Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

Recommended Posts

What percentage of Canadians are uncomfortable with and/or opposed to immigration levels?

Who cares?  Not the Government of Canada, obviously.

Canada is not a republic and it is not a democracy neither.

Representative government, constitutional monarchy.

It is not for the Canadian public to say how much immigration there should be, there is no public rule.

And for good reason, as without a constitution, that public rule is the rule of a mob.

You vote for an MP to represent you, that is all.   You don't get any other say than that, and those MP's report to the Queen not you.

The immigration levels are by order of the Queen, and the immigrants enjoy Her protection.

By the Constitution of Canada, it's literally none of your business, unless and until you take the oath and serve the Queen as Her MP.

Moreover, there is no First Amendment in Canada, you don't have the right to speak out against immigration levels per se.

If at any point the MP's deem that to be in contravention of the Queen's Peace, they can and will invoke the authority of the Queen to crack down on you.

If you want to take it to the streets?  Try to legislate from the streets?  First comes the RCMP, if they can't quell you, next comes the Army.

In the unlikely event that you would stand and deliver against Leopard 2 main battle tanks to defeat the Army?

Canada ceases to exist, the Crown has fallen, and you are American by default;  report to Washington DC at the Rotunda on Constitutions Ave.

You don't really think that we Americans are going to let you overthrow your Queen and then run some sort of fascist republic up here, do you?

No guy, if you overthrow the Queen, we are taking control, make no mistake.

America defends the British Crown,   The Fake Country has no friends, no allies, no army, nothing.

The Fake Country People's Republic of Canada is hostile to America, we never signed a treaty with a bunch of speech banning, gun grabbing, freedom hating prigs.

Without the British Crown, you no longer enjoy the protection of the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, which is in fact the only thing protecting you.

Manifest Destiny.  NORTHCOM.   Suck it, Canada.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF, Dougie?  Where do you get this stuff?  The Queen has zero input on immigration to Canada.  Horse racing and corgis?  Sure.  The only time I've heard of the Queen intervening in Canadian politics when a Quebec DJ pretended to be Chretien over the phone to the Queen and asked her to weigh in on the referendum.  Incredibly, she went along with it and was very supportive.  She asked him what he'd like her to do.  He said, "Just where one of those cute hats." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

WTF, Dougie?  Where do you get this stuff?  The Queen has zero input on immigration to Canada.

The MP's swear to bear true and faithful allegiance to Her, not you.

They decide how many immigrants Canada needs, on Her authority, not yours.

They don't answer to you, they answer to the Queen, what they decide, they decide on Her behalf.

You can choose someone else to be your MP, but that person reports to the Queen to.

Canada is not a republic, there is no public rule, you don't get a say, other than which person you want to represent the Queen to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just wrong.  MP's answer to the Canadian people.  If they don't their asses don't get reelected, period.  The Queen represents a rubber stamp on certain items that she still signs.  Again, if it wasn't a rubber stamp, there would be trouble, unless Parliament tried to legislate something clearly destructive to the people, in which case she could dissolve it.  Actually she doesn't really even play that role.  The GG does.  The Queen signs off on the PM's recommendation of who will be GG.  If she did not, that would be unprecedented.  The Queen was a driver during the war and is a very bright lady.  I trust her judgement, but she doesn't enact any legislation in Canada.  She signs off on the items Parliament enacts.

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You're just wrong.  MP's answer to the Canadian people.  If they don't they're asses don't get reelected, period.

You are wrong.  You can replace your MP,  but the new MP has to swear a legally binding oath to the Queen as well.

That MP is not bound to make decisions on your behalf, in fact, it is their duty not to.

They are bound by solemn oath to make decisions in the interests of the Crown, even if you don't like it.

In the case of immigration, they are bound to not respond to a the mob rule of Argusland whining about it.

If Argusland gets disruptive about it, the MP is bound to crack down on that mob with as much force as is necessary to quell them.

And that's what they do, which is why Argus is whining about it, and yet they are ignoring him and retaining the mandate to crack down on him as necessary.

As an American, I can tee off on Immigrants to the threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio

Argus doesn't have that right, the immigrants enjoy the protection of the Queen, and it is the MP's duty to protect them from a mob of Argus's trying to drive them out.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I am disruptive of the Queen's Peace in Canada.

As a resident I follow Canadian law, the rule of the British Crown.

I am not want to tee off on immigrants to the threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio.

