Multiculturalism or Melting Pot Discussion- Merged

[Michael OLeary]

To Micheal....

I guess I need to clarify....

Two Steps:
1)  Be more selective into who we allow into the country so that if their values run directly contrary to what we determine to be "Canadian values", then they need not apply. 

2)  Once individuals have made it through that first screening and are accepted as immigrants, ensure that the education system is used to remove whatever remaining intolerant attitudes may remain as part of the historical culture, so that the next generation comes arrives into adulthood with the same set of core beliefs as someone who is 5th or 6th generation Canadian. 

In addition to the focus on tolerance, I believe schools should go beyond teaching math, science, english, etc., and should teach basic values such as teamwork, selflessness, diligence, personal responsibility, etc. 

Matthew. 

1)  Could you outline exactly what you feel these "Canadian values" are, and how you would determine if an immigrant applicant posseses them, or has the personeal potential to adopt them?

2)  Are you not demonstrating an "intolerant attitude" in citing this preferred course of action?  How does such a contradiction fit the your perceived "Canadian values."

3) What then, do we do with 5th or 6th generation Canadians who may be failing to meet you "canadian values"?  Or are they allowed to be intolerant because they already happen to be here?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

1)  Could you outline exactly what you feel these "Canadian values" are, and how you would determine if an immigrant applicant posseses them, or has the personeal potential to adopt them?

2)  Are you not demonstrating an "intolerant attitude" in citing this preferred course of action?  How does such a contradiction fit the your perceived "Canadian values."

3) What then, do we do with 5th or 6th generation Canadians who may be failing to meet you "canadian values"?  Or are they allowed to be intolerant because they already happen to be here?

Obviously, I've insulted your sensibilities, so here goes....

1a) Key Values:  Tolerance of other non-bigoted peoples, selflessness, personal responsibility, and a belief in the Rule of Law and Universal Human Rights.
1b) Screening:  You start by asking them in the interview process.  There are a million different questions you can ask directly and indirectly that determine their views on a wide variety of issues.  "Would be happy for a child or sibling marrying outside your religion?  Would you be happy for a child or sibling to marry outside your race?  Do you believe suicide bombings in Israel are justified?  Do you believe that the nation has a responsibility to pay you welfare if cannot find a job you like?  What are your beliefs about working overtime?  If you found out your friend hit someone while driving their car, would you turn them in?  If you found a wallet on the ground, do you believe you would be entitled to a reward for returning it? Etc."  And at the end, you force them to sign a declaration of loyalty to whatever principles you determine to be key.  They may hesitate.  They may lie.  However, they would at least then understand and accept the expectation and how it would affect not only them, but more importantly their children.

2.  Yes, I'm "intolerant" in that I don't want to invite a large number of selfish, racist or criminal pricks into the country.  I'm equally intolerant in that I don't believe people who are incarcerated should have the right to vote.  I'm additionally intolerant in that I believe that those individuals who bring harm to themselves or those around them by doing stupid or malicious things should be responsibile for the healthcare bills of those injured (drinking & driving accidents, bar fights, mountain climbers, etc.)  And finally I'm intolerant of people who are so Politically Correct, they'd be willing to flush down the toilet all the values that made Canada great (and wealthy and successful and a place other people want to immigrate to) in order to tolerate those individuals who have no interest in those values and instead come here for the free meal ticket all the while not integrating, maintaining a set of racist attitudes and at times blaming everyone around them for their problems, except themselves. 

3.  Once a person is here and is a citizen, you have a limited ability to "force" change.  That's why you need to be aggressive during the screening process.  That being said, I think the education system has to be set-up so that a parents bigoted attitudes are to the best of our ability eroded in the next generation.  To not attempt to influence positive change and develop positive qualities in our population is just plain lazy, short-sighted, and costs us all both directly and indirectly in our quality of life.

Let me know if you have any follow-up questions....



Matthew. 

 

[1feral1]

Look at the racial (Muslim) problems in France, Australia, and parts of  Europe.  Riots, rampaging, gang-rapes....these things didn't start overnight.  They're happening because the governments have progressively allowed them to get away with more and more, until eventually they got the idea that they could turn their adopted countries into the new Muslim paradise.  Why not stop it before it grows out of control?  Don't dictate what religions people can believe in...but "Strongly Encourage" them to integrate themselves into their new invironment.

Firsly, I am a migrant myself, a minority here, but I look like the majority, ( I have blue eyes 6 ft, 95kg, a few tatts- haha) and we Canucks have alot in common with our mainstream Aussie cousins. I know what its like to leave ones homeland, leave family and friends, and start fresh. Its not easy, and its not for everyone.

