Isn't it time to slow down immigration?

wulf42 · November 3, 2008

Canada is a founded on Immigration...and thats fine but it really is time to look at who we let in here...........for one thing it is a time of war..........a war involving religious fanatics...Islamic fanatics i might add.......so does it make sense to continue to let people in from Islamic countries some of which we are at war with???...........I can't believe only a few of us on here can see the danger....the enemy is already here ....it doesn't make sense to me at least to just let more of them in........and yes i know many people from Islamic countries want to live a peaceful life...the problem is we don t know which ones...and to continue open ended unchecked immigration is nonsense....Canada is a country that was created on British and French traditions we are soon going to lose that culture if we are not careful!

Griz · November 4, 2008

As it says western European which includes France. The Newfies are of British descent and was a colony of England up until 1949 when they joined the Confederation.
The Natives are assimilated as is obvious by the number of Native people in the Commons.

As the last question asks, yes it would. If I moved to the arctic why would I suggest that the Inuit need to be like southerners and not hunt seals and game, they need to hunt to live and feed their families. I would need to learn the Inuit ways or I would not be successful and wouldn't be accepted into the Inuit community. The same should apply to newcomers to Canada.

I for one am appalled at the conditions the First Nation peoples are forced to live in and the reserves need real attention. However the way we currently hand out cash isn't working and the money isn't getting to the people who most need it. This is for another thread.

I am getting somewhere with this Mr Canada guy So going back to an earlier response in here by you to me--Why are you turning this into a race issue? :lol: And as for the ca$h, why is it a hand-out to the natives who don't really see that cash as they live in poverty? Meanwhile there is all those non-natives who "suck up" the billion dollar DIA budget and through the media make it look as though the natives have it good? Furthermore, if you use a kayak, is it recreation, or are you assimlated as an Inuit? :lol:

Mr.Canada · November 4, 2008

I am getting somewhere with this Mr Canada guy So going back to an earlier response in here by you to me--Why are you turning this into a race issue? And as for the ca$h, why is it a hand-out to the natives who don't really see that cash as they live in poverty? Meanwhile there is all those non-natives who "suck up" the billion dollar DIA budget and through the media make it look as though the natives have it good? Furthermore, if you use a kayak, is it recreation, or are you assimlated as an Inuit?

The First Nation people deserve better then what they are getting currently. The government needs to fix the reserves but that can't be done by handing over money to the band chiefs. This hasn't worked and should be revised. They aren't the best money managers. They need new buildings, schools and hospitals on reserves and should employ the Native people to work in the construction of the new homes, buildings and roads, then hire them to run and upkeep them where possible. I think that this would boost self esteem, restore the pride of a near broken people and provide an income and sense of usefulness. I think that this would specifically help the First Nation communities that are in far flung areas of the country where suicide rates are high.

I'm also appalled at the high cost of groceries in the Far North. $12 for 4L of milk, $5 for a loaf of bread? Outrageous! Instead of this the government should invest in the people and train them to become bakers, livestock raisers and give them grants so they may construct businesses(employing the local Native people for the construction) so that they may become more self sufficient and cut down the reliance on the planes and a ship that only comes once a year. Sure it would cost money now but it would save money in the long run with less people needing government assistance.

Smallc · November 4, 2008

Eliminating the Reserve system would be the best thing possible for all Canadians.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Smallc

madmax · November 4, 2008

I subscribe to the Kill-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out school of firefighting.

Little old for that aren't you..

I still have my T-shirt.

Mr.Canada · November 4, 2008

Would make things so much better, for everyone.

Please don't change my words to look like I said that , which I didn't. So change it or I will be reporting you.

Furthermore First Nations want the reserves.

Smallc · November 4, 2008

What I was doing was changing the words to reflect my own opinion but now I can see how that could be misconstrued and I apologize for what I did. This is something that id sone regularly on another Forum I visit and I never really thought anything of it. Again, I'm Sorry for any misunderstanding. It will not happen again. I have changed the earlier post to better reflect my original intent.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Smallc

Mr.Canada · November 4, 2008

smallc please explain how it would be better. I believe the First Nations are fighting for more land, not less. The Liberals would never dismantle the reserves, Oka would be nothing.

Smallc · November 4, 2008

smallc please explain how it would be better. I believe the First Nations are fighting for more land, not less. The Liberals would never dismantle the reserves, Oka would be nothing.

Actually, the Liberals tried to eliminate the Indian Act, but there was too much opposition. There is nothing to be gained from reserves in this day in age. There is something to be gained from the realization of equality of all people. That realization involves the elimination of reserves and the Indian Act.

Mr.Canada · November 4, 2008

Actually, the Liberals tried to eliminate the Indian Act, but there was too much opposition. There is nothing to be gained from reserves in this day in age. There is something to be gained from the realization of equality of all people. That realization involves the elimination of reserves and the Indian Act.

SO if it were up to you, you would take away the Natives land? They are still blockading Caledonia over a few acres. What do you think would happen if the government tried to take all their land away? No government of any stripe will ever do that.

smallc this is political correctness gone wild.

Smallc · November 4, 2008

SO if it were up to you, you would take away the Natives land? They are still blockading Caledonia over a few acres. What do you think would happen if the government tried to take all their land away? No government of any stripe will ever do that.
smallc this is political correctness gone wild.

I'm being far from politically correct. And no, I don't think they're land should be taken away. Individual aboriginal people should be able to own the land. They should then pay taxes on this land. It would go a long way to making people equal.

cybercoma · November 6, 2008

I'm not going to read through 11 pages (40 ppp) of bickering, so can someone tell me if anyone has brought up birthrate? According to statscan, the birthrate in 2004 was 10.5 per thousand. According to the CIA, the estimates for last year's population growth is 0.89% and that's with all the immigration we have. If we don't allow immigration at the very least to stay at current levels we'll be facing a myriad of problems related to population decline. Has this already been considered in this thread?

Edited November 6, 2008 by cybercoma

Smallc · November 6, 2008

I'm not going to read through 11 pages (40 ppp) of bickering, so can someone tell me if anyone has brought up birthrate? According to statscan, the birthrate in 2004 was 10.5 per thousand. According to the CIA, the estimates for last year's population growth is 0.89% and that's with all the immigration we have. If we don't allow immigration at the very least to stay at current levels we'll be facing a myriad of problems related to population decline. Has this already been considered in this thread?

Unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears when it was brought up.

Renegade · November 6, 2008

If we don't allow immigration at the very least to stay at current levels we'll be facing a myriad of problems related to population decline. Has this already been considered in this thread?

Why is population decline a bad thing? Has it already been considered that population growth may also be the cause of a myriad of problems?

Brunopolis · November 6, 2008

Why is population decline a bad thing? Has it already been considered that population growth may also be the cause of a myriad of problems?

Population on the decline is a problem for retirees. Not enough young people to take care of the elderly easily. We're big enough and have enough usable land that we don't have to worry about overpopulation for at least the next 100 years so why not grow?

Renegade · November 6, 2008

Population on the decline is a problem for retirees. Not enough young people to take care of the elderly easily.

If you mean to supply labour to take care of retirees, it is not really an issue as the decline is gradual and only a small subset of the population is dedicated to care for the aged. If you mean retirement programs. It is those programs which need to be fixed so that they don't depend upon the pyramid scheme of never ending population growth.

We're big enough and have enough usable land that we don't have to worry about overpopulation for at least the next 100 years so why not grow?

Except that people don't go live out in the tundra where there is available land. They cram into the same cities we already live resulting in increased pressure on existing land, resources and infrastructure.

Brunopolis · November 6, 2008

If you mean to supply labour to take care of retirees, it is not really an issue as the decline is gradual and only a small subset of the population is dedicated to care for the aged. If you mean retirement programs. It is those programs which need to be fixed so that they don't depend upon the pyramid scheme of never ending population growth.
Except that people don't go live out in the tundra where there is available land. They cram into the same cities we already live resulting in increased pressure on existing land, resources and infrastructure.

I was refering to usable land. Even though 4/5 of Canada is more or less worthless territory the remaining 1/5 is still 2 million square kilometres. You can support a lot more than 35 million people in 2 million square kilometres of good land.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/15-5...4001/export.htm

Canada has plenty of food to feed it's people as our current exports indicate.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Brunopolis

cybercoma · November 6, 2008

Why is population decline a bad thing? Has it already been considered that population growth may also be the cause of a myriad of problems?

It's not entirely negative, if that's the point you're alluding to. However, the extensive social programs here require population levels to at least remain neutral to be viable. A declining population will have adverse affects on pensions, health care costs, employment insurance, etc. That's not to mention the problems the country would be faced with by having a labour shortage. People can cry all they want about unemployment, but the most recent figures say it is at 6.4%. We're hardly in a position where large numbers of Canadians are unable to find jobs, contrary to what the NDP would have us believe. So, although there are some positive affects of a declining population (which I'm sure you'll be more than happy to point out in response to this), I highly doubt people want to face the problems that come along with those benefits, especially during the economic uncertainty we're facing.

craiger · November 6, 2008

I don't understand why people think seniors will be a burden and we will be forced to look after them. Dad retires next year and I know I will not need to look after him he has a good pension and saving I really cannot see him stop working these baby boomers are workaholics sitting at home would drive him nuts. As we advance life expectancy is going up and their is no reason a senior cannot contribute even if it is volunteer work, it will still offset some of the costs. with new technology's like the internet the disbabled or those that need to stay at home can still run businesses paying taxes.

sure some might choose to be useless and not contribute to society but we have that in all age catagory's I feel if we can make some changes even the bigest burden of healthcare should have minimal impact. I work with guys that are 80 and still work hard labour better than allot of the young guys. I can see when they are that old like 90 or something becoming useless they should still have enouph money saved to look after themself. they have more money than we do

Edited November 6, 2008 by craiger

craiger · November 6, 2008

Also want to point out like what Dad will do seniors can double dip they collect a pension and still collect wages working. These seniors are lauphing all the way to the bank

Brunopolis · November 6, 2008

Not every senior works beyond the age of retirement. Many have illness' that require much care. In addition seniors, by default, require more health care than the rest of the populous. Finding this extra staff will get harder and harder if we have a declining population. We'll have to pay them more and more to do the same jobs and overall it'll be just a more difficult situation.

Can we manage a declining population? Yes we can but, in my opinion, our standard of living will decrease.

craiger · November 7, 2008

Not every senior works beyond the age of retirement. Many have illness' that require much care. In addition seniors, by default, require more health care than the rest of the populous. Finding this extra staff will get harder and harder if we have a declining population. We'll have to pay them more and more to do the same jobs and overall it'll be just a more difficult situation.
Can we manage a declining population? Yes we can but, in my opinion, our standard of living will decrease.

A senior after 40-50-60 years of working should be able to afford to look after themself. I stuggle sometimes to make a mortgage payment when the senior owns a home ouright. I lived on macaroni to put myself through school and have a debt i am still paying on when I see the older people eating the keg. they have money to gamble in the stocks I stuggled to even put socks on my feet. They can afford to drink fine wine when I resort to drinking TNT beer or brew it myself.

Seniors are in way better position should they have health costs I cannot afford to miss a day's work they can sit back and tour the country in their motorhomes.

What makes you think we are in any better position should something happen, if I break my leg I am screwed alot of seniors can afford to do nothing and sit back let that leg heal.

Renegade · November 7, 2008

I was refering to usable land. Even though 4/5 of Canada is more or less worthless territory the remaining 1/5 is still 2 million square kilometres. You can support a lot more than 35 million people in 2 million square kilometres of good land.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/15-5...4001/export.htm

Canada has plenty of food to feed it's people as our current exports indicate.

As you should well know it takes a lot more than food to sustain a population. Even if we assume that there is available usable land, how are you going to force the population growth onto the vacant land. Historically it is clear that there is a shift from rural to urban. In other words, people are not moving to open spaces rather they are crowding into the already crowded cities.

Renegade · November 7, 2008

It's not entirely negative, if that's the point you're alluding to. However, the extensive social programs here require population levels to at least remain neutral to be viable. A declining population will have adverse affects on pensions, health care costs, employment insurance, etc. That's not to mention the problems the country would be faced with by having a labour shortage. People can cry all they want about unemployment, but the most recent figures say it is at 6.4%. We're hardly in a position where large numbers of Canadians are unable to find jobs, contrary to what the NDP would have us believe. So, although there are some positive affects of a declining population (which I'm sure you'll be more than happy to point out in response to this), I highly doubt people want to face the problems that come along with those benefits, especially during the economic uncertainty we're facing.

Of course is is not entirely negative. The extensive social programs are structured as a pyramid scheme which depend upon ever increasing population growth. It is clear that our population cannot grow indefinitely. At what point do we say we have enough people? 100 million, 1 Billion? It seems lunacy to continue population growth just to feed the pyramid scheme. All it takes is some will to fix the social programs. For example instead of CPP depending upon current contributions, it can be geared toward cumulative contributions like an RRSP so that it is sustainable even in a population decline. There are many solutions to a labor shortage. There are still many jobs which are done which could be automated. There are increased lifespans and people can work longer than they do, if given the right incentives.

The problems with population growth are severe. Increased housing density, accellerated resource consumption, and environmental dammage. Given a choice would people still pick population growth? Maybe the would, but it is only because they want to reap immediate benefits of the social programs fueled by population growth and pass on other problems like environmental dammage to future generations.

Renegade · November 7, 2008

Can we manage a declining population? Yes we can but, in my opinion, our standard of living will decrease.

So what? In other words we would just be living a sustainable standard of living within our means, rather than depending upon unstainable population growth.

If you truly belive that population growth is a necessity, maybe you can tell me when if ever it should stop, and what do we do at that point?