|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We can talk all we want about intermixing/assimilating etc but it isn't happening. |
So the solution is:
a) try once and quit when you run into a problem, or
b) reassess and try again.
I suspect part of the problem everywhere, not just in Canada, is the rise of identity politics, which in its more extreme forms tends to focus on victimhood.
IMO, one of the worst long-term results of 9/11 was the tendency to identify everyone by the religion that underlies their culture...and by the oldest, most 'fundamentalist' version of that religion, and pretending everyone identifies him/herself that way. |
I agree that 9/11 gave rise to identity politics, and the Canadian government ought to consider that when forming immigration policy. But, they cannot, as immigration policy is controlled by political correctness. Any questioning of the inherent "goodness" of filling the first world with the third is racist, insecure or ignorant (see ddumbass). Virtually no one is willing to openly call for a limit on immigration, which is what is needed.
Additionally, why do you lefties think it a good thing that Western nations steal all the talent available from developing nations. People are the most valuable resource of any nation, and remittances just don't build a country (see Philippines or Cuba). Darn near all of the people who would be useful in building institutions, infrastructure and caring for the population in developing nations, live in developed nations. The brain drain is a little problem for Canada, but it is THE problem for the third world. You are not going to fix anything if your best and brightest are driving taxis in Toronto.
So, yata, yes, quit our immigration polity. A nation of 30,000,000 is going to have a hard time absorbing and assimilating (no matter how nice and multicultural we think we are) 250-300,000 mostly third worlders year after year after year.
Canada ought to have a refugee policy that matches our international commitments, and student visa programs to help educate people from developing nations. But for working, 'temporary working visas' should suffice. They work, they earn and they go back home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
For many years more places are saying happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas to not offend seculars and Jews. Obviously, Christmas is part of the culture of the majority, but we saw how a Christmas tree was taking away by a judge. Should we assume that the majority of Jews or Muslims believe Christmas trees should disappear. I do think so. I think the problem is with some who believe the dominant culture should bend so much for the minorities, and they are more of a problem than those coming to Canada. Of course, catering to minorities to some extent is okay.
|
Where did a judge order the removal and upon what grounds? I'm Canadian and I'm all for the government not promoting any religion. |
A Christmas tree doesn't promote religion. That is like saying if someone celebrates Halloween, they are going to follow a Celtic priest or have some ceremony for dead ancestors. It is true, I do celebrate Christmas in a spiritual sense, but so many people celebrate Christmas and don't happen to be Christian or never attend a church, so I think it was kind of going too far when they tossed out a Christmas tree.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061214/xmas_tree_removed_061214/20061214?hub=TopStories |
| Quote: |
| The judge, who oversees administration at the courthouse, said it's inappropriate that a Christian symbol is the first thing visitors see when they enter the building. |
I gather the judge has certain latitude about what appears in his court house. This isn't setting legal precedent for a nation or a culture. So a judge in his office makes a bad call.
I for one believe Christmas is a secular holiday. The tree does not have christian roots but comes from pagan rituals that celebrated the winter solstice. Of course Christmas itself was simply over layed onto European pagan holidays to celebrate the solstice.
However, ultimately I don't want the state to promote any religion. Whether Christmas, as we have it now, is a purely Christian holiday is up for debate and Canadians will eventually work it out in our own way.
What is true about Canadians and religion, we don't want our politics and religion to mix. No political candidate ever does the church photo op. Parties that run on family values platforms tend to do poorly.
Immigrants always have a hard time, regardless of what nation they settle in. Immigration is also a fact of life for Canada, unless Canadians want to go back to having 3 kids and sending one of them to the University of Waterloo.
The original article, I don't see anything particularly condemning of Canada's policy of multiculturalism. There are speed bumps. Oh well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Immigrants always have a hard time, regardless of what nation they settle in. Immigration is also a fact of life for Canada, unless Canadians want to go back to having 3 kids and sending one of them to the University of Waterloo.
|
Why? You think that immigration will fill the gap left by the aging baby boom? It won't, and serious economists (who aren't using data to support the liberal party) don't think that immigration will have any meaningful affect on the looming fiscal gap.
MGI, a global consultancy, estimates that if Germany raised her immigration levels to 50% higher than what the German government describes as the "best case scenario) this would only deal with 0.07 %(or 0.09%) of the baby boomer's fiscal deficit. That is a meaningless change for all the problems a "newly vibrant" Canada will bring.
The notion that we "need" these immigrants is silly. What we need are more tax revenue, less spending, and most importantly, higher returns on pension (both public and private) investments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="sundubuman"]
| BJWD wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
Yes, it is a majority of Europeans too. Canada is a post-modern state whose self identity is more like an NGO than it is a traditional state. There is little to become, other than not American.
. |
Umm.....why not just become American? Continuing to put the face of a tribal monarch on your currency won't convince young non-anglo canadians that they belong. |
Canadians are Americans i.e. North Americans. Why don't Americans become Canadians? Isn't that kind of arrogant on your part? The Queen on the currency does not bother most immigrants. I have never heard an Italian, Greek, or Ukrainian Canadian complain about that. I heard some Francophones complain. You can think it is illogical to have a queen.
You can also say that the U.S. having an electoral college is illogical.
Anyway, there is more of a crisis in the United States with one million illegals entering every year and so many of them are not educated.
There is cause to be concern in both countries. This just happens to be a study about Canada. You can find a similar problem in Britain. Feeling a connection to another identity is not new in Canada. People made a point that John Diefenbaker had a German surname and some lampooned him as a result of it. That has faded somewhat. Visible minorities are new to Canada and reacting to them pyshcologically on a massive scale is relatively new for Canadians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Immigrants always have a hard time, regardless of what nation they settle in. Immigration is also a fact of life for Canada, unless Canadians want to go back to having 3 kids and sending one of them to the University of Waterloo.
|
Why? You think that immigration will fill the gap left by the aging baby boom? It won't, and serious economists (who aren't using data to support the liberal party) don't think that immigration will have any meaningful affect on the looming fiscal gap.
MGI, a global consultancy, estimates that if Germany raised her immigration levels to 50% higher than what the German government describes as the "best case scenario) this would only deal with 0.07 %(or 0.09%) of the baby boomer's fiscal deficit. That is a meaningless change for all the problems a "newly vibrant" Canada will bring.
The notion that we "need" these immigrants is silly. What we need are more tax revenue, less spending, and most importantly, higher returns on pension (both public and private) investments. |
There's a famous line about economists: economists have successfully predicted 14 of the last 6 recessions.
It seems obvious that to pay for the benefits of the old, we need young under them. If citizens aren't going to provide the babies, we need immigrants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| People made a point that John Diefenbaker had a German surname and some lampooned him as a result of it. That has faded somewhat. Visible minorities are new to Canada and reacting to them pyshcologically on a massive scale is relatively new for Canadians. |
150 years ago, Irish immigrants to New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. were little better than dogs ("No dogs or Irishmen"). Irish Americans are pretty much the backbone of the North East establishment these days. A Chicago Irish cop is about as American as you can get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Immigrants always have a hard time, regardless of what nation they settle in. Immigration is also a fact of life for Canada, unless Canadians want to go back to having 3 kids and sending one of them to the University of Waterloo.
|
Why? You think that immigration will fill the gap left by the aging baby boom? It won't, and serious economists (who aren't using data to support the liberal party) don't think that immigration will have any meaningful affect on the looming fiscal gap.
MGI, a global consultancy, estimates that if Germany raised her immigration levels to 50% higher than what the German government describes as the "best case scenario) this would only deal with 0.07 %(or 0.09%) of the baby boomer's fiscal deficit. That is a meaningless change for all the problems a "newly vibrant" Canada will bring.
The notion that we "need" these immigrants is silly. What we need are more tax revenue, less spending, and most importantly, higher returns on pension (both public and private) investments. |
There's a famous line about economists: economists have successfully predicted 14 of the last 6 recessions.
It seems obvious that to pay for the benefits of the old, we need young under them. If citizens aren't going to provide the babies, we need immigrants. |
Actually, no. Not at all.
If the fiscal disparity between the baby boomer's is to be resolved, the last thing we need are more babies right now. It takes about 30 (or more, in America) years for a child to reach an age where she or he is sufficiently saving at a pace that might help the government weather the looming problems (that will come to be in the next 10-30 years, btw). For the first 20 or so years of a typical kids life, she or he is a net recipient of state spending, and the ages of 20-30 tend to be a wash (some economists say that the it is earlier and some later, maybe +/- 5 years). This is actually exactly why immigrants tend to not help the balance, they have too many kids straight away and negate the benefit that they might bring to the economy.
There is a wealth of research on this topic. It is more complicated than "more people = more money".
Look, I'm sure you are a smart dude, but I will push you on this for pages. Immigration will not solve the looming fiscal issues, unless you only import 30 - 55 year old men with professional degrees and no plans to have kids and deport them when they want to retire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By far and away the best report on this topic I've read is this one (I actually referenced it earlier):
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/demographics/Executive_Summary.asp
You can also download a podcast about it at Itunes.. Look for "Mckinsey" and download the podcast "demographic".
The fiscal shortfall is about to become a huge problem, and the the national discourse about it has to extend beyond nonsense about immigration being the magic pill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But for working, 'temporary working visas' should suffice. They work, they earn and they go back home. |
I see you went for 'option a': try once and quit when you run into a problem.
I did enjoy your solution to the brain drain problem: just borrow the workers during their most productive years and then send them home.
| Quote: |
| But for working, 'temporary working visas' should suffice. They work, they earn and they go back home. |
Hmmm. Why does that strike me as crass exploitation?
PS: I'm looking forward to your response to why I think your definition of multiculturalism is too narrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It isn't "a problem" but a dysfunctional, pointless system that does not bring benefit.
Your other question, well, because it is crass exploitation. But Canada is a country, and has business to attend to. If the country cannot remain solvent over the next 40 years nobody will benefit. We are NOT an NGO whose job is to save the noble people of such an such. It isn't like the human rights of the workers would be violated, they just would be given a time frame for working in the nation. Many, many countries do this and gain quite a benefit.
Immigration will not help this, and could actually make it worse, but temporary workers will help. Not fix, but help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I use the definition of multiculturalism that was bashed into my head by the multiculturalists at my uni. All cultures are equal, and of equal validity, and who are "we" to tell "them" what to do.
Now, if your idea of multiculturalism is rugged individualism, like that other poster (dd?, I forget) or the dominance of Western tradition with non-Western music and food finding a place, then I'm fine with it.
But if you think that group rights/preferences is going to end up creating a functioning civil society then your high. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It isn't "a problem" but a dysfunctional, pointless system that does not bring benefit.
|
Whoosh!
What was that sound?
The sound of an idea going right over your head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You said "run into a problem" and I say the system is junk. Over my head?
Economic benefit is a wash, at VERY best. Evidence that the immigrants are not assimilating (see OP). They are being used a cheap labor at the expense of their qualifications (Canadian unions and agencies will not recognize foreign qualifications). What part of this isn't a problem? Why continue? Because lefty's like "our" cities to be "vibrant"?
But, nice job at ignoring the big ideas and focusing on a definition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| I use the definition of multiculturalism that was bashed into my head by the multiculturalists at my uni. All cultures are equal, and of equal validity, and who are "we" to tell "them" what to do. |
I suspect no one was saying this, but that this is a rather limited interpretation that matches your abilities and fears. Again, read some Geertz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm perfectly willing to use a different definition, as long as I see evidence that this is the definition that the policy makers/academics/journalists are using. I think that perhaps you and your pals are constructing a straw man of sorts. It seems to me that you are redefining what it is to suit what you think the policy ought to be.
I do appreciate the focus not on the posted article, or my economic arguments against using immigration to mitigate fiscal issues, but on my definition of it. But, I'm not a man of pride, and I'll admit my definition is quite limited to the ramblings of the hard-left, who just so happen to run the universities that produce all journalists and bureaucrats. Deepest apologizes all around. Now, from you girls, I want a justification for our,
1) misusing immigration to mitigate economic imbalances
2) Fleecing the third world of her only real resource. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
