Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^ A warm climate where we can live 365 days a year seriously, it's about bringing people together not about "needs" with that line of thinking, why did confederation happen in canada at all? What does Alberta need from Ontario or Saskatchewan from Manitoba nowadays?
Confederation happened because of "needs" and was not a congenial affair. The US formed 100 years earlier and was growing in strength and influence and was becoming a threat. Canada was formed as a counterbalance and even then not every modern province was lining up to join, their decision analysis focused on what they would gain first. Many had to be effectively bribed with monetary and political incentives to join and NFLD even held out till 1949. The concept of Canada wasn't a big hug fest out of the gate and "needs" drove decisions.
Look, I understand that bringing people together sounds nice but I just think we need more substantiated reasons before opening up our borders to 23 million people from a foreign country that we have little integration with. As well as understanding the implications going both ways. Hey, there may be a good reason and I'm all ears but I just haven't heard anything compelling so far to make me in favour of this. If we want to exchange people, we can do through simplified visa programs between both countries.
Last edited by johnathanc; 02-19-2014 at 06:30 PM..
All I'm going to say is that if we can't even manage to have the desire to have open borders with countries that have 90% in common with us then there is no hope for the future of the human race
Why did confederation happen in canada at all? What does Alberta need from Ontario or Saskatchewan from Manitoba nowadays?
All of the provinces were contiguous parts of the British Empire in North America, and confederation ceded to Canada a limited form of self-government; it was a compromise between appeasing those who wanted independence and those who wanted to remain a full colony of Britain. It was hoped that by unifying the British North American colonies into a confederation the British Empire would strength on the continent to counterbalance the ever-growing United States to the south. Remember that the Americans had seceded from the British Empire only a century before, and relations between the US and the British Empire were rather cold until the early 1900's.
Remember that confederation wasn't much of a choice - it was the only real option on the table. The rebellion for Canadian independence in 1837-8 was crushed by the British military, and activists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick seeking to join the U.S. were met with the threat of fighting the British military. Others who were less vehemently opposed to confederation were more or less bribed or coerced politically and financially. In other words, Confederation was a deal one had to accept, whether one liked the idea or not. Generally, conservative English in Ontario and some French in Quebec liked the idea; the idea met a cool reception in the maritimes and among those who wanted full Canadian independence (notably in Quebec).
All of the provinces were contiguous parts of the British Empire in North America, and confederation ceded to Canada a limited form of self-government; it was a compromise between appeasing those who wanted independence and those who wanted to remain a full colony of Britain. It was hoped that by unifying the British North American colonies into a confederation the British Empire would strength on the continent to counterbalance the ever-growing United States to the south. Remember that the Americans had seceded from the British Empire only a century before, and relations between the US and the British Empire were rather cold until the early 1900's.
Remember that confederation wasn't much of a choice - it was the only real option on the table. The rebellion for Canadian independence in 1837-8 was crushed by the British military, and activists in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick seeking to join the U.S. were met with the threat of fighting the British military. Others who were less vehemently opposed to confederation were more or less bribed or coerced politically and financially. In other words, Confederation was a deal one had to accept, whether one liked the idea or not. Generally, conservative English in Ontario and some French in Quebec liked the idea; the idea met a cool reception in the maritimes and among those who wanted full Canadian independence (notably in Quebec).
Yes I know about the history of why confederation happened but it's not really relevant anymore because we know the US is not going to invade us at least politically. So, there really isn't any incentive anymore for the provinces to stay together except out of convenience and geographic proximity. That was my original point. In this day and age, the provinces don't "need" each other for the most part. They could go it on their own if they wanted to but they are together to be stronger. Australia and New Zealand are very much like Canada, and so IMO there really isn't a need to have a closed border. They share our system of government, speak the same language (Quebec aside), have the same style resource based economy, together have similar population size as Canada, so why not have an open border with them is all I'm asking?
