turningrite

I think evidence increasingly supports this contention. Modern welfare state societies were largely built on the "social contract" model whereby one's entitlements were mainly based on and sustained by contributions one made into the system during one's working years. More recent large-scale migration policies accompanied by fairly open access to public benefits, at least in Canada and parts of Western Europe, has undermined the sustainability of this model, transforming it into a subsidy class system of layered and often permanent entitlements enjoyed by those who've in many cases contributed little or nothing to the system. And the consequences for those who have paid taxes to support the system are increasingly dire. Here in Ontario, the health care system has become a disaster of almost epic proportions where access to care is rationed. The Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman noted that the social welfare state is incompatible with open immigration. At least in the U.S., where access to publicly funded benefits is constricted by eligibility criteria favoring legal status, length of residency and financial contributions, the most recent generation of immigrants are net contributors to the tax base. The situation in other Western jurisdictions, like Canada, which afford almost instant access to publicly funded benefits for newcomers, provides substantial proof of the validity of Friedman's assertion.

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

Australia's examination of its immigration program concluded that the demographic argument often used to justify large-scale immigration is flawed. Its study concluded that to sustain any demographic gains large scale immigration has to be perpetually maintained as the boost is generally only applicable to the most recent generation or two of immigrants after which there is reversion to the mean in terms of demographic profile, fertility rates, etc. Observers have noted that the conclusion suggests that the demographic argument is therefore largely a ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by new entrants. As for emigrants returning to Canada, I think you are overly optimistic. For many immigrants, particularly from the developing world, getting into Canada is seen as a "stepping stone" to getting into the U.S., particularly for their offspring who after attaining education in this country have easier access to the U.S. than they would have had from the developing world. Thus, any demographic benefit is lost to Canada and sponsored family members who arrive in this country are in general far less likely to be economically productive than those who leave. Finally, population growth in and of itself doesn't raise living standards. It's essentially a zero sum game as there's little evidence that it boosts average wages. In fact, it contributes to greater competition for jobs and housing thus driving down wages and raising living costs. The British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that any economic benefit for developed economies attributable to large scale migration is marginal and is unevenly distributed, with the rich benefiting and the poor, including poor immigrants, losing out. In other words, large scale migration exacerbates poverty and income inequality. Anybody living in a city or urban region heavily impacted by large scale migration, like the GTA, would notice these impacts.

I don't know how Ford's proposed policy will work. I suspect it would likely be difficult to impose ideological hiring standards at universities. How would anybody know whether a prof would turn out to be an ideologue? Perhaps, then, free speech policies might be a better approach. It's been decades since my last contact with academe but in my recollection there were few true ideologues among the profs with whom I dealt. There were a couple that I can recall but they were exceptions among an otherwise pretty open-minded bunch. I guess it would be helpful to know why this has apparently changed so dramatically over the past 30 or 40 years.

I didn't know it was anywhere near this bad in Finland. Other than for the Putin reference, this comment could well pertain to Canada. Over here, those who question the globalist agenda aren't likely to be called Putinists. It's more likely the insults that would be hurled at them would reference Trump. I guess the difference is a matter of proximity.

I'd like to see Trudeau gone but he has a solid majority and we should at least be able to judge his government next year on the results of an entire term. Right now, the big issue might well be NAFTA but what would be accomplished by an election when all three mainstream parties effectively have the same position on this matter? In general, there's so little to choose from between the two parties that have any chance of winning, the Libs and CPC, that holding an election right now would seem redundant. Let's see if Bernier's party can get off the ground and what it might have to offer. I read one analysis which I believe indicated that it could appeal to about one-third of Canadian voters. If true, it would have a substantial impact on the next year's election. At the very least, it would make it difficult for any of the traditional parties to form a majority government. A CPC-Bernier coalition might well be a better alternative than another dreary run by the Libs.

Meanwhile, here in Ontario, Ford says his government will require universities to adopt free speech policies that permit controversial speakers to be heard and allow for contentious views to be aired. You know the pendulum has truly swung too far in the direction of a "progressive" form of fascism when governments have to intervene to restore free speech in a country that's supposed to be a democracy. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-doug-ford-says-ontario-postsecondary-schools-will-require-free-speech/

The basic reality is that globalists want to eliminate democracy in their quest for ever higher profits. Democracy is that little institution that grants citizens the ability through their votes to protect the rights and interests of workers and consumers within national jurisdictions. There is no global institution with either the ability or the inclination to do so. Once democracy is out of the way, we're all sitting ducks.

