which is better australia or canada?

[ali786leo]

hi everyone

I have question regarding can we apply canada and aus immigration at same time like jan 2012 i apply for canada and 2012 march i apply for aus

 

[2good2btrue]

Well, how does it matter ? they are not at all related. i suggest you to apply after mid-jan, most of them return to work around mid-jan in australia.

 

[ADUFE]

Firstly, are both the Iroqouis and Huron not Indian tribes? I presume the answer is obviously yes. Therefore it is disingenious of you to equate a situation where indigenous tribes within an area engaged in tribal war to an unprovoked and total invasion of land by people who came from a very far and totally different environment. Tribal wars have always been a fact of life in all human communities, foreign invasions are a different matter and there is no basis for comparison espically with regards to the large scale genocide and irreversible land grabbing which usually occurs in the latter.

You are splitting hairs; aggression and conquering are the same whether between neighbouring tribes or between a foreign people (Europeans) and Indians. Ask the victim about to be knifed to death whether he cares where the killer came from. If my great grandfather is the original settler of a property, then I as his heir have a moral right to that land. But if a friend of his came into the territory and forcibly took the land away from my grandfather, then the conquerer's grandson has no moral right to the land. His grandfather was a usurper, and possession by conquering or any other form of usurpation loses moral right to the land.

It seems your position has changed wrt the last statement above thankfully, since you were formerly of the opinion that the conqueror takes it all.

You're ignoring that Indian bands usurped the land from each other, in order to reserve a special status for the current group of Indian bands, to claim that they are moral inheritors from the original inhabitants. I am now losing the sense of how this hair-splitting relates to the point about immigrants' right to agitate for changes in Canada. Maybe since it is your split hairs, you would remind me?

No hairs are being split whatsoever; when indians engaged in tribal wars the land ultimately remained in the hands of INDIANS even though those in a particular location might have been forced to move elsewhere. But the nature of tribals wars is such that that might not have been a permanent situation ie the land might have been reclaimed in time unlike what obtains following the foreign invasion which occurred.

In any event, the argument is winding down into picayune points not worth the making.
It's either they are picuyane and not worth making and if so, why the question about me reminding you about my so-called "split hairs"?

You ask why the government calls them First Nations if they are not. Well, in a masterful act of public relations the Indians called themselves so, and the government does not want to offend them by using any other name. But this does not make the Indians' wishful thinking into reality. In fact, current Indian bands are more like Thirty-Second Nations, not First Nations.

Really?! Please kindly supply objective evidence to back this up as well as how you arrived at the " Thirty-second" Nation thing.

If you're going to correct my vocabulary – always invidious and patronizing unless absolutely required to clear up confusion – it is best to check your facts first. Here's how the dictionary defines “Caucasian”. The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia (Middle East), Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.
Yeah, that's all good but the fact remains that that term is used to denote white people regardless of their geographic origin, whilst the terms "Black", "Indian" & "Asian" are used to describe non-white people nowadays. Sorry if I sounded patronizing but I also find your posts quite patronizing (remember the picayune thing?) and bordering on arrogant.

Note that some Caucasians can be dark, so I wanted to make it clear that I was talking about the white variety.

Really?! Can you give me some examples of dark caucasians 'cause I thought they are so-called 'cause of their fair skin? And how and why exactly did you want to make clear that you referred to the white variety?

With regards to your statement ;"The overall point of all that was that no Canadian – Indian or otherwise -- has any genealogical line to the first inhabitants, hence no moral right to the land." and all your arguments about the inaccuracy of my statements on the matter;
If that were the case why on earth does Canada itself refer to the indigenous population of that land collectively as the " First Nations"?!! Am I mssing something here?
Dealt with above.
Frankly, all this talk about Canada converting to Sharia Law is in my opinion just a subtle form of Islamophobia. If you feel it's not please provide evidence that Canada is on it's way to embracing Sharia , I would really like to see.

Ironically, I challenged someone else on his cautions about Sharia Law, then did some research and ended up much more worried about the impact of attempts to import Sharia Law into host countries. It hasn't happened so much in Canada – yet – but what has happened in other countries is a cautionary tale. Look up my post on that topic; it was in connection with HSBC's decision to install Sharia-compliant branches in other countries.

