Arm guards and we'll shut border: Mohawk Warriors

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I would imagine MONEY is what keeps american health care professionals from coming to canada and working

With Doctors, perhaps some, but nurses tend to make more in Canada. From what I have been told and researched myself, the tests, hoops, personal screenings and re-certifications border on insulting and are extremely time consuming.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

However, I think the differences between Canada and the US are largely politically amplified in order to protect the local interests.

You should try crossing the border that this thread is about. Cornwall and the surrounding area, isn't the nicest place in Canada but it's fairly typically Canadian. Cross the border to upstate NY and it is quickly apparent that you're in a different country. One that almost seems third world with dilapidated cigarette stores and bingo parlours dotting the landscape.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

.... it's fairly typically Canadian.

Tell me, what does that look like?



Where I grew up (Winnipeg) there were parts of town that looked like a third-world country, or maybe a warzone, replete with Bingo Parlours and Cigarette stands.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Forcible removal? Sounds very unfair to me.

They are called temporary workers for a reason? Unfair? How is it unfair? They are not forced to come to Canada and make a decent living to help there family back at home, it is their choice to HELP their life with the understanding that it is only temporary. Seems very very fair to me.

I guess you would think though that if you were hired for a temporary job have way through you would expected to be hired full time for the rest of your life, even though you knew full well that the job was temporary eh?

I have a friend that is an American, who was forced to uproot his family from their life here in Canada because of the issues of taxation between the states and Canada - he was forced into exile in Alaska because of this.

Really? He was forced eh? He had no choice but being on exile Alaska? I call BS. Sounds like he just didn't want to pay his fair share of taxes? I guess he had no choice but to move, he couldn't move back to the 50 states, he couldn't apply to be a permanent resident of Canada, the only thing that he could do was live his life in exile in Alaska. Ok.

It wasn't fair to his family, to his company, to his children, nor to his friends. No one wanted them to leave. Was that because of people like you?

Maybe it was. You haven't given me enough info to tell. If he was not a Canadian citizen he had no right to remain in Canada without going through the proper immigration process.

Thanks for nothing. (Buy the way, no one could tell he was an American. Real different.)

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

If say, you moved to Texas, would you like to be told by someone to move away, just cause you weren't born there? Even though someone from New York, well, he wasn't born there either, but he can stay, there's nothing we can do about that.

First off, I have no intentions of ever moving to the United States to live permanently. And if I did, I would do it the proper way and immigrate there. Once I did that and became a citizen of the US they couldn't tell me to leave. If I didn't become a citizen of the US then by all means, kick me out, I have no right to enter and remain in the United States, I am not a citizen.

Real fair. How about someone here from Newfoundland? Notice that they have also flooded the job market? How many people from Calgary are from elsewhere? My life is so horribly ruined by all those carpetbaggers. So nasty.

What are you talking about? Not sure if you are aware of this but Newfounland is part of Canada. One thing that you need to realize is that life is not fair and never will be, you are living in a dream world if you think it ever will be.

What is with the carpetbagger comment?

If there were 300 million people moving here from the states, there would be no one left in the states. If they don't want it, can I buy California? I heard it's nice there.

Even 5 million would destroy our economy and our social support system.

As for my way of life, From what I've seen, it would only go up if they moved here. Not only would I be able to build them all houses that they would buy, the price of things would go down, giving me both more buying power AND more money. Win-win. Really.

Wow, really? You believe this? Price will go down eh? Ok then...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This is the main reason we can't have a purely open border. However, we do need to make it easy for (Americans in particular) professionals to come here. We are critically short of doctors and nurses, let alone other professions like lawyers, accountants, etc. However, the existing hoops deter most from considering Canada.

.

Do you realize that it is quite easy for NAFTA professionals to come and work in Canada. In fact it is very easy as far as obtaining authorization from the federal government to work in Canada. All a NAFTA professional needs to obtain a work permit is a job offer and usualy a degree in their field.

It is not the government that holds these people back it is the professional organizations that license and over see their occupations. They are ultimately the ones that give them permission to work in that field in each province.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But Canada and the States are. Why do I need a passport to visit the states? Fear of outsiders? That's all a giant load of bull. It's all about control, and politics - most of which is unnecessary, inconvenient, and morally negative. Why should I have to deal with that kind of inconvenience because a bureaucrat needs to up his salary/make an excuse for what he's doing and another politician scared enough grandmas about the evil's of the outside world so he can get re-elected?

Call me idealistic, but I don't trust where this is going. The exact opposite of what you assumed I was thinking about. I'm more worried than hopeful of where these two countries are going.

You hit the nail on the head. It's using a false sense of security. The people feel secure when really they are having everything taken away from them slowly but surely. So lets drink wine and party because it's only going to get tougher for everyone.

