CBC vs. CTV vs. Global

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was actually going to mention how the immigrant selection process in the U.S. differs substantially from Canada's.

Ours is definitely better IMO - and many Americans agree.

Trump has been advocating a system along the lines of Canada's, but the opposition considers it racist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Trump has been advocating a system along the lines of Canada's, but the opposition considers it racist.

A transition to a Canadian-style points system might disproportionately penalize the groups that have traditionally and still do comprise a huge share of newcomers that come to the U.S. from certain specific regions.

I guess that's their point.

My view is that if your immigration policy is going to be colour-blind or nationality-blind, it has to be like that "both ways".

In that in terms of colour, origin, religion, etc. if we're not gonna say "we don't take these types of people", then we shouldn't alternatively be saying "we absolutely need to take these types of people" either.

[kwoldtimer]

[QUOTE=Acajack;8246615]A transition to a Canadian-style points system might disproportionately penalize the groups that have traditionally and still do comprise a huge share of newcomers that come to the U.S. from certain specific regions.

I guess that's their point.

My view is that if your immigration policy is going to be colour-blind or nationality-blind, it has to be like that "both ways".

In that in terms of colour, origin, religion, etc. if we're not gonna say "we don't take these types of people", then we shouldn't alternatively be saying "we absolutely need to take these types of people" either.[/QUOTE]

That would be the U.S. "diversity lottery", which Trump also wants to do away with. Again, he's being opposed as racist. Istm, a system like ours would see a reduction in immigration from Latin America (the upper class would be unaffected), and I imagine that's at the heart of opponents' concerns.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Trump has been advocating a system along the lines of Canada's, but the opposition considers it racist.

I do find the knee-jerk opposition to a points based system odd (well actually not really considering the #resistance), but it really depends on how it's formulated. I mean, a Stephen Miller designed system could certainly be... something.

The obvious solution here is to push for an equitable points based system, but I digress...

[Acajack]

I don't know that picking the best qualified immigrants (regardless of race, colour, creed, nationality, etc.) based on the needs of the host country is a racist measure.

Though I suppose that given the history and trendlines of immigration in the States, some people view a transition to this type of system as deliberately and unfairly targeting Latin Americans...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't know that picking the best qualified immigrants (regardless of race, colour, creed, nationality, etc.) based on the needs of the host country is a racist measure.

Though I suppose that given the history and trendlines of immigration in the States, some people view a transition to this type of system as deliberately and unfairly targeting Latin Americans...

Along with the anxiety caused by any change from "Give me your poor...", which most Americans, I think, would see as having worked well for them for over a century.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

This chart is very misleading though. VMware was founded by 5 people. That chart implies that 4/5 VMware founders are not immigrants. Apple is not a good example either. It is listed because Steve Jobs is a 2nd generation immigrant but he was raised by American-born adoptive parents. The other two founders are not immigrants.

To understand whether or not immigrants have an unusually high impact on entrepreneurship on average you need to know what proportion of the population they make up. First and second immigrants are a very significant portion of the US population.

Note that I am not arguing that immigrants don't tend to be entrepreneurial. I am also not anti-immigration. I'm just saying this data you've posted is misleading and the context needed to interpret it is missing.

It's also worth noting that, if you look at the 1st generation immigrant founders in that table, you'll see a lot of well-educated and privileged people. Not random people at all. The founders on that list are half European but I doubt US immigrants are half European. I think most people agree that the background of the immigrants makes a big difference (not ethnic background but education, which has an impact on language proficiency).

[Acajack]

I guess it's always been the case to some degree but these days we've reached an extreme point and stuff like those charts are now almost always part of an agenda-driving strategy.

In this case its purpose is to drive home the message that the economy of the United States would be in a shambles without immigrants.

The evil flipside counter-argument is of course that immigrants are a drain on social services and drive down wages and even take jobs away from average working Americans.

The reality on the ground is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Along with the anxiety caused by any change from "Give me your poor...", which most Americans, I think, would see as having worked well for them for over a century.

This was never really how it worked though. A steerage class ticket on a steam ship could cost the equivalent of months of wages. And if you were sick or somehow undesirable you were often turned away.

Latin American immigration in more recent decades is an exception to this filter. And Canada has never had a source of immigrants like that. Maybe it will one day if air travel gets cheap enough or if there is enough demand from the US.