If I was, I would take it across the border to the land of the free.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are the interests of "the Crown"?  It's the people's interests.  It has to be.  The monarch, in Canada the GG, can only intervene against Parliament on behalf of the people.  Not even Quebec's anti-Charter religious garb ban is being challenged despite its impact on minorities, whose right to religious freedom is protected by the Charter.  If anything, the mob have had a bit too much free reign in Canada, yet neither the Queen nor the GG will weigh in.  The Supreme Court might play a role in declaring Quebec's law unconstitutional, but then there's the notwithstanding clause...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

And what are the interests of "the Crown"?  It's the people's interests.  It has to be.

Not necessarily.

In the Army we trained and prepared to use force against Canadians.

It's called Aid to the Civil Power.

That Civil Power is not you.

The Civil Power is the Queen.

In the case of anti-Immigrant sentiment, Canadians are restricted by the Queen's Peace.

If Canadians rabble rouse against immigrants in contravention of the Queen's Peace, the MP's have a solemn duty to crack down on those Canadians.

In America, this is not the case, short of breaching Brandenburg v. Ohio, Americans can hate on immigrants to their hearts content.

Not the case in Canada, Canada is a monarchy, Canadians are not in charge, other than selecting which Canadian they want to represent the Queen in their riding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, what Justin Trudeau says is true; the MP is not your representative to the government, the MP is the government's representative to you.

Queen Elizabeth II is that government, she tells you what is what, through Her MP

You don't tell Her what to do, you can simply swap out the person who is telling you what to do.

This is also why the RCMP will not arrest Justin Trudeau for obstruction of justice as Nancy Pelosi would be in America.

Justin Trudeau has Parliamentary Supremacy.   He is the Queen's Executive.

The RCMP reports to the Queen.  So long as Justin has the Queen's authority, the RCMP will not overrule Her, short of a threat to public safety.

It's not symbolic.  It is legally binding, the Mounties serve the Queen, the Army serves the Queen

Justin Trudeau represents the Queen, so he has the broad powers of the monarch at his disposal, which no American politician has, not even the POTUS

Justin Trudeau, as the Queen's Executive, can break the law, because what the Queen says is the law, Justin Trudeau simply invokes Her authority.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake, as a Canadian soldier I was fully prepared to shoot you dead.  Fully prepared to crush you under the tracks of my M113.

Because if it came to that, it would only be because you were against the Queen and trying to force the issue.

So for example, let's say the Republic of Argusland shows up on Parliament Hill to inveigh against the immigrants.

The Queen will direct them to knock it off, through Her Executive.

If they don't knock it off, the Mounties go in first.

If that doesn't work, they will turn to the PM and ask for back up,

The troops will then be called down to Ottawa from Camp Petawawa.

Then the escalation of force operation will commence.

If you don't heed the Queen's order to cease and desist, the troops will be ordered to advance to clear the objective.

If you don't back the f*ck off, it will be like Bloody Sunday and the Bogside Massacre, we would kill you, by order of Elizabeth Windsor, Julie Payette must obey Her too.

I for one would sleep like a baby after, the enemies of the Crown are the enemies of the Crown, nowhere is it written that Canadians have the right to defy the Crown.

Not to mention that Canadians are a bunch of self righteous prigs who despise America, so I'd probably enjoy sinking my teeth into them.

Just like the Cops at the G20.  Bear in mind that the Army was waiting in the wings to come in to back them up as necessary.

Because mass immigration is a Progressive imperative, Anti-Immigrant protestors would not likely get much sympathy from the public anyways.

Progressives are in fact totalitarian about immigration, any defiance of their mass immigration agenda is invoked as crime in of itself.

Certainly the pro-immigration state media propaganda arms would condemn Arguslanders as "terrorists" which would give the state the green light to use brute force.

God save the Queen.  God and Her right.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cougar said:

You've stated that this is how the crown established its presence in North America and that all this is fine and dandy and acceptable.

I stated that this was how EVERY NATION ON EARTH established its presence.

That does not imply approval or disapproval. Either would be irrelevant. That was simply how things worked back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Crown did not take Canada by force of arms from the indians.

The British Crown took Canada by force of arms from the French.

Indians were the allies of the British Crown in taking Canada.

Particularly the fiercest Indians of the them all in country, the Iroquois led by the Mohawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to your first comment, stop projecting your feelings on me. I do not see things as right or wrong, you do.,

And yet your entire time here has been one long whine about how the statistics about immigration are 'smearing' all immigrants and that using them is 'name calling'. 

Quote

I see two or more view points none wrong or right.

Bullshit. You've made it very clear that you are angered when anyone uses statistics, even those from the government, about immigration, because somehow you think this 'smears all immigrants'. This is a ludicrous view, but it seems to have angered you nonetheless.

Quote

n regards to your second comment you again demonstrate the name calling only this time you tone down your last name calling and you make a meaningless comment.

