Conservative Finlay Low Wage Immigrant Workers.

[fellowtraveller]

this issue is slowly being looked at and resolved. for example, there are programs for foreign doctors in some of the provinces like saskatchewan, that fast track foreign doctors in giving them licenses.

I'm a big supporter of immigration, but I do not agree with 'fast tracking' any physicians. I would prefer it if they were at least as qualified as locally trained doctors and can prove it.

[Bonam]

How do you know that they haven't considered that ? Are we talking about generous baby bonus here ? Where do you think that will lead ?

It's weird to think that some conservatives would dig up a Trudeau-era entitlement program rather than have an immigrant darken their doorstep. Not that you're saying that, it's just weird to think about.

Immigration is not a viable long term solution. Within a few decades, it may well be that most of the nations that provide the source for most of our immigrants will themselves be places of rapid economic growth and growing prosperity, and people will want to remain there. Just as immigration from Europe, which fueled the initial population growth of Canada and the US, eventually dried up, so too will immigration from Asia, and eventually even from Africa as well.

And, if one is to consider things from a "humanitarian" perspective, think of the damage we are doing to developing and underdeveloped nations by stealing all their best and brightest. These nations struggle to develop education systems that can produce individuals qualified for educated/professional jobs to try to modernize their economies, and a high proportion of their investment leaves the country as soon as they can. If we weren't stealing all the doctors and engineers from developing nations, perhaps the people there wouldn't be so disease-ridden and unable to build themselves a clean water system? All the billions in aid that we send to help these nations perhaps provide less benefit than a slight reduction in immigration rates to western nations would.

Anyway, the last paragraph is a bit of a digression, but if there is a systemic problem that causes Canadians (and people in many other Western nations) to have such a low number of children that they would die out within a few generations, then that problem should be very seriously considered and addressed.

Now, a baby bonus isn't necessarily what I have in mind, though it is certainly one approach. What should be considered is the root causes of why aren't people having kids? I think it has to do with a lot more than money. Many middle class and upper middle class couples could easily afford to have children, or more children than they have, but choose not to. Why do they make that choice? I think it has a lot more to do with a loss of personal freedom and lifestyle associated with having children. This could be addressed by providing employers with incentives to provide on-site daycare, funding schools to have several multi-day or week-long events annually (such as camps, etc) which would allow parents to take some time off without their kids, etc. Just simple things like this, that would slightly increase the freedom of people once they choose to become parents.

I know a lot of married couples in their late 20s, all of which make 6 figures (combined) and not a single one of these couples has kids or plans to in the near future. And the loss of free time and lifestyle is the #1, if not the only, reason for all of them to not have kids. People want to be able to travel the globe, go on crazy ski vacations, scale mountains, skydive, etc, and once you have kids, if you're a responsible parent, you're gonna be doing a lot less, if any, of those kinds of activities for a long long time.

Another prevalent sentiment I have noticed among some of my peers is the sense of "doom and gloom" or of overpopulation. People say things like "why would I bring kids into such a messed up world" and "there's already too many people, I want to be part of the solution". This is of course total BS, but there's a substantial thread in our media and culture that encourages this type of thinking. Something should be done to combat and countereducate against this mindset, I'd say.

[dre]

Immigration is not a viable long term solution. Within a few decades, it may well be that most of the nations that provide the source for most of our immigrants will themselves be places of rapid economic growth and growing prosperity, and people will want to remain there. Just as immigration from Europe, which fueled the initial population growth of Canada and the US, eventually dried up, so too will immigration from Asia, and eventually even from Africa as well.

And, if one is to consider things from a "humanitarian" perspective, think of the damage we are doing to developing and underdeveloped nations by stealing all their best and brightest. These nations struggle to develop education systems that can produce individuals qualified for educated/professional jobs to try to modernize their economies, and a high proportion of their investment leaves the country as soon as they can. If we weren't stealing all the doctors and engineers from developing nations, perhaps the people there wouldn't be so disease-ridden and unable to build themselves a clean water system? All the billions in aid that we send to help these nations perhaps provide less benefit than a slight reduction in immigration rates to western nations would.

