# Refugees (was: Immigration)



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

On the news this morning a poll was said to show a majority of Canadians want less refugees admitted to Canada.

I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding of the difference between refugees and economic migrants. Everyone in Canada today other than indigenous people, are a result of economic migration. If you yourself did not immigrate to Canada, your parents or grandparents or greatgrandparents, etc. no doubt did. We all got here through immigration.

Refugees on the other hand do NOT have the choice of whether to immigrate to another country or not. They FLEE their home countries out of necessity. Persecution, war, etc. mean they are in a life-threatening situation. What would you do in their situation? 

Misunderstandings however arise when one category is confused with the other. Let's suppose we can handle 100k new residents per year. Should we limit the number of refugees we take or limit the number of economic migrants we take? One is fleeing potential death while the other is trying to earn a better style of life. Given those facts, it would make more moral sense to limit legal immigrants rather than refugees.

Unfortunately, the media including social media do not paint a clear picture for people to look at and form their opinions. People think every one of those coming across the border from the USA is a 'refugee', when in fact many are not, they are 'economic migrants'. They all apply for refugee status, that is true. But they do so since they must, it is the only way they will be allowed to stay if they are granted refugee status. But in fact, many are not granted refugee status and are deported. 
https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx

I think this is why the poll shows Canadians want to allow fewer refugees into Canada, they don't know the difference and the actual numbers involved. In the last two years, only 6900 of the Irregular Border Crossers have been granted refugee status. Should we have denied them sanctuary?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> On the news this morning a poll was said to show a majority of Canadians want less refugees admitted to Canada.
> 
> I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding of the difference between refugees and economic migrants. Everyone in Canada today other than indigenous people, are a result of economic migration. If you yourself did not immigrate to Canada, your parents or grandparents or greatgrandparents, etc. no doubt did. We all got here through immigration.
> 
> ...


I object to your statement that we're all immigrants.
I was born in Canada, I am native born Canadian, I am not an immigrant.


As for more or less immigration or refugees, few know what the actual numbers are.
I think we can handle somewhere between 200-300k immigrants per year. 
Canada has relatively high levels of immigration, and most of it is quite successful.

There are a few concerns with high levels of refugees however. 
Firstly Canada has one of the highest refugee acceptance rates, per capita, and in absolute terms. We take a lot.

The problem is our systems are overloaded and we can't properly support and integrate them. We're having trouble keeping up and it causes problems.
Refugees don't meet the same criteria as immigrants, so they typically have a much harder time integrating into Canada.
They don't necessarily have the language or other skills to function and get a job for some time. Most immigrants speak at least one official language, and have a skilled and employable wage earner.

It can be very stressful on the people if they are having trouble integrating, particularly if they don't speak the language.
I deal with some refugee families in my volunteer work, it's odd speaking to a 6yr old who translates for their parents.
But it has to be stressful, and there is still clearly a cultural divide that they're working through.
They need help.

Not enough proper support is bad for everyone.
It's bad for the refugee, it's bad for the community they get dumped into, and it hurts the public opinion of refugees so it also hurts other refugees.

Myself I do question how much should we spend on helping refugees, when we have Canadian citizens who still lack basic needs like shelter and safe drinking water?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Yes, I'd say that the majority of people on the surface don't understand the nomenclature. If you push them and try to explain it, they may agree that there is a difference, but they vastly overestimate the number of refugees vs number of immigrants.

Our economic growth and quality of life is predicated on healthy population growth. Locals are having less kids which means immigrant numbers need to increase to keep that healthy population growth number. Those that are steadfast against immigration should step up to the plate and have bigger families.

On the subject of refugees, I think it is our moral duty to accept some. Maybe a % of our population. With increasing changes to the climate, there are going to be a lot more refugees in the next generation. Canada has a pretty strong moat to get access with large cold oceans, the arctic, and a large, well armed country below us that is getting more hostile to refugees.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think most Canadians care about the difference between refugees and immigration. It is all word semantics to them.

All they know is "new" people arrive and appear to blend in just fine. I doubt most Canadians see a crisis in immigration or refugee policy.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

longtimeago is so much fun

do u think he meant to double-launch this thread in duplicate?

so the camps can line up pro & con immigration maybe??

this seems to be the moderate camp so i'll put my X here

btw there's nothing wrong with a child interpreting english or french for his newly-arrived parents who don't speak either. Kid gets to feel smart & powerful. 

when i lived in france moroccan women were always asking me to read labels on grocery products for them. Before long i realized that, as muslim women growing up in north africa, they had been denied an education. Perhaps they asked me to read because they sensed that i, too, was a foreigner in france, so as non-literate women they did not have to fear me in the way that they were fearing rejection from french women ...

unbelievable, the amount of work that remains to be done to make the world a better place


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> longtimeago is so much fun
> 
> do u think he meant to double-launch this thread in duplicate?
> 
> ...


Kids can be smart and powerful, which can make parents feel dumb and powerless. That will cause a shift in family dynamics which is stressful.
Add in that they can't get a job, because they don't speak the language and it's even worse.

Some people react negatively to this stress. It's well known that such stress tends to lead to problems.

This is one of the reasons refugees need more help than other immigrants.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

Firstly, not everyone in Canada today are here as a result of economic migration, because it is a fact that Canada accepts refugees, so there must be some Canadians (or their descendants) who entered as refugees rather than economic migrants.

Secondly, I agree that morally it is better to take refugees, however, I think it is better for the country's economy to take skilled worker immigrants. The question is where should the balance point be between those two categories?

The poll wording apparently was "more refugees", meaning if you thought the current level of refugee acceptance was OK but no more, you would be against taking more refugees. It's not overly surprising to me that most people were against taking more refugees. We already take quite a few. According to the UN, Canada took the most refugees of any country in the world in 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-resettled-most-refugees-un-1.5182621


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I object to your statement that we're all immigrants.
> I was born in Canada, I am native born Canadian, I am not an immigrant.


I think his statement was accurate, if you read it again. Other than the indigenous people, the rest of us all arrived here by immigration (were children of immigrants, etc). More precisely, we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900 ... very recently, only within the last century or so.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think his statement was accurate, if you read it again. Other than the indigenous people, the rest of us all arrived here by immigration (were children of immigrants, etc). More precisely, we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900 ... very recently, only within the last century or so.


I am not an immigrant, I didn't "come here", I was born here.
To suggest that a native born Canadian is an immigrant is deeply offensive.

His statement is factually wrong. Please consult a dictionary for clarification.


For a discussion on immigrants vs refugees, where someone has pointed out people don't know the difference, particularly when there are several important differences is problematic.
If it wasn't so insulting, it would be funny that people don't know the difference between a native born Canadian and an immigrant either.

I wonder what type of discussion can be had, when one side doesn't literally doesn't know the meaning of the words being used.

If you want a new word that means "descendants of immigrants from within a certain arbitrary timeframe", go ahead and make a new word.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... Other than the indigenous people, the rest of us all arrived here by immigration (were children of immigrants, etc). More precisely, we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900 ... very recently, only within the last century or so.


Asia is supposedly the starting point so one can argue all are immigrants - depending on one's time scale.

You seem to have gone overboard with the "we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900". 

The French who immigrated in the 1600s would be surprised (colony established in 1608).
The 170K Scots in the 1800's would be surprised (colony established in 1621).
The 600K Irish who immigrated from 1831-1850 likely as well.

Some sources put the immigration waves at thirty.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The majority arrived after 1900, by count of people -- the numbers are significantly larger versus early settlers.

The argument that 'native people also came from somewhere else' is pretty silly, in my opinion, and is sometimes used to downplay just how recent immigrants the rest of us (and Europeans) are.

The native people have been in Canada on the order of 500 generations. Given shorter life spans thousands of years ago, the number of generations could even be higher at more like 700.

In comparison, white European immigrants have only been in Canada for 10 generations max. Maybe 12 if you're really pushing it.

This is really no contest for who's been here longer, and who was already established (native Canadians) versus newcomers (white Europeans and all other arrivals).

