New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Argus]

Now, I'm sure you CAN debate things seriously - what do you say we reboot ? You recant and we'll move forward.

You really must be simple if you think I'm going to recant a bloody thing because some PC zealot is offended by it.

[Saipan]

We really need to discuss goat herding first, as Argus has pointed out. Goats are an agricultural question, so let's start by me mailing you some soil samples...

You don't need soil samples for goat herding. They eat any weeds. First you need to get some Alpine, Toggenburg and Saanen for starters, to speak from experience. If you live in Canada that is.

[dre]

Canada's GDP is a hell of a lot bigger than Bangladesh's, or for that matter, Indonesia's, or even Indias. But the real point is what do you mean by growing an economy? Is absolute size the principal concern? I would argue that no one thinks so. The principal point of interest is whether the citizens involved in that economy are, by and large, richer. If you add twenty million illiterate third world goat herders to Canada's population then I suppose its GDP might rise in absolute terms. But would the people living here be better off? Not a chance. We'd all be much, much poorer - well, except the goat herders.

Well yeah... thats the difference between GDP and PER CAPITA GDP. One is the size of the economy and one is an average persons relative share/contribution. I get that part... I was assuming that size meant "size", and grow mean "get bigger".

[Argus]

Well yeah... thats the difference between GDP and PER CAPITA GDP. One is the size of the economy and one is an average persons relative share/contribution. I get that part... I was assuming that size meant "size", and grow mean "get bigger".

Well, my point is that if you double the GDP but per capita income or whatever other individual measure you use actually declines then what have you actually gained?

In what measurable way are the citizens of Canada better off with 34 million people than they were with 20 million people? I can think of a number of ways they're worse off because of the additional population.

[dre]

If you're alive you consume. But if I have to pay for your consumption then that adds nothing to my happiness or well-being, to say nothing of to my wealth. It actually detracts from my wealth.

Bringing in people who consume as opposed to contributing - and all too many immigrants do that - does not add to our collective wealth, however it affects the GDP. If we have to pay for however many hundreds of thousands or millions of immigrants are on welfare or other social assistance that is no benefit to us.

From what I can tell the new immigrant unemployment rate is just over 10%. Thats definately higher than the median unemployment rate, but thats expected I think for people that just moved to a new country. The vast majority of those new immigrants are working AND contributing AND consuming.

people who consume as opposed to contributing - and all too many immigrants do that

What does that even mean? How many is "all too many". What percentage of the total is it? How much different is that percentage when compared with other generic groups, or the median. What data do you base this assertion on?

How much real research have you done on the impact of immigrants on our economy? Pretty much none right? Be honest... I admit that I havent done any either. You really just seem to be repeating the same anti immigration talking points Iv heard dozens of times before. Substantiate some of them... and maybe youll get some traction selling this stuff to people that arent at least mildly xenophobic.

[guyser]

In what measurable way are the citizens of Canada better off with 34 million people than they were with 20 million people? I can think of a number of ways they're worse off because of the additional population.

1966 vs 2010.

You feel Canada is worse now than then?

[Saipan]

1966 vs 2010.

You feel Canada is worse now than then?

Yes. Less freedom - more crime.

[dre]

Well, my point is that if you double the GDP but per capita income or whatever other individual measure you use actually declines then what have you actually gained?

In what measurable way are the citizens of Canada better off with 34 million people than they were with 20 million people? I can think of a number of ways they're worse off because of the additional population.

First of all nothing like that is happening. Canadas population growth has been relatively steady and slow since the 50's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Population_Canada_ver_4.png/400px-Population_Canada_ver_4.png

The answer to your second question... why its good for a population to grow, gets to the heart of what a growth economy is. They way our economic system is structured is geared around growth. If GDP doesnt grow for a couple of consecutive quarters the economy falls into recession. When the population grows, the ammount of goods and services it needs grows as well. This means new infrastructure is required, and new production capacity. This benefits literally millions of indivial actors in the economy because increasing that production creates jobs, and results in lots of transactions between individuals. This activity grows the economy.

