quote:

---

Michelle, hon, he just ain't gonna get it. You could argue 'till you're blue in the face and he still would not see how our system discriminates against visible minorities.
btw, did you read that latest report put out by the CSJ on economic apartheid in Canada?

---

But since I've started this thread, I would like to respond to Slick Willy's comments.

quote:

---

Oh Brother! I say decertification would lead to unqualified people opening up shop in Canada. So now I am a racist.

---

My original comment was that people with legitimate university degrees from non-white countries do not have their educations recognized here, and do not have access to certification tests. Then you twisted my argument to mean that I wanted decertification (I don't want that - I want to see them have ACCESS to certification tests since we let them into Canada on the basis of their skills) and characterized the people I was talking about (foreign-trained professionals of colour) as mail order witch doctors (and now quacks).

Let me make it abundantly clear so I don't receive yet ANOTHER reply about decertification. I don't want decertification. I want the certification process to be available to foreign-trained professionals so they won't be forced to become Canada's underclass.

quote:

---

If you move to another country and haven't the sense to know what it is your getting into then I figure you have no reason to even be in the country.

---

quote:

---

Just try to explain to the Thai authorities that you didn't know that exporting drugs from their country was a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps you should have a look at what racism really is before you start barking at me that I am racist.

---

Even your last analogy, which I replied to above, was racist since you're comparing immigrant professionals of colour to drug smugglers. It is such a common perception of immigrants in Canada, that they are criminals, or that they are uneducated quacks out to mislead the public.

One lady from Romania was lucky. She was a pharmacist over there, working in a government pharmaceutical warehouse, and then after Ceausescu was shot, she opened up her own pharmacy before moving to Canada. Anyway, her husband had been an electrician in Romania, and was able to get a job with the Skytrain folk out here in BC almost off the bat. So her family was in a better situation than the Taiwanese and Philipino immigrants working the cash register who didn't have a hope in hell of getting their qualifications recognized.

I think it's immensely asinine that we don't formally recognize the equivalency of qualifications while insisting on highly-skilled immigrants in the first place.

quote:

---

I think it's immensely asinine that we don't formally recognize the equivalency of qualifications while insisting on highly-skilled immigrants in the first place.

---

I agree with you. I absolutely think that people should have to get Canadian certification for their profession, especially something like medicine. After all, Canadian-trained people still have to be certified. But when only 36 foreign-trained doctors are allowed to apply for certification in Ontario per year (and that with a doctor shortage in underserviced areas!!) what's the point of letting hundreds of doctors come here only to be disappointed?

Part of the reason that immigration in Canada can seem so harsh and arbitrary is because it is harsh and arbitrary. Immigration is entirely within the purview of Crown Prerogative. You become a citizen only by leave of Her Majesty In Right of Canada. The Immigration Act is essntially just a bare framework for the immigration officials to work from. There are HUGE amounts of discretion contained within the immigration process, and this wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't so central to the lives of applicants.

Many, if not most immigration officers see themselves as the gatekeepers of Canadian society. You don't have to look any farther than the comments by G. Lorenz in the Baker v. Canada case.

quote:

---

Clersal is right about getting off topic and hot under the collar. I just was annoyed

---

You must learn not to take message boards so seriously.

quote:

---

My original comment was that people with legitimate university degrees from
non-white countries do not have their educations recognized here,

---

Not true at all. As a matter of fact there are plenty of places that will examine your education and advise you of what it will amount to in Canada.

An example:
Edu qualificaton examinations

quote:

---

How are they supposed to know what they're getting into before they're here?
ESP?

---

Yeah that would be good. Or the could try a little research as I have just done. It took me half an hour.

Another example:
Canadian Information centre

quote:

---

The problem is, they are getting the wrong information from those officials. They are told, "We have a shortage of doctors in Canada. We need professionals. The more education you have, the better chance you have of coming to Canada. You're a doctor? Great, here's the plane!"