Just in: Toronto Star reports that Trump told reporters that U.S. conditions for a NAFTA deal will be so insulting to Canada that we won't be able to agree to them. Is it even worthwhile to continue or will the Trudeau government be sufficiently obsequious to get a deal of some kind or any kind as it's clear it has no "Plan B" to fall back on? It looks like Canada has completely lost here. https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html

I believe that Canada ranks as one of the most tolerant countries in the world, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think racism, apparently in general. "should" be called out in Canada? Where is the epidemic the left so clearly wishes to conjure? The Anglo-Western, Scandinavian and some Latin American countries rank as the most tolerant countries on earth and virtually all the most intolerant countries are in the developing world. Funny that, eh? Maybe we should be calling out the most intolerant countries for their racism and xenophobia. Nah, we're much too polite to do that. As the feckless Trudeau might say, they're evolving. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.852f7c313814

Increasingly, old immigrants, many of whom have arrived over the past generation. In Toronto, reportedly roughly two-thirds of seniors are immigrants, and many of them arrived as sponsored or family class and 69 percent report a mother tongue other than English. If you look for evidence as to why immigration has become a financial strain on Canadian taxpayers the evidence is out there. However, I suspect you're not interested in either evidence or rational analysis. https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/05/16/significant-health-gaps-found-between-canadian-and-immigrant-seniors.html

Canada has never aspired to be a superpower. It's only objective has been to survive.

Yup, it's done like dinner. Its superpower days are over.

1.) Absolutely correct. I think the role of the Mulroney government in this fiasco is seldom fully acknowledged. Trudeau, if left to his own devices, will make the situation so much worse and the CPC apparently says little other than that they'll consult on the matter, which to many of us out here means they'll likely do little but tinker around the edges if they come to power. 2.) Of course, there are things that can be done. As a law professor who's written a couple articles on the matter, which have been published in the National Post, has argued, the Trudeau government is exaggerating Canada's obligations where the illegal/irregular migrants are concerned. It simply takes political will to properly address this. Trudeau's government doesn't have the kind of backbone and resolve required and I suspect Scheer's approach might be equally as anemic.

This is a point that isn't often addressed. I recently read an analysis indicating that U.S. immigrants who've arrived in that country over the past couple decades are in fact net contributors to the tax base. This contrasts with the opposite situation in Canada. The big problem here, of course, is the extension of benefits to virtually all classes of migrants, including refugees and sponsored immigrants, in comparison to much more constricted access in the U.S. to public supports. How this might be remedied is a matter of controversy. I believe Australia's extensive study of its immigration programs addressed the issue of immigrant dependency and some countries in Europe have grappled with it as well. I think the best solution might be to transform Canada's so-called "universal" access model to a contributory one, granting eligibility credit both for years of residency as well as actual contributions into the system. Otherwise, we'll experience continuously declining public services, as we're already seeing with health care, and an expanding dependent class that's increasingly reliant on layered subsidies. At some point, taxpayers will revolt at this arrangement, particularly if they sense they can't or won't benefit from it.

Canadians who were born into the generation born following, say, 1940 or 1950 (take your pick), actually paid taxes into the system to help fund the kind of services, like pensions and health care, they expect(ed) to receive in old age. It's called the "social contract" model. The most recent generation of immigrants has, conversely, become a benefits drain and yet will expect and likely receive the same benefits as prior generations of taxpayers. This illustrates a clear deficiency and inequity in Canada's approach to immigration. And it's likely not sustainable and will lead to increasingly inferior benefits for everybody, including both those who have been net contributors to the system and those who haven't. If you think you have brains then please apply them to come up with a more coherent analysis.

Or maybe you're a troll?

You're rambling. When even objective commentators on the American right are noting America's declining influence and prestige in the Trump era, something is going on. Trump has a penchant for strongman governance, perhaps reflecting some kind of personality issue on his part. But does this benefit his country? Hmmm... The emerging evidence is that it doesn't. In Britain, which has long prized its "special relationship" with the U.S. authorities wouldn't risk permitting Trump anywhere near central London, feting him (because they had little choice) essentially in private at Blenheim Castle, near Oxford. Imagine having to hide any other major world leader?

