Let me share a story with you..

[mikedavid00]

MD.....I would encourage you to think beyond the first generation of "immigrants"......for indeed. a poor grasp of English or French and some customs that are foreign to us can be a bit unsettling.

Those aren't the concners despite how it would make a good tv show or movie.

There is a net drain on the livelyhood and lifestyle of Canadians when people move here and do not pay into our system. Not only do we have to cover the non-contributors, we also have to fund their children growing up and finally getting out working with a 1 in 4 chance they will work for the gov't which means there was never a net benefit at all. Just a population increase at the expense of a Canadian.

I know a a guy.

He's an immigrant and retired now.

He came to Quebec in 1968. At the time there were bulletins posted that Canada needed teachers. He said that quebec had a need for teachers. He was from India and then went to africa to teach with some fellow indians. At 24 years old or so he came to Canada and became a teacher.

Tax payers of Canada paid his paycheck. End of story. His life is no longer a benefit to Canada in this sad tale.

He got an arranged marriage to a wife in india and the wife came and never worked. - tax payers expense.

They had 2 kids. - tax payers expense.

They bought a house for like $40k which drove up house prices due to the un-natural economic affect of the 'REASON' for him buying the house. An 'inflated' affect which is unnatural. - costing all Canadians more money to buy a home becuase he just drove up the market price un-naturally.

Wife collected supplement cheques for the 2 kids - tax payers expense.

One of the kids got sick and had to go to many hospital visist growing up. Has asthma, etc. - huge expense to the tax payer.

By this time it was in the 1970's. He took many night courses at school - tax payers expense.

He was a member of a quebec south Asian organization and was vice president. They got $300,000 a year from the Quebec gov't in the 1980's. - tax payers expense.

He stayed a teacher over many years at a very, very high cost to the tax payers.

He then got offered early retirement at like 50 years old because there were too many teachers. He took it. - tax payers expese.

He has full benefits, pension, rrsp's, and easy life - tax payers expense.

Some years back he bought a new home and which again drove up prices - Canadians expense.

Both the mother and father have had many surgeries. One surgery as little as 5 weeks ago - tax payers expense.

Both parents are on medication and pharmecuticals - tax payers expense.

The father started a non-profit to help kids in his home town (that he left when he was 18!) and tried to get grant money - almost a tax payers expense.

Now the parents are living the Canadian dream. A life of ease. A nice life. a life of never having to work hard or suffer.. a life where you are served with a silver plate. And August1991 had to pay for it. We all had to pay for it. This made the life for the generation after him HARDER.

All at YOUR expense. The Canadian tax payer.

This did not benefit Canada. This made life worse for Canada. It COST Canadians. It ate away at the social system and slowely decayd it. It made homes more expensive for people to purchase. It did nothing to benefit us. His story happened millions of times over.

The only way to ensure pesonal lifestyle and well-being for our country is to not let people in unless they are paying taxes when they arrive through the private sector with rare exceptions.

This is how it's done in the US and almost every other country in the world. Why? Becuase it's simply illogical to let people wander into a socialist country with no job prospects. It's simply illogical.

Let employers sponsor in people if they are REALLY needed. But the open flood has got to stop becuase it's at the point now where couples making $50k each can only afford to buy a condo and nothing more. No wonder they don't have kids.

How is everyone supposed to make $75k per household gross and then buy a $500,000 starter home and have a family.

It's just not possible. You are sharing your Canadian piece of the pie with everyone around the world. If we have this magic job boom (still yet to happen), then sponsor in guest workers. If not, then no one should be coming.

It's time to close the doors on open immigration.

[guyser]

Aside from the obvious errors in your thinking, I will listen as soon as you announce you will be donating the profit you make on your home to some charity.

Since it seems to be all about getting a house for cheap, lets see you turn in your profit to get the ball rolling.

How about that? Deal?

[mikedavid00]

Aside from the obvious errors in your thinking, I will listen as soon as you announce you will be donating the profit you make on your home to some charity.

Since it seems to be all about getting a house for cheap, lets see you turn in your profit to get the ball rolling.

How about that? Deal?

See I act like a sane person.

The house is for kids, dogs, our family, and neigbourhood. It's a long term investment until i'm retired. The house was purchsed with private money from the private sector. the tax payers had nothing to do with this home purchase and they did not fund it so I have no quilt buying it. It's not meant to be used as an apt. complex. It's not to be used for 2 families. Tax payers aren't supporting my mortgage.

It's meant to support the lifestyle of a Canadian family.

Now guyser.

Where do you work? Are the tax payers funding your pay check and mortgage? Yes? Do you own a home? No?

