[Godstud]

Yes, the ones who make it thru our immigration process, often called inadequate by some Canadians, are welcomed.

Canada has an immigration process, the same as every other country in the world. That it's more strict than others is quite debatable. It's lengthy, as even a Syrian refugee has a 17 month waiting time(government assisted), but that's because we also take so many refugees(Canada's goal is 250,000 immigrants every year), as well as immigration being a bureaucracy...

[Pants-of-dog]

......
It's an expression of impotence. The authorities want to give the impression that they do something about radical Islam, and they seem to think that even ridiculous measures like this are better than being seen to do nothing. I doubt that the French people will be fooled by this.

The whole thing seems like a typical gov't waste of time. So, I agree.

As for the whole Canada immigration system topic, I would not argue that Canada has a better immigration system, but instead we have a better system for rapidly integrating immigrants into the workforce. And this is because the gov't decided to lat the groundwork for this about forty years ago.

[Rugoz]

In France, about 11% of the population are immigrants.

In Canada, it is about 20%.

If Canada can have almost twice as many immigrants and not have national debates about swimwear, then the reason for why the French decided to discuss this non-issue is not about mass immigration.

And in Switzerland it's 24.6%, so what?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No, they do not share problems and pitfalls.

People keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm afraid it is true, in fact a lot of Frances current social turmoil has much to do with its colonial past.

In France, about 11% of the population are immigrants.

In Canada, it is about 20%.

If Canada can have almost twice as many immigrants and not have national debates about swimwear, then the reason for why the French decided to discuss this non-issue is not about mass immigration.

Quite frankly the two are incomparable, France and Canada are two completely different countries, different landmasses, different opportunities and while Canada may bring in more immigrants it's policies are still far more stringent than France. Canada's policies are based on need while Frances are based on blind idealism.

And as much as you want to get away from it Canada is an extremely racist society and not some beacon for cultural cohesion. Whether it be immigrant or indigenous peoples Canada has failed, big time.

[Godstud]

And as much as you want to get away from it Canada is an extremely racist society and not some beacon for cultural cohesion. Whether it be immigrant or indigenous peoples Canada has failed, big time.

We can admit we made big mistakes with the aboriginal populations. Trying to fix a long history of this is what we're slowly trying to do. That's not racist. That's accepting we've had problems dealing with them, but most Canadians are NOT racist. You and your Trumpomaniacs(I know you're a big fan) might be, but most Canadians are not.

You are talking out your ass if you think Canada is an extremely racist society. Really talking out your ass, more than usual, that is. We have not failed out immigrants, either. I think you are just plain ignorant about Canada, like you are about most other countries.

Maybe you'd better supply some actual source for this idiotic twaddle.

[Pants-of-dog]

And in Switzerland it's 24.6%, so what?

So, since Switzerland is not having these debates over non-issues, the debate over non-issues is not caused by high levels of immigration.

---------------

I'm afraid it is true, in fact a lot of Frances current social turmoil has much to do with its colonial past.

Yes, colonialism causes problems. That does not mean that colonialism and mass immigration are the same thing.

Quite frankly the two are incomparable, France and Canada are two completely different countries, different landmasses, different opportunities and while Canada may bring in more immigrants it's policies are still far more stringent than France. Canada's policies are based on need while Frances are based on blind idealism.

And as much as you want to get away from it Canada is an extremely racist society and not some beacon for cultural cohesion. Whether it be immigrant or indigenous peoples Canada has failed, big time.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

Please do not quote my posts if you are not going to address my points.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Please don't tell me what posts I can and cannot address.

[Pants-of-dog]

Feel free to reply to my posts.

It is, however, very unlikely that you will receive any reply other than the one I just gave you unless you actually address my claims.

If you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with what I have said, simply post them without quoting me.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yes, the ones who make it thru our immigration process, often called inadequate by some Canadians, are welcomed.

Canada has an immigration process, the same as every other country in the world. That it's more strict than others is quite debatable. It's lengthy, as even a Syrian refugee has a 17 month waiting time(government assisted), but that's because we also take so many refugees(Canada's goal is 250,000 immigrants every year), as well as immigration being a bureaucracy...

