NationStates Jolt Archive

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

1) Do you support immigration?

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

Edit: Please also state the country you live in (whose laws you are discussing).

I'm in favour of Ali G's immigration plan - only really good-looking women are allowed in.

1) Do you support immigration?

Yes.

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

No.

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

Idiotic would be an accurate term.

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

I don't propose anything anti-immigration.

I would accept anyone who could, through sponsorship by a relative or other sponsor, get a job here. Once you get a job and become a taxpayer, and have paid taxes for six months, I would give a six month window to become a citizen.

If you don't want to become a citizen, you go home - right then.

If you are a refugee fleeing war, danger, etc., I would let you come in. Have to have a heart, you know. But I would be trying to set up local sponsors to help get you assimilated.

Immigrants are necessary for most advanced industrial nations because of the labor and skill shortage. Our birth rates have been abysmally low.

1) Do you support immigration?

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

1) Yes, immigration from hundreds of years has been a staple form of population growth and the inportation and exchange of ideas and culture, its only become evil since the rise of the right wing media 'tabloids' and there need to scare people to sell papers.

2. No

3. British laws are fine, there are not millions of asylum seekers around ever corner, immigrants fill many need jobs and do it well, unemployment is about as low as it can get, something like 1-3% and those are just people in-between jobs and junkies and drunks

4) N/A i suppose

5) I’m pro immigration because I’m not a white supremacist piece of tat, and id like to think I’m someone who actually knows a bit about history and so realises immigration is important to a country

*snip*
What about your country's immigration laws do you think are idiotic?

Speaking as a Canadian, I think the fees are exhorbant ($1500 Canadian for the Permanent Residency application, medical check and visa), and the process convoluted and confusing (deliberately so, according to immigration lawyers). Also, we have 'black listed' countries such as Albania (my best friend married an Albanian and has not been allowed to bring him to Canada yet...it's been over a year, and they won't say why they are not moving ahead with his application). So wealthy people can get in with little difficulty, and it matters not if their wealth was from illegal activities or not (especially if they've never been convicted), but poor, hard working people find it VERY difficult to get in.

PLUS, there is the strictness of the rules which has caused many cases of families being split up; one paper is not filled out correctly, and the immigration office lets it sit until no time is left to do an appeal or correction, and the applicant is booted out (minus a $650 nonrefundable fee for the application). It doesn't matter if this means a mother has to leave her children or husband, or visa versa.

You can get one result from an immigration officer one day, depending on their mood, and then get shut down the next day by another one if they are having a bad day. Grrr.

1) Do you support immigration?
Yes

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?
No

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?
Just about right I think, but my country is in a different situation to most. We, like Canada, still have lots of room.

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?
N/A

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?
Answer to no. 5
I myself am an immigrant, so being anti would be more than slightly hypocritical. However my reasons are deeper than this. Look at the attitude in certain countries toward foreign cultures. This is due in many cases to ignorance. In the UK, for example, there was a large amount of racism in the 70s and 80s at least. However as immigrant childern associated with native children in the schools, this prejudice reduced. The same thing appears to happen everywhere. The rider is that the immigrants have to try to integrate into the culture of the country that they have moved to. The desire to retain a separate cultural identity from that of the country where you have chosen to live is one of the fundamental causes of continued racism in the UK. Muslims demanding state funded muslim schols in an anglican protestant country is divisive. Here, in Brazil, cultures tend to be blended. There are some immigrant groups that isolate themselves (for some reason it is often the Japanese here). This I can understand for first generation immigrants, particularly the more elderly ones, as dealing with a foreign culture can be difficult. But to continue this isolationism over generations, denies the purpose of immigrating in the first place.

I'm in favour of Ali G's immigration plan - only really good-looking women are allowed in.
I like it...women would outnumber men and force them into unpaid domestic work, or low-paid labour positions while they take over the management and political jobs. Plus, our lesbians would be much happier!

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

1) Do you support immigration?

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?


1)No

2)Yes

3)Too lenient

4) Because many immigrants do crimes in Finland, because many immigrants don't go to work but live on our social security and because they bring all sorts of negative influences into our culture.

1) Do you support immigration?

Yes.

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

No.

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

Too strict; mandatory detention is never justified.

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

Why not? Diversity is good. It encourages innovation.

I say open the borders - let anyone in. Just because I was born here doesn't mean I own the place.

We already have open borders to the EU. That hasn't led to every body in portugal coming to live in the UK. When the people of HongKong had the right of abode in the UK, very few came. Similarly indians. We had to go to the West indies and invite them to get them to come.

1)No

2)Yes

3)Too lenient

4) Because many immigrants do crimes in Finland, because many immigrants don't go to work but live on our social security and because they bring all sorts of negative influences into our culture.

You're mental.
I hope Finland isn't in the EU.

You're mental.
I hope Finland isn't in the EU.

Unfortunately, we are :(

Unfortunately, we are :(

I shall encourage everyone I know to go live in Finland to balance you out. Immigration is obviously what you need.

Answer to no. 5
I myself am an immigrant, so being anti would be more than slightly hypocritical. However my reasons are deeper than this. Look at the attitude in certain countries toward foreign cultures. This is due in many cases to ignorance. In the UK, for example, there was a large amount of racism in the 70s and 80s at least. However as immigrant childern associated with native children in the schools, this prejudice reduced. The same thing appears to happen everywhere. The rider is that the immigrants have to try to integrate into the culture of the country that they have moved to. The desire to retain a separate cultural identity from that of the country where you have chosen to live is one of the fundamental causes of continued racism in the UK. Muslims demanding state funded muslim schols in an anglican protestant country is divisive. Here, in Brazil, cultures tend to be blended. There are some immigrant groups that isolate themselves (for some reason it is often the Japanese here). This I can understand for first generation immigrants, particularly the more elderly ones, as dealing with a foreign culture can be difficult. But to continue this isolationism over generations, denies the purpose of immigrating in the first place.

Hmmm...it is that sense of 'community' and not integrating that often causes the most outcry...I understand though why people would want to hold onto their culture, and even physically band together (for security...it can be pretty scary moving to a new country, being surrounded by a strange language, culture and climate...). I agree that as children are born, there is usually an opening up of the cultural groups, but in Canada, there is also a stage many second generation immigrant children go through, which a friend and I like to call, "Ultra-Culturalism". (She's Greek, I'm Native, my husband is Chilean, and we've all seen LOTS of examples of this).

Basically, "Ultra-Culturalism" in Canada is a sort of trying-out of identities. Many of the kids going through this have limited language fluency in their parent's or grandparent's mother tongue, and limited exposure to the culture of their relative's home country. They latch onto stereotypical speech patterns and behaviours, and become "More Greek than Greeks". There is an uncertainty, especially in adolescence, of one's identity, and since Canadian identity is difficult to qualify, many kids look to their ethnic roots for clues. Usually this fades away, and a person becomes more comfortable with themselves, but not always.

Anyway, I don't think we do enough to integrate immigrants....I don't mean assimilate. I mean, helping them through the very painful and difficult process of adapting to an unfamiliar culture. Sure, there are programs out there, but how are people supposed to find them, or even know they exist? We need to reach out MORE. Otherwise, of course people are going to band together with others who are of the same culture, and have experienced the same disorientation. Immigrating permanently to a new country is not the easy as pie experience so many of us (who were born in our countries) seem to think it is. These people are not on vacation.

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

1) Do you support immigration?

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

1) Yes

2) No

3) Generally about right, although I'm sure there are exceptions

5) The fact that banning people from moving from one country to another is just as stupid as banning them from moving to one town from another; people shoukd have freedom of movement and the choice to live where they choose.

Muslims demanding state funded muslim schols in an anglican protestant country is divisive.

Manchester and Liverpool aren't very anglican or protestant. I like to think of the UK as multicultural, the biggest religion in the UK is still Catholic, and the protestant leanings of the state are an unfortunate anachronism. We have Jewish schools, protestant schools and catholic schools. let muslims have schools if they want.

5) The fact that banning people from moving from one country to another is just as stupid as banning them from moving to one town from another; people shoukd have freedom of movement and the choice to live where they choose.

