Recent Influx of Immigration

[Arvestaked]

How do you propose immigration should be regulated? There are always glitches and favoritism in the system.

This is something I always read when someone uses past failures as an arguement against a political or economic approach. An example would be "Saying such and such thing is unconstitutional means nothing because we have income taxes." Just because we are governed by human nature does not mean that our principles should change accordingly. People strive for perfection not expecting to achieve it.

Plus, how it is to be regulated is less significant in this thread than whether we feel it should be or not. And if the federal government was not wasting tax money on Iraq and long term things like "the war on drugs," we could easily take care of this nonsense.

Mexicans on the other hand bring major benefits to the corporations in their search for cost efficient employment, if it wasn't advantageous to many business I doubt that the “influx” of Mexicans would be elevated to this level. So how exactly is it damaging to the economy?

First of all, fuhck corporations. Relying on immigration is as bad as outsourcing. Like I said before, if the immigrants are not around, employers will be forced to compete for employement and that is a good thing. When you consider the effects on the economy, how big business benefits is not the only angle. Think decrease in property value and throwing away taxes, etc.

[Darorinag]

That remark was addressed to his overall statements and racist views.

Yes yes, change your words now.....

I don't pull out statistics out of White Supremacist's asses

I was simply posting stats, I wasn't arguing anything. But what can I say, stats don't lie, and if me sticking by the stats means that I'm racist, then so be it.

there is a whole science behind reading and interpreting statistics as I've pointed out to you before.

A whole science? lol... statistics isn't rocket science, you know... especially interpreting them. it says 50%+ of new immigrants are from Asia, and that's that. Period. No argument, no nothing. It's CLEAR.

[anileve]

Originally posted by Darorinag We are talking about new immigrants. We are talking about the changing figures. We aren't arguing that 100 years ago, the chinese had taken over our cities, and you couldn't see any Chinese. I never said there were more Chinese in the country than Europeans. I said they are bringing in more Chinese than Europeans. More Chinese than ANYONE else. More than 50% of new immigrants are from Asia (Middle East EXCLUDED). We were talking about whether or not people agreed that we should open the borders to all new immigrants. We weren't talking about whether or not we should kick out already settled immigrants.

Once again, you are pioneering a complete lack of logic in your reasoning. Immigration will always fluctuate between groups of different ethnicities, for various reasons. However recent flow of Asians will not nearly balance out the current composition of the ethnic make up of Canada which is largely French and British. There are no restriction on the immigration from Western-Europe, in fact they have it easier than anyone else. It is a matter of them not finding a benefit in relocating to other countries, if they are of a middle class in their own country and hold satisfactory jobs, it is obvious that they will find no advantage in changing their location of residence.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by clubbin714 I am tired of people especially in Californians screaming about immigrants, about the language they speak and forcing our "god" down there throat.

Who says we speak English? America has no official language and several states list both English and Spanish as their official language. Over half don't even have an official language and provide services in the languages of the majority and any sizable minorities. You could argue that since the majority of Americans speak English that it is therefore THE language, but in some sw states the majority will soon speak Spanish as a first language. In those states should we then only speak Spanish and force anyone speaking English in those areas to learn Spanish or move out?


The majority of the founding fathers were not, in fact, Christians in true sense of the word. Like many of the prominent Europeans of the time, they were in fact deists, often times denying or minimizing the role of Jesus in religion. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams being a few examples.

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”


The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Thomas Paine - From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”


America is an immigrant nation. There is no true homogenous "American" culture, all there is European culture and African culture and Mideastern Culture and Asian culture that has been brought here. Right now the majority follow English customs and the standard culture of America is English, but soon that may change. When the majority of America speak Spanish and are atheists, it will be the English speakers who will be asking for equal rights and representation. All we ask is that the minority is respected as much as the majority.

Despite egalitarian views that“diversity” and "immigration" is hopelessly tied to this country, lets look at an alternative. For the most part, the origins of this country are self consciously homogeneous. In 1787, in the second of The Federalist Papers, John Jay gave thanks that “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . .” That hardly sounds like he is basking in "diversity is our strength" rhetoric.

[Darorinag]

recent flow of Asians will not nearly balance out the current composition of the ethnic make up of Canada which is largely French and British.

That's not what I was arguing, or anyone else for that matter. the figures have not fluctuated much between the different continents.

There are no restriction on the immigration from Western-Europe, in fact they have it easier than anyone else.

Aren't there? If there are quotas, and 50% of the total immigration is occupied by the Asian quota, and the rest of the 50% occupied by the rest of the continents, isn't there a restriction..?

Let's take a look at the 1998 figures, shall we? That's right, 6 years ago, and let's see if there has been any change in the ranking and percentage of people from certain countries and continents..

1)China, People's Republic (11.34%)
2) India (8.80%)
3) Philippines (4.69%)
4) Hong Kong (4.64%)
5) Pakistan (4.64%)
6) Taiwan (4.11%)
7) Iran (3.89%)
8) Korea, Republic Of (2.82%)
9) United States Of America (2.74%)
10) Russia (2.47%)
11) United Kingdom (2.23%)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/facts1998.pdf

[Darorinag]

My point is, the top 5 has almost always been Asian countries.

1996 top 5 source countries:

1) Hong Kong
2) India
3) China
4) Taiwan
5) Philippines

1996 top 5 source countries:

1) Hong Kong
2) India
3) China
4) Taiwan
5) Pakistan

Immigration (2002) by Language ability:

English (43.44%)
French (4.65%)
Both French and English (5.99%)
Neither (45.92%)

Compare that to 1996 Language ability:

English (51.77%)
French (4.33%)
Both French and English (2.92%)
Neither (40.96%)

1997:

English (51.51%)
French (3.84%)
Both French and English (2.83%)
Neither (41.80%)

1998:

English (47.70%)
French (4.81%)
Both French and English (3.70%)
Neither (43.75%)

[anileve]

You fail to understand statistics or obvious facts, all because you are blinded by your hate towards Asians. You neglect to pay attention to what is presented and keep drilling your own perception on issues. I will no longer argue with you, your views are purely subjective and you refuse to see anything beyond that. I've said everything there has to be said, and to people that pay attention to the contents it will seem logical, however you keep recylcing your thoughts. Statistics are not to be taken at face value but one has to spend time studying various environmental, historical and sociological factors. And yes, statistics is a science and a field which is made into a profession by many.

[violette829]

MODS!!! Can we please change the title of this thread to RECENT INFLUX OF IMMIGRANTS??????????

[Darorinag]

all because you are blinded by your hate towards Asians.

What do my views have anything to do with this? I am simply posting statistics, and so far, my views on most of immigration being based on non-skilled people have been supported by them.

You seem to be arguing that it's necessary or OK to bring so many Asians into the country for balance, but how is that fair to the British? But of course, I should've known the answer to this question - you hate the Brits, because they're SO racist (that's why they keep bringing so many chinese into the country, right?)

And do you consider today's Canadians British? Their ancestors were the ones who built this country. They might be a huge part of the population, but that is no justification for bringing in millions of Chinese per year to balance it out. This is clearly not China. If they want to make it China, they can go and do it in China. People who come here come to Toronto because it's Toronto, not Beijing.

[anileve]

Originally posted by violette829 MODS!!! Can we please change the title of this thread to RECENT INFLUX OF IMMIGRANTS??????????

I am confused, I thought that was the title initially? Or was it perhaps "Recent influx of Asian and Mexican Immigrants", judging from the flow of the thread that seems to be more of an appropriate title.