Saturday, 7 February 2009

Romantic Rhetoric vs. Objective Fact: Andrew Coyne Debates James Bissett On Immigration.

A reader to this blog brought this this debate to my attention and so I'm bringing it to yours.

It is a debate between MaCleans national editor Andrew Coyne and former head of Canadian Immigration Services James Bissett over the question "Should Canada adopt a more wide-open immigration policy, or should we be more focused on targeted immigration based on Canada's market needs."

Watch the debate if you haven't already and try to do so with an open mind. With that said I have to say that James BIssett won. My "bias" may have brought me to that conclusion but if you distance yourself from the issue and watch the discussion objectively I think you will arrive at the same conclusion as well. You may not want to agree with Jame Bissett but he used one thing that Andrew Coyne didn't: the facts. Andrew Coyne was too dependent on rhetoric, speculation, and assumptions, all propelled by outdated romantic notions of immigration.

From what I gather from the debate Coyne is arguing from a libertarian position feeling that there should be no limits to immigration. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that Canadians should not be protected from mass immigration; that Canadians have no birth right to this country; to ask why should immigrants be denied what Canadians have by accident of birth. This is a libertarian mind thinking and like Coyne's PhD. in Economics it is totally impractical in the real world.

He ignores, or at least brushes off, the inconvenient fact that post 1990 immigrant cohorts are doing poorly and this is the problem. James Bissett and other immigration critics like myself are not opposed to immigration. We are opposed to the current immigration system that really didn't come to fruition until the late 1980s and early 1990s. This is why so many immigrant communities are not doing so well and why so many post 1990 immigrants are living below the poverty line. The system is broken and Canada is accepting too many immigrants particularly immigrants who have little chance in succeeding economically in the country. To be blunt, Canada has granted citizenship to people who really shouldn't be here.

Instead of addressing this problem Coyne retreats to examples that can only be fully understood in context. He correctly states that Canada at one time accepted more immigrants that it did now. Bissett acknowledges this but reminds Coyne that this was an exception to a general trend and that these people were directed to the unsettled prairies. This is unlike today where most immigrants settle in Canada's three major cities.

Coyne also uses the example of the Vietnamese boat people of the 1970s who landed in Canada and prospered. Again context is needed. The people landed in a time when Canada wasn't accepting as many immigrants as it did and was in a better position to absorb them. These boat people were not competing with a flood of new arrivals for jobs and in a time when Canada was shedding jobs.

Also, Coyne uses what I'll call the "one in a million" argument. He uses Magna founder Frank Stronach and the real estate moguls the Reichmans of Olympia and York fame as examples of immigrants who made fortunes in Canada. The fact that Coyne couldn't (or didn't) use recent examples shows the weakness of this argument but what he is saying is that by limiting immigration Canada could cheat itself out of bringing in more people like the examples given. Again, they arrived when Canada had a more manageable immigration system and Canada was in a position to absorb them.

The other thing Bissett has over Coyne is experience and it shows. Coyne, I must say, doesn't seem to know what he is talking about. He is an intelligent man and I have read some of his articles but in this debate he comes off as a misinformed fool driven by ideology and romanticism. Bissett, on the other hand, has "been there, done that" making his position more compelling.

Being a national editor to a national magazine it is understandable why Coyne would take the position that he did. It is in MaCleans magazine's financial interests, as a profit maximizing organization, to sell to as large as an audience as it can so that is can deliver this audience to advertisers which is were all media make their money.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a rather succinct and accurate summary....if only Andrew Coyne could see himself as well as you have, there would be some hope for him. However, if "bottom line" is his reasoning...then I can only conclude that he's just another hypocrite who must face his own lies when he shaves in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Coyne is probably not a libertarian. More likely he is a mouthpiece for capital. If he truly was a libertarian he must believe in individual freedom, including a basic right to freedom of association. In other words the right to exclude.

The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows: Other things being equal, businesses go to low-wage areas, and labor moves to high-wage areas, thus affecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital. An influx of migrants into a given-sized high-wage area will lower nominal wage rates. However, it will not lower real wage rates if the population is below its optimum size. To the contrary, if this is the case, the produced output will increase over-proportionally, and real incomes will actually rise. Thus, restrictions on immigration will harm the protected domestic workers qua consumers more than they gain qua producers. Moreover, immigration restrictions will increase the "flight" of capital abroad (the export of capital which otherwise might have stayed), still causing an equalization of wage rates (although somewhat more slowly), but leading to a less than optimal allocation of capital, thereby harming world living standards all-around. [...]

For the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarcho-capitalist society. Though convinced that such a society is the only social order that can be defended as just, I do not want to explain here why this is the case. Instead, I will employ it as a conceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamental misconception of most contemporary free immigration advocates.

All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a "freedom to move around," unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregagtion, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.


Andrew White

Anonymous said...

What Coyne misses, denies or regales as racist is the fundamental fact that the mass migration of the early 20th century led directly to the loss of freedom for native Canadians. There was exclusivity, segregation, and discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural grounds. Needless to say immigrant Canadians didn't particularly like their new found freedom. They worked to change it and it came about in the perversion of liberalism.

...the role of the state had been to protect the rights of the discriminator: traditional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including refusing to hire them or to serve them. Courts and governments in Canada were still upholding and enforcing the right to discriminate into the 1950s. (78) It represented a fundamental shift, a reversal, of the traditional notion of citizens' rights to enrol the state as the protector of the right of the victim to freedom from discrimination. It was, in fact, a revolutionary change in the definition of individual freedom.

State coercion served both the goals of capital and minority groups who desired state "protection" from freedom.

Finally, if the movement of labour is to be truly free, then those Canadians who lose their jobs to offshore locals should be free to follow those jobs to other nations, if they wished. However, immigration to those nations is ethnically/racially based.

"My favorite was India. When we called them up, the first official we got said, "Are you of Indian origin?" When we said no, he said "Submit your question in writing to the Embassy" and then he hung up!

The second official said "Are you of Indian origin?" and when we asked if it was important, he said yes, and he transferred the call. We finally got to a third official who said "Since you are not of Indian origin"—now remember, he meant race here, we’d already specified we were American citizens—"since you’re not of Indian origin, it’s a very difficult and complex process to immigrate to India. Among other things, it will require obtaining clearances from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs. This is a very long process."

In other words, India is running a Brown India program—sort of like the old White Australia policy. And they have probably very good reasons for that. There a quite enough communal problems right now in India, without introducing other divergent elements."

Andrew White

P.K.U. said...

I don't know if Andre White is speaking from the perspective of one of those whites-only groups. I wouldn't go far as to support that kind of ideology since it would by hypocritical (I am a non-white immigrant to Canada).

But as to the general post here, I do think that officials get too lofty with their ideals of free immigration and equal opportunity. While that is a noble intention, we have to consider the fact that there has to a certain balance for a country to continue to prosper in the way that attracted immigrants in the first place. If a company becomes successful and everyone wants to work there, they cannot simple allow everyone of any qualification to enter because that would downgrade their quality which sort of defeats the purpose.

"Multiculturalism" isn't what made Canada into the country that everyone wanted to go to. Why change a working formula?

P.K.U. said...

Also, the "Brown India" comparison is utterly silly and shows how little thought is put into this policy.

The Indian policy allows people of Indian origin to immigrate to India easily. So these are ancestral Indians allowed to return to their ancestral country. However, it is discrimination by origin, and not by color. Bandgladeshis cannot do it. Pakistanis cannot do it. Sri Lankans cannot do it.

In comparison, Canada and Australia are countries established on foreign lands built through immigration. The "Whites only" policy restricts immigration to people of a certain color.

There is no comparison with India's policy of allowing NRI's to return.

Anonymous said...

"In comparison, Canada and Australia are countries established on foreign lands built through immigration. The "Whites only" policy restricts immigration to people of a certain color."