I don't think it can be denied that the Canadian immigration system has been more restrictive than that of countries such as France. I think you said as much yourself earlier in this thread. Obviously I'm talking about the selection process not the absolute numbers.

As for refugees, the number of legal asylum applications doesn't seem to be higher in Canada than in Western European countries as far as I can tell, but Canada like Australia has started to come down hard on illegal arrivals. I'm not so sure if Canadians would maintain a welcoming attitude if 300,000 arrived by boat which is roughly equivalent per capita to the number that arrived in Austria in 2015.

As for the whole Canada immigration system topic, I would not argue that Canada has a better immigration system, but instead we have a better system for rapidly integrating immigrants into the workforce. And this is because the gov't decided to lat the groundwork for this about forty years ago.

If your immigration system selects people based on qualification and work experience, then it stands to reason that their integration into the workforce is relatively straightforward. If Canada's workforce integration policies worked as well for low and unskilled migrants I might be impressed and actually attribute the success to it. As it is now, it would be rather an alarming failure if workforce integration didn't happen.

I said it before, but when Canada, the US, Australia or NZ are faced with minorities that include the whole social spectrum they fail just like European countries. High skilled and/or experienced migrants find work in Europe just like they do in Canada. They are often over-qualified for the job, but if I remember correctly that problem also exists in Canada.

[Dagoth Ur]

Literally 100 years ago most western nations had dudes out on the beach measuring girls' swimsuits. Now we are on the other end where there are men on French beaches measuring how much skin must be exposed. But hey whatever right? French women's bodies and clothing decisions belong only to French men after all.

[layman]

Literally 100 years ago most western nations had dudes out on the beach measuring girls' swimsuits. Now we are on the other end where there are men on French beaches measuring how much skin must be exposed. But hey whatever right? French women's bodies and clothing decisions belong only to French men after all.

I agree its a silly move from the french but your sides position that Islamic womens wear is just a "choice" is worse.

[Dagoth Ur]

When you live in France and wear a burka it is absolutely a choice. I'm fine with it tho. I wish all the reactionary scum would start wearing costumes so we could single them out easier.

[Ombrageux]

A large percentage of the native French people is disturbed by the creeping Africanization/Islamization of the French population, which manifests itself in ghettos, crime (including murderous Islamic terrorist attacks against our people), and - as with the burqini - the spread of Islamic customs. These customs are obviously in opposition to what people think is "French" and the nation's tradition of Catholicism/secularism. The media, to a certain extent, gives voice to these concerns. A certain Islamophobia is even tolerated in the media (although only certain "intellectuals" are allowed to do this without social stigma, for some reason, the line between sophisticated "intellectuals" of varying quality (Finkielkraut, Zemmour, Houellebecq and the FN/dissidents is finely policed).

Conservative politicians - like Jacques Chirac or Nicolas Sarkozy - know that they can get their native French constituency to vote by signaling on these ethnic issues. So they'll talk about "crime" (insécurité), they'll ban headscarves in school (Chirac), they'll ban burqas, they'll talk about how Muslims kids are stealing croissants from French kids during Ramadan (Jean-François Copé's fairy tale), and they'll talk about a bunch of other nonsense. Now Sarkozy is talking about the burqini (an absolutely marginal, but highly symbolic phenomenon) in a bid to get elected again. The the more-or-less statified and ideologically-egalitarian French media, because it would rather not talk about consequential things, then makes up a "polemic" about what these politicians are proposing, which the Left then signals against.

But, and this is the crucial thing, no one talks about actually tackling the root cause of the problem: Islamic immigration. Sarkozy did nothing on this, having as many immigrants Hollande or Chirac (more or less). But cuckservatives will vote for Sarkozy based on dumb crap like the burqini, you can bet on that. He is a smooth operator. And by the way, the only political force which seriously proposes to limit immigration - the FN - is informally excluded from power by the conservatives and an electoral law specifically designed to keep the conservative-socialist two-party regime in place.

What I find amazing is that a guy like Sarkozy is both able to professionally pander (race-bait) to the native French in this fashion (and hence he is complicitly cognizant of the realities of ethnicity) and aggressively promote a multiethnic society (even as, again in a cuckey move, he denounces multiculturalism). My mind is not capable of managing such cognitive dissonance but Sarkozy appears to have been born to be a used car salesman. He knows exactly what he is doing. And that is why, in my view, he is a conscious criminal* and an enemy of the French people.