The diversity lottery only accounts for around 5% of the total number of legal immigrants who come to the US every year, and source country factors pretty highly into who is or isn't allowed in.

I tend to agree that Canada has the better immigration system. But partly we are also just lucky that we are so isolated and it is so easy to control this country's borders. A lot of immigration debate in the US is debate about illegal immigration from Latin America and we don't have the same issue to anywhere near the same degree.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess it's always been the case to some degree but these days we've reached an extreme point and stuff like those charts are now almost always part of an agenda-driving strategy.

In this case its purpose is to drive home the message that the economy of the United States would be in a shambles without immigrants.

The evil flipside counter-argument is of course that immigrants are a drain on social services and drive down wages and even take jobs away from average working Americans.

The reality on the ground is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

In relation to Manitoba, there is a sense that because of constantly negative provincial out-migration, we'd be shrinking if it wasn't for significant numbers of immigrants coming in.

It's actually kind of scary to think about what Winnipeg would look like without immigration... it would most likely be shrinking. A Detroit scenario would not be that far fetched, IMO, and before immigration ramped up again in the late 1990s there was a fear that Winnipeg's trajectory was heading in that direction. A CMA of under 500,000 people would not be hard to imagine. It would not be a prosperous scene, IMO. I suspect we are probably an outlier in terms of our reliance on immigration, though.

[333609543]

After reading the entriety of the thread to now, It has become very politically charged and somewhat tense. I prefer to read articles over TV news because there is more unpacking of a news story where as TVnews is mostly just entertainment at this point. (Ratings, Ratings, Ratings). I read a variety of CBC, National Post & The Globe & Mail for Provincial/National news. I tend to read the Toronto Star, Sun and Globe & Mail for local/regional news.

On the subject of a previous "spat" (for lack of a better word) between elly63 and rosseau, To change one's viewpoint you have to act far more respectfully (Even if they are less than intelligent, or have been rude to you, no matter how much you damn want to because it won't help) and civilly. The exchange of ideas, cultures, science& research, etc. have all been flourished by simply discussion between two disagreeing parties to try to reach a concensus/common ground. The only way to get others from voting for fools like Trumpet is to discuss issues with them civilly.

And I think I know the premise behind the reason why politics is getting polarized. When one group becomes radical, or is hijacked by a radical minority, the group opposite to them will become hijacked by a radical minority and more people will be drawn into these radicalist factions due to human nature. (Somewhat like Newton's 3rd Law of motion but in collective human behaviour) This doesn't make it okay, however many impressionable people are being sucked into more radical beliefs on BOTH sides. Youth are vulnerable for whichever wing of politics has a stronger influence on them, the more elderly tend to radicalize in the wing they already lean towards. (This is a generalization that is based only on many, many anecdotes, and Isn't to be taken as fact but as speculation)

Forgive the long-ish post, I prefer to keep all my ideas in one place for simplicity and the fact that I'd like to contribute to many posts at once.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by 333609543

After reading the entriety of the thread to now, It has become very politically charged and somewhat tense. I prefer to read articles over TV news because there is more unpacking of a news story where as TVnews is mostly just entertainment at this point. (Ratings, Ratings, Ratings). I read a variety of CBC, National Post & The Globe & Mail for Provincial/National news. I tend to read the Toronto Star, Sun and Globe & Mail for local/regional news.

Well said.

Indeed, the presentation of news as entertainment is one of the issues our society faces. With the advent of the 24 hour news cycle, we become ever more dependent on the 'what's happening right now' at the expense of deeper and more nuanced analysis.

That's why I prefer reading the news as opposed to listening/watching it. It allows for more time to deconstruct the ideas presented and challenge the ideas. The relatively slower pace of printed media also allows for more time to fact-check.

Neil Postman wrote a book - "Amusing Ourselves to Death" about this topic.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

In relation to Manitoba, there is a sense that because of constantly negative provincial out-migration, we'd be shrinking if it wasn't for significant numbers of immigrants coming in.

It is really a local phenomenon. One town can suffer from overcrowding and not enough jobs while another town would be better off with more people.

One of the interesting outcomes of the provincial nominee programs in Canada is that we see how "nudging" immigrants can make a big difference to where they end up. Some people predicted that provincially nominated immigrants in places like Manitoba would all move to Toronto but that is simply not how it played out. It would probably be even better if cities and towns were more meaningfully plugged into the immigration system.