But it will be for the greater good!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

You should try crossing the border that this thread is about. Cornwall and the surrounding area, isn't the nicest place in Canada but it's fairly typically Canadian. Cross the border to upstate NY and it is quickly apparent that you're in a different country. One that almost seems third world with dilapidated cigarette stores and bingo parlours dotting the landscape.

This is very true and it is not jsut at that border crossing, many places along the border you can immediatly tell you are in another country as soon as you cross the border.

Good point.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Do you realize that it is quite easy for NAFTA professionals to come and work in Canada. In fact it is very easy as far as obtaining authorization from the federal government to work in Canada. All a NAFTA professional needs to obtain a work permit is a job offer and usualy a degree in their field.

It is not the government that holds these people back it is the professional organizations that license and over see their occupations. They are ultimately the ones that give them permission to work in that field in each province.

You need professional credentials recognized before you can apply for NAFTA Professional TN status. We agree on that. But of course, that's where the headaches lie.

The issue is to an extent the professional organizations, but they are often mandated by the states/provinces. You can not apply to the Washington Department of Health for licensure without the visa screen (dissection of education, experience, personal background, etc.)and successful RN-CLEX, despite foreign licensure. This is arduous and time consuming, the Canadian version is roughly equivalent.

To come practice law in Canada, even a top Harvard graduate would require between 2-10 tests mandated by the NCA (its apparently fairly random and dependant on who screens you) to prove competency in basic Canadian legal standards. These happen twice a year. After that, they would be expected to article before being allowed to attempt the bar (the amount of which is lessened by years of experience). Why would anyone want to do that? The answer is few do. I'd wager that most American educated professionals who jump through the hoops are in fact Canadians, or have family that is.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

You should try crossing the border that this thread is about. Cornwall and the surrounding area, isn't the nicest place in Canada but it's fairly typically Canadian. Cross the border to upstate NY and it is quickly apparent that you're in a different country. One that almost seems third world with dilapidated cigarette stores and bingo parlours dotting the landscape.

Fair point, but I could contend travelling from NW/SW to E Calgary is like crossing into a different city. Crossing from Woodbine into Tsuu Tina is like crossing into a very different and seemingly third world country. Hell, its very apparent that Alberta and BC are different provinces.

Every country has its rundown, grungy areas. The Americans have a lot more. But of course, they have a lot more of everything.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Tell me, what does that look like?

Typical small Canadian city with houses getting older as you get closer to downtown. The usual retail plazas scatter the arterial roads with all the usual chains.

In the countryside, tidy farm houses dot the landscape with the occasional farm equipment shop popping up here and there.

Where I grew up (Winnipeg) there were parts of town that looked like a third-world country, or maybe a warzone, replete with Bingo Parlours and Cigarette stands.

That's a big city. All big cities have bad parts, maybe not as bad as Winnipeg, but when I was talking about upstate NY, I was talking about a close to rural area. With closed up gas stations, run down country stores and shabby looking houses, that's all there is.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

They are called temporary workers for a reason? Unfair? How is it unfair? They are not forced to come to Canada and make a decent living to help there family back at home, it is their choice to HELP their life with the understanding that it is only temporary. Seems very very fair to me.

Really? He was forced eh? He had no choice but being on exile Alaska? I call BS. Sounds like he just didn't want to pay his fair share of taxes?

Perhaps cold and heartless is the word I was thinking of instead. He wasn't a "temporary worker", he was a dual citizen, he just didn't want to give up his American citizenship. For this, he was told to either move to the states or give up 50% of his wages to the States, then 50% to Canada. Taxation - you're really defending Revenue Canada and the IRS, eh? Wow.


Your position is one I used to hold. I really did. It's nice as an abstract thought, it seems clean, and those that don't fit the role, well, they must be people that don't play by the rules.

You'll find, eventually, however, that the people that made the rules, well, they weren't superior to you or me. Why do those rules need to be the ones that we follow? When you start looking at people, and not abstractions, things get a little different. When you put yourself in a situation of someone who did everything according to the rules, and still gets shafted, well, then you realize that these nice, abstract ideas, they are cold and heartless, and they don't make as much sense as they seemed to a little while ago.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

First off, I have no intentions of ever moving to the United States to live permanently. And if I did, I would do it the proper way and immigrate there. Once I did that and became a citizen of the US they couldn't tell me to leave. If I didn't become a citizen of the US then by all means, kick me out, I have no right to enter and remain in the United States, I am not a citizen.

There's more than one way to force someone to move other than the Police showing up at your door.

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What are you talking about? Not sure if you are aware of this but Newfounland is part of Canada. One thing that you need to realize is that life is not fair and never will be, you are living in a dream world if you think it ever will be.

What is with the carpetbagger comment?

Even 5 million would destroy our economy and our social support system.

