Can’t help but be very disappointed with the immigration referendum results. 55-60% in favour is a terrible result for such moderate common sense changes.

And this is the prevailing narrative which is racist. Mass immigration = too many brown and Blk ppl “Immigrants aren’t Canadians” i.e. kick out the brown and Blk ppl who are stealing from us. They are not one of us. That’s racism

I just cast my ballot for James Talarico. As a second-generation Indian American, I am thoroughly disgusted by the xenophobia, racial resentment, and increasingly brazen attacks on my identity. My family has contributed to the American story through hard work, sacrifice, and an unwavering belief in the opportunities this nation promises. I am every bit as American as anyone else, and I will not tolerate being treated as a perpetual foreigner in the country I call home. I implore every eligible Texan to get out and vote. This election is about the kind of state and country we are prepared to defend—and the principles we refuse to surrender. @TeamTalaricoHQ @texasdemocrats

The results are in, and one thing is for certain: last night was a very good night for Danielle Smith. Of the ten referendum questions posed to Albertans last night, Danielle Smith's endorsed option won nine of them. That includes: -Reducing immigration -Requiring an ID to vote -Electing judges -Abolishing the unelected Senate And many more important changes! What do you make of the results?

Quick pull of the data by ballot type. Big difference between advanced/special and voting day.

What I call “The Candy Bowl Problem” is the reason why Indians, who almost no one in the our country thought about 25 years ago, are increasingly hated. During Halloween, kiddos go door-to-door saying "trick or treat" and receive candy. Sometimes, a person isn't home and so they leave a bowl of candy on their front porch. When you come across the porch candy bowl, what do you do? We Americans mostly know the implicit morality to take ONE piece of candy. Some folks will come across the candy bowl and immediately dump the entire bowl into their bag! Indians keep taking from the candy bowl. They're mistaking a vulnerability for an opportunity. It’s a low trust/scarcity mentality, no doubt. But… the candy bowl isn't an opportunity. It's a morality test that Indians are currently failing. All of the diploma mills, scammer job placement firms, and HR kickbacks, and people who max out their credit cards before leaving (never intending to pay it back), are perceived in India as capitalizing on an opportunity but to us, they're exploiting a vulnerability. You're taking the candy bowl and we HATE people who do that. A lot of Indians are confused and angered by the criticism because they actually expect to be praised for being so clever. They think what they're doing is good and maybe even admirable. To us Americans though, it's immoral. Vulnerabilities are NOT opportunities. Not in our nation. This is the most important lesson to learn before coming here, or to any high trust society. The new generation of Indians aren't interested in this in part because their entire education system is built for job skills and not life skills. The remnants of this are even visible in Americans of all low trust ancestral cultures. Morality and ethics occupy less than 2% of the pre-college education in India. This is half of what it is in most of the world and 1/5 what it is in America. Nearly every high school in the country requires a course on civics (how to be a good citizen). In fact, in Gurgaon (India’s Silicon Valley, now white folk are inspiring civic sense and city clean up)! The only reason India isn't the wealthiest nation on Earth is because its people spend too much time looking to dump the candy bowl into their bag and not enough time trying to build trust. Anti-Indian sentiment isn't a racism problem. It's not skin color or even religion. It's because instead of learning about and respecting American morality, y’all just keep looking for candy bowls to take from!