Please give specific examples of what has happened wrt Sharia law in other countries 'cause you are being vaque now.

I am also not asking that things be changed to suit any particular group of immigrants, all I am asking is that people live and let live.

I don't understand the difference between “live and let live”, and permitting immigrants to demand wholesale changes to Canada. Where do you draw the line?

What line are you talking about? I'm asking that people be allowed to wear what they will, how does that equate to sharia law importation or "wholesale changes to Canada"? Are they asking that Sharia law be adopted? And Is it only Muslims that wear religious outfit/symbols 'cause it seems all your focus is on Muslims exclusively? Why is that?

If someone wants to do anything eg wear certain type of clothing, grow beards etc which do not harm any other person in any way, why can't some people let them be? Why is it OK for caucasians to have all-over-body tattoos and piercings yet wrong for others to wear turbans or headscarves etc. in the same country?

It was never wearing turbans that bothered me, but wearing them in a courtroom, and your suggestion to have metal detectors (to find any hidden weapons) resolves my concern.
I am balking at more serious changes. For example, some devotees of Sharia Law want municipal regulations and laws to be adapted to their requirements, want to add Sharia holidays to the school schedule, to make banks Sharia-compliant (including giving money to designated Sharia groups abroad, and there are only weak controls to ensure that this money doesn't fall into the hands of terrorist groups). I'm not being xenophobic; I did the research.

You're once again giving non-specific examples and even IF they are asking that laws be adpated to "THEIR" requirements, why does that bother you? Seems like it's a case of "your way or the highway. What does that say about you?

It's a long discussion already typed elsewhere, this topic of Sharia Law, so anyone wanting details on this can look up my previous post. But I think it safe to say that non-Sharians would not like these changes at all if they came to Canada.


What exactly do you mean by "Non-sharians"? It think it should be clear by now to anyone with half a brain cell that you an infact most likely an Islamophobe .

If I may ask; why on earth are you moving to Canada by the way? Has your country also been taken over by some immigrants?

I am Canadian, and I prefer Canada to China or Costa Rica – where I have been living since 2002. But I want to come back to the Canada I know, not the Canada that some of the more aggressive immigrants might want to change it into.

If you agree that the world is not static then if the Canada you know no longer exists by the time you are ready to move back, you can always move to any other country where things are the way you want them. Afterall, more and more European countries are becoming Islamophobic; they'll probably be glad to have you.


Lastly, " white caucasian" is a tautlogical phrase; have you ever heard of a black/Indian/Asian caucasian?

Negativo. You rush to correct unnecessarily, and incorrectly, as explained above. And, if you're searching for linguistic perfection, "white caucasian" is a term, not a phrase.

Yes your're right but then you're doing the same thing too aren't you by correcting me?

 

[toby]

ADUFE:

Our discussion has generated into a silly debate, each one of us looking to score silly points against the other, that does neither of us credit.
I am stopping now.

One constructive suggestion: you ask me several times for specifics about Sharia Law. I referred you to a previous discussion where the topic is covered thoroughly. Do you ask me to re-type that long discussion because you cannot find the article by using the search box? If so, let me know by PM and I'll see what I can do for you. But if you keep asking me just to make me seem deliberately vague, ignoring my reference to an article already as thorough as my two-finger typing allows, then you're being silly; see paragraph 1.

And by the way, I was not focusing on Sharia Law because I am an "Islamaphobe" (your word). Sharia Law is one of the more salient forms of immigration-change, and so I used it as an example because I thought readers might be familiar with it, since it has been reported in the news media over the past year. But it is not the only example I used. You'll recall that my original example of an unwanted immigration-change was wearing turbans in the courtroom. That example has nothing to do with Sharia Law, and no, I am not a "turbanophobe".

If I had chosen some other example of an unwanted immigration-change, such as a proliferation of sushi restaurants along with Japanese immigration, would you -- in your search for petty debater's points -- have labelled me a "sushiphobe"? (Footnote: I am not a fan or a critic of sushi; I use it as a silly example of your silly logic).

And now, you can have the last word, secure in the knowledge that I have tired of dealing with sophomoric logic and will not read it.