Why conservatives want tougher laws and less immigration

[Guest Peeves]

You ignore a very important factor - assimilation!

It's not race that makes us different, it's culture. While it is true that many less advanced countries are of mostly non-white populations, that is just the result of the coils of history. That too is changing, as witness China and India.

Perhaps Canada has done a poor job with immigration, favouring those from less advanced or even negative cultures, like those of fundamentalist Islamic states. Do you seriously believe that these people will come to Canada and stay the same forever? Or that their children, their children's children or their children's children's children, for every generation thereafter?

That's just not reality! Environment shapes people and new immigrants can't help adopting some of OUR culture! This is proven by conflicts between some immigrant cultures and their born-in-Canada children over arranged marriages, dating and clothing styles. Why do you think so many poor women have been killed in "honour" killings?

No, Canada will not change to become like those negative cultures. Immigrants from those cultures will become Canadian, if not so much the initial immigrants then their offspring.

Sharia law can never compete with blue jeans and rock & roll! Western culture brought down the Berlin Wall. It can handle our immigrants.

Everything you have said is common sense and quite reasonable. Culture is the common factor.

There is one factor however that doesn't fit your Westernization equation. The Islamic faith is not about to change in the next one hundred-two hundred years. Therefore there will remain an element that follows the pattern that we see today into the future and, into the migrants the West can expect.

I would count on a few immigrants that practice honor killing , FGM, etc. (not just from Islamic countries), to become future followers of those same practices, here, since they will certainly continue in their homelands as they have for generations.

[Argus]

Simple... it allows us to maintain a growth economy, and enjoy a standard of life we could not have otherwise. GDP increases, government revenues increase, etc.

You're still talking about gross numbers, which are largely irrelevant, and I'm talking about net benefits.

So what if a larger number of people produces a larger economy with a larger GDP? How is that better for the people who are here now?

$100 shared amongst ten people is no better than $50 shared among five. Government revenue increases certainly, and so does government outlay. All those new people need health care, need pensions, need all the other services of government.

Like I said before if the decision was based on economics alone we would let a lot more immigrants in. A Bank of Canada report on the economic impact of immigration recommend we increase immigration by 40%.

Really? I'd like a cite of that report, please. Because in all the discussions about immigration I've had in which people assume there is a massive economic benefit I have NEVER seen anything that backs that up but bland government or industry statements (without studies or evidence). In fact, the Fraser report on immigration, which is the closest thing to neutral I've seen, estimated that immigration costs our economy $23 billion per year. You see, the immigrants we've been getting over the last decade or two are simply not up to the standards of previous years in terms of paying taxes, so they actually consume more in services than they pay out, for a net loss.

Arguing against immigration from an economic standpoint just doesnt work.

It works quite well when one has an open mind. If one is too dense to understand the difference between gross and net increases, and blandly accepts whatever wishy-washy, feel-good headlines or statements he's fed because his mind just never inquires into the background or facts, well then I suppose it's pointless. There are many justifications used for our current immigration system, and as long as you don't have an inquiring mind and don't try to look for facts I suppose you can go on in happy ignorance. Once you actually look for the facts, though, you soon find there's just nothing there.

Youre better off basing your xenophobia on social concerns, if you actually want to be able to support it in an argument.

I can support my argument on any terms anyone cares to argue them. Because there's no evidence that immigration, as it currently stands, is a benefit to Canada. Nor have you presented one iota of evidence in support of your ideological attachment to the system.

[Michael Hardner]

There is one factor however that doesn't fit your Westernization equation. The Islamic faith is not about to change in the next one hundred-two hundred years. Therefore there will remain an element that follows the pattern that we see today into the future and, into the migrants the West can expect.

You have no basis for saying that. Somalis, Pakistanis in Toronto seem to be assimilating just fine from where I stand. If you have some evidence to bring to my personal experience living here, please let me know.

I would count on a few immigrants that practice honor killing , FGM, etc. (not just from Islamic countries), to become future followers of those same practices, here, since they will certainly continue in their homelands as they have for generations.

I have asked this question of others who share this viewpoint and never received a satisfactory answer:

What is it about those cultures that make them unchangeable ? When this country has changed every other faith and culture that arrived on its shores, as well as the the ones that were here first, why do the latest immigrants appear to you to be unable to assimilate ? What is it about them ?

[Argus]

No, it's neither good or bad thing, just a fact. I said earlier that Canada has a points-based system of immigration, that is a world-wide known fact, but Argus insisted that only a fraction of immigrants are chosen by that system and most of them can't even speak English and end up as taxi-drivers

Most of the immigrants to Canada are never assessed under that system. They come in various categories, including refugees, but most are related to the few who actually are tested. They are the primary immigrant's children, spouses, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. And even those who come in under the points system are often incapable of finding work in their area of alleged expertise due to poor communications skills or educations which are not recognized here.

