Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[jmt18325]

Our way of life as Canadians has been shaped by immigration though centuries. The idea of discriminating against someone's religious freedom is the antithesis of what it is to be Canadian. I am very against such an idea. What Iran does is completely irrelevant to how we are and to our values.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

I am hoping the next step is Kevin O'Leary at the head of the Conservatives but Canada is too soft for that.

You do realize that O'Leary is very pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism, right? He's not the Trump of the North that the CBC is painting him as.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Our way of life as Canadians has been shaped by immigration though centuries. The idea of discriminating against someone's religious freedom is the antithesis of what it is to be Canadian. I am very against such an idea. What Iran does is completely irrelevant to how we are and to our values.

+1

With the "well, [x country] does worse things", you can justify just about anything. I'm of the opinion that Canada can and does aspire to do better than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Our way of life as Canadians has been shaped by immigration though centuries. The idea of discriminating against someone's religious freedom is the antithesis of what it is to be Canadian. I am very against such an idea. What Iran does is completely irrelevant to how we are and to our values.

I may have communicated what my opinion on immigration is poorly.

From my point of view, I am by all means not saying "stop immigration". Far from it. I know what the foundations of this country were founded on and I have no qualms with welcoming people in from all over the world.

I do, however, have an issue with people claiming "refugee status" coming in from the US of A. Like I said, there is no such thing as an American Refugee. The United States government/police/whatever does not persecute people of any religion or race. I understand that there are currently issues south of the border beyond anyone's control, but it is by no means at the stage of "persecution". There is big difference between a government saying "I don't like you because of your religion or ethnic background so I'm going to deport you" and a government saying "I don't like you because of your religion or ethnic background so I'm going to KILL you". There may be racial prejudice with the former, but deportation is not persecution. Full stop.

There are many people with legitimate claims as refugees looking to flee actual persecution, as in their lives are being threatened by their governments/police/etc., that are coming to Canada through the proper channels. And I have no qualms with this. These people have a legitimate reason to fear for their lives and I welcome them with open arms.

Those coming in from the US? No sorry, you are not refugees and should not be allowed to walk into our country as it suites you because the racist president is blowing hot air. Find a proper way to come to Canada like everyone else.

[Aylmer]

I don't have the time to formulate a proper response, but in a nutshell:

1. There are very, very few refugees who are permanent residents in the USA. It's often people who have come from elsewhere to the States as refugees, but fear they will not get fair treatment.
2. Asylum-seekers don't always apply in the States. Sometimes, the only flights available go through the US, even if their destination is Canada. But even in those cases, the STCA applies.
3. The US does a lot of things really well, but giving asylum-seekers a fair shake isn't really one of them. Beyond issues of detainment or treatment, they often don't get hearings. When they do, they often don't have access to a lawyer or translation. Imagine if you had to figure out the inner workings of the Chinese legal system on the fly without translation - it might technically be a hearing, but there's no way it can be fair.

So there are entirely valid reasons why refugees might cross the border. We don't accept all of them - there's about a 45% rejection rate - but these people have a right to have that be determined at a fair hearing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Our way of life as Canadians has been shaped by immigration though centuries. The idea of discriminating against someone's religious freedom is the antithesis of what it is to be Canadian. I am very against such an idea. What Iran does is completely irrelevant to how we are and to our values.

The way of life of the United States has also been shaped by immigration. They have a rather large statue in a rather large city down there that holds a tablet with an inscription from a poem that says something that effect.

And look at the questioning (if we can call it that) that they are going through.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

You have to understand that for a lot of Christians the threat of anti religion democrats has always been a very real threat.

The idea that democrats have a wide degree of beliefs from

Social libertarian/fiscial con

to just right of center.

To full on social Marxist isn't a new thing.


That being said it's nice that people are finally starting to open up about the conflict within the left.

I think it's forgotten that the democrats are not automatically the left of center party.

Its a time that people really need to rebuild the american political system.

Yes, we all fall into the trap of thinking that, but the truth is that's never been the case and it's becoming less and less true as we go along.

Presidential candidates are almost like pro sports free agents now, and parties increasingly pick and choose who they think has the best chance of leading them to victory. Traditional party ideology has almost become a secondary or tertiary consideration.

I long thought the Democrats were the party of the little guy (minorities, blue collar workers) but when I look at the richest people in the U.S. at the moment almost all of them were anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. Most of the richest people in the U.S. were also pro-Obama, and if you limit it to the "new economy" billionaires almost all of them have been pro-Democrat for a long time.

I also suspect that the rank and file union members in the U.S drifted away from the Democrats in this past election and many of them actually voted for Trump. The union brass in the U.S. obviously hasn't fully made that transition yet but depending on what Trump does on labour issues and how the economy performs under him, this may be where things lead them more quickly than they expect.

So the Democratic Party of the United States is today less the party of the little guy than it's ever been for quite some time.