Even though this bloke is now banned, he does speak of some validity. Entire suburbs, some the size of Regina have turned into violent ethnic ghettos, where you are intimidated by the colour of your skin, or women by the western clothes they wear.

Sydney is a big place, about 4.1 million people, its about 100km from Helensburg in the south, to Palm Beach in the north, and about 70km from Bondi to Emu Plains in the west.  Sydney has many places which are beautiful. No place is safe, but some are more safe than others. Places like The Rocks, Wattamolla, Circular Quay, Bondi, Coogee, Bronte, Cape Solander, Botany Bay, Sutherland Shire, etc are great places, so I am not saying teh city is rotten, but certain parts truly are. 30 yrs ago, they were not.

Sadly I am not making this up, and suburbs in Sydney like Lakemba, Wiley Park, Punchbowl are just a few, which sometimes are so out of control, the police even call them 'no go zones'. This is what happens when a minority establish a power base, and those parts of Sydney are now ruined, and unsafe. I have even driven thru in a military vehicle, I have had many threats while going thru, and it was so bad in post 9-11 that one needed a mininum of two vehicles with a co-driver. I did not feel like I has in Sydney, but more like Sader City.

Other areas too have changed, such as Cabramatta, (AKA Vietnamatta) which is now thew heroin capital of Australia where drugs are sold as open as selling lotto tickets. Right in front of CC tv and the police. Corruption right up the chain of local governement too. The man power is just not there to stop it, plus when you are dealing with a whole community which is rotten and corrupt, the problem is unsolvable.

Then last December on Cronulla, some middle eastern gangs came in, smashed two life guards, and the locals had enough, rallying a few days later, cornering a few middle eastern men. Later about 100 cars full of angry midle easternes came back, smashing cars, windows of shops, windows of houses full of terrified families,even burning some businesses, stabbing some elderly people,and innocent people getting the crap kicked out of them. Thats just their mentaility, and its widley accepted now thats just who they are.

Its the under 25's not the older ones, but just where are these peolle getting their values. They are not only armed with knives, but with up to 1000 Glock pistols which they stole of the docks in the 90s (plus other illegal firearms - they caught a 14 yr old middle eastern boy with a loaded South African R4 'Galil full auto assault rifle- he was shouting 'Allah Ackbar, I want to kill all you pigs when taken away'. no rumour we heard it all on the news, adn it sent a chill up my spine. where does a 14 yr old get a rifle like this??).

So the police are out gunned, and have even established divisions to counter the muslim and asian gangs here. The problem will never go away. At least now, the area of Cronulla Beach is semi normal, but its pretty much middle eastern free, as they know they have crossed the line, and locals have had a gutful. Sadly the innocent ones who want to go to the beach will not even come into the suburb. Its like a volcano, its just a matter of time til it heats up again.

I lived there for 4 yrs at Cronulla, and we seen this unrest coming for a long time. I am happy I am not there now. The property values have even dropped because of this, some over 100,000$, and thats outragous, but its Sydney, and anything is possible.

Personally, I think its very sad that there cannot be any assimilation overall. Muliculturalism has failed in Australia, and the former Prime Minister Paul Keating, as even said publically 'all we have created is a nation of tribes'. Its so bad, you can pick out an ethnicity by the choice of weapon uesd in a crime. And if you are correct 95/100, thats disgusting.

Sydney to me has almost become like Snake Plisken's New York, and to see the filth, damaged, unkempt areas full of young violent men with attitudes, of which were once thriving happy suburbs to raise kids in is quite disappointing.

This was one of the factors which led mwe into an interstate posting, and I will never EVER go back there to live, not even to visit.  I'll stick to Queensland, where it still is Australia.

At the end of the day, I'd like to see harmony with all who live here, but that just aint gonna happen. As for me, I accept people for who they are, and the values they possess regardless of race, religion and or creed. I don't care where you come from, but again obey the laws, repect us, respect the law, tow the line or go home. After all, Australia invited you here, you did not invite us.

So, although I am a citizen here, I was not born here, yet have the same right as if I was. To see whats going on down south disgusts me, but imagine who much more disgusted people are that are born here.

Now the federal government is closely going over its immigration policy, and yes the doors will be closed for some (permanantly). For others it will be more difficult, and a plan is being developed for a test for citizenship, raising the 2 yr period to 3 yrs to become a citizen, and passing a law that all migrants who do not speak english, learn and be tested before entry into Australia.

