Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I agree, if you raise the standards high enough, that will certainly limit immigration.

But, the amount of people meeting those standards is bound to vary from year to year quite substantially, as is the amount of people who meet those standards wanting to immigrate to Canada. Do we want to have to constantly adjust standards up and down to maintain a desirable immigration rate? Would we trust our government to quickly and correctly make changes to the standards as conditions change? What of the effect it would have on potential immigrants, who never know if they would qualify for immigration next year since the standards keep fluctuating.

I say a quota system makes a lot of sense because it allows us to set a precise cap on the number of immigrants that does not depend on economic and educational conditions in hundreds of countries around the world. It absolves our government from having to make constant evaluations and adjustments of immigration standards in order to ensure that the immigration rate does not get either too high or too low. Additionally, it provides stability and predictability for potential immigrants.

Standards need to exist in combination with a quota system, as they do now.

Edited by Bonam
  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I agree, if you raise the standards high enough, that will certainly limit immigration.

But, the amount of people meeting those standards is bound to vary from year to year quite substantially, as is the amount of people who meet those standards wanting to immigrate to Canada. Do we want to have to constantly adjust standards up and down to maintain a desirable immigration rate? Would we trust our government to quickly and correctly make changes to the standards as conditions change? What of the effect it would have on potential immigrants, who never know if they would qualify for immigration next year since the standards keep fluctuating.

I say a quota system makes a lot of sense because it allows us to set a precise cap on the number of immigrants that does not depend on economic and educational conditions in hundreds of countries around the world. It absolves our government from having to make constant evaluations and adjustments of immigration standards in order to ensure that the immigration rate does not get either too high or too low. Additionally, it provides stability and predictability for potential immigrants.

Standards need to exist in combination with a quota system, as they do now.

No, the government would not need to readjust the standards every year. So what if we get more immigrants one year than the next? It'll balance itself out in the end. Also, if the standard is high enough to ensure that the immigrant is more likely to contribute than take, then the more of such immigrants we get, the better. For example, let's say one requirement of immigration was to have lived in the country for at so many years and have contributed an average to taxes above a certain minimum limit, then we'd know for sure that he would be of benefit to society. If too apply for work in Canada, they'd likely not get work and so never come. Those who do get a job offer would come and prove themselves. Thus, without quotas, it would balance itself out based on the natural job market.

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

No, the government would not need to readjust the standards every year. So what if we get more immigrants one year than the next? It'll balance itself out in the end.

Based on what do you make this assumption? Why would it balance itself?

Also, if the standard is high enough to ensure that the immigrant is more likely to contribute than take, then the more of such immigrants we get, the better.

No, even if they are good and productive people, does not mean we would benefit from having an unlimited quantity of them. There are limits to how quickly we should want to grow our population. This needs to happen at a sustainable pace.

For example, let's say one requirement of immigration was to have lived in the country for at so many years and have contributed an average to taxes above a certain minimum limit, then we'd know for sure that he would be of benefit to society. If too apply for work in Canada, they'd likely not get work and so never come. Those who do get a job offer would come and prove themselves. Thus, without quotas, it would balance itself out based on the natural job market.

So during the years of an economic boom we should allow in millions of immigrants? Even if the job market can support such a thing, it does not mean it is a good idea. Imagine a period of unparalleled economic prosperity where millions of jobs are created yearly. Unlikely perhaps, but possible, we do after all have millions of square kilometers of unexploited resources, and world demand continues to grow. Suddenly Canada's population would jump from 30 million to 50 million, for example. This would have IMMENSE and irreversible impact on the country. Or, during a period of economic recession, should we turn away amazing candidates because they cannot get a job?

Posted (edited)

Based on what do you make this assumption? Why would it balance itself?

Let's say for a moment that proof of self-sustainability and productivity are part of the criteria. Naturally if too many people come in one year, the next year others may find fewer responses to their job applications and so not be able to get the offer they need to show at the embassy when they want to apply for a Canadian visa. Inversely, if few come one year, it may cause a labour shortage resulting in it being easier toget such job offers the following year.