* In this respect, the conscious cuckservative politician is very different from the naïve leftist who, not understanding the laws of heredity, knows not what he does.

[layman]

I wish all the reactionary scum would start wearing costumes so we could single them out easier.

Right. Like the french are doing.

You use the term choice like george bush talks of freedom. As if any of us have full choice and freedom on what we wear and how we present ourselves.

[Rich]

* In this respect, the conscious cuckservative politician is very different from the naïve leftist who, not understanding the laws of heredity, knows not what he does.

While in broad agreement with what you say, it must be said that cultural Marxists and fundamentalist Marxists do consciously come to the defence of the establishment and Cuckservatives. We this with Hillary, Many on the left are quite aware of their new alliance with the Neo Cons to get Hilary elected. Although I have to say I was surprised when Wolfowitz came out so openly for Hilary. I think Neo Conservatives can best help get Hilary elected by pretending to be opposed to her, undermining Trump from the inside, as most still seem to be doing.

[Godstud]

Oh right... Cultural marxism.

'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... the-victim

[Ombrageux]

While in broad agreement with what you say, it must be said that cultural Marxists and fundamentalist Marxists do consciously come to the defence of the establishment and Cuckservatives. We this with Hillary, Many on the left are quite aware of their new alliance with the Neo Cons to get Hilary elected. Although I have to say I was surprised when Wolfowitz came out so openly for Hilary. I think Neo Conservatives can best help get Hilary elected by pretending to be opposed to her, undermining Trump from the inside, as most still seem to be doing.

I agree that many leftists consciously do harm, but I believe most are sincere but misguided (at least among the rank-and-file).

Leftists who race-bait (as Hillary Clinton does) are certainly among the guilty. Furthermore, any "leftists" who support Zionism in Israel but push multiculturalism in the West are also guilty.

[Pants-of-dog]

If your immigration system selects people based on qualification and work experience, then it stands to reason that their integration into the workforce is relatively straightforward. If Canada's workforce integration policies worked as well for low and unskilled migrants I might be impressed and actually attribute the success to it. As it is now, it would be rather an alarming failure if workforce integration didn't happen.

I said it before, but when Canada, the US, Australia or NZ are faced with minorities that include the whole social spectrum they fail just like European countries. High skilled and/or experienced migrants find work in Europe just like they do in Canada. They are often over-qualified for the job, but if I remember correctly that problem also exists in Canada.

Well, we also have refugees and family reunification immigrants, neither of which are selected according to qualifications and work experience. And I think we have no trouble wih those because we have systems to ensure they are supported until they can get their own jobs, even if those jobs are not very good.

---------------

A large percentage of the native French people is disturbed by the creeping Africanization/Islamization of the French population, which manifests itself in ghettos, crime (including murderous Islamic terrorist attacks against our people), and - as with the burqini - the spread of Islamic customs. These customs are obviously in opposition to what people think is "French" and the nation's tradition of Catholicism/secularism. The media, to a certain extent, gives voice to these concerns. A certain Islamophobia is even tolerated in the media (although only certain "intellectuals" are allowed to do this without social stigma, for some reason, the line between sophisticated "intellectuals" of varying quality (Finkielkraut, Zemmour, Houellebecq and the FN/dissidents is finely policed).

If you think the burkini is an Islamic tradition, then you are wrong.

And if French people are getting in a tizzy over this non-issue, then maybe French people are over-reacting.

Conservative politicians - like Jacques Chirac or Nicolas Sarkozy - know that they can get their native French constituency to vote by signaling on these ethnic issues. So they'll talk about "crime" (insécurité), they'll ban headscarves in school (Chirac), they'll ban burqas, they'll talk about how Muslims kids are stealing croissants from French kids during Ramadan (Jean-François Copé's fairy tale), and they'll talk about a bunch of other nonsense. Now Sarkozy is talking about the burqini (an absolutely marginal, but highly symbolic phenomenon) in a bid to get elected again. The the more-or-less statified and ideologically-egalitarian French media, because it would rather not talk about consequential things, then makes up a "polemic" about what these politicians are proposing, which the Left then signals against.