I think a lot of immigrants go where they do because of a lack of information. If you don't know a lot about a destination country you will pile into its best-known city (even if it is already super expensive), apply to the most famous schools, etc. even if better options for you might exist.

It's kind of a good news story because it means we can have a more structured and targeted system without draconian rules.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by someone123

This chart is very misleading though. VMware was founded by 5 people. That chart implies that 4/5 VMware founders are not immigrants. Apple is not a good example either. It is listed because Steve Jobs is a 2nd generation immigrant but he was raised by American-born adoptive parents. The other two founders are not immigrants.

To understand whether or not immigrants have an unusually high impact on entrepreneurship on average you need to know what proportion of the population they make up. First and second immigrants are a very significant portion of the US population.

Note that I am not arguing that immigrants don't tend to be entrepreneurial. I am also not anti-immigration. I'm just saying this data you've posted is misleading and the context needed to interpret it is missing.

It's also worth noting that, if you look at the 1st generation immigrant founders in that table, you'll see a lot of well-educated and privileged people. Not random people at all. The founders on that list are half European but I doubt US immigrants are half European. I think most people agree that the background of the immigrants makes a big difference (not ethnic background but education, which has an impact on language proficiency).

This table is just mentioning the top 25 tech companies, many of these were founded decades ago, which is why many of those Europeans are in fact Jews. Most non-European born (since apparently those are the ones you consider real immigrants) 1st/2nd gen immigrant businesses are in the sub-$400 million category for now, but you'll see many more of them hit the billion+ range in the years ahead as they slowly scale up. The bottom line is educated immigrants are net job creators, and far from a drain on society. That is why governments are fighting among themselves for educated immigrants from civilized cultures. Germany took the desperate step of bringing in 1 million uneducated people not just for virtue signalling but because their aging economy would be plunged into a recession without the added labour. Germany has tried for decades to bring in educated immigrants but it's often overlooked by the top shelf immigrants for anglosphere countries like the USA/UK/Canada/Aus. Even Scandinavia has had trouble despite being largely fluent in English because it has a reputation (like most ethnic states) as giving preference to natives for top corporate and government positions, making it harder for newcomers to transition from workers to entrepreneurs. Not to mention the lack of dignity this produces, being a second class citizen.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by 333609543

On the subject of a previous "spat" (for lack of a better word) between elly63 and rosseau, To change one's viewpoint you have to act far more respectfully (Even if they are less than intelligent, or have been rude to you, no matter how much you damn want to because it won't help) and civilly. The exchange of ideas, cultures, science& research, etc. have all been flourished by simply discussion between two disagreeing parties to try to reach a concensus/common ground. The only way to get others from voting for fools like Trumpet is to discuss issues with them civilly.

This is a bold claim and doesn't line up with the reality we've been seeing for the last two years (at the least). People, by and large, do not change their views, and they pick apart arguments to seek out evidence that backs up what they already believe and dismiss evidence that doesn't support their already-held positions. There has been no bar too low for people like that and hardcore Trump supporters will remain so because they feel they are winning a culture war and "sticking it to the libs." There is no point in treating them with civility as there is no point in engaging them at all.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

This table is just mentioning the top 25 tech companies, many of these were founded decades ago, which is why many of those Europeans are in fact Jews. Most non-European born (since apparently those are the ones you consider real immigrants) 1st/2nd gen immigrant businesses are in the sub-$400 million category for now, but you'll see many more of them hit the billion+ range in the years ahead as they slowly scale up. The bottom line is educated immigrants are net job creators, and far from a drain on society.

I didn't say that only non-Europeans are real immigrants, I was pointing out how many European immigrants come from highly educated and privileged backgrounds, e.g. graduating from top universities in Switzerland. This makes a difference, and you seem to agree with me. The rags-to-riches story is unfortunately not that common. The riches-to-even-more-riches story is much more common.

My main objection to your chart is simply that it exaggerates how many large companies were founded by immigrants. Like I said, Apple was founded by 3 people raised by American-born parents and it's listed as an immigrant-founded company because one of the founders has a biological father from Syria. This is really grasping at straws. I am not arguing that immigrants don't found companies, I am just saying this table is questionable. I also don't really have a horse in this race; I'm open to arguments that immigrants are disproportionately more likely to be founders. My opinion comes from the data, not a political ideology, and is subject to change.