No, even if they are good and productive people, does not mean we would benefit from having an unlimited quantity of them. There are limits to how quickly we should want to grow our population. This needs to happen at a sustainable pace.

If proof of ability to contribute more to the system than taking form it were one requirement for immigration, then that would guarantee that however many came, they would be productive. Remember too that if too many moved to Canada at once, it would push the cost of real estate up in relation to incomes, resulting in fewer of them wanting to come ot such an expensive country. Add to that that since proof of ability to sustain oneself is required, then if real estate costs rise, and they need proof of some form of home ownership or ability to pay rent or what have you, then that will be harder to achieve, thus naturally blocking more of them out. In that sense, the free market would play a role to a degree too.

So during the years of an economic boom we should allow in millions of immigrants? Even if the job market can support such a thing, it does not mean it is a good idea. Imagine a period of unparalleled economic prosperity where millions of jobs are created yearly. Unlikely perhaps, but possible, we do after all have millions of square kilometers of unexploited resources, and world demand continues to grow. Suddenly Canada's population would jump from 30 million to 50 million, for example. This would have IMMENSE and irreversible impact on the country. Or, during a period of economic recession, should we turn away amazing candidates because they cannot get a job?

Hmmm... you seem to see something wrong with what you're saying here. I see nothing wrong with it in the least. If our resources and the economy can sustain a doubling of the population in one generation, why not? And if there are no jobs, then why would we want more people? This is precisely where quotas are too arbitrary. With a well-planned points system with no quotas, it would mean that when the market can sustain more immigration, more people would naturally qualify. And when it cannot, fewer would qualify. It would follow naturally with the economic cycle. You seem to see a problem with that.

Edited by Machjo

With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies?

With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?

Posted

Hmmm... you seem to see something wrong with what you're saying here. I see nothing wrong with it in the least. If our resources and the economy can sustain a doubling of the population in one generation, why not?

I do indeed see something wrong with our population doubling in one generation. For one, this would completely reshape the cultural makeup of Canada. Secondly, it would have an enormous environmental impact. Like I said, even if economic opportunity in Canada could support out population growing to, say, 50 million over the next decade or two, I'd rather not see that happen. If you disagree with that then we probably will not come to a consensus on this issue.

Posted

If you raise the standards high enough,you won't need to worry about quotas. That's the whole point. If we need quotas, it's because the standards aren't high enough.

Let's simplify things. We want all immigrants to be young in order to offset our aging population. So all immigrants have to be under 30. Second, since more females would inevitably lead to a higher birth rate, all immigrants have to be female. Third, since we don't want our cultural values to be assailed by immigrants who, for example, want to represent Canada in the Miss Universe Pageant without showing themselves in a bathing suit, all potential applicants would have to submit pictures of themselves in bikinis - to be voted on by the general public. The top ten percent get to come to Canada. Canada thus becomes the legendary home to the world's most beautiful women. Everyone wants to come here. Tourism rockets upwards. And we're all happy.

I really should be in charge of things.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Let's simplify things. We want all immigrants to be young in order to offset our aging population. So all immigrants have to be under 30. Second, since more females would inevitably lead to a higher birth rate, all immigrants have to be female. Third, since we don't want our cultural values to be assailed by immigrants who, for example, want to represent Canada in the Miss Universe Pageant without showing themselves in a bathing suit, all potential applicants would have to submit pictures of themselves in bikinis - to be voted on by the general public. The top ten percent get to come to Canada. Canada thus becomes the legendary home to the world's most beautiful women. Everyone wants to come here. Tourism rockets upwards. And we're all happy.

I really should be in charge of things.

I like your way of thinking! :D You got my vote haha.

Posted

In other news...

I'm sure I could round up - well, just about everyone I know - to attest to the unlikelihood of that ever happening.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...