We need to reform immigration

[Vbeacher]

Immigration reforms are needed, but not to target any specific group or religion. It needs reform because studies show that the premise of immigration is disputed by government studies themselves, which indicates that it clearly does not increase a major role in economic growth, which is the number one reason immigration is and has been promoted. The reduction of population would make much better economic sense to be handled by more 'practical and cheaper' methods than immigration, so would the weird statement that we are running out of skilled workers!! Who is putting out these erroneous assertion? and why? Facts are that for the last decades, immigration has cost tax payers a lot of money, and the higher and higher percentage are unable to rise economically on par with earlier immigrants and Canadians. Why, marketable skills and languages!! The impacts of these are imminent, and our governments have no comprehensive plans, so logically it's showing huge cracks.

The government has tried, over the decades, to figure out how to guess which type of immigrant will be economically successful and failed miserably. What we're left with is the government's own statistics, which show that immigrants from Europe tend to earn significantly higher pay than those from much of the third world, particularly the middle east.

To put it on simple terms. You can recruit from Harvard or from Carleton. There are bright and capable people at both institutions, but the quality of education and standards are considerably higher at Harvard, so you have a much better chance of getting a high quality employee if you recruit there.

It is noteworthy that American economic immigrants have to have a job or job offer to qualify. That isn't the case in Canada. And American immigrants seem to perform better than ours. That might be one area to adjust.

 

[White_Unifier]

My command of the English language is reasonably good. So if I was going to say "we should kick native-born Muslims out and drop them in the sea" then I would have said "We should kick native-born Muslims out and drop them in the sea."

You might notice I made no such statement or suggestion. Or perhaps not.

However. I am not among those who believe Canada has no home-grown culture. I think our values, our attachment to a secular, tolerant and democratic style of society and civilization, is something to be admired and preserved. As such, I believe newcomers should adapt and assimilate into this culture rather than preserving their own, especially when their own is, to put it mildly, backward and intolerant.

That is what usually happens. But we are bringing in, and have for some years, a great deal of people from one particular culture, and that is the unifying culture of Islam. And because it is a part of their religion they are showing few signs of adaptation. For example, according to polls, the number of young Muslim women and girls wearing hijabs and other coverings has increased in the last ten years to over 60%, 2nd generation Muslims are becoming more, not less religious. The continuing flow of Muslims from parts of the world which have retrograde social views and values with regard to women, gays, and other religions, is growing a large population within Canada which has views hostile to ours, and reinforcing those views rather than letting them slowly assimilate.

Given this, given the social and cultural strains it causes, and given the poor economic performance of immigrants from these source countries, it makes perfect sense, as far as I can tell, to diversify our source of immigrants away from these areas and towards parts of the world which produce more economically successful immigrants.

If you want a secular society, should we not make it so from the inside first? Where do you standon the separate school system? What about Christian statutory holidays?

Also, what makes Islam more retrograde than any other religion? Have you read the Qur'an? And what's your stance on a woman's right to adopt and practice the religion of her choice and to cover whatever part of her body she so chooses?

Shall we introduce a dress code requiring her to expose her head, ears, wrists and ankles? How short should her sleeves and pant legs to meet your 'Canadian' standards?

How have my fellow Whites become so fearful of women wearing a headscarf on their heads? Shameful, really. We've truly become a gutless people if that's the case.

 

[gerryh]

It is noteworthy that American economic immigrants have to have a job or job offer to qualify. That isn't the case in Canada. And American immigrants seem to perform better than ours. That might be one area to adjust.

See, it's blanket statements like this that show your ignorance. The above statement is incorrect, depending on the type of immigrant.

 

[Vbeacher]

If you want a secular society, should we not make it so from the inside first?

We already have that.

Where do you standon the separate school system? What about Christian statutory holidays?

That they're historical relics and embedded in the constitution, just like Quebec and the maritimes getting more seats in parliament than their numbers should warrant.

Also, what makes Islam more retrograde than any other religion?

