Lampa4

[email protected] (Henrik)
[usenetquote2]> > Huh? What is wrong with people looking out for their own best interest? So if[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > they are not using Canada as a stepping stone, they will not be contributing to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Canada either, however short they stay here. In other words, they will find other[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > stepping stone in which Canada will not benefit one bit. I would not be surprised[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > that a significant portion of people who originally wanted to use Canada as a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > "stepping stone" ended up staying because they loved this country too much to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > leave. If you are right and they are trying to target these people by changing[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > the point system; the likely result if they are sucesseful will provide no[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > additional benefit and possible great harm for Canada since the new system will[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > squander valuable human resources.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > You seem to dislike the idea of people having close ties in Canada and US (or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > other country). I personally don't see anything wrong with having close ties in[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Canada and US since the ties ultimately spreads Canadian cultures to other[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > countries too.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >

Hockey and dual official language system are two examples of important Canadian
cultures eh? (ok, maybe 3 examples) There are more and I'm happy to say that I am
still in the process of learning them.

BTW, a bit off topic, but Molson Canadian had some good examples in their
commericials.

    >
    >

It would be very difficult to find the "core" of any globalized country, especially
in a country as young as Canada. For example, the "core" of US culture is really
English orientated, and so is Canada. But in a way, the lack of global identity is
why Canada need more people exposed to Canadian way of life which can be accomplished
effectively via immigration. Open immigrant policy is definitely going to help Canada
more than a restrictive system.

    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >Canada is a globlized country and we cannot stuck our head in the[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> >are refering to people who are PR of Canada but never lived here, I[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > anything wrong with that either since they are not using any of Canada's[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > resources. As matter of fact, they are likely contributing to Canada since[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > they'll have to pay taxes on their global income.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

But again, as bad as it sounds, this process of using canada as a backdoor will
likely benefit Canada in some way. Wether it benefits Canada by culture, finace, or
other means, Canada is within the part of the loop to gain. The cycle is like a part
of the open market process, it might not be pretty, but it sure is productive. In
fact, it is very likely that you have used someone else as "a stepping stone" in the
the open market wether you have realized it or not (e.g. commuting to work on a road
someone else built) . Are you going to stop doing it because you are using someone as
a "stepping stone" in some way? Of course not, because you probably already paid for
what you used in some way (e.g. taxes). If Canada is a stepping stone without any
gain, I'd definitly have a problem with that.

    >
    >
    >
    >

I'm not a physcologiest, but why would they become bitter or critical of Canada if
they are being rejected by US and accepted by Canada? Wouldn't it be the other way
around where they would acutally support Canada even more since Canada wanted them
and didn't reject them?