jade_lee
Active Member
Historically Canada has always picked her favorites to enter this great country. I mean we did have the underground railroad leading to relative freedom here at one point in time
... they probably are about something. Not sure I see the big deal - I'm not the one having a freak attack about pointing out the obvious - it was simply one adjective in a whole paragraph - it was never the point of the post. I don't see the need for people to take this thread off-topic to discuss an adjective I used. I don't think anyone can deny that some Conservative policies are bigoted ... so let's not get off-topic with it.
Please remember the context of why I used the word in the first place. I was merely answering the comment of "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea". And note that I did say perhaps it is a good idea ... I was simply trying to explain why some (not me, but some) might be speaking out against this proposal - and that's because of those who are proposing it - not the actual content of the proposal. Shooting down a proposal based on who it comes from is also wrong - and I guess ironically bigoted - however I was simply trying to provide the mindset of those who are shooting first and asking questions later.
I did not ... I was simply answering the question of why some people might question what seems to be a reasonable suggestion. And that is because of the canard of bigotry and racism that exists.You were the one, nfitz, who took the thread off topic by raising the canards of bigotry and racism.
rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.
kEiThz said:Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt.
rpgr said:What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.
kEiThZ said:So where's your evidence that qualified migrants are being turned away?
I did not ... I was simply answering the question of why some people might question what seems to be a reasonable suggestion. And that is because of the canard of bigotry and racism that exists.
I couldn't answer that question, without raising it - because that is why many people react overly extremely when the Conservatives speak on immigration issues.
I wasn't raising it for any other reason than within that context.
If you want to debate whether that perception exists or not - that is fair game. And I thought that perception is what we were debating ... but now I'm not so sure ...
I should have been a lot simpler in my earlier follow-up responses - I fear I have confused people.
Because post #2 said "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea." I simply answered why some people would oppose the idea. I also commented that it may well be a good idea - to make it clear I was distancing myself from those views.In post #3 you mentioned these items. No one else had mentioned them before that point. You raised them.
I'm quite happy to leave it there. But I'm pretty sure you won't.What do you say we leave it there and get back on with the topic of immigration policy?
1st personal attack
rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.
Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt. If you have evidence of this, please do pass it on to the RCMP, otherwise please stop with the baseless accusations. These are hard working civil servants who put in long hours to get the best and brightest into Canada as quickly and painlessly as possible.
2nd attack in response to this:
What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.
In this case it has to to with the people in charge meaning the minister (this shows you don't know the policy otherwise you'd know that it deals with instructions given by the ministers office w/o having to pass a law effectively giving the ministers office to change a law without having to pass it in parliament) and those parties close to him 'cause that was what the chain of thought was.
As I said before, I'm not allowed to disclose confidential information but the law is being challenged by Immigration groups (via lobbying) and lawyers (via the courts). It is however a very costly procedure for individual immigrants to challenge. On one hand, the government is allowed to make laws but on the other hand, this particular law is unfair because it goes against precedence.
If someone manages to finally get a court date and decision (you would need someone who is normally qualified with the money and balls to do this) it would be reported in the newspapers. Right now successful challenges in private tribunal hearings cannot change the law and it is impossible to bring things to the forefront because of what a tribunal is. If I talked about it freely, I could be arrested for breaking another law but it is well documented that people are passing under tribunal because the law is unfair.
On that note, how many qualified migrants that have been rejected could afford to challenge the law in federal court? They would need money that they don't have as well as they would have to wait for a trial date and if they stay in Canada, they would not be able to work (no work permit).
To suggest why YOU don't know about it doesn't mean others don't and that it isn't happening.
Then, in post #5 you accused me of supporting racists - which quite frankly has to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen on this forum.
Because post #2 said "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea." I simply answered why some people would oppose the idea. I also commented that it may well be a good idea - to make it clear I was distancing myself from those views.
Because it's being proposed by a party founded by white right-wing bigots, whose previous immigration proposals were trying to shroud racist beliefs in seemingly sensible policies.
I'm not the one defending anti-immigration bigots!!!
Ah, but I haven't slandered them about what you think I'm slandering them about. I'm slandering them not because I think they are racist, or because I disagree with their politics - but because they have clearly evidences that they are bigots by many, many, statements that many of their members, including their leader, have made on the same-sex issue. But it's a big boat - the current American president has also shown he is a bigot.
I should have been a lot simpler in my earlier follow-up responses - I fear I have confused people.