Bullshit. I told you last time to list exactly who I am name-calling and how I am smearing anyone and you have refused. This demonstrates that you are not interested in an honest and factual discussion but merely in insulting me with your continuing bluster of inane accusations.

Quote

How is your opinion any less bias than this group's opinion? How is the Fraser report less bias than the opinions of this group?

Well, for one thing, they do not have a monetary incentive to lie, like the corporate lobby group does.

Quote

Your  third comment again starts with you trying to be personal with me with an insult, suggesting because I do not agree with you and debate you I must have poor communication skills. Next you then proceed to contradict yourself denying you make generalizations about all immigrants then continue to do just that in the very response and yes  your exercise is moronic thank you.

I'm tired of your continuing accusations. I've asked you several times to explain exactly how I have smeared immigrants or insulted them and all I get is more bluster and indignant accusations. I'm done with you. Go and whine at someone else. You contribute nothing to this discussion.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly remarks all.  If the Queen ever tried to order Canadian soldiers to abuse the Canadian people or their Parliament, that’s the end of the monarchy in Canada.  Your Queen’s Peace means fuck all without Parliamentary or at least PMO assent.  No law or legal enforcement without chain of command, and at the top of the federal chain are the PMO, the Senate and the court, with sign off from the GG.  It’s scary that misconceptions like yours exist, Dougie.   I guess some people want to believe in unaccountable authority lording over them.  Yet the precedents have been set and are clear on limits to the monarch’s authority.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dialamah said:

Argus said this, but I copied from Rue's post.

This looks like Argus being honest:  he believes immigrants have fewer "rights" to this country than non-immigrants.  This isn't true,  according to the law, of course. 

It isn't a matter of legal rights. All the people who lobby for or are activists for the natives continually make the point that they have more right to the land than we do, that they were here first, that we are interlopers, or 'settlers'. All I'm doing is pointing out what a brainless, bullshit argument that is.

Quote

But for those who do believe immigrants have fewer rights than non-immigrants, it's easy for them to assume every white looking person is not immigrant, and every non-white looking person is immigrant,

According to Statistics Canada almost 70% of visible minorities are immigrants and almost all the rest are their kids.

Quote

regardless of the individual's birthplace, or their parent's/grandparent's birthplace.  No doubt this personal bias results in an assumption of their own duperior entitlement vis a vis non-white Canadians.  This attitude is discrimnatory and racist.

No, it just shows superior knowledge. But nice on you for pulling up a strawman based on your own low knowledge about the numbers and then using it to get on a moral high horse and cast aspersions on people. It's just so typical of you and your shrill way of insulting people rather than discussing subjects.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tired of hearing about the bloody British crown. Every time that guy gets on a topic all he ever does is totally derail it towards more discussions about the bloody British crown. Stop replying to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Silly remarks all.  If the Queen ever tried to order Canadian soldiers to abuse the Canadian people or their Parliament, that’s the end of the monarchy in Canada.  Your Queen’s Peace means fuck all without Parliamentary or at least PMO assent.  No law or legal enforcement without chain of command, and at the top of the federal chain are the PMO, the Senate and the court, with sign off from the GG.  It’s scary that misconceptions like yours exist, Dougie.   I guess some people want to believe in unaccountable authority lording over them.  Yet the precedents have been set and are clear on limits to the monarch’s authority.  

You're the one with misconceptions, the misconception that Canada is some sort of peoples republic with a citizens army.

That's simply not the case.   The Crown defends against a rule of a mob.  Canadians do not have the right to act against the Crown.

If Canadians are rabble rousing, the Queen's Peace will be invoked, starting with legal force.

If Canadians fail to heed the legal force, armed force comes next.   Starting with the constabulary.

If Canadians do not heed the constabulary, the military comes next under order in council.

That order in council is not in the name of nor in defence of the Canadians public.

The order in council is to use military force against the Canadian public, in defence of Peace & Order, in the name of the Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

I'm tired of hearing about the bloody British crown. Every time that guy gets on a topic all he ever does is totally derail it towards more discussions about the bloody British crown. Stop replying to him.

I'm tired of your routine of whining about immigrants and then accusing everybody of picking on you, you're boring. Your routine is boring, and all your posts are the same.

What is sauce for the goose . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an excellent piece in the Financial Post about a recent study by economists on immigration. The study concluded that the impact of immigration is entirely the result of how well calculated your system is in bringing over the right type of immigrants. Which means that you need to know exactly what you want of immigration, and exactly what kind and number of immigrants will reach that goal.

Unfortunately, our immigration system has no goals. Therefore we make no effort at reaching them. Nor can we measure our success rate.

What is the optimal immigration policy?

