Justin Trudeau: Canada will lift the visa requirement for Mexican visitors

[ObsoleteSoul]

Exactly, in the US you have a major problem with racism and xenophobia. It leads to immigrants from other cultures not assimilating. Canada is much more inclusive and not scared of other cultures. It all stems from your patriarchal institutions.

Oh Jesus, we got a live one here....

 

[IDL]

Oh Jesus, we got a live one here....

Recent graduate by the looks of it.

 

[Bald1]

Good for Canada.

You really cannot ask for better immigrants than those who come from Mexico. High workforce participation and low crime rates compared to demographics of similar economic standing.

And their food is the best.

We could do worse than Mexican immigrants, that's for sure.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Exactly, in the US you have a major problem with racism and xenophobia. It leads to immigrants from other cultures not assimilating. Canada is much more inclusive and not scared of other cultures. It all stems from your patriarchal institutions.

You literally have it backwards. The subscribes the melting pot theory, where all immigrants are expected to assimilate and the vast majority eventually do and have. Canada subscribes to the multiculturalism theory which states that there is no need for people from other cultures to assimilate, that reasonable measures should be taken to accommodate different cultures. This has resulted a FAR greater fractionalization of Canada by race and culture then the US. Only someone with little actual experience with either way say otherwise.

 

[Awesomesauce]

We could do worse than Mexican immigrants, that's for sure.

The issue isn't the immigrants themselves, I would have far less trouble taking in 10k Mexican immigrants each year that come and assimilate then having 5k guest workers that come, make their money then go home, and don't spend their money locally. This system is terrible for the local economy.

 

[Trotsky]

We could do worse than Mexican immigrants, that's for sure.

As much as I detest Islamaphobia, I really thought the hysteria over Syrian refugees would displace the Mexican immigrants obsession, or at least bring attention to the fact that it's a complete non-issue.

 

[Bald1]

The issue isn't the immigrants themselves, I would have far less trouble taking in 10k Mexican immigrants each year that come and assimilate then having 5k guest workers that come, make their money then go home, and don't spend their money locally. This system is terrible for the local economy.

I get you and agree. The thing is, Mexicans are more likely to assimilate than immigrants from Muslim countries. Making a buck then helping foreign economies should be a no no in my mind as well.

I'm an immigrant, and am very vocal about the advantages of the melting pot model vs multiculturalism. It's one of the very few things I get confrontational about in real life. As far as I'm concerned if you move to a new country you should make every effort to become part of that society. If not, then gtfo.

 

[Bald1]

As much as I detest Islamaphobia, I really thought the hysteria over Syrian refugees would misplace the Mexican immigrants obsession, or at least bring attention to the fact that it's a complete non-issue.

Let's not confuse a valid criticism of an ideology with irrational fear and hatred, and drag this thread in that direction. There's lots of ongoing threads where we can discuss "Islamsphobia".

I agree though, I don't see Mexican immigration as an issue to get worked up about.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

I'd rather have a million poor third worlders than your racist ass. Racism and xenophobia aren't welcome in Canada.

African Americans and hispanics have a gang problem because of historical racism from white people, men in particular. That's why it's so important to challenge patriarchal xenophobia. In Canada, we have actively sought to include women everywhere and treat immigrants fairly. That's why we don't have the race problems that you get in America.

Because 3rd worlders could never be racist themselves, only "white" people are xenophobic. Everyone else is loving and caring towards everyone.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

As much as I detest Islamaphobia, I really thought the hysteria over Syrian refugees would displace the Mexican immigrants obsession, or at least bring attention to the fact that it's a complete non-issue.

LOL @ "Islamaphobia".

 

[Trotsky]

LOL @ "Islamaphobia".

I have a feeling that a lot of your posts consist of "LOL @ [large word]"

 

[Slippery Kantus]

I have a feeling that a lot of your posts consist of "LOL @ [large word]"

Well you can easily look through my posts to verify how wrong you are.

 

[Trotsky]

Well you can easily look through my posts to verify how wrong you are.

LOL @ "posts"

 

[Slippery Kantus]

LOL @ "posts"

Dick tuck noted, hypocrite.

 

[Trotsky]

Dick tuck noted, hypocrite.

And an insult added to boot. No, I'm not going to trudge through your post history just to prove that "LOL @ Islamaphobia" is a rare case of shit posting. Because no great poster would reduce themselves to inserting themselves into a conversation for that offering. The burden of proof is on you, since you, after all, are the one representing yourself with sophomoric posts.

How's about you expand on your initial post and explain why "Islamaphobia" is a funny word to you. Does irrational prejudice based on Islamic faith not exist and serve to marginalize millions of people and cut them off from refuge and access to resources?

Here's your chance to shine, kid.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

And an insult added to boot. No, I'm not going to trudge through your post history just to prove that "LOL @ Islamaphobia" is a rare case of shit posting. Because no great poster would reduce themselves to inserting themselves into a conversation for that offering. The burden of proof is on you, since you, after all, are the one representing yourself with sophomoric posts.

How's about you expand on your initial post and explain why "Islamaphobia" is a funny word to you. Does irrational prejudice based on Islamic faith not exist and serve to marginalize millions of people and cut them off from refuge and access to resources?

Here's your chance to shine, kid.

Nope that's not how this works son, you made the claim so you need to provide evidence to support it.

You're assuming people's fear is irrational, why can't people have legit concerns related towards a hateful ideology?

 

[Trotsky]

Nope that's not how this works son, you made the claim so you need to provide evidence to support it.

You're assuming people's fear is irrational, why can't people have legit concerns related towards a hateful ideology?

My "claim" amounts to the fact that I had the personal feelings that you're a moron. I do not need to qualify that feeling.