Now... that doesnt mean we should take in huge swaths of uneducated workers. We do need quite a few of these, but we also need skilled professions and educated people. Our immigration system should be in line with this, and I would support reforms probably that had that goal. Overall though I dont think our policy has been terrible. It seems like we are getting a good mix of people... some of them have money, some of them have educations, etc. When I look at how our economy has performed against other G8 nations over the last few decades that seems to suggest we have roughly the right balance.

[guyser]

Yes. Less freedom - more crime.

You will provide proof for this.

Thanks

[Saipan]

You will provide proof for this.

Thanks

Gladly - if you decide to deny it.

[Michael Hardner]

You really must be simple if you think I'm going to recant a bloody thing because some PC zealot is offended by it.

Gee, Argus, I'm sorry for "attacking" you...

I'm not offended, btw, in fact I'm pleased that this conversation was so short and that you were the cause of it derailing, as expected.

[Argus]

1966 vs 2010.

You feel Canada is worse now than then?

I asked in what way Canada was better having an extra 14 million people in it. I didn't ask if life is better because we've got computers now or whatever.

[Argus]

Gee, Argus, I'm sorry for "attacking" you...

I'm not offended, btw, in fact I'm pleased that this conversation was so short and that you were the cause of it derailing, as expected.

Good. B'bye! See ya! Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out of the topic!

[guyser]

I asked in what way Canada was better having an extra 14 million people in it. I didn't ask if life is better because we've got computers now or whatever.

"In what measurable way..."is what you said.

So, if perhaps, we have more disposable income (can afford computers in most houses) or say TV's in the house we cannot use that yardstick when in fact the size of our country and the ability to purchase those things at reasonable prices due to population growth is not to your liking?

Ok, define measurable. Set the parameters.

[Michael Hardner]

Good. B'bye! See ya! Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out of the topic!

Are you "attacking" me ?

[Argus]

From what I can tell the new immigrant unemployment rate is just over 10%. Thats definately higher than the median unemployment rate, but thats expected I think for people that just moved to a new country. The vast majority of those new immigrants are working AND contributing AND consuming

I'm not simply talking about immigrants who are unemployed. I'm also talking about immigrants who have low level jobs. The working poor are not paying taxes. Rather, they are consuming services.

How much real research have you done on the impact of immigrants on our economy? Pretty much none right?

Wrong. I've done quite a bit over the years. I haven't actually saved it so I can repost it at will, unfortunately, and even some of the links I used to have are no longer functioning since they came from the media and the media now like to charge ofor older stories.

However, I can tell you that a Fraser Institute estimated the cost of processing and resettling all those immigrants to Canada at between $18-$20 billion per year and concluded it now has a negative effect on our standard of living.

In a chapter about recent immigration and Canadian living standards, Grubel stresses that official statistics show that recent immigrants on average earn substantially lower incomes than native-born Canadians, so that the system provides them with subsidies through taxes paid by high-income earners. Grubel estimates that immigrants who arrived in the 12 years before 2002 imposed a fiscal burden of $18.5 billion on all Canadians in the year 2002 alone.

The effects of Mass Immigration

I know that one of the major problems with immigration is that we are in the era of services as opposed to manufacturing and that in the modern world communications skills are of extreme importance in governing success. And I know that immigrants don't have those skills.

Immigrants to Canada are increasingly coming from areas such as Asia where English and French are not native tongues. The economic wellbeing of these newcomers has been deteriorating over the past 25 years, the report states, with unemployment and poverty levels significantly higher among immigrants than Canadian-born citizens.

"Language and literacy is a major hurdle for newcomers and it might contribute between one-third to two-thirds of the earnings gap," the TD report states.

Many newcomers settle in "cultural clusters" that can further isolate them and prevent strong development of English or French, the study notes.

literacy in Canada

I know that the performance of immigrants has been deteriorating steadily. That is. The immigrants of the last ten years are not performing as well as the immigrants from the previous ten years, who did not perform as well as those who preceded them, and so on.