Which is not true, of course. Canada is not anymore a foreign land than India. India was also founded by migrants, but Indians will never admit that fact.

The White Australia policy limited migration to European countries. It was not based on phenotype. Canada's immigration policy was also based on country of origin, as was the USA. However, it was deemed racist.

The irony of course is the hypocrisy. India employs a racist immigration policy, yet if Canada acted in the same manner, the screams of racist will be heard all the way from Bombay.

Andrew White

Anonymous said...

The reference to a "brown" India policy means keeping India brown as opposed to allowing migration of blacks, yellows and whites.

Andrew White

P.K.U. said...

So I'm guessing you don't agree with PaxCanadiana and this blog about allowing restrictive non-white immigration with integration and positive contribution in mind, rather you just want to kick out all those dirty non-white people and establish race-based immigration? Just wondering.

I don't know why you pretend like you can't see the difference between a nation founded on relatively modern population immigration, like Canada, and a country like Britain, India, Japan, or Indonesia which have populations rooted in those territories far before.

As for the "brown" India policy, I don't see what the point is. The white Australia policy was explicitly about race. India on the other hand isn't basing this policy on race or religion. Other South Asian countries cannot do it. Nor can other Hindu nations or communities do it. There is no comparison.

If Canada enacted a policy where people with Canadian parentage living abroad can return to Canada easily, no one would deem it racist.

>>>>India was also founded by migrants, but Indians will never admit that fact.<<<<

If you want to play semantics, all civilizations were founded by migrants. The Indus Valley civilization was founded by one population into India, the Vedic/Sanskrit civilization was founded by the next ones who pushed the earlier ones South, the Mughals followed, and then the British took over the country, then partitioned the nation to form India. I don't know what the point of that comments was in this discussion, unless you just felt like making some feel-good racial taunting. Whatever.

Anonymous said...

It's clear you don't care a wit about the founding people of Canada. Rather you just wish to the further the interest of your own people by allying with other groups to ensure your people get a piece of the pie regardless of the level of impact upon carrying capacity and the negative impact that will have on the descendants of the founding people. It's clear also that you have no interest in sustaining the free institutions that Canada was founded upon. Free association, free speech be damned. After all the well being of your people always comes first. Predictable any defence of the founders desire to preserve their country are met with the resounding cries of racist.

Yes, all civilizations were founded by migrants and that's why there is no difference between founding populations, except the artificial constructs of those who wish only to further the interests of there own people. The Punjab for Punjabis?

The White Australia policy is no more racist than the "Brown" India policy. "Canadian parentage", now who's playing semantics. For India the requirement is "Indian origin". For Canada it must be "Canadian parentage". Too funny. Your ethnocentrism is showing. What's good, is what's good for Indians. Classic.

Andrew White

Anonymous said...

"So I'm guessing you don't agree with PaxCanadiana and this blog about allowing restrictive non-white immigration with integration and positive contribution in mind, rather you just want to kick out all those dirty non-white people and establish race-based immigration? Just wondering."

P.K.U: Your provocative question does not stand you in good stead in comparison to your past commentaries.

[Not "Andrew White" here]

I'm not an immigrant. I'm a White Canadian-born man living here in my own country. I have been to many parts of the world, but never to India and have no interest in even visiting that country.

I was quite fond of Canada long before "multiculturalism" reared its ugly head and before heretics were automatically smeared with being "racist" if we didn't comply with this new religion.

My city of Toronto (where I no longer reside) had a 98% lilly-white population, with a high standard of living, very low crime rate where one could walk the streets in relative safety at any time.

The only people carrying guns were Toronto's finest who seldom needed to un-holster their weapons. The only gangs were white motorcycle gangsters and the Mafia types, but they weren't having shoot-outs on Toronto streets every day of the week. It was a glorious time to live in Toronto during the the late '60s until the mid '70s. But all that changed when somebody in government decided to dissolve the people to elect another.

We Canadians, did not give permission to our government to import millions of 3rd world people totally unlike ourselves, and, in turn give them "victim status" that would give these foreign groups preferential treatment to our jobs and job promotions (employment-equity).