And I find it funny when a 10th generation Canadian scoffs at a 1st or 2nd generation Canadian for being new and strange.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I am not an immigrant, I didn't "come here", I was born here.
> To suggest that a native born Canadian is an immigrant is deeply offensive.
> 
> His statement is factually wrong. Please consult a dictionary for clarification.


I am trying to find "his" statement that we are immigrants, and I don't find it. The point was that most of us are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and should bear this in mind in forming our opinions about further immigration.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The majority arrived after 1900, by count of people -- the numbers are significantly larger versus early settlers.
> 
> The argument that 'native people also came from somewhere else' is pretty silly, in my opinion, and is sometimes used to downplay just how recent immigrants the rest of us (and Europeans) are.
> 
> ...


I'm not pretending we aren't all recent immigrants, it's a fact that we're not all immigrants.
Over 20% of Canadians are immigrants, we have a huge immigrant population, that has been coming over for years. 
But with almost 80% of Canadians being native born Canadians, it's statistically wrong to argue that "we're all immigrants".


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I am first generation Canadian. My parents were refugees from Scotland!

Our neighbours in the Lower Mainland we of East Indian descent. They were fifth generation Canadian.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I am trying to find "his" statement that we are immigrants, and I don't find it. The point was that most of us are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and should bear this in mind in forming our opinions about further immigration.


Notice MrMatt's outrage over thinking he's been labelled an immigrant. Tells you something about him, doesn't it?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I think his statement was accurate, if you read it again. Other than the indigenous people, the rest of us all arrived here by immigration (were children of immigrants, etc). More precisely, we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900 ... very recently, only within the last century or so.


Or, it is also true to say that no one is 'native' to North America. Humans are native to Africa. And the first nations that were in Canada at the time of European arrival/colonization were not really the first humans in North America, as there have been waves of migration, and it is quite likely that the original residents were displaced at some point.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Notice MrMatt's outrage over thinking he's been labelled an immigrant. Tells you something about him, doesn't it?


You are saying things that are not true. 
False statements have no place in an honest debate or discussion on issues.

Yes your slur against me is to suggest I'm somehow racist or anti-immigrant, which is disgusting.

I socialize, work with and volunteer with all sorts of people, a disproportionate number of whom are immigrants. 
My concerns on immigration are on addressing the problems, and addressing the honestly held concerns of other people. 
But to pretend there aren't issues that need to be addressed does a disservice to everyone.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You are saying things that are not true.
> False statements have no place in an honest debate or discussion on issues.
> 
> Yes your slur against me is to suggest I'm somehow racist or anti-immigrant, which is disgusting.


You wrote the following, and I pointed to your outrage:



MrMatt said:


> I am not an immigrant, I didn't "come here", I was born here.
> To suggest that a native born Canadian is an immigrant is *deeply offensive*.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Longtimeago;2025910
Refugees on the other hand do NOT have the choice of whether to immigrate to another country or not. They FLEE their home countries out of necessity. Persecution said:


> There is a reason their countries are so screwed up. There backward ways screwed up a lot of these countries. Their backward ways will screw up our country also. 75 years ago who would have thought there would be a black president. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is 75 years from now having Canada being under Sharia law. Though I will probably be dead by then.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Notice MrMatt's outrage over thinking he's been labelled an immigrant. Tells you something about him, doesn't it?


Is he an immigrant, or was he born here?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Or, it is also true to say that no one is 'native' to North America. Humans are native to Africa. And the first nations that were in Canada at the time of European arrival/colonization were not really the first humans in North America, as there have been waves of migration, and it is quite likely that the original residents were displaced at some point.



surely one-celled microbes must be native on all continents though


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Spudd said:


> I agree that morally it is better to take refugees, however, I think it is better for the country's economy to take skilled worker immigrants. The question is where should the balance point be between those two categories?
> 
> The poll wording apparently was "more refugees", meaning if you thought the current level of refugee acceptance was OK but no more, you would be against taking more refugees. It's not overly surprising to me that most people were against taking more refugees. We already take quite a few. According to the UN, Canada took the most refugees of any country in the world in 2018. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-resettled-most-refugees-un-1.5182621




i for one have never believed that the words "skilled worker" & "refugee" belong in separate categories. I happen to believe that refugee populations include significant numbers of former university professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, other professionals & highly skilled workers.

because when the bombs start dropping, everybody has to escape from a war zone. Neurosurgeon & peasant farmer alike have to abruptly flee. Survivors who end up in refugee camps are a mixture. It's a terrible mistake to think that refugees are, by definition, under-educated or otherwise handicapped.

here's a story about a syrian refugee named Anas Nabulsi who fled damascus just before graduating as a mechanical engineer. He ended up in the teeming syrian refugee camps in lebanon, a country whose hostility to syrian refugees has increased in recent years due to the sheer numbers of refugees - more than 1.5 million syrians - which lebanon is having to host, without much assistance from the rest of the world.

nabulsi, now married with newborn son, was picked out of a data base by a niagara ontario tool-and-die manufacturer, who flew to beirut to interview nabulsi to make sure the fit would be right.

nabulsi & his wife won't be spending any time on canadian refugee wait lists. He'll be admitted to canada soon as a permanent resident, on his way to citizenship. The speedup is due to a new partnering initiative by ICRS canada & an NGO in beirut called Talent Beyond Borders, which specializes in matching skilled or professional refugees with enterprises or organizations in foreign countries looking to hire them.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugee-lebanon-canada-talent-beyond-borders-1.5181232


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The majority arrived after 1900, by count of people -- the numbers are significantly larger versus early settlers ...


You don't think 600K over twenty years wasn't significant enough?
At Confederation about 17 years later, the population was 3.4 million, making that Irish migration wave something better than 17% of the population.




james4beach said:


> ... The argument that 'native people also came from somewhere else' is pretty silly, in my opinion ...


Then take it up with OP who for some reason is throwing out those born here for a couple of generations by saying "We all got here through immigration" while ignoring the much earlier immigration.

If being born here doesn't move one out of the "immigrant - we all immigrated category" then it applies for all that time, n'est pas?




james4beach said:


> ... This is really no contest for who's been here longer, and who was already established (native Canadians) versus newcomers (white Europeans and all other arrivals) ...


The OP's criteria wasn't comparing numbers - simply that one group somehow aren't immigrants despite a migration while another group that migrated more recently are all immigrants regardless of being born here.

Seems inconsistent to me.


What was the magic event that meant one immigrant group's kids born here are no longer immigrants while a different immigrant group's kids stay immigrants?


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> ... The point was that most of us are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants ...


So why the exception for one group that immigrated a much longer time ago?
Those that came across the land bridge immigrated, did they not?


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

guys let's not fight about where was the mother of us all
the first one-celled live amoeba

i mean it wasn't the Olduvai gorge
am i getting things Mixed Up?
maybe it was the Big Bang
lordy, now they are going to start arguing about Genesis Exodus


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The only long-time Canadians I'm aware of are the native people who've been here for 500 to 700 generations. Everyone else (and I'm assuming all of us in this discussion) are relative newcomers. I made a bar chart to illustrate:









I think it's pretty clear. When we talk about MrMatt, or myself, versus a family that just immigrated last year, we're just splitting hairs. We are all newcomers to Canada.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> So why the exception for one group that immigrated a much longer time ago?
> Those that came across the land bridge immigrated, did they not?


Assuming they were the first.. it's quite different. There's settling unoccupied land, there's being accepted into an occupied land, and then there's conquering an occupied land


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> surely one-celled microbes must be native on all continents though


Well, life originated from a time before the continents were in their current configuration. I guess you're right, either way there are no true 'natives' to NA, or all of us are. Or just the people who were born here. It's a rather pointless topic.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The only long-time Canadians I'm aware of are the native people who've been here for 500 to 700 generations.