What s/he said

1)No

2)Yes

3)Too lenient

4) Because many immigrants do crimes in Finland, because many immigrants don't go to work but live on our social security and because they bring all sorts of negative influences into our culture.

Okay, you don't support immigration (and it seems to be based on ideas of criminality and negative cultural influence).

So, I ask you:

What about the immigrants who DON'T engage in criminal activities? What are the statistics of criminal, versus non-criminal immigrants in Finland? What are the stats of criminal, versus non-criminal Finns (native born)? Are immigrant MORE, LESS or about the SAME in terms of criminality when compared to native born Finns?

Finland has negative population growth, does it not? Also, Finland has a fairly well developed social system...as your population ages, and does reproduce itself in number sufficient to support the elderly (pensions, health care and so on), your system will become more and more strained. How do you counter this?

What in particular do you not like about the cultures of immigrants? What are the 'negative' cultural influences of which you speak? (For clarification before I go on:))

Answer to no. 5
Muslims demanding state funded muslim schols in an anglican protestant country is divisive.
In Canada, we unfortunately have a left-over from Confederation which gives public funding to Catholic schools, even though non-Catholics can not attend them. I figure, either get rid of this system, or fund ALL denominations, depending on populations.

GRR...pet peeve of mine, being an atheist...

Post 9-11, Canada has also drastically reduced the number of refugees it will accept, and narrowed the definition of refugee so that it hardly covers anyone. Right, because refugees have the money, time and education to blow up things.

Sorry...that was a little ad hominem, just ignore my outburst.

What about your country's immigration laws do you think are idiotic?

I could start with the H1-B program, which I believe is the stupidest thing I ever heard of.

And the NAFTA restrictions (or liberalizations). It's good to be a Canadian trying to come into the US, but Mexico evidently is not an equal partner in the treaty.

I think it all needs to be much simpler. Something you can print on a 3 x 5 card.

I might change the oath. That would put additional wording to renounce all previous oaths of citizenship and renounce allegiances to non-state entities that might now or in the future have cause against the United States.

I might also insist that Americans born here take the oath at age 18 if they want the right to vote.

I might also have penalties (felony class) for violating the oath. Such as a mandatory life sentence for placing an allegiance to a non-state entity above that of the United States.

I think LEGAL immigration is the best thing for a country.

I could start with the H1-B program, which I believe is the stupidest thing I ever heard of.
What is it? Explain for us pesky foreigner, please:)!

And the NAFTA restrictions (or liberalizations). It's good to be a Canadian trying to come into the US, but Mexico evidently is not an equal partner in the treaty.
Yeah, this is a strange one, but also a very hot topic because of numbers. I think it's kind of like hoping a leaking dam won't burst though...the US has cut so many Spanish language programs and such in order to better 'assimilate' latinos, but I think they've just shot themselves in the foot...

I think it all needs to be much simpler. Something you can print on a 3 x 5 card.
I agree...and have some damn consistancy! The immigration workers themselves have too much leeway in decision making (deny, accept, depending on their mood), and there is no accountability if they give wrong information, because regular people (who might not even speak the official language well) have to sift through all the legal jargon to figure out the process for themselves...(or pay a lawyer, which just tacks on more serious expenses).

I might change the oath. That would put additional wording to renounce all previous oaths of citizenship and renounce allegiances to non-state entities that might now or in the future have cause against the United States.

I might also insist that Americans born here take the oath at age 18 if they want the right to vote.

I might also have penalties (felony class) for violating the oath. Such as a mandatory life sentence for placing an allegiance to a non-state entity above that of the United States.
Oath smoath:). Words. Immigrants are already bound by the laws of the land, I think that is good enough. I'm also fine with dual citizenship...they still pay our taxes, after all!

In Canada, we unfortunately have a left-over from Confederation which gives public funding to Catholic schools, even though non-Catholics can not attend them. I figure, either get rid of this system, or fund ALL denominations, depending on populations.

GRR...pet peeve of mine, being an atheist...

but there are atheist schools, surely?

I think LEGAL immigration is the best thing for a country.
Ah, but do you think the immigration laws of your country are fair? We have made many immigrants legally ineligible for immigration since 911...based on very little facts or evidence that these class of immigrants would pose any threat. (Canada)

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

Okay.


1) Do you support immigration?
Yes, as long as it is not illegal.


2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?
No, BUT:
The nation must not be a sworn enemy of the United States. Therefore, no immigrants from North Korea, Iran, etc. Refugee status is of course an exception.


3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?
The laws are fine, the enforcement is not sufficient.


4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?
N/A


5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?
The US is a nation of immigrants. And my parents were.

Edit: Please also state the country you live in (whose laws you are discussing).

United States.

but there are atheist schools, surely?
Well, not advertised as such:). There are non-religious schools, yes. HOWEVER, you pay school taxes in your district, which go towards public and Catholic schools. If your child is not a baptised Catholic, he or she can ONLY attend the public school, even if you prefer the programs at the Catholic one. Also, as a teacher, I would have to go through the process of 'becoming Catholic' to teach at a Catholic school, even if I wasn't teaching religion. I know many teachers who have done this. I for one, refuse to join a religion just to get a job.

The point being, public funds are going to an exclusive schooling system. It would be like your tax money going to Muslim schools, where your children were prevented from attending if they were non-Muslim. Discriminatory.

Well, not advertised as such:). There are non-religious schools, yes. HOWEVER, you pay school taxes in your district, which go towards public and Catholic schools. If your child is not a baptised Catholic, he or she can ONLY attend the public school, even if you prefer the programs at the Catholic one. Also, as a teacher, I would have to go through the process of 'becoming Catholic' to teach at a Catholic school, even if I wasn't teaching religion. I know many teachers who have done this. I for one, refuse to join a religion just to get a job.

The point being, public funds are going to an exclusive schooling system. It would be like your tax money going to Muslim schools, where your children were prevented from attending if they were non-Muslim. Discriminatory.

so discrimination is ok as long as you aren't paying for it?

*snip*
I understand where you're coming from in terms of nations that are 'sworn enemies' (though is that actually ever declared outright, how do you determine sworn enemies? Do you declare them such, or do they declare themselves?), but the people wishing to move to, and live in your country are usually not going to be people that hate America and everything it stands for...why keep them out?

Sworn enemies of the US? It's the US that says they are enemies, not the countries themselves. And why won't the US welcome joyfully all those citizens of so-called enemy states who hate their state and love the US?

Ah, but do you think the immigration laws of your country are fair? We have made many immigrants legally ineligible for immigration since 911...based on very little facts or evidence that these class of immigrants would pose any threat. (Canada)

Wait, are you talking about Canada? Im talking about the US. And no, the laws havent always been fair, the Chinese exclusion act for example. But that is done with. I think our laws are fine right now. But I cant stand illegal Mexican immigrants. Thats why I love Arizona so much! Mexico has chalenged them to international court for the reasons that Arizona doesnt let illegal Mexican immigrants get US benifits, which is fair why should Mexico get to interfere with what we do? Its not their country.

Okay, you don't support immigration (and it seems to be based on ideas of criminality and negative cultural influence).

So, I ask you:

What about the immigrants who DON'T engage in criminal activities? What are the statistics of criminal, versus non-criminal immigrants in Finland? What are the stats of criminal, versus non-criminal Finns (native born)? Are immigrant MORE, LESS or about the SAME in terms of criminality when compared to native born Finns?

Finland has negative population growth, does it not? Also, Finland has a fairly well developed social system...as your population ages, and does reproduce itself in number sufficient to support the elderly (pensions, health care and so on), your system will become more and more strained. How do you counter this?



Studies have shown that Somalians in Finland do more crimes per capita than Finns, howewer, average is all about one guy eating two chickens and second guy not eating and dying. They eat one chicken in average if you know what i mean.

Anyway, we could combat negative population growth by banning abortion and trying to reduce use of contraception. There were 10 000 abortions done in year 1999 in Finland. Howewer, the statistic does not show that in how many of those cases the child was aborted for health reasons. And you'll probably say "if people would use less contraception sexually transmitted diseases would spread", but i can counter that too. If people would stop having one-night affairs and would only have sex on marriages and other long-term relationships (and test themselves regularly) then there'd be less sexually transmitted diseases.