I’d vote for that as one of the questions in the upcoming leaders’ debates, though I’m pretty sure journalists won’t limit themselves to six-word questions, however much we viewer-voters might wish they would.

In fact, “What is the optimal immigration policy? Migration, jobs and welfare” is the title of a new research paper by three Portuguese economists published by the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. They are Joao Guerreiro and Sergio Rebelo from Northwestern University in Chicago and Pedro Teles of the Bank of Portugal. Their answer, not surprisingly, is “It depends.”

“Yeah, it depends whether you’re a racist or not” will be the rejoinder of some people over the next six politically charged weeks. The operating assumption in progressive circles these days seems to be that if you think the optimal level of immigration is lower than the current level, you must be a racist. My guess is that view will come through in mainstream coverage of the Maxime Bernier party, which wants immigration reduced from the current plan of 350,000 a year to 150,000.

But if you’re not locked-in ideologically, it should be obvious that what the optimal immigration policy is really does depend. In particular, argue the three economists, it depends on: how immigrants affect the economy and public services, which policy instruments are available to government, and what the government is trying to maximize. If it aims to maximize world welfare, it will take one approach. But if it wants to maximize the welfare of the people who already live here, or even of some subset of those people — the middle class, say, and those working hard to join it — then it will take another approach. Under some operating assumptions, the model the three economists build says let everyone in: have completely unrestricted immigration. Under other assumptions, however, it calls for strict limits, including in some cases no unskilled immigrants at all.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-modelling-the-best-immigration-policy-is-awfully-complicated-stuff

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm tired of your routine of whining about immigrants and then accusing everybody of picking on you, you're boring. Your routine is boring, and all your posts are the same.

What is sauce for the goose . . .

Hey, genius, the topic here is immigration. If you want to start a topic about your wet dreams for the crown go create it elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Argus said:

Hey, genius, the topic here is immigration. If you want to start a topic about your wet dreams for the crown go create it elsewhere.

I'm addressing the topic, obviously the Crown of Canada is central to immigration in Canada, since the Crown of Canada is Canada, and as such makes immigration policy in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s all agree that once someone becomes a Canadian citizen, he or she is no less Canadian than anyone else.  The question is, how many non-Canadians should be allowed to become Canadian and what is the criteria they must meet to become Canadian?  What kind of Canada do we want?  The criteria for entry matter because new members in a community impact that community.  The quantity matters because when the numbers are high the impacts are also high, especially if there are big cultural differences.   People seem afraid of calling out the changes that they fear because they don’t want to stand accused of racism, but not liking a particular culture’s approach isn’t necessarily personal or bad.  It just means one dislikes it.  For example, I don’t like some European continental hygiene or think it’s okay that some people in parts of Asia wipe their asses with their bare hands.  That doesn’t mean I don’t love them all in a kind of universal love of humanity way.  It just means I don’t want to be around people whose hands are dirty and stink.  These are important distinctions that have nothing to do with racism.  It’s why many Canadian women don’t want to visit some Muslim countries.  They don’t want to have to cover their heads or require a man to accompany them everywhere they go.  Many Canadians don’t want to see such practices become commonplace in Canada, because that goes against a Canadian way of being that most Canadians value.  Nothing wrong with that.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Let’s all agree that once someone becomes a Canadian citizens, he or she is no less Canadian than anyone else.

I think the immigrants for the most part are better Canadians.  Native born Canadians have become soft, weak, meek, and entitled.

Native born Canadians basically want handouts from the government and government jobs for life.  Most of them are communists by nature.

The immigrants are more committed to Canada than native born Canadians, and the immigrants don't blame all their woes on America.

Even in terms of the military, the immigrants are taking over. 

I went to a Militia parade the other day, the whole unit was visible minorities, there were more Sikhs in the ranks than anybody.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Asians, Hong Kong Chinese, and Filipinos.

That is the future of Canada.

British Canadians? 

Barely any of us left, the vast majority of Canadians are not British anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

South Asians, Hong Kong Chinese, and Filipinos.

That is the future of Canada.

British Canadians? 

Barely any of us left, the vast majority of Canadians are not British anymore.

It’s not a colour or ethnicity thing, maybe for some.  It’s a question of how well immigrants mesh culturally/ideologically with mainstream Canada and weather the economic impacts are more positive or negative.  

If the infrastructure (roads, transit, hospitals, housing, and social services costs) in our urban centres become overtaxed and native-born Canadians feel culturally overwhelmed or that their quality of life is compromised, for example by development that is too concentrated and communities that are overcrowded, there will be a backlash against immigration that will lead to a sharp decline in immigration numbers, which is why if we want to maintain at least a moderate amount of immigration, we need to plan it more carefully.  I think a residential requirement and close monitoring of local impacts are critical tools.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...