---

Really? I must have missed that part. Odd how the documents talk about needing $10,000 for an individual plus $2,000 for each dependant and so on. And tell you quite clearly that unless you have an employer that specificly wants to hire you, there is a good chance that you will not be working right away. I don't expect you to believe me. Go ahead, read it for yourself. Also I find it some what odd that all of this information I found was through the Canadian Embassy in Seoul Korea. Strange thing to do for such a racist little regime such as ours isn't it?

quote:

---

I fail to see how your analogy makes sense.

---

Someone's ignorance of another country is not the problem of the other country.

quote:

---

Even your last analogy, which I replied to above, was racist since you're
comparing immigrant professionals of colour to drug smugglers.

---

You know, you sound something like a guy I helped my neighbour evict a few years a go.
He was four month behind in rent. Destroied the apartment. Piled up garbage all over the patio. Would sit drinking beer often blasting his brand of music out of a boombox disturbing everyone else. Now when the sheriff came to finally remove this guy from the apartment, he screamed up and down that the landlord was racist. So my friend got to eat the money that wasn't paid in rent. The bills to repair what was broken and damaged. The cost and time to clean the place up again, and the cost of trying to rent the place out again. Oddly enough, this racist rented the place to a lady of the same ethnic origin of the last tenant. She has been there ever since without a single problem. As a matter of fact we chat now and again when we see eachother out and about.

quote:

---

Even your last analogy, which I replied to above, was racist since you're
comparing immigrant professionals of colour to drug smugglers.

---

My main beef was changing the subject. When there is a subject I always thought the idea is to discuss said subject, n'est ce pas?

Here's one to the main site: http://www.socialjustice.org/

Basically the main gist I got from my first (admittedly brief and cursory) read of the report is that visible minority groups earn far less than white Canadians, even though the educational level is on average higher, and even when the stats have been corrected for such factors as immigration and citizenship.

quote:

---

I presume you are referring to me Slick Willy about taking message boards so seriously.

---

quote:

---

You know, you sound something like a guy I helped my neighbour evict a few years a go. He was four month behind in rent. Destroied the apartment. Piled up garbage all over the patio. Would sit drinking beer often blasting his brand of music out of a boombox disturbing everyone else. Now when the sheriff came to finally remove this guy from the apartment, he screamed up and down that the landlord was racist. So my friend got to eat the money that wasn't paid in rent.

---

I remind you of someone who doesn't pay rent, vandalizes apartments, and disturbs the peace? I wonder how you could have gotten that from my messages?

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. Even assuming you meant that his cry of racism is the same as mine, it's still a bad analogy. The jack-ass tenant you're talking about broke the law and rules of tenancy. Immigrants are not breaking rules - they are following the rules, but the rules go around in circles. THAT'S what's racist.

quote:

---

Even assuming you meant that his
cry of racism is the same as mine, it's still a bad analogy.

---

I don't think so. First conclusion you jump to is racism. Same with him. It could very well be that it isn't as effective as it should be. Could be that it can be done a lot better. But it isn't racist. Some countries like the U.S. and England have standards in education and professional jobs that are very close to our own. Some countries don't.

quote:

---

Immigrants are not breaking rules - they are following the rules, but the rules go around in circles. THAT'S what's racist.

---

It's not racist at all. It is bureaucracy.
Everyone has to deal with it. The reason for it is because we need checks and balances to see that there is as little fraud as possible. Believe it or not there arte those who would take advantage of us and the generosity of our country.

Think on this. Some white people are smarter than most black people. Some black people are smarter than most white people. Racists base their lies on part of this argument. Some people are just creeps who want to take from those who work hard for a living. The minute you call them on their bullshit you get called racist. I see it as demeaning for those who actually have to face racisim.

quote:

---

But I would still like to know why it is that visible minority immigrants wind up with lower incomes despite the fact that they have higher levels of education.

---

quote:

---

SW: Does your last statement mean that you think the implementation of immigration policy is not racist?

---

A bit of a tricky question. If you mean that the policy is racist then no I don't think it is.

