“If you’re immigrating to this country and you don’t like the rules that are in place, then you have the right to choose not to live here…But if you choose to come to a place like Canada, then shut up and fit in … these are the rules. There’s the door. If you don’t like the rules, hit it. We don’t need you here. You have another place to go: It’s called home. See ya!”
Allen must obviously be made to pay for such heresy. Accordingly, talk radio bore Harpreet Singh is moving to have him removed from the Vancouver Olympic Committee. And the Liberal Party of Canada, ever ready to censor in the name of freedom, has gotten in on the action. MP Raymond Chan, who apparently received his ESL education from the Liberal Party:
“I find Mr. Allen’s commentary very deceptive [?] and inaccurate [?] and for him to use that kind of deceptive inaccuracy [?], to make inflammatory remarks, discriminatory remarks, is unacceptable…This is why I asked the CRTC to make a full investigation on his comments and report to the public as soon as possible…This is a Canadian issue.”
Lost in the ensuing politically correct pogrom, however, is that Allen also defended recent immigrants and Sikhs in particular from “immigrant-bashing,” a fact that has led BC attorney general Wally Oppal to defend Allen:
But he [Allen] also said there had been a lot of “immigrant-bashing going on in recent months,” and chided Passport Canada for declining passports to three Sikh boys because their photographs showed them with knotted hair covered by a handkerchief.
Werner Patels wrote:
Same old political correctness crap — pardon my French.
As Canadians, we have lost our freedom of speech — all those that arrive here on their various boats and planes, sure, they can say and do whatever they want, but Canadians, oh no. We have to keep shtum and submit to the new masters who are in the process of taking over this country.
Posted on 25-Sep-07 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
“As Canadians, we have lost our freedom of speech — all those that arrive here on their various boats and planes, sure, they can say and do whatever they want, but Canadians, oh no.”
Nonsense. Allen has not resigned or been asked to resign. He voiced an opinion which some found offensive, and they responded by saying they found it offensive. No martyrdom here.
Posted on 26-Sep-07 at 4:49 am | Permalink
Abattoir wrote:
The central issue here, I believe, is what are the ‘rules’ Bruce mentions? It seems to me that some people are angry that what they considered as the ‘rules’ are being overridden by the courts, and demonized by other sectors of the population.
In any democratic nation, the legislature defines the actual ‘rules’ for the society, and the courts interpret them. If the people don’t like these interpretations, their only recourse is to have them changed in the legislature.
Posted on 26-Sep-07 at 7:44 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Furthermore, Canada is built upon a multi-cultural model where immigrant integration is considered to be a two-way-street. Yes, immigrants and expected to do their part to fit in (i.e. learn one of the two official languages, upgrade their skills to find jobs, participate in the political process once they become citizens), but at the same time, Canadians are also expected to adapt to the arrival of new people.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) does not allow Canada to select immigrants based on country of origin or ethnicity. Rather, immigrants are selected based on a human-capital model (i.e. do they have the skills to integrate into the Canadian labour market). This actually makes Canada’s Immigration system unique in the world, as most countries still only allow legal migration from certain countries or regions.
Finally, and I do think this is important to note. Every 5 years, almost 1 million immigrants become Citizens of Canada, after they have completed their residency requirements. This means that 1 million new people have the right (and many would say the responsibility) to participate in the political process. As Canadian faces change, so will this country’s political ideas, and ultimately what it means to be Canadian.
Posted on 26-Sep-07 at 8:00 am | Permalink
anon wrote:
Freedom of speech? Puh-leeze. The whole point is that Allen wanted to express his own discriminatory views, and yet at the same time get away with telling people to “shut up and fit in” or go “home”. “Shut up?” So much for free speech.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 12:37 am | Permalink
Werner Patels wrote:
What Allen said was spot-on: immigrants must integrate or get out — when in Rome, do as the Romans do!!!!!
He only went about it the wrong way by talking about “turban-wearing Mounties”, etc. That made him sound like he was ranting aimlessly, but the essence of his message was 1,0000000% correct and accurate, and he needs to be commended.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 1:12 am | Permalink
Werner Patels wrote:
By the way: did you know that only 25% of immigrants currently in the country are net tax contributors, while the other 75% are not and cost us, the taxpayers, $18 billion a year?
Imagine what we could do with $18 billion a year if it weren’t wasted on imported basket cases.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 1:13 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Where do you get your statistic, Werner? My data shows something completely different, and I bet my source is better than yours.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 5:08 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“Furthermore, Canada is built upon a multi-cultural model where immigrant integration is considered to be a two-way-street. Yes, immigrants and expected to do their part to fit in (i.e. learn one of the two official languages, upgrade their skills to find jobs, participate in the political process once they become citizens), but at the same time, Canadians are also expected to adapt to the arrival of new people.”
