Highest Immigration numbers in 57 years.

[Smallc]

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.

I support that, but it's rather pie in the sky. There has always been an underclass that is unemployed or underemployed.

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

Without growth in population, the Canadian economy will stop growing, especially in 10 years from now. The immigrants, overall, are an investment in the future, not a drain.

[Bonam]

Without growth in population, the Canadian economy will stop growing, especially in 10 years from now. The immigrants, overall, are an investment in the future, not a drain.

You do know there are ways for a population to grow besides bringing in another population to replace/supplement it, right? Just making sure. I suppose given the fertility rates in Western countries these days, perhaps some people just haven't heard of it.

[Mr.Canada]

You do know there are ways for a population to grow besides bringing in another population to replace/supplement it, right? Just making sure. I suppose given the fertility rates in Western countries these days, perhaps some people just haven't heard of it.

I'd like to see the government make a reward program for European Canadians having children over two. Let's face it that's the group everyone is talking about when they speak about low birth rates.

They could even raffle off a certain number of free post secondary educations every year for the new babies. That's got to cost less then importing.

[Smallc]

You do know there are ways for a population to grow besides bringing in another population to replace/supplement it, right? Just making sure. I suppose given the fertility rates in Western countries these days, perhaps some people just haven't heard of it.

Given that I don't have a was to raise birth rates on my own (though I suppose I could try.... ) immigration is the only real answer.

[Smallc]

I'd like to see the government make a reward program for European Canadians having children over two.

Heil Hitler

[Bonam]

I'd like to see the government make a reward program for European Canadians having children over two. Let's face it that's the group everyone is talking about when they speak about low birth rates.

Really they should not make the incentive program exclusive to any particular ethnic group of Canadians. It is both unnecessary and completely politically impossible, of course.

[Bonam]

Given that I don't have a was to raise birth rates on my own (though I suppose I could try.... ) immigration is the only real answer.

You don't have the power to affect immigration rates on your own either, so I don't see the relevance of your first statement. The government controls immigration rates, and the government could also take steps to affect birth rates, if it so chose. The fact that it is choosing to try to increase population primarily through immigration, rather than through making natural population growth more economically appealing to potential parents, is a choice on the part of government, nothing more.

[Smallc]

You don't have the power to affect immigration rates on your own either, so I don't see the relevance of your first statement. The government controls immigration rates, and the government could also take steps to affect birth rates, if it so chose.

Such as? Spending money? I'd rather bring in immigrants. Canadians don't want to have children, generally. Second generation immigrants are the same way. The reality is, children interfere with standard of living, and most people aren't willing to make that sacrifice. I know I'm not.

[Bonam]

Such as? Spending money?

Everything costs money. Properly addressing one of the biggest social/economic problems of our time (a dwindling and aging population) is certainly no exception.

I'd rather bring in immigrants.

Why?

Canadians don't want to have children, generally.

The sign of a dying civilization.

Second generation immigrants are the same way. The reality is, children interfere with standard of living, and most people aren't willing to make that sacrifice. I know I'm not.

A very short-sighted view. Children do not interfere with the standard of living: they are what makes a prosperous standard of living in the future possible. The fact that our economic and social system presently greatly disincentivizes individuals from having children is something that should be addressed, not ignored.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Everything costs money. Properly addressing one of the biggest social/economic problems of our time (a dwindling and aging population) is certainly no exception.

I don't consider it to be a problem, given there is an easy solution.

Why?

Because if you bring in the right immigrants (and we're moving more and more that way) then it's a sure thing, unlike waiting 18 years for babies to grow up.

The sign of a dying civilization.

The sign of a successful civilization. We aren't in the third world. We can do as we choose, and we can do that because we have things like birth control. Also, we can do this because we can attract other to help grow our population and our workforce without impacting our standard of living.

A very short-sighted view. Children do not interfere with the standard of living: they are what makes a prosperous standard of living in the future possible. The fact that our economic and social system presently greatly disincentivizes individuals from having children is something that should be addressed, not ignored.