And you'll probably say "if people would use less contraception sexually transmitted diseases would spread", but i can counter that too. If people would stop having one-night affairs and would only have sex on marriages and other long-term relationships (and test themselves regularly) then there'd be less sexually transmitted diseases.

if people would stop driving, there'd be fewer road accidents. So what?

so discrimination is ok as long as you aren't paying for it?

When something is paid for by public funds, it should be accesible to the public, regardless of race, nationality, gender, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation. Charter schools are privately funded and can set their own standards to some extent. The fact that we allow one group to be publically funded even though their admissions are exclusive is discriminatory against all the other groups who would like to do the same. Change it...make them all private, or all public. Don't set a standard for one and not the others.

why should Mexico get to interfere with what we do? Its not their country.
Funny...at one point much of it was...but I guess that's in the past....

Studies have shown that Somalians in Finland do more crimes per capita than Finns, howewer, average is all about one guy eating two chickens and second guy not eating and dying. They eat one chicken in average if you know what i mean.

Anyway, we could combat negative population growth by banning abortion and trying to reduce use of contraception. There were 10 000 abortions done in year 1999 in Finland. Howewer, the statistic does not show that in how many of those cases the child was aborted for health reasons. And you'll probably say "if people would use less contraception sexually transmitted diseases would spread", but i can counter that too. If people would stop having one-night affairs and would only have sex on marriages and other long-term relationships (and test themselves regularly) then there'd be less sexually transmitted diseases.
So you'd like to force people to procreate, even though your population has decided to reduce itself by having fewer children. You will tie sex into pregnancy, and make it a purely biological function. All this because you don't like immigration.

Sounds a little tyrannical...if you know what I mean.

EDIT: you still haven't addressed the 'negative cultural influences' to which you referred earlier...what exactly are you speaking of?

if people would stop driving, there'd be fewer road accidents. So what?

If people under 21 would stop driving that'd be true for Finland. And if there'd be fewer drunk drivers and if there'd be fewer of those macho-idiots who just have an overwhelming want to pass the car in front of them and end up speeding and colliding in a truck or something like that.

I didn't said sexually transmitted diseases would be eliminated. I just said they could be reduced.

Anyway, we could combat negative population growth by banning abortion and trying to reduce use of contraception. There were 10 000 abortions done in year 1999 in Finland. Howewer, the statistic does not show that in how many of those cases the child was aborted for health reasons. And you'll probably say "if people would use less contraception sexually transmitted diseases would spread", but i can counter that too. If people would stop having one-night affairs and would only have sex on marriages and other long-term relationships (and test themselves regularly) then there'd be less sexually transmitted diseases.

That seems like a very complicated system of keeping your population up, rather than just allowing people from countires with too high population growth rates in, with the added advantage that both countires benifit that way.

if people would stop driving, there'd be fewer road accidents. So what?


If people under 21 would stop driving that'd be true for Finland. And if there'd be fewer drunk drivers and if there'd be fewer of those macho-idiots who just have an overwhelming want to pass the car in front of them and end up speeding and colliding in a truck or something like that.

I didn't said sexually transmitted diseases would be eliminated. I just said they could be reduced.

And I say that just as you can reduce traffic accidents by reducing traffic, you can reduce STDs by reducing sex. It is a point that isn't worth making. People want to have sex, and they want to drive too.

We're getting off topic here...I'm trying to figure out why this person is against immigration so much that he is willing to impose draconian abstinence or nothing policies to increase the population rather than allow immigrant to do this.

We're getting off topic here...I'm trying to figure out why this person is against immigration so much that he is willing to impose draconian abstinence or nothing policies to increase the population rather than allow immigrant to do this.

Look, if they (immigrants) support themselves, i've got no problem for that. I'm just sick and tired that our health services and law enforcement got to endure budget reductions while we provide asylum-seekers almost hotel-level care!

Look, if they (immigrants) support themselves, i've got no problem for that. I'm just sick and tired that our health services and law enforcement got to endure budget reductions while we provide asylum-seekers almost hotel-level care!


What percentage of immigrants do not support themselves in your country? (Provide some stats we can check please). How many asylum-seekers are admitted to Finland yearly? (Refugees are usually a small percentage of overall immigrants) Are there not services available to integrate them into the economy? Are your immigration laws so lax that they let in people who can not work, or who are not sponsored by working citizens? In Canada, you can't get in unless you can prove you will be able to support yourself, or that someone in Canada is willing to support you FOR 10 YEARS (or until you become a citizen)! That means, if you collect welfare during that time, your sponsor must pay it all back.

Look, if they (immigrants) support themselves, i've got no problem for that. I'm just sick and tired that our health services and law enforcement got to endure budget reductions while we provide asylum-seekers almost hotel-level care!
By the way, these budget reductions you speak of are caused, in part, by the fact that because of your negative population growth, there are not enough working people to pay the taxes that support these programs. This will worsen as more people retire and need pensions and extended health care. Slashing immigration only exacerbates the problem.

I understand where you're coming from in terms of nations that are 'sworn enemies' (though is that actually ever declared outright, how do you determine sworn enemies? Do you declare them such, or do they declare themselves?), but the people wishing to move to, and live in your country are usually not going to be people that hate America and everything it stands for...why keep them out?

It is not so much declared as percieved. For example, Iran taking over the US embassy and keeping our citizens as prisoners for 444 days is pretty hostile.

Odds are, the foreign land isn't going to let anyone emigrate to us anyway, unless they're going to be spies or "undesireables". If someone manages to *escape*, that's a different matter.

Why keep them out? Easy. By not allowing them in, they stay in their own nation, and might just work to change it.
There is a great article on North Korea in this week (16 Feb 05)'s TIME magazine, where it talks about some village on the Chinese border where they've started to open up to trade... and see the outside world via China... and how wretched NK life really is.

Hmmm...it is that sense of 'community' and not integrating that often causes the most outcry...I understand though why people would want to hold onto their culture, and even physically band together (for security...it can be pretty scary moving to a new country, being surrounded by a strange language, culture and climate...). I agree that as children are born, there is usually an opening up of the cultural groups, but in Canada, there is also a stage many second generation immigrant children go through, which a friend and I like to call, "Ultra-Culturalism". (She's Greek, I'm Native, my husband is Chilean, and we've all seen LOTS of examples of this).

The difficulty I have with this clinging to the culture that you came from is, that if it is that god, then why did you leave in the first place? The looking for security and banding together with like minded people is part of human nature, but so is being open to new experiences, to exploring at the boundaries of safety.

(sorry about dropping this into the middle of your discussion, just got back from the supermarket and replied to you)
Basically, "Ultra-Culturalism" in Canada is a sort of trying-out of identities. Many of the kids going through this have limited language fluency in their parent's or grandparent's mother tongue, and limited exposure to the culture of their relative's home country. They latch onto stereotypical speech patterns and behaviours, and become "More Greek than Greeks". There is an uncertainty, especially in adolescence, of one's identity, and since Canadian identity is difficult to qualify, many kids look to their ethnic roots for clues. Usually this fades away, and a person becomes more comfortable with themselves, but not always.

What you call "ultra-Culturalism" seems to me to be an attempt to discover an identity rather than a trying on of them. This will almost inevitably occur if the first generation immigrants isolate themselves from the culture of their host country. This is particularly true if there is a linguistic isolation. It is not so common here, as the Brazilian culture is so all encompasing. There are plenty of children, in the region that I live in that only learn Portuguese after they start school. At home they speak dialects of German or Italian. (I say dialects because they are not mutually intelligable with German or Italian) These are the ones who usually identify themselves as being German or Italian rather than Brazilian. My son, who is technically an immigrant, as he was 1 year old when we moved here, thinks of himself as Brazilian, not as English. This is because we have always spoken Portuguese at home (In my case very very badly at first). He is not confused about his ifdentity, but he has colleagues at school who are going through identity crises due to the isolationist upbringing they have had for the first five years of their lives.


Anyway, I don't think we do enough to integrate immigrants....I don't mean assimilate. I mean, helping them through the very painful and difficult process of adapting to an unfamiliar culture. Sure, there are programs out there, but how are people supposed to find them, or even know they exist? We need to reach out MORE. Otherwise, of course people are going to band together with others who are of the same culture, and have experienced the same disorientation. Immigrating permanently to a new country is not the easy as pie experience so many of us (who were born in our countries) seem to think it is. These people are not on vacation.

