reality check: the colonization of eastern canada has failed.
deal with it.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
see, this is the kind of stupidity that underlies the historical conservative economic and immigration policies in this country.
the population is declining because there aren't any jobs. locals are getting up and leaving to areas where there is greater economic opportunity: there isn't any in these regions. so, what do the conservatives at the globe propose? increasing immigration to offset the outflow caused by the absence of an economy!
....because, the lack of a local economy will be magically transformed over night by migrants that neither know the land, nor the customs, nor the language. that makes perfect sense, right ibbitson?
faith is a terrible disability, whether it be in religion or in economics. he is being blinded by faith, here, and it is harming his ability to reason.
the population decline should simply be accepted for what it is and we should move on. the area has a brighter future as a cheap retirement destination. and, perhaps the indigenous inhabitants will reclaim the land, as they claim is inevitable.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-is-the-only-way-to-reverse-atlantic-canadas-population-decline/article33958301/
the population is declining because there aren't any jobs. locals are getting up and leaving to areas where there is greater economic opportunity: there isn't any in these regions. so, what do the conservatives at the globe propose? increasing immigration to offset the outflow caused by the absence of an economy!
....because, the lack of a local economy will be magically transformed over night by migrants that neither know the land, nor the customs, nor the language. that makes perfect sense, right ibbitson?
faith is a terrible disability, whether it be in religion or in economics. he is being blinded by faith, here, and it is harming his ability to reason.
the population decline should simply be accepted for what it is and we should move on. the area has a brighter future as a cheap retirement destination. and, perhaps the indigenous inhabitants will reclaim the land, as they claim is inevitable.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/immigration-is-the-only-way-to-reverse-atlantic-canadas-population-decline/article33958301/
this is what people want to hear. that's step one.
chrystia freeland is a brutally intelligent and exceedingly capable person, and i have every expectation that she'll get what she wants, in the end. what i'm worried about is what it is that she wants.
but, at least they're broadcasting that they know what we want to hear. that hasn't always been clear. and, that's progress.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-call-washington-wednesday-1.3972686
chrystia freeland is a brutally intelligent and exceedingly capable person, and i have every expectation that she'll get what she wants, in the end. what i'm worried about is what it is that she wants.
but, at least they're broadcasting that they know what we want to hear. that hasn't always been clear. and, that's progress.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-call-washington-wednesday-1.3972686
let the old tory media die. good.
....and we have a little self-interest, here, for a change. it's nice to see.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/07/liberals-news-bailout-melanie-joly-budget-2017_n_14635626.html
....and we have a little self-interest, here, for a change. it's nice to see.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/07/liberals-news-bailout-melanie-joly-budget-2017_n_14635626.html
what the results suggest is that canadians are broadly libertarian about immigration: we don't really care. it doesn't drive our voting decisions. it doesn't keep us up at night.
so, i think the reading that there's potential for a backlash is wrong. but, it's equally true that the idea that trudeau can run on a pro-immigration platform and win is delusional: at best it won't hurt him, because the frank truth is that nobody cares.
i've been posting a lot about immigration the last few days, but i can promise you that it won't affect my voting decisions. i'm not going to vote conservative on a refugee ban, if they want to slash corporate taxes. and, i'm not going to vote against the liberals because they want to bring in refugees, if there's other reasons i support them (which right now is looking highly doubtful...).
but, take note: the reason that nobody cares is that the pearsonian system has been successful. the real fear is in the ramifications of tinkering the system so that it creates the kinds of problems that we have not, to this point, had to deal with.
again: the answer is that the liberals need to embrace the legacy of their own party.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds
so, i think the reading that there's potential for a backlash is wrong. but, it's equally true that the idea that trudeau can run on a pro-immigration platform and win is delusional: at best it won't hurt him, because the frank truth is that nobody cares.
i've been posting a lot about immigration the last few days, but i can promise you that it won't affect my voting decisions. i'm not going to vote conservative on a refugee ban, if they want to slash corporate taxes. and, i'm not going to vote against the liberals because they want to bring in refugees, if there's other reasons i support them (which right now is looking highly doubtful...).
but, take note: the reason that nobody cares is that the pearsonian system has been successful. the real fear is in the ramifications of tinkering the system so that it creates the kinds of problems that we have not, to this point, had to deal with.
again: the answer is that the liberals need to embrace the legacy of their own party.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds
once again: the easy answer is for trudeau to stop acting like a conservative, and embrace the legacy of his own party.
we didn't elect the son of brian mulroney. but, it seems like that's what we've got...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-deeply-dislike-trump-but-prefer-him-to-trudeau-on-economy-security-poll
we didn't elect the son of brian mulroney. but, it seems like that's what we've got...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-deeply-dislike-trump-but-prefer-him-to-trudeau-on-economy-security-poll
and, i'll confuse you a third time.