I completely disagree. This is a very narrow view that sees our country as a closed system, which it is not. There is no disincentive to have children, there is choice, and the choice of many is not to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Bonam]

I don't consider it to be a problem, given there is an easy solution.

Except that "solution" brings with it a host of other social problems. Immigrants assimilate into a new country when they are surrounded by and exposed to that country's people, language, and culture. But if too many immigrants are coming continuously, they are surrounded only by other immigrants and never assimilate, instead forming enclaves. We see this in Europe and to a lesser extent in some Canadian cities. This is not beneficial for our country. There is a limit to the rate of immigration you can sustainably have.

Because if you bring in the right immigrants (and we're moving more and more that way) then it's a sure thing, unlike waiting 18 years for babies to grow up.

The fact that the reward is delayed does not make it less of a sure thing. Once the policy is implemented and the initial 18 years have passed, it then becomes just as much of a "sure thing" on a continual basis.

The sign of a successful civilization. We aren't in the third world. We can do as we choose, and we can do that because we have things like birth control. Also, we can do this because we can attract other to help grow our population and our workforce without impacting our standard of living.

I completely disagree. This is a very narrow view that sees our country as a closed system, which it is not. There is no disincentive to have children, there is choice, and the choice of many is not to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I agree that having choice is a good thing, certainly. Obviously, I completely support people to have that freedom of whether or not they want to have children. But, when on a societal level too many people start making the choice not to have children something is wrong. A population that is in decline is one that will die and be replaced by another. You may see some continuity in that an entity called "Canada" may continue to exist but if future generations are (almost) all descended from new immigrants from completely different cultures and ethnicities, it will not be recognizable to the Canada of today. Just as the Canada of today is completely unrecognizable to the natives who lived here before us, because they died and were replaced by newcomers.

So, while individuals should certainly have the choice, when birth rates fall below replacement, the reality is that society needs to reorganize itself so as to address the issue. It needs to make the choice of having children more appealing. Otherwise it will die out. It's as simple as that.

[Smallc]

Except that Canada has always been changed by a high immigration rate. That's how this country was built and that's how this county continues to be built. Europe is a completely different place that was not formed by this level of sustained immigration.

[jbg]

I was actually surprised the numbers were as high as they were to be honest. Canada doesn't need free loaders we need immigrants with money or skills and a good command of the English/French language. *************This is what could lead to things like honor killings.

I'm all in favor (if not in favour) of high immigration numbers if we weren't developing the "multi-cultural" disease, or letting immigrants form enclaves and not learn English.

The problem, in my mind, in both my country and yours lack sufficient imperatives for immigrants to assimilate and join forces with their new land. Kenney's new booklet is nice, but I guarantee it won't do the job, as well as bi-cultural (as opposed to multi-cultural) and bi-lingual (as opposed to multi-lingual) policies would.

When my ancestors arrived (6 great-grandparents and my paternal grandmother) I suspect they, like most arrivals between 1890 and 1910 learned English as their first order of business. I did know my paternal grandmother, coming from what’s now Hungary or the Czech Republic, for a few years before she died. Her English was perfect and unaccented. She was, in all respects, an American.

In those days, to be fair, the chord was cut by the fact that a physical return to the “old country” to visit was impractical because of the religious persecutions that drove them out in the first place, and telephonic contact was extremely costly (about $120 for three minutes, or probably more, in today’s money) . Thus, when immigrants got on the train to the coast to take a ship to the U.S. the goodbyes were tearful and final. Now, the round-trips to Pakistan are frequent, and the telephone calls maybe $1 per minute or even less.

To solve the immigration problem we don’t need to eliminate the immigrants; just Canadianize or Americanize them.

[Bonam]

Except that Canada has always been changed by a high immigration rate. That's how this country was built and that's how this county continues to be built.

When you are building something, at some point, the foundation is sufficiently built, it is complete and good in the state that it is in. Then you just build on that foundation, keeping it intact. You don't keep tearing it apart and putting a new foundation in its place. I'd say that's where Canada is. It is a great place to live with a culture that allows its citizens freedom and prosperity. We should be in steady growth, gradual improvement and maintenance mode. Not in "lets tear the whole thing apart and rebuild it from scratch" mode.

