Highest Immigration numbers in 57 years.

[Scotty]

From the OP:

57 years? That would be 1953 or 1954. Why 57 years?

Around 1910, Canada received as many as 400,000 immigrants annually when the country's population was about 7 million. Immigration levels now are well below historic levels.

This is patent silliness. You can't possibly compare the immigration of masses of raw, uneducated people needed back then in an empty country for jobs which were almost all unskilled to what is needed today in Canada. We no longer need unskilled labour, yet that is largely what we get as only 17% of immigrants are fully assessed as to their skills and education level.

We are a large country with lots of space.

When immigrants start building new towns in the wilderness you will have a point, August. But that is not what is happening. They're crowding into the existing, already crowded cities. And Canada has far less habitable land than a simple glance at the map would indicate. Not to mention that as we pour immigrants into the cities those cities expand into what used to be prime farmland.

Many more can come and live here.

So we can have more crowded cities with more pollution, less farmland, less forestry? How does that benefit us?

Edited February 20, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

My parents did that to get my grandmother here back in the 90s. Got away with it for about 10 years, but they got a bill for $40k from the government 2 years back asking them to pay for the services that my grandmother had received which they had been supposed to sponsor. So apparently there is some kind of mechanism to "enforce" the sponsorship, even if it does take about a decade to process.

And how is the government going to force your parents to pay that bill?

[msj]

And how is the government going to force your parents to pay that bill?

While not knowing the particulars of Bonam's family case, I have seen the government get money from people in various ways: withholding income tax refunds, withholding GST/HST tax credits and child tax benefits, freezing bank accounts and scooping the money out.

The last thing anyone wants to do is to owe the government money - they have the power of the state to take what they think they deserve and, once they settle the who and how much questions, can be very aggressive taking what they think they deserve.

They are especially effective at taking money even when what they think they deserve is wrong by tens of thousands of dollars as I have discovered through working with clients on income tax audits. Then it takes a long time to get the money back from the government.

[msj]

But the same immigrant, within 3 months, has access to cancer treatment, or hip replacement - assuming the immigrant is willing to wait for several hours, and hassle to find a name of a specialist.

Older people can do this. Working people have less patience.

In order to live in Canada they need money to pay living costs.

Bonam made it look like this is all paid by Canadian taxpayers as we pay a generous pension to immigrants who have been here for only 3 years.

As the facts show, that is not the case.

Yes, most elderly immigrants are likely living with/off their children and/or whatever savings they brought to Canada. Often that's the price we pay to get the children to come to Canada.

And it's a relatively small one compared to the benefits of having the kids contribute to our country.

[Scotty]

While not knowing the particulars of Bonam's family case, I have seen the government get money from people in various ways: withholding income tax refunds, withholding GST/HST tax credits and child tax benefits, freezing bank accounts and scooping the money out.

How the government gets its money depends on the policies and laws in place. If you owe them taxes, they can do just about anything, including seizing your bank account without prior notice. However, most of their efforts are not governed by such sturdy enforcement laws. Those who defaulted on student loans, for example, learned the government would do nothing to get the money back other than withholding their tax refunds or GST credits. The unpaid loan didn't even hurt their credit record. Sponsorship agreements run the gamut because it is generally the provinces which try to collect money they have spent on sponsored immigrants for social services.

[Scotty]

Yes, most elderly immigrants are likely living with/off their children and/or whatever savings they brought to Canada. Often that's the price we pay to get the children to come to Canada.

And it's a relatively small one compared to the benefits of having the kids contribute to our country.

Is it? Have you ever attempted to quantify it? Health care costs for the elderly can be extremely expensive, running into hundreds of thousands of dollars even without a serious medical ailment. If their immigrant child is a millionaire then I suppose they're likely paying enough in taxes to support the services for their parents as well as themselves and their children. But what if the child is a taxi driver? Those under a certain income - and that income rises with children - pay no income taxes, remember.