Did you ever think that the reason that maybe you don't own is because the house prices have been un naturally infalted by needless immigration?

And yes, I do expect to take atleast a 100k hit on the home if Harper does something about immigration. And I am willing to take this market correction for the good of the country and the younger Canadians trying to make their way up in the world. Cause right now, shoe-box Condos are starting at $240.

[guyser]

See I act like a sane person.

The house is for kids, dogs, our family, and neigbourhood. It's a long term investment until i'm retired. The house was purchsed with private money from the private sector. the tax payers had nothing to do with this home purchase and they did not fund it so I have no quilt buying it. It's not meant to be used as an apt. complex. It's not to be used for 2 families. Tax payers aren't supporting my mortgage.

It's meant to support the lifestyle of a Canadian family.

I never asked if or how it was funded. Besides none of my business it just does not matter how you came to own or finance your house. So dont make something out of what is not there.

Tax payors have nothing to do with anyones purchase of a house. Unless of course you want to include all the people at Canada Post, in the Armed Forces, RCMP, etc , of which I have no doubt you want to.Tax payors are NOT supporting anyone elses house either. Show me otherwise if you want.

Now guyser.

Where do you work? Are the tax payers funding your pay check and mortgage? Yes? Do you own a home? No?

Did you ever think that the reason that maybe you don't own is because the house prices have been un naturally infalted by needless immigration?

I really dont get this at all mikeyD. But, here you go anyhow. I am in insurance, so I am funded privately by raping and pillaging the wallets of therest of you guys each and every year.Yes I own a home , and a cottage to boot. In the latter is the only place you could ever say that I support others lifestyles due to inequality of services ( I pay for and dont get)

And yes, I do expect to take atleast a 100k hit on the home if Harper does something about immigration. And I am willing to take this market correction for the good of the country and the younger Canadians trying to make their way up in the world. Cause right now, shoe-box Condos are starting at $240.

Frankly mikeD , I call bullpucky on that. You wont give up any money to help some unknown, especially if you factor there is a good 1:1 odds that you will be supporting an immigrant already here.Not to condemn you on this, I sure as hell wont be doing nor advocating that

Smarter people do what todays elderly parents are and have been doing. The equity they have in the house is being used to finance, or assist, their own childrens purchases of a new house. This way they have direct control on who benefits from their financial wisdom.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't get it. If he was a teacher, how was he not a benefit to Canada? How is teaching living "A life of ease. ... a life of never having to work hard or suffer.. a life where you are served with a silver plate." ???

Seems to me he worked for a living same as any Canadian-born citizen who enjoys the same benefits you begrudge him.

[guyser]

I don't get it. If he was a teacher, how was he not a benefit to Canada? How is teaching living "A life of ease. ... a life of never having to work hard or suffer.. a life where you are served with a silver plate." ???

Seems to me he worked for a living same as any Canadian-born citizen who enjoys the same benefits you begrudge him.

Actually you cannot "dont get it" because neither does the OP. The line of thought, after numerous posts like this is... anyone who gets any sort of a paycheque from the govt or attachment to said govt is being paid by the OP. Thus they are living off the govt teat.

Post office

passport office

Licence bureau

Teachers

garbage men

city workers

snowplow drivers

and so on and so on......

[Michael Hardner]

Also, from MikeD's example, anybody who uses roads, listens to CBC or speaks to a customs agency is a freeloader.

It's really not worth entertaining these examples of his as though they were serious issues to discuss.

[August1991]

I don't get it. If he was a teacher, how was he not a benefit to Canada? How is teaching living "A life of ease. ... a life of never having to work hard or suffer.. a life where you are served with a silver plate." ???

Exactly.

This Indian teacher provided a service to the community and in return received a salary. This is no different from the service that you provide to the community and for which you also receive payment.

We can argue about the value of the service or its quality but that's a separate question - partly. For example, perhaps one of his students went on to invent a new light bulb and then, what value would you put on his services?

Moreover, you can't really analyze this question with one case. Canada accepts about 200,000 immigrants every year. Like any investment, there are bound to be a few duds but they are balanced out by the success stories.

Finally, compare the cost to Canada of raising and educating someone from birth to age 20 versus the cost of having a fully formed person immigrating at age 20. In general, immigration is a form of importing human capital. It's cheaper to import people rather than create them.

With all of that said, I agree with you that we could do much better in selecting who we let in. If I could change one single aspect of Canada's immigration system, it would be the inland refugee determination process. Lunacy is the only word to describe it.