How should we reach out? It is surely the responsibility of the immigrants to learn about the culture and customs of the land they have chosen to live in. If they ask, then we should help answer. Perhaps we should be more "neighbourly" and go and knock on their door to welcome them to the country. But I am not sure that I would have liked it if this had happened to me.
In regions where there are large numbers of immigrants arriving, then setting up some kind of multi-lingual counselling/advice service is a generally good idea. If only to help the newcomers understand how basic things like the banking system work.

Immigrating into a new culture is bewildering, but also exciting. To start with it is a little like being on vacation as almost everything is different, new and interesting. This however wears off very quickly (a few days normally, a couple of weeks at the longest). Then life becomes a living nightmare for a time. You understand nothing whatsoever. Not even how to cross a road safely. Eventually you start to adapt, to "get it". Then it is fun again. This second stage is what causes some immigrants to band together, and I can sympathise with them. The ones I can not sympathise with are the second or third generation immigrants who demand that their culture be subsidised by public money.

It is not so much declared as percieved. For example, Iran taking over the US embassy and keeping our citizens as prisoners for 444 days is pretty hostile.

Odds are, the foreign land isn't going to let anyone emigrate to us anyway, unless they're going to be spies or "undesireables". If someone manages to *escape*, that's a different matter.

Why keep them out? Easy. By not allowing them in, they stay in their own nation, and might just work to change it.
There is a great article on North Korea in this week (16 Feb 05)'s TIME magazine, where it talks about some village on the Chinese border where they've started to open up to trade... and see the outside world via China... and how wretched NK life really is.

Okay, let me get this straight:

People from an unfriendly nation should be kept out (blame them for the policies of their government).

If they escape, they'll be let in. Maybe.

Is that about right?

What about your country's immigration laws do you think are idiotic?

Speaking as a Canadian, I think the fees are exhorbant ($1500 Canadian for the Permanent Residency application, medical check and visa), and the process convoluted and confusing (deliberately so, according to immigration lawyers). Also, we have 'black listed' countries such as Albania (my best friend married an Albanian and has not been allowed to bring him to Canada yet...it's been over a year, and they won't say why they are not moving ahead with his application). So wealthy people can get in with little difficulty, and it matters not if their wealth was from illegal activities or not (especially if they've never been convicted), but poor, hard working people find it VERY difficult to get in.

PLUS, there is the strictness of the rules which has caused many cases of families being split up; one paper is not filled out correctly, and the immigration office lets it sit until no time is left to do an appeal or correction, and the applicant is booted out (minus a $650 nonrefundable fee for the application). It doesn't matter if this means a mother has to leave her children or husband, or visa versa.

You can get one result from an immigration officer one day, depending on their mood, and then get shut down the next day by another one if they are having a bad day. Grrr.


Those fees are chump change, what do you mean difficult to get in. Anybody that can't afford such trivial fees, they're the type you don't want coming in anyway.

By the way, these budget reductions you speak of are caused, in part, by the fact that because of your negative population growth, there are not enough working people to pay the taxes that support these programs. This will worsen as more people retire and need pensions and extended health care. Slashing immigration only exacerbates the problem.

Or maybe because our wise (sarcasm) Socialist-Centrist government decided to build an 800 million € concert house and a 214 million € expansion for our parliament building so that MP's could hire more assistants.

The difficulty I have with this clinging to the culture that you came from is, that if it is that god, then why did you leave in the first place? The looking for security and banding together with like minded people is part of human nature, but so is being open to new experiences, to exploring at the boundaries of safety.
Well for one thing, people are not leaving their culture behind, they are leaving their country behind, for whatever reason. The culture may be sound, but perhaps they are being persecuted (Kurds for example) in their own country, and want to have cultural freedom somewhere else.

You can still have your culture, and open up to the culture of the country you live in, I agree. I'd like to see more of this. It shouldn't be one or the other.

What you call "ultra-Culturalism" seems to me to be an attempt to discover an identity rather than a trying on of them. This will almost inevitably occur if the first generation immigrants isolate themselves from the culture of their host country.
For some people this is true, but for the majority that I am speaking of from experience (purely anecdotal I know, I'm not trying to prove anything), it's usually the kids whose parents completely assimilated (refused to speak their language at home and so on) that have the hardest time. For example, Chinese children who don't speak Chinese or know much about Chinese culture, because their parents wanted them to fit in. They feel lost...not really accepted by Canadians, and not accepted by traditional Chinese. They 'try on' their culture and follow stereotypes to fit in to a group.

Anyway...not really relevant so...

How should we reach out? It is surely the responsibility of the immigrants to learn about the culture and customs of the land they have chosen to live in.[/QUOTE
How do you go about doing this? The problem is that people don't really know where to start looking. In some areas, there are actually "welcome wagons" that go and welcome newcomers, and provide them with information in their language about services (where to study English and so on, or just to take them shopping and help them find food they are familiar with). This is great. I'd like to see more emphasis put on 'luring' immigrants to rural areas (which are becoming more and more depopulated) rather than urban areas. More services, provided by people who have gone through the process and transition would be great...you could always say, "No thanks" if they come to your door:).


[QUOTE=Alien Born]This second stage is what causes some immigrants to band together, and I can sympathise with them. The ones I can not sympathise with are the second or third generation immigrants who demand that their culture be subsidised by public money.
I don't see that happening much anyway...I'm not sure about Brazil, but I can't think of too many ways people's cultures are 'subsidised' by public funds. We celebrate culture in various festivals, and we promote awareness through education campaigns of different cultures, but I don't think this is bad...if we want to integrate immigrants, we need understanding on both sides. Churches and language programs are generally funded by the people themselves, not the government.

Also, we have 'black listed' countries such as Albania (my best friend married an Albanian and has not been allowed to bring him to Canada yet...it's been over a year, and they won't say why they are not moving ahead with his application). So wealthy people can get in with little difficulty, and it matters not if their wealth was from illegal activities or not (especially if they've never been convicted), but poor, hard working people find it VERY difficult to get in.



I personally can't stand Albania and I hate Albanians, mostly for what they did to glorious Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs. As such, I'd probably tell your friend, "If you want to marry an Albanian woman, move to Albania, you're not wanted in a North American country". That's just how I feel about the issue. Anyway, if he really loves her, he'll move won't he? Why is he letting months tick by into years, while his wife is in a distant country? If she can't get to him, he ought to go to her.

Those fees are chump change, what do you mean difficult to get in. Anybody that can't afford such trivial fees, they're the type you don't want coming in anyway.
Chump change to you perhaps. A doctor who makes $30 a month in Argentina after the economic collapse in that country could certainly do some good work in Canada, but could not afford the application fee. Yet drug lords certainly could afford it. Does ability to pay the fee determine desirability? I'd take the doctor over the drug lord any day.

Or maybe because our wise (sarcasm) Socialist-Centrist government decided to build an 800 million € concert house and a 214 million € expansion for our parliament building so that MP's could hire more assistants.
If you dislike your government so much, go into politics and try to get it changed. Stop scapegoating. You bring up your government's spending policies to justify your problems with immigration. Apples to oranges. Stay on topic.

Chump change to you perhaps. A doctor who makes $30 a month in Argentina after the economic collapse in that country could certainly do some good work in Canada, but could not afford the application fee. Yet drug lords certainly could afford it. Does ability to pay the fee determine desirability? I'd take the doctor over the drug lord any day.



Argentine doctors can do some good work in Argentina, for their people, why do you want to take all of their doctors and thus doom the Argentine people to sickness and plague?

Again, I have a bit of personal bias here, since I am a big fan of Argentina, and I really don't care much for Canada. I've been to Canada at least 20 times, but not to Argentina once. Since I have relatives in Argentina, I think I'm going to try to get there this summer and see what is going on.