For one thing, Islam is not merely a religion, it is a political ideology complete with its own family and criminal code, as well as government constitution, so to speak. Christianity is based on a carpenter/prophet. Islam is based on a conquering warrior/prophet. Thus the vast difference between the two. Jesus Christ never gave instructions related to under what circumstances infidel women could be raped and taken as sex slaves, nor did he suggest stoning for women, nor do Christians around the world practice execution for blasphemy or apostasy.

How have my fellow Whites become so fearful of women wearing a headscarf on their heads? Shameful, really. We've truly become a gutless people if that's the case.

What the head scarf symbolizes is a dedication to Islam, and all it entails (stoning, beheading, extreme misogyny, and hatred of Jews, among other things). Wearing it is a statement that the wearer rejects Canada and its values, and considers herself a Muslim, and part of the world Muslim community.

No. If anything, I think we proud Whites need to play catch up on the welcoming front.

To whom? What non-white group anywhere in the history of the world has willingly welcomed among them vast numbers of people who are completely culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically different than themselves and accorded them equal rights and power?

See, it's blanket statements like this that show your ignorance. The above statement is incorrect, depending on the type of immigrant.

Of course it's a blanket statement. We're speaking of a comparison between US immigrants and Canadian immigrants. This is a macro comparison. Look up the word sometime, or get someone to explain it to you.

 

[gerryh]

Of course it's a blanket statement. We're speaking of a comparison between US immigrants and Canadian immigrants. This is a macro comparison. Look up the word sometime, or get someone to explain it to you.

Blanket statements are made by the weak minded that can not support their over all life out look.


The blanket statement concerning immigrants in Canada is false.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Blanket statements are made by the weak minded that can not support their over all life out look.

True, that. ... every one of those blanket statements, without exception.

 

[Vbeacher]

Blanket statements are made by the weak minded that can not support their over all life out look.


The blanket statement concerning immigrants in Canada is false.

First you tried to dismiss it by saying that it wasn't correct 'depending on the type of immigrant' and then you make blanket statements about immigration and those who question it at the same time. Do you not even realize you are making a blanket statement yourself?

 

[gerryh]

First you tried to dismiss it by saying that it wasn't correct 'depending on the type of immigrant' and then you make blanket statements about immigration and those who question it at the same time. Do you not even realize you are making a blanket statement yourself?

wrong, but you go ahead and deflect. It's what I expect.

 

[Vbeacher]

wrong, but you go ahead and deflect. It's what I expect.

Based on your own postings, no doubt. I have been speaking on immigration. You seem to prefer to want to talk about me.

 

[White_Unifier]

Vbeacher, don't confuse Islam with Islamism.

 

[Vbeacher]

Vbeacher, don't confuse Islam with Islamism.

Why don't you tell me the difference. For example, does a Muslim believe in Sharia law. Sharia law calls for women to be stoned to death for adultery. It calls for apostates and blasphemers to be executed, along with homosexuals, and institutionalizes severe misogyny. Is that Islam or Islamism?

 

[gerryh]

Why don't you tell me the difference. For example, does a Muslim believe in Sharia law. Sharia law calls for women to be stoned to death for adultery. It calls for apostates and blasphemers to be executed, along with homosexuals, and institutionalizes severe misogyny. Is that Islam or Islamism?

Which Sharia law?

 

[Vbeacher]

Which Sharia law?

There is only one, as recognized by the vast majority of Islamic scholars.

 

[gerryh]

There is only one, as recognized by the vast majority of Islamic scholars.

roflmfao...ya...ok...what ever you say.

 

[White_Unifier]

Why don't you tell me the difference. For example, does a Muslim believe in Sharia law. Sharia law calls for women to be stoned to death for adultery. It calls for apostates and blasphemers to be executed, along with homosexuals, and institutionalizes severe misogyny. Is that Islam or Islamism?

Actually, there exist many interpretations of Shari'a. For example, many of the harsher Shari'a laws aren't even in the Qur'an nor ahadith (which means they do not even form a part of Shari'a except in name). Just man-made by Midfle-Eastern jurists.

