many. To understand what I just typed, you must look elsewhere, sinse this is a matter of the heart, not of money.

"Look where? Communism and open boarders is not the answer. Using specific examples would help your argument a lot more. I really am intersted in this topic, don't take my remarks as critisism.

"

What? Is this new speak? Since when did extreme capitalism become communism? And as for open borders, sinse when was more freedom a bad thing?

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

Not at all. Right now, the government has laws to shift the balance in our favour (or at least in yours, sinse I'm not in Canada right now). What I was proposing was not new laws to benefit the immigrants and the poor, but rather scrap all laws whcih stand in their way, thus effectively taking us to extreme capitalism bordering on anarchism, with the government relinquishing nearly all control excpept maybe for the most crucial services of the state. So Iin this case, it would be unfair to say that the government would be helping the poor, so much as just stepping out of the way and let the free market take over and help the poor naturally. What you were talking about was the government actually having immigration and other laws to benefit us rich (like I said, most Canadians, including possibly yourself, are rich by international standards) not naturally through the market, but rather through artificial government intervention.

No, that's not what I was talking about. You said something to the effect of "using the political power of the wealthy Canadians (again, by international standards, most Canadians are wealthy) to prevent the poorer segments of mankind to live on an equal footing (Man, what would the world come too then?). " How would this be done in an environment of extreme capitalism and no government control, like anarchy?

What?! It seems to me you're the one suggesting we give the government more power. What I'm suggesting, is that we go to extreme capitalism going on borderline anarchism, with the government relinquishing nearly all power! What you're suggesting is that we put a tremendous amount of power in the government's hands to decide who can and who can't enter the country, although I still am not sure of your position on social assistance, except that you seem irate at the fact that some immigrant might benefit from it. So to solve that problem, I'd even suggested scrtapping all social services. So then the government would have nearly no power to corrupt whatsoever. You're right, pwer corrupts, and with the power the government has now, it can even choose to devide people according to where their motehr was when they came out.

I didn't suggest anything, I'm just reading and interpreting what YOU are saying. You're thoughts aren't consistant.

Obviously, if the Mexicans are willing to work for a lower salary, then factories will move there (thus many selling factories in Canada, few wanting to buy, resulting in a real estate price drop there. People in Canada would then have the choice of either honing their skills or lowering their salary expectations. For many, salaries would drop, and the final result would be that if anyone wants to sell their house, since most people's salaries would have dropped, most couldn't afford the house. So if someone really wants to sell their home, they might have to consider lowering the price, or they simply won't sell.

No factories, no jobs. Corporations will buy up cheap real estate, all is fair in anarchy and extreme capitalism....let them eat cake.

As for the cost of products, I can see two options. One option is that the price of products does drop. And the other is that the industrialists pocket it. If they pocket it, then the government can solve the problem through taxation.

You can't have virtually zero government control, then government control where you see fit. See how your thoughts are not consistant? This is not extreme capitalism, this is socialism.

And considering that salaries would be loer, it would mean that profit is higher. So the government could tax them considerably, and then use that money for education or waht have you.

Like they do now right? That is not extreme capitalism.

And if you consider that salaries are lower, it could also mean that the government's money itself could stretch further. you also brought up government spending.

I didn't bring up government spending, you did.

What? Is this new speak? Since when did extreme capitalism become communism? And as for open borders, sinse when was more freedom a bad thing?

You're not talking extreme capitalism. You are still for heavy taxation, government interference and socialized everything. That is the exact opposite of capitalism. Which is what the Canadian government practices today, minus the open boarder idea of yours.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

Poll after poll shows that Canadians think we have to much immigration in this country.

The only people I hear begging for it are corporations saying we don't have enough ppl to do the work, yet we have a 7% unemployment rate.

Instead of the feds taking the EI money it should be going to the provinces as education money.

I'm sure if we'd had polls for the indians while the white man was busy raping the indians in residential schools, we'd have had the same results.

So instead we will just ignore the polls.

Are you suggesting here were being "raped" by immigrants?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

I know my previous suggestion was absurd. It was to make a point. How can we ignore history? So, if I understand correctly, we now have a right to this land because we won?!

Yes, that’s how it works.

While I've not read this entire thread, and I've only gotten through the first couple pages, so this may have been addressed already, but there seems to be some misconceptions surrounding the plight of the people of the First Nations.

We, and that is those of us of European descent, never won anything from the First Nations. There is no right of conquest, because or ancestors in the Hudson Bay Company and Northwest Trading Company engaged in predatory trading practices, which set the First Nations people at a disadvantage. After a few generations of trading a case of whiskey for a boat load of beaver pelts, the First Nations people suffered sufficient social decay to justify segregation to reservations, where the social ills were allowed to compound and fester.

What happened to the First Nations people, I see happening to us now with the various "free" trade agreements that the US has been entering into, but I guess we all had that coming.

I only wonder what form our "firewater" will take...

 

[Said1]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

I only wonder what form our "firewater" will take...

Instant gratification provided by free flowing goods, that's our firewater.

 

[Jay]

RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

and the GDP that comes with it.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Assimilation of Immigrants

and the GDP that comes with it.

For sure, never said the exchange of goods and services was a bad thing!

 

[mrmom2]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

Capitalism requires people to be quiet souls in the workplace and wild pagans at the cash register" - Ron Chernow, 1949, US Journalist :wink:

 

[DasFX]

Re: Assimilation of Immigrants

While I've not read this entire thread, and I've only gotten through the first couple pages, so this may have been addressed already, but there seems to be some misconceptions surrounding the plight of the people of the First Nations.

We, and that is those of us of European descent, never won anything from the First Nations. There is no right of conquest, because or ancestors in the Hudson Bay Company and Northwest Trading Company engaged in predatory trading practices, which set the First Nations people at a disadvantage. After a few generations of trading a case of whiskey for a boat load of beaver pelts, the First Nations people suffered sufficient social decay to justify segregation to reservations, where the social ills were allowed to compound and fester.

I see your point, but I fear that you are placing the standards of today on the past. There were no laws against predatory trading back then, the concept of a business code of conduct was non-existent during the colonization of North America. They were explorers and conqueror who were out there for King and country and that's it.

You blame the Europeans for trading booze for pelts, well the Native did agree, no one forced them to take it. They wanted the stuff. What were the Europeans supposed to do? Give a seminar on responsible drinking prior to trading?

The Europeans took over and no one stopped them, so what were they supposed to do?