Canada is built upon a conception of two founding peoples that takes tolerance as its fundamental operating principle. All of our institutions flow from this. Given that they have managed to contain two distinctive cultural and ethnic groups with oftentimes divergent interests and goals, I’d say that those institutions are working out pretty well.
Those are also the institutions that allow us to accept large numbers of immigrants from countries with no such appreciation of tolerance without cracking apart. Canada is a functional country. Many of the countries that immigrants arrive from are, to put it mildly, not. The view that Canada should adapt itself to the values these immigrants bring is nonsense. Not unless you look yearningly to the conflict of developing states and say, “Gee whiz, I wish we could have that here.”
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 5:15 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
During the latter half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, Canada pursued an immigration policy that had as its primary objective supplying a labour pool, first for settlement and agriculture, then to support industrialization.
Through much of this period, Canadian governments gradually reflected society’s increasing willingness to accept differences within the population–specifically, the legitimacy of the rights of minorities to maintain their culture and traditions. However, there were also regressive laws during this time that among other things stripped some Canadians of their citizenship rights, such as Canadians of Japanese descent during World War II. In cases like these, Canadian governments failed to provide for the full participation of certain minorities in society and the legitimacy of multiple identities.
(Don’t forget that the Canadian Government appologized for what they did to both Japanese and Chinese Canadians during this time period, and paid them approx. $22,000 each).
Changes to Canada’s Immigration Act in 1962 specifically stated that “any suitably qualified person from any part of the world could be considered for immigration to Canada, without regard to his race, colour, national origin, or the country from which he comes”. As a consequence, Canada’s immigration polices gradually became less European and the mix of source countries shifted to nations in Southern Europe, Asia and the West Indies. Substantial increases during the 1970s and 1980s in the number of immigrants admitted as refugees under humanitarian and compassionate grounds further diversified the ethnocultural origins of newcomers to Canada.
In 1971, Canada became the first country in the world to adopt an official Multiculturalism Policy. This policy provided for programs and services to support ethnocultural associations and to help individuals overcome barriers to their full participation in Canadian society. In 1982, the multicultural character of Canada gained constitutional recognition in Section 27 of the newly adopted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It specified that the courts were to interpret the Charter “in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canada”. By virtue of this section of the Charter, Canada became a constitutional multicultural state.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 7:25 am | Permalink
Werner Patels wrote:
The source is John Ivison:
http://www.canada.com/national.....19&p=1
…only a quarter of all immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion;…
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 9:03 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Well, that is certainly different from what you presented above, and the article is mixing facts.
The article says that:
“The system is indeed sick: The backlog of applications from potential immigrants now totals 800,000, up from 50,000 when the Liberals took office in 1993; only a quarter of all immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion; the refugee process is more sympathetic to Mexicans than displaced Africans fleeing rape and torture in Darfur and so on.”
You chose to focus on two different statistics: the economic contributions of immigrants, as a whole, and the cost of running the immigration system (not the amount of money that immigrants use in services).
I can understand how you confused the two, since it is presented in a confused manner.
So, lets get to the first statistic: 25% are net fiscal contributors (and you falsely claim that 75% are not).
When looking at net fiscal contribution, you need to take a few things into consideration. The largest consideration is age. Immigrants bring their children. And since children do not typically earn wages while they are in school, they need to be excluded from the 75% you claim do not. So, now you are left with 49% Next, there is a large group of people who immigrate to Canada in order to become the wives of Canadian men. Indeed, many of these women are not part of the workforce, because they are at home with their new Canadian born children. This is also an important distinction, because women who choose not to work are not considered “unemployed”. Only those who are available to work, and who are looking for work, but do not have work, are counted in unemployment statistics. Coupled with immigrant women who stay at home with their foreign born children, the number drops to 27%. (It is also important to note that these women are not considered a drain on the system, because they are supported by their husbands who work.) Other groups of immigrants who are not intended to participate in the labour market are international students and government assisted refugees (i.e. those selected by the UN to settle temporarily in Canada in order to be protected from areas of conflict). This bings the number down to 24%.
So, who are these 24%? Recent immigrants who are having a hard time transitioning into the labour market upon arrival. However, research shows that immigrants do not stay in low-income situations for a long time, after 5 years almost all immigrants reach or exceed the mean income of Canadian born labour market participants. This is because immigrants typically have more education than Canadians. It takes them a little longer to build networks, and develop the language skills they require in order to compete for jobs at the level their education should afford them. Furthermore, data from E.I. shows that immigrants tend to collect benefits less over their life in Canada than others.
So, $18 billion. Yeah, it costs money to run an immigration program and to process applications, refugee claims, resettlement services, etc. etc. etc. But what would the cost be to Canada if we didn’t have an immigration program?
