Migration policies are failing, migrants are strugling - ‘broken’ national immigration system

Who'd have thought (in Punjab or here) a bunch of years ago that there'd ever be such a phrase? Glad to see and hear it.

 

Rothschild conspiracy claims are neither more nor less than anti-semitism, more accurately described as "Jew hate" in German.

 

Why not create a government body that it's only responsibility would be migrant obsorption.
Work with each state social and public services to provide employment/*work placement services, subsidied (section 8 housing or similar).
English and citizenship, US history and other education. Access to Healthcare etc.
The body will regulate the settlement of immigrants based on multiple criteria with partnership with States.

 

Indeed. Like I said in my earlier post - "Anti-Semitic." Here, you can go to jail for hate speech - or face a bunch of other sanctions. David Ahenakew, a Native politician in Saskatchewan, faced two trials for Anti-Semitic speech. He was fined $1000. Later the conviction was overturned and he was acquitted at the second trial on a technicality. However, his Order of Canada Award was revoked.

"Jewish groups, aboriginals and politicians later called for Ahenakew's membership in the Order of Canada to be revoked. The Governor General revoked Ahenakew's membership shortly after his trial."

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ahenakew
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zündel

David Ahenakew - James Keegstra - Ernst Zündel. I think The Canadian Justice System is too lenient with these people and others like them. Keegstra particularly - a teacher. Unless his students repeated his vile teachings about Jews and a 'non-existent' Holocaust, "made up to gain sympathy" by Jews, they could not get passing marks on their exams.

At least all of them are silenced now. David Ahenakew died in 2010, James Keegstra in 2014 and Ernst Zündel in 2017.

 

I can see how such article language can be seen anti-Semitic.
I didn't even read many of the linked articles when posted.
There is a line one walks when criticizing devoted communists who happen to be Jewish. I just read that article by selecting the link.

Although anti-Semitic attacks on the Rothschild family have been thoroughly disproved, they have revealed themselves to be embedded in the Western cultural subconscious.
Those who contribute to this form of anti-Semitism must make a sustained effort to root it out.

Some history on the subject of CCP

https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/179731/

"On Oct. 1, 1967, China’s National Day, Sidney Rittenberg had reached the pinnacle of his revolutionary career.
It was the 18th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and Rittenberg was seated on a reviewing stand less than fifty feet from Mao Zedong, overlooking a sea of thousands who had crowded into Tiananmen Square to mark the occasion.

In addition to Rittenberg, there was Austrian, Jakob Rosenfeld, commanding officer of the Communist 4th Army’s medical unit; Israel Epstein from Poland, a journalist who served as the Chinese government’s head of international public relations; and London-born David Crook, dean of the Beijing Foreign Languages University."
The story of how thousands of Jews fled Europe, took refuge in Shanghai, and eventually built schools, synagogues and businesses there is one that is well known. This often-told story eventually ends with the departure of all the Jews from China when the communists take over in 1949, a clean and satisfying end to a moving chronicle that leaves no ends loose or questions unanswered.

But in fact, not all those Jews left. Many stayed, and of those who did, a handful lived out dramatic lives that provide a rare glimpse into the early years of Communist China"

Although their backgrounds were varied and their motivations for coming to China diverse, these doctors, writers and educators had one thing in common — all of them were Jewish."

I can see how today someone on a far right can make an ugly theory about this.

 

And with this post, Lerner goes one my "ignore" list.

 

"me too." I think it's been coming for a while.

 

The source - Jewish Journal is more in line with Conservative views and I respect it, its ranks HIGH on Factual reporting
History
Founded in 1987, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is an independent, nonprofit community weekly newspaper serving the Jewish community of greater Los Angeles, published by TRIBE Media Corp. According to their FAQ page, the website, “JewishJournal.com is one of the world’s leading Jewish news sites. It contains local, national and global news updated daily, as well as blogs from noted Jewish personalities and writers, including Karen Lehrman Bloch, Shmuel Rosner, Ben Shapiro, Jonathan Kirsch, Gina Nahai, and Salvador Litvak.”

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

 

Interview from the French Le Monde newspaper:

Immigration: 'Some Canadians are beginning to question the multiculturalist model'

Link: https://archive.is/CvaPZ

"Sociologist and professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa, Christian Bergeron, works on models for integrating minorities into society and has observed changes in public opinion regarding migration. Here, he explains how the nature of the immigration debate has changed in Canada, to the point of challenging one of the country's founding principles: multiculturalism."

"Canada is indeed a land of immigration, but it's important to remember that immigration has come in waves, according to the country's economic needs. Strong until the beginning of the 20th century, it virtually dried up after the Great Depression until the Second World War, before picking up again. Between 1940 and 1991, immigrants represented an average of 15% of the total population; under Justin Trudeau's policies, this share has now risen to 23%."