It's now the party of an affluent, diverse globalist élite that, it's true, is quite worldly. But this worldliness is as much about, say, having reliable access to places to charge your iPhone in Phuket as it is about humanitarian concern (at home or abroad).

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The way of life of the United States has also been shaped by immigration. They have a rather large statue in a rather large city down there that holds a tablet with an inscription from a poem that says something that effect.

And look at the questioning (if we can call it that) that they are going through.

That they have abandoned their values (at current) doesn't mean that we have to abandon ours.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

That they have abandoned their values (at current) doesn't mean that we have to abandon ours.

Absolutely right.

But it also means that the historical values of a country built on immigration are not a foolproof guarantee of anything.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

You do realize that O'Leary is very pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism, right? He's not the Trump of the North that the CBC is painting him as.

Socially O leary is actually extremely Liberal on the issues that matter, I mean he's a jerk but if he became Canada's PM he'd be OK and wouldn't be a threat to any minority groups.

Kellie Leitch on the other hand......

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Socially O leary is actually extremely Liberal on the issues that matter, I mean he's a jerk but if he became Canada's PM he'd be OK and wouldn't be a threat to any minority groups.

Kellie Leitch on the other hand......

What would O'Leary do to our social safety net that helps to even out the inequalities in people's living standards?

That's one of the big reasons why there are (relatively) few tensions between the very diverse groups and regions that make up Canada.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Absolutely right.

But it also means that the historical values of a country built on immigration are not a foolproof guarantee of anything.

What's become abundantly clear is these Canadian values we thought were sacrosanct can be undone. There are people in this country, young and old, who'd much rather mold Canada in their own image. They reject the Constitution and official multi-culturalism. They are, by extension, un-Canadian.

It speaks to a fundamental ignorance of what Canada is. They don't see it of course.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Would those riots have happened had Clinton won the elections? Ask yourself the question and you'll realize maybe Trump isn't the villain after all.

Absolutely they would have. Do you think black bloc anarchists voted for Hillary Clinton? They smash shit at EVERY event that is remotely connected to globalism / capitalism. They have been out in force countless times during Obama's presidency. It's not the fucking pantsuit brigade - these people hate Hillary as much as the MAGA CHUDs.

This is such a weak argument that morons on the right have kept shrieking over the past month. The connection you made doesn't even make any sense from a logical perspective.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by isaidso

What's become abundantly clear is these Canadian values we thought were sacrosanct can be undone. There are people in this country, young and old, who'd much rather mold Canada in their own image. They reject the Constitution and official multi-culturalism. They are, by extension, un-Canadian.

It speaks to a fundamental ignorance of what Canada is. They don't see it of course.

The sacrosanct Canadian value of multiculturalism only goes back to the 1970s, though. Although Canada was de facto multicultural way before that, but it wasn't embraced as widely and certainly not officially.

I think the lesson from this is that Canadian values are ever-changing.

The real question is whether they're changing or going to change in a desirable direction.

[someone123]

The fact that there was historically immigration to Canada isn't by itself a good reason for continuing or increasing immigration today.

The Canada of the past was thinly populated and mostly rural. Today, a large number of Canadians are crowded into a couple of cities that have become hugely unaffordable and don't have enough infrastructure to support their current populations. We also have fairly significant unemployment and largely stagnant wages. Nowhere in Canada is really economically crying out for settlers to come and harvest low-hanging fruit that will otherwise go to waste.

It might make sense to admit some immigrants because they are likely to be particularly successful and help others, or on humanitarian grounds. Those may be compelling reasons based somewhat concretely on helping to improve live here and abroad. "We're a country of immigrants" on the other hand is not a coherent line of reasoning.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by someone123

The fact that there was historically immigration to Canada isn't by itself a good reason for continuing or increasing immigration today.

The Canada of the past was thinly populated and mostly rural. Today, a large number of Canadians are crowded into a couple of cities that have become hugely unaffordable and don't have enough infrastructure to support their current populations. We also have fairly significant unemployment and largely stagnant wages. Nowhere in Canada is really economically crying out for settlers to come and harvest low-hanging fruit that will otherwise go to waste.

It might make sense to admit some immigrants because they are likely to be particularly successful and help others, or on humanitarian grounds. Those may be compelling reasons based somewhat concretely on helping to improve live here and abroad. "We're a country of immigrants" on the other hand is not a coherent line of reasoning.

The split between rural and urban has only increased by 5 percent since 1971 (76% urban then vs 81% in 2011). Canada's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since 2009 (give or take a tenth or two), and it was much higher through most of the 1980s and 1990s. Average wages have gone up by about 60% since 1995. We've been admitting immigrants to our country during this time and it hasn't made any difference economically.