They should have done this 30 yrs ago, and maybe the problem would not be as bad as it is now. We have only ourselves to blame. The fear of offending and being PC, has turned on us, and we are now being bit, but many of those we welcomed here, and do nothing but force a sometimes foreign/violent culture upon us, expressing publically a dislike for western lifestyle, take advantage of the welfare system, and the dole.

Regards,

Wes

 

[Michael OLeary]

Obviously, I've insulted your sensibilities, so here goes....

1a) Key Values:  Tolerance of other non-bigoted peoples, selflessness, personal responsibility, and a belief in the Rule of Law and Universal Human Rights.
1b) Screening:  You start by asking them in the interview process.  There are a million different questions you can ask directly and indirectly that determine their views on a wide variety of issues.  "Would be happy for a child or sibling marrying outside your religion?  Would you be happy for a child or sibling to marry outside your race?  Do you believe suicide bombings in Israel are justified?  Do you believe that the nation has a responsibility to pay you welfare if cannot find a job you like?  What are your beliefs about working overtime?  If you found out your friend hit someone while driving their car, would you turn them in?  If you found a wallet on the ground, do you believe you would be entitled to a reward for returning it? Etc."  And at the end, you force them to sign a declaration of loyalty to whatever principles you determine to be key.  They may hesitate.  They may lie.  However, they would at least then understand and accept the expectation and how it would affect not only them, but more importantly their children.

And how does this differ from the intentions of the current immigration and citizenship system?
Of course, they could lie about their intentions, just like a multi-generational Canadian may choose not to follow Canadian values."
How is your system guaranteed to be better?
Who decides?
Do you, personally?
Or just those you would feel closely match your personal prejudices preferences for Canadians?
Will this apply to aspiring immigrants of every nation, or will you choose which nations it applies to?

2.  Yes, I'm "intolerant" in that I don't want to invite a large number of selfish, racist or criminal pricks into the country.  I'm equally intolerant in that I don't believe people who are incarcerated should have the right to vote.  I'm additionally intolerant in that I believe that those individuals who bring harm to themselves or those around them by doing stupid or malicious things should be responsibile for the healthcare bills of those injured (drinking & driving accidents, bar fights, mountain climbers, etc.)  And finally I'm intolerant of people who are so Politically Correct, they'd be willing to flush down the toilet all the values that made Canada great (and wealthy and successful and a place other people want to immigrate to) in order to tolerate those individuals who have no interest in those values and instead come here for the free meal ticket all the while not integrating, maintaining a set of racist attitudes and at times blaming everyone around them for their problems, except themselves. 

And what is you plan for cleaning up such undesirable charactistics in those who are already here, who never experienced the immigration and citizenship requirements?
Or are your controls for an improved society only to be inflicted on those from other cultures?

3.  Once a person is here and is a citizen, you have a limited ability to "force" change.  That's why you need to be aggressive during the screening process.  That being said, I think the education system has to be set-up so that a parents bigoted attitudes are to the best of our ability eroded in the next generation.  To not attempt to influence positive change and develop positive qualities in our population is just plain lazy, short-sighted, and costs us all both directly and indirectly in our quality of life.

So perhaps your focus should be on the educational system, rather than trying to close the door on immigration.

 

[1feral1]

So perhaps your focus should be on the educational system, rather than trying to close the door on immigration.

I don't think education will entirely suffice, we must be more selective on who we let into our country, and if that offends anyone, too bad. What needs to be addressed is the value of a migrant. Skilled labour, professional qualifications, etc, instead of opening the flood gates to the dregs of someone elses society. We have seen this all too often.

It is not sure, welcome, come and abuse the system, but what do you have to offer to us as a migrant and potential citizen? I also feel a 10 yr good behaviour bond should be brought in, so if you commit a crime of signifigance, say one which is an indicatable offence, and are found gulity by your 'peers',  you and your family are deported back to whence you came, and not allowed back. This may serve as deterrant, and at least it tells me that the person in question will not re-offend in his new country again.

My thoughts,

Wes

 

[Michael OLeary]

Wes I don't diasagree, but CdnBlackshirt has yet to define a "better" system that what is in place and demonstrate that it would actually be workable without being intolerant in itself.  There's no sense of trying to market "Canadian values" when the proposed mechanism doesn't.

 

[1feral1]

True mate.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And how does this differ from the intentions of the current immigration and citizenship system?
Of course, they could lie about their intentions, just like a multi-generational Canadian may choose not to follow Canadian values."
How is your system guaranteed to be better?
Who decides?
Do you, personally?
Or just those you would feel closely match your personal prejudices preferences for Canadians?
Will this apply to aspiring immigrants of every nation, or will you choose which nations it applies to?