Good points about the distance and isolated nature of Australia. I wasn't implying there would be a mass exodus but I'm not convinced we would gain more than we will lose in terms of talent. Maybe but I'm not sure. Most people who leave to the US for work usually don't come back once they meet a significant other and have a career; the same can happen if we let youth who are born and educated in the Canadian system move away, even if it's far. I just think our focus should be to retain talent in this country and I don't know if this policy would help. It might not do great harm, but it might not do any good either.
So even if you can say there's little downside, there still needs to be some upside for our country. What is the real benefit? If we want young people to travel and live/work in other places for the "experience", this can achieved by other means. For instance, creating an easy visa process to live/work in either country seems more feasible vs. allowing people to pick up and settle in another foreign country at will, including all the administrative issues (taxation, citizenship, border security, social benefits, etc.) this creates. Visas will also help restrict those who we let in country to ensure they add value.
No, I don't think there has to be an upside as long as there isn't a downside. However, I think that some upsides aren't necessarily tangible - my feeling has always been that a well-travelled population is an upside that can translate to tangible things such as innovation and new ways of looking at things, things that can definitely add to our country. I am not talking about Aussies and Kiwis only, but returning Canadians.
What one sees in societies that are not well-travelled is doing things a certain way because they have always been done a certain way, racism, tribalism and an insular attitude. I don't think any of those things are good for a country if it wants to succeed in the small world we have become. It's not that much different than breeding animals, actually, although there doesn't have to be breeding involved in open borders. Countries can become inbred in terms of ideas, ways of thinking, and that doesn't always work to our benefit.
I agree that's a good place to start. You're in Australia, aren't you? So ..... are the Aussies in favour of it?
.
Lets just say that a lot of Aussies would have strong views on the pitfalls of a poorly thought out and implemented open border agreement that lacks the flexibility to deal with changing trends and social issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deneb78
All I'm going to say is that if we can't even manage to have the desire to have open borders with countries that have 90% in common with us then there is no hope for the future of the human race
Most countries, Canada and Australia particularly, are pretty open already with numerous migration, family reunion, working holiday and refugee programs. So an open border policy will only facilitate entry by those who don't meet the criteria for those arrangements. And while "most" people are hardworking, respectful of the culture and sensitivities of the country they live in, and have reasonable expectations of their adoptive home, there are those who aren't so inclined. Most countries have their own fair share of no-hopers, dead beats and those with an elevated sense of entitlement; do you want to risk becoming the destination of choice for those from another country?
Most countries, Canada and Australia particularly, are pretty open already with numerous migration, family reunion, working holiday and refugee programs. So an open border policy will only facilitate entry by those who don't meet the criteria for those arrangements. And while "most" people are hardworking, respectful of the culture and sensitivities of the country they live in, and have reasonable expectations of their adoptive home, there are those who aren't so inclined. Most countries have their own fair share of no-hopers, dead beats and those with an elevated sense of entitlement; do you want to risk becoming the destination of choice for those from another country?
Lets just say that a lot of Aussies would have strong views on the pitfalls of a poorly thought out and implemented open border agreement that lacks the flexibility to deal with changing trends and social issues.
Most countries, Canada and Australia particularly, are pretty open already with numerous migration, family reunion, working holiday and refugee programs. So an open border policy will only facilitate entry by those who don't meet the criteria for those arrangements. And while "most" people are hardworking, respectful of the culture and sensitivities of the country they live in, and have reasonable expectations of their adoptive home, there are those who aren't so inclined. Most countries have their own fair share of no-hopers, dead beats and those with an elevated sense of entitlement; do you want to risk becoming the destination of choice for those from another country?
There are ways to get around that such as not allowing people to collect any kind of government benefits until they've lived in the respective country for at least a year. This will force people to get some kind of job when they arrive as most working age people won't have the financial resources to survive a year without getting a job. I say scrap all existing migration programs between aus/nz and Canada and just have an open border. I haven't seen a convincing reason not to.
Last edited by deneb78; 02-20-2014 at 12:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
seriously, it's about bringing people together not about "needs" with that line of thinking, why did confederation happen in canada at all? What does Alberta need from Ontario or Saskatchewan from Manitoba nowadays?
