quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue
And here we are in 2011 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes a Canadian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

Nup.  I've heard similar said about new immigrants to the UK, and I've always believed it to be nasty, hateful bullshit.  I've always thought, 'How would *you* feel, if you were a new immigrant, whose first language wasn't that of the your host country; if you looked different and had different habits and customs?' 

I think I'd find the experience so very hard.  I'd feel miserable, lost and like an alien.  'My home no longer exists for me'.  I can't imagine how bad that could feel.  (Actually, I can, a bit, because I've had nightmares about it.)

At bottom, though, MsLadySue, I hate the sort of wanker who propounds ideas like you've cited.  They just pick on the people who are already having it the toughest, not the ones who are causing life to be tough for so many people.  They are cowardly, bullying scum - or, perhaps even worse, they are the small, low people who are supporters of cowardly, bullying scum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue
Here they let in everyone to immediately go on our healthcare/welfare/whatever they can get system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, things aren't what they "used" to be.
The U.S. is a mature country and we really don't "need" anymore immigration. Especially from third world countries where a sixth grade education is like college there and the average person has little to no skills.
If we need Doctors, Nurses, Engineers we can import them for a time until we don't and then have them return to their home countries. I don't understand why everytime we let someone in it should involve U.S. Citizenship.
Also, we need to end any immigration from Mexico, Central America and the Carribean countries as they're the biggest offenders of our laws.
It's not the 1800's anymore when we needed millions of unskilled laborers. Now we have about 25 million illegal aliens here who are wreaking havoc and cost us $113 B last year and unless our government starts enforcing our laws.
In the 1880's 90% of doctors didn't go to college and if you needed a tooth pulled you went to the barber. A horse and buggy worked very well in those days but not today.
Look at China and Japan, two advanced economic powerhouse countries who don't have any immigration.
If immigration is such a "good" thing then why aren't all countries doing it?

Yeah, those damn Mesican women and their foreign ways, their skintight designer jeans, plunging necklines and short shorts - damn them!

Um, no, we need maids and tradesmen - service workers also - when we were at or near peak employment in the Ninties, the Two occupations that were the hardest to fill were office managers (Silicon Valley) and construction workers (everywhere).

That anti-immigration rhetoric is why the pubs tanked the economy rather than risk wage inflation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

"Anti-immigration?"
Since when was immigration to this country ever permanent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

"Anti-immigration?"
Since when was immigration to this country ever permanent?

Well, you must be leftist because you weren't thinking when you said that. Immigration's been permanent through most of American history, if you mean "nope, no visas needed or limits on numbers".

Hell, when the Irish immigrated they were considered the lowest of the low, and the old folks remained Gaelic speakers for the most part; like all other immigrant groups, the kids were interpreters and the next generation didn't speak Gaelic. Same was true with the Vietnamese immigration in the '70s (unless they spoke English before arriving); down in "little Saigon" in San Jose, there were plenty of older folks who didn't speak English.

And before you crank up, Popeye, it's the same with Mexican and Central American immigrants.

Shit, look at how depression-era "Okies" were treated on the west coast to see how immigrants are treated nowadays, and they were born American.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

There's a difference between emigration from country X to Y and mass migration. Immigration is controllable within the host country; language, learning it's history, assimilating into its customs, etc. Every western nation is demonstrable of that. Dealing with mass immigration is a wholly different animal, where the host country/culture is overwhelmed due to the inability of society to shape it within its identity.

One of the things that highly aided the demise of the Roman Empire was the mass immigration of foreigners. They did not adopt that of their host country, they brought what they left and continued it wholly.

In today's parlance, one sees the waving of foreign flags, the celebration of foreign holidays, multi-lingual government, etc. Much of what Rome experienced is the same as today, primarily being economic. But today there is something added, being the concept of universal tolerance and equality. Thus you see the introduction of foreign laws into the host country.

No nation has ever survived such mass immigration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

There's a difference between emigration from country X to Y and mass migration. Immigration is controllable within the host country; language, learning it's history, assimilating into its customs, etc. Every western nation is demonstrable of that. Dealing with mass immigration is a wholly different animal, where the host country/culture is overwhelmed due to the inability of society to shape it within its identity.

One of the things that highly aided the demise of the Roman Empire was the mass immigration of foreigners. They did not adopt that of their host country, they brought what they left and continued it wholly.

In today's parlance, one sees the waving of foreign flags, the celebration of foreign holidays, multi-lingual government, etc. Much of what Rome experienced is the same as today, primarily being economic. But today there is something added, being the concept of universal tolerance and equality. Thus you see the introduction of foreign laws into the host country.

No nation has ever survived such mass immigration.

The US has. We've experienced and thrived on many large waves of immigrants over the last 200 years.