500-700 generations, wouldn't that make it around 10,000 years?

but sources differ wildly

wikipedia - several entries - say indigenous nations in north america only since 1000-500 BC. That's relatively recent.

jas4 have you got artefacts that date back 10,000 years in what is now canada? me i actually haven't heard of any

historian olive dickason commenced her monumental history of aboriginal peoples in north america by saying carbon-dated remains are 400,000 years old. 

but in what was probably one of those fiercely intense academic squabbles dickason's scholarship was later questioned (she'd been a journalist all her life, only came to academia in her 50s) (it must've been the journalism that triggered the eventual backstabbing)

then there's the issue of density of land occupation. Does the passage of a few nomad hunter-gatherers across a territory mean that the nomads owned that territory? how often would they have to pass before the land would be considered to be theirs?

indigenous nations have used the argument that a territory which includes graves & sacred burial grounds is "theirs" by definition.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

More identify politics. You are all either immigrants or First Nations. No exceptions - you are one or the other. If you are immigrant, then you stole land and should give it back, or at least money. And you should accept more and more immigrants or be a racist. Does that sum up this thread?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> 500-700 generations, wouldn't that make it around 10,000 years?


Here's how I came up with this number. I assume one human generation is ~ 25 years.

Carbon dating of an artifact in a village in BC showed 14,000 years age. This other scientific evidence shows first nations in the Americas 13,000 to 15,000 years ago.

That gives 500 to 600 generations in the Americas.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

doctrine said:


> More identify politics. You are all either immigrants or First Nations. No exceptions - you are one or the other. If you are immigrant, then you stole land and should give it back, or at least money. And you should accept more and more immigrants or be a racist. Does that sum up this thread?




no not quite

some are posting valiantly to preserve history of rich diversity of all current occupants of Turtle Island. There are folks in this thread saying We're all here together now, Let's figure out how to share

me i think that if someone born here several generations ago, does volunteer work w refugees, says he doesn't believe he's an immigrant ... then he's not an immigrant

it's not even remotely accurate to claim that "all" canadians arrived in the new world after 1900

real history is rich, subtle, infinitely diverse. IMHO it's a tad disrespectful to try to steamroller it into simplified adspeak


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The only long-time Canadians I'm aware of are the native people who've been here for 500 to 700 generations. Everyone else (and I'm assuming all of us in this discussion) are relative newcomers. I made a bar chart to illustrate:
> 
> View attachment 19492
> 
> ...


No hairs to split.
I was conceived and born here, I'm from here. I'm a native born Canadian.

You're the one ignoring the definitions of the word. 
What is the point with mis-identifying everyone as immigrants?
What are you trying to accomplish, other than derail the conversation?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

m3s said:


> Assuming they were the first.. it's quite different. There's settling unoccupied land, there's being accepted into an occupied land, and then there's conquering an occupied land


Except that conquering an occupied land is only considered bad because Europeans did it to natives. Previous native tribes did exactly the same thing to other native tribes for thousands of years...killing them, taking slaves, etc. But that doesn't count for some magical reason that no one will address. Only the last tribes on land before Europeans showed up claim to have a valid right to the land. Funny how that works.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think it's pretty clear. When we talk about MrMatt, or myself, versus a family that just immigrated last year, we're just splitting hairs. We are all newcomers to Canada.


This is where I totally disagree. There are very clear definitions of what an immigrant is. None mention being the original occupants of the land. 
Canada’s definition


> Definition of "Immigrant"
> Persons residing in Canada who were born outside of Canada, excluding temporary foreign workers, Canadian citizens born outside Canada and those with a student or working visas.


Or a more generic


> a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence


It is not splitting hairs. My parents were immigrants as they come from another country, I was born and raised here. I am NOT an immigrant nor are my children. The experiences my parents and oldest sibling had as immigrant Canadians is very different than my experience a Canadian born. They had to re-adjust their whole life and thinking from a different country, culture and value system. Though I had my parents’ cultural views, I did not have the same adjustment. I grew up with North American culture and influences with a lens of being a first generation Canadian. 

In fact, it is with immigration that has built our nation and many other nations. Perhaps in an alternative universe/Canada like the comic books, we can keep going back in time and making new definitions of what an ‘immigrant’ is, but until there is an alternative universe, I would prefer to keep with the actual definitions.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> The only long-time Canadians I'm aware of are the native people who've been here for 500 to 700 generations. Everyone else (and I'm assuming all of us in this discussion) are relative newcomers. I made a bar chart to illustrate:
> 
> View attachment 19492
> 
> ...


It sounds like you are just trying to pick a fight. The definition of immigrant is pretty clear. Anyone born here, regardless of what their parents did, is not an immigrant. It's very black and white.
It's like saying that a 50yr old is more alive than a 10 yr old since they've been around for longer. You're either alive or dead.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

This thread was started on refugees and a recent poll of Canadians on that subject. It was NOT started on who is or is not an immigrant or descended from immigrants.

MrMatt, you have single handedly sidetracked a thread about refugees onto the subject of YOUR personal dislike of being reminded you are a product of immigration. Are you proud of yourself? Is your reluctance to be associated in any way with the word 'immigrant' more important than the topic of refugees? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't CARE whether anyone is insulted to think I called them an immigrant or not. Address the topic or go start your own thread on another subject. It's pathetic that a thread on refugees can be so sidetracked as to have the majority of comments totally OFF topic.

To the Moderators, please consider it a given that I have hit the 'Report Post' button for all non-refugee comments on this thread and am asking you to remove them all.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> This thread was started on refugees and a recent poll of Canadians on that subject. It was NOT started on who is or is not an immigrant or descended from immigrants.
> 
> MrMatt, you have single handedly sidetracked a thread about refugees onto the subject of YOUR personal dislike of being reminded you are a product of immigration. Are you proud of yourself? Is your reluctance to be associated in any way with the word 'immigrant' more important than the topic of refugees? You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> ...


You did start the thread to saying that people did not know the difference between immigration vs refugees. In fact, you had two paragraphs referring to immigration. This could imply that immigration is a part of the subject. 



Longtimeago said:


> On the news this morning a poll was said to show a majority of Canadians want less refugees admitted to Canada.
> 
> I think there is still a lot of misunderstanding of the difference between refugees and economic migrants. Everyone in Canada today other than indigenous people, are a result of economic migration. If you yourself did not immigrate to Canada, your parents or grandparents or greatgrandparents, etc. no doubt did. We all got here through immigration.
> ...
> Misunderstandings however arise when one category is confused with the other. Let's suppose we can handle 100k new residents per year. Should we limit the number of refugees we take or limit the number of economic migrants we take? One is fleeing potential death while the other is trying to earn a better style of life. Given those facts, it would make more moral sense to limit legal immigrants rather than refugees.


I think you may have been incorrect in thinking that the problem is that some people don't know what a refugee is. It seems to be that some people don't know what an immigrant is. Defining immigrant is actually very relevant to be able to tell the difference between a refugee and immigrant.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

It is a good point that refugees include skilled workers of all kinds, not just unskilled workers. Again, a common misunderstanding exists and primarily because people simply don't take the time to think it through. Doctors, engineers, etc. do have to flee just the same as less skilled individuals do. 

Another aspect many people don't think through is what the refugees hope for. While some will end up remaining in Canada if allowed to, MANY hope to return home one day. Put yourself in their shoes. They have been uprooted from their life entirely. If you found yourself with bombs falling on the house next door to you and all normal life disrupted, how would you feel if you had to flee and ended up in say Germany where you did not know the language, understand the cultural norms, how things 'work' (bureaucracy etc.)? Would you not feel like a ship without a rudder? Would you not miss family, friends, your family home, etc.? Would you not want to be able to return 'home'?

When some media coverage provides totally inadequate explanations of the realities of being a refugee, it is not hard to understand how some Canadians could see them as 'undesirable' and that is in fact what happens. Those Canadians need to be educated as to the realities of refugees. We have an old saying in N. America some of you may have heard before. "Walk a Mile in his Mocassins." Here is the original poem: https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=982375

When a majority of Canadians are unsure about whether they want to accept more refugees or not, I think it is time for them to walk that mile.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Plugging Along said:


> You did start the thread to saying that people did not know the difference between immigration vs refugees. .