And what is you plan for cleaning up such undesirable charactistics in those who are already here, who never experienced the immigration and citizenship requirements?
Or are your controls for an improved society only to be inflicted on those from other cultures?


So perhaps your focus should be on the educational system, rather than trying to close the door on immigration.

I really think you should step back for a second and re-read what I've actually said, instead of what you seem to be inferring in your own mind.

At NO point have I said I'm for closing the door on immigration.

On the contrary, I actually believe in increasing immigration. 
i) I think it's good for the country to bring in people who are hungry to make a better life for themselves and their children
ii) I think based on our demographics, we in particular need young people who are going to be employed while our baby boomers retire
iii)  The larger the supporting population, the lower the debt per person and therefore the easier it is to carry. 

Bottom Line:  I'm sick and tired of you trying in a back-handed way of painting me as a bigot.  This started as a policy debate and you've now managed to make it personal, so either step up and point to proof I'm some kind of racist (ignoring of course the multiple long-term relationships with women of every major ethnic group there is) or I'd like an apology.  Once that happens, I'll be more than happy to answer more "policy questions". 


Matthew.   

P.S.  In case you didn't read my sig line, and my screen name is the source of all of this hostility, 'Blackshirt' is a reference to NEBRASKA FOOTBALL! 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Well then I apologize for offending you, your comments on "being more selective" and then applying "educational indoctrination" are certainly open to interpretation as personal intolerance.  You do seem focussed on changing who gets in and how they are received, your earlier comments also specifically mentioned racial backgrounds, and only now do you talk about age related demographics because you have realized the picture you have been presenting.

 

[Centurian1985]

Wow! Some strong feelings being expressed.

I work in human resource management these days and this is a hot topic for us as well!  I would like to point out that Canada does have a culture, but that this culture is constantly evolving, and the actual defintions of what our culture is can be talked abou generally, but cannot be agreed upon as to what it is exactly due to the number of divergent opinions across the country in the academic and political communities. For those not in the know, here is why the government is keen on pushing the PC multi-cultural aspect.

1) makes us look good compared to other countries
2) its the right and moral thing to do
3) its an extension of the concepts presented in the 1982 constitution
4) studies indicate that Canada will have a 'zero' death/birth ratio by around 2016, and researchers influential in the government say that the effects of this trend are already showing (the use the 'skills shortage' as their example).  the idea of con tinued high levels of immigration is intended to stave off having a small labour pool in the next ten years. 
5) having fewer workers for the same number of jobs puts the power over wages and perks back into the hands of the labour pool which would cause manufacturing and production costs to inflate to the point where Canada would not be able to sell its products for profit in other countries, or even in our own country. 
6) Canada already has a 6 million out of 30+ million population born in another country.  Add to this the number people of visible minority who were born in Canada, plus add to this number about 3 million Aboriginals (who in statistics are not the same as visible monorities).  Thats a pretty large percentage of the population that falls outside the 'culture' boundaries.  Add to this the studies (most from U of Toronto) that shows that people of foreign birth or visible minority background, or Aborginal background, are not represented in the high wage earner brackets nor among the higher positions in government and industry. the goal is for all immigrants, visible minorities and Aboriginal members will be represented equally across the entire spectrum of society. 
7) there are a large number of influential lobbyists and social psychology experts who believe that an unwillingness to tolerate beliefs from other 'non-caucasian Christian' cultures present in about 33% of our population will lead to increased social instability. showing an acceptance of their culture is intended to break  down barriers and convince other cultures to become more Canadian. 

Now hold your horses - I dont agree with all of these concepts.  Im just telling you what the motivation is behind the push.  Most of these ideas scare the hell out of me because i've never seen this concept work yet in any country in the history of mankind, which means we will either be a 'Great Achievement' or an 'Example For Others to Avoid'.

P.S. - For more on Canada's culture, a good book is 'When cultures collide' by Richard E. Lewis.  If anyones interested I can post the basis of a unique Western culure and add unique Canadian cultural aspects, but these do not apply to every single Canadian due to increasing cultural diversity.

Cheers!

 

[ArmyRick]

Vis minority and multicural.

I remember many caucasians in high school who were born in Europe in High school (Italians, Portugese, Yugoslavian, etc, etc). To some when you say multicultural, would they honestly look at these people and think of that word?