"Secondly, having long been concentrated in a few major cities such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, this immigration is now reaching the country's most remote towns. This means that it has become a reality for every Canadian. Finally, the face of immigration has changed radically in just a few decades. Until the early 1990s, almost three-quarters of immigrants came from Europe. Today, Europeans represent just one in 10 new arrivals, while the vast majority (62%) are coming from Asia and the Middle East. Concerns about a less buoyant economic situation than in the past, combined with the need to integrate people with different cultural and religious backgrounds to those of the first arrivals, explain the sense of destabilization felt by some Canadians."

"The past seven months have also seen an explosion in the number of assaults, particularly against Jewish and Muslim communities, up 132% in Toronto alone. In reality, this conflict highlights the ambivalence of the Canadian promise: we want communities to keep their culture of origin, we offer them spaces to assert their unique features, but we're disturbed when these features depart away from our shared values, or weaken our community life."

"To date, there is no xenophobic political movement in Canada as there is in Europe, for example, and everyone knows what immigration brings to the country. But if we are to avoid the emergence of such a movement, political leaders must act to respond to legitimate citizen concerns and perhaps agree to embark on a redefinition of the Canadian integration model."

 

Canada famously should have taken more refugees in World War II, most urgently Jews. 1940 is an odd place to begin that statistic.

"On Census Day [2016, May 10], 21.9% of the population reported they were or had ever been a landed immigrant or permanent resident in Canada. This proportion is close to the 22.3% recorded during the 1921 Census, the highest level since Confederation," Statistics Canada reported.

On Census Day 2016 Justin Trudeau had been Prime Minister for 6 months. Conservative Stephen Harper was Prime Minister from 2007 to 2015. So under Stephen Harper's Conservative policies, the share reached almost 22%. After 9 years of Justin Trudeau's Liberal policies, the share is now apparently… 23%. And these both nearly equal the share of immigrants in 1921.

This feels like a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument from opponents of immigration. They complained when immigrants were more heavily concentrated in a few major cities that immigrants were forming self-dealing enclaves and failing to support struggling smaller communities.

There's conversation to be had here.

Assaults against Jewish and Muslim communities are a heartbreaking problem. Sounds like we need to reduce anti-immigrant sentiment.

 

In the days of the Canadian Alliance, the immigration platform (at least on paper) was diferent from the Liberals. But I would not be surprised if more damage was practically done under Harper. At this point, both parties are fanatically commited to an almost indistinguishable policy on immigration. It will be interesting to see whether a truly divergent immigration platform emeges with any one of the mainstream parties. As for the researcher, keep in mind that we're dealing with an interview. He may have simply talked about the state that was reached under Trudeau without getting into all the details as to how this state came about, which would require talking about the Prime Minister's predecessor.

 

I think what is called opponents of Immigration is actually to wide of group name.
The opponents are of a type or types of immigration and the way its managed or mis-managed.
Controlled, Merit based, and Asylum all can be managed much better by needs to the states.
Obviously as in the past immigrants had to provide documentation, have clear record etc. Asylum rou
Start with work permits, after # of years uply for permanent resident status, the after # of years apply for US Citizenship.
Soomething like that.

 

Not strictly on immigration, but surely related:

Geoff Russ: Why would Quebec want to stay in Trudeau's beleaguered Canada? (National Post)

Link: https://archive.is/SaaLD

Having ruined the economy, vilified our history and extinguished patriotism, the prime minister has undermined the argument for a united Canada.

Do you want to be Canadian? Quebecers may get to choose if the Parti Québécois wins the 2026 provincial election, as PQ Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who is currently leading in the polls, has pledged to hold a referendum on sovereignty if he becomes premier.

Polls suggest that roughly one in three Quebecers would vote to leave Canada. But federalists should not get too comfortable, as this is around the same proportion of Quebecers who indicated they would support sovereignty in 1994, only for the province to reject it by less than one per cent a year later.

Does Canada still have the same appeal almost 30 years later?

Everything in Canada feels like it’s in decline. Health-care wait lists are tortuously long, car thefts have skyrocketed, inflation has ravaged the country, the economy is unproductive and housing is unaffordable. Meanwhile, our public institutions have been doing their utmost to weaken Canadian identity and tamp down patriotism.

“Je me souviens” (“I remember”) is the official motto of Quebec, and a call for Quebecers not to forget their unique heritage. Would this nation, as they are recognized by the Government of Canada, have any interest in remaining part of a declining country that appears eager to reject its own history and to despise its founders?

CBC ads proclaim, “It’s not how Canadian you are. It’s who you are in Canada,” echoing the elite belief that a mainstream identity has no place in this country.