Today's newcomers, despite being highly educated, take longer to become self-supporting than their predecessors. Some never do. What is even more worrisome is that their children are dropping out of school, creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty.

"They're pulling the economy down," Drummond said. "I don't think people have really understood that."

Immigrants Dreams Turning Sour

The overall economic performance of immigrants has declined irrespective of whether they have come in under the “skilled immigrant” provisions or under the “family class” provisions of the Immigration Act. Poverty is a much more prevalent attribute of recent immigrants than it was among immigrants in the past, and recent immigrants are much less likely to achieve the levels of earned income of either their predecessors or the native-born population. Martin Collacott also finds that social stresses and “ghettoization” associated with the inability to speak either of the official languages is a serious problem, as are criminal activities in some communities.

This paper reviews the increase in the earnings gap between immigrants and Canadian-born over the past two decades, and the current explanations of this labour market deterioration among recent immigrants in particular. The paper also outlines the rising gap in low-income rates between immigrants and non-immigrants. Like previous research, the paper concludes that the earnings gap at entry has increased for immigrants entering Canada during the 1990s, as

compared to those of the 1970s. Furthermore, the gap in the low-income rate has been increasing.

Deteriorating Economic Performance of Immigrants

I also know that at no time has the government ever formally justified the levels of immigration we have based on economic, social or any other need with actual supporting evidence, statistics or factual reasons.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

"In what measurable way..."is what you said.

So, if perhaps, we have more disposable income (can afford computers in most houses) or say TV's in the house we cannot use that yardstick when in fact the size of our country and the ability to purchase those things at reasonable prices due to population growth is not to your liking?

Ok, define measurable. Set the parameters.

You cannot demonstrate that cheaper tvs or computers is linked to immigrants. I would suggest its more due to automated production and shifting production to low wage third world countries. Thus I'm asking for - not even proof, just logical deductive reasoning which shows that we are in some way better off because our population is more than 50% higher than it was. We know the national debt is far higher. We know that Canadians individual debt is far higher. We seem to be working longer. Where is the evidence we're better off?

[Argus]

Are you "attacking" me ?

I thought you were leaving in a huff. I was saying goodbye.

[Michael Hardner]

I thought you were leaving in a huff. I was saying goodbye.

Not at all. I'd like to stay to discuss this.

If you're not going to recant your silly statement about goat herders, will you at least acknowledge that both sides make it difficult to discuss this seriously, now ?

[dre]

You cannot demonstrate that cheaper tvs or computers is linked to immigrants. I would suggest its more due to automated production and shifting production to low wage third world countries. Thus I'm asking for - not even proof, just logical deductive reasoning which shows that we are in some way better off because our population is more than 50% higher than it was. We know the national debt is far higher. We know that Canadians individual debt is far higher. We seem to be working longer. Where is the evidence we're better off?

I already explained to you why population growth is important for an economy...

The answer to your second question... why its good for a population to grow, gets to the heart of what a growth economy is. They way our economic system is structured is geared around growth. If GDP doesnt grow for a couple of consecutive quarters the economy falls into recession. When the population grows, the ammount of goods and services it needs grows as well. This means new infrastructure is required, and new production capacity. This benefits literally millions of indivial actors in the economy because increasing that production creates jobs, and results in lots of transactions between individuals. This activity grows the economy.

Without our birth rate the population would have been shrinking from quite some time now, which would be a serious problem for our economy. Less homes would be built, less businesses would operate, and there would be less demand for goods and services.

Native born Canadians are too busy trying to accumulate non-durable consumer junk and eating 15 cheeseburgers a day to even raise families.

Year Birth rate Rank Percent Change Date of Information

2003 10.99 193 2003 est.

2004 10.84 186 -1.36 % 2004 est.

2005 10.84 185 0.00 % 2005 est.

2006 10.78 186 -0.55 % 2006 est.