On a similar note, I know one guy from my youth who could trace his ancestory back to the underground rail road and was like 6th or 7th generation Canadian. As a black guy he was considered a visible minority yet how many of the PC world would look at him and wonder how long ago did he move here from Jamaica? Just a note when the term African Canadian was being bastardized he took real offence to it. Why? As he put it, he didn't refer to me as European Canadian.

Personally I have nothing agaisnt visible minorities and/or immigrants (My in-laws are immigrants) but I do expect that they adjust to Canadian lifestyle and not the other way around.

As for refugees? Their is alot of rifraf you have to look out for. I do beleive there is an organization that beleives no one is an illegal allien (Illegal immagrant is an oxy moron) here in Canada. Well I strongly disagree. If certain people were trouble in their native land, they we really do not want them here. Same with free loaders.

 

[Centurian1985]

Are you saying 'immagrant' on purpose?  ;D

 

[Michael OLeary]

Now hold your horses - I dont agree with all of these concepts.

Which ones, and why not?

Most of these ideas scare the hell out of me because i've never seen this concept work yet in any country in the history of mankind, which means we will either be a 'Great Achievement' or an 'Example For Others to Avoid'.

Examples?  Have you been around for the entire "history of mankind"?  In which countries have you seen these tried, and under what conditions did they fail? What country has tried them all to this extent? 

 

[CougarKing]

As for refugees? There is alot of rifraf you have to look out for. I do believe there is an organization that beleives no one is an illegal allien (Illegal immigrant is an oxymoron) here in Canada. Well I strongly disagree. If certain people were trouble in their native land, they we really do not want them here. Same with free loaders.

(Did a little editing)

What about Political Refugees? So what if they were persecuted in their homeland? Say for example they were a pro-democracy dissident in China who was being persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party?  What about refugees from wars of genocide such as those in Africa? What about Cubans escaping Castro's regime? As you saying they should just turn them away?

The US has something called "the refugee" status for people of whose home nations are wracked by severe, social conflicts that threatens their safety. Within one year of receiving that status/visa, they are eligible for a greencard, provided the situation in their home nation does not stabilize first, in which case they will be sent home. So essentially the US gives them a chance. I assume there is such a status too in Canada, considering all the Vietnamese boat people they took in in the the 1970s (60,000), thanks to then Secretary of State for External Affairs Flora MacDonald.  

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Well then I apologize for offending you, your comments on "being more selective" and then applying "educational indoctrination" are certainly open to interpretation as personal intolerance.  You do seem focussed on changing who gets in and how they are received, your earlier comments also specifically mentioned racial backgrounds, and only now do you talk about age related demographics because you have realized the picture you have been presenting.

First, I'm going to ask one more time to stop inferring that I have sinister motives behind what I am saying or not saying.  Specifically, in regards to the age-related demographics comment, again I think it's out-of-line.  It wasn't a reaction.  It was the justification.  I use inductive reasoning in everything I assess.  I gather the information without prejudice and then try to draw conclusions from that information.  I should add that once those conclusions are drawn, I consider them transitory.  I have no attachment to them.  If I come across information that is in contradiction to the origin paradigm, then I’m more than happy to change the paradigm to suit the new piece of information.  And when I can’t formulate a model that reconciles all the information available, I’m also quite capable of saying “You know what? I don’t know….” (Although I have to admit I hate being in that position which is why I spend so much time reading.)

Bottom Line:  Please stop assuming you know my hidden agenda, because I don't have one.  Any question you ask me, I'll answer, but out of respect I'd request you actually ask the question in terms of a policy debate as opposed to continue to paint me as a bigot which I am not....[read as "olive branch extended"....]

To start, I'm going to try to bridge the gap here by putting this into an analogous situation:
1)  If you were recruiting for the Army, would you screen for certain traits, eliminating others so you had the best BASE group of applicants to begin with who are the most likely to succeed and bring honour to the force?
2)  If you were designing a training program for the Army, would you start with a set of both skill and character trait objectives you wanted to develop from your previously-screen BASE recruits?

I would. 

As I do when I'm hiring employees....I hire character first.  I can teach someone just about any skill, but character and dedication is something that you either have, or you don't....and changing people to become more selfless, perfectionist, or anything else related is VERY, VERY tough and you'll fail far more often than you succeed.  Bottom Line:  Bad momentum takes far more effort to reverse than setting an object into motion that was previously not in motion at all.