It is in fact a real failure of accountability on the part of the federal government that the true net costs of the immigration and refugee programs are spread across and blended into several federal departmental budget lines in addition to unspecified costs associated with programs operated by provincial and municipal governments. The Fraser Institute, an NGO, has provided a public service by trying to shed light on the total extent of these costs and I believe has estimated the annual net fiscal cost to taxpayers at this point amounts to tens of billions of dollars. By the way, I believe you need to calm down here. The tenor of your commentary (i.e. Stop funding that fuckin IRCC!!!!!!!!!!!) appears to be unsuitable for this site.

What are you going on about? Personally, I don't think you know what you're talking about but it's possible your real purpose is to employ emotional outbursts in an attempt to discredit those who rationally examine and/or criticize the economics of the Canadian immigration program. It's the kind of approach you appear to favor that undermines the ability of Canadians to engage in a reasonable discourse about immigration policy. And that might well lead directly to success for a party like the one proposed by Bernier. And, by the way, the most recent generation of immigrants is generally meant to reference the cohort that's arrived during the past 25 to 30 years. If you think the most recent generation extends back to 1940, perhaps you're confusing human beings with tortoises or bowhead whales.

1.) You're ignoring the real issue and changing the channel here. 2.) What I implied is that U.S. prestige and and influence are declining. I think there's a lot of evidence of this. I believe that earlier this week France's Macron told Europeans that as the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally Europe will have to formulate its own security policies and negotiate on its own with the Russians. The dominoes are falling. Who are Trump's allies? Putin, Kim, Duterte, the House of Saud? The rest of the world is dropping him like a hot potato, particularly in the democratic West. Americans had better hope the damage isn't permanent. A piece published a couple days ago by the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner, 'Our allies abroad are realizing we've become unreliable', noted Macron's comments and the general decline in American global influence in the Trump era. Outside of the U.S., Trump's MAGA motto is increasing transforming into Make America Go Away. The late Sen. John McCain apparently believed America would renew itself and recover from Trump. Maybe. Maybe not.

1.) Again, you're missing the point. We're talking about the power of market share here, which is the holy grail to Trumpistas. Mexico can continue producing cars for the U.S. market but if Canada says it won't take them the auto producers will have to find a work-around. Auto production won't disappear from Canada as long as the big producers want access to the Canadian market, which remains larger than its Mexican counterpart. 2.) Canadians have long had an conflicted relationship with the U.S., so maybe it's our time to move to a different economic model. The U.S. is a declining country in terms of general global importance and wealth anyway.

I'll take my chances on Bernier if his party gets off the ground. I tend to agree with him that any change under Scheer would merely be incremental. Canadians might get one last chance to change the direction of their politics and country. If we don't grasp it, we'll only have ourselves to blame. Nobody will be able to say there was nothing more on offer. A choice between the Trudeau government and something else that's more or less the same isn't really a choice, after all.

1.) You're entirely missing the point. Canada does have domestic firms involved in the auto industry, and particularly in auto parts, even though it doesn't have domestically owned auto assembly firms. However, the main issue here is the relationship between market share and production. If market share dictates production, as Trumpistas generally hold to apply, Canada's case is stronger than is Mexico's. Market share was the basis of the old Auto Pact deal between Canada and the U.S., which preceded the FTA/NAFTA era. Whether the F-150 is assembled in the U.S. is irrelevant as in all likelihood much of the vehicle's content is produced elsewhere. This has generally become the case in the North American auto/vehicle industry. 2.) Mexico sucked jobs out of both the U.S. and Canada, which is what corporate investors intended from the get-go. That sucking sound is in large measure what got Trump elected. Why Canada has been cast as a baddie seems to have more to do with Trump's bizarre ego than anything else. Although he claims otherwise, there's valid reason to believe the guy is a wingnut. At least he's demonstrated the original opponents of the FTA/NAFTA regime to be correct in that his behavior casts the U.S. an unstable and unreliable partner as well as an inferior democracy. These days its political system is focused on the weird antics of a personality worthy of leadership only in a failed state.

I'm aware of the role the U.S. Congress plays in this. Of course, things could well change in the midterms. Maybe if Canada announces it will withdraw because of Trump's intransigence we could play a role in pushing the GOP into a minority position in November.