They can fear whatever they want, just as a claustrophobic is free to fear sleeping bags . That "legit" concern, however, would need to be within proper contexts regarding socioeconomics, the statistical likelihood of that still-small minority persisting absent environmental conductors, and the relative moral benefit of preventing this small likelihood of events against the cost of disenfranchising millions of starving, suffering innocents and fostering xenophobic dynamics that these terrorist institutions subsist on.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

My "claim" amounts to the fact that I had the personal feelings that you're a moron. I do not need to qualify that feeling.

So you made a claim which you cannot back up, therefore you're wrong. Glad we got to the bottom of that.

They can fear whatever they want, just as a claustrophobic is free to fear sleeping bags . That "legit" concern, however, would need to be within proper contexts regarding socioeconomics, the statistical likelihood of that still-small minority persisting absent environmental conductors, and the relative moral benefit of preventing this small likelihood of events against the cost of disenfranchising millions of starving, suffering innocents and fostering xenophobic dynamics that these terrorist institutions subsist on.

And that's our problem how? We have enough problems in NA as is that we cannot solve, why should we take in more dredges just because they live in a warzone? By all means, let them try to immigrate through the proper channels like our ancestors did but this "refugee" bullshit is just that, bullshit. We bring them here throw them into subsidized housing and pay for them. A country should be focused on helping it's citizens have the best lives possible, not trying to clean up some shitstain countries problems. Why doesn't an "ally" of ours like Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees"?

 

[Trotsky]

So you made a claim which you cannot back up, therefore you're wrong. Glad we got to the bottom of that.



And that's our problem how? We have enough problems in NA as is that we cannot solve, why should we take in more dredges just because they live in a warzone? By all means, let them try to immigrate through the proper channels like our ancestors did but this "refugee" bullshit is just that, bullshit. We bring them here throw them into subsidized housing and pay for them. A country should be focused on helping it's citizens have the best lives possible, not trying to clean up some shitstain countries problems. Why doesn't an "ally" of ours like Saudi Arabia take in these "refugees"?

(1) The "avenues" that our ancestors took no longer exist.

(2) Even if they did, many of these people are homeless and indigent, so they have no means of access

(3) It's our problem because we have the most resources in the world and we are completely and immorally wasteful-- the amount of thrown-away food in the United States in one year would provide for starving people the world over-- and our country has and continues to exploit that region and foster this environment of violence, from Iran, to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria (the first three more so than the last one).

(4) It's our problem because, having the most resources and riches, we are not selfish pieces of shit. We are Americans. If we fuck shit up and cause millions to suffer, we spare that of which we have too much

(5) Saudi Arabia isn't an ally. They are a pawn that wealthy neoliberals use to maintain wealth and prosperity on the backs of poor here and abroad. Saudi Arabia is, thank God, not a measuring stick for any state of any moral character.

(6) "A country should be focused on helping it's citizens have the best lives possible" presents a very integral and inherent disagreement between us. This is a nationalist statement built off of nominal distinctions and can be applied to excuse a number of evils. Should we have allowed slavery? Should we exploit child labor? Should we topple every South American government so we can exploit their resources?
Where does it end if the state's only concern is enriching their own citizens?

Also, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on domestic policy now that we've discerned your central intention to provide the best life possible for every American citizen. I can only assume you support single payer, restrictions on accumulation of private property, labor-side economics, massive wealth redistribution, restrictions on predatory business practice, etc, etc, etc

 

[Slippery Kantus]

(1) The "avenues" that our ancestors took no longer exist.

Just like how we no longer rely on immigrants or "refugees" to build the country from the ground up like we once did.

(2) Even if they did, many of these people are homeless and indigent, so they have no means of access

Ok, once again how is this our problem or responsibilty to fix? Their own governments fucked their people, not us.

(3) It's our problem because we have the most resources in the world and we are completely and immorally wasteful-- the amount of thrown-away food in the United States in one year would provide for starving people the world over-- and our country has and continues to exploit that region and foster this environment of violence, from Iran, to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria (the first three more so than the last one).

I'm not American so this has no affect on me, I'm Canadian. I agree it's beyond fucked up what the USA has done to the ME, and many other countries throughout the world.

(4) It's our problem because, having the most resources and riches, we are not selfish pieces of shit. We are Americans. If we fuck shit up and cause millions to suffer, we spare that of which we have too much

So it's selfish to want "refugees" to immigrate properly? Or our "allies" who are much closer societally and geographically to take in these people? Saudi's aren't hard for cash in case you are unaware. Or maybe it's selfish to not want your country taking in people who's whole belief system is based on violence and hate.

(5) Saudi Arabia isn't an ally. They are a pawn that wealthy neoliberals use to maintain wealth and prosperity on the backs of poor here and abroad. Saudi Arabia is, thank God, not a measuring stick for any state of any moral character.

They actually are an ally, just ask your own government if you're confused. We can shit on them all day for the atrocious country they are, but the US still aligns itself with them.

(6) "A country should be focused on helping it's citizens have the best lives possible" presents a very integral and inherent disagreement between us. This is a nationalist statement built off of nominal distinctions and can be applied to excuse a number of evils. Should we have allowed slavery? Should we exploit child labor? Should we topple every South American government so we can exploit their resources?
Where does it end if the state's only concern is enriching their own citizens?

Lol, you're totally right dude. Countries shouldn't look out for their own citizens first. The ME would NEVER use slavery or topple other governments.... We all know damn well if the roles were reversed countries like Qatar, SA, Turkey, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran etc would be helping us all out from the good nature of their hearts.....

Also, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on domestic policy now that we've discerned your central intention to provide the best life possible for every American citizen. I can only assume you support single payer, restrictions on accumulation of private property, labor-side economics, massive wealth redistribution, restrictions on predatory business practice, etc, etc, etc

Those are your assumptions, you sure love to assume things lol.