Quantcast
Locked: Justin Trudeau clashes with eldery lady over illegal immigration: 'you Madame will have no place here'

Forums - Politics Discussion - Justin Trudeau clashes with eldery lady over illegal immigration: 'you Madame will have no place here'

Justin Trudeau

...dresses well 9 23.08%
 
...speaks French 8 20.51%
 
...invented peoplekinds 4 10.26%
 
... is the son of Fidel Castro 18 46.15%
 
Total:39
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

That is called the Paradox of Tolerance.  The tolerant cannot be tolerant of intolerance itself lest the intolerant will take over.  So to maintain tolerance, intolerance cannot be tolerated.

so... basically you're trying to rationalise intolerance and exclusion... isn't that bigotry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

in simplistic terms, we ban yelling fire in a crowded theater unless there is actually a fire because of the damage it can cause.  Is that being intolerant of speech and excluding those who wish to yell fire unjustly?  Yes.  But is it justified overall for the safety of the whole?  Yes.

If you tolerate intolerance, intolerance eventually rules out begetting more intolerance. Ergo to maintain tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance.  Hence why it's called the Paradox of Intolerance.  Because you must do the very action you are trying to prevent from happening.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
Lawlight said:
Xeon said:

I assume you're speaking hypothetically?

I'm ok with accepting as many desperate people as we can. It's a short term burden but a long term gain.

It’s a short term burden that will not turn in a gain in your lifetime, if ever.

Well, I've already shared how in one generation my family has already become tax paying, hard working, and integrated part of society. Maybe we were lucky and granted it is anecdotal, but the possibility is still there.

It may not be in my lifetime, but who cares? I firmly believe it would pay off eventually. Imagine if these immigrants became tax paying citizens. The benefits of that may not show with them but what about taxing their children when they work? Or their children's children? And on it goes. Would that not pay off sooner or later?



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

so... basically you're trying to rationalise intolerance and exclusion... isn't that bigotry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

in simplistic terms, we ban yelling fire in a crowded theater unless there is actually a fire because of the damage it can cause.  Is that being intolerant of speech and excluding those who wish to yell fire unjustly?  Yes.  But is it justified overall for the safety of the whole?  Yes.

If you tolerate intolerance, intolerance eventually rules out begetting more intolerance. Ergo to maintain tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance.  Hence why it's called the Paradox of Intolerance.  Because you must do the very action you are trying to prevent from happening.

the point i'm making is who decides what we collectively should be intolerant to?

do facts fall under the scope of what we should be intolerant to?



Xeon said:
Lawlight said:

It’s a short term burden that will not turn in a gain in your lifetime, if ever.

Well, I've already shared how in one generation my family has already become tax paying, hard working, and integrated part of society. Maybe we were lucky and granted it is anecdotal, but the possibility is still there.

It may not be in my lifetime, but who cares? I firmly believe it would pay off eventually. Imagine if these immigrants became tax paying citizens. The benefits of that may not show with them but what about taxing their children when they work? Or their children's children? And on it goes. Would that not pay off sooner or later?

You know why it was possible for your family? Because there weren’t millions of others trying to get in at the same time. You’re also forgetting that not everyone will integrate. Statistics show that, in australia, 69% of refugees fail to get a job after 5 years and more than 83% of the households rely on welfare.

You might not care but the lowering of quality of life will affect other people. And just having tax paying citizens isn’t enough. There is such a thing as overpopulation. Infrastructure cannot expand forever.



I'm actually really curious as to whether or not Canada will elect him again next year. Most of the Canadians I've talked to have extreme opinions on him one way or the other. It'll be interesting to witness.



 

 

Around the Network
Lawlight said:
Xeon said:

Well, I've already shared how in one generation my family has already become tax paying, hard working, and integrated part of society. Maybe we were lucky and granted it is anecdotal, but the possibility is still there.

It may not be in my lifetime, but who cares? I firmly believe it would pay off eventually. Imagine if these immigrants became tax paying citizens. The benefits of that may not show with them but what about taxing their children when they work? Or their children's children? And on it goes. Would that not pay off sooner or later?

You know why it was possible for your family? Because there weren’t millions of others trying to get in at the same time. You’re also forgetting that not everyone will integrate. Statistics show that, in australia, 69% of refugees fail to get a job after 5 years and more than 83% of the households rely on welfare.

You might not care but the lowering of quality of life will affect other people. And just having tax paying citizens isn’t enough. There is such a thing as overpopulation. Infrastructure cannot expand forever.

Back in 1979-80 Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees alone. They even won an award for it. My family came later when restrictions became much tighter. I'm not sure where you're getting the millions trying to get into Canada number from, but that's just not the case right now.