Plugging Along (and any others), please stop trying to discuss what or who is or is not an immigrant and address the topic of refugees.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> This thread was started on refugees and a recent poll of Canadians on that subject. It was NOT started on who is or is not an immigrant or descended from immigrants.
> 
> MrMatt, you have single handedly sidetracked a thread about refugees onto the subject of YOUR personal dislike of being reminded you are a product of immigration. Are you proud of yourself? Is your reluctance to be associated in any way with the word 'immigrant' more important than the topic of refugees? You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> ...


You started a thread on immigration and refugees, which I have responded to in detail. Including providing some basic stats on refugees and immigrants. 
I also commented on some aspects of the initial question I thought were incorrect, that's how discussions work. 

In particular I think in the context of a discussion on immigration and refugees it is important to keep the definitions of the terms clear, or you can't actually have a discussion on the issues. Yes, I do think calling native born citizens immigrants in their own country is both insulting and factually incorrect. 

Back to the point, and my initial comments on the immigration thread, I think we can handle our current level of 200-300k immigrants and some 20-30k refugees per year. Beyond that our systems get too overloaded to be effective.
I also agree that people don't understand the definitions of these terms, which just adds confusion to the debate.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> In the last two years, only 6900 of the Irregular Border Crossers have been granted refugee status. Should we have denied them sanctuary?


Yes, because not a single one of them was a refugee. They were already in a safe country.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How many immigrants/refugees are too many ? Who decides the number ?

I would suggest leaving it up to the security and immigration experts who consider the balance between the number that Canada needs to maintain population and the number Canada can process properly.

In my opinion, the Liberals have struck a reasonable balance, because I see or hear of no problems about immigrants or refugees so far. In fact, quite the contrary in our city at least.

Our mayor recently declared an employment emergency. We have more jobs than people who can fill them. Maybe we could use more people moving in.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, because not a single one of them was a refugee. They were already in a safe country.


That's the law in Canada:

"The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan.

Under the Agreement, *refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in*, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement."

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio.../agreements/safe-third-country-agreement.html

Therefore, any "refugees" trying to enter Canada from the US were already in a safe country and must have an exemption or they are entering Canada illegally.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> This thread was started on refugees and a recent poll of Canadians on that subject. It was NOT started on who is or is not an immigrant or descended from immigrants.
> 
> MrMatt, you have single handedly sidetracked a thread about refugees onto the subject of YOUR personal dislike of being reminded you are a product of immigration. Are you proud of yourself? Is your reluctance to be associated in any way with the word 'immigrant' more important than the topic of refugees? You should be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> ...





oh dear. LTA you have frequently whined & complained & scolded & nagged about cmffers who post messages you don't happen to like, on threads which you have launched.

but this topic has been done like dinner in cmf forum. From time to time. in the past, the forum has been afflicted with some ill-tempered ogre who has pretended the very same nonsense. Namely, that he would get to control who would be allowed to post what on a thread he had launched.

and every time, the moderators sided with the people & against the ogre. Always, the forum reverted to its democratic mean, which is that no member ever has any control over the content of a thread. Specifically, the party who launches a thread never has & never will have, any control over its content.

bref, members can post whatever they wish, as long as it's within the rules.

turning now to the issue of refugees and/or immigration, this is a gigantic encyclopedia, not a narrow topic. There are limitless approaches to this challenging issue. It's one of the most difficult problems to beset our country in recent years.

of course there will be many sidebars. Of course people are going to talk about their own experiences. One of the things that is valuable about the meanderings in this thread is that at least some cmffers are clearly thinking seriously & responsibly about immigration/refugee issues.

me i'm not seeing a single wasted word in this thread. Not even a misplaced comma.

.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Plugging Along (and any others), please stop trying to discuss what or who is or is not an immigrant and address the topic of refugees.


 I will continue posting as I see fit on immigration as there is relation to immigration and refugees. I appreciate that you used the word 'please' so, I will keep the post still related to refugees, but please do not try and moderate me. I will leave that to the moderators or the owners of the site.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Immigration: Allow a reasonable number of skilled people into the country based on merit and required skill sets for our current and foreseeable future needs.

Refugees: Allow a reasonable number of refugees into the country based on OUR ability to help them adapt. We can't take everyone.

Illegal aliens: Not allowed. No exceptions. This includes people claiming refugee status from the US which Canada has identified as a safe country. Anyone currently here illegally should be deported.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Back to the point, and my initial comments on the immigration thread, I think we can handle our current level of 200-300k immigrants and some 20-30k refugees per year.



interesting. Aren't these the very numbers the Liberals have been projecting?





> Beyond that our systems get too overloaded to be effective.


i believe the majority of canadians from most political parties would agree. Just over 300,000 new residents each year is a fair-sized number while not being overwhelming. As little red riding hood said, after turning down the bowl that was too big & the bowl that was too small, the middle-sized bowl looked to be just right.

.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> As little red riding hood said, after turning down the bowl that was too big & the bowl that was too small, the middle-sized bowl looked to be just right..


That was Goldilocks.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> No hairs to split.
> I was conceived and born here, I'm from here. I'm a native born Canadian.
> 
> You're the one ignoring the definitions of the word.
> ...


MrMatt, I don't think you're reading the words in my posts clearly. Read my text again. I didn't say you were an immigrant. I said that we are all relative newcomers to Canada. You are clearly not an immigrant based on the definition of immigrant.

Refugees and immigrants are also newcomers to this land. After assuming Canadian citizenship, they have only been in Canada for a little bit shorter than your ancestors.

And when for example a Syrian refugee into Canada has a child, born in Canada, that Canadian is indistinguishable from MrMatt. Both of you are born in this country and have equal standing.

My point is: whether the person was born a Canadian (like Stephen Harper, or a refugee's child), or a recent immigrant, *or a refugee*, everyone is a relative newcomer to Canada. No, they aren't all "immigrants". But in each of these cases, the family's ancestry has been in Canada for a relatively short amount of time.



Eclectic12 said:


> You seem to have gone overboard with the "we all arrived in an immigration wave that started around 1900".
> 
> The French who immigrated in the 1600s would be surprised (colony established in 1608).
> The 170K Scots in the 1800's would be surprised (colony established in 1621).
> The 600K Irish who immigrated from 1831-1850 likely as well.


All of these are newcomers, only here in Canada for a relatively small number of generations versus the actual "old stock" Canadians


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> That was Goldilocks.


been a while since my kids were the age for nursery rhymes & fairy tales each:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> That's the law in Canada:
> 
> "The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan.
> 
> ...



you've left out the geneva convention of 1952, which affects the Safe third country agreement.

geneva provides that any refugee who enters a country by a route other than an official border crossing, may present a claim for asylum.

it was a genius loophole. No one yet knows the name of the party who first figured out that this ^^ would work along the canadian border. The first irregular walk-ins were somalis crossing into manitoba in the dead of winter early 2017. The genius might have been their US immigration lawyer. 

to halt geneva, canada had to negotiate entirely new Safe third country terms & practices with the US. The story has not been widely reported but it stands to reason the re-negotiation was exceptionally difficult; since donald trump's clear preference was to evict the border crossers into canada.

many of those crossing on the roxham road in upstate new york were haitians who had been given temporary permits by president obama after the haiti earthquake. Then donald trump announced his decision to deport them back to haiti instead of renewing their permits.

trump announced the same decision for no-status el salvador migrants in the US. Trump said he'd deport em too. Same for no-status refugees from nicaragua & guatemala. None of them were "safe" in donald trump's america, by any stretch of the imagination.

panicked, the haitians, el salvadorans, guatemalans fled to canada. They were joined en route by thousands of persons from who knows how many countries, all claiming to be refugees on the roxham road.

canada was totally ambushed. There are no precedents in history for uninvited guests to be crashing our southern border on such a large scale.

should Safe third country have been re-negotiated sooner? probably it could not have been re-negotiated sooner, since NAFTA was ongoing the whole time & NAFTA was by far the top priority.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> MrMatt, I don't think you're reading the words in my posts clearly. Read my text again. I didn't say you were an immigrant. I said that we are all relative newcomers to Canada. You are clearly not an immigrant based on the definition of immigrant.


