HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:27 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,906
Thought experiment - let's say we're learning that Poland has decided to ask immigrants who haven't bothered to acquire basic Polish language skills after three years to GTFO and go back to where they're from. What's our reaction? Calling Amnesty International?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:30 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 19,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
Yeah, exactly. In over ten years here, I've hardly ever ventured into Atlantic and Ontario subforums. You guys can say whatever you want in there...

On the other hand, if a thread belongs in the Canada section (a thread about the constitutionality of forced municipal mergers, for example, or about pipelines), then yeah, I may participate then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:47 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Frankly I don/t see what all the fuss is about.

Giving people 3 years to learn the language of the general society seems to be very gracious. Anyone who hasn't learned the language by then obviously has absolutely no intention of fitting in and contributing to the community at large. It's absurd that people have been in Canada for years and haven't bothered to learn either French or English. When seeking refuge in Canada from the horrible places you once lived, expecting someone to learn the language seems like a very small request.


As far as immigrants themselves no one, under ANY circumstance, should be able to enter the country without being fluent in either English or French, no exceptions. This should include 'family reunification members' .................if you want to come to Canada takes some Berlitz courses first as opposed to expecting Canadians to pay for your classes after you get here. Canada's idea of a points based immigration system is a good one but {except for temporary agricultural workers} the points system should start AFTER proven language proficiency. If you haven't got the language skills, don't bother applying.
Elderly people who arrive late into adulthood are rarely are able to master the language of the new country very well though.

Someone's 80-year old grandpa or grandma from the old country probably isn't going to be able to master English or French quickly within a couple of years.

What's the solution? They can visit only temporarily, just not stay long term, or immigrate? What if they want to be with their family members at the end of their life?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:14 PM
333609543's Avatar
333609543 333609543 is offline
InsertCreativeTitleHere
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 238
I think the solution to elderly permanent residents is that they either pay hefty taxes to get social services we provide OR to have them pay for the social services up-front when needed.
I don't have any comments for anything else
__________________
Insert Witty Comment Here
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Today, 12:25 AM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
Not a particularly good point, tbh.

Anyways excited for the shitshow this thread is destined to become.
Not much of a shitshow, really.

Most are either supportive of or neutral toward the proposed policies, and some would like to see the policies go further.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Today, 1:07 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 4,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Thought experiment - let's say we're learning that Poland has decided to ask immigrants who haven't bothered to acquire basic Polish language skills after three years to GTFO and go back to where they're from. What's our reaction? Calling Amnesty International?
Many moons ago I moved to Vietnam. It was a classic case of throwing caution to the wind and doing something wild and ridiculous: quitting a good job and taking up residence in a 3rd World Communist state. It was meant to be a one-year sabbatical which turned into several years.

In order to renew your work visa, you had to attain a certain level of Vietnamese. Language classes were mandatory, though not carefully monitored naturally.

While I was a bit surprised initially that I'd be required to do this, at no point did I think I was a victim of prejudice or racism. If anything, it's a bloody practical thing to require long-term residents to undertake.

As the economy grew, they dropped it as a requirement because it just wasn't practical. But I guess my point is that there's nothing wrong with asking something of the people you let into your country. Jesus H F**king Christ.

You want to live in Vietnam? Earn it. Same goes for Canada or any other country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Today, 1:23 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Elderly people who arrive late into adulthood are rarely are able to master the language of the new country very well though.

Someone's 80-year old grandpa or grandma from the old country probably isn't going to be able to master English or French quickly within a couple of years.

What's the solution? They can visit only temporarily, just not stay long term, or immigrate? What if they want to be with their family members at the end of their life?
I think the question of allowing 80 year olds to immigrate or not involves much more than language learning.
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Today, 4:01 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 2,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't believe that francophone municipalities in a province like Ontario have the luxury of carrying out all of their operations and activities in French either. Certainly when they deal with provincial government agencies in Toronto or even regional offices they would deal in English, not French.

I remember being surprised when I saw the architect's plans for the Centre des métiers which is a construction trades campus built by La Cité collégiale, a francophone college in Ottawa. (Don't ask me why I saw the plans.) I was shocked that the plans were all in English - for a college where francophone students were to be taught construction terminology in English!

Still with municipalities two of my uncles are the town clerks for 100% francophone municipalities in New Brunswick and while in theory they're supposed to be able to deal with Fredericton in French, it's pretty hit and miss. But better than it was 30 years ago.
You are correct about majority francophone municipalities almost always using English when dealing with the Ontario government and agencies within the region. I see this all the time with towns such as Hearst and Kapuskasing. French isn't an official language in Ontario but certain areas are designated that French language services are supposed to be available at the provincial level for members of the public. (but not organizations such as municipalities for example)

As for the Collège Boréal campus here in Timmins: It has courses in the trades offered mainly in French but some in English as well. They even advertise that they train students for work in a bilingual environment. They will use many English terminologies because that's what is actually used in the workplaces in this region. Nobody is going to Boréal to eventually work in the mines in Rouyn or Val-d'Or.