To ensure that White Canadians complied with this enforced unwanted, un-needed immigration policy, the government enacted "hate" laws aimed at Whites and Whites ONLY!

"In comparison, Canada and Australia are countries established on foreign lands built through immigration."

When British & French SETTLERS began to arrive here in vast numbers, they were not greeted with easy access to welfare beaver skins, nor given a subsidized teepee, nor given free access to a medicine-man, nor given preferential treatment to good-paying jobs of tanning leather, nor preferential promotions to head-skinner simply because they were non-native.

All of our modern infrastructure that you enjoy today, from transportation, to a modern welfare state, to skyscrapers, electric lighting, wireless communication, planes, trains, & automobiles all invented, designed and built by .....guess who??

...and what are world's RACIAL demographics?

Short answer HERE.

Anonymous said...

The miscegenation of our White race has been underway for at least 100 years.

Your prime brainwashing instrument is sitting in your living room. To wit: "Sophie's Choice", "Little Mosque on the Prairie",etc. etc. along with their mixed-race television commercials, ad nauseam.

Also, advertisements for "inter-racial" dating services appear to be gaining popularity. Young Canadians, especially adolescent girls are targeted examples to make it "cool" in dating non-white men.

Incredibly, even the Prime Minister of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, came out and basically told the French White people that they must specifically accept being racially discriminated against job-wise and that they must interbreed with the other races: Read HERE.

In 1912,Israel Cohen, wrote in "A Racial Program For the Twentieth Century" the following:

"We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will instill into the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America into our hands."

I think Henry Makow explains it best in his summary of racial diversity.

P.K.U. said...

>>>>>It's clear you don't care a wit about the founding people of Canada.<<<<<

Then you clearly haven't been reading any of my posts.

But it doesn't matter to you, right? Since I admitted I was an immigrant, in your view I have immediately become an anti-Canadian, racist, affirmative action supporting, West-hating immigrant, because there's only one kind, right?

If you have trouble reading, let me restate my position on this blog: I am an immigrant. I have no interest in furthering my own culture in Canada. I moved to Canada because I love the country and society and there was an opportunity to be a part of this society. I am secular. I promote Western classical music, literature, and study Western history. There is nothing I want more than the continuation of Western culture and civilization, and I am heavily opposed to multiculturalism and heavy immigration. I oppose affirmative action. I oppose minority preferential treatment. I oppose the opening of cultural schools.

I am afraid it is pointless to continue a discussion with someone who has an unwavering view of what the other person SHOULD believe rather than what they do believe. If you have already decided what your disposition towards me is, don't waste my time with a pointless discussion.

Yes, nice nitpicking of "origin" vs. "parentage". Use whichever word you like. I don't really care. The point is that if Canada enacted a policy where people who were once Canadians or whose parents were once Canadians could return easily, no one would consider it racist, because it is not based on race. That is what India's policy is. Those who are Indians or whose parents are Indians can "return" to India easily. The White Australia policy was about race and not nationality. Supporting arguments explicitly mentioned the desire to keep out Chinese and other non-white groups. I'm surprised you cannot see a distinction.

Oh, and to cut off a small piece of Anonymous' rant:

""""All of our modern infrastructure that you enjoy today, from transportation, to a modern welfare state, to skyscrapers, electric lighting, wireless communication, planes, trains, & automobiles all invented, designed and built by .....guess who??""""

Again, another person who seems to make an enemy out of anyone for no reason. When and where have I ever denied that modern technology came primarily from the West? (ancient inventions are another matter, though - read Charles Murray's "Human Accomplishment" for further details).

But while it is clear to anyone where the source of modern technology was, let me tell you one thing: Being white by accident of birth does not entitle you to somehow take "credit" for the genius of Planck, Newton, or Fermi. Just like being Chinese does not mean I get credit for Lao Tzu, nor does being Indian mean I get credit for discovering the boson, and etc.