If you mean do I think that there are racists that work within immigration that use their possition to discriminate against people. Yes I am sure that there are. Racists are employed within all sectors I would imagine.
But then that is why there are so many hoops to jump through. In order to help prevent this type of thing happening as much as possible. One person may disqualify an immigrant but there is an appeal prossess as well. Not perfect, but not useless and biased either.

Another interesting fact:
There is a shortage of doctors. This would make you think that someone with proper experience and credentials would be fast tracked into a position in Canada. The problem is that few doctors want to work in rural or remote areas. In Toronto here I can walk to over 2 dozen doctor's offices and see a doctor within 20 minutes of walking in off the street. In other areas of Ontario you would be lucky if you could reach a doctor after driving for well over 20 minutes with a confirmed appointment.

It is proving exceedingly difficult to manage to get a doctor to work in a rural area when they are free to make a pile of money in their own clinic in downtown Toronto. Yet if we say that once a doctor has been certified and liecensed they must work in a rural area for five years, it is slavery, against humanrights, and oppression. Not to mention the doctors will strike and then everyone is screwed. Or we could pay doctors what they ask for to work in remote areas and raise taxes to pay for it. But there is a limit to how high you can raise taxes before most people say to hell with it and move to another province or out of the country.

quote:

---

End of last week a black woman, born in Britain, all her British papers in perfect order, was stopped by an immigration officer who accused her of having "an accent."

---

I tried replying to this yesterday 3 times but timed out on each one. So here is one more try.

Customs and Immigrations officers must rely on judgment in order to be effective in keeping undesirables out of the country.
Some times mistakes happen and we can work to make it right with the people involved.

Due to this case being under investigation, we won't know the facts till the investigation is over and the results are published. So let's look at the worst case scenarios on both sides.

1) The woman was detained.
2) She had missed one or more important meetings.
3) Those she was here to visit were made to worry needlessly.
4) She has missed an important event such as a birthday or funeral.
5) She was made to feel like a criminal even though she is an upstanding, law abiding person.

I think that if the woman was amicable, this could all be smoothed over with a couple of thousand bucks. Immigration could offer her an formal appology along with a letter of explaination of why she was unable to attend for those she was to meet with. Pick up the tab for her hotel and expenses where ever she is staying in Canada. Provide first class air tickets should she have to return to Canada at a later date due to haveing a meeting rescheduled. And try to the best of our ability to see that she is feeling better about having to go through that proccedure.

On the other hand.

1) She could have been trying to enter the country illegally.
2) She could be coming here, using forged papers, to kill someone or blow something up.
3) She could be entering Canada so that she could enter the U.S. illegally much easier.
4) She wants to claim refugee status the moment she has passed customs, only to be refused after a lengthy investigation and time spent tracking her down for deportation.

In this case what do you say to those who were injured or killed because Immigration didn't want to risk appearing racist? Or to the U.S. when another terrorist tries to enter their country from ours? Or to taxpayers when we have to fork out another 70 -100 thousand dollars extra for a ligitimate refugee since that money was spent investigating her claim and paying someone to round her up when her claim fails?

So my question is on which side is it better to make the error? Hurt feelings will mend with a little tlc. Once someone is dead they stay dead no matter what.

From the article in the Star Online, she had a Nigerian accent. There is no mention of whether it was thick or slight. Possibly if her accent was thick, there is an acceptable reason for the Customs officer to become suspicious. I think that if you were born in Britan and lived there most of your life, you would not have a very thick accent of another language. For example: someone of Italian decent, born and schooled in Canada speaks english quite well with little if any accent at all, even though at home with their parents and relatives they only speak Italian. On the other hand I have a friend who was born here in Toronto and when young, moved to England for 19 years. Though she has been back here for a good 7 years, you would think she just got off the plane.

I heard this woman speak, at length, on Global TV -- I had no trouble understanding her at all. I saw on film the documentation she was carrying -- tons of it. They accused her of stealing or faking all of it.

