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.
I'm not saying no to immigrants, I'm saying no to Muslims and blacks for the simple reason that history has shown time and again that these two groups are the least likely to integrate properly and most likely to cause trouble, violence and crime. So why do we need to take these kinds of immigrants in for the sake of being 'inclusive' and not being 'racist', instead of doing the right thing and taking in immigrants that will do us little harm and will likely be productive and contribute to our country?
You are attacking your own logic here, don't you realize?
You think we should take in the immigrants "that will do us little hard and will likely be productive and contribute to our country" - I wholly agree with that, but that means it is purely on merit, the criteria you mentioned, is that right? I don't deny that Muslims and blacks probably cause problems that are disproportionate to their respective population, however, those who do cause violence still represents a very low percentage while the majority are just hard working people like us. So tell me, why should an advanced country like Canada refuse to give ALL Muslims a chance to move here? What about those who "will do us little hard and will likely be productive and contribute to our country"? Just because 1% of the rest are bad guys, we should treat them all like terrorists, including those we know have nothing to do with it? You have got to be more reasonable than that.
I don't understand it here. I suppose your motivation is to protect, however, is it justified to exclude and discriminate against an entire region/ethnicity knowing the vast majority are not violent, for this purpose?
It is NOT about political correctness here. PC is about not accusing someone for something he did wrong because he is a minority. Here it is about simply logic reasoning and believe it or not, the well being of Canada. Do we want to be a prejudiced country holding a deep grudge against an entire ethnic group simply because 1% of them commit crimes? That's not protection. That's just bad policy based on poor analysis.
We should all treat people as INDIVIDUALs, not as a member of a group. Is that too much to ask? Isn't that basic human rights? When deciding whether a person is eligible to enter Canada, we should consider all factors that is related to this individual, not other people who belong to the same ethnic group, is that unreasonable? We are not bees who act in flocks. We are all individuals and deserve to be treated like that.
The real question is really why do we have so many crazies today?? What is wrong with our society and values that has brought this about? Our mental health system is more of an issue than guns are. These people need help BEFORE they go nuts. We also need to examine our values, why have we gotten this way?? Like I said it really is a rather recent trend.
.
This is actually a really good question.
You've touched upon the mental health issue which is a hugely important one.
Another thing is the general societal atmosphere. (What I am going to refer to here exist in most western countries, but as is usually the case with most everything takes on greater proportions and scale in the U.S.)
I think we've become nastier, angrier and more aggressive in our societies.
Even as it's become socially unacceptable to be prejudiced against gays and people based on race, etc., it's become more acceptable and routine to be nasty to lots of other people: poor people, overweight people, people who are skinny, people whose eyebrow extends too far towards the middle, people who are short, people who are tall, people who dress slobby, people who have funny voices, not beautiful or handsome enough, women who have too much pubic hair, men who are too hairy, people of Walmart, etc.
I mean, think about how savagely ridiculed Kristie Alley was when she appeared in a bikini on Oprah. She was something like 55 years old, and looked way better than 90% of American women her age would look in a swimsuit, and also better than the vast majority of people who ridiculed her.
Also worth noting is just how stark the divide has become between who is a "winner" and a "loser", and how much pressure is placed on young people to be on the side of the "winners".
All of this I think I does have the effect of driving some people crazy.
Botti; insofar as prejudicially earmarking certain ethnic, racial or religious groups for restrictive policies of immigration, you are correct; Canada has done that in it's history and has no desire to do so again, given the guilt complex garnered over those instances.
We are however, sharing a feeling of frustration with virtually all groups mentioned in their seeming lack of effective effort in governing themselves and putting some requirement upon their group to hold themselves to a higher standard.
This is transmuting into a general "close the freak'n door on all of them til they get their chit together" knee jerk reaction that would actually only serve to give the radicals more leverage and kinship within their cluster.
It's akin to me telling a fellow who visits to leave his 70lb golden retriever puppy at home because it does so much damage to my wife's more fragile plantings while he sits there with his beer and watches from a lounge chair. His rejoinder was the well known default of those who are too lazy to discipline their children well I guess you don't want me visiting any more and my response also the very typical, "not if you are inconsiderate enough to think of my home as your dog's playground". I told him he was always welcome but his dog would be sequestered in my workshop until he had taught it some manners, his choice.
I would dearly love to see a BAP (Blacks are Proud) parade right after another gang shooting of their own race in an attempt to call out and put responsibility for better behaviour upon their own race instead of them choosing to be indignant over their treatment by police and trashing their own place of habitation in the process.
I would dearly love to see all those Muslims currently engaged in fighting with their brethren over something as comparatively trivial as a territorial dispute, come together and demand better of their tribal chieftains and Mullahs so that their supposed religion of peace can be seen as such by even the casual glance.
Until such time as those all too easily identified and pidgeonholed groups are seen to be making more than lip service attempts to govern themselves in the same manner as any fraternal organization would, there will continue to be negative generalizations of those groups as a whole.
How do we think of Mennonites for example? While some of their practices vis-Ã -vis animal husbandry and interfaith marriages are straight out of Dante's Inferno, they for the most part are thought of as an industrious, productive, hard working, well behaved cloistered group of farmers. We overlook those parts of their beliefs we might take exception to because they demand a certain level of behaviour from EACH OTHER and make it imperative civil disobedience or visible acts that might bring shame on their sect have consequences and a very stiff price.
Calls for a general restriction of immigration are emanating out of frustration these groups are seemingly ignoring or oblivious to all the damage being done to their image as a whole.
