[DerbyX]

BeaverFever wrote:

Quote:

Yep. The government has the manpower but not the will because they fear be labeled racist.

I dont think that has anything to do with it, the govt deports people every day and guess what...most of those people belong to different races and cultures...go figure!

The truth is that govt agencies have limited resources and as a result, they are more interested in maintaining the perception of effectiveness with what they have than actually being effective in fulfilling their mandate, which is beyond their resources. Same goes for police, welfare, almost anything in the public sector.

Actually they do face the racism label when they do that as well. Playing the race card as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation isn't far fetched.

I'm sure if the government wanted to better police sponsored immigrants it would be able to do so. Greater responsibility should be put on the people sponsoring them. If there is no problem with the people being sponsored then the people sponsoring them won't object and there is no problem right?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX wrote:

Only if you promise to use a registered gun made using unionized labour and promise you are doing it for food purposes.

(ducks for cover)

I ain't promisin' shit

[BeaverFever]

Quote:

Actually they do face the racism label when they do that as well. Playing the race card as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation isn't far fetched.

No, in fact its commonplace which proves my point that the govt isnt afraid to be called racist for doing its job.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

This may surprise you but, the Six Nations already had an early form of democracy that was used as a model for the future American government.

This is just a relatively recent theory by a couple of revisionists from the 1980s. Given that there is absolutely no written evidence whatsoever that the Framers of the US Constitution were influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy it is not a stretch to write off this notion as politcally correct revisionism and wishful thinking.

The written evidence of the debates and discussions regarding the drafting of the US Constitution are, in their entirety, available in many places such as the Library of Congress and it is a simple matter of research to wholly debunk this so-called theory.

[DerbyX]

BeaverFever wrote:

Quote:

Actually they do face the racism label when they do that as well. Playing the race card as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation isn't far fetched.

No, in fact its commonplace which proves my point that the govt isnt afraid to be called racist for doing its job.

Sorry but I disagree. All governments are afraid of bad press like this. The partisan anti-Liberals will claim that the Liberals never had anybody deported for fear of losing their "Immigrant voters".

A prevailing theme on this forum is that Canada has a very hard time even deporting convicted criminals for that very reason.

Still I doubt its as hard as you think for the government to implement a greater vigilance program. If ts just a question of resources, or money to be more precise, then the solution is obvious right?

[EyeBrock]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

It's my view that these Loyalist's also brought with them some of the core values from the American Revolution. They believed in democracy and the rule of law and the loyalty to the crown they were prepared to give was a far different beast than was expected in Mother England.

This may surprise you but, the Six Nations already had an early form of democracy that was used as a model for the future American government. And in ONE case in paricular was heads and shoulders AHEAD of American democracy. For eg, it was the women of the various tribes that 'elected" their tribal representatives. It took how long for women to get the vote in the Western World???

Public, do you have an academic link to that notion?

I studied the aftermath of the Revolutionary War and the UEL settlement in Upper Canada, including Brant/Tyandaga and the Six Nations. I've never seen any historically sound evidence to prove that point.

[fifeboy]

EyeBrock wrote:

fifeboy wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

Well, I think we can say they built some of it!

Some is true, but they certainly kick-started the development of what we know as Canada.

I always wonder why Canadians are so reluctant to acknowledge the contribution of those early settlers.

I don't know where you were raised, but my Mom talked about it all the time.

[Bruce_the_vii]

bootlegga wrote:

Because they take jobs away from Canadians...at least that's what the anti-immigration lobby tells us. Of course the reality is that most Canadians don't get those degrees themselves, and therefore eliminate themselves from those jobs long before an immigrant ever shows up to 'steal it' from them.

Now the problem is Canadians are as lazy as dogs.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

"Loyalist Americans" were never Americans at all, but loyal British subjects. In all fairness, it then cannot be said that Americans had any involvement in building or contributing to Canada.

And here is another for you to pick!

[fifeboy]

EyeBrock wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

"Loyalist Americans" were never Americans at all, but loyal British subjects. In all fairness, it then cannot be said that Americans had any involvement in building or contributing to Canada.

A lot of the UEL's had been in the American Colonies for several generations. They were far different from the English of the era and they had much more in common with the Revolutionaries than the did with the English they fought for.

I recently read a book that described them as 'Loyal Americans', and really that's what they were.
Americans who backed the wrong side in the war and became persona-no-gratia in their own country. For their loyalty they were given land grants in the bush land of Upper Canada.

It's my view that these Loyalist's also brought with them some of the core values from the American Revolution. They believed in democracy and the rule of law and the loyalty to the crown they were prepared to give was a far different beast than was expected in Mother England.

There are very distinctive veins in Upper Canada and those early provinces (besides Quebec) that have more in common with New England than Olde England.

And as "real" loyalists would say, a lot came later for cheap land, not forced out by war, and like to call themselves UEL.

[BeaverFever]

DerbyX wrote:

BeaverFever wrote:

Quote:

Actually they do face the racism label when they do that as well. Playing the race card as a last ditch effort to avoid deportation isn't far fetched.

No, in fact its commonplace which proves my point that the govt isnt afraid to be called racist for doing its job.

Sorry but I disagree. All governments are afraid of bad press like this. The partisan anti-Liberals will claim that the Liberals never had anybody deported for fear of losing their "Immigrant voters".

A prevailing theme on this forum is that Canada has a very hard time even deporting convicted criminals for that very reason.

Still I doubt its as hard as you think for the government to implement a greater vigilance program. If ts just a question of resources, or money to be more precise, then the solution is obvious right?