Let me ask you, do all Christians interpret Christian law the same way?

Consider for example that Tunisia prohibits the contracting of a polygamist marriage on its soil. This is not due to any secular law but rather on the way the Tunesian government understood certain verses of the Qur'an as enjoining monogamy. The Qur'an teaches that a man can marry up to four women on the condition that he treat them all equally, otherwise he must limit himself to one. The catch is that the same Qu'an states that a man cannot treat his wives equally.

That said, Tunesian will respect a polygamous marriage contracted abroad on the grounds that Islam discourages device even though it permits it.

Other Muslim interpretations argue that the requirement that a husband treat his wives equally refers only to material equality or equal time spent with each, etc. even though the Qur'an mentions no such thing.

Another example is on the question of whether a Muslim woman can marry any believer in God even if he dies not profess Islam. It's generally agreed that a Muslim man can marry a Christian or Jewish woman. But depending on interpretation, while most Muslim states will not allow a Muslim woman to marry a Christian man, the Qur'an itself appears to allow it.

Same with the question of freedom of worship. The Qur'an guarantees it, yet many Midfle-Eaatern jurists say death is the penalty for apostacy.

You never read the Qur'an have you.

 

[gerryh]

You never read the Qur'an have you.

Of course he/she hasn't. I doubt they have done much more than just read some right wing pundits interpretation of what they think/fear the Quran says.

 

[White_Unifier]

Of course he/she hasn't. I doubt they have done much more than just read some right wing pundits interpretation of what they think/fear the Quran says.

Probably a Christian right pundit's interpretation of a Muslim right pundit's interpretation of his professor's interpretation of a famous jurist's interpretation of the Qur'an. Ah the game of telephone.

Always best to get it from the horse's mouth.

 

[gerryh]

Probably a Christian right pundit's interpretation of a Muslim right pundit's interpretation of his professor's interpretation of a famous jurist's interpretation of the Qur'an. Ah the game of telephone.

Always best to get it from the horse's mouth.

That would be too much like work.

 

[Ludlow]

Nope, non of that is true. Immigrants to Canada have necer done what you suggest newcomers need to do.

Stop being lazy and correct your typos azzhole..

You've been making a lot of grammatical errors. " STUPID".

 

[Vbeacher]

Actually, there exist many interpretations of Shari'a. For example, many of the harsher Shari'a laws aren't even in the Qur'an nor ahadith (which means they do not even form a part of Shari'a except in name). Just man-made by Midfle-Eastern jurists.

Let me ask you, do all Christians interpret Christian law the same way?

There aren't as many schools of Islamic thought since Islam didn't break into as many sects as Christianity did. But Catholic law is pretty much consistent wherever you go.

Consider for example that Tunisia prohibits the contracting of a polygamist marriage on its soil. This is not due to any secular law but rather on the way the Tunesian government understood certain verses of the Qur'an as enjoining monogamy.

The Tunisian government did not write its constitution to adhere to Islamic thought or Sharia. If it did it would have put the death penalty in place for apostasy, which, so far as I am aware, is a literal interpretation of Muhammed's words “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57) and considered law by every stream of Islamic theology and jurisprudence.

Same with the question of freedom of worship. The Qur'an guarantees it, yet many Midfle-Eaatern jurists say death is the penalty for apostacy.

The Koran does not guarantee freedom of worship. It accepts the freedom of the other two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism but only within a society where Islam holds primacy, and where Christians and Jews are forbidden rulership, have restricted rights, and pay a special tax.

Of course he/she hasn't. I doubt they have done much more than just read some right wing pundits interpretation of what they think/fear the Quran says.

Right. It's just my interpretation, because I can't read the actual words, and see the laws and behaviour in place throughout the Muslim world. Because like, that's impossible.

I find it interesting that although my OP only mentioned Islam in passing, that's all that progressives care about. I dared to diss their favourite religion and they're fulminating with rage over it. Never mind the fact that this topic is about immigration, not Islam, and that it clearly makes no economic sense to bring over tens of thousands of low-income earners from the middle east every year.