I disagree with BruSan. As much as I loathe Trump, I think that Western countries need to strongly limit - if not necessarily end - immigration from countries from which terrorism emanates. That basically means the Arab world, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Western governments' main priority should be the protection of their own citizens. Every country has the right to determine its own immigration policies, and those policies should be tailored to the best interests of the receiving countries' societies.
Canada already discriminates against many people in its immigration policies. It discriminates against the uneducated, against those who don't speak English or French, against those who are poor - you can't immigrate if you can't show the ability to sustain yourself financially. Why shouldn't it discriminate against those cultures whose people have an unusual propensity to commit mass murder?
This is an instance where Western liberalism really needs to get its act together. Look at France - at around 10% of the population, Muslims now constitute an ever-present threat to the lives of French citizens as well as its democracy and core liberal values such as free speech. My great fear is that countries like Canada - one of the best societies on the planet - will mistakenly import such large numbers of illiberal Muslims that the same happens there.
I don't agree that Canada should limit or halt immigration from specific religious groups.
Not entirely convinced of this next point but it seems to me it might be contrary to the Charter of Rights and the Constitution. Although prospective immigrants are not Canadian citizens and therefore may not be covered by Charter protections. I definitely see how this could be challenged, though I don't know what the outcome would be.
In any event, we should not be "assuming" people are more likely to engage in specific behaviours based on religious background, any more than any other factor like race, etc.
That said, I've always been in favour of Canada making things extremely clear to immigrants with respect to Canadian laws and values, and how newcomers are expected to abide by this stuff.
Obviously people are free to continue with their customs (religious or otherwise) but they should be made clearly aware that when they bump up against Canadian ones, then the Canadian way will prevail.
With the possible exception of Quebec (and even then), this has not always been made sufficiently clear to New Canadians in recent years and decades.
You've touched upon the mental health issue which is a hugely important one.
Another thing is the general societal atmosphere. (What I am going to refer to here exist in most western countries, but as is usually the case with most everything takes on greater proportions and scale in the U.S.)
I think we've become nastier, angrier and more aggressive in our societies.
Even as it's become socially unacceptable to be prejudiced against gays and people based on race, etc., it's become more acceptable and routine to be nasty to lots of other people: poor people, overweight people, people who are skinny, people whose eyebrow extends too far towards the middle, people who are short, people who are tall, people who dress slobby, people who have funny voices, not beautiful or handsome enough, women who have too much pubic hair, men who are too hairy, people of Walmart, etc.
I mean, think about how savagely ridiculed Kristie Alley was when she appeared in a bikini on Oprah. She was something like 55 years old, and looked way better than 90% of American women her age would look in a swimsuit, and also better than the vast majority of people who ridiculed her.
Also worth noting is just how stark the divide has become between who is a "winner" and a "loser", and how much pressure is placed on young people to be on the side of the "winners".
All of this I think I does have the effect of driving some people crazy.
Funding for institutions to house the mentally ill and general mental health funding took a big hit in the 80's. That is one big difference between now and then. A lot mentally ill people used to live in institutions the majority of their lives, but now many are living with the general population.
Funding for institutions to house the mentally ill and general mental health funding took a big hit in the 80's. That is one big difference between now and then. A lot mentally ill people used to live in institutions the majority of their lives, but now many are living with the general population.
This has been true in Canada as well. A large portion of the people living in shelters or on the streets here are mentally ill.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,483,414 times
Reputation: 12187
American here to provide some perspective.
To understand today's American gun culture you have to go back in time and reconstruct how we got here and why we're so different from other 1st world former British colonies like Canada and Australia.
Many immigrants to the USA have historically been people fleeing persecution in their home country. Examples include religious Presbyterians from Ulster, Irish starving from English domination, capitalist from China, non Shias from Iran, non communists from Cuba, etc. From these people we inherit a distrust of govt, at best viewing it as a necessary evil. I know in Scotland the natives were banned from having weapons by the English, who would then attack the unarmed people. I believe the 2nd amendment exist because the Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to overthrow govt if it became tyrannical. In addition to fear of govt Americans also tend to be tribal and afraid of other Americans. Fear of Black Americans was instilled to legitimize the brutal treatment of slaves. There has also been fear of new immigrant groups.
Another issue is that America is great mostly because of military success. Canada is successful because you're good at cooperating with other people. America is great because of violence. There are bumper stickers that say "God, guns, and guts made America great". Our history of violence is celebrated, from tv Westerns to movies about snipers. Gun culture is just another way of "celebrating".
Currently American society is very divided and many people have little confidence in the federal govt to protect them. We've always had lots of small scale gun violence (mostly drug dealers killing each other) but 9/11 and terrorist attacks make people feel afraid, thus any restrictions on any gun is going to be difficult. I think 49% of us would be at least assault rifles like the AR 15 tomorrow but majority wins.
Last edited by censusdata; 06-14-2016 at 09:56 AM..
This has been true in Canada as well. A large portion of the people living in shelters or on the streets here are mentally ill.
A lot of the institutions that were closed were in awful shape not suitable for anyone to live in though to be fair. However, the way mental health is tackled today is clearly not in a way that's getting them help and keeping them from harming others.
This is an instance where Western liberalism really needs to get its act together. Look at France - at around 10% of the population, Muslims now constitute an ever-present threat to the lives of French citizens as well as its democracy and core liberal values such as free speech.
Not directly comparable. From what I've read much of the Muslim population in France has been marginalized.
Even with that, in my opinion a much more dangerous threat to democracy and free speech in France is their far right party:
Small request - It would nice if non-Canadians would identify themselves as such when expressing an opinion in this thread. Otherwise, it is sort of assumed you are expressing a Canadian viewpoint. Slate, from your post I guessed you were American, but I had to check your posting history to confirm.
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.