I personally can't stand Albania and I hate Albanians, mostly for what they did to glorious Serbia and the Bosnian Serbs. As such, I'd probably tell your friend, "If you want to marry an Albanian woman, move to Albania, you're not wanted in a North American country". That's just how I feel about the issue. Anyway, if he really loves her, he'll move won't he? Why is he letting months tick by into years, while his wife is in a distant country? If she can't get to him, he ought to go to her.
This is so blatantly racist (as are most of your posts in other threads as well), and one sided (glorious Serbia? What about what they did, and are still doing to ethnic Albanians?) I really see little point in dealing with it. It adds nothing to the discussion except bigotry.

Argentine doctors can do some good work in Argentina, for their people, why do you want to take all of their doctors and thus doom the Argentine people to sickness and plague?

Again, I have a bit of personal bias here, since I am a big fan of Argentina, and I really don't care much for Canada. I've been to Canada at least 20 times, but not to Argentina once. Since I have relatives in Argentina, I think I'm going to try to get there this summer and see what is going on.
If an Argenine doctor wishes to come to Canada, that is his or her business. Canada loses plenty of our doctors to other countries too. Not relevant. You are saying, "Stay in your country because people need you". Is that just for some professions?

If you dislike your government so much, go into politics and try to get it changed. Stop scapegoating. You bring up your government's spending policies to justify your problems with immigration. Apples to oranges. Stay on topic.

You were the one that brought the budget issue up ;)

If an Argenine doctor wishes to come to Canada, that is his or her business. Canada loses plenty of our doctors to other countries too. Not relevant. You are saying, "Stay in your country because people need you". Is that just for some professions?


Primarily yes, since some professions we will always have an abundance of people to fill the ranks of (menial labor and such). But countries ought to hold onto skilled labor and professional labor.

You were the one that brought the budget issue up ;)
A one time expense (building whatever) is not the same as the steady decline of tax revenue caused by an aging population, thus, apples to oranges. Immigration, ceased or increased has no effect on the one, while it directly affects the other. Clear?
(I'm not deliberately trying to sound snarky...I just can't stick my tongue out convincingly)

Primarily yes, since some professions we will always have an abundance of people to fill the ranks of (menial labor and such). But countries ought to hold onto skilled labor and professional labor.
So you are all for immigrants that will fill menial labour positions, but not for skilled labourers? Isn't this a little against the whole philosophy of immigration (despite the reality, which sees a real need for menial labourers, rather than skilled)? How will these people afford the fees involved in the immigration process?

So you are all for immigrants that will fill menial labour positions, but not for skilled labourers? Isn't this a little against the whole philosophy of immigration (despite the reality, which sees a real need for menial labourers, rather than skilled)? How will these people afford the fees involved in the immigration process?


No, I'm for letting the people who just do menial labor leave, let them move out of the USA if they want, we can always fill those jobs up as the poor tend to have lots of kids. If a few million poor folks leave the USA, there are more where those came from.

We ought not to let doctors and lawyers leave though, we need them and they take decades to replace.

No, I'm for letting the people who just do menial labor leave, let them move out of the USA if they want, we can always fill those jobs up as the poor tend to have lots of kids. If a few million poor folks leave the USA, there are more where those came from.

We ought not to let doctors and lawyers leave though, we need them and they take decades to replace.
If your own population can fill all those positions, why aren't they doing it? Few janitorial companies (or other menial labour employers) ever have a full staff...there is high turn over (because of low pay and low job satisfaction). Immigrants fill those positions that your own population refuse to fill. Refuse to, not can't fill.

If your own population can fill all those positions, why aren't they donig it? Few janitorial companies (or other menial labour employers) ever have a full staff...there is high turn over (because of low pay and low job satisfaction). Immigrants fill those positions that your own population refuse to fill. Refuse to, not can't fill.


Then take poor people, high school drop-outs, etc, and form them into labor battalions so we don't need to rely on immigrant labor. Why use non-white immigrant labor when there is plenty of poor white, for lack of a better term, trash, who can fill those jobs.

How should we reach out? It is surely the responsibility of the immigrants to learn about the culture and customs of the land they have chosen to live in.
How do you go about doing this? The problem is that people don't really know where to start looking. In some areas, there are actually "welcome wagons" that go and welcome newcomers, and provide them with information in their language about services (where to study English and so on, or just to take them shopping and help them find food they are familiar with). This is great. I'd like to see more emphasis put on 'luring' immigrants to rural areas (which are becoming more and more depopulated) rather than urban areas. More services, provided by people who have gone through the process and transition would be great...you could always say, "No thanks" if they come to your door:).

Nice ideas, but I am not sure about luring immigrants into rural areas unless they are coming from a rural background. The culture shock of immigrating is big enough, without adding an urban - rural shock on top.


I don't see that happening much anyway...I'm not sure about Brazil, but I can't think of too many ways people's cultures are 'subsidised' by public funds. We celebrate culture in various festivals, and we promote awareness through education campaigns of different cultures, but I don't think this is bad...if we want to integrate immigrants, we need understanding on both sides. Churches and language programs are generally funded by the people themselves, not the government.

I was actually thinking specifically of a city called Bradford in the UK, where I lived (in the Hortons for anyone who knows the city) for a few years. This city has a very large proportion of immigrants from Pakistan particularly. These immigrants started demanding that the local council should provide a schooling in their language with the religous education to be exclusively about their religion. No comparative religion, no mention of Christian or Shinto, or any belief system other than their own. The council did this. I, for one, along with many others, protested this as it was not appropriate for the local government to spend public money on promoting ethnical isolationism. Eventually, I beleive, the law lords ruled the council's action to be racist, and thereby illegal, so the segregated school system closed. (I had moved away for job reasons)

This is the type of activity that causes resentment against immigrants, and it is, as I said, the responsibility of the immigrants themselves to not let this happen.

Then take poor people, high school drop-outs, etc, and form them into labor battalions so we don't need to rely on immigrant labor. Why use non-white immigrant labor when there is plenty of poor white, for lack of a better term, trash, who can fill those jobs.
So this is boiling down to white versus non-white...those people you want to leave (those that do menial work)...are they just the non-whites?

A one time expense (building whatever) is not the same as the steady decline of tax revenue caused by an aging population, thus, apples to oranges. Immigration, ceased or increased has no effect on the one, while it directly affects the other. Clear?
(I'm not deliberately trying to sound snarky...I just can't stick my tongue out convincingly)

Indeed, but as said if they work i have no problem with that. If they just live on our social security then there's even more expense :D

Oh, asylum seekers should go to work while their applications are processed.

1) Do you support immigration?

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

Edit: Please also state the country you live in (whose laws you are discussing).

1) Of course, you'd have to be utterly mental or a state sponsored scientist to oppose it unconditionally.

2) No. Immigration is normally based on a case's merit. To deny an applicant purely because of geography would be ridiculous by any standard even during a world war. Besides are we talking applicant's source country, the country they came through last, their passport country, their husband's/parent's nationality or what ?

5) Morally there will always be cases where it is right to accept refugees unconditionally - Politically there will always be situations where it is desirable to score points over other nations including the appplicants own state - economically it is desirable as the facts indicate that immigrants generate more revenue than they cost in a dynamic economy - culturally it helps grow a mature cosmopolitan society - historically it has added huge benefit and new dimensions including the english language and maths ( Do invasions count ?)

Best of all it irritates ignorant bigotted pigs who oppose it.

UK

Nice ideas, but I am not sure about luring immigrants into rural areas unless they are coming from a rural background. The culture shock of immigrating is big enough, without adding an urban - rural shock on top.
I know...it'd be really mean...but I'm worried about falling populations in our rural areas:) I say, give farmers some free land like in the old days!




I was actually thinking specifically of a city called Bradford in the UK, where I lived (in the Hortons for anyone who knows the city) for a few years. This city has a very large proportion of immigrants from Pakistan particularly. These immigrants started demanding that the local council should provide a schooling in their language with the religous education to be exclusively about their religion. No comparative religion, no mention of Christian or Shinto, or any belief system other than their own. The council did this. I, for one, along with many others, protested this as it was not appropriate for the local government to spend public money on promoting ethnical isolationism. Eventually, I beleive, the law lords ruled the council's action to be racist, and thereby illegal, so the segregated school system closed. (I had moved away for job reasons)
I agree this is crap. HOWEVER...if those people wanted to pull their school tax money (or maybe only a percentage of it) in order to fund their own schools, I think they should be able to. Additional funding would have to come from the community itself.

