|
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 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
As for Francophones, you've NEVER lived or grown up with them either so what the *beep* would you know about their Latin character vis a vis other Latins? Oh, maybe you went to Paris once 
Another I've-never-lived-there-but-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about type? |
Instead of saying, 'well BB, francophones have these latin characteristics: blah blah blah" you swear at me. How polite.
I have lived with french people multiple times mon cherie. But nice guess there.
And I've been to Paris THREE times. 
edit: just in case you can't tell, I was poking fun at myself with the Paris line.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:42 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The logic that you have to have lived somewhere to know something about the culture and people is simply absurd, and she knows it.
It's an especially infantile way to dismiss opinions you don't like. Let her throw her tantrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seriously. Quite the temper there. Hmmm, perhaps that's one of the latin characteristics those francophones have in common with their hispanic brothers and sisters.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps we all get a little angry on this board from time to time, too, and respond without thinking the full consequences of the response through. I'm willing to recognize that we all escalated the tone of this debate at various points, not the least of which was her response to my admitedly too broad assumptions about Canada and also my (not unreasonable) assumption that she did not live in the U.S.
Let me just say that California is a great place to live -- not without its problems, of course -- and I was offended by her attitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
? This thread makes no sense. At first it looks like everybody's trying to make a point but then it switches gear and turns out that it doesn't matter what the previous point was. I would have believed that these were two people arguing with the other:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You are European, surely you understand this. |
This is an invalid point.
People form opinions about places they've never lived before all the time, historical and contemporary places, and based on all kinds of evidence and data.
Living there is no requirement. Neither is it a guarantee that what you have to say is any more valid than what someone who hasn't lived there might say. |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Like I said, as a Canadian, you have not lived with the same issue of so many coming in, or trying to get in, and the ones that do get in, often bring much resentment with them. |
The logic that you have to have lived somewhere to know something about the culture and people is simply absurd, and she knows it. |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Actually my position comes from my time in Korea, where quite a few Canadians told me -- rather self-righteously, too -- that they would never want to live in such a place as the U.S., etc., etc. Heard it so many times that it shaped an opinion. |
Woo-hoo! You lived there!
So that MUST mean you conducted scientific polls and interveiwed a broad group of (Canadians) to come to your own understandings on the issue. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And Mithridates shows us that he, too, can descend into pettiness and ridicule, and place a series of quotes together out of context.
Perhaps someone should nominate this thread for thread of the year.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scarneck
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Seoul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
What percent of threads are hijacked by a Canada vs. America debate? Any guesses?
I think they are both fine countries, both of which happen to have a rather large amount of idiots. I really dislike comparing the two as we have different issues. For example, many Americans are carrying with them a negative attitude towards blacks. Similarly, many Canadians carry with them a negative attitude towards Indians. So, we can talk ad nauseum about how Americans say this and that about blacks and how canucks would never do so but this is an invalid comparison as white Canadians would say almost the same sh$t about Indians.
That being said, I have grown very tired of all the preaching these brainwashed, fresh out of uni canuckleheads do about Canada. It isn't god's gift to the world simply because it has 'health care' and not every non-Canadian you meet wants a lecture on Canadian politics, history and wearebetterthanamericaolgy. Calm down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
And with that post I further hijacked this thread. Oops!
Back to the main topic.
Immigration is a big topic. Not all immigrants are the same and not all are able to contribute the same to the society. I wouldn't worry too much about the reconquest of California, I highly doubt the feds would let that happen.
It seems that the biggest opponents to this get all upset about the consumption of socialized resources (ie. schooling, medical care, roads and others) in which case we should really ask if immigrants are the problem or the instituions they surely leech off of. I don't know if a k-12 "free" education system is really in America's needs anymore. I don't really see justice in a born-and-bred American paying for the education of some kid who was born when mommy crossed the border (or flew in on a KAL flight).
And regarding the race relations, perhaps this is egged on a bit with your typical lefty-Americans fascination of placing everybody into clearly identifiable groups. These groups then compete with each other for their share of the dole. They all like to sit around and argue over who was victimized more by the evil white man, and compensation for their suffering is the prize.
And as will most other issues (crime especially) the ending of the war on drugs would also ease race relations. Right now these gangs are competing for turf. So take away the turf and let WalMart have it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| From my perspective, everyone has a right to immigrate wherever they they want to - provided they are not criminals. Moreover, since God is the real proprietor of all land, as living beings descended from the Supreme Father we are all entitled to claim at least a small portion for our needs... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| From my perspective, everyone has a right to immigrate wherever they they want to - provided they are not criminals. |
Nice sentiments. On the other hand, if 300 000 people from countries that have nothing in common with Iceland suddenly decided that they wanted to move to Iceland(population 300 000), well, I could kind of understand Icelanders having a problem with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| From my perspective, everyone has a right to immigrate wherever they they want to - provided they are not criminals. |
Nice sentiments. On the other hand, if 300 000 people from countries that have nothing in common with Iceland suddenly decided that they wanted to move to Iceland(population 300 000), well, I could kind of understand Icelanders having a problem with that. |
So are there 300,000,000 such immigrants in USA (population 300,000,000)?
I suppose there are really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
Quote:
From my perspective, everyone has a right to immigrate wherever they they want to - provided they are not criminals.
Nice sentiments. On the other hand, if 300 000 people from countries that have nothing in common with Iceland suddenly decided that they wanted to move to Iceland(population 300 000), well, I could kind of understand Icelanders having a problem with that.
So are there 300,000,000 such immigrants in USA (population 300,000,000)?
I suppose there are really.
|
I was responding to Rteacher's claim that EVERYONE has a right to immigrate ANYWHERE they wants to. I was giving an extreme example to illustrate why I don't think this is a workable idea. There are quite likely other, more realistic, scenarios I could have concocted if I had had the time and imagination.
(Though given Iceland's standard of living, it wouldn't surorise me if they WERE deluged with somethng approaching 300 000 immigrants in the event of their opening the gates.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The flip-side of the America's problem: Canada
| Ottawa Business Journal wrote: |
Immigration Under the Conservatives
Fri, Feb 10, 2006 10:00 AM EST
With Steven Harper newly-elected to lead a thin minority government, it is time to look at what changes to the immigration program the Conservatives promised during the recent election campaign. Sophisticated debate about immigration did not emerge amongst any of the parties during the campaign. This is simply because all parties believe in a robust immigration program, a consensus which reflects the demographic reality of our country. We have one of the lowest, and continually declining, fertility rates in the world. Our birth rate falls far short of replacement numbers, which means that the only way we are able to maintain our current population, indeed add to it in a modest and managed way, is to have a vigorous immigration program that delivers significant new numbers to our country each year. Indeed, our country may well be the only country in the world where it makes good politics to announce, during an election campaign, that we need and want more immigration.
So what have the Conservatives promised? Firstly, everyone agrees that one of the most significant challenges facing new immigrants is that their foreign credentials are not being adequately recognized by our country. These barriers to full and meaningful employment have existed for decades, and politicians have made repeated announcements that they would do something about it. Until now, the political will to search for a solution has not existed. Fortunately, Steven Harper's Conservatives seem to be the first government that intends to do something progressive about it. The Conservatives intend to create a new federal agency that will likely attempt to harmonize all the various provincial and professional regulatory bodies, and pre-assess or evaluate the foreign credentials of applicants for immigration before they even settle in Canada. Little detail exists at this point as to when this agency will be created, and how it will operate. Currently, it is a minefield of regulation and self-governing professions which needs to be choreographed. The new agency might simply be an internet portal that centralizes all the rules and gives the overseas applicant some measure of confidence that their foreign credentials will be recognized somewhere in Canada before they get here. This would be a very welcomed tool. Those that will not have their foreign credentials recognized will know ahead of time, and may choose either not to migrate or instead may take steps to upgrade their qualifications before they arrive in Canada. At least it will be a much improved situation of caveat emptor, or "buyer beware." Let's hope, however, that it is not simply another layer of red tape, but is, instead, a mechanism to cut through all the red tape earlier and quicker.
It is no surprise that a big part of the Conservative agenda is to be tougher on crime. What this means in terms of immigration is a number of changes. Firstly, they have promised to arm border officers with handguns so that they will be more like their U.S. counterparts. I expect this change will happen fairly soon after the new government takes office, particularly given the incident at the Washington-British Colombia border on 24 January 2006, only one day after the election. Dozens of our Canadian border officers sprinted away, abandoning their posts, when they heard that a car with two heavily armed and dangerous American fugitives was on its way to run our peaceful frontier. The coincidence of timing is not lost on Steven Harper, who could have even thought the officer's union, which has been begging for firearms for years and even threatening strike action, staged the now comical event. Apparently officers have the legal right to refuse to work if they believe themselves to be in imminent danger, even if this means the border is left unattended.
The Conservative agenda to be tougher on crime has also promised more biometric technology, more policing, speedier and more deportations, and a greater focus on more spy-work overseas by CSIS. Let's hope however that we have not voted in a police-state.
All immigration categories will benefit from reduced government landing fees, which the Conservatives have promised to cut in half (from the current amount of $975). I am already on public record stating my strong opposition to this election posturing, and will do so again here. What Canadians and intending immigrants want and deserve is accountability in the immigration process, which to my thinking only means timely and just resolution of their applications. It is like a contract. You pay your money, you file your application, and the government is obligated to render a fair decision in a reasonable period of time. Too often, however, we see decisions that lack justice and backlogs that last 5 years. If the landing fee was devoted to investing in a stronger, fairer, more accountable program, no one would object. If the government cannot deliver on making the program work, then taking the fee is unconscionable. What Steven Harper has promised, however, is both reducing the fee and improving the program at the same time. I have been an immigration lawyer for 20 years, and I have yet to see a government deliver on this part of their promise. Each in-coming government has made this same promise. I wish Steven Harper and his new cabinet every success, and hope that this package of election promises do not get sideswiped by other priorities that Treasury Board cooks up. A strong opposition can keep this minority government honest to its election promises. Let's hope also that the opposition does not prevent the legitimate improvements that the Conservatives have been elected to implement.
Warren L. Creates, B.A., LL.B., is the Head of the Immigration Law Group at Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall, and can be reached at (613) 566-2839 or by e-mail at [email protected] |
So the US and Canada have opposite problems. since we share the same continent, the longest undefended border, and many institutions (e.g. NAFTA), you would figure that some sort of solution could be arranged, a sort of a "2 birds with one stone" arrangment. Of course the problem is all of those people wanting to get into the US have stars in their eyes and dreams of Miami and Beverly Hills, an Escalade and a 3 car garage with a pool in the back, and not a duplex in Moose Jaw or Goose Bay and 5 feet of snow in February... |
|
| 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