it should be hard to get in, and that difficulty should act as a disincentive to come here - and an incentive to stay where they are, and improve those conditions. that's the ultimate ideal, here: to convert refugees into foreign nationals. the incentives should be in convincing refugees to stay and improve their countries, not come to this one.
so, i would rather see money put into improving situations in refugee starting points than in facilitating the flow of refugees out of those starting points. i would like to see a return to the good neighbour policy. i would like to see nato stop generating civil wars and supporting coups, and instead increasing the flow of foreign aid.
a further disincentive to migrate should come in the stricter enforcement of labour laws. there should be a strong crackdown on employers that hire "illegals", especially those that hire them below the minimum wage. if employers are prevented from illegally hiring "illegal" migrants (and note where the quotes are....), the economic incentive for migration will quickly cease. this crackdown, coupled with generous aid and the cessation of imperialism, should largely stop the flow of migrants.
but, no - those that get here should not be expelled.
the actual truth is that i find the narrative of nihilism v conservatism, and the total non-existence of anything resembling a left, to be depressing. these are the basic outlines of a socialist immigration policy. it's unfortunate that this is so strange to people nowadays that they can't even fathom it, and immediately conflate any rejection of conservatism with nihilism.
it should be hard to get in, and that difficulty should act as a disincentive to come here - and an incentive to stay where they are, and improve those conditions. that's the ultimate ideal, here: to convert refugees into foreign nationals. the incentives should be in convincing refugees to stay and improve their countries, not come to this one.
so, i would rather see money put into improving situations in refugee starting points than in facilitating the flow of refugees out of those starting points. i would like to see a return to the good neighbour policy. i would like to see nato stop generating civil wars and supporting coups, and instead increasing the flow of foreign aid.
a further disincentive to migrate should come in the stricter enforcement of labour laws. there should be a strong crackdown on employers that hire "illegals", especially those that hire them below the minimum wage. if employers are prevented from illegally hiring "illegal" migrants (and note where the quotes are....), the economic incentive for migration will quickly cease. this crackdown, coupled with generous aid and the cessation of imperialism, should largely stop the flow of migrants.
but, no - those that get here should not be expelled.
the actual truth is that i find the narrative of nihilism v conservatism, and the total non-existence of anything resembling a left, to be depressing. these are the basic outlines of a socialist immigration policy. it's unfortunate that this is so strange to people nowadays that they can't even fathom it, and immediately conflate any rejection of conservatism with nihilism.
i promised a talk last night, and it will come up in the review. i'm kind of stuck in between days - tired but not tired...
this is just a little more subtlety to confuse you with.
1) i actually support sanctuary cities, and reject the idea of "illegal immigration". no one is illegal! so, there's almost no scenario where i would argue that you should be sent back, if you manage to get here. i'd sent you back if you have a criminal record or there's a warrant out for you. that's about it. but, understand that there's a big difference between not deporting people that get here on their own and actively picking people and bringing them here. that's only a contradiction if you want to make the issue about race, which is not what i want to make it about. so, i see no contradiction in supporting sanctuary cities and opposing active measures by the state to bring refugees in legally. but, note that it isn't very conservative of me to essentially be in favour of "illegal" refugees and opposed to "legal" refugee resettlement. it's really very anarchist of me...and that's the consistency you're struggling with.
2) i also think that the evidence in front of us suggests very strongly that canada cannot in good faith continue to argue that the united states is a "safe destination" for refugees, and would agree with calls to suspend the existing agreements until the existing president is no longer president any more, pending further review at that time. it's disingenuous to argue that these agreements should continue to stand.
this is just a little more subtlety to confuse you with.
1) i actually support sanctuary cities, and reject the idea of "illegal immigration". no one is illegal! so, there's almost no scenario where i would argue that you should be sent back, if you manage to get here. i'd sent you back if you have a criminal record or there's a warrant out for you. that's about it. but, understand that there's a big difference between not deporting people that get here on their own and actively picking people and bringing them here. that's only a contradiction if you want to make the issue about race, which is not what i want to make it about. so, i see no contradiction in supporting sanctuary cities and opposing active measures by the state to bring refugees in legally. but, note that it isn't very conservative of me to essentially be in favour of "illegal" refugees and opposed to "legal" refugee resettlement. it's really very anarchist of me...and that's the consistency you're struggling with.
2) i also think that the evidence in front of us suggests very strongly that canada cannot in good faith continue to argue that the united states is a "safe destination" for refugees, and would agree with calls to suspend the existing agreements until the existing president is no longer president any more, pending further review at that time. it's disingenuous to argue that these agreements should continue to stand.
so, this is why i had to walk to macdonald's to get a coffee.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/knifepoint-windsor-carjacking-police-1.3970247
...and i'm going to post a little about this when i finish my my munchies.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/knifepoint-windsor-carjacking-police-1.3970247
...and i'm going to post a little about this when i finish my my munchies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)