When it comes to immigration, nuance feels nearly impossible. Yet leaders continue to reject a proper debate on the system’s future. So I feel I must wade in. Yesterday, IRCC announced changes prioritizing higher-paying jobs within occupations. Many are positive, but we seem to be returning to the prior status quo without any debate on whether the our immigration system serves our national interest. Immigration has driven Canada’s success, but support for it does not require accepting bad arguments. For years, “labour shortages” have justified high rates, yet the sustained real wage growth and productivity investment you’d expect are absent. Data does not support an economy with real labour shortages, instead, it shows a decades-long struggle to raise living standards. Even the presentation of these changes continues to show enormous intellectual dishonesty by indicating many designated labour areas as having tight labour supply. It’s not supported by evidence. More importantly, if a firm or sector cannot attract workers at the wages it offers, that is not a shortage, it is a compensation problem. We must allow labour markets to work through competition yielding higher wages, training, equipment investment, automation, and better business models. Some firms will adapt and others will fail. This is how economies grow richer and more productive! It’s high time Canada stops using immigration to spare businesses from competing for labour. Instead, I believe that immigration policy should serve the Canada we want to build for the long term. What industrial advantages should Canada develop? How do we attract exceptional entrepreneurs, researchers and innovators? How do we build a country where productivity rises and working Canadians can earn substantially higher incomes and accumulate more wealth? These questions are particularly important as AI, robotics and advanced manufacturing begin transforming production. Alongside abundant, affordable electricity, these technologies offer enormous opportunities to improve our productivity and prosperity. Our policies should encourage businesses to invest in them, rather than making it easier to preserve less productive business models through an ever-expanding supply of labour. That also means being willing to seriously reconsider the scale of immigration itself. Canada still plans to admit 380,000 permanent residents annually. But why should we assume that is the right number? Would a period of more moderate immigration, perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 annually with much more selective economic criteria, help us build a wealthier and more sustainable country? Furthermore, it’s worth addressing demographic arguments. Immigration can help offset population aging, but it cannot become a permanent bandage for collapsing fertility. Part of that decline reflects changing preferences, but housing affordability, financial insecurity and the growing difficulty of raising a family also matter. Similarly, while some reforms have been made to the TFW program, but we still need a serious plan for the temporary residents already here as their permits expire. Who should receive a pathway to permanent status? Under what conditions? And how do we fairly and consistently ensure that those without authorization to remain actually leave Canada? IRCC has demonstrated no competency it can effectively administer here. Finally, we can’t ignore the greater political context right now, as many in my political camp seem keen to. Across the Western world, immigration has become one of the most politically contentious issues of our time. I worry that our political leaders’ unwillingness to have a mature debate about immigration will make the emergence of a much uglier politics increasingly likely over the next decade as people with justified concerns get othered. In their wake, a more openly prejudiced politics feels inevitable. Most Canadians are ready for this debate, so let’s have it!

The Trudeau administration admitted to the error. Imo there were a few things going on of a gigantic nature and while the opposition was more destructive than any time in history.

If you think deporting illegals, criminals & enclaves of people who hate our way of life is racist, then I’m afraid you are a traitor.

While many point out, following @curtis_yarvin's eternal truth, that all Left-wing rioters are in fact agents of the regime, it is also true that the regime fears more than anything else any non-white rioter dying, because then France would experience the Floyd riots, or far worse. And the likely effect on the regime would be its end. Therefore, they treat all Left riots with gentleness.

Open and proactive communication is how you assure faith and trust in institutional capacity and capability. It's how you tamp down panic, misinformation, and conspiracies.

A lot of people are responding to this by saying that the French government should just use force to put down the riots, but I don't think it's realistic and I want to explain why. Before you get angry at me and accuse me of being a pussy, you should know that I personally think a building such as Limoges's town hall is worth more than most human beings and certainly more than the brainless thugs who burnt it down, but it doesn't matter what I think. We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible. It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower. I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw videos of 16-year-old kids having their brains blown out by cops. I doubt even Le Pen would do that and, if she tried, she would quickly backtrack because of the backlash it would inevitably generate. When you start shooting rioters after years or even decades of letting them run amok with impunity, it will initially result in even more violence, because repression is no longer credible and they will assume that you will cave in the face of the outrage. So it's not enough to shoot people once, you have to keep doing it until your credibility is restored and nobody will even want to test your resolve anymore, which in turn means that you have to kill a lot of people. And you have to be confident that, as you do that, your subordinates and political allies won't get cold feet and desert you because they anticipate that you'll lose and will not want to be on the losing side, giving rise to a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm sorry but that's just not going to happen. The Soviet hardliners didn't have the stomach for this kind of carnage in 1991, which is why the August coup failed almost immediately, so frankly the idea that French elites in 2027 will is just delusional. As I say below, there are things we can and should do, but we have our work cut out for us and it will take a long time.

Wow. Trump has accomplished the largest cut to legal immigration since the 1920s Muslim and African immigration down 90%