You're right that not everyone will integrate but most will. Its a great challenge for new immigrants but their descendants will be more successful.

Like I said, its a short term burden we all bare, but that's where we can make our government accountable. The Trudeau Government spent 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline. The Trump one is dedicating almost 900 billion to the military. This lady questioned Trudeau about spending a much smaller amount to support refugees but maybe she should spend her energy elsewhere.

Sad to hear about the ratio of joblessness and welfare of refugees in Australia. Is there a reason for this, I wonder? Does the ratio change after 10 years? 15 years? What about the children of these refugees in Australia? Are they more successful?

Of course there are limits and overpopulation is very real but Canada has about 36 million people. There is certainly room for growth here.



Smartie900 said:
I'm actually really curious as to whether or not Canada will elect him again next year. Most of the Canadians I've talked to have extreme opinions on him one way or the other. It'll be interesting to witness.

It will be interesting for sure. I don't think he will or if he does it will likely be a minority government. He pissed off left leaning voters with the pipeline situation and he has always pissed off the right leaning ones. I myself didn't vote for him last time but we'll see how things go.



Xeon said:
Lawlight said:

You know why it was possible for your family? Because there weren’t millions of others trying to get in at the same time. You’re also forgetting that not everyone will integrate. Statistics show that, in australia, 69% of refugees fail to get a job after 5 years and more than 83% of the households rely on welfare.

You might not care but the lowering of quality of life will affect other people. And just having tax paying citizens isn’t enough. There is such a thing as overpopulation. Infrastructure cannot expand forever.

Back in 1979-80 Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees alone. They even won an award for it. My family came later when restrictions became much tighter. I'm not sure where you're getting the millions trying to get into Canada number from, but that's just not the case right now.

You're right that not everyone will integrate but most will. Its a great challenge for new immigrants but their descendants will be more successful.

Like I said, its a short term burden we all bare, but that's where we can make our government accountable. The Trudeau Government spent 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline. The Trump one is dedicating almost 900 billion to the military. This lady questioned Trudeau about spending a much smaller amount to support refugees but maybe she should spend her energy elsewhere.

Sad to hear about the ratio of joblessness and welfare of refugees in Australia. Is there a reason for this, I wonder? Does the ratio change after 10 years? 15 years? What about the children of these refugees in Australia? Are they more successful?

Of course there are limits and overpopulation is very real but Canada has about 36 million people. There is certainly room for growth here.

You said you are fine with Canada accepting anyone desperate. There are a lot of desperate people who want to move to a developed country.

For the reasons why refugees are mostly jobless in AU, language would be the biggest issue. Around 40% of the refugees do labouring jobs, which is not vey common in australia unless you’re living in the bush. Professionals make up a very small percentage of the refugees. There’s no data available for years after 5 years.

You’ll be interested to know that 65% of Canadians think too many refugees are taken in and the percentage of people think the number of immigrants taken in should be decreased now represents the majority of the segments.



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

in simplistic terms, we ban yelling fire in a crowded theater unless there is actually a fire because of the damage it can cause.  Is that being intolerant of speech and excluding those who wish to yell fire unjustly?  Yes.  But is it justified overall for the safety of the whole?  Yes.

If you tolerate intolerance, intolerance eventually rules out begetting more intolerance. Ergo to maintain tolerance, you must be intolerant of intolerance.  Hence why it's called the Paradox of Intolerance.  Because you must do the very action you are trying to prevent from happening.

the point i'm making is who decides what we collectively should be intolerant to?

do facts fall under the scope of what we should be intolerant to?

Then you miss the entire premise of the paradox.  It's not about specifics or who decides what, it's about tolerance and intolerance generally.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Xeon said:

 This lady questioned Trudeau about spending a much smaller amount to support refugees but maybe she should spend her energy elsewhere.

no, no. What the lady was asking is if the government will give money to the Quebec government for dealing for the 19 000 person that entered illegaly in canada in 2017 by crosing the Quebec border with the USA, and the 9000 that have done the same this year so far. The province have to take care of those 27 000 people, and it cost us about 142 million dollars to do so. but so far Ottawa have only gave 30 millions dollars to the Quebec government.  To put those number in perspective, the 27 000 refugees that crossed the border illegaly in Quebec represent 96% of the total of illegal immigrant that entrer the whole canada. 

So in fact, she was asking why Trudeau didnt spend the money on the refugees instead of dumping the burden on the provicial gorvernment. but his respond was way off course. He said that she was a racist, but since when asking that question was racist. she didnt say kick them out, she didnt even said that it was too much immigrant, she was only asking if the federal government was planning of helping Quebec to deal with the costs. 

But, i agree that she seems rather rude and yell at him a lot. it was probably not the good time and place to ask the question