I should say upfront that there is no point in having a discussion with me if you are a sort of person who simply wants anyone who isn't white out of the country. I like this country primarily because I am evaluated as an individual. If you evaluate me by race, then there is little point in having any discussion since you have already made your decision that I am evil.

One of the reasons I visit this blog is because the owner states numerous times that the owner is not a racist, but shares the same opinions I do.

P.K.U. said...

I just want to restate that if your opinion on immigration is based on you not liking anyone who doesn't have "lily-white" skin, then I'd appreciate if you would just say so upfront so I can stop wasting my time responding. Clearly there is no common ground between us if you hold that kind of opinion, so the discussion will go nowhere and be pointless for us both. You will probably find more agreeable people on David Duke's website or something.

Anonymous said...

It's clear you don't care about the founding people because you are either unaware or will not acknowledge the dysgenic impact of mass migration. Frank Salter's 'On Genetic Interests' is a good beginning.

"In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction — precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today."

Darwin On the Extinction of the Races of Man

"Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the numbers of each savage tribe,- such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents, sickness, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially lessened fertility.

If any one of these checks increases in power, even slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining
tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption. Even when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct."

Murray's statistical analysis states the obvious. There is a reason that Newton, Galileo and Poincare are giants in their fields and of European descent. It is the product of the evolution of a particular people.

The India policy is only distinct in the groups it denies. There is no allowance for Chinese, African or European immigration to India. Again, the White Australia policy was based upon origin from Europe, not phenotype.

This country evaluates you not as an individual but as a member of a protected group. As pointed out above, the classical liberalism, upon which this country was founded, was perverted. Freedom, originally, was the protection of voluntary interaction. The ability to discriminate, on whatever basis has been suborned state coercion. It is as Mill said, free institutions cannot exist in a multi-ethnic nation. If you really cared about the founding people, their civilization and their freedom and survival you would return home and enjoy Western civilization, whatever that is, from afar.

Andrew White

Anonymous said...

"Again, another person who seems to make an enemy out of anyone for no reason."

I've provided links that support my contention that Whites are targeted for a rapid decline in homogeneous status and stature. Concerted efforts are underway to diminish, dilute, then denigrate White people at every opportunity through the MSM and our public school system. Individual immigrants are not the problem, but a relentless mass migration of 3rd world inhabitants marching into our country is a recipe for disaster, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

Do you think these self-serving politicians, government bureaucrats care one whit for you or have any real compassion for these refugees or peoples from developing 3rd world countries who enter our country en mass? Politicians are just waterboys in this game, who fetch whatever is required of them, otherwise they're tossed out and replaced by somebody who follows orders. They're simply used as pawns to break down our structure towards a One World Government.

"I just want to restate that if your opinion on immigration is based on you not liking anyone who doesn't have "lily-white" skin, then I'd appreciate if you would just say so up front so I can stop wasting my time responding."

Aside from several other angles to critique my post, your fixation on my term "lily-white" has apparently ruffled your feathers. Apparently, you've not taken the time to carefully read the supporting links that I provided -- otherwise – why raise the point of an innocuous use of my term?

You've taken my "lily white" text out of context. My intent was to merely call attention to the obvious fact that our major cities have been racially transformed against the wishes of the majority, who happen to be "lily-white" Canadians. Despite the relentless daily propaganda to diminish the status of our own race, our culture, our history, and our "old dead white guy" descendants, I'm still a proud Canadian white man who enjoys co-habiting with the 85% of us -- who still command the majority of people -- in our OWN country!

Further, raising your point on my use of “lily-white” reminds me of similar criticism launched against Peter Brimelow, U.S.-based author of ”Alien Nation” who withstood a relentless barrage of criticism for merely mentioning the fact of his son having “blue eyes and blond hair”.

The white-guilt net has been cast far and wide to capture the minds of many emasculated white Canadians and turning them into groveling, genuflecting hypocrites. But I'm not one of them, so any further attempts of guilt-mongering will fall flat on your part.

Also, by using a close second law to Godwin's law by invoking David Duke's name, has clearly placed you a tenuous position.