And while those immigrants were happy to come here and assimilated to some extent, they also to some extent kept their traditional customs, dietary habits and religious practices and added these to the "melting pot". Immigrant communities in the US have always typically taken a couple generations to become fluent English speakers and more or less fully assimilate. And even we still tend to do things to connect with our ancestral roots, like eat pasta, enthusiastically celebrate St Patrick's Day, follow foreign soccer teams, or send kids to Chinese school on the weekend. I know my dad's family's really "rah rah Scotland" and my mom cooks perogies and keilbasa and pickled eggs, and both their families immigrated here over a century ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue

I work for the government and I see how it works. Mind you, I do my job whether I like the rules or not but it's not easy to see the reverse discrimination going on.

It's a problem when the 'laws' of their homeland are put into practice here, such as a man his second wife and son who murdered his first wife and two daughters because they felt those women were living too freely and shaming his family by doing so. Thankfully the three murderers were charged and convicted of first degree murder and will receive 25 years without parole for their actions. It would be nice if people coming to this country would at least obey the laws of their new home.

quote:

How many lettuce pickers do we need to get the harvest in, 20,000, 40,000, 60,000? Certainly not 3 million!
Once they get hired naturally you'll need to replace the ones who die, get sick, quit, get convicted of crimes etc but how many would that amount to, maybe 4,000 to 6,000 per year?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue

Now, before anyone kicks my butt after reading this, I did not write this article. Unfortunately I don't know who the original author is because it's something I copied last year and forgot to add the name. I did not put this under Politics topic on purpose.

This may result in some good discussion or it may cause havoc. I hope it will be taken as an interesting read and not a condemnation of any race or religion. It is intended to start an interesting discussion, nothing more.

So many letter writers have explained how this land is made up of immigrants. Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people why today's Canadian is not willing to accept the new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to Canada, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in Halifax and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground.

They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new Canadian households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture.

Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labour laws to protect them. All they had were the skills, craftsmanship and desire they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. Canadians fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden, and so many other places.

None of these first generation Canadians ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Canadians fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the Freedom as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages was looking for the Ukrainian-Canadian or the German-Canadian or the Irish-Canadian. The people of France saw only Canadians.

And we carried one flag that represented our country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be a Canadian. They stirred the melting pot into one red and white bowl.

And here we are in 2011 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes a Canadian passport and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.

I'm sorry, that's not what being a Canadian all is about. Canadians have been very open-hearted and open-minded regarding immigrants, whether they were fleeing poverty, dictatorship, persecution, or whatever else makes us think of those aforementioned immigrants who truly did ADOPT our country, and our flag and our morals and our customs. And left their wars, hatred, and divisions behind.

I believe that the immigrants who landed in Canada in the 1800's and early 1900's deserve better than that for the toil, hard work and sacrifice those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags, fighting foreign battles on our soil, making Canadians change to suit their religions and cultures, and wanting to change our countries fabric by claiming discrimination when we do not give in to their demands.

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

I'm curious as to how you square the history of the descendants of French colonists in Canada - the French-Canadians with your analysis? Not one person I know who is French-Canadian self identifies as "Canadian". They self describe as Quebecois or French-Canadian, but absolutely NOT Canadian. They also do not support English, the British, the Queen or any of that stuff that "Canadians" support. In other words, what definition of "Canadian" are you using. You seem to be using a definition of Canada that ONLY applies to Anglo Canada. Almost 25% of Canadians have French as their first language. So I am curious about how you define immigrant integration into a society that is already dualistic in nature (and the French are protected constitutionally in Canada, so this is not artifact - this is quite real).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsLadySue

I work for the government and I see how it works. Mind you, I do my job whether I like the rules or not but it's not easy to see the reverse discrimination going on.

It's a problem when the 'laws' of their homeland are put into practice here, such as a man his second wife and son who murdered his first wife and two daughters because they felt those women were living too freely and shaming his family by doing so. Thankfully the three murderers were charged and convicted of first degree murder and will receive 25 years without parole for their actions. It would be nice if people coming to this country would at least obey the laws of their new home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

There's a difference between emigration from country X to Y and mass migration. Immigration is controllable within the host country; language, learning it's history, assimilating into its customs, etc. Every western nation is demonstrable of that. Dealing with mass immigration is a wholly different animal, where the host country/culture is overwhelmed due to the inability of society to shape it within its identity.

One of the things that highly aided the demise of the Roman Empire was the mass immigration of foreigners.

Gibbon would disagree as would durant.

They did not adopt that of their host country, they brought what they left and continued it wholly.

Opinions vary.

In today's parlance, one sees the waving of foreign flags, the celebration of foreign holidays,

St. patricks day should be cancled?

multi-lingual government, etc. Much of what Rome experienced is the same as today, primarily being economic. But today there is something added, being the concept of universal tolerance and equality. Thus you see the introduction of foreign laws into the host country.

Which laws have been so introduced into canada or the u.s.?

No nation has ever survived such mass immigration.

How many makes a mass?