You used the term newcomer, others use the label immigrant.
I simply reject the assertion that native born Canadians are either immigrants or newcomers, or relative newcomers.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> you've left out the geneva convention of 1952, which affects the Safe third country agreement.
> 
> geneva provides that any refugee who enters a country by a route other than an official border crossing, may present a claim for asylum.


1. The border guards should have refused entry. Permitting entry was the first mistake. In some cases they saw them before they got to the border, they should have stopped them before then. 
2. The claims are fraudulent and should be denied. I have not heard of a single recent legitimate claim for asylum from the US in Canada.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

humble_pie said:


> trump announced the same decision for no-status el salvador migrants in the US. Trump said he'd deport em too. Same for no-status refugees from nicaragua & guatemala. None of them were "safe" in donald trump's america, by any stretch of the imagination.


If people aren't safe in the US, why are the Democrats inviting them to crash the border and blocking all attempts to secure the border? The only reason must be that their illegal votes are far more important to the Democrats than their personal safety.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... All of these are newcomers, only here in Canada for a relatively small number of generations versus the actual "old stock" Canadians


Graphs and comments about a different point are interesting but irrelevant.

Maybe stating it a bit differently will refocus you on my point - "*we all arrived* in an immigration wave that started *around 1900*" ignores significant immigration prior to the selected date, including the immigration of "old stock" Canadians.


Personally, I think that anyone who immigrated to Canada did so because they lacked something or were forced out regardless of what group they belong to. I know only a few who would immigrate despite having everything they need, where they already live.


Returning to the poll indicating a majority of Canadians want less refugees admitted to Canada, the target for 2019 is said to 330K. This around 70K+ lower than the early 1900's when Canada's population was about 7 million instead of the more recent 37 million.

There also doesn't seem to be an efficient system to make use of skilled labour, whether they are Canadians, immigrants or refugees.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/national/skilled-immigrants-wasting-their-talents-in-canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-immigration-skilled-workers-election-1.4833739
https://torontosun.com/2016/10/10/h...ario/wcm/96c7a453-71ac-47c5-a065-3946436fd1b6


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Maybe stating it a bit differently will refocus you on my point - "*we all arrived* in an immigration wave that started *around 1900*" ignores significant immigration prior to the selected date, including the immigration of "old stock" Canadians.


You're right, there were significant arrivals before 1900. I didn't actually realize how significant the numbers were until I looked back at the historical stats.

In any case, on the refugee issue, I would look at historical averages over the last 100 years (refugees per year as % of population) and then aim to accept that level.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> In any case, on the refugee issue, I would look at historical averages over the last 100 years (refugees per year as % of population) and then aim to accept that level.


That only works if the historic levels were an optimum number.

Many people claim that we need more people but that's never been proven to be correct or necessary, especially so if AI is supposed to eliminate large numbers of jobs. If millions of jobs are to be eliminated then more people is the last thing we need.

So...how many new people is optimum? And who decides that?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I think we can absorb around the number we have, particularly if they are from countries with similar values. 
As far as the risk of AI, I think that's a pessimistic view. I don't share the great fear of AI, technology has always threatened the old ways, and of course "its different this time". Just like every other time.
I believe in people, so I'm not scared.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> 1. The border guards should have refused entry. Permitting entry was the first mistake. In some cases they saw them before they got to the border, they should have stopped them before then.
> 2. The claims are fraudulent and should be denied. I have not heard of a single recent legitimate claim for asylum from the US in Canada.



someone posting upthread that 6900 roxham road asylum claimants have been approved. The majority of cases are still pending since ICRS manpower is over-burdened.

of refused cases, we are told that only a fraction have been deported. Most such refused claimants would go underground. It's said that roughly half of the roxham roaders have found jobs & they are working.

right now we have employers in central eastern canada publicly saying that they need those workers to stay, the requirement for personnel is sky-high in today's booming economy.

the roxham road crisis has ended. The roxham roaders themselves are not causing any trouble. There were roughly 50,000 of them. The demographic bulge they have produced will flatten itself out in time.

2 vignettes from the heart of roxham-road-land:

1) i have never met or heard of even one single young person who is on a war path against roxham road. "They're OK, let them be," goes the youth mantra.

2) a CRA agent recently told me, in an interview, that some taxpayers are refusing to accept refundable tax benefits that are, in fact, due to them. "They tell us they're not going to claim, even though we tell them that they are entitled to the money," he said.

when i asked if he believed the refusers are undocumented persons whose employers' payrolls have picked up their tracks, the agent said he could not comment.

let's see, workers who hold jobs, support themselves, pay taxes & don't want to claim cash refundable benefits. How is this any kind of national problem?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> You're right, there were significant arrivals before 1900. I didn't actually realize how significant the numbers were until I looked back at the historical stats.



there certainly were statistically significant waves of immigration ever since the first french settlers. Millions of canadians are so "born here" so many generations ago that they've lost track of where some ancestors actually did come from.

thankx to Eclectic for straightening you out


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think the intuition comes from the idea of 'white guilt'. That whiteness makes one less legitimate of a Canadian than someone of aboriginal descent. This idea is just as toxic as the idea that Asian, etc. visible minorities are less legitimate Canadians than white Canadians descended French/English settlers. Similar to the idea of paying reparations in the US. I don't think we can or should solve long passed injustices. It would be much more fruitful to invest that energy and resources into improved equity and social outcomes for Canadians as they are today, and not based on their ethnic background.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> That only works if the historic levels were an optimum number ...


Good point.




Prairie Guy said:


> ... Many people claim that we need more people but that's never been proven to be correct or necessary ...


Maybe it's regional ... certainly back in the '90's lots of around me grumbled about how jobs were being taken away by temporary workers. Trouble was, no one but friends of the family would show up to the work the "stolen" jobs.

Then too, if a business can't get any applications for jobs unless the promise of land to build one's house is thrown in, it would seem there aren't enough people.




Prairie Guy said:


> ... especially so if AI is supposed to eliminate large numbers of jobs. If millions of jobs are to be eliminated then more people is the last thing we need ...


Maybe ... and maybe not ... it seems too early to tell if this is similar to the concerns about smaller computers in the '90's.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> You're right, there were significant arrivals before 1900. I didn't actually realize how significant the numbers were until I looked back at the historical stats ...


Not sure why this was so hard to get to.

BTW, which stats were you looking at?
I didn't find easy population counts to estimate how significant the Irish mid-1800's wave was. Interestingly, the Irish in one article were estimated to make up 5% of New France's population.




james4beach said:


> In any case, on the refugee issue, I would look at historical averages over the last 100 years (refugees per year as % of population) and then aim to accept that level.


Are not the decisions supposed to be fact based?

I'm not sure averages were the optimal number in the last hundred years is all that great a number. The 191x peak of 400K masks the low 1928 through 1948 numbers that look to vary a bit around 30K.

Then too, like the investment disclaimers - historical averages don't necessarily mean the future needs will be met. Which is going to win out? Boomers retiring, doing more things in retirement and needing more nursing homes etc. or AI disrupting what people do?


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure why this was so hard to get to.


Because we were focusing on different issues. I was caught up on pointing out that all settlers to Canada are relatively new in this land compared to the original native inhabitants. You were focusing on a different issue, my mistake about pre- vs post-1900 immigration numbers.



> BTW, which stats were you looking at?
> I didn't find easy population counts to estimate how significant the Irish mid-1800's wave was.


I originally was looking at immigration numbers here, which shows a huge increase starting 1900. However, this data only starts at 1852 so it misses the significant numbers earlier before Confederation. After you pointed out the issue, I looked at a few other resources
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/irish
https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederation/chapter/10-3-immigration/
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/scots

I still haven't found a great comparison such a chart across the entire time line. However, the numbers referenced in these articles are indeed impressive, considering they are a huge % of Canada's population at the time.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I think the intuition comes from the idea of 'white guilt'. That whiteness makes one less legitimate of a Canadian than someone of aboriginal descent. This idea is just as toxic as the idea that Asian, etc. visible minorities are less legitimate Canadians than white Canadians descended French/English settlers.