As Jason Kenney said not very long ago "It frustrates the hell out of me,” the Immigration Minister told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board on Wednesday. “We’re bringing hundreds of thousands of people into the country to end up, many of them, unemployed or underemployed in an economy where there are acute labour shortages.”

Edited April 6, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Argus, without immigration our population would decline and GDP would decrease. If the economy doesn't grow, more money can't be dumped into the system to cover off debts from the money that's created by the banks each year. The way our economy is set up, a decline in population would be incredibly destructive.

Edited April 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[Argus]

I have asked this question of others who share this viewpoint and never received a satisfactory answer:

What is it about those cultures that make them unchangeable ? When this country has changed every other faith and culture that arrived on its shores, as well as the the ones that were here first, why do the latest immigrants appear to you to be unable to assimilate ? What is it about them ?

Let me ask you a question, Michael. Do you know any place on earth where there is a sizable minority of Muslims living in peace and harmony with the larger community around them? I'm not talking Canada's current 2%. I'm talking 10% +

[cybercoma]

Most of the immigrants to Canada are never assessed under that system. They come in various categories, including refugees, but most are related to the few who actually are tested. They are the primary immigrant's children, spouses, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. And even those who come in under the points system are often incapable of finding work in their area of alleged expertise due to poor communications skills or educations which are not recognized here.

As Jason Kenney said not very long ago "It frustrates the hell out of me,” the Immigration Minister told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board on Wednesday. “We’re bringing hundreds of thousands of people into the country to end up, many of them, unemployed or underemployed in an economy where there are acute labour shortages.”

First you criticize immigrants for not assimilating in Canada and you wrote earlier about your concerns with Canadians of "convenience" that don't spend enough time in Canada. Yet, here you criticize the system for trying to keep immediate families together. Can't you see that this is a way to help immigrants assimilate and not have to travel back and forth to their home countries all the time to see their immediate families (ie, husbands, wives, children, parents)? You don't like that solution, so you want to cut off all immigration entirely, unless it's single able-bodied men with enough capital to support themselves already. I say that because anyone that has a family is going to be quite unlikely to want to abandon their families if our government wouldn't allow them in. Also, anyone with enough capital to support themselves in our industrial nation would probably be doing quite well for themselves in their home country. So, it seems you want them to leave their families behind, which would dissuade anyone from coming to the country at all. That makes sense, since it's pretty clear that your arguments come from a position of xenophobia. So anything that discourages immigrants from choosing Canada would be a positive solution to you. Although politicians like Kenney have shown frustration with the system, thankfully their solutions are not even remotely as radical as the one you haven't directly offered, but keep alluding to.

[Argus]

First you criticize immigrants for not assimilating in Canada and you wrote earlier about your concerns with Canadians of "convenience" that don't spend enough time in Canada. Yet, here you criticize the system for trying to keep immediate families together. Can't you see that this is a way to help immigrants assimilate and not have to travel back and forth to their home countries all the time to see their immediate families (ie, husbands, wives, children, parents)?

No. I see no such thing. I don't see this as helping assimilation, and I don't see it as discouraging travel back 'home'. Nor is there any evidence to that effect. I was speaking to the singular point of the qualifications of immigrants, and thus their economic benefit to Canada. If one recognizes that most immigrants who are mainly from third world countries, come to Canada without any effort to determine their economic capabilities here one can begin to understand the cost of the program.

You don't like that solution, so you want to cut off all immigration entirely, unless it's single able-bodied men with enough capital to support themselves already

.

I've never made that suggestion, nor would I. What I prefer in immigrants is youth, vitality, some manner of skill or ability which is highly marketable in Canada, very good communications skills (in order to get employment above subsistence wages) and a cultural adaptability which is not zealously attached to a 6th century value system.

I say that because anyone that has a family is going to be quite unlikely to want to abandon their families if our government wouldn't allow them in.

Nonsense. Lots of people from Europe immigrate to Canada and don't see the need to bring in any but immediate family.

Also, anyone with enough capital to support themselves in our industrial nation would probably be doing quite well for themselves in their home country.

Once again, I'm not talking about well-heeled immigrants, but talented, skilled ones. We sorely lack such people in the trades, for example. I'd rather have good carpenters and electricians than some guy in a suit with three degrees who can barely communicate in English. A bricklayer doesn't need to know much English, an engineer does.

[Argus]

Argus, without immigration our population would decline and GDP would decrease. If the economy doesn't grow, more money can't be dumped into the system to cover off debts from the money that's created by the banks each year. The way our economy is set up, a decline in population would be incredibly destructive.

Depends on the amount of the decline. If we had ZERO immigration, then yes, our population, after continuing to rise for a while, would very slowly begin to decline. But that decline would be minimal for decades, barely noticeable. And practically speaking, I'm not entirely opposed to immigration. I'm opposed to our current immigration numbers, the economic productivity of those immigrants, and their cultural backgrounds.