Incidentally, David Duke is entitled to his opinions and also probably closer to understanding the "game plan" than most people.

Anonymous said...

British blogger "Sarah, Maid of Albion", just posted this timely and pertinent post titled "Ignoring the Cracks" found HERE.

P.K.U. said...

"you are either unaware or will not acknowledge the dysgenic impact of mass migration"

I have already said that I oppose mass immigration.

If you wish to argue with a fantasy opponent, don't direct it towards me. If you wish to have a discussion with me, then argue with my opinions and not your delusions of what my opinions are.

"If you really cared about the founding people, their civilization and their freedom and survival you would return home and enjoy Western civilization, whatever that is, from afar."

I cannot change my race, my skin, my eyes, or whatever other features an accident of birth lent to me. I have one but once chance to live on this planet, and I have made my choice. The moment I feel unwelcome in this country, I will leave. But that is not my experience. My experience is a country and community where I have been able to integrate and contribute to and feel welcome in. In return, I have never supported any minority preferential treatment or multiculturalism or mass immigration. I will soon finish my graduate degree and re-enter the workforce to further contribute. If you believe your accident of birth gives you higher rights and status in this country than me, that is your opinion and your right. But there is no point in telling this to me.

I have stood with numerous conservatives and supported them against mass immigration and multiculturalism. But I cannot change how was I born nor will I ever apologize for it. I see no point in discussing this aspect any further. You will have your opinion, that I should simply "go away" and live my life "looking from afar", which is satisfactory and perfect a solution for you. And I will have my own opinion based on my own perspective.

I see no point in discussing India any further as you are pretending to not understand the distinction. I'll repeat it one final time: The White Australia policy barred migrants on the basis of race, and a desire to keep out non-Whites particularly Chinese and other Asians. The India policy allowed Indians or children of Indians to return to India. Sri Lankans or other South Asians of similar race or religion are not allowed the same privilege. Nor does a person's religion or origin, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, affect their eligibility for the program.

P.K.U. said...

And as for Anonymous:

""""Individual immigrants are not the problem, but a relentless mass migration of 3rd world inhabitants marching into our country is a recipe for disaster, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.""""

I agree.

Here is a piece by Gavin McInnes which sums up my opinion on this matter:

http://vdare.com/misc/050329_mcinnes.htm

"""""Do you think these self-serving politicians, government bureaucrats care one whit for you or have any real compassion for these refugees or peoples from developing 3rd world countries who enter our country en mass? Politicians are just waterboys in this game, who fetch whatever is required of them, otherwise they're tossed out and replaced by somebody who follows orders. They're simply used as pawns to break down our structure towards a One World Government."""""

I agree.

""""The white-guilt net has been cast far and wide to capture the minds of many emasculated white Canadians and turning them into groveling, genuflecting hypocrites. But I'm not one of them, so any further attempts of guilt-mongering will fall flat on your part.""""

I dont know where exactly I was "guilt-mongering".

I said that if your concern about immigration was about keeping Canada "lily white", there was no point in discussion because unfortunately the cards I was drawn at birth did not include "lily white skin". So there is no point in continuing a discussion because our two opinions would be completely incompatible. Does that make sense now?

""""""Also, by using a close second law to Godwin's law by invoking David Duke's name, has clearly placed you a tenuous position.""""""

I invoked David Duke's name because your opinions are closer to his than to PaxCanadiana and this blog (which has a more moderate idea about immigration than "keep all the non-whites out", as you can see in his comments and posts). Therefore it is logical that you will find more solace with Duke than with this site. Try to keep up.

P.K.U. said...

(And before you nitpick, I am not referring to racial majority demographics when I say " keeping it lily-white", rather I am simply referring to the idea that absolutely no immigration that isn't "lily-white" should be tolerated. If that's the case, then our viewpoints are incompatible.)

Anonymous said...