In my eyes, all Canadian citizens have equal standing. Someone whose family has been here for 10 generations is of no higher status than a family which has been here for 1 generation.

Don't take my comments as downplaying anyone's status or legitimacy -- that wasn't the intent at all.

I think it's a humbling thought that many of us (our families) are pretty new in this land. I think it's helpful to be humble about this, because when people _forget_ how "new" they are, they sometimes get into ugly behaviour such as telling recent immigrants to 'go back where they came from'.

Sadly, this does happen in Canada. For example, this friend of mine has repeatedly been harassed like this.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> Sadly, this does happen in Canada. For example, this friend of mine has repeatedly been harassed like this.


 ... and will continue to happen until Canada becomes one of the states of America? The saddest take-away I read from that article is:



> *Not illegal, but could amount to harassment*
> Winnipeg police Const. Tammy Skrabek said calling somebody racist names or yelling racial slurs isn't considered criminal, but if the behaviour continues, it could be classified as criminal harassment.
> 
> If you're a victim of that kind of behaviour, Skrabek said you can call police and report it so they can keep track of incidents. ...


 ... so by this officer's definition - the harassment itself is not considered criminal but "could amount to harassment"? Really? And then suggests that you keep calling the police so they can keep track of these many incidents. And then do what? The lips are moving ... zzzzzzzzz.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Employers around here are desperate for workers. Often the jobs are service types of jobs, but the wages have risen to attract employees.

When the Ontario government raised the minimum wage to $15 there was a hue and cry from business lobby groups and conservatives that it would have negative impact on jobs.

The Ford government cancelled another $1 raise, but employers are being forced to pay more to attract employees. The raise in the minimum wage had no negative impact on jobs.

A key sector is healthcare.....notably personal health care workers, and people to work in retirement homes as cooks, housekeepers etc. Nurses are desperately needed for retirement homes. Another sector are retail and food places which are being built on every available commercial space. Young people don't cook as much as past generations and the eating places are all busy at meal times.

The auto manufacturers like Toyota and GM Cami are hiring employees as the mass of their first generation employees start retiring on pensions. Tier II auto parts manufacturers are also hiring. There is a shortage of construction workers, especially heavy equipment operators. The trades are advertising for training and help.

The average age of many occupations is getting up there and we need a lot of young people to take their place.

I think we need to bring in more refugees and immigrants to fill these jobs or businesses will be forced to close.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think it was Humble who posted that just because a newcomer is a refugee doesn't mean they aren't skilled.

As an example......construction is looking for highly desired trades and skills that some refugees possess, like working with tile and stucco.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> I think it was Humble who posted that just because a newcomer is a refugee doesn't mean they aren't skilled.


It doesn't mean that they are skilled either. Some are and some are not.



> As an example......construction is looking for highly desired trades and skills that some refugees possess, like working with tile and stucco.


Skilled people will find work. It's those without skills that may be a drain on our resources. Canada has the right to determine who enters our country based on several factors, and employability and skills are only part of the equation. Do you agree with that?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Prairie Guy said:


> Skilled people will find work. It's those without skills that may be a drain on our resources. Canada has the right to determine who enters our country based on several factors, and employability and skills are only part of the equation.




the above is about immigrant applicants only

different criteria are used to determine refugee status. For example, if their lives are at risk in their countries of origin, or if torture/rape/physical harm was being inflicted

canada did an excellent job with the 2015/16 syrian refugee campaign, i think. Not only were verifiable syrian refugees brought in from refugee camps in lebanon & jordan, but canada also included gay persons from middle eastern countries who were at risk of murder by their own goverments. There were also a number of medical cases where canada could identify that it can offer the required treatment.

existence of syrian families already established in canada who could welcome the newcomers was also a criterion. Later we would read that, statistically, by far the greater number of that 2015/16 refugee wave who moved on to full employment within one year belonged to the sponsored category.

we are not hearing about any trouble with this refugee cohort. It takes something like a generation for the true results to surface, so we won't know too much about the experiment for some years yet.

anecdotally, here's an earlier refugee experiment whose adult children i've encountered a couple times in recent months. Canadians of cambodian origin whose parents fled Pol Pot & brought them here as young children. These are anecdotes only, but both times i've been struck by the profound canadian identification of the young adults, by their work ethic, by their strong civic participation in this country, also by the ways they are able to honour the spirit & the memory of their ancestors.

one, aged 35, volunteer coaches basketball here in canada. He's travelled back to cambodia several times to organize sports coaching for cambodian youth because - he says - that post-war country still has nothing in the way of organized free public athletic programs for their children. Bref, he gives here & he gives there. Canada is certainly fortunate to have such "refugees."


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> existence of syrian families already established in canada who could welcome the newcomers was also a criterion. Later we would read that, statistically, by far the greater number of that 2015/16 refugee wave who moved on to full employment within one year belonged to the sponsored category.


Another anecdote to support the sponsored idea. This was a story last year here in Edmonton. From refugee to successful store owner in 18months.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4424015/syrian-refugee-edmonton-business-nut-store/
The store has only 5 star reviews on yelp. 4.8 stars on Google reviews.

And another one in Montreal http://www.lesfillesfattoush.com/

I wonder what the rates are like of opening successful small businesses - natural canadians vs immigrants vs refugees.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think we need an appropriate mix and certainly we don't want to allow gang members and criminals into the country.

It seems to me the best people to advise the government are the academics who study such things intently. 

They can calculate the birth rate/death rate, average age, and the needs of a growing economy and then present the results to the government.

Personally I am not interested in the Liberal's opinion or the Conservative's opinion, unless it is backed up by well researched facts.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> It doesn't mean that they are skilled either. Some are and some are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Skilled people will find work. It's those without skills that may be a drain on our resources. Canada has the right to determine who enters our country based on several factors, and employability and skills are only part of the equation. Do you agree with that?


So, Canada should deny refugee status for someone at credible risk of execution in their home country because their cv is a little thin? I know you can't mean this.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> ... Skilled people will find work. It's those without skills that may be a drain on our resources ...


Where the certifying authorities make it difficult or just about impossible - it all boils down to whether there are the resources to make it through the process. A friend of my dad's wife gave him an ultimatum that future moves for work had to be a state she was qualified for as she was tired of writing the exams (some states required multiple exams) anytime a new state was the destination.

Cheers


*PS*
The American instructor with a Canadian wife for a course I was on was saying his father who wanted to move from NY state to Georgia to be near the grand kids. Despite being a highly specialised surgeon for over thirty years, he was told that his certification exams could ask questions all the way back to pre-med courses.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Another anecdote to support the sponsored idea. This was a story last year here in Edmonton. From refugee to successful store owner in 18months.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4424015/syrian-refugee-edmonton-business-nut-store/
> The store has only 5 star reviews on yelp. 4.8 stars on Google reviews.
> 
> ...



didn't know _lesfillesfattoush_ but stumbled recently on another tiny, perfect refugee food story.

my supermarket regularly puts a new brand of cookie on special sale. These cookies are out of this world. Fresh, organic bio ingredients, dates, maple syrup as sweetening agent. Each cookie steri-packed in its own delicate foil envelope. The price is unbelievable, something like 15 pennies per cookie when on sale.

i quickly identified the cookies as traditional "mammoul," a delicious & delicate treat with semolina flour, often baked in antique carved wooden molds for ramadan. The kind of recipe that, on lebanese cooking websites, when they start talking about "mammoul" everybody immediately writes in with enthusiastic anecdotes about their grandmother's fabulous festival baking.

the box of individually wrapped mammoul was sublimely elegant. The website was embellished with exquisite photographs of dates, quebec maple trees & wheat stalks alongside pale pink orchids & crab apple blossoms. Clearly, this bakery had an accomplished food stylist photographer on board.

the enterprise turned out to be so tiny that one should accurately term it a nano-business, not a micro-business. Situated in montreal's west island zone, it makes only mammoul so far but hopes to be able to introduce new baked products of middle eastern origin. All same high quality, all organic bio.

there were 2 business partners. One is obviously the photographer. From the website, she appeared to have a history of having lived in saudi arabia, where she pushed actively to gain driving rights for women. She's not saudi herself, though.

the other partner was an engineer by training. His was the voice that answered the phone with a recording when i called. A young male voice.

that's all i know. It's a great story in the making. The above details are only the ingredient mise-en-place. Now some journo needs to prepare the actual story recipe.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Prairie Guy said:
> 
> 
> > ... Skilled people will find work. It's those without skills that may be a drain on our resources ...
> ...