Back to the thread topic:

We do get some francophone immigrants in Timmins. I work with a couple of them, one who is originally from the Middle-East and the other from Africa. Both of them actually like Timmins and have been here for a few years but are considering a move to Montreal or Quebec City if they can get a higher paying job. They can get by well in Timmins and are quickly learning English but urban Quebec is just more exciting. Of course, language wouldn't be an issue if they moved there other than a lack of joual but I'm sure they picked up a bit here!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Today, 4:22 AM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce View Post
But I guess my point is that there's nothing wrong with asking something of the people you let into your country. Jesus H F**king Christ.

You want to live in Vietnam? Earn it. Same goes for Canada or any other country.
I think we should focus on the practical consequences of different immigration policies, but you seem to be coming at it from a different viewpoint that is more oriented toward principles.

If we're going that route, then I don't see how it is obvious that you should be able to demand something from people coming to your country and make them earn their entry.

There is absolutely no merit or fault to be ascribed to the neonate for being born on one patch of dirt as opposed to another. I fail to see how this event, over which one has no control, should grant one person the right to exclude other persons from a large swath of arbitrarily defined territory or condemn another to a life of limited opportunity.

Erecting barriers between countries may be supported on account of genuine concerns about potential adverse consequences to the quality of one's life, but I fail to see how it comports with any higher principles.

Last edited by saffronleaf; Today at 4:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Today, 4:37 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Thought experiment - let's say we're learning that Poland has decided to ask immigrants who haven't bothered to acquire basic Polish language skills after three years to GTFO and go back to where they're from. What's our reaction? Calling Amnesty International?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce View Post
Many moons ago I moved to Vietnam. It was a classic case of throwing caution to the wind and doing something wild and ridiculous: quitting a good job and taking up residence in a 3rd World Communist state. It was meant to be a one-year sabbatical which turned into several years.

In order to renew your work visa, you had to attain a certain level of Vietnamese. Language classes were mandatory, though not carefully monitored naturally.

While I was a bit surprised initially that I'd be required to do this, at no point did I think I was a victim of prejudice or racism. If anything, it's a bloody practical thing to require long-term residents to undertake.

As the economy grew, they dropped it as a requirement because it just wasn't practical. But I guess my point is that there's nothing wrong with asking something of the people you let into your country. Jesus H F**king Christ.

You want to live in Vietnam? Earn it. Same goes for Canada or any other country.
Regarding the Poland and Vietnam comparison, I don't have that strong on opinion on the "it's different because we're a nation of immigrants and they're not" argument, but people do make the argument that Old World societies and settler societies are fundamentally different and are judged by different standards (people bring up places like Canada's bloc settlements on the prairies, German in North America until recently and even now among Mennonites etc., Spanish in Miami and the Southwest US).

But Old World places do have a history of linguistic assimilation too (and often native language minorities not immigrants, though that happens too).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Today, 4:43 AM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
I think we should focus on the practical consequences of different immigration policies, but you seem to be coming at it from a different viewpoint that is more oriented toward principles.

If we're going that route, then I don't see how it is obvious that you should be able to demand something from people coming to your country and make them earn their entry.

There is absolutely no merit or fault to be ascribed to the neonate for being born on one patch of dirt as opposed to another. I fail to see how this event, over which one has no control, should grant one person the right to exclude other persons from a large swath of arbitrarily defined territory or condemn another to a life of limited opportunity.

Erecting barriers between countries may be justified on account of genuine concerns about potential adverse consequences to the quality of one's life, but I fail to see how it comports with any higher principles.
I admire your idealism a lot, but on pragmatic grounds, national boundaries are still here to stay for the foreseeable future. How loose or tight or open or closed for opportunities some places are vs. others can still be up in the air, though with the policies dependent on a lot of things.

I agree with you that in some philosophical way it's unfair that some are born in crappy conditions and some born in advantaged ones, and part of that is geographical luck (Third World vs. First World), just like genetic luck (eg. someone born strong and healthy and smart vs. disabled and with defects) or luck from being born with rich parents vs. poor, or kind, loving parents vs. abusive ones etc. But there's only so much we can do to rectify the inequalities of the world we live in, for the time being. I'd like for instance, to see a world where all nations are uplifted and richer, more developed and rife for opportunity than they are today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Today, 4:56 AM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by once View Post
At the end of the day , the vast majority of canadians support some kind of values test for immigrants. Perhaps asking how many people would fail such a test is asking the wrong question.