Wow, really? You believe this? Price will go down eh? Ok then...

Well, my point was that out of Calgary's 1million in population, over half came from elsewhere in Canada. 500,000 gave Calgary's economy the biggest boost any economy could possibly have, making us the richest part of Canada. My other point - if you cared to read it - was that people from Newfoundland are just as different as anyone else from North America. Newfies definitely think of themselves as different. They have moved here enmasse - and everyone else is better off because of their moving here.



Don't be so defensive of 'Canadian' jobs (Just like Americans shouldn't be about "American" ones). There is no such thing as a limited number of jobs in this world, there are as many as are made. It is not a zero-sum game, it adds up instead. Americans (and by that I mean North Americans) are very proud of their entrepreneurial spirit, and love stories of people "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". I never understood why voters could be so scared of others doing the same thing. We believe in the trickle down effect, where wealth builds more wealth, then are worried about people moving in because of the wealth we created, with some of us not realizing that that will add to the wealth being created, instead of taking away from it. Free Trade has made Canada and the States wealthier than any other nation in the history of mankind - why should people moving be any different than goods moving? A cabinetmaker in Winnipeg can undercut a Calgarian cabinet maker's prices just as well as an Oregonian. But if the Oregonian wanted to move here, that's something that needs to be very tightly regulated? By who? And why?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Perhaps cold and heartless is the word I was thinking of instead. He wasn't a "temporary worker", he was a dual citizen, he just didn't want to give up his American citizenship. For this, he was told to either move to the states or give up 50% of his wages to the States, then 50% to Canada. Taxation - you're really defending Revenue Canada and the IRS, eh? Wow.


Your position is one I used to hold. I really did. It's nice as an abstract thought, it seems clean, and those that don't fit the role, well, they must be people that don't play by the rules.

You'll find, eventually, however, that the people that made the rules, well, they weren't superior to you or me. Why do those rules need to be the ones that we follow? When you start looking at people, and not abstractions, things get a little different. When you put yourself in a situation of someone who did everything according to the rules, and still gets shafted, well, then you realize that these nice, abstract ideas, they are cold and heartless, and they don't make as much sense as they seemed to a little while ago.





There's more than one way to force someone to move other than the Police showing up at your door.




Well, my point was that out of Calgary's 1million in population, over half came from elsewhere in Canada. 500,000 gave Calgary's economy the biggest boost any economy could possibly have, making us the richest part of Canada. My other point - if you cared to read it - was that people from Newfoundland are just as different as anyone else from North America. Newfies definitely think of themselves as different. They have moved here enmasse - and everyone else is better off because of their moving here.



Don't be so defensive of 'Canadian' jobs (Just like Americans shouldn't be about "American" ones). There is no such thing as a limited number of jobs in this world, there are as many as are made. It is not a zero-sum game, it adds up instead. Americans (and by that I mean North Americans) are very proud of their entrepreneurial spirit, and love stories of people "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". I never understood why voters could be so scared of others doing the same thing. We believe in the trickle down effect, where wealth builds more wealth, then are worried about people moving in because of the wealth we created, with some of us not realizing that that will add to the wealth being created, instead of taking away from it. Free Trade has made Canada and the States wealthier than any other nation in the history of mankind - why should people moving be any different than goods moving? A cabinetmaker in Winnipeg can undercut a Calgarian cabinet maker's prices just as well as an Oregonian. But if the Oregonian wanted to move here, that's something that needs to be very tightly regulated? By who? And why?

Question....

Are you an anarcist?

[Knalus]

I'm a Libertarian. Liberty and Justice for all!

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by DESS

I will answer that question when you can tell me how on god's green earth it's relevant to anything.

My question is relevant because your assertation of what the definition of "a soldier's purpose" is, is either worthless or correct depending on your background.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think your opinion falls into and the first two don't dount.

My question is especially relevant because you are arguing the point with a man who was once a soldier himself.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think HIS opinion falls into and the first two don't count.

You don't have to be an expert on the subject to have an opinion, but a little exposure to reality goes a long way in being more correct than incorrect.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

My question is relevant because your assertation of what the definition of "a soldier's purpose" is, is either worthless or correct depending on your background.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think your opinion falls into and the first two don't dount.

My question is especially relevant because you are arguing the point with a man who was once a soldier himself.

I'll give you three guesses as to which category I think HIS opinion falls into and the first two don't count.

You don't have to be an expert on the subject to have an opinion, but a little exposure to reality goes a long way in being more correct than incorrect.

No disrespect to your position, and in no way do I mean any disrespect to the soldiers of this country, but I wouldn't want to live in a country where soldiers decide what soldiers do. I believe those countries are called Military Dictatorships - in all the other ones, the commander-in-chief is a non-military man, for a very good reason.

