bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Dick Butkus could whip Ray Lewis ass...TONIGHT!!!! Mr. NFL-NCAA loves to gush over American football and American football players. Just sayin... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 <<crickets>> Dithers... Thread completely derailed... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 <<crickets>> Dithers... Thread completely derailed... *High five* Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
William Ashley Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 OK and..... what do these numbers mean? How are immigrants being facilitated and integratd, how are the "helping" Canada. It is not so much about how many but where, what they are doing and the benefits to Canada.. how has the government managed this to benefit Canada. Quote I was here.
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 It is not so much about how many but where, what they are doing and the benefits to Canada.. how has the government managed this to benefit Canada. I maintain that it's economics. The government wants to grow the economy: more domestic spending, real estate prices and so on. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 OK and..... what do these numbers mean? How are immigrants being facilitated and integratd, how are the "helping" Canada. It is not so much about how many but where, what they are doing and the benefits to Canada.. how has the government managed this to benefit Canada. Your questions have actually been addressed. Not only are they helping Canada economically in the present, but they will soon be helping us bear the burden of our ultra-expensive social programs that we seem unwilling to do away with. We can't in the same breath demand universal healthcare and refuse to take any measures to pay for it. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 It's an excuse for why your world view didn't win. The conspiracy isn't at your end, you simply see the others as carrying it out. Not to be rude or anything but I don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. Saying that big business loves immigrants because they work cheap does not in any way, shape, or form even imply a 'conspiracy'. Saying the Liberals and Tories suck up to ethnic groups doesn't imply a conspiracy either. It isn't. Not even close. What isn't? I don't even know what you're trying to say. I said times were different, that today, unlike in times past, people are not cut off from their homelands, because they have satellite TV, telephones, internet and quick travel back and forth on jets. You said "people have been saying that since before Canada was born". Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Not to be rude or anything but I don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said you're acting like you think there is. The left is doing one thing, and the left is doing something else, and that's why neither agrees with your world view. It's a classic start to a conspiracy theory. Saying that big business loves immigrants because they work cheap does not in any way, shape, or form even imply a 'conspiracy'. Saying the Liberals and Tories suck up to ethnic groups doesn't imply a conspiracy either. Saying that they don't public statistics or true statistics as a result? That comes awe fully close, if it doesn't cross the line. What isn't? I don't even know what you're trying to say. It isn't self evident. I said times were different, that today, unlike in times past, people are not cut off from their homelands, because they have satellite TV, telephones, internet and quick travel back and forth on jets. You said "people have been saying that since before Canada was born". None of that is relevant. The point still stands. There are always people against immigration, immigrants, or a certain subgroup of the two. It doesn't mean that it's the right opinion. Canada seems to be doing just fine under our current immigration levels. I haven't noticed and dramatic negative change in my life as a result. Quote
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 No, the first isn't self-evident. Even the Globe article I linked only suggests that the immigrant vote is becoming more split between the Liberals and Conservatives, when it used to be predominantly Liberal. I didn't say Conservative, I said conservative. People sometimes confuse the two but they're not necessarily synonymous. We know where the majority of immigrants are coming from. We know what the cultural value systems are in those lands. I think everyone realizes how conservative the Muslim world is, but a lot don't seem to realize how very conservative Hindus and Sikhs are, as well. East Asians aren't as bad, depending on what area you come from, but their cultures are all more conservative than ours on social issues. Africans are also very conservative, btw. Homosexuality is still illegal in many African countries, abortion is illegal in almost all of them, and womens rights, well... there aren't a lot. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 And that's only because the Conservatives (IMO) have come very close to the centre, while the Liberals have moved to the left somewhat. According to the article the attraction to the Conservatives is over their conservative social views, not their 'middle of the road' views, and of course, their newly discovered love of immigration. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Your questions have actually been addressed. Not only are they helping Canada economically in the present, but they will soon be helping us bear the burden of our ultra-expensive social programs that we seem unwilling to do away with. Evidence? Any at all? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 According to the article the attraction to the Conservatives is over their conservative social views, not their 'middle of the road' views, and of course, their newly discovered love of immigration. That's what the article says, but in reality, the immigrant vote has moved to the Conservatives at the same time that the non immigrant vote has. Really, though, there's nothing social conservative that this Conservative party has done other than a few drug and crime laws. Quote
Evening Star Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I didn't say Conservative, I said conservative. I know but the Liberal Party has been advocating and often implementing socially liberal policies for as long as we've had point-based immigration. Quote
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I know but the Liberal Party has been advocating and often implementing socially liberal policies for as long as we've had point-based immigration. But only since Martin has it been openly advocating policies which go against the fundamental beliefs of religious people, notably on gay issues. Most of its 'liberal' policies were seen as beneficial to ethnic and visible minorities Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 But only since Martin has it been openly advocating policies which go against the fundamental beliefs of religious people, notably on gay issues. The Liberals were leading in the 2006 election campaign until beer and popcorn and then the RCMP Income Trust investigation med campaign. Many thought it was The Sponsorship Scandal all oer again, and the Liberals paid the price (needlessly, in that case). It had nothing to do with same sex marriage, which the majority of the Canadian population is fine with. Also, remember that what is arguably the most Liberal city in Canada (Toronto) is the one which has a population made up of more than 50% immigrants. Quote