2007 10.75 180 -0.28 % 2007 est.

2008 10.29 191 -4.28 % 2008 est.

2009 10.28 191 -0.10 % 2009 est.

2010 10.28 191 0.00 % 2009 est.

And again... there hasnt been any "mass immigration". Canada has grown relatively slowly and steadily since the 40s/50s.

If you want to live in a growth economy without immigration then i sure hope you have at least 3 kids. Otherwise youre a bigger part of the problem than immigrants are, thats for sure.

Edited October 13, 2010 by dre

[Shwa]

I'm not simply talking about immigrants who are unemployed. I'm also talking about immigrants who have low level jobs. The working poor are not paying taxes. Rather, they are consuming services.

You mean not directly paying taxes, but they still consume goods and services which keeps others employed. And no one considers this to be a long term trend for any new Canadian, that is, they will eventually integrate and pay their fair share. Other immigrants come loaded for bear and contribute immiediately through taxes and investments.

Wrong. I've done quite a bit over the years. I haven't actually saved it so I can repost it at will, unfortunately, and even some of the links I used to have are no longer functioning since they came from the media and the media now like to charge ofor older stories.

However, I can tell you that a Fraser Institute estimated the cost of processing and resettling all those immigrants to Canada at between $18-$20 billion per year and concluded it now has a negative effect on our standard of living.

This is the 'cost of' but where does it go on to show the short and long term net gains? That is, it cost 18 billion dollars per year, but where is that 18 billion going? Why, right back into the ground level Canadian economy through service provision, material consumption, etc., etc. Seriously, it is not like immigrants are hoarding 18 billion dollars; the money is going right back into our economy.

In a chapter about recent immigration and Canadian living standards, Grubel stresses that official statistics show that recent immigrants on average earn substantially lower incomes than native-born Canadians, so that the system provides them with subsidies through taxes paid by high-income earners. Grubel estimates that immigrants who arrived in the 12 years before 2002 imposed a fiscal burden of $18.5 billion on all Canadians in the year 2002 alone.

The effects of Mass Immigration

A "burden" that helped drive our economy, especially the urban economies. I mean, I wouldn't want to accuse the Fraser Insitute of a neat smoke and mirrors trick, but this presentation of the data is a smoke and mirrors trick.

I know that one of the major problems with immigration is that we are in the era of services as opposed to manufacturing and that in the modern world communications skills are of extreme importance in governing success. And I know that immigrants don't have those skills.

Well A. we are not without manufacturing jobs and B. not all service jobs required a high degree of language skills, not for the ground base workers. Several skillsets require a limited lexicon to be successful. When you need the chickie at Wendy's to recite Shakespeare let me know.

Immigrants to Canada are increasingly coming from areas such as Asia where English and French are not native tongues. The economic wellbeing of these newcomers has been deteriorating over the past 25 years, the report states, with unemployment and poverty levels significantly higher among immigrants than Canadian-born citizens.

Yes, this is a given isn't it since they are new here. But where are the reports on the immigrants from 10 years ago? How are they doing? How are their kids doing? How about those from 20 years ago and so on...

"Language and literacy is a major hurdle for newcomers and it might contribute between one-third to two-thirds of the earnings gap," the TD report states.

Is this before or after they learn one of the official languages? Besides, I am sure it beats where they came from.

Many newcomers settle in "cultural clusters" that can further isolate them and prevent strong development of English or French, the study notes.

literacy in Canada[/url

]

From How to Make Immigration Work Better - Countering the Defeatists (A. Broadbent, 2003)

More of us don’t. In fact, well over 60

percent of Canadians live in our nine largest cities.

Canada is one of the most urban countries

in the world.

Newcomers to Canada are no different.

They choose, overwhelmingly, to come to our

large cities. Recent census data show quite

clearly that Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal

are the major destinations, Toronto receiving 43

percent, Vancouver 18 percent and Montreal 12

percent. These three cities receive almost threequarters

of newcomers.

Why this is so is not a mystery. In those

city regions there are large communities of people

who share their language, customs and religion.

