Not only this opiod thing but this McKinsey outfit has singlehandedly responsible for Canada's recent immigration policy which many regard as failure with a strangely generous contract awarded by Trudeau
It's rather bizarre to hand off key policies such as immigration to a foreign consulting company, one which is controversial enough.
Trudeau government had spent $66 million on sole-sourced McKinsey contracts since coming to power in 2015... under the Liberals McKinsey contracts have “exploded” by a factor of 30, according to Radio-Canada. This is particularly true at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, where insiders have fingered McKinsey with designing the Trudeau government’s policy of dramatically ramping up immigration to unprecedented levels.
You took the 66M and ammortized it annually, which backed you into the "You can't hire McKinsey for 1/30th of $8M" corner. The orignal source is trivial to find, and makes the calculation using total amounts during the respective terms.
> In the nine years of the Harper government, McKinsey was awarded $2.2 million in federal contracts. During Trudeau's seven years in office, the company has received $66 million from the federal government.
How about you address the points they responded to you with instead of sarcasm?
You asked for details, you got details, now you avoid - so you really seem firmly indoctrinated into an unchallenged ideology - seemingly because you refuse to engage and update your knowledge/understanding?
If you put just a bit more effort in and actually respond to people's points, including my previous ones, then I'll be willing to then expend more of my energy and answer your specific question - but it seems to just be another strategy you developed to avoid. Avoiding will only prevent you from developing your critical thinking and broaden-deepen your understanding through other people's perspectives.
Look at it this way. Would you like it if, through “addition” and natural attrition, 20% of your company was ex-McKinsey folks? Countries are the same as companies. The way they are reflects the culture and values of the people. When a large fraction of your population becomes recent immigrants from the subcontinent, your country will become more like the subcontinent.
I’m part of the problem here. Half my family lives in Canada now. They’re super nice people and their food is a huge upgrade over the dreck Canadians were eating. But they’re Bangladeshi, not Canadian, in substance if not in legal technicalities. They don’t have the culture and values suitable for running an egalitarian western democracy.
> your country will become more like the subcontinent
You really do seem to view life through a very-narrow lens; you appear to be generalizing your own family's recent, one-generation experience as though immigrant culture somehow quickly alters the host culture in major ways without that happening to the immigrants themselves.
To be sure, immigrant enclaves such as the Haredim in NYC or the heavily-Muslim banlieues in France can do that. But it's generally on a very-local basis.
And on a national, long-term basis: Successive generations are born to immigrant families. They marry — often to spouses from other ancestral cultures — and have their own kids. Those kids are influenced in countless ways by their teachers; their friends and other peers; the media; and other facets of mainstream culture.
That's how assimilation happens: The host culture absorbs immigrants — and influences them — while borrowing from their cultures, adding new ingredients to the "alloy" (or amalgam? I'm avoiding the Melting Pot metaphor).
Or at least that's what happens when the host culture doesn't engage in knee-jerk exclusionary behavior out of pathological fear of The Other and an egotistical assumption that We Know Best About All Things For All Time.
(Source: As I said in another thread recently, in various ancestral lines I'm descended from immigrant grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great grandparents, with ancestry in four different countries (possibly five; we're not sure). My kids have two more countries in their own ancestries from my wife's side, and their respective spouses have even more countries in the mix, so any kids they have will be even more of a blend.)
> You really do seem to view life through a very-narrow lens; you appear to be generalizing your own family's recent, one-generation experience as though immigrant culture somehow quickly alters the host culture in major ways without that happening to the immigrants themselves.
I would say that, as a first generation immigrant, I'm viewing cultural change through a vantage point that most Americans lack. Most Americans have only arm's-length contact with immigrants; they aren't in a position to understand how their culture and values shape their behavior, including their political and civic behavior.
I don't deny that the immigrants are also changed in the process--I simply reject the assumption that the resulting amalgam is better. If you're Google, a two-way cultural exchange with a bunch of former IBM people isn't going to make your organization better.
And I also don't agree that the change we have had in America from prior generations of immigrants is a good thing. New York City, for example, would probably be much better run and more orderly if it was still mainly people from a culture that reflexively queue up even if they're unsure what they're standing in line for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tjgyWQ8nU. It would probably be even more orderly and well-run if it was still New Amsterdam and run by Dutch people.
> And I also don't agree that the change we have had in America from prior generations of immigrants is a good thing. New York City, for example, would probably be much better run and more orderly if it was still mainly people from a culture that reflexively queue up even if they're unsure what they're standing in line for
But then we have to wonder as well whether NYC and its surrounding environs would have evolved into the global capital of finance, culture, technology, etc., that it is.