The post-national vision of Canada is not only soulless and vapid, but dangerous, as well. It will come for all cultures eventually — immigrant and Indigenous included. Far from being the preserver of minority cultures, post-nationalism will melt them all down into a generic blend, with all the charms of an Earls restaurant and the spirit of an NGO.

in 1994, Molson debuted its “I am Canadian” ad campaign, which glorified Canada’s history and heritage through grainy images of the Canadian Pacific Railway being completed, soldiers going off to fight in the Second World War and the 1972 Summit Series. “I am Canadian” was corny, jingoistic and delightful. Most importantly, it reflected the widespread belief that Canada’s existence made the world a better place.

In 2024, that consensus has been arbitrarily shattered. Canada Day is no longer a day of pure celebration. Nowadays, no Canada Day is complete without a barrage of cloying confessions of guilt for the country’s past wrongdoings.

There is great controversy in Quebec over the changing nature of Montreal, a city of ever-growing diversity and culture. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet recently lamented that the province’s largest city was becoming culturally detached from the rest of Quebec.

Quebec’s nationalist premier, François Legault, has expressed his fear that Quebec may one day resemble Louisiana, where French surnames are common, but the language itself is rare. There has also been controversy over Quebecois culture and identity becoming a subject of mockery in Montreal’s public schools.

In 1995, many Quebecers were swayed by the pragmatic economic argument to remain within Canada, rather than the cultural one. But at least people in the rest of Canada still proclaimed their love for the flag that they begged Quebecers not to leave behind.

If another referendum on sovereignty is held, the federal government’s pitch may amount to nothing more than: “Almost everything about Canada is worse than last time, and we’d love to assimilate you into the post-national project, but please stick around for the equalization payments.”

There is no common ground between Quebecers who are determined to preserve their culture, and those in the rest of Canada who are told to disregard their heritage. If culture and identity are dominant themes in a future referendum, “the greatest hotel on earth” will have nothing to offer.

Canadians want to be inspired, and the post-national agenda cooked up by Ottawa will never accomplish that. It deserves to be crumpled up and burned, and its ashes spat upon and forgotten. The alternative is Canada’s disappearance in all but name, either through a slow death, or the end of Confederation.

 

What part of the economy would get better for an independent Quebec?

Does Quebec really want to deal with Washington DC in its own? Ottawa has enough trouble keeping their Neighbor to the South in check. Besides, it's pretty unlikely the U.S. would recognize an independent Quebec if the Canadian government objected. So there she'd be, completely surrounded by hostile neighbors.

If English Canada even allowed Quebec to secede, it would mean the end of French Canada's special protected status in the rest of the country.

Don't be so sure English Canada would permit secession. There's a lot of resentment against Quebec's special rights. If Quebec's attempt to secede fails, that special status will become extinct. I would not rule out the use of force.

 

Good points, but I could imagine Quebec being recognized, if everything was determined through a democratic referendum and the will of the people was respected. I think that the economic argument was stronger in the past.

 

The will of which people? Why should just the Quebec population get to decide? Major amendments to the Canadian Constitution require a unanimous vote of all the Provinces.

Rather than restating all the arguments against secession, I invite you to read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. He was talking about the U.S. but other than the issue of slavery, his arguments apply to Canada with equal force. Plus he wrote much better than I do.

 

This could be overcome. I mean, it's hard to deny something as earth-shattering as "we don't want to be a part of Canada." The provinces would need to adjust accordingly. Now, I think that scenario is still somewhat unlikely considering the current level of support in Quebec. But not so unrealitic that I can't imagine this happening.

 

That's about my opinion of this article, in a nutshell. A lot of inflammatory rhetoric in there that doesn't persuade me. If people don't like Trudeau, an election will (hopefully) fix that - although there isn't really that much hope of a change for the better, considering the present lineup of party leaders.

If individual people don't like Canada - they can leave.

If a Province wants to leave, there is, it appears - a mechanism.
I doubt there's a mechanism - or much will, even - to take one back, if it falls on its face economically - as I think Quebec would.

I hardly think so. The last vote failed. They still have all the rights. It's hard to take away what's been given.

Indeed it was. There was humor in it. Until some clown on a degree forum somewhere - I forget which- waggled a sanctimonious finger at me for quoting a line from it. Objected because it was "nationalistic." Guy had no clue what it was about.

I've just cranked my deaf ear up - put an extra baffle in - so I don't have to deal with this.

 

I am okay with your assessment. Are you okay with me posting things that you strongly disagree with? The last sentence makes me wonder...

 

You have every right to do it. And I reserve the right not to listen, or read-and-disregard any posts if I so choose.