There are programs for settlement; there

are large, flexible modern economies that have

accessible labour markets; and there are various

opportunities. There are also high degrees of

acceptance of difference.

The work of Richard Florida, a professor

at Carnegie Mellon University who has written

The Rise of the Creative Class, suggests that

modern economies − those based on information

and design − thrive in places with a high tolerance

for difference. He has produced a number

of indices to measure diversity, such things as

the number of gays, artists, people holding university

degrees, and people born in other countries.

He says that the higher the diversity, the

more competitive the region in the modern economy.

And it is in the large urban regions, particularly

in their downtowns, that these clusters of diversity

exist. The modern knowledge and design

worker, according to Florida, wants to be in places

where being different is accepted, and where the

local amenities are flexible and diverse enough to

provide something for everyone. That happens

downtown.

Downtown Toronto, that is. Or Montreal.

Or Vancouver. Not downtown Flin Flon.

Now if you wish to summon the strength to counter what Mr. Florida has to say, please do so directly. Here is his CV complete with email addresses.

I know that the performance of immigrants has been deteriorating steadily. That is. The immigrants of the last ten years are not performing as well as the immigrants from the previous ten years, who did not perform as well as those who preceded them, and so on.

That requires a re-think of how we integrate those folks and get them more involved in the economy, especially in the urban centres. But there is nothing in that suggestion that would halt numbers, decrease immigration for any country or apply preferred status to only specific countries.

Today's newcomers, despite being highly educated, take longer to become self-supporting than their predecessors. Some never do. What is even more worrisome is that their children are dropping out of school, creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty.

"They're pulling the economy down," Drummond said. "I don't think people have really understood that."

Immigrants Dreams Turning Sour

God some Canadians never become self-supporting, what do we do - kick them out? Besides, it is perhaps correct that the recent influx of immigrants has tugged on the economy, but nothing like the recent recession cause by... who was the recent recession caused by? Certainly not immigrants right? Thus if we have the banking industry collapsing the economy because of sheer illegal greed it is hard to make anything serious of what problems immigration has caused.

The overall economic performance of immigrants has declined irrespective of whether they have come in under the “skilled immigrant” provisions or under the “family class” provisions of the Immigration Act. Poverty is a much more prevalent attribute of recent immigrants than it was among immigrants in the past, and recent immigrants are much less likely to achieve the levels of earned income of either their predecessors or the native-born population. Martin Collacott also finds that social stresses and “ghettoization” associated with the inability to speak either of the official languages is a serious problem, as are criminal activities in some communities.

Ah those Irish thugs in Lucan, then the Jewish mob, then the Italian mob, then the Jamaican posses. then the Somalian drug gangs... on and on we go...

This paper reviews the increase in the earnings gap between immigrants and Canadian-born over

the past two decades, and the current explanations of this labour market deterioration among

recent immigrants in particular. The paper also outlines the rising gap in low-income rates

between immigrants and non-immigrants. Like previous research, the paper concludes that the

earnings gap at entry has increased for immigrants entering Canada during the 1990s, as

compared to those of the 1970s. Furthermore, the gap in the low-income rate has been increasing.

Deteriorating Economic Performance of Immigrants

I also know that at no time has the government ever formally justified the levels of immigration we have based on economic, social or any other need with actual supporting evidence, statistics or factual reasons.

That might be because of the information you are reading. Here try this:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/imc/imc01-eng.asp

in the strategic outcomes section.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Shwa

[Argus]

I already explained to you why population growth is important for an economy...

Sorry, I meant to say you were wrong. Now I suppose you'll want me to dig out some cite or other, when really, you should realize this by simply considering the logic of it. What you seem to be suggesting is that without continuing growth in population our economy will take a huge hit and we'll all be poor.

Clearly there is a problem with that theory in that ultimately there's only so much room anywhere. Also, if population growth led to economic success -- shouldn't we be doing much better economically than nations which have had much less population growth, like the nordic countries for example, or Switzerland? Shouldn't nations with much higher population growth rates be doing better than us?