We'll never know, for example, whether Bell Labs would have arisen in a region populated "mainly [by] people from a culture that reflexively queue up even if they're unsure what they're standing in line for[.]"
And more generally: We'd have to wonder whether the U.S. would have, for example, twice led the rescue of Europe from German fascism and provided nearly 80 years of relative peace that has been labeled Pax Americana — or would an isolationist U.S. instead have led to even more domination of various countries by aggressors (see: Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin); warlords and their gangs (see: Somalia, Haiti, etc.); and xenophobic nationalists (see: Orbán, Modi, and their ilk).
Bemoaning immigration is not unlike bemoaning bad weather. Immigration is gonna happen; trying to stop it, using our available means, would cost more financially — and perhaps morally, for some crimes-against-humanity measures that can be imagined — than decent societies are willing to pay.
> But then we have to wonder as well whether NYC and its surrounding environs would have evolved into the global capital of finance, culture, technology, etc., that it is.
I don’t dispute that immigration enables ambitious people from all over the world who are anti-social enough to leave their homelands to come to America and make a lot of money. How you can bill that as a good thing is what I don’t understand. Ordinary Americans would be better off if NYC wasn’t the global capital of finance and technology. The Netherlands seems to be doing just fine being modestly less rich than America.
> Bemoaning immigration is not unlike bemoaning bad weather.
Immigration isn’t an inevitability, especially when your country stretches from coast to coast with a relatively narrow land border on the south side. Between 1910 and 1970, the US foreign-born population shrank from 15% to under 5%, even with the advent of the aviation industry. The subsequent growth of that figure was entirely a policy choice.
> Ordinary Americans would be better off if NYC wasn’t the global capital of finance and technology.
You seem to assume that the things you like about America would have come into being, and remained in existence, in the absence of the things you don't like. But history might suggest otherwise.
> The Netherlands seems to be doing just fine being modestly less rich than America.
Um: Absent the rich, mongrel United States and its industrial capacity, the folks in the Netherlands might well be speaking German as one of their official languages and still being ruled from Berlin. In late 1940, Germany had conquered basically all of western Europe and was not far from starving Britain into submission; U.S. aid helped keep the Brits afloat. Not even the Red Army would likely have defeated Germany without the U.S.'s so-called Arsenal of Democracy, which provided crucial materiel to the Soviets, helping them to avoid being conquered and colonized by the Third Reich — with their non-Aryan population turned into enslaved workers and/or intentionally starved to death (see: the Wannsee Protocol).
Or (continuing this alternative-history exercise), perhaps the Dutch would be speaking Russian after Stalin, Zhukov, et al., not only conquered Germany but rolled through Western Europe to the English Channel. But oh yes: The U.S.'s policy of containment — backstopped by its nuclear umbrella, the Marshall Plan for a time, and eventually the U.S-led NATO coalition — seems to have worked, buying time during which the Soviet Union finally collapsed of its own weight. Without U.S. economic might, it's doubtful that this would have happened.
For that matter, today's ambitious China likely wouldn't be a concern to our Dutch contemporaries either: China probably would have ended up as part of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, submissive to Tokyo. That didn't happen, again thanks to the wealthy, stupendously-productive United States.
The alternative-history conjectures above are just speculation, of course. Obviously, much change would have occurred in the decades since the end of WWII.
But your assertions have the ring of Jeffersonian yeoman-farmer wishful thinking.
> They don’t have the culture and values suitable for running an egalitarian western democracy.
I'd be curious to hear what you think is missing from the culture of Indians/Bangladeshis/Pakistanis that would preclude them from becoming part of an "egalitarian western democracy"?
You're asking the wrong question. Individual Indians, Bangladeshis, and Pakistanis can easily "become part of" a western democracy. The real question is how these immigrants can maintain and perpetuate an egalitarian western democracy. At the scale of immigration Canada and the US is experiencing, you can’t take for granted that the immigrants will simply maintain the kind of society that’s currently in place. Democracy doesn't arise from putting certain rules and constitutional structures down on paper. Instead, it’s the expression of the civic culture of a people.
That culture, in turn, isn’t about superficial stuff like food and language. Who wouldn’t think Indian food is a good thing? But what’s important to maintaining and perpetuating a democracy is deep culture. How do people in a culture view relations between people in society? On the sub-continent, we have an intensely hierarchical view of society, where we place great importance on people’s breeding (coming from a “good family”). Family ties and personal relationships, moreover, are much more important than abstract rules. People are much more willing to cover things up or bend rules to protect personal relationships than in the west, making the sub-continent a breeding ground for corruption. Asians, in general, come from societies that had millennia of large-scale imperial government. So the view of the relationship between the government and the individual is very different.