And by saying "nowhere in Canada is really economically crying out for settlers to come and harvest low-hanging fruit that will otherwise go to waste" you seem to be implying that immigrants will be of lower socio-economic status. Why? Immigrants are also doctors, teachers, professors, engineers, and other highly sought-after professions. They're largely not here to dig ditches or serve at Tim Hortons. I can tell you that BC could really use a bunch of doctors to start up family practices, and if those doctors are immigrants, then that's alright by a lot of people.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The split between rural and urban has only increased by 5 percent since 1971 (76% urban then vs 81% in 2011). Canada's unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since 2009 (give or take a tenth or two), and it was much higher through most of the 1980s and 1990s. Average wages have gone up by about 60% since 1995. We've been admitting immigrants to our country during this time and it hasn't made any difference economically.

And by saying "nowhere in Canada is really economically crying out for settlers to come and harvest low-hanging fruit that will otherwise go to waste" you seem to be implying that immigrants will be of lower socio-economic status. Why? Immigrants are also doctors, teachers, professors, engineers, and other highly sought-after professions. They're largely not here to dig ditches or serve at Tim Hortons. I can tell you that BC could really use a bunch of doctors to start up family practices, and if those doctors are immigrants, then that's alright by a lot of people.

I guess at some point everyone in Canada stopped caring about the impacts of brain drain in developing countries.

[someone123]

I guess I wasn't clear. My post wasn't about debating whether or not immigration is good for the country, or how much immigration is a good level. Those are valid things to discuss but I think you could write books about them. My point was simply that I don't think pointing out that there used to be immigration to Canada is sufficient to prove that it's still a good idea today.

When I talked about Canada's rural past, I was thinking of 1670, 1770, or 1871, not 1970. To take one example, in 1901, Alberta had about 70,000 people, and there were large tracts of virgin land available to whoever wanted to settle in those areas. Today, there are almost 4 million people there and most of the people live in suburban sprawl around the cities. The fact that there was a big call for immigration in that completely different situation in 1901 doesn't mean much today in 2017, when circumstances are completely different.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I guess I wasn't clear. My post wasn't about debating whether or not immigration is good for the country, or how much immigration is a good level. Those are valid things to discuss but I think you could write books about them. My point was simply that I don't think pointing out that there used to be immigration to Canada is sufficient to prove that it's still a good idea today.

When I talked about Canada's rural past, I was thinking of 1670, 1770, or 1871, not 1970. To take one example, in 1901, Alberta had about 70,000 people, and there were large tracts of virgin land available to whoever wanted to settle in those areas. Today, there are almost 4 million people there and most of the people live in suburban sprawl around the cities. The fact that there was a big call for immigration in that completely different situation in 1901 doesn't mean much today in 2017, when circumstances are completely different.

I totally got your point.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Why? Immigrants are also doctors, teachers, professors, engineers, and other highly sought-after professions. They're largely not here to dig ditches or serve at Tim Hortons. I can tell you that BC could really use a bunch of doctors to start up family practices, and if those doctors are immigrants, then that's alright by a lot of people.

Well, of course you will see a range of outcomes for a group of millions of people living around the country.

The reality in Canada seems to be that, while first-generation immigrants are about the same as or better than native-born Canadians on paper in terms of educational attainment, they tend to end up earning less for one reason or another. However, children of immigrants tend to do well in Canada. On balance it doesn't seem like a huge slam dunk where native born Canadians are getting a windfall from hugely more productive immigrants.

One source for this: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-.../10372-eng.htm

For what it's worth, I think a certain amount of immigration is good and economically complementary. But I also think there are diminishing returns and drawbacks, and that Canada's immigration system has to be run somewhat shrewdly in order to work well.

To play devil's advocate a bit, why do you think teachers are sought after? My impression from talking to younger teachers is that it's moderately hard for them to get a job, even after having jumped through hoops to get the required qualifications. Many teachers are stuck subbing for a while or have to move to places they don't want to move to in order to eventually get the position they want. If they were highly sought after you'd think they would get good offers right away out of university. And if immigrants are coming and working as teachers, doesn't that make it worse for the native-born teachers? I'd say maybe it would make it better for taxpayers by reducing teacher salaries but because they are a unionized and important public service that's not how that tends to work out.

I think the situation with professors is even worse. There's a huge oversupply of grad students who are falling over each other to get a covered tenure-track position at a decent school. Meanwhile, the rock star profs in Canada who do high-valued research tend to be lost to the US and other countries. If such people do immigrate to Canada they are the rare exception.

At UBC the more competitive faculties are also having a hard time hiring because of housing costs. There's a lot going on with housing here but immigration and foreign buyers together are part of why it's so expensive.

Our doctor shortage exists mostly because the number of training spots available is small and the training process is unnecessarily painful (in ways that even worsen medical care, e.g. residents forced to do 12 or 16 hour shifts). This situation exists because existing doctors want high barriers to entry to their profession so their incomes remain high. Immigrants also tend to be excluded from the profession for the same reason (ostensibly to ensure that all doctors are well-qualified). I don't believe that generally increasing immigration is likely to fix this problem. Is there are a program designed specifically to bring significant numbers of trained doctors in to Canada and allow them to work as doctors?