As to your trade-off: I think people in immigration lines should have the same civil rights we all do once in the country: we're innocent until proved guilty; we get investigated and arrested only if there's solid evidence for suspicion. The only grounds for stopping that woman were stereotypes.

quote:

---

I think people in immigration lines should have the same civil rights we all do once in the country: we're innocent until proved guilty; we get investigated and arrested only if there's solid evidence for suspicion.

---

(Article reproduction follows)

Sated boomers 'calling for restraint'

OTTAWA - Well-heeled baby boomers, having milked Canada's social programs for what they're worth, are now the political force behind their dismantlement, Alberta government economists suggest in a soon-to-be-released article.

That group has the most to lose from tax hikes to support social spending and the least to gain from social programs it no longer needs, according to the article in Canadian Business Economics.

And because of the boomers' political clout governments will continue cutting social spending rather than raise taxes, at least until their deficits have been wiped out, it claims.

"These households are headed by middle-aged working couples in their peak earning years," it states. "They rely little on social insurance programs, in general, including less future need for government transfers to seniors because of adequate employer pension plans or RRSPs."

Their support of public funding of education may also be waning because their kids are already well on their way through the school system, it adds. "As a result, their expected benefits from public education may be declining," it says. "For this group the political swing to self-responsibility is attractive because self-responsibility is affordable." (italics added)

"I don't think our position is cynical," Don Van Wart, an Alberta treasury economist and one of the authors, said in an interview. "It's just ... people pursue their own self-interest."

Alberta has led the wave of restraint by Canadian governments.

"We start with the assumption that each group of voters will act to minimize (its) potential loss from moving to a balanced budget," the article states.

Comfortable middle-aged baby boomers have the most to lose from tax hikes by governments trying to balance their budgets. As such, they can be expected to oppose tax increases and to support cutting spending and services.

"The coalition against tax increases ... is composed of households with above-average income, voting turnout and education."

And the largest component of that coalition is two-income families with higher than average incomes who account for 60 per cent of voters opposed to tax hikes (italics added) and 28 per cent of all voters.

The coalition opposing spending cuts is also large, but carries less political clout, the article suggests. It includes the elderly and the poor, and low-income and single-parent families.

Recent government budgets appear to have recognized the "strong public opposition to tax increases and support for government expenditure cuts."

But the article also notes that today's well-heeled baby-boomers were a part of a strong political group that in the past "fuelled increased spending on education and, perhaps, on social insurance programs." (italics added)

Looking ahead, the article notes that as baby-boomers continue to age, health-care spending may become more of a concern for them given the high use of health services by the elderly.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they will push for increases in health spending.

These new "high-income seniors" may not place the same emphasis on the need for such social spending as the current crop of less wealthy elderly do, it notes.

Also, it will be another 10 years before baby-boomers, the first of whom have just passed 50, hit retirement age.

"Therefore, they are likely to continue to influence fiscal policy in the direction of opposition to tax increases and demands for expenditure cuts.

"As government budgets are balanced and the baby-boom generation moves toward retirement, however, the coalition favoring expenditure reductions may weaken."

Rule 1:
Life is not fair -- get used to it.

Rule 2:
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3:
You will NOT make 40 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone, until you earn both.

Rule 4:
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.

Rule 5:
Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping -- they called it opportunity.

Rule 6:
If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7:
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8:
Your school may have done away with winners and losers but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9:
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you find yourself. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10:
Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11:
Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

Like this one:

quote:

---

The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

---

And what they expect you to accomplish is something that will earn money--the more the better. So if someone isn't paying you gobs and gobs for what you do, then you don't deserve to feel good about yourself because you haven't accomplished anything. Which rather leaves workers at non-profits out in the cold, eh?

quote:

---

Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parents' generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

---

i.e., Idealists are all slobs. Idealists are people who don't take care of their own life, and that's why they have so much time for helping other people. And the reason I don't save the world is because I'm too busy doing the right thing, amassing my personal fortune.