Taxpayers are a + or a - on the rolls, insofar as paying to the government more than they collect in services. A taxpayer in a lower paying job with a stay-at-home wife and three or four children probably is a net loss to the treasury and has to be supported by other taxpayers who earn more and consume fewer services. The more immigrants we bring in who are net losses the worse off our budgetary problems will be.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Scotty

[GWiz]

But the same immigrant, within 3 months, has access to cancer treatment, or hip replacement - assuming the immigrant is willing to wait for several hours, and hassle to find a name of a specialist.

Older people can do this. Working people have less patience.

More BS for the first 10 years it's the sponsor not the state that has that responsibility...

[GWiz]

In order to live in Canada they need money to pay living costs.

Bonam made it look like this is all paid by Canadian taxpayers as we pay a generous pension to immigrants who have been here for only 3 years.

As the facts show, that is not the case.

Yes, most elderly immigrants are likely living with/off their children and/or whatever savings they brought to Canada. Often that's the price we pay to get the children to come to Canada.

And it's a relatively small one compared to the benefits of having the kids contribute to our country.

And add to that that many immigrant parents take care of young children thereby easing the burden on at least partially taxpayer funded child care...

[wyly]

...if we want immigrants they come with families, many of them wouldn't come if it meant abandoning their aged parents in a country that has no social system for seniors...

[bush_cheney2004]

...if we want immigrants they come with families, many of them wouldn't come if it meant abandoning their aged parents in a country that has no social system for seniors...

Ummm...OK...then these immigrants are actually doing Canada a big favor! I hope pets are included in the program.

[xul]

Ummm...OK...then these immigrants are actually doing Canada a big favor! I hope pets are included in the program.

Pets are allowed into Canada without visas, but parents aren't included....they are supposed to apply via another catalog.

Edited February 20, 2011 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

Pets are allowed into Canada without visas, but parents aren't include....they are supposed to apply via another catalog.

That's good to know...since pets are an important part of the family, and we wouldn't want to break that up.

[xul]

That's good to know...since pets are an important part of the family, and we wouldn't want to break that up.

No, it isn't the reason.

Pets are allowed because Canadian taxpayers don't need to pay the bill for the medicares of others' pets'.

[GWiz]

Ummm...OK...then these immigrants are actually doing Canada a big favor! I hope pets are included in the program.

Better pets than stray "Coyotes" bringing in your "immigrants", eh...

[Scotty]

...if we want immigrants they come with families, many of them wouldn't come if it meant abandoning their aged parents in a country that has no social system for seniors...

That's okay. We take in far more immigrants than we need anyway. And if we're going to be taking in immigrants in part to combat an aging population we should be focusing on young immigrants, not middle aged ones who bring in their aged parents.

[Smallc]

That's okay. We take in far more immigrants than we need anyway.

Based on what, exactly? We may take in too many older, family immigrants, but now that the economy is growing again, we're going to need even more skilled and unskilled economic immigrants to fill positions that there aren't enough Canadians to fill or that Canadians won't take.

[Scotty]

Based on what, exactly? We may take in too many older, family immigrants, but now that the economy is growing again, we're going to need even more skilled and unskilled economic immigrants to fill positions that there aren't enough Canadians to fill or that Canadians won't take.

There are still many Canadians unemployed. What we need are retraining systems which work. What we need are employers who are willing to train new employees like they used to do.

If there are lousy jobs that are hard to find employees for then the market says employers need to pay more to attract workers. What immigration does is defeat this market mechanism by flooding the market with desperate, unskilled, third-world labourers who will take, literally, anything. And now we have 'temporary workers' coming in by the tens of thousands to do everything from janitorial work to working in the hotel and service industry as maids and busboys.

[Smallc]

There are still many Canadians unemployed. What we need are retraining systems which work. What we need are employers who are willing to train new employees like they used to do.

If there are lousy jobs that are hard to find employees for then the market says employers need to pay more to attract workers.

That's not the way that our market works. This is an open market economy. That means that we can bring labour in to do jobs that Canadian won't fill. Add to that the fact that this country is aging, and we have a real problem without immigration.