I'll give you a concrete example of the distinction. My family easily assimilated into the Virginia town where I grew up. That only means we can function—very successfully—within an environment where the norms are imposed by some other culture. We couldn’t recreate that environment. My mom can function in a society where norms of egalitarianism are imposed by a dominant culture. But that’s just not how she sees the world. She looks down on "the common people" and think that society should be governed top-down by people of good breeding and education. Because that’s a foundational assumption in our culture. And if suddenly 20% of the population were like my mom, the environment would become less egalitarian.
In fact, that's exactly what happened to my town. We went from being a quintessentially American middle class town to having a large number of affluent, educated Asians move in. And they completely changed the environment.
I think this is completely fair. For example, we have a saying "Old Dead White Men" and yet this country, it's laws, it's structure, is based on the ideas of old dead white men. It's a contradictory set of positions to hold to assure that people can immigrate and retain their identity - they are expected to even -, that this country's past is evil and should be undone, and yet also they should assimilate. We are told to ignore anything old dead white men created and yet we expect immigrants to come here and vaguely "assimilate". It's unclear what that even means. We find things like the melting pot analogy offensive and diversity is seen as a good thing. Doesn't that contradict assimilation? If diversity and assimilation are compatible, what does assimilation even mean? What commonality is required and why does it seem like this definition can easily be changed when suitable?
The only argument against this is to say that well "that's xenophobic". But I think this is just a way of ending the points made without discussing them because they cause discomfort. There are benefits to immigration but those benefits are not distributed evenly. It's also hard to benefit from immigration materially and politically but simultaneously say it's being done for humanitarian reasons and anyone opposed is just a bigot. It's easier to shut down debate than have to confront this.
I have noticed a lot more status/hierarchy jostling from immigrants who come from certain cultures. But I don't see that in their children who tend to have a much more western view of status/hierarchy.
When immigrants are heading towards 20% of the population, that first generation effect is significant. And don’t assume it disappears in subsequent generations. It’s hard as an outsider to tell, because you’re not privy to people’s thoughts or private communications.
The second generation Asian Americans I know aren’t quite as hierarchy-focused as say my parents. But they’re also nothing like my wife’s Oregonian family that’s been in the US for hundreds of years. (Among whom having status is almost something to be embarrassed about.)
Thanks for the anecdote, but the claims there are laughably and provably wrong. Just open the crime section of any swedish newspaper and you'll notice not every criminal is non-white (which the commenter implied). And that's even without accounting that in Sweden just like in many countries, white-collar crimes and government corruption are barely investigated/prosecuted (the topic of this HN thread).
Swedish neo-nazis are very much violent white criminals. And as much as i have sympathy for their cause and actions, swedish native antifas are (mostly) violent white criminals. Likewise, the cops beating up protesters are violent white criminals. Claiming all the criminality is due to arabic-speaking immigrants is so far-off from reality that it has to be from a very racist person that cannot substantiate their point with facts. On that point, it turns out french racists have exactly the same propaganda, and it's just as laughably and provably wrong here as it is there.
Sure, immigration is not a problem in Sweden. Just "tons of people who don't speak the language, don't respect the culture, don't care to work, do crime and cannot be deported" is. In 2018 they found in 75% of rape assaults perp is an immigrant (40% of them arrived less than year before).
I don't know about these stats, but if they are true, they are very telling. Yes, there is a problem with sexism and sexual violence across most of the planet, and yes it needs to be addressed.
That 25% of rape assaults are perpetrated by a native Swede shows that the problem has to do with culture and education and has nothing to do with immigration. A more interesting stat for your point would be the percentage of these immigrants involved in rape.
Maybe some of these immigrants are violent psychopaths, in which case they will be dealt with by the criminal justice system just like Swedes. Maybe some of them have different cultural norms, in which case they should receive education just like Swedes. In all cases, there is a problem with consent and sexual violence and it needs to be dealt with globally.
> Maybe some of these immigrants are violent psychopaths,
I don't think they are violent psychopaths. Probably some of them come from low quality of life where this crime was not prosecuted but encouraged by peers. Or adhere to a religion which has its own legal system in which rape by a male against female from another religion is not clearly illegal (especially if in that religion murdering someone not adhering to that religion guarantees you heaven in eternity).
> Yes, there is a problem with sexism and sexual violence across most of the planet, and yes it needs to be addressed.