We can sit around and dream up why it wouldn't work, but perhaps considering the political inertia around the idea, maybe we should just give it a try and see what happens? What policy was perfect the second it was enacted? These things can adjust as we go.
If a values test is incapable of actually assessing an individual's values, then it's merely a hollow symbolic gesture to appease natives and alienate newcomers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Today, 5:01 AM
saffronleaf saffronleaf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
I admire your idealism a lot, but on pragmatic grounds, national boundaries are still here to stay for the foreseeable future. How loose or tight or open or closed for opportunities some places are vs. others can still be up in the air, though with the policies dependent on a lot of things.

I agree with you that in some philosophical way it's unfair that some are born in crappy conditions and some born in advantaged ones, and part of that is geographical luck (Third World vs. First World), just like genetic luck (eg. someone born strong and healthy and smart vs. disabled and with defects) or luck from being born with rich parents vs. poor, or kind, loving parents vs. abusive ones etc. But there's only so much we can do to rectify the inequalities of the world we live in, for the time being. I'd like for instance, to see a world where all nations are uplifted and richer, more developed and rife for opportunity than they are today.
I agree that borders will be the reality in our lifetimes, and indeed of late they seem to be getting thicker and less permeable. As a result, I think we should focus on the practical consequences of different immigration policies.

But if one is going by principles (e.g., I have a right to exclude people from my country), then I think it's reasonable to respond with deontological arguments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Today, 6:02 AM
once once is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
If a values test is incapable of actually assessing an individual's values, then it's merely a hollow symbolic gesture to appease natives and alienate newcomers.
Your comment is not really replying to anything I said.

Your "if" has no connection to what I said, again, I said perhaps the metric of how many people fail is not the right metric to track the success of a values test.

Your "then" is simply a total non sequitur. It seems more like something you wanted to get off your chest, and really has nothing to do with anything I or anyone else is saying in this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Today, 6:28 AM
theman23's Avatar
theman23 theman23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ville de Québec
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Thought experiment - let's say we're learning that Poland has decided to ask immigrants who haven't bothered to acquire basic Polish language skills after three years to GTFO and go back to where they're from. What's our reaction? Calling Amnesty International?
I'm 100% sure there would a forum thread on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Today, 6:34 AM
theman23's Avatar
theman23 theman23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ville de Québec
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
I think we should focus on the practical consequences of different immigration policies, but you seem to be coming at it from a different viewpoint that is more oriented toward principles.

If we're going that route, then I don't see how it is obvious that you should be able to demand something from people coming to your country and make them earn their entry.

There is absolutely no merit or fault to be ascribed to the neonate for being born on one patch of dirt as opposed to another. I fail to see how this event, over which one has no control, should grant one person the right to exclude other persons from a large swath of arbitrarily defined territory or condemn another to a life of limited opportunity.

Erecting barriers between countries may be supported on account of genuine concerns about potential adverse consequences to the quality of one's life, but I fail to see how it comports with any higher principles.
The idea of having to earn citizenship (and potentially having it revoked), regardless of your place of birth, is interesting. I don't think it would be too unreasonable to hand out PR cards to every child born in Canada, and only allow them the full rights of citizenship once they've reached the age of majority and met certain conditions (reasonable level of literacy, gainful employment, free of any criminal record, etc.). Deportation of those children who don't achieve citizenship and/or violate the terms of their PR stay would be a little tricky, but I suppose we could ship them to Thunder Bay or some other part of the country that most closely resembles the third world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Today, 11:26 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman23 View Post
The idea of having to earn citizenship (and potentially having it revoked), regardless of your place of birth, is interesting. I don't think it would be too unreasonable to hand out PR cards to every child born in Canada, and only allow them the full rights of citizenship once they've reached the age of majority and met certain conditions (reasonable level of literacy, gainful employment, free of any criminal record, etc.). Deportation of those children who don't achieve citizenship and/or violate the terms of their PR stay would be a little tricky, but I suppose we could ship them to Thunder Bay or some other part of the country that most closely resembles the third world.
Funny guy.
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Today, 11:27 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
If a values test is incapable of actually assessing an individual's values, then it's merely a hollow symbolic gesture to appease natives and alienate newcomers.
You're discounting the "line in the sand" aspect of it that was discussed earlier in the thread.
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Today, 11:29 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Monsieur Sainte-Nitouche
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 33,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by saffronleaf View Post
I agree that borders will be the reality in our lifetimes, and indeed of late they seem to be getting thicker and less permeable. As a result, I think we should focus on the practical consequences of different immigration policies.

But if one is going by principles (e.g., I have a right to exclude people from my country), then I think it's reasonable to respond with deontological arguments.
Even if those deontological arguments won't really get you anywhere.

I am on the left politically and a progressive but "open borders" is the craziest of the crazy policy plank. And there is lots of competition for crazy policy plank awards these days.

I guess the idea is that if XX% of the world's population lives in difficult conditions, then it's only fair that everyone live with the same difficulties. I don't see very many people buying into that type of race to the bottom.
__________________
The end of the world ain't what it used to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:41 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.