Unless there is an agreement to accept credentials, from other jurisdictions, what do you expect them to do?

Sometimes they set up cross licensing agreements, sometimes not.

Do you think a Texas firearms instructor should be automatically recognized in Canada?
I'd note that driver licensing has a huge amount of cross licensing.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It is not the Government that is the hold up on recognizing out of country certifications etc. My understanding is that it is the purview of the many Provincial self regulating professional bodies.

Canada has a severe shortage in some specialized occupations. Tool and die makers is a good example. The US has a similar problem in this area that will eventually negatively impact the defense industries.

In my working life I was involved in bringing two people into the country for jobs that could not be filled in Canada. One from India, the other from Columbia. Immigrants, not refugees.

There is a group attached to the UN that is registerering those in refugee camps who have a specific skill, profession, trade, etc. They are making this available in the hope that it will spur exit from the refuge camps. The feature that I read claimed that this was about 7 percent of those in refugee camps. 

The CBC just did an article about it. A Niagara area manufacturer had such a hard time finding a highly skilled, specialized tool and die worker that he actually traveled to refugee camp to to interview a potential candidate from Syria. The man was hired. He and his family will be coming to Canada just as soon as their paperwork is completed. They have a sponsor, and a good job.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > Where the certifying authorities make it difficult or just about impossible - it all boils down to whether there are the resources to make it through the process ... Despite being a highly specialised surgeon for over thirty years, he was told that his certification exams could ask questions all the way back to pre-med courses.
> ...


Test the knowledge relevant to the specialty or it's foundations. 

Where one's job is day in/day out ERP systems administration for decades - what is the value of confirming one can draw a pseudo code flow chart or can write a program in machine code?


It seems more about keeping numbers to what the certifying organisation figures is best versus confirming the individual knows what they need to know, for the Canadian context.




MrMatt said:


> ... Do you think a Texas firearms instructor should be automatically recognized in Canada?


The point isn't about being automatically recognised but how ridiculous and/difficult the certification requirements can be.

To be somewhat comparable, this would be a Texas firearms instructor that has spent the last thirty years on M15s who as part of the certification process, has to cover what they were taught in a high school chemistry class about the chemical composition of gun powder. Canadian legal regulations, what is a restricted firearm and transportation procedures seem more important, off the top of my head.


Cheers


*PS*
What's the point of rural Albertans being desperate for family doctors yet a Brazilian pediatrician has passed all three medical exams, has shadowed a Canadian doctor for the required time, become a Canadian citizen but is flipping burgers at McDonalds?

A Cambridge educated cardiologist married to a Canadian moved to New Zealand instead of Canada as he could practice in months. Moving to Canada, BC in particular, would have meant start his training from scratch where he would have to compete for just two residency spots in Vancouver.


Seems more protectionism than confirming the skill level.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My spouse recently had a very tricky neurological surgical procedure in Calgary. We were very thankful for the level of skill. One of the surgeons was from Asia, the second from Egypt.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> It is not the Government that is the hold up on recognizing out of country certifications etc. My understanding is that it is the purview of the many Provincial self regulating professional bodies ...


Yes ... and when you look at some of the requirements/capacity issues - it seems it is less about certifying the newcomer and more about protectionism.

IIRC, one of the articles on the requirements for those coming into Canada to use the skills they were sought for included a joke supposedly from Toronto.

"Where's the best place to have a heart attack?"

"In a cab as likely a doctor is driving it."




ian said:


> ... Canada has a severe shortage in some specialized occupations.


And that's part of what can frustrate the immigrants. They are encouraged to come to Canada based on their skillset but once here - face long odds of being certified so they can work in their "desired by Canada" profession. 

Several that beat the odds so that they are working in their profession in Canada are telling the people back home to go to the US or New Zealand as it is a long, difficult road despite in some cases, being recruited due to shortages in Canada.



Cheers


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> A Cambridge educated cardiologist married to a Canadian moved to New Zealand instead of Canada as he could practice in months. Moving to Canada, BC in particular, would have meant start his training from scratch where he would have to compete for just two residency spots in Vancouver.
> 
> 
> Seems more protectionism than confirming the skill level.


The daughter of our friend could not get accepted to her medical school of choice so she went to Saint Marten. When she graduated, she could not get a residency in Vancouver so she went to Tacoma. Now she is making $250k a year in Tacoma. She still wants to come back and will probably end up in Penticton in a year or two. She is willing to take the earnings hit but not the principal residence hit (of Vancouver).


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> The daughter of our friend could not get accepted to her medical school of choice so she went to Saint Marten. When she graduated, she could not get a residency in Vancouver so she went to Tacoma. Now she is making $250k a year in Tacoma. She still wants to come back and will probably end up in Penticton in a year or two. She is willing to take the earnings hit but not the principal residence hit (of Vancouver).


Protectionism by certifying organizations in each Province is no doubt a factor but in the case of doctors, stories like the one you have given us kcowan simply play into the hands of protectionism. I know what I would be hesitant to put myself into the hands of a doctor who has their degree from the Caribbean rather than say the UofT or Western in Ontario. Perhaps knowing more about such universities would be worth reading up on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/second-chance-med-school.html

Not having high enough grades to get into a Canadian university doesn't inspire confidence in someone. Having to take 5 or 6 years to graduate doesn't inspire confidence. Graduating from a 'second rate' university doesn't inspire confidence. A university that PAYS USA hospitals to take their students on rotations (usually such rotations are free), does not inspire confidence. A university that guarantees something, " offered him conditional admission, a four-month preview of courses, money back guaranteed if he didn’t pass. He passed.", does not inspire confidence.

I am not saying every graduate of such universities are not going to be good doctors but I am saying that I would not trust that all are going to be good doctors and that the odds of getting a poor one are higher than from a good Canadian university. 

This reality that there are doctors who can get a degree and make it through the system if they just pay enough and spend enough time re-taking courses they failed the first time around, just plays into the hands of organizations who say, 'you have to go through the process in our province, we won't accept your accreditation from elsewhere'. Unfortunately, these 'second rate' doctors result in perhaps a 'first rate' doctor like Eclectic12's example of a Cambridge educated cardiologist, chosing to go elsewhere since they get 'tarred with the same brush' in terms of having to comply with exams, etc. that are justified by the existence of 'second rate' doctors from elsewhere.

This at least somewhat understandable justification is not as easily applied however in cases like the tool and die maker example we have been given. Protectionism most definitely exists and creates a disconnect between what the government encourages (skilled immigrants) and what the provincial governing body will accept. But the federal government does NOT have jurisdiction over a provincial governing body. So what can they do? The provinces are not about to hand over their power to the federal government are they. And the certifying bodies are not about the hand over their power to the provincial governments either. There is no easy solution even though it would seem as if there should be. The existing system is entrenched and changing it is probably akin to the 'Gordian Knot'.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The provincial regulators only exist under the authority of the province. If the provinces wanted to overrule them, they could.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The provincial regulators only exist under the authority of the province. If the provinces wanted to overrule them, they could.



do you really think the above ^^ is true though

me i see the highest orders - the doctors, the dentists, the lawyers, even the chartered accountants - as having awesome power. Physicians literally wield the power of life or death. I think the doctors will generally be able to get what they want, while the provincial gummints will have to sit by somewhat anxiously while bleating Yess doc, If you saay so doc.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Theoretically they have the authority, but they cannot do it an arbitrary basis, as they have granted these professional associations self-regulating status. They could put pressure on them to justify their qualification requirements on a policy basis, but the professions could obfuscate for a long time, because the professional associations themselves are the judges of competence. And there isn't sufficient political gain in fighting them.