That at least is the way I've read the argument between you too, I could be off a little. It may not be what you were getting at, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the above comment.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Knalus

No disrespect to your position, and in no way do I mean any disrespect to the soldiers of this country, but I wouldn't want to live in a country where soldiers decide what soldiers do. I believe those countries are called Military Dictatorships - in all the other ones, the commander-in-chief is a non-military man, for a very good reason.

That at least is the way I've read the argument between you too, I could be off a little. It may not be what you were getting at, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the above comment.

I think the main point that was trying to be made is that a layperson can't tell a soldier what they are trained to do, when the soldier did the training and knows what they were trained to do.

Its not that soldiers dictate the training program.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Knalus

No disrespect to your position, and in no way do I mean any disrespect to the soldiers of this country, but I wouldn't want to live in a country where soldiers decide what soldiers do. I believe those countries are called Military Dictatorships - in all the other ones, the commander-in-chief is a non-military man, for a very good reason.

That at least is the way I've read the argument between you too, I could be off a little. It may not be what you were getting at, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the above comment.

You mis-read a little bit. I was just saying that Captain, as a solider, has good insight into what a soldier's job truly is.

I was implying that Dess is not likely a solider, and thus should drink a warm cup of STFU because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

If it turns out that Dess is a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces, let's just say that I'm upset that I live in a country that would have him as one.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Knalus

No disrespect to your position, and in no way do I mean any disrespect to the soldiers of this country, but I wouldn't want to live in a country where soldiers decide what soldiers do. I believe those countries are called Military Dictatorships - in all the other ones, the commander-in-chief is a non-military man, for a very good reason.

I never took it as disrespect. And your right, the civilian body dictates policy to the military (more often to disasterous results then positive ones) however, I have always mandated that anyone that wants to lead a country, or be thought of as commander in chief should have some time in uniform, because more often or not the people in civilian authority have no idea of

1) The capabilities of the military that they command. Previous governments were famous for this in sending out troops to as many peace keeping missions as they could without a thought to equipment, training, manpower or rest. When the Canadian Forces sent CF-18's to Iraq for the first gulf war they were shocked that they didn't have proper data link up with other allied forces, and they were even more shocked when they couldn't use a lot of the newer NATO weapons on their planes.

2) A lot of time civilian leaders don't understand the cost of war and believe that its another policy arrow to use in international relations. A smart soldier doesn't really want to go to war unless its absolutely required, nobody wants to kill another dumb ass 18 year old kid who joined his countries military because he thought the uniform was groovy.

3) A experience leader can seperate the BS from the truth when it comes to the advice given by their defense staff.

Military Dictatorships are rarely true military dictatorships. We've seen to many failed military men like wackonuts in Libya, Amin and others who were really failed soldiers first but through fortune seized power. Most of the most frightening dictatorships in recent history have been civilian based or politically based. Kim never wore the uniform, nor did Hussein, Stalin was never a military man nor was Lenin as examples, but they all yeilded tremendous power over their nations military.

Originally Posted by Knalus

That at least is the way I've read the argument between you too, I could be off a little. It may not be what you were getting at, but it doesn't hurt to repeat the above comment.

[LChoy]

I really appreciate your perspective Captain

Some of good friends in the army echo similar sentiments too, that a good leader should lead from the front and not behind. In order to do that, they must know what it's like to be in the trenches, before ordering the men he commands into those same trenches

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I never took it as disrespect. And your right, the civilian body dictates policy to the military (more often to disasterous results then positive ones) however, I have always mandated that anyone that wants to lead a country, or be thought of as commander in chief should have some time in uniform, because more often or not the people in civilian authority have no idea of

1) The capabilities of the military that they command. Previous governments were famous for this in sending out troops to as many peace keeping missions as they could without a thought to equipment, training, manpower or rest. When the Canadian Forces sent CF-18's to Iraq for the first gulf war they were shocked that they didn't have proper data link up with other allied forces, and they were even more shocked when they couldn't use a lot of the newer NATO weapons on their planes.

2) A lot of time civilian leaders don't understand the cost of war and believe that its another policy arrow to use in international relations. A smart soldier doesn't really want to go to war unless its absolutely required, nobody wants to kill another dumb ass 18 year old kid who joined his countries military because he thought the uniform was groovy.

3) A experience leader can seperate the BS from the truth when it comes to the advice given by their defense staff.

Military Dictatorships are rarely true military dictatorships. We've seen to many failed military men like wackonuts in Libya, Amin and others who were really failed soldiers first but through fortune seized power. Most of the most frightening dictatorships in recent history have been civilian based or politically based. Kim never wore the uniform, nor did Hussein, Stalin was never a military man nor was Lenin as examples, but they all yeilded tremendous power over their nations military.

I agree. It's one thing to tell the military what to do, it's another all together to tell them how - that just leads to a Gong Show.