[Argus]

You mean not directly paying taxes, but they still consume goods and services which keeps others employed.

You could say the same about government. The larger it is, the more it consumes, the more it buys, the more people it employs. Logically then, we should make the government grow as large as possible, right? Wrong. Because ultimately, the government produces nothing. It's us, giving money to the government, to give to us. Similarly, if immigrants aren't earning enough to pay the government back for their services then the government is spending more on them than its getting back, and it's taking that from the rest of us.

Again, I'm not denying an immigrant, whether on welfare or not, has to eat, and thus, someone has to pay for the food. But if the government is paying for it that is not a benefit to the economy.

This is the 'cost of' but where does it go on to show the short and long term net gains?

I'm betting you didn't read much of it. But in any event, you're the one arguing that immigration is an economic benefit. It isn't up to me to prove your argument.

That is, it cost 18 billion dollars per year, but where is that 18 billion going? Why, right back into the ground level Canadian economy through service provision, material consumption, etc., etc.

Again, that's not true. I'd suggest you put more time into reading the report.

Yes, this is a given isn't it since they are new here. But where are the reports on the immigrants from 10 years ago? How are they doing? How are their kids doing? How about those from 20 years ago and so on...

As the report stated, immigrants are not doing as well as those immigrants did, and each year they are doing progressively worse. This information is not arguable. It comes from every major source including Stats Canada.

Now if you wish to summon the strength to counter what Mr. Florida has to say, please do so directly. Here is his CV complete with email addresses.

I'm giggling. Sorry, I can't help it. Counter what? He doesn't say anything relevant to this discussion.

That requires a re-think of how we integrate those folks and get them more involved in the economy, especially in the urban centres.

Oh well, that easy? Gee, you'd think someone would have done that, then. I mean, the trend downward in economic success of immigrants has been well documented for at least the last decade. You think things have been tried - and failed, maybe?

God some Canadians never become self-supporting, what do we do - kick them out?

I'm not sure what your point is. I've heard this sort of thing before from those trying to defend the immigration system. But at heart, it makes no sense. It basically says that because some Canadians are bums and criminals we shouldn't have any problem importing bums and criminals. Which is basically idiotic. We don't get to choose the people born here. We DO get to choose those coming in. If our screening system is producing people who are actually less economically capable, who actually fail and go on welfare more often than those who are born here then that's a huge sign that our screening is a massive failure.

Ah those Irish thugs in Lucan, then the Jewish mob, then the Italian mob, then the Jamaican posses. then the Somalian drug gangs... on and on we go...

This is not a retort, it is a dismissal without real argument. His point was that these people are much farther from midrange than most previous immigrant groups, and that gathering in ghetos delays integration, especially in this day and age where they can read books, magazines and newspapers in their home language, watch their homeland's television on satellite dishes, and travel home fairly frequently. And btw, the "jewish mob" rarely bothered anyone else. Organized crime is a danger to a few, but doesn't disturb the population the way violent street gangs do.

That might be because of the information you are reading. Here try this:

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/imc/imc01-eng.asp

in the strategic outcomes section.

Again, can you not tell the difference between high sounding ideals and actual researched, thought out justification? Where are the economic and statistical justifications for the current numbers of immigrants? Why do we take in 250,000 instead of 100,000? Who said this was the right number and based on what documented research?

[Shwa]

You could say the same about government. The larger it is, the more it consumes, the more it buys, the more people it employs. Logically then, we should make the government grow as large as possible, right? Wrong. Because ultimately, the government produces nothing. It's us, giving money to the government, to give to us. Similarly, if immigrants aren't earning enough to pay the government back for their services then the government is spending more on them than its getting back, and it's taking that from the rest of us.

Not quite, if you believe in the redistribution of the wealth among other federal and provincial responsibilities. So comparing government with immigration is apples and oranges.