I don't disagree that their requirements are unreasonable in many specific instances; but they aren't able (or willing) to evaluate the education and training of professions in every country that sends us immigrants. So they take a one-size-fits-all approach.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Theoretically they have the authority, but they cannot do it an arbitrary basis, as they have granted these professional associations self-regulating status. They could put pressure on them to justify their qualification requirements on a policy basis, but the professions could obfuscate for a long time, because the professional associations themselves are the judges of competence. And there isn't sufficient political gain in fighting them.
> 
> I don't disagree that their requirements are unreasonable in many specific instances; but they aren't able (or willing) to evaluate the education and training of professions in every country that sends us immigrants. So they take a one-size-fits-all approach.


And the one size fits all approach MUST be based on the lowest common denominator, not the highest. We should keep in mind that while we may accuse them of 'protectionism', we are also relying on them to protect US. No one wants an unqualified doctor to be certified I'm sure. So while I do believe protectionism is involved, at the same time I do believe that unqualified doctors do exist in some countries and I don't want them given certification if they come to Canada. The same is true of say an electrician who could wire a new house incorrectly and as a result the house burns down.

It is not an easy issue to address obviously. We want skilled people to come to Canada but at the same time we want to be SURE they are qualified to OUR standards.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Theoretically they have the authority, but they cannot do it an arbitrary basis, as they have granted these professional associations self-regulating status. They could put pressure on them to justify their qualification requirements on a policy basis, but the professions could obfuscate for a long time, because the professional associations themselves are the judges of competence. And there isn't sufficient political gain in fighting them.
> 
> I don't disagree that their requirements are unreasonable in many specific instances; but they aren't able (or willing) to evaluate the education and training of professions in every country that sends us immigrants. So they take a one-size-fits-all approach.



guru it's interesting that the highest orders, being self-regulating, can get away with amazing latitudes of power in decreeing who may join them or carry on operations in or near their patch

but lower self-regulating industries like finance for example have not gained independence from constant government surveillance & even interference. Witness the securities commissions in the US & in the different canadian provinces, they are able to maintain watches ranging from very tight to - in some cases - extremely lax.

here in canada we are supposed to be getting a national securities commission


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> ... I don't disagree that their requirements are unreasonable in many specific instances; but they aren't able (or willing) to evaluate the education and training of professions in every country that sends us immigrants. So they take a one-size-fits-all approach.


What's the need to evaluate the education and training for Canadian citizens, trained in Canada?

What the point of having Canadian trained nurses taking a US licensing exam in order to practice in Canada?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...dnt-regulate-canadian-nurses/article30003804/

Maybe the goal is to make it easier for the Canadian trained nurse to move to the US for work? :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> ... It is not an easy issue to address obviously. We want skilled people to come to Canada but at the same time we want to be SURE they are qualified to OUR standards.


What's the point of specially recruiting a doctor, having them pass three set of exams to show they are qualified then have them go back home to practice as they can't get a residency spot?

All while there are numerous complaints about the lack of doctors?


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> What's the point of specially recruiting a doctor, having them pass three set of exams to show they are qualified then have them go back home to practice as they can't get a residency spot?
> 
> All while there are numerous complaints about the lack of doctors?
> 
> ...


The problem is the Federal Government isn't communicating with the various agencies that approve the credentials of the pending immigrants. Realistically it's a pile of politics, there are both valid and invalid reasons for this mess.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> What's the point of specially recruiting a doctor, having them pass three set of exams to show they are qualified then have them go back home to practice as they can't get a residency spot?
> 
> All while there are numerous complaints about the lack of doctors?
> 
> ...


You seem to want to see everything as simple Eclectic12 when in fact that is just not the case. If a hospital has a residency opening, we want there to be qualified doctors available to fill that position. The complaints about lack of doctors exists because there are not enough qualified doctors available.

But you cannot just connect one with the other and say the doctors go home because there is no residency available. Where is the doctor who wants to be a family doctor? Did he have to go home? The answer is no, we have a shortage of family doctors just about everywhere but we do not necessarily have a shortage of specialists looking for a residency in a hospital. 

Read this article for example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-doctor-shortage-medical-fees-1.4100251

Browse some others here: https://www.google.com/search?q=too...rome..69i57.8354j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Then come and tell us what the answer is. An immigrant doctor having to pass a Provincial exam is not the problem.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> You seem to want to see everything as simple Eclectic12 when in fact that is just not the case. If a hospital has a residency opening, we want there to be qualified doctors available to fill that position. The complaints about lack of doctors exists because there are not enough qualified doctors available ...


And yet, a doctor who was recruited to come to Canada to help fill the void has passed the three rounds of exams, shadowed Canadian doctors as the licensing group requires where the only remaining part is to do the residency.




Longtimeago said:


> ... But you cannot just connect one with the other and say the doctors go home because there is no residency available ...


The article quotes the doctor as saying he went back home and hopes someday to return to Canada, if he can get a residency to fill the need that he was recruited to fill.




Longtimeago said:


> ... Where is the doctor who wants to be a family doctor? Did he have to go home?


This doctor was tired of working other jobs to feed his family as there hasn't been a residency spot to be able to do what he was told by the community as well as the Canadian gov't what he was needed for.


Cheers


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> And yet, a doctor who was recruited to come to Canada to help fill the void has passed the three rounds of exams, shadowed Canadian doctors as the licensing group requires where the only remaining part is to do the residency.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, it seems you are talking about a specialty and a hospital residency only. OK, I get that what are you talking about when you say he was 'recruited for'? I have to wonder just what he was told by who and just what he thought he was being told. I have difficulty believing someone in Immigration would tell him that there would be a residency spot waiting for him. He may feel he was 'mislead' but it may also that he 'misunderstood'.

You are suggesting that it was not made clear to him what the process was, how long it might take, etc. and that somehow he had been 'guaranteed' a residency. I very much doubt that anyone told him that. Read here and you will see what can be expected. https://www.sgu.edu/blog/medical/img-guide-to-medical-residency-in-canada/

It makes it hard to accept that anyone would have told him otherwise.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think there is a shortage of available doctors or medical staff.

The shortage of medical staff is caused by the budget shortfalls of the hospitals. They have no money to pay for more staff. Hospitals are closing beds and laying off staff for lack of funding.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> I don't think there is a shortage of available doctors or medical staff.
> 
> The shortage of medical staff is caused by the budget shortfalls of the hospitals. They have no money to pay for more staff. Hospitals are closing beds and laying off staff for lack of funding.


There is some sense in that but it does not cover all 'shortages'. Budget shortfalls of hospitals does not address a shortage of primary health care doctors. ie. family doctor. If you look at the following link you will get a better picture of that. The 'shortage' most people are usually talking about is when they cannot get a family doctor. Try and find one in rural Saskatchewan for example.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2019001/article/00001-eng.htm

While there might be 10 doctors driving a taxi in Toronto, how many do you think are doing so in N. Battleford, Saskatchewan? Nothing is ever that simple. A doctor driving a taxi in Toronto who wants a hospital residency in a specialty in Toronto because s/he has family in Toronto and does not want to go and open a family practice in N. Battleford is going to have a hard time convincing me that they were promised a residency in their chosen specialty in Toronto. No one is likely to have ever promised them that.

Shortages in hospitals that are complained about are usually based on 'wait times', not on there being no access at all to a specialist. Someone diagnosed with cancer does not get put on a waiting list like someone who needs what is called 'elective' treatment like a hip replacement for example. 

There are many factors involved, it is not a simple issue at all whether you are talking about 'shortages' or about what an immigrant doctor expects vs. what they can in reality expect.


----------