So this is boiling down to white versus non-white...those people you want to leave (those that do menial work)...are they just the non-whites?



We have enough poor whites to do our menial labor, we don't need non-whites to do it. Thus there are absolutely no reasons to let non-whites stay in the USA, we don't need them for economic reasons, and they basically just contribute to the crime and STD rates, that's the honest truth, most folks know it, most just won't admit it.



Whites have a habit of getting quiet the second a racial discussion starts and non-whites are within distance to hear it.

Indeed, but as said if they work i have no problem with that. If they just live on our social security then there's even more expense :D

Oh, asylum seekers should go to work while their applications are processed.
If they are allowed to. In Canada, you have to apply for special permission to work while your application goes through. It is a federal offense to work without this permit, and the permit is generally not granted anymore until AFTER permanent residency is given, which can take up to a year. This is particularly true for refugees. Changes need to be made in these rules.

Again, how much of a problem is your social security issue, really? Is it THAT easy to collect without proving why you can't work? It certainly isn't here...in fact, you can't collect unemployment insurance if you haven't worked enough hours. You still haven't provided stats to prove this is a big enough problem to justify scrapping immigration all together...

I know...it'd be really mean...but I'm worried about falling populations in our rural areas. I say, give farmers some free land like in the old days!
They still do this at times in Brazil. This is why we have a colony of Japanese farmers growing french grapes somewhere close to the equator. Fun huh.


I agree this is crap. HOWEVER...if those people wanted to pull their school tax money (or maybe only a percentage of it) in order to fund their own schools, I think they should be able to. Additional funding would have to come from the community itself.

No way. Start down that slippery path, of rebating tax (in the UK tax is tax, not school tax nor police tax, etc.) for choosing to set up a privately funded alternative and they would have financial chaos. Every person with a private health plan would want a rebate on their tax, every person with a private pension plan would demand the same. People who never use public transport would want rebates, etc. etc. If they had wanted to set up a private school thay could have. There are many of them (there is currently a thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398139) discussing private schools in the UK). No government funding would be appropriate, particularly if you consider that the UK is officialy and Anglican country. There is no separation of the state from the anglican church, and any immigrant should be aware of that.

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

1) Do you support immigration?

No, if you mean Bushes plan for it. Rewarded illegals is wrong. I support legal immagration because they work hard for it.


2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

No, as long as they legal.

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

Currently America is fine, but Bush wants to make it too leniet.

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

You shouldn't reward illegal behavior plain and simple. Its based on equality and fairness as well as justice.
I propose we deport them. Tell them if they wish to come back go through legal channels. If they do illegal methods a few times we fine them.

America, USA!

I like it...women would outnumber men and force them into unpaid domestic work, or low-paid labour positions while they take over the management and political jobs. Plus, our lesbians would be much happier!

Women already outnumber men in most urban areas, and we still can't get them to do all the unpaid domestic work.

Okay, let me get this straight:

People from an unfriendly nation should be kept out (blame them for the policies of their government).

If they escape, they'll be let in. Maybe.

Is that about right?

Almost.
* It's not blame. It's a ramification for being under an unfriendly gov't.
* If they escape (and are enemies to their home gov't), then they can stay.

We have enough poor whites to do our menial labor, we don't need non-whites to do it. Thus there are absolutely no reasons to let non-whites stay in the USA, we don't need them for economic reasons, and they basically just contribute to the crime and STD rates, that's the honest truth, most folks know it, most just won't admit it.

No, that's the truth as you see it. It is NOT backed up by research, and you have not provided any statistics to prove your point. You may dislike immigrants for the reasons you have listed above, but believing these things do not make them reality.


Whites have a habit of getting quiet the second a racial discussion starts and non-whites are within distance to hear it. Don't label all whites the same. I have plenty of white friends who AREN'T racist.

They still do this at times in Brazil. This is why we have a colony of Japanese farmers growing french grapes somewhere close to the equator. Fun huh.
The Japanese are big in Peru too...it IS fun:)


No way. Start down that slippery path, of rebating tax (in the UK tax is tax, not school tax nor police tax, etc.) for choosing to set up a privately funded alternative and they would have financial chaos. Every person with a private health plan would want a rebate on their tax, every person with a private pension plan would demand the same. People who never use public transport would want rebates, etc. etc. If they had wanted to set up a private school thay could have. There are many of them (there is currently a thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398139) discussing private schools in the UK). No government funding would be appropriate, particularly if you consider that the UK is officialy and Anglican country. There is no separation of the state from the anglican church, and any immigrant should be aware of that.
Ah, I'll have to just give in and agree on this one. As a teacher, I wouldn't want our funding cut just because one group wanted a Polish school, or whatever. Fine, no rebates. In Canada, I don't believe any extra language programs or schools are funded by the government. (That I know of) It seems to work fine...the programs and schools still exist, but are funded privately.

Women already outnumber men in most urban areas, and we still can't get them to do all the unpaid domestic work.
Well, with a large cadre of good-looking only (based on whose definition I wonder...) woman immigrant class, we could band together and put more pressure on the males to submit....

Tongue in cheek here, folks...

Nice ideas, but I am not sure about luring immigrants into rural areas unless they are coming from a rural background. The culture shock of immigrating is big enough, without adding an urban - rural shock on top.


I know...it'd be really mean...but I'm worried about falling populations in our rural areas I say, give farmers some free land like in the old days!

There are still a lot of countries with large rural populations that would immigrate to Canada if they could afford to. The problem with most rural populations though is that they tend to be poorer and less well educated than urban populations. And that does not usually add up to enough points to pass Canada's immigration test, although if they're persecuted they could get in as refugees.

In northern Canada, like the Peace River region of BC there is still a variation on the Homesteaders Act. Every now and again, the crown releases some land. You can bid on and receive large parcels of this land for only $10,000 (or so - this was several years ago and I don't remember exactly what my dad paid), but you only get to keep it if you keep making improvements to it. I guess this is to ensure that you don't just grab up the land to keep anyone else from using it. It isn't free land, but it's relatively cheap land, and if you're lucky, an oil or gas company will want to put a well on it, and you'll get royalties for letting them set up there.

However, these opportunities only happen in places where the value of the land isn't very high, and will never happen anywhere near an urban area, where developers will snatch up all the land and make enormous profits. The homesteaders act, or whatever it's called these days, is only open to people who want to farm or ranch or otherwise work the land.

Problems for those rural immigrants from 3rd world nations though:

1) Hard to know about these opportunities when they come up.
2) Hard to scrape up the $10,000 CAD when you're scraping by on a $1 a day and can't really afford airfare to Canada in the first place.
3) Bit of a shock coming from the tropics to southern Canada (Toronto or Vancouver), let alone from the tropics to northern Canada.
4) Really damn expensive to pursue modern farming methods and equipment - more so if you've been plowing with an ox your whole life.

Not saying it couldn't be done. If we wanted more rural immigration, we could recruit 3rd world farmers. We could give them immigration points just for being farmers. We could waive the fee to take advantage of the free land, and just require annual improvements to the land.

But we'd probably still have to set them up with seed and farm equipment. And they wouldn't be able to grow anything for the first year at least - they'd have to clear away all the scrub trees first. (all those skinny willow, birch, pine, etc that grow across northern BC and are only good for pulp paper and chopsticks) And then, even if Canada did set them up with seed and farm equipment, well then, you'd get some pissed off Canadian farmers and wanna be farmers who never got anything remotely like this kind of break. Not to mention annoyed tax payers. So you'd probably have to have a charitable organization that raised money and sponsered farm families over and helped them to get their start.

None of this is an impossible goal. But then again, when you realize how difficult it is for foreign trained doctors to work in the medical profession in Canada, even though they get immigration points for those skills, it begins to look pretty darn improbable.

Tongue in cheek here, folks...

:D I know, I just thought I'd point out that it hasn't worked so far. Perhaps we need increased focus.

*snip*
Of course, it would be a much more complicated process than just giving away land...the traditional knowledge these farmers have may not translate in our climate. I don't think we need to start big time agriculture in these areas though...even subsitance agriculture would be fine. So what if these people don't know how to run a tractor...let them use oxen as they are used to...if they can feed themselves, and maybe have a bit to sell, I'd consider it a success.