Again, I'm not denying an immigrant, whether on welfare or not, has to eat, and thus, someone has to pay for the food. But if the government is paying for it that is not a benefit to the economy.

What about the service individual that earns money from helping immigrats integrate or the store clerk who charges them for their food or the farmer who supplies their produce? Do they not get any benefit at all? Of course they do, so even the immigrant, whether on welfare or not, benefits the economy.

I'm betting you didn't read much of it. But in any event, you're the one arguing that immigration is an economic benefit. It isn't up to me to prove your argument.

There is no need to argue since it has been more than proven over and over during the past 150 years or more. If you want to try and prove the contrary, well, put simple: you haven't.

Again, that's not true. I'd suggest you put more time into reading the report.

For what purpose? So I can debunk more of the Fraser Insitutes smoke and mirrors?

As the report stated, immigrants are not doing as well as those immigrants did, and each year they are doing progressively worse. This information is not arguable. It comes from every major source including Stats Canada.

And I am not arguing that we ought not to review immigration. However even by these in arguable points, you can be sure that immigration and immigration reforms are a hot topic in Parliament offices. However, reform does not equate to reduction.

I'm giggling. Sorry, I can't help it. Counter what? He doesn't say anything relevant to this discussion.

That diversity brings wealth and growth and the main engines for that growth are in urban centres including immigrant neighbourhoods. Quite simple to understand actually, but go figure you don't see the relevancy.

Oh well, that easy? Gee, you'd think someone would have done that, then. I mean, the trend downward in economic success of immigrants has been well documented for at least the last decade. You think things have been tried - and failed, maybe?

And you don't think that these sorts of things are party to regular political review and policy tweaks? What Broadbent advocates is for more leeway within municipalities to deliver porgrams and services to immigrants. I think that is a decent idea don't you?

I'm not sure what your point is. I've heard this sort of thing before from those trying to defend the immigration system. But at heart, it makes no sense. It basically says that because some Canadians are bums and criminals we shouldn't have any problem importing bums and criminals. Which is basically idiotic. We don't get to choose the people born here. We DO get to choose those coming in. If our screening system is producing people who are actually less economically capable, who actually fail and go on welfare more often than those who are born here then that's a huge sign that our screening is a massive failure.

So you are saying that people who are provided an environment of opportunity and fail are somehow less culpable than people who come from environments of much less opportunity. Hmmm...

People will go on welfare, native born and immigrants. That is the price we pay for welfare.

This is not a retort, it is a dismissal without real argument. His point was that these people are much farther from midrange than most previous immigrant groups, and that gathering in ghetos delays integration, especially in this day and age where they can read books, magazines and newspapers in their home language, watch their homeland's television on satellite dishes, and travel home fairly frequently. And btw, the "jewish mob" rarely bothered anyone else. Organized crime is a danger to a few, but doesn't disturb the population the way violent street gangs do.

No, it's a retort using simple Canadian history as the backdrop. Do you not think ethnic neighbourhoods existed 20, 30 40 or 50 years ago? How about whole ethnic communities? Ever been to Wilno just north of you? Heck they even had church services in ... Polish! Egads!

Again, can you not tell the difference between high sounding ideals and actual researched, thought out justification? Where are the economic and statistical justifications for the current numbers of immigrants? Why do we take in 250,000 instead of 100,000? Who said this was the right number and based on what documented research?

I hear you, but I am surprised that with all the expertise at their disposal, the Fraser Institute doesn't have a report on it. Surely they do with all their political connections. And what do they say?

Here is what the government says:

Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2009

In the past five years, Canada has relied on immigration for more than two-thirds of its population growth, and within the next decade we expect that all our labour force growth will come from immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

Also, if population growth led to economic success -- shouldn't we be doing much better economically than nations which have had much less population growth, like the nordic countries for example, or Switzerland? Shouldn't nations with much higher population growth rates be doing better than us?

Rich nations with lower population growth might have more or less economic growth but there is a measure of growth that comes from increased population isn't there ? I'm only asking questions.