Scotty

I'm using your logic. If those calling for stronger sentencing are advocates of more prisons, then those who oppose more prisons are advocates of weaker sentencing.

Given your expressed political inclinations here you're certainly not interested in shrinking government. You believe government should be spending massive amounts of money in social safety and stabilization systems. You just don't like the idea of putting people in prison for long periods of time no matter the reasons. Too bad for you.

I agree. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to have any children, because this would be an inconvenience to their lifestyle.

I suppose so, but if so I've yet to see anyone make that case. Instead, they simply announce its good, and demand I prove it's not. What's more, if I happen to come upon research which seems to show it's not, they simply ignore it because they don't like the source of that research -- usually someone like the Frasier Institute. That's immaterial. The average age of immigrants is basically only a little younger than the average age of Canadian born people. That's because we take in so many immigrants who are older.

It's 1/3rd of the new costs. But there are a variety of other reasons for the new costs, primarily related to keeping prisoners in prison longer.

Stats Canada has posted its best estimate as $57 billion per year. That is the cost of crime to Canadians. That does NOT include the cost of prisons, the police, or the court system. That is the cost to you and me, which we pay in the form of damage or loss to our property, loss of time/earnings, cost of extra locks, alarms, bars on windows, etc., and the cost we pay in excess insurance fees because of theft and fraud, extra costs at stores because of shoplifting, extra... well, you get the idea. So I'm willing to spend some extra to keep more people in prison, especially the repeat offenders who simply get out to commit more crimes, then go through the system again, with expensive lawyers, judges, etc., then get out and start all over.

Well then it's just as fair of me to conclude that those who are saying we don't need more prisons want criminals to serve less time and be out on the street faster and earlier, right? The only people advocating more prisons are the numbers people who evaluate government's intent to make criminals serve more time, and decide how many spaces will be needed. The rest of us are merely in favour of criminals serving just sentences for the crimes they've committed. If, as a consequence, that means more prisons, which it obviously does, okay.

Maybe you could explain what it is people 'are saying' then. Because the clear implication is that with the police-reported crime rate down, especially the murder rate, there's no need of more prisons. I'm not understanding the connection there. No one here has ever called for more prisons. They've called for stronger application of the rule of law against criminals, particularly against repeat and violent criminals. They've also called for an end to the farce of giving people two and three for one credit for time served, and concurrent sentencing. All of that means criminals serving longer time, and that is one of the reasons why we need more prisons.

I didn't ask what you mean. I asked what policy you were referring to.

The fascinating thing about it is that there is such a massive interest in the subject of sex, and massive amounts of money to be made through satisfying that interest - yet porn is generally of an extremely poor quality. No one who is actually a capable actor/actress/director or whatnot will have anything to do with it. Sex videos have no real acting, no writing or story to speak of, extremely poor uhm, choreography, if you know what I mean, and are generally uninspiring and unimaginative. I'm a big pervert and I cant' remember the last time I ever even considered buying or renting a porn video.

And one would assume such prisons will be around for about fifty years. So divide your number by fifty and you get $13,000. Not that either number has the slightest relevance, of course.

In other words, you have no idea. You just used the words because it sounded properly indignant.

Do these "advocates for more prisons" exist outside of your own mind? Because, you know, I've never actually seen one. Could we get a quote from one to compare to your fantasies? Can we get a link to the Tories campaigning in favour of more prisons? I can't seem to remember that one.

Lying about what policy? Do you even know what you're talking about? Why don't you just write "I hate Tories" in every post? I think that would basically be as good as what you do now.

It costs money to build prisons. Most of us accept that. We want prisons to keep criminals away from us. It's a lot cheaper to put them away than to endure the massive costs of their criminal behavior - which is a cost people like you rarely ever want to discuss.

Facts? What facts have been presented thus far? That the murder rate is down? I'm not seeing the logic in the belief that since the murder rate is down we should let rapists and car thieves and burglars go free.

I think the argument has always been that sentencing people to a year in prison for murder was unacceptable to those of us who believe in justice.

Because people want criminals to do hard time. And crime rates might be going down but crime itself is not.

That's too simple. There will always be a demand for new products and new construction, especially given how short-lived the products we now use are. And as I said, a bigger economy means more jobs, but that doesn't necessarily improve the lot for anyone living in that economy. If there's more people, then more jobs does not equate to a lower unemployment rate or more wealth for individuals. But then again, maybe we're talking about two different beasts. My measure of the health of an economy is not so much bigger numbers, but how well-off the people living in that economy are.

You said "look at history". If that's your definition of supplying evidence then perhaps your command of the English language needs some work. Translation: You have no evidence of any kind. Even what you seem to be indicating you "considered" looking up and supplying doesn't actually constitute evidence. "We are rich, and we have immigration" seems to you, to be evidence that "Immigration = rich". The idea of justifying a causal relationship apparently is not something which has ever occurred to you.

Like having no job skills and being unable to speak, read or understand English?

So being an advocate for social justice requires that one embrace immigration regardless of flaws? Do you consider yourself to be an advocate for social justice? If so, you're probably the only person on this site who would think of you in those terms.

The question was not whether immigration was good for Canada in the past. The question was is it good for our economy NOW. Actually, you can't really show it's been good for our economy or the country as a whole over the past *thirty* years. That's how long Stats Canada says the economic quality, participation, and success of immigrants has been falling. Yes, we needed a lot of strong backs and weak minds a century ago. We stopped needing them when the use of farm machinery and automation took hold in industry and commerce. Unfortunately, that shift coincided, to some degree, with the shift in our immigration from Europe only, to pretty much the third world. The first shift meant we really needed people with technical expertise. The second shift meant we got fewer and fewer such people. Right now we need people with technical expertise and, because we are largely a service economy, people with superior communications skills. Immigrants, by and large, possess poor communication skills and rarely have the kind of technical expertise the economy requires. That is particularly so when the immigrants are from very backward parts of the world such as the middle east and Africa. No. Things have changed permanently. The need for uneducated, unskilled people is just not there and isn't coming back. We need people with familiarity with the kind of technology we consider routine, and with superior communication skills. That's not going to change. The rate of population shrinkage is not that great, really. If we completely ended immigration - completely - our population would still grow for about twenty or thirty years (been a bit since I saw the demographics) and then shrink very, very slowly. It would take more than a century to get back to the population we had when I was growing up. And we seemed to be doing pretty well back then. .In my experience, and the experience of men I know who are in construction/renovation, immigrants rarely seek or find jobs in the trades, and on the rare occasion they do, rarely last long.

Thank you for making my point about the kind of people who are enthusiastic about immigration while being nearly completely free of knowledge or the ability to think.

But I don't accept that population growth is good for the economy. A bigger economy is not necessarily a better economy. A bigger pie gets divided into more mouths, but if each mouth isn't getting more pie then there's no improvement. The population of this country was much lower when I was growing up, and I have not seen any improvement in our economic fortunes since that time.