First and foremost, our population would be in serious decline. Furthermore, with current demographic trends (i.e. the babyboomers are all set to retire in the next 5-10 years), there would be negative growth in the labour force. Right now, Canada brings in approx. 250,000 immigrants a year. This is still not enough to ensure a stable level of labour market participation! And without labour force growth, then there is no increase in economic growth. Compound this with an ageing population who will not be working and living longer (i.e. needing health care), without immigration Canada wouldn’t be able to afford ANYTHING, because our working aged population wouldn’t be able to pay enough in taxes to keep the retired babyboomers healthy.
So, if spending $18 billion to bring people in to save our labour force (and have children - since we aren’t doing it) and encourage economic growth is too much, then we had better start finding ways to ensure that our elderly die quicker, otherwise those of us who are still working will not be able to keep up with their demand on the system (which is going to be a heck of a lot more expensive than $18 billion a year).
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 9:52 am | Permalink
Werner Patels wrote:
My take is 100% correct. If only 25% are net tax contributors, that means the other 75% are not, and according to Ivison’s information, those 75% cost us $18 billion a year.
But it’s not only this article: I have known this for years.
And your socialist, bleeding-heart “math” doesn’t impress me (and it’s wrong anyway).
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 10:49 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Now do the same analysis for non-immigrant population, and you will find the numbers are pretty comparable.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
“My take is 100% correct. If only 25% are net tax contributors, that means the other 75% are not, and according to Ivison’s information, those 75% cost us $18 billion a year.
But it’s not only this article: I have known this for years.
And your socialist, bleeding-heart “math†doesn’t impress me (and it’s wrong anyway).”
Well, you are certainly 100% skilled in playing fast and loose with the numbers. If, and I stress if, you seek to be fair in how you argue this point, at the very least you should compare the immigration data with the tax profile of the general population. Finally, give your head a shake - it takes a while for new Canadians to fully contribute to the Canadian economy. Further, governments need to do a better job (working with professional associations) on better utilizing the skills that many immigrants bring to Canada.
“Imagine what we could do with $18 billion a year if it weren’t wasted on imported basket cases.”
Basket cases? Nice piece of propaganda there. Your use of statistics and your “personal knowledge” on this issue should not impress anyone. I see how you are using this approach to advance a certain anti-immigration agenda that you seem to have. However, what you are talking about and how you are talking about it completely ignores many realities, specifically, what private sector firms (i.e. oil and gas companies, skilled trades sector and other bleeding heart enterprises . . .) are saying about labour market shortages and how immigrants are an important part of meeting this demand in order to maintain and grow our economy and as a direct consequence, maintain and raise our standard of living.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 11:17 am | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
“My take is 100% correct. If only 25% are net tax contributors, that means the other 75% are not, and according to Ivison’s information, those 75% cost us $18 billion a year.”
Ivison’s article is missing a number of things, Werner: a definition of “net tax contributor”, a comparison with the population at large, a definition of “immigrant”, and ANY sources.
Do you consider this reliable sourcing?
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 11:58 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“But it’s not only this article: I have known this for years.”
How narcisistically anecdotal!
However, the LAD (Longditudinal Administrative Data), the LSIC (Longditudinal Survey on Immigration to Canada), and the tax data show a VERY different and more comprehensive story.
Again, without comparing the immigrant data to Canadian born, you mislead the reader into thinking that 25% is somehow extra-ordinary, when, in fact, it is only slightly less.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
WERNER PATELS.COM wrote:
Working on our downfall…
Immigration is one of those topics that can never be discussed reasonably. Case in point: a recent blog post on The Politic. No one can say anything critical about immigration without being accused of having an anti-immigration agenda or worse…
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
That isn’t true. I only questioned your “facts” and provided an alternative view of why immigration is important to Canada.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Dalton wrote:
I’ve just re-read Ivison’s “analysis”, and it’s meaningless without sources or terms of reference.
A family of four arrives from Italy. The father goes to work immediately, the mother raises the children, and the kids go to school.
Bang. There you go. Only twenty five percent contributing to the economy. Disgusting.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
Ryan wrote:
Werner - You weren’t just being “critical”. In your words “Imagine what we could do with $18 billion a year if it weren’t wasted on imported basket cases.”
The $18 billion dollar figure you referenced from Ivison’s article included all immigrants - and you called it waste on imported basket cases. As Dalton quite eloquently shows in his example, to label all of these immigrants as basket cases is wrong-headed. You do a good job of spinning the poor whipping boy line though. Of course, like your usage of the figures in Ivison’s article, it takes mere seconds to see through it.
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 4:13 pm | Permalink
ThePolitic.com » The French in Canada: Just another minority? wrote:
[…] a multicultural sponge meant to soak up every aspect of every immigrant that arrives here, a view recently expressed by commenters on this site. Trouble is, the French founding people aren’t going to be equated […]
Posted on 28-Sep-07 at 6:58 am | Permalink