Wait, nevermind. I know that just wouldn't work. Sigh. It's what I'd like to do though...build a shack in the boonies, farm enough for us to eat...

Still, we could do more...Alberta has had some success with large groups of immigrants (such as the Dutch) coming to rural areas and setting up shop. They bought the land in common, and work it in common. We have so, so, so much land that is not being used....and so many abandoned towns in BC for sale...mmmmmm....

*wanders off to dream some more*

:D I know, I just thought I'd point out that it hasn't worked so far. Perhaps we need increased focus.
Well my original comment was in response to someone saying we need to only allow good-looking female immigrants in...which would definately increase feminine pressure....MUAAHHAAA!

Of course, it would be a much more complicated process than just giving away land...the traditional knowledge these farmers have may not translate in our climate. I don't think we need to start big time agriculture in these areas though...even subsitance agriculture would be fine. So what if these people don't know how to run a tractor...let them use oxen as they are used to...if they can feed themselves, and maybe have a bit to sell, I'd consider it a success.

Wait, nevermind. I know that just wouldn't work. Sigh. It's what I'd like to do though...build a shack in the boonies, farm enough for us to eat...

Still, we could do more...Alberta has had some success with large groups of immigrants (such as the Dutch) coming to rural areas and setting up shop. They bought the land in common, and work it in common. We have so, so, so much land that is not being used....and so many abandoned towns in BC for sale...mmmmmm....

*wanders off to dream some more*

Northern BC gets a lot of German immigrants buying up huge tracts of land. Most of them have never farmed before, but have always dreamed of doing so.

I'd also like to have an acreage where I could have a milk cow, chickens, rabbits, horses and a garden. But I'm not cut out to do actual farming. I'm a good worker, but farming hours are ridiculous -especially given the low pay, the no benefits, and the getting screwed by nature all the time. So I'd keep my day job.

I'd also like to have an acreage where I could have a milk cow, chickens, rabbits, horses and a garden. But I'm not cut out to do actual farming. I'm a good worker, but farming hours are ridiculous -especially given the low pay, the no benefits, and the getting screwed by nature all the time. So I'd keep my day job.
Agreed. *Sigh*

So...where have all the anti-immigrant people gone? Doing some research I hope...

Almost.
* It's not blame. It's a ramification for being under an unfriendly gov't.
* If they escape (and are enemies to their home gov't), then they can stay.
Hey, I don't blame Americans for the evils of their government...I would welcome an American who loves America, or one who hates it, regardless, to Canada if they wished to immigrate.

Agreed. *Sigh*

So...where have all the anti-immigrant people gone? Doing some research I hope...

LOL I suspect not. Then they'd learn that Canada would be in big trouble without immigration and should seriously increase the number of immigrants we accept.

Cause the other option is to require us Canadian women to pop out a lot of Canadian babies. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be forced to become a baby farm anytime soon. My mom did my bit for me, in my opinion.

LOL I suspect not. Then they'd learn that Canada would be in big trouble without immigration and should seriously increase the number of immigrants we accept.

Cause the other option is to require us Canadian women to pop out a lot of Canadian babies. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be forced to become a baby farm anytime soon. My mom did my bit for me, in my opinion.
The Finn wants exactly that...

And the American just wants whites...

I wonder if he would kick out the Natives too, even though they were there first...

The Finn wants exactly that...

And the American just wants whites...

I wonder if he would kick out the Natives too, even though they were there first...

Yeah, I've heard many a man say it is we women's patriotic duty. It has already happened in Quebec at one time, and Germnay, Russia and Australia (and probably others) have also had baby reward programs in the past - although one suspects that when Australia did it, they weren't giving rewards to Aboriginal women.

Okay, now there is a poll.

I said yes, but:

The system is expensive, convoluted and corrupt. We need to revamp it to encourage more skilled immigrants and allow more refugees. This is my opinion:).

IF you wish to show up in my country so be it. Im glad you like it here as much as I do. But you better be doing it legaly and you better learn English.

There as circumstances where you dont have to learn it, to old, trying to get away from political opression, etc...

But if your 21 and moveing to the United States and only know how to speak Russian you better be takeing some English classes.


Illegal immigration from Mexico is my problem.
My solution is Bradleys, Drones, and up-armoured Border Control Agents with support from the National Guard. Id like to see a drug runner get across the border with a fast attack vehical from the National Guard on its ass.

The Finn wants exactly that...

And the American just wants whites...

I wonder if he would kick out the Natives too, even though they were there first...


The Indians can stay here, they were after all, here before we got here. We did sort of give them a raw deal.

Maybe we can give them the whole state of Arizona or something, or a few reservations in each section of the country they were most numerous in? Well something to 1) Keep them away from us. 2) Apologize for taking all their lands.


I think the Indians are the only real race in the USA with a case for reparations against the Federal government. The blacks think they have a case, but they just want a hand out. The Indians just want some of what was once all theirs. Although to be fair, parts of the continent were void of people when the whites arrived, so the Indians can't claim to have a claim to all of the North American continent.

As I see it, the Indians are a lot like the Palestinians or the Boers, being pushed out of their land and not given a fair deal. And they're not asking for much and so it's not unreasonable to give them some of what they want.

Illegal immigration from Mexico is my problem.
My solution is Bradleys, Drones, and up-armoured Border Control Agents with support from the National Guard. Id like to see a drug runner get across the border with a fast attack vehical from the National Guard on its ass.
Before I go into this (because illegal immigration from Mexico is a big issue on NS, since most posters are American), I want to ask:

1) What exactly bothers you about illegal immigrants from Mexico? I'm not being obtuse, it's just that some people see this issue differently (from a racial viewpoint, from a labour viewpoint, from a cultural etc, etc).

LOL I suspect not. Then they'd learn that Canada would be in big trouble without immigration and should seriously increase the number of immigrants we accept.

Cause the other option is to require us Canadian women to pop out a lot of Canadian babies. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be forced to become a baby farm anytime soon. My mom did my bit for me, in my opinion.


In Italy they are paying white women up to 15,000 dollars to have kids, since there aren't enough Italian women in Italy having Italian babies. By 2040, there will only be 18 million Italians left in Italy, down from nearly 60 million today. Italy is being taken over by Muslim invaders (peaceful invaders, peaceful in that they come as down-trodden and wretched immigrants, playing off our consciences, who could possibly stop those poor folks who just want it better, eh?)

See, the West is great at uniting and stopping an armed invasion (732 Tours, 1683 Vienna, etc) But we really stink at stopping peaceful and quiet invasions.

Imperialism is often defined as transporting cultural and ethnic values to other lands. Immigration en masse, is therefore a form of imperialism, since it spreads the influence of the nations where the people are leaving from, to the nations they are going to.

Thus as more and more muslims move into Europe, Europe will resemble a Muslim society.

No, that's the truth as you see it. It is NOT backed up by research, and you have not provided any statistics to prove your point. You may dislike immigrants for the reasons you have listed above, but believing these things do not make them reality.


Don't label all whites the same. I have plenty of white friends who AREN'T racist.


Color of Crime (http://www.amren.com/color.pdf)

The Indians can stay here, they were after all, here before we got here. We did sort of give them a raw deal.

Maybe we can give them the whole state of Arizona or something, or a few reservations in each section of the country they were most numerous in? Well something to 1) Keep them away from us. 2) Apologize for taking all their lands.
So, we can't live next to you, but you feel bad for killing us and stealing our land. At least there is some progress there...


think the Indians are the only real race in the USA with a case for reparations against the Federal government. The blacks think they have a case, but they just want a hand out.
Way to stereotype. The "Blacks" as you call them, were FORCED to come to the US. They did not choose, they were not free, they were not immigrants, they were slaves. It happened around the same time as the slaughter of the Natives...in the Americas (both continents), the Natives were killed, or died working, while the "Blacks" were hardier and fairly resistant to European diseases by that point. And you don't think they have a case?

The Indians just want some of what was once all theirs. Although to be fair, parts of the continent were void of people when the whites arrived, so the Indians can't claim to have a claim to all of the North American continent.
We had very wide ranges because we followed the herds (though some tribes were agricultural, or fixed in place)...we weren't concentrated in major urban centres. Can the US now come to Canada and say, "Hey, you guys aren't using this land over here, so now it's ours"?