Relying on immigration to replace our aging population with a completely different population is just that: replacement. We don't need to be replaced.

Europe is a completely different place that was not formed by this level of sustained immigration.

Of course it was, the only difference is the major waves of immigration happened further back in Europe's history. And the modern immigration policies in many European countries, such as the UK, resemble our own in that they allow for a rapid influx of immigrants that is sufficient to significantly impact the social fabric of the country.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

When you are building something, at some point, the foundation is sufficiently built, it is complete and good in the state that it is in.

That is only one possible outcome, and it isn't one what I favour.

[Bonam]

That is only one possible outcome, and it isn't one what I favour.

Well yeah, there is one other outcome: the whole thing collapses. Either you succeed in building a foundation worth keeping, or you fail and it needs to be replaced. Do we need to be replaced?

[Smallc]

Well yeah, there is one other outcome: the whole thing collapses.

No, that isn't the only other outcome. The society can continue to grow and change.

[Bonam]

No, that isn't the only other outcome. The society can continue to grow and change.

Yes, to grow and change based on that solid foundation.

[Smallc]

Yes, to grow and change based on that solid foundation.

Well, IMV, that foundation is already there, and has been for many years. We're simply building upon that.

[Bonam]

Well, IMV, that foundation is already there, and has been for many years. We're simply building upon that.

And I think that with the immigration rates we have and the low birth rates we have, we are tearing up that foundation and trying to replace it with a new one, and one that for all we know may be much less stable than the first.

[DogOnPorch]

And I think that with the immigration rates we have and the low birth rates we have, we are tearing up that foundation and trying to replace it with a new one, and one that for all we know may be much less stable than the first.

Ironic what women's rights, birth control and zero population growth got us, eh?

[GWiz]

Everything costs money. Properly addressing one of the biggest social/economic problems of our time (a dwindling and aging population) is certainly no exception.

You wouldn't by any chance happen to know the COST of raising a child from birth to age 23 (U Grad), including lost productivity from the parents during that time, would you?

Why?

It's the only viable and AFFORDABLE (since virtually all COSTS are covered by the sponsor) way an underpopulated country like Canada can survive...

The sign of a dying civilization.

True... See above... Instant productivity from the immigrant and future sustainability via their children are the BONUS Canada receives from immigrants...

A very short-sighted view. Children do not interfere with the standard of living: they are what makes a prosperous standard of living in the future possible. The fact that our economic and social system presently greatly disincentivizes individuals from having children is something that should be addressed, not ignored.

See all of the above...

[Scotty]

You wouldn't by any chance happen to know the COST of raising a child from birth to age 23 (U Grad), including lost productivity from the parents during that time, would you?

Irrelevant. Society can't survive without children. The only difference in cost to society now is the children we educate have to go through ESL classes.

It's the only viable and AFFORDABLE (since virtually all COSTS are covered by the sponsor) way an underpopulated country like Canada can survive...

Canada is NOT an underpopulated country. And your claim is ludicrous in any event. How are the costs of children or dependents borne by the "sponsor" any more than in the case of children or dependents of Canadian born people?

True... See above... Instant productivity from the immigrant and future sustainability via their children are the BONUS Canada receives from immigrants...

Instant productivity from immigrants who, for the most part, speak no English and have no job skills? Where is this instant productivity coming from given the high and growing number of immigrants in poverty?

Or is it your contention that Canadians should seek to bring over immigrants to do the dirty jobs with minimal pay and live in poverty so that we can enjoy the easy life with lots of consumer products and no effort at raising children?

Edited February 23, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

And I think that with the immigration rates we have and the low birth rates we have, we are tearing up that foundation and trying to replace it with a new one, and one that for all we know may be much less stable than the first.

Much less stable and much less western in outlook. Immigrants tend to have extremely religious and conservative social views with little cultural tolerance for variations. As their numbers rise we will begin to see a push-back against the permissiveness and tolerance we have taken for granted.

[Smallc]

Immigrants tend to have extremely religious and conservative social views with little cultural tolerance for variations.

Is there evidence that Canada is becoming more religious and intolerant as a whole? I've never seen any.