Edited December 8, 2007 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

Re: your reposnses-- Thanks for the explanations/filling me in. Evidently I'm not familiar enough with mikedavid's posts; I really wondered if I was missing something in his assesment/judgement. Evidently he thinks people in all those professions are living off the taxpayers' money, but it only bothers him when it's an immigrant. Is that correct?

I am curious about Canada's immigration policies vs. ours. I take it Canada lets in a higher numer/percentage of immigrants than the U.S. does. I'd be curious to know how the numbers differ.

[Michael Hardner]

Re: your reposnses-- Thanks for the explanations/filling me in. Evidently I'm not familiar enough with mikedavid's posts; I really wondered if I was missing something in his assesment/judgement. Evidently he thinks people in all those professions are living off the taxpayers' money, but it only bothers him when it's an immigrant. Is that correct?

Yes. There are people on this board who hold some of the same views as MD, who do a much better job of articulating their opinions.

Argus, for example post #19 in this thread:

Given a choice between Pakistani Muslims and Pakistani Christians I'd certainly take the Christians. They're much less likely to blow things up.

I'd rather bring in more Irish, though.

I am curious about Canada's immigration policies vs. ours. I take it Canada lets in a higher numer/percentage of immigrants than the U.S. does. I'd be curious to know how the numbers differ.

AW - yes, I believe it does, here's an article:

Canada's high levels of immigration

Nationally, Canada has one of the world's highest immigration levels compared to its population. A federal report this week showed the mother tongue of fully one in five Canadians is no longer English or French, especially in major cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

And here are some stats from Statistics Canada:

Canada had a faster rate of growth than any other member of the G8 group of industrialized nations between 2001 and 2006. The United States was in second place with a population growth of 5.0% during the same period.

Net international migration fueled two-thirds of Canada's population growth. In contrast, 60% of the growth in the United States population was due to natural increase, that is, the number of births exceeding the number of deaths. The American fertility rate was among the highest for a developed country.

Stats Canada Website

[August1991]

I am curious about Canada's immigration policies vs. ours. I take it Canada lets in a higher numer/percentage of immigrants than the U.S. does. I'd be curious to know how the numbers differ.

I have posted this elsewhere:

In general, Canada takes in around 240,000 immigrants per year. Of these, about half (120,000) are admitted in the category of skilled workers, about a third (80,000) as family class and the rest (40,000) as refugees. Be cautious however. The 120,000 in the skilled worker categaory include dependants (children, spouse) so in fact, we only accept about 35,000 skilled workers.

In addition, Canada loses about 80,000 every year through emigration (primarily to the US). Hence, Canada's net immigration is around 160,000 each year. Statcan data

Incidentally, in per capita terms, we accepted more immigrants in the early 1900s than we do now.

In per capita terms, Australia accepts more net migrants than we do. In the past ten years or so, net migration to Australia has been around 120,000 annually. Australia's population is around 20 million. Australian government

Between 2000 and 2006, the US accepted about 7.6 million net migrants, or about 1.25 million annually. On a per capita basis, that's about the same number of net migrants as Canada accepted. US Census

The US accepts its so-called skilled immigrants by lottery. We and Australia attempt to select such immigrants by skill set.

----

Incidentally, my previous post was directed at Mike David, not at you AW although I used your quote.

Edited December 8, 2007 by August1991

[mikedavid00]

The US accepts its so-called skilled immigrants by lottery.

2 falsehoods in your post. While it is refreshing that someone did enough research to realize how few 'skilled class' immigrants we really let in anually, you are still incorrect on certain things.

Firstly, we let in more legal immigrants per captia than the US.

Second, the lottery is NOT how the US lets in it's immigrants. There is a lottery yes, but it's not the sole way they let in their immigrants.

Also if you immigrate to the US, you are not eligiable for HMO's and other various social programs.

[Argus]

Moreover, you can't really analyze this question with one case. Canada accepts about 200,000 immigrants every year. Like any investment, there are bound to be a few duds but they are balanced out by the success stories.

And you know this, August, because you have undertaken a careful study of the economics involved, and analyzed all the social issues involved to determine the influence of immigrants, both good and bad?

Sorry, August, but your "i love immigrants" spiel long ago wore thin. Especially when every time you trot it out I counter with offering up Ontario's share of immigrants to Quebec and you scuttle frantically away without response.

The fact is if the federal government said tomorrow that Quebec would henceforth get 100,000 immigrants from Asia and the middle east every year you'd be out in the street with the rest of the nationalist mob baying for blood.

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks, MH and August91 for your information and links. I appreciate it. I'm guessing Canada must take in more immigrants in an attempt to increase your population, while the U.S. takes in less because of our already high population.