[GWiz]

There are still many Canadians unemployed. What we need are retraining systems which work. What we need are employers who are willing to train new employees like they used to do.

If there are lousy jobs that are hard to find employees for then the market says employers need to pay more to attract workers. What immigration does is defeat this market mechanism by flooding the market with desperate, unskilled, third-world labourers who will take, literally, anything. And now we have 'temporary workers' coming in by the tens of thousands to do everything from janitorial work to working in the hotel and service industry as maids and busboys.

You don't get out much do you?

[Scotty]

That's not the way that our market works.

Sure it is. If it weren't for immigration defeating it.

This is an open market economy. That means that we can bring labour in to do jobs that Canadian won't fill

.

There are NO jobs Canadians won't fill if you pay enough. What you mean is we bring in labour to do unpleasant jobs really cheaply because Canadians won't do them really cheaply. How is this any different from outsourcing jobs to third world countries?

[ Add to that the fact that this country is aging, and we have a real problem without immigration.

There is no evidence immigration will help at all with aging as immigrants are almost the same age as we are.

[Scotty]

You don't get out much do you?

If that was meant to be some sort of intelligent rebuttal it failed rather badly.

[Smallc]

There are NO jobs Canadians won't fill if you pay enough. What you mean is we bring in labour to do unpleasant jobs really cheaply because Canadians won't do them really cheaply. How is this any different from outsourcing jobs to third world countries?

These are jobs in industries that can't afford to pay more. The difference between this and outsourcing is simple. The people are living in Canada supporting the Canadian economy.

There is no evidence immigration will help at all with aging as immigrants are almost the same age as we are.

No, actually they aren't. First, even if they are, on average only slightly younger, they still bring down the average age. Second, that average includes parents and grandparents being brought over, and the new point system being put in place will ensure that immigrants are overall younger than the population.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Smallc

[Scotty]

These are jobs in industries that can't afford to pay more.

Really? Which industries. You know, it's hard to remember it, but it was only a few years back that the US had such a booming economy it couldn't find workers in a lot of service industry jobs, especially in hotels and restaurants. I remember some fast food restaurants were paying $20hr for counter staff. They managed to stay open, somehow.

No, actually they aren't. First, even if they are, on average only slightly younger, they still bring down the average age. Second, that average includes parents and grandparents being brought over, and the new point system being put in place will ensure that immigrants are overall younger than the population.

The point is that they do virtually nothing to reverse an aging population as their average age is only a few years younger. As for the new points system, you have an awful lot of faith in a system which hasn't even been fully laid out yet, much less implemented.

[Smallc]

Really? Which industries. You know, it's hard to remember it, but it was only a few years back that the US had such a booming economy it couldn't find workers in a lot of service industry jobs, especially in hotels and restaurants. I remember some fast food restaurants were paying $20hr for counter staff. They managed to stay open, somehow.

Somehow is an understatement. Those wage levels cannot be sustained in many service industries - and I would know, since I run a moderate sied business in the service industry. You cannot pay that level without going to inflated pricing which drives up everything else.

The point is that they do virtually nothing to reverse an aging population as their average age is only a few years younger. As for the new points system, you have an awful lot of faith in a system which hasn't even been fully laid out yet, much less implemented.

Virtually nothing is still something, and the new system can only make things better.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Smallc

[Scotty]

Somehow is an understatement. Those wage levels cannot be sustained in many service industries - and I would know, since I run a moderate sied business in the service industry. You cannot pay that level without going to inflated pricing which drives up everything else.

The point is people will take jobs if it is in their interest to do so. One of our problems is people don't see taking crappy, low paying jobs as necessarily being to their immediate advantage compared to welfare or pogey. We need more intelligent social welfare systems which encourage non-productive people to get back into the workforce by either allowing them to continue to collect welfare for a while and gradually reducing it, or cutting back on their social welfare payments if they won't work. They are trying both methods in parts of Europe. The UK is trying both at the same time, in fact.

Virtually nothing is still something, and the new system can only make things better.

Still something is not as quantifiable as the billions of dollars bringing in all these immigrants costs the treasury every year.