The initial assessment was correct. You care only for yourself and your people and nothing for the survival of the people who founded and built this country, who provided the educational and work opportunities you pursue. Everyone of your fellow immigrants can say exactly the same thing. No doubt the mass of migrants of the last twenty years feel the same. You're a full fledged hypocrite. A product of the mass immigration that is race-replacing the founding people now considers his presence neutral. You are just one more of an ever increasing Indian colony that cares for nothing but advancing its own ethnic interests.

The Brown India policy is racist. India chooses immigrants based on race. It denies entry to blacks whites and yellows. It is a racist immigration policy, without doubt.

If nothing else was accomplished, at least another charlatan was unveiled.

Andrew White.

P.K.U. said...

Andrew White,

I believe we are nearing the end of this conversation. I am beginning to suspect that your responses are not serious ones, and are intended to get an angry response from me and nothing more. If so, I am embarrassed at having been led along this charade until now.

I have presented my beliefs clearly, and anyone would be able to see that they are not to further the interests of my own community or ethnic group. I live in a town where I am the only nonwhite, and I have never complained or asked for more immigration to it, nor have I ever demanded special services to me. I have also never been discriminated against or feel that I was unwelcome, because they consider me integrated into the community. If you have a problem with this, then your issue is with my neighbors, who have always treated me as a human being and not as a dirty immigrant, because of the fact that I do not behave like the immigrants in Toronto or Vancouver.

It is clear that if my posts had been written by a white male, then you would be in support of my beliefs.

Therefore, it has also become clear that your main contention with me is my origin (I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was Indian), and not my beliefs, behavior or contribution to this society.

Since I cannot change my origin, I see no future for this conversation, particularly since you insist on conversing with only your delusion of what I am or believe.

As for the India policy, again, an inability to understand the clear distinction is a deficiency which cannot be fixed over internet discussion.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

You continue to reveal the selfishness of your position. What happens when the next immigrant comes to your town and then the next and the next...they will say the same thing.

"I live in a town where I am one of a small minority (30%)of nonwhites, and I have never complained or asked for more immigration to it, nor have I ever demanded special services to me. (Even though the state coercion is entrenched (HRCs) and available on demand).I have also never been discriminated against or feel that I was unwelcome, because they consider me integrated into the community. If you have a problem with this, then your issue is with my neighbors, who have always treated me as a human being and not as a dirty immigrant, because of the fact that I do not behave like the immigrants in Toronto or Vancouver."

Using your logic, there is no denying those immigrants either. They, like you, don't care that they are displacing the founding people. They don't care that they are lowering the standard of living or impacting carrying capacity. They don't care about race-replacement. They don't care that anyone who might be concerned about the imminent demographic change and speaks against it will face the full force of the Stalinist state. All they care is for themselves and since it is inevitable that they will cluster in like groups, for it is natural, by extension furthering the ethnic interest of their group.

You cannot deny them the same "truths" that sustain you for it withers your raison d'etre. You cannot deny them their one life to live or the accident of their birth, because it will deny your truth. You're a hypocrite and a charlatan and now you're upset because that fact is revealed.

Andrew White

Anonymous said...

"I have also never been discriminated against or feel that I was unwelcome, because they consider me integrated into the community."

Even if they desired to exclude you they cannot because such an act is illegal. State coercion demands that they accept you. State coercion demands that they not discriminate against you even if your number is multiplied a ten thousand fold. Even a blind man can see it, but not you. You are so consumed by yourself and your self interest that you are eternally oblivious to it. Your sole existence there is predicated upon the fact that you belong to a protected group. You epitomise the 'vulnerable minority' that is the cause célèbre for the denial of freedom to the founding people.

Andrew White

P.K.U. said...

Andrew White,

This will be my final message towards you. I have said all I wish to say and I don't feel like repeating myself.

On a final note, I would like to at least note with amusement your cowardly use of the term "founding peoples". All of Europe were not the founding peoples of Canada (and southern European colonies have met with much lesser success than northern European ones), but your attitude towards them is markedly different. When you once again find another immigrant to focus your time on feeling superior to, drop the "founding peoples" nonsense and just say skin color (we cannot say race, as many classify the peoples of Europe as being of multiple racial classifications). Don't be afraid to reveal what you really think. If you're a racist, say you're a racist, be proud of it, and stop cowering behind soft-sounding terms. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.

