Quote:
Originally Posted by Luisito
There is no rule saying "ooh these countries have more people therefore we must let more of them in". Everyone else is at an automatic disadvantage. Immigration never worked like that in Canadian history It doesnt work like that in other countries either. It only works to fit your narrative. To suggest other minorities are here disproprotionately is quite racist. Along with the stereotype they do no value education and thats why we dont let more in as some one implied earlier.
if we were letting so many in where are they? The biggest visible minority groups are not from Africa or Latin America or the middle east. That is simply false. South Asiansare the biggest minority followed by Chinese all others dont even come close.
|
Do you know the difference between the incidence and prevalence?
I’m going to try and explain this one last time, assuming you’re just poorly read and actually honestly engaging. You seem to feel quite strongly about this topic, and there’s nothing worse than someone who feels strongly about something that they’re clueless about. Lord help us if you ever get a chance to vote without being set straight.
The incidence of something reflects the amount of new occurrences. In epidemiology, it would refer to the number of new cases of an illness. In our example, it refers to the amount of new immigrants in a year. For a child it might refer to how much allowance his parents give him monthly.
The incidence of something reflects the current pattern of behaviour for whatever we’re looking at: whether that be the virulence of a disease, our immigration policies, or your parents generosity.
The prevalence of something refers to how widespread something is. This is the number of people with an illness at any given time, the number of people from a certain background, or how much money you saved up in your piggy bank. This is not necessarily dependant on the incidence of the state were looking at. For example, when we eradicated polio in North America there were still a fair amount of people living with the disease despite no new illnesses. In our example, this refers to the number of Indian people you keep referring to as proof that our immigration system favours them. The prevalence of Indian and Chinese people is quite high but that isn’t because of our current immigration policies. Many Indians and Chinese have been here for decades, many have had children here, and many even grandchildren. These things are independent of our current immigration policy.
The reason we have more people from these countries is simply because they are larger countries, they have been immigrating for longer, and they have had the opportunity to reproduce. In contrast, African and Latin American immigration is much more recent. Latin America is a political and economic basket case right now, so it’s not surprising that we’re getting twice as many immigrants from this part of the world than either India or China.
As has been previously explained to you, the Canadian immigration system is based on merit and demand. While some countries may be over represented due to historical links driving greater interest or language advantages, no one is discriminated based on their nationality. Your friends just didn’t cut it.
Prev
Linear Mode