Yeah I mean if the politicians got infront of the cameras and anounced a new massive 'crackdown' or reforms to speed up the deportation process, etc obviously it would be interpreted by some as discriminatory and denial of due process. But when were talking about tracking down people who had their day in court, lost and are now on the lam with an outstanding deportation order, were not talking about changing process. I dont think claims of racism would have resonance. Claims of racism usually involve around the allegation that the claimant was denied due process or was treated in a manner contradictory to established procedures or values such as failure to properly weigh the immigrants offence with the hardship the immigrant will face if deported. 'Racism' is not so magic a word as many think.

[BCMc]

Well, there are some good points raised here. But everyone is just being too damn kind. Now my post is going to the outer forum readers or the ones who just read forums and don't join in. So do not think this is directed at anyone in these forums or to any individual. I pretend all of Canada reads this:

My family has only been in this country for about 200 years (paternal side and maternal mothers side). But, that is long enough to make this statement.

I am a real lover of all nationalities and people when it gets down to it. But when one builds a house, gets it running well, troubleshoots with the trials of roads, railroads, electricity and many lost lives while doing it - they get a tad upset when others walk in and take it all for granted, in addition to just getting the cream of all the labour. Then they slam the people who created it.

My version in short. After arguing with a Pakistani young man who said we should be involved in fixing Pakistans uprising and government =

Every immigrant should spend 1 full year minimum up North 53-60 parallel in Canada. That is their initiation. They do like the settlers did, try to survive in a pretty big land without the cushy amenities.

But instead? Many flock to cities that are not built up enough or ready for more people with infrastructure and then start complaining about space and resources? But they are not in the industrial or forest work that creates such things. Their ways and their rights in schools or wearing a turban in the Royal CANADIAN Mounted Police (are more important than ours?)

Can one go to India and proclaim that their religious like devotion to their country insists they wear a R.C.M.P cap to their Sikh Temple or if they work in policing they must wear Canadian garb in India? It is absolutely ridiculous.

Shoving our prayers and ways out in the cold or remove Christmas pagaent that gave us all hope in the long winters, just because that might offend some?. No one is evangelizing kids by putting on a pageant - it is our tradition and way for centuries and then we have to stop? or go to court to reinstate it because it might offend someone. Absolutely ridiculous!

I would like to see everyone move over and let us in their homes and then we demand our way and customs and culture over and above.

We worked this land, and we should have a say how fast it grows, when things are as best possible in place. Opening ones house for a permanent party when we only have a few rooms built will eventually cause a mess. And that is exactly what has happened. We used to have a balanced immigration. But the politicians try to say we need more workers? HuH? I see more Canadians out of work due to the cheap labour issues that are caused by mass immigration. More votes or cheap labour I guess, not sure. Our great, great, great grandparents and our families did not build schools, universities and communities so that their own descendents would have to compete for their place in education so international students to get better elite education? Yes, we should have some people that can be international or aid or whatever, but again, I could go on all day.

Pacific Rim agreement made me shake in my boots to know what would come. Not that we would want to deny balanced immigration, but that a wave of the world would be flocking to get in and the money barrons from others lands would make sure to push all those buttons. Now we have a land that is part owned by the States and Asians? (many who do not live here). It is not a good situation.

The worst - it came at the expense of people already here who developed the country. I know a lot of people who immigrated here and they fit in. My husbands family immigrated here and then pitched in and did best they could to build Canada alongside those already here. Not expecting any special treatment but so grateful to be in a freer country that an oppressive one. The new immigrants are the ones really making this country? Head up North and stay there for a year working in the mines or logging industry and then come back to the city to the whiners and complainers.

I love all people, but people should come to this country with humble respect for those who did build it. And don't try to recreate this place like ones homeland. Because basically you left there didn't ya. If it was so great back there, go back there or else assimilate and pull your weight. I am not talking about keeping ones *traditions* or culture in their private homes or having a spot in a community to manage those ways. That is a distinct issue.


Sing the anthem of Canada with pride, know the history and for God's sake don't slough off saying I can't sing the anthem because the word "God" is in it.

The preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights starts with the FACT that this country is built on the "Supremacy of God". If no one knows that by now, then they have come to the wrong country or they did not take their citizenship vows legally.

All creeds/colours and those from others countries, just appreciate this country and earn ones way. By giving back to community as well and figure out a way to assimilate. And don't put yourself on a high horse saying you *made* this country what it is today. Because you didn't. You came to a country, already made! If your presence enhances it - that is another story.

Hope that is what this topic is about, if not, well, it can be moved to another thread or topic I suppose.

My buck 12/80 and rant over.

[CommanderSock]

From 1900 to 1940 the rate of immigration as a percentage of the population was far higher.

[BCMc]

CommanderSock wrote:

From 1900 to 1940 the rate of immigration as a percentage of the population was far higher.

How does that equate to in real numbers? Those people were moving here and still developing the lands. The problem is: We have allowed unchecked and larger numbers of people in than we can handle. We are experiencing reprecussions from it, now because politicans are too damn stupid to see the house would get overflowing.

[BCMc]

CommanderSock wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

I agree that the temporary worker system is a mess, along with a great many student visa's. We seem unable to believe that foreigners can do wrong and that's why I definatey don't want a political party that depends on foreigners.

I consider student Visas to be very important in bringing here people who will commit themselves to the country.

Most graduates with masters or an undergrad end up getting jobs right out of university, why should they not be allowed to stay?

Can we guess now what nationality you are? This has been an interesting read through this whole thread.

Student visa? The way in the back door to get people from ones homeland permanent status.

Yup, sure. Does that mean my daughters or neices and nephews should move over and compete for a spot in University because politicians will want to have a quota of international students to appease other countries rather than their own?