As you say educated immigrants seem to do well and there's a lot of competition for them. I don't agree that the bottom line is that immigrants are all net contributors, or even would be net contributors if randomly selected, unfortunately. I think this is wishful thinking. I would like to live in a world where anybody can move wherever they want and have a high standard of living but I don't think we are there yet.

We still live in a world with pockets of wealthier and more educated people who are able to participate in the modern economy, and other pockets where people struggle. I am not sure if this will get better or worse in the future.

[333609543]

You're missing my point I think. People aren't changing their views because anytime disagrees with another person on the subject of politics, then everyone loses their shit and then it becomes a screaming match. That's the current state of politics in North America now. I'm saying that if both sides would chill out and discuss things rationally that you'll find that you can do many things if you are respectful and convincing enough. The only reason Trump was event a frontrunner in the US elections was because it was finally a way Republicans and right wingers of all types could give a giant middle finger to the mainstream liberal media bashing them constantly. If you continue to bash on people and tell them their views are invalid without providing any in depth explanation as to why with reputable sources of information, then you're going to anger that group of people.

Now imagine seeing the current state of politics in front of you as an 18 year old, you see the older and (what are supposed to be maturer) adults in front of you flinging verbal shit at each other: name calling, political/racial/sexual slurs, mob mentality, constant doxxing, a world where one would feel that they need to check their every damn step just in case you say something that's now 'wrong' accidentally. I understand that's an emotional appeal but I also think it could be a contributing factor to the rising prevalence of depression and anxiety among youth. We need to be civil, even with our political enemies so that we can both learn from each other and build a better society together. And the ideas that are bad will be proven to be bad or immoral in debate through discussion.

(you is referring to any which group and not a personal measure)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

This is a bold claim and doesn't line up with the reality we've been seeing for the last two years (at the least). People, by and large, do not change their views, and they pick apart arguments to seek out evidence that backs up what they already believe and dismiss evidence that doesn't support their already-held positions. There has been no bar too low for people like that and hardcore Trump supporters will remain so because they feel they are winning a culture war and "sticking it to the libs." There is no point in treating them with civility as there is no point in engaging them at all.

The problem with this is that in a democracy the only way to reduce the nefarious influence and power that these people have is to convert a substantial number of them to your side.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by 333609543

I'm saying that if both sides would chill out and discuss things rationally that you'll find that you can do many things if you are respectful and convincing enough.

It would be nice to see more civility but it's hard to imagine this as a sole fix of the current polarization. If civil discussion were effective, wouldn't people be using it more to greater effect?

I think the problem is one of incentives. So many discussions are theatre in disguise. This goes all the way up to places like US congress or the House of Commons in Canada, and it affects media outlets and everything down to social media.

People who say someone's a libtard or misogynist usually do it to score social points with observers (or cause their opponent to lose points with observers), not because they think that is an optimal strategy for getting the other side to agree.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by someone123

I didn't say that only non-Europeans are real immigrants, I was pointing out how many European immigrants come from highly educated and privileged backgrounds, e.g. graduating from top universities in Switzerland. This makes a difference, and you seem to agree with me. The rags-to-riches story is unfortunately not that common. The riches-to-even-more-riches story is much more common.

My main objection to your chart is simply that it exaggerates how many large companies were founded by immigrants. Like I said, Apple was founded by 3 people raised by American-born parents and it's listed as an immigrant-founded company because one of the founders has a biological father from Syria. This is really grasping at straws. I am not arguing that immigrants don't found companies, I am just saying this table is questionable. I also don't really have a horse in this race; I'm open to arguments that immigrants are disproportionately more likely to be founders. My opinion comes from the data, not a political ideology, and is subject to change.

As you say educated immigrants seem to do well and there's a lot of competition for them. I don't agree that the bottom line is that immigrants are all net contributors, or even would be net contributors if randomly selected, unfortunately. I think this is wishful thinking. I would like to live in a world where anybody can move wherever they want and have a high standard of living but I don't think we are there yet.

We still live in a world with pockets of wealthier and more educated people who are able to participate in the modern economy, and other pockets where people struggle. I am not sure if this will get better or worse in the future.

I think were in agreement then. My original quote was that "educated" immigrants are a net benefit. And I agree that uneducated ones or those from uncivilized places are often a drain.