Specifically, in regards to Canadian Immigration Policies I would propose the following specifics:
1)  Tracking immigrants over 10 years and gather statistics based on country of origin in regards to the demographic's successes/failures specifically as it relates to income and crime.
2)  Applying a weighting to that information to adjust future interview allocation quotas so that "on average" we improve the likelihood of selecting from countries of origin who have best demonstrated and ability to contribute positively to society....because that is my expectation.
3)  Applying that same weighting to the Individual Assessment (no more than 10% of overall grade) so that there is a higher barrier to clear from countries of origin identified through historical data as being below average than there is from countries of origin that are above average.
4)  With the exception of the allocation of interviews and country of origin weighting maxxing out at 10%, the remaining 90% of the grade comes down to the individual interview.
5)  In the individual interview you address all the objective components such as education, fluency in english or french, but also do a personality test to determine character beliefs as they relate to objective versus subjective morality, racist tendencies, religious intolerance, etc.  (specifically going back to the questions related to "Would you be happy if your sibling or child married outside your race/religion?  Do you believe terrorist bombings in Israel are justified? Etc. Etc.  See previous list if you want more….).
6)  Once an immigrant passes whatever you set as your floor score, you very formally walk through "the list of expectations" WITH their family (and sponsors if they have them) to layout what that the nation will demand of them in order to receive permanent citizenship.  (Hard working, focus on education for you and your children, dedication towards improving either english or french and not rely on your mother tongue, active interaction with whatever ethnic groups are prevalent in their community of residence, ultimate loyalty to Canada and what's best for Canada above-and-beyond any previous allegiances, etc.)  Once that list has been read to them and they read it back, they then sign their name to it.  As previously mentioned, it is important to set the expectation.  Individuals who are coming to Canada with their allegiances elsewhere for the free meal ticket need to be dissuaded at the door.
7)  Once that is complete, an immigrant and their family go on a probationary period of 5-years.  During that time frame, new immigrants are expected to work, file their taxes on time, not be charged with any crimes (small misdemeanor like jaywalking obviously excluded).  I would further add a welfare exclusion rule to first generation immigrants - once again clearing up the expectations that Canada is a place where people can get a free ride, although it would obviously be available to any children born here.  Finally, I would add a Community Service minimum number of hours (measured in the 100’s) that had to be met working for either a secular charity or the local public school board in order to guarantee interaction with neighbours.
8 )  Once their 5-year probationary period is over, if they've acted as a decent citizen based on the expectations agreed to, then they're in.  The one thing I would do is hold the formal celebration every Canada Day as part of the existing municipal festivities in their home cities and ensure the surrounding community welcome "Our newest citizens" (a large majority of the subsidy for the community celebration/party being paid by the Department of Heritage and Culture).  In short, “becoming a Canadian” is an event worth celebrating both by those who EARN that right, and for the rest of our citizenry who every once in a while need to be reminded how lucky we are to live in this great country, and I can’t think of a better way than to celebrate such an event publicly and together. 

I'll kindly await your response....and hopefully a retraction of the previous inferences.


Matthew. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Other than creating a system which would turn immigration into a five-year trial (followed by another 5 year period of "statistical tracking"), and the likely bureaucracy that would require, the basic expectations you have described don't seem to vary much from what is done now.

For example, look over this Skilled Worker Assessment Questionnaire for Immigration Canada - https://www.immigration.ca/assess2.asp

You will also find that the act of being granted citizenship already is an event, to those receiving it and to those who choose to host such a ceremony - http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/ceremony-info.html
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/cerem-e.html

What do you feel would be the staff requirements and cost to manage a project of this proportion?

 

[Centurian1985]

As I understood it, a lot of what you suggest is already on paper, but there is no enforcement of the rules. I.e. there are 250,000 plus immigrants and refugees every year, and although you could track them all there is not enough staff to ensure they are all 'obeying the rules'. 

Each area has what, 50 enforcement officers dedicated to customs and immigrtation? Thats less than 1,000 officers across the country to monitor the activities of not only the 250,000+ immigrants and refugees in that year, but also the 250,000 each previous year for the last 4 years.  Thats 1.25 million for 1,000 officers, meaning each officer has to handle 1,250 cases per year.  This also means that if that officer is away on vacation, is sick, on maternity leave, away on duty in another country, or in some form of training , that either (a) no one is monitoring those 1,250 cases, or (b) a second officer is working a double load monitoring 2,500 immigrants and refugees.  Not to mention the logistical drag-weight that occurs due to changing legislation, legal cases and appeals, and changes of address whenever an immigrant/refugee changes their living address or employment location. 

Ack!! What a night mare!

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Other than creating a system which would turn immigration into a five-year trial (followed by another 5 year period of "statistical tracking"), and the likely bureaucracy that would require, the basic expectations you have described don't seem to vary much from what is done now.