[Wild Bill]

Everything you have said is common sense and quite reasonable. Culture is the common factor.

There is one factor however that doesn't fit your Westernization equation. The Islamic faith is not about to change in the next one hundred-two hundred years. Therefore there will remain an element that follows the pattern that we see today into the future and, into the migrants the West can expect.

I would count on a few immigrants that practice honor killing , FGM, etc. (not just from Islamic countries), to become future followers of those same practices, here, since they will certainly continue in their homelands as they have for generations.

I would agree that some cultures in the middle east have successfully stayed primitive for centuries and will work very hard to stay that way. That job will only become more difficult as the rest of the world will keep seeping in across their borders. I'm sure the Iranian religious zealot regime is finding it increasingly difficult to stay in control, with a new generation that takes access to the Web and satellite TV for granted.

I would also agree that our screening process will never be efficient enough to keep ALL the wingnuts out. After all, it is Canadian! Still, the numbers should be low enough to qualify as a rare news item, hardly enough to get Sharia law passed as the law of the land.

[cybercoma]

Depends on the amount of the decline. If we had ZERO immigration, then yes, our population, after continuing to rise for a while, would very slowly begin to decline. But that decline would be minimal for decades, barely noticeable. And practically speaking, I'm not entirely opposed to immigration. I'm opposed to our current immigration numbers, the economic productivity of those immigrants, and their cultural backgrounds.

Our current number for all immigration is 0.7% of the population. What's a more acceptable number to you?

[cybercoma]

I would agree that some cultures in the middle east have successfully stayed primitive for centuries

Then you're completely unaware of the history of the Middle East.

[capricorn]

I'm not entirely opposed to immigration. I'm opposed to our current immigration numbers, the economic productivity of those immigrants, and their cultural backgrounds.

That's pretty well my feeling regarding how much immigration is too much. James Bissett says it much better than I ever could.

Let's face the facts — when there is a turndown in the world economy and dire predictions of serious recession or worse this is not the time to be bringing thousands of newcomers to Canada. In July of this year, Ontario alone lost 55,000 jobs — so what is the rationale for more immigration? The fact is there is no valid rationale. There is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party. This is not only irresponsible; it borders on culpable negligence.

There are few economists today who argue that immigration helps the economy in any significant way. Studies in Canada since the mid-1980s have pointed out that immigration has little impact on the economic welfare of the receiving country and similar studies in the United States and Britain have reached the same conclusion. Comprehensive studies by George Borjas, the world's most renowned immigration economist at Harvard have shown that immigration's only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers.

Our politicians justify their desire for more immigrants by raising the spectre of an aging population and tell us immigration is the only answer to this dilemma, and yet there is not a shred of truth to this argument. Immigration does not provide the answer to population aging and there is a multiplicity of studies done in Canada and elsewhere that proves this.

Moreover, there is no evidence that a larger labour force necessarily leads to economic progress. Many countries whose labour forces are shrinking are still enjoying economic buoyancy. Finland, Switzerland and Japan are only a few examples of countries that do not rely on massive immigration to succeed.

Productivity is the answer to economic success, not a larger population.

Most Canadians assume that our immigrants are selected because they have skills, training and education that will enable them to enhance our labour force but only about 18 to 20 per cent of our immigrants are selected for economic factors. By far the bulk of the immigrants we receive come here because they are sponsored by relatives or because of so-called humanitarian reasons and none of these have to meet the “points system” of selection.

This is why over 50 per cent of recent immigrants are living below the poverty line and why they are not earning nearly the wages paid to equivalent Canadian workers.

It also explains why a study published this year by professor Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University revealed that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes. As Prof. Grubel points out, this amount is more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what was spent on defence in the fiscal year of 2000/2001. Isn't it time our party leaders were made aware of this study?

con't.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2008/09/22/former-head-of-canadas-immigration-service-tells-politicians-involved-in-this-election-to-tell-the-truth-our-immigration-levels-are-too-high/

From the link.

James Bissett is not just one more commentator on the immigration issue. He helped develop Canada's point system in the 1960's. For five years, he was the head of the entire Canadian immigration service. He has written much thoughtful and articulate criticism of Canada's immigration policies.

He knows more about immigration than any of the current leaders of Canada's political parties and their immigration critics. His expertise obviously far exceeds that of Canada's immigration industry and the municipal, provincial and federal politicians who have cheerled high immigration levels—and who have received so much attention in doing so.

Edited April 6, 2012 by capricorn

[Smallc]

Multiple steps are already being taken to address the shortcoming in both the immigration and refugee system. Canada, overall, has been one of them oct successful countries at integrating immigrants and making them work. They don't all set up in huge poor ghettos, and race violence isn't really an issue.