As for your next copy-and-pasted charlatan diatribe, it is clear to most people that a person like me, who is assimilated into the community I live in, is different from an immigrant who lives in ethnic enclaves and promotes only their own language/culture.

Since you judge solely by race and not by behavior or beliefs, you don't. That's fine. People can have their opinions. I can't control your opinions nor do I really care all that much about them.

Have a nice day.

PaxCanadiana said...

I should state again for the record that I don't support refusing non-whites to immigrate to Canada. However, I don't support the replacement of the host white majority population with a non-white population through immigration or any other means. Whites are already a minority in the world. Why make them minorities in the few countries they are the majority? This doesn't make sense to me.

We may not want to acknowledge it but race matters. We even see it here in Canada when racial minority groups complain about the lack of representation of their particular race or ethnicity in the media, government, or in the workforce. Race obviously matters to them. Are whites somehow free of this behavior? Of course not.

If my reading of the tone of some of the commentators on this blog and elsewhere it is apparent that there is a growing resentment among many Canadians towards the immigration system and what it is doing to their country. At one time it was recognizable. It was a place with people they identified with. Now it is becoming a strange place where they have nothing in common with people who also call themselves Canadians aside from the right to vote. It feels you can't travel to parts of Toronto without carrying a passport. I understand their disapproval and they should express it (short of instigating violence against any one group) but it is becoming clear to me that Canada's immigration system and state sanctioned multiculturalism will only create a nation of racists (and not just whites only). Only through the maintenance of a host racial majority can racism be tamed, it can never be eliminated.

Canadians are finding themselves overcome with a sense of loss which can turn to frustration and even racism when they are told that they have to put up with it, that the erasure of what they knew to be Canada and its replacement by an alien one is part of Canada's evolution to a "New Canada". Too bad the people weren't asked if this is what they wanted.

I realize what I just wrote may have been how the indigenous peoples of this land felt when the Europeans took the land from them and established a government to rule over them. But if it was wrong for the Europeans to do that to the indigenous peoples how it is right when large influxes of immigrants from select countries do that here in modern Canada? If you are to argue that you have every right to be here because Europeans colonized native lands then that is an admission that you too are a colonizer and one who is no better than the first Europeans who arrived here, an ironic situation considering most immigrants to Canada today are from countries that were subjected to colonial rule. It seems colonialism is only good when you're the one doing it, not when it is being done to you.

To acknowledge that the Canadian exists it to acknowledge that there is something to assimilate into, that Canadians have a country with a history, culture, language(s), and traditions. Early cohorts of immigrants recognized this and made efforts to disappear into the Canadian identity. Now this seems to to be too much to ask and so the Canadian doesn't exist, its not allowed to exist, if multiculturalism is to prevail and an anything goes Canadian identity is to reign.

Canadians are being asked to endure what no one else would and it is this double standard many are frustrated with. Many immigrant's cultures are secure in their respective homelands. For Canadians, there is only one Canada and if it disappears then what else is there? Having said that, I don't see why Canadians should accommodate every cultural nuance and nurture the growth and preservation of imported cultures on Canadian soil. As is happening in Canada's major cities Canadian cultural spaces are being surrendered to, colonized if you will, to cultures that are alive and well in foreign lands. Why do they need to be preserved here?

I am just shooting from the hip. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a Canadian identity that everyone in the world is invited to partake off and by doing so you adopt the history and customs that goes with it. Refusal to do comes with consequences and some may even perceive the refusal as an insult. It seems many immigrants want to have their cake and eat it too. They want everything Canada has to offer, they just don't want to be Canadian.

I don't think I address any of the issues that were raised in the comments. I guess I just wanted to put a period to the sentence.

svend said...

I don't really care where they come from. There are just to many for the economy to absorb. 20k/yr should suffice.

Canada will not survive this.