For example, look over this Skilled Worker Assessment Questionnaire for Immigration Canada - https://www.immigration.ca/assess2.asp

You will also find that the act of being granted citizenship already is an event, to those receiving it and to those who choose to host such a ceremony - http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/ceremony-info.html
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/cerem-e.html

What do you feel would be the staff requirements and cost to manage a project of this proportion?

Let me get this straight....you infer some of the most nasty, dispicable things possible about me based on your having jumped to a false conclusion, I lay out a policy that demonstrates I'm not a racist in any sense of the word and that you've been 100% out-of-line this whole thread, and you don't even have the character to sack up and apologize?

I should add that the two links you provided in an attempt to deflate two tangible components of my proposal are also disingenuous. 

The "Skills Questionnaire" in no way addresses character, or values or appears to provide any weighting for country of origin (which were the two key components of the proposed structure)!

And the comparison of a ceremony in which other Canadians "can attend" versus formalizing welcoming new immigrants into Official Canada Day Celebrations.....oh yeah, those are exactly the same.  :

Bottom Line:  You're a truly classless schmuck....


Matthew. 

P.S.  For anyone else who wants to read some more hate-filled propaganda, here's another article from today's edition of "The Australian" which hits the same points I've been talking about (obvsiously a bunch of skinheads wrote this too): 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,19005710,00.html

Open market on democratic ideals
What's so wrong with encouraging immigrants to speak English and understand liberal values? asks Janet Albrechtsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

03may06

MAYBE, just maybe, the long, slow surrender is over. Instead of raising the white flag through silence, more political leaders are realising that not enough is being done to defend Western values. Last week, it was Andrew Robb's turn.

At the Sydney Institute, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs suggested that immigrants to Australia should pass a new citizenship test. From the reaction in some quarters, you'd think he wanted immigrants to recite verbatim, in a plum Tory accent, Robert Menzies' speech on Freedom in a Modern Society. Or recount word-perfect the first three chapters of Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
No, Robb had something less exacting on his mind. He flagged the need for immigrants to have a more functional level of English and an understanding of Australian values.

Immediately, Robb's proposal was subjected to the standard leftist values guessing game. Speaking for the Sikh community, Bawa Singh Jagdev told the ABC's AM program: "I don't understand very much what do they mean by Australian values." Federation of Islamic Councils president and long-time Australian citizen Ameer Ali said he had no problem with universal values, "but when you say Australian values, no one knows what those values are".

It was a predictable response and neatly proved Robb's point: that Australian values are not proclaimed enough to new immigrants. Robb defined Australian values as including core Western values such as "our respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, our commitment to the rule of law, our commitment to the equality of men and women", then added some particularly Australian attributes such as "the spirit of the fair go, of tolerance and compassion to those in need".

It's basic stuff but enough to flummox those who twitch at any mention of values. With some in the media immediately referring to "so-called" Australian values, perhaps Robb should expand the program to these media doyens as a form of forced revision on what it means to live in a liberal democratic country.

But then, if there is uncertainty as to what Australian values are, maybe we have only ourselves to blame for that deficit. As former Liberal politician Peter Coleman said at a recent SBS forum on multiculturalism: "You cannot blame immigrants for not knowing more about it [our heritage]. The fault lies with us." Coleman suggested that we often neglect and ignore our complex heritage, a heritage that "is the free society. It includes parliament, the Bible, Shakespeare, Milton. It is Magna Carta, the rule of law, equal rights for women, freedom of thought and association, freedom of worship and the right to apostasy. It is Federation, the Constitution and Anzac Day."

And as Coleman said, proclaiming that heritage would "do more to overcome the totalitarian jihadists than all the advisory councils and all the crimes acts". In other words, it's time for the West to get into the marketplace of ideas and sell its wares with more conviction.

Of course, some are not for turning. Radical Melbourne sheik Mohammed Omran may always describe Osama bin Laden is a "good man". Just as the radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir will keep calling for a global caliphate under sharia law. Last month this group, banned in Britain, Germany, Russia and across sections of the Muslim world, gave an address: "Should Muslims subscribe to Australian values?" The answer was a firm no. Funny how these groups seem clear about Australian values. Clear enough to reject them.

In the West, moral relativism has spawned a values cringe. When Peter Costello recently talked about Australian values and suggested that those hankering after sharia law may wish to leave Australia, even usually sensible journalists described it as provocative. But as the Treasurer said: "Is it provocative to say that citizens should be loyal to Australia, that they should abide by the rule of law, that they should respect the rights and liberties of others? Gee, things have got pretty bad if that's provocative."