[Argus]

Thanks, MH and August91 for your information and links. I appreciate it. I'm guessing Canada must take in more immigrants in an attempt to increase your population, while the U.S. takes in less because of our already high population.

No, it's not government policy, even unstated, to increase our population. We take in lots of immigrants because those who support this will scream "racism" at anyone who suggests that perhaps there aren't any sustainable economic models which support this. We also take in lots of immigrants because of an incestuous connection between the governing party, which hands out millions in grants to ethnic groups for various cultural programs in exchange for those ethnic groups organizers to support them come election time.

The interests of Canada itself are really not taken into consideration.

[Canadian Blue]

I work for the Canadian Forces, so I guess I am not working towards the benefit of Canadian's.

The logic Mikedavid constantly uses is so idiotic that I can't even comprehend what goes on in his mind.

[mikedavid00]

I work for the Canadian Forces, so I guess I am not working towards the benefit of Canadian's.

The logic Mikedavid constantly uses is so idiotic that I can't even comprehend what goes on in his mind.

No you don't work for the Canadian Forces, you work for me the person who funds your paycheck.

That isn't idiotic faint logic, that is the reality of the situation. I view the military as gov't workers only becuase I worked at DND in ottawa and I know what goes on there. You guys are very pampered, spoiled civil servants for life that I have to pay for. My money supports you till your grave.

The military is the only right wing union that the gov't can pander to. Both here and in the US.

[Canadian Blue]

That isn't idiotic faint logic, that is the reality of the situation. I view the military as gov't workers only becuase I worked at DND in ottawa and I know what goes on there. You guys are very pampered, spoiled civil servants for life that I have to pay for. My money supports you till your grave.

Really, mind telling that to the family who recently had to bury those "pampered, spoiled civil servants for life" that you have to pay for!

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/283807

Just goes to show you that both the left wing and the right wing can hate our troops equally based on the most infantile of reasons.

[guyser]

you work for me the person who funds your paycheck.

No mike you work for me, and others on this board. We buy products your company makes, thus we own you.

That isn't idiotic faint logic, that is the reality of the situation.

Then what is if that isnt?

Probably the dumbest thing anyone has said on this board.

[AngusThermopyle]

You guys are very pampered, spoiled civil servants for life that I have to pay for. My money supports you till your grave.

Seldom have I heard such a load of offensive crap in my life. You think Military members don't pay tax. You think serving in desert environments when it's 115 Deg out or sailing through storms that would turn your hair white is pampered?

I would suggest you walk a mile in their shoes before you say such things.

[mikedavid00]

Really, mind telling that to the family who recently had to bury those "pampered, spoiled civil servants for life" that you have to pay for!

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/283807

Just goes to show you that both the left wing and the right wing can hate our troops equally based on the most infantile of reasons.

The chance of dying in the military is extremely, EXTREMELY small and you know it.

I don't hate the troops, but it is a gov't union of people in which political parties will pander to them to get votes. Much like the RCMP, Police, and other gov't insitutions. For every troop at war in real danger, there are 10,000 support staff and other civil servants doing nothing living off my tax dollars who really don't serve a role in anything usefull. I've whitnessed it first hand.

[mikedavid00]

Seldom have I heard such a load of offensive crap in my life. You think Military members don't pay tax. You think serving in desert environments when it's 115 Deg out or sailing through storms that would turn your hair white is pampered?

I would suggest you walk a mile in their shoes before you say such things.

Are you trying to imply that all of the military are in the dessert storm in firefights?

That is simply not true. The majority of the money sent to the military goes into make work projects and nothing really of benefit to Canada. How often to you hear of Canada spending the money on something tangeible like fighter jets?

Thought so.

[M.Dancer]

MikeDavid thinks there are 20,000,000+ working at DND.............

[mikedavid00]

No mike you work for me, and others on this board. We buy products your company makes, thus we own you.

Then what is if that isnt?

Probably the dumbest thing anyone has said on this board.

How about we all just work for the gov't. It's the same thing right?

The gov't can take over all the companies and we can all just be civil servants.

That's the logic you are using.

[Canadian Blue]

I wonder how Mike would do in boot camp, probably not very well with such an selfish attitude.

How about we all just work for the gov't. It's the same thing right?

Why not, I find social democracy to be an ideal form of government.

The gov't can take over all the companies and we can all just be civil servants.

No, the government needs to provide us with services like law enforcement, emergency services, education, health care, defence, etc. We pay into those things for the benefit of the society as a whole.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Canadian Blue