[Bonam]

Our current number for all immigration is 0.7% of the population. What's a more acceptable number to you?

That's per year. After 50 years at that rate, you've replaced ~1/3 of the population. That is far too high of a rate. I'd cut it at least in half.

[Smallc]

That is far too high of a rate.

Based on what, exactly? Immigration hasn't exactly caused real problems in this country.

[Wild Bill]

Then you're completely unaware of the history of the Middle East.

Perhaps I am but maybe you should explain it to an Afghani girl who was disfigured and blinded by acid thrown in her face, just for going to school!

If that isn't primitive and barbaric behaviour, then what is?

[WWWTT]

That's per year. After 50 years at that rate, you've replaced ~1/3 of the population. That is far too high of a rate. I'd cut it at least in half.

Replaced the population?You are using borderline language here!

All life forms eventually die so therefore we must reproduce in order so that there is a generation to replace/renew all of us eventually.

But you are suggesting that if we rely on immigration to replace older generations this would be unacceptable.

And why is that?

Do you feel that there should be less Canadians ratio wise amongst the world population and that Canadians should eventually die off?Or do you feel that immigrants should not be contributing to Canada?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That's pretty well my feeling regarding how much immigration is too much.

You are aware of how many years it takes for new immigrants to come to Canada aren't you?

We can be in the middle of a deep recession when an immigration application starts and with wait times/proccessing times the new immigrants will not be here until we are well into a strong boom in our economy!

I would be very cautious of knee jerk reactions!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Perhaps I am but maybe you should explain it to an Afghani girl who was disfigured and blinded by acid thrown in her face, just for going to school!

If that isn't primitive and barbaric behaviour, then what is?

Aghanistan was a very different place before the Taliban took over, thanks to US intervention. Your previous post broadbrushed the Middle East as though they never came out of the Middle Ages. It simply shows your ignorance about the history and culture of Middle Eastern peoples.

Afghanistan is in Asia not the Middle East, btw.

Edited April 6, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Replaced the population?You are using borderline language here!

All life forms eventually die so therefore we must reproduce in order so that there is a generation to replace/renew all of us eventually.

But you are suggesting that if we rely on immigration to replace older generations this would be unacceptable.

And why is that?

Do you feel that there should be less Canadians ratio wise amongst the world population and that Canadians should eventually die off?Or do you feel that immigrants should not be contributing to Canada?

WWWTT

His post also suggests "once an immigrant, always an immigrant." In other words, immigrants will never be Canadian and will never be accepted into our society.

Meanwhile, he criticizes immigrants for not assimilating.

So is it that immigrants don't assimilate or that racists and bigots won't allow them to be assimilated?

[-TSS-]

People seem to make the same mistake over and over again by bundling up all the immigrants, be they high-skilled profesionals whose expertise is badly needed in your country or illiterate adults who can hardly speak a word of English. I'm waiting for a detailed account as to how the GDP would fall if the number latter group of people I mentioned were to fall.

[Wild Bill]

Aghanistan was a very different place before the Taliban took over, thanks to US intervention. Your previous post broadbrushed the Middle East as though they never came out of the Middle Ages. It simply shows your ignorance about the history and culture of Middle Eastern peoples.

Afghanistan is in Asia not the Middle East, btw.

How about if I throw in a large chunk of Pakistan?

[Guest Peeves]

Based on what, exactly? Immigration hasn't exactly caused real problems in this country.

It certainly has. I'm all for immigration. It is and has been necessary, but, it comes with a price.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/

It cannot be turned into a social assistance program for other countries. It should never be a social engineering experiment that is conducted on Canadians. **

Immigrants are a heavy current and continuing cost to our country. They cost us far more than the contribute. The negative variance between the cost of an immigrant to our social care umbrella and the taxes paid into the system by immigrants is huge.

An aside on refugee claims from at times democratic countries..the USA and Hungary for $%#@&! sakes.

(Our cost of dealing with refugees in the past has been unrealistic, 5 years or more to decide on claims, IF you ever find them again.)

Still we must have suitable, employable, healthy and loyal types with no extreme baggage or violence in their history. We are becoming more selective, but there have been years of errors in our handling of immigrants.

And we must also be aware of the costs.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=143891

Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report

Postby styky » 05/ 17/ 11 8:17 am

Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report

Kathryn Blaze Carlson May 17, 2011 – 6:58 AM ET | Last Updated: May 17, 2011 8:20 AM ET

Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.

The Fraser Institute report (<a href=http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf>download the PDF here</a> or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.

“It’s in the interest of Canada to examine what causes this and to fix it,” said Herbert Grubel, co-author of the report Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State. “We need a better selection process … We’re not here, as a country, to do charity for the rest of the world.” <a href=http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/>keep reading..........</a>

[Smallc]

Two very fair minded links....