And they have got pretty bad. When Prime Minister John Howard suggested that a small section of immigrants were espousing radical Islam, "which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society", some quarters claimed that Hansonism had become mainstream. Pauline Hanson was talking about Asian immigration and no Asian immigrants were advocating the overthrow of Australian democracy and the implementation of a fundamentalist state. But those facts are ignored.

Robb's point is that immigrants will integrate more successfully into the Australian community with a working level of English and an understanding of Australian values, customs, systems, laws and history. He is looking at how other Western countries are trying to educate immigrants because embracing Western values in Australia is only part of a bigger picture. Western liberal democracies that succumbed to unfettered multiculturalism, and the cultural relativism it promoted, are now discovering they gave too much away.

Dutch politicians, for example, have brought out a DVD that introduces immigrants to life in The Netherlands by showing footage of two gays kissing. Sure, that may have limited application in Australia, except for those immigrants planning to set up home near Sydney's gay mecca in Oxford Street. But you get the idea. Western countries are coming out, reclaiming pride in Western values. The Dutch DVD is part of a broader test with questions on language and Dutch culture. It expects immigrants to know that female circumcision is not permitted in The Netherlands.

Unfortunately, ignorance of Western values goes beyond new immigrants. It infects our society. It may be a bit tough expecting immigrants to know about Hayek, but why aren't our schoolchildren or university students learning about the individual liberty unleashed by economic freedom? Instead, as reported by The Australian recently, even English literature is taught through the prism of Marxism, decades after Marxism failed. It's a bit like pressing on with flat-earth theory even after Copernicus came along. Or worse, denouncing Copernicus as a heretic.

When political opposites such as playwright David Williamson and Howard can come together and agree that something is awry with our education system, you get the feeling that community consensus on values is not impossible. But education is filled with modern flat-earthers who refuse to accept defeat.

It's left up to others to realign the focus. Celebrating 30 years tomorrow, the Centre for Independent Studies runs a program called Liberty and Society where twentysomethings are introduced to the sort of classical liberal thinking that they should come across at school and university.

I spoke to a few of them last month, when they lamented the fact they were only now discovering ideas that go to the heart of living in a liberal democracy. It's that kind of knowledge deficit that needs correcting if the West is to defend itself in the battle of ideas.



privacy      terms      © The Australian

 

[Kirkhill]

I think what Matthew may be getting at is that our laws and the laws of the societies that produce many of our immigrants are significantly different.  The laws reflect profoundly different cultures.

If a prospective immigrant is found to have a clean record because they obeyed all the laws of their homeland does that make them a fit candidate for inclusion in Canadian society.  People obey the law for two reasons:  they fear the consequences;  they believe the law is correct.

If a person shows up religiously to attend the regular Wednesday stoning does that make her a suitable Canadian prospect?

From where I sit I don't think the answer is a values check.  Nobody can determine what's in the head - arguing motive is always a mugs game.  The right answer is always "to let the deed shaw", "facta non verba"...etc.  That is the purpose of the probationary period before citizenship is granted.  The big problem that we have is that those that screw up aren't kicked back to their "previous predicament".

On the other hand we could be doing more to show prospective immigrants what they are getting into.  A little more honesty perhaps.  Fewer images of smiling faces and the Rockies.  More information along the lines of the video that the Dutch make their candidates watch.

Inform the candidates that their daughters can dress immodestly, even take their tops off without getting arrested, and this does not constitute an affront to the families honour.  That the son can get drunk legally as long as he doesn't drive a car.  That they can eat what ever they choose, marry whomever they choose, or choose not to get married and, in the words of my Hoosier wiseman "there ain't nuthin he can do about it".  Honour killings are not allowed. 

This is not about thought crimes. This is about the poor blighters that come to this country knowing that the rules under which they will operate are not the same as the rules in which they operate at home.  If they can't live with Canada's rules then perhaps they better stay where they will be more comfortable.  If they can live with the rules then come ahead and be welcome.

Once they are in Canada, once they are Canadian citizens, then our rules apply.  Things that they take for granted "in the old country" can land them in jail in Canada.

Cheers.

 

[TCBF]

I think you should only be allowed Canadian citizenship if your previous nation allows you to renounce your former nationality.  No?  Then you are a 'gastarbeiter' - a guestworker, no more, no less.  As for the present 'dualies', their Cdn citizenship should not be recognized by Canada in their original homeland - by us.  You wan't Canadian citizenship so you can go back home and cause trouble then get us to protect you?  Forget it.  THEY can protect you - you went back, didn't you?  Oh, and good luck...

Tom