As I see it, the Indians are a lot like the Palestinians or the Boers, being pushed out of their land and not given a fair deal. And they're not asking for much and so it's not unreasonable to give them some of what they want.Thank you for championing my people, but I think I'll take a pass on your support...a PC racist is still a racist.

Illegal immigration from Mexico is my problem.
My solution is Bradleys, Drones, and up-armoured Border Control Agents with support from the National Guard. Id like to see a drug runner get across the border with a fast attack vehical from the National Guard on its ass.
Who'd pay for that?

1) Do you support immigration?

yes,if its legal.

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?
no
3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?
illegal immigrents from mexico should be shot,its the only way to actully keep them out.
legal immigrents should be required to speak english,speaking anything but in public should be a 1000$ fine for everyone.

USA

So, we can't live next to you, but you feel bad for killing us and stealing our land. At least there is some progress there...


I
Way to stereotype. The "Blacks" as you call them, were FORCED to come to the US. They did not choose, they were not free, they were not immigrants, they were slaves. It happened around the same time as the slaughter of the Natives...in the Americas (both continents), the Natives were killed, or died working, while the "Blacks" were hardier and fairly resistant to European diseases by that point. And you don't think they have a case?


We had very wide ranges because we followed the herds (though some tribes were agricultural, or fixed in place)...we weren't concentrated in major urban centres. Can the US now come to Canada and say, "Hey, you guys aren't using this land over here, so now it's ours"?

Thank you for championing my people, but I think I'll take a pass on your support...a PC racist is still a racist.



The blacks 200 years ago had a case. The blacks today have no case, since slaves and slave owners in the USA have been dead for 100+ years.

Anyway, most blacks in the USA today are immigrants and probably less than 1/4 are the descendants of slaves.

Think about this for a bit too


(caution, the link is the words of actual freed slaves, and they use language to describe themselves that some might take offense to, think about it, 1920, what do most folks say to talk about blacks?)

http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/slavery-whatexslavessaid.htm



As for being PC, no, I just know what it is like to be forced off your land by gradual encroachment and outright hostility.

yes,if its legal.

no
illegal immigrents from mexico should be shot,its the only way to actully keep them out.
Yes, let's kill men, women and children who are fleeing poverty because after all, they're just Mexicans, not humans.

Who'd pay for that?


Same people paying for the war in Iraq... American citizens.


Take the Army out of Iraq, and put them on our borders, the war on terror starts on the borders, don't let them in, and there is no problem.

I think the Indians are the only real race in the USA with a case for reparations against the Federal government. The blacks think they have a case, but they just want a hand out. The Indians just want some of what was once all theirs. Although to be fair, parts of the continent were void of people when the whites arrived, so the Indians can't claim to have a claim to all of the North American continent.

The whole continent was populated by the time Columbus arrived. Not densely populated, but populated. After the first Europeans arrived they brought illnesses that decimated that population and in some cases erradicated whole groups of them. Remember that European settlement in the US and Canada started nearly one century after it did in Mexico, and then took about two centuries to travel much inland, time enough for disease to get to those places.

legal immigrents should be required to speak english,speaking anything but in public should be a 1000$ fine for everyone.

While those writing it badly should be jailed, I'm sure.

The US has no official language.

Color of Crime (http://www.amren.com/color.pdf)
Forgive me if I suspect the source of this 'study', especially when the New Century Foundation is headed by Jared Taylor.

Taylor heads the Virginia-based New Century Foundation. Its board of directors has included a leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor to the White Citizens Councils of the 1960s. A former board member represented the American Friends of the British National Party, a neo-fascist and anti-Semitic far-right group in England. Another board member is an anti-immigration author who has also reviewed books for a Holocaust denial journal.
Jared Taylor, a Racist in the Guise of 'Expert' At 10:10 a.m., he was introduced no fewer than four times as "race relations expert Jared Taylor" on Fred Honsberger's call-in show on the Pittsburgh Cable News Channel. Four hours later, he was back on the air with Honsberger on KDKA radio, where he repeated the message he'd been thumping all day: Martin Luther King Jr. was a philanderer, a plagiarist and a drinker who left a legacy of division and resentment, and was unworthy of a national holiday.
What Taylor did not say, and what Honsberger didn't seem to know until I picked up the phone and called in myself, was that Jared Taylor believes black people are genetically predisposed to lower IQs that whites, are sexually promiscuous because of hyperactive sex drives. Race-relations expert Jared Taylor keeps company with a collection of racists, racial "separatists" and far-right extremists.

Same people paying for the war in Iraq... American citizens.

That'd be a good solution. No reason to go and bomb other people, if you want to deploy your army it should be inside your borders.

The blacks 200 years ago had a case. The blacks today have no case, since slaves and slave owners in the USA have been dead for 100+ years.
By this definition, Natives have no case either...you think slavery happened BEFORE you slaughtered us?

Anyway, most blacks in the USA today are immigrants and probably less than 1/4 are the descendants of slaves. Stats?

By the way, stats will show that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated than whites...but isn't one example of discrimination in the US that crack possession will get you more time than cocaine? And who can afford the cocaine but the rich suburbanites, and the crack goes to the poor...and didn't the Iran-Contra affair ALSO involve selling crack to black neighbourhoods to raise funds....

"Mommy, mommy, there's a bake sale going on! The government is selling crack, really, really cheap! Yay!"

Hey, I don't blame Americans for the evils of their government...I would welcome an American who loves America, or one who hates it, regardless, to Canada if they wished to immigrate.

Ah, but that's also because the US and Canada are nations that get along, as most nations do with Canada.

Now, imagine if Canada broke up, and your portion of it reformed into something else. All of a sudden, Quebecois (whom are outside your confederation, but cause the split up) want to immigrate. Are you as welcoming?

I support it except for one case: those who cross into countries illegally. In my country (the US) a pourous Mexican border has everyone cross: migrants, drug dealers, smugglers, etc. Terrorists may enter the US this way.
In short, I support a lax immigration policy, with no quotas and such. The only condition is that all immigrants are to be checked, and screened to make sure they don't carry an infectious disease new to the US. If anyone crosses anywhere other than a checkpoint, they must be apprehended and deported immediatly. If they resist, they must be shot. This must apply with the Canadian border as well, wich is even more pourous.

There is always anti-immigration talk being bandied about on this forum, which I think is pretty true to life, since you hear a lot of it on the streets too. I'd like to know what your opinion is. Consider the following:

1) Do you support immigration?

Absolutely, The United States was founded on Immigration, and anyone entering legally should be accepted with open arms

2) Do you support immigration from certain countries only?

No, In America we trive on diversity opening our minds and making us more competitive in the world economy.

3) Are the laws of your country too strict, just right, or too lenient in terms of immigration?

Too strict, It has come to the point where international students can't even get student visas.. we are losing all the benifits we use to get from brain drain, and now are losing the worlds brightest minds. On top of that illegals spill into the country by the millions annually draining our healthcare system, not paying taxes, and demanding rights after they break laws just being here.
On top of this the security threat in which these strict laws are based on arn't even addressed. 911 Terrorists entered the country through canada on turist visas, yet we put all our efforts against Mexico wasting 2 billion dollars annually on a failing boarder protection.

4) If you are anti-immigration, what is this based on, and what alternatives do you propose (if any, for negative population growth and so on)?

5) If you are pro immigration, what is this based on?

LIke i said, nation built on immigration
people are comming in illegally unchallenged draining our social services and taking advantage of our rights.

Edit: Please also state the country you live in (whose laws you are discussing).

United States

Same people paying for the war in Iraq... American citizens.


Take the Army out of Iraq, and put them on our borders, the war on terror starts on the borders, don't let them in, and there is no problem.

do you want our boarder to be the first and only line of defense... instead of fighting tem at my door step.. id rather be fighting them at theirs..

I wouldn't be here if it weren't for immigration. I'd be annoying Europeans. And Americans are so much easier for me to annoy.

do you want our boarder to be the first and only line of defense... instead of fighting tem at my door step.. id rather be fighting them at theirs..

We have no enemies in Iraq, lest you believe the lies of the Bush regime.