Sure, and world peace too right?
Forget platitudes, it is a fact that this type of crime (like any other) is worse in some places and better in others, and in some places it was better but is getting worse.
Trying to have a rational, data driven discussion with these people is like playing a game of chess with a pigeon. They'll topple all the pieces, shit on the board and then claim victory.
I gave up a long time ago.
To address that issue, you would have to realize that there are different factors leading more people to report sexual abuse. First, consciousness/labeling of the assault itself, which is made easier by sexual education and feminist propaganda. Second, public policies making the authorities care more about sexual violence; it used to be in many places that a woman trying to press charges would be denied that right. Third, that cops themselves have (sometimes) received proper training in how to handle such cases, and reporting sexual abuse doesn't have to be (although it still is in many police stations) such a traumatic experience as it used to be.
That's just the first 3 counter-arguments that come to mind because they are well known in feminist circles as well as in academic contexts studying sexual violence.
> adhere to a religion
You are just spewing mindless islamophobic tropes. None of what you say is true. First, islam doesn't have a globally unique legal system: sharia does not drive the lives of most muslims, and is in any case subject to many interpretations. Second, of course rape and murder are denounced in the Quran and forbidden by muslim customs... need i remind you that muslims live by 90% of the same religious laws as jews and christians? Third, of course you may find fascist scholars promoting hatred and violence... whether they be muslim, buddhist, christian... That's neither representative nor authoritative on any matter.
> this type of crime (like any other) is worse in some places and better in others
Nonsense. Rape is rape and horrible in any case. Whether you find support in your community to prevent it and to address it has nothing to do with geography or legal status, but rather with solidarity, empathy and popular power. If you were not making an abstract point from your indoctrinated racist incel point of view, you would actually realize that the MeToo movement has precisely shown that no place is good when it comes to sexual violence.
Of course some specific sexual crimes such as sexual excision are rooted in a specific cultural context, but even those are not universal in the muslim worlds. And even then, sexual mutilation of children is common in the western world as well when it comes to intersex children, and that doesn't seem to bother people of your kind.
Have you looked up the statistics and not viewed it from a race lens?
Do you have the belief that the way immigration is structured can't ever "be a problem"?
I'd recommend looking into the quality of life and cost of living data in Canada, all the metrics that are related, and how they have changed in just the last 8 years - and ideally you find out what the source cause(s) are for that as well - government policy wise.
I'm curious what data you think is hard to find, or what data you think is or isn't relevant and related to suggesting if "immigration is a problem" or not?
Also, could you agree at least that immigration could be structured well to certainly maximize for its positives like you state including being a driving force for technological/social progress - and that could be where most of the accurately kept historical data comes from - at the same time then it's possible that immigration policy and processes could possibly dramatically change and harm the local population, especially the poorest, perhaps inadvertently due to incompetent governance - or perhaps through malice and alterior motives?
Harming the poorest the most being an example of being counter to social progress, unless you don't give any value to the poor who are already citizens living in a place - and value immigrants more for how they could potentially benefit society; or they could make things far worse - especially if there's no proper vetting, right?
You've also simply made unsubstantiated-unsupported claims, not linking to any data or evidence to support your statements - while ironically calling out the person you're replying to wanting them to actually explain it with some detail.
Would you for example consider if rent/housing costs went up by 400% in a short period, and the majority of youth can no longer afford to buy a home - would you chalk that up to immigration playing any role of that, or would your claim be that it doesn't have a major impact?
> Do you have the belief that the way immigration is structured can't ever "be a problem"?
No i don't have this belief. I believe immigration can be a problem in two circumstances:
- when it's a settler colonial project such as in founding USA / Canada, because it's accompanied by an actual genocide
- or when it pushes restricted resources even thinner, as we see in 3rd world countries who house most of the world's refugees / immigrants (most of them do not even try to reach Europe)
> Would you for example consider if rent/housing costs went up by 400% in a short period
It depends on the context, but as we are talking about wealthy western countries where resources are abundant (and actually wasted) i'd put that on the economic policies and not on immigration. Housing prices are correlated with speculation and the legal status of squatting, not with immigration ; that is because the prices are disconnected from the laws of supply and demand as the supply far exceeds the demands, but very few of it is actually put on the market.
You're actually giving a very good example of how rich landlords and racist politicians (sometimes they are the same persons) are blaming immigration for their becoming richer on the backs of poor people entirely due to their own actions.
_annual_Immigration_and_Emigration_2000-2017.png){kind=link}
It's rather bizarre to hand off key policies such as immigration to a foreign consulting company, one which is controversial enough.