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) The Liberals were leading in the 2006 election campaign until beer and popcorn and then the RCMP Income Trust investigation med campaign. Many thought it was The Sponsorship Scandal all oer again, and the Liberals paid the price (needlessly, in that case). It had nothing to do with same sex marriage, which the majority of the Canadian population is fine with. Also, remember that what is arguably the most Liberal city in Canada (Toronto) is the one which has a population made up of more than 50% immigrants. We're talking about the immigrant vote, not the general vote. As for Toronto being very liberal, yes it is. On the other hand, most immigrants vote, like most Canadians, for mainly economic reasons, and for how friendly they perceive a party is to their group and immigration. Also, there's a huge homosexual population in Toronto. Edited February 24, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Evidence? Any at all? I realize this is the typical cop out to deny common sense. "I can't heeeaaaar yoouuuuuuu!" Nevertheless, I will indulge you. After 12 seconds of internet research through the highly sophisticated research engine known as google, I came across an article quoting Canada's coming population crunch. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/dec/05121504 Surely, you do know our senior population is exploding, yes? How are we to pay for the social services that are already astronomically expensive to upkeep? Growing retired population + shrinking workforce = Use your head Edited February 24, 2011 by Dithers Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 We're talking about the immigrant vote, not the general vote. You haven't proven that the immigrant vote is any more motivated by social factors than the average Canadian in their region. As for Toronto being very liberal, yes it is. On the other hand, most immigrants vote, like most Canadians, for mainly economic reasons, and for how friendly they perceive a party is to their group and immigration. Also, there's a huge homosexual population in Toronto. What? That's just bizarre. You're saying it's because there are gay people in Toronto that it's Liberal? There are many gay people in Calgary too, you know? Quote
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I realize this is the typical cop out to deny common sense. "I can't heeeaaaar yoouuuuuuu!" Nevertheless, I will indulge you. After 12 seconds of internet research through the highly sophisticated research engine known as google, I came across an article quoting Canada's coming population crunch. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/dec/05121504 Surely, you do know our senior population is exploding, yes? Growing retired population + shrinking workforce = Use your head How are we to pay for the social services that are already astronomically expensive to upkeep? Use your head. I do use my head. Which is why I asked for evidence. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver. Note. I did NOT ask for evidence that we had an aging population. I asked for evidence of the economic benefit of immigration. As to an aging population, the average age of immigrants is roughly the same as the average age of Canadians - a matter of bringing over all those parents and grandparents - so that isn't really going to help us much. Also, your attitude is disrespectful bordering on insulting. Modify it or you can talk to yourself. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I do use my head. Which is why I asked for evidence. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver. Note. I did NOT ask for evidence that we had an aging population. I asked for evidence of the economic benefit of immigration. As to an aging population, the average age of immigrants is roughly the same as the average age of Canadians - a matter of bringing over all those parents and grandparents - so that isn't really going to help us much. Which isn't going to be happening anymore. The new points system makes it so that younger people who speak the language have an easier time getting in. also, the average age of working immigrants IS lower than that of the average Canadians, which is of benefit to the country. Quote
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I do use my head. Which is why I asked for evidence. Unfortunately, you failed to deliver. Note. I did NOT ask for evidence that we had an aging population. I asked for evidence of the economic benefit of immigration. As to an aging population, the average age of immigrants is roughly the same as the average age of Canadians - a matter of bringing over all those parents and grandparents - so that isn't really going to help us much. Also, your attitude is disrespectful bordering on insulting. Modify it or you can talk to yourself. Talk about pots and kettles... Now threats? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Evening Star Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) But only since Martin has it been openly advocating policies which go against the fundamental beliefs of religious people, notably on gay issues. Most of its 'liberal' policies were seen as beneficial to ethnic and visible minorities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1968-69 http://archives.cbc.ca/on_this_day/07/14/ Edited February 24, 2011 by Evening Star Quote
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Which isn't going to be happening anymore. The new points system makes it so that younger people who speak the language have an easier time getting in. also, the average age of working immigrants IS lower than that of the average Canadians, which is of benefit to the country. Absolutely correct... This may become a rather contentious issue in the next election as the CONS scramble for safer ground to appease their traditional base in regards to immigration... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Here is a place to start. A long paper on the economics of immigration by the Fraser Institute. 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. Fraser Institute report on immigration Also. Growth accounting is a commonly used approach for estimating the impact on productivity of various factors such as education and the age and sex of those who make up the labor force. It involves using earnings weights to distinguish the effects of the various factors. When applied over the period from 1990 to 2004, it suggests that immigration has lowered productivity by around 1.5% or 0.15% per year (Grady, 2006). While this is not very large, it is still significant and runs counter to the claims usually made regarding the productivity-enhancing effect of immigration. There's a lot of stuff there and I'm still looking through it. There's also this. 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. Statistics Canada The argument for immigrants to address our aging population is a long one, and you will find it in chapters 7 through 10 of the Fraser report, but to summarize In the pages that follow, we quantify those effects and draw some conclusions about the relative merits of changes in immigration flows as ways to address these challenges. Our key conclusions are that the increases in immigration necessary to offset or even significantly reduce the effects of past declines in birth rates on the growth and age structure of Canada’s workforce are unrealistic. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Which isn't going to be happening anymore. The new points system makes it so that younger people who speak the language have an easier time getting in. also, the average age of working immigrants IS lower than that of the average Canadians, which is of benefit to the country. I would suggest you also read chapters 7-10 in the Fraser Report. A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small. Fraser Report on Aging and immigration Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
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.