What does the left have to do with this? The conservatives got all uptight about a bathing suit, and the court slapped them down. Are you now arguing at the French judicial system is the left?

But, and this is the crucial thing, no one talks about actually tackling the root cause of the problem: Islamic immigration. Sarkozy did nothing on this, having as many immigrants Hollande or Chirac (more or less). But cuckservatives will vote for Sarkozy based on dumb crap like the burqini, you can bet on that. He is a smooth operator. And by the way, the only political force which seriously proposes to limit immigration - the FN - is informally excluded from power by the conservatives and an electoral law specifically designed to keep the conservative-socialist two-party regime in place.

Actually, a lot of people talk about it. Mostly racist people. I have no idea why anti-immigration people always pretend they are being censored when imiigration is such a huge debate topic.

What I find amazing is that a guy like Sarkozy is both able to professionally pander (race-bait) to the native French in this fashion (and hence he is complicitly cognizant of the realities of ethnicity) and aggressively promote a multiethnic society (even as, again in a cuckey move, he denounces multiculturalism). My mind is not capable of managing such cognitive dissonance but Sarkozy appears to have been born to be a used car salesman. He knows exactly what he is doing. And that is why, in my view, he is a conscious criminal* and an enemy of the French people.

I think you are more than capable of such cognitive dissonance. Do not sell yourself short.

In my opinion, the French fov't is pandering and enabling this anti-immigration bias for two reasons: the first is to maintain or strengthen their power by pandering to racism, and the second is to create a narrative wherein French people are victims and are therefore morally justified in continuing their military interventions in MENA countries.

* In this respect, the conscious cuckservative politician is very different from the naïve leftist who, not understanding the laws of heredity, knows not what he does.

And you could not let it pass without a dig at leftists, and I find it amusing that you accuse your opponents of not understanding heredity while you yourslef believe that race is an intelligent and biologically sound way to categorise people.

And you even think Hillary Clinton is a leftist. Lol.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I agree its a silly move from the french but your sides position that Islamic womens wear is just a "choice" is worse.

Some do have a choice some don't, that's life unfortunate as it may seem. My gripe is when the people we pay to protect and serve the public take it upon themselves to make those sort of choices.

We can't open our borders and allow floods of immigrants into our nations and then expect them to change to suit our ways of life as long as they live lawfully. That's not their problem that's our problem, it's our reckless arrogance and delusion of a perfect world that has created this mess.

We see it across the globe, different ethnic groups and cultures living side by side for generations and yet the divides endure to this day and it's often greatest seen in the west where we have developed our own ethnic sub classes, a virtual self sustaining slave class to scrub toilets cook burgers and remain in poverty.

Islamic culture is just not compatible with the west, we have our faults arguably greater than those of Islam but ultimately the way women are viewed and treated in north Africa and the Middle East is unacceptable and I'm not talking about the Burkas or women drivers.

And it's only a matter of time before these laws brought in to fight terrorism and what not are adapted to be used on the general public and must be stopped now.

[Political Interest]

We can't open our borders and allow floods of immigrants into our nations and then expect them to change to suit our ways of life as long as they live lawfully. That's not their problem that's our problem, it's our reckless arrogance and delusion of a perfect world that has created this mess.

I am continually amazed at the arrogance of our political classes who think they can achieve this. They are as bad as fanatical Marxists who want to pursue the absolute command economy regardless of whether it actually functions or not.

We see it across the globe, different ethnic groups and cultures living side by side for generations and yet the divides endure to this day and it's often greatest seen in the west where we have developed our own ethnic sub classes, a virtual self sustaining slave class to scrub toilets cook burgers and remain in poverty.

Anyone with common sense would have been able to see that it was a bad idea. It was possible to come to such conclusions even as far back as 1965. How the people who engineered this thought it was going to end well is beyond me. They wanted cheap labour and created a parallel underclass.

This underclass will eventually consume and dominate the very same elite class that brought it into existence.

And it's only a matter of time before these laws brought in to fight terrorism and what not are adapted to be used on the general public and must be stopped now.

Indeed.