Anyway, the last paragraph is a bit of a digression, but if there is a systemic problem that causes Canadians (and people in many other Western nations) to have such a low number of children that they would die out within a few generations, then that problem should be very seriously considered and addressed.

Now, a baby bonus isn't necessarily what I have in mind, though it is certainly one approach. What should be considered is the root causes of why aren't people having kids? I think it has to do with a lot more than money. Many middle class and upper middle class couples could easily afford to have children, or more children than they have, but choose not to. Why do they make that choice? I think it has a lot more to do with a loss of personal freedom and lifestyle associated with having children. This could be addressed by providing employers with incentives to provide on-site daycare, funding schools to have several multi-day or week-long events annually (such as camps, etc) which would allow parents to take some time off without their kids, etc. Just simple things like this, that would slightly increase the freedom of people once they choose to become parents.

I know a lot of married couples in their late 20s, all of which make 6 figures (combined) and not a single one of these couples has kids or plans to in the near future. And the loss of free time and lifestyle is the #1, if not the only, reason for all of them to not have kids. People want to be able to travel the globe, go on crazy ski vacations, scale mountains, skydive, etc, and once you have kids, if you're a responsible parent, you're gonna be doing a lot less, if any, of those kinds of activities for a long long time.

Another prevalent sentiment I have noticed among some of my peers is the sense of "doom and gloom" or of overpopulation. People say things like "why would I bring kids into such a messed up world" and "there's already too many people, I want to be part of the solution". This is of course total BS, but there's a substantial thread in our media and culture that encourages this type of thinking. Something should be done to combat and countereducate against this mindset, I'd say.

I think it has to do with a lot more than money. Many middle class and upper middle class couples could easily afford to have children, or more children than they have, but choose not to. Why do they make that choice? I think it has a lot more to do with a loss of personal freedom and lifestyle associated with having children.

A big part is definately just because we are affluent, but theres a whole host of factors, and its beyond our ability to "fix".

[Argus]

Yes, there are start-ups and large companies that outsource. Actually, almost all of the companies outsource now.

So then your advice to young Canadians is to stay far away from anything related to IT?

I know that would be my advice.

[Argus]

Who is getting rich ? Lots of people.

Any of them allowed to vote in Canada?

[Argus]

so what?

They come pretrained at somebodys elses expense, pay their own way to get here, and contribute immediately and longterm to our economy, and are the opposite of a burden. Don't you wish you could say the same for Canadian born workers?

So what? Your big boorish intro here was to point out all the 'skilled workers' and when I reply they're not you say 'so what'? What a debater you are!

The opposite of a burden? Uhm, yeah. Except that those 'skilled workers' have a higher unemployment and poverty rate than Canadians, much higher than previous immigrants, and so it turns out it's ME that has to support them.

As the Fraser Institute study said, the low quality of immigrants we're bringing here costs us billions every year.

[Argus]

you're talking about 'skilled immigrants' and to back up your statement, you give stats on 'family class'

No, the families of 'skilled immigrants' come in under the skilled immigrant program, not the family program. That's why as the cite points out, only 17% of immigrants are ever assessed according to their qualifications.

an honest debate requires that you be honest in how you present your argument. we should also look at the source of stats and comments. 'centre for immigration policy reform', is an extension of the fraser institute, which puts agenda before the truth. information coming out of anywhere should be checked, especially special interest groups like CIPR.

And what is the 'special interest' of the CIPR, other than the obvious 'immigration reform'?

the biggest problem that many of these skilled workers have, when they enter canada, is not that they're not qualified in the skill or that they don't speak english well enough; the biggest problem are the regulatory bodies and the acceptance of their credentials

.

That's a minor issue. The biggest problem is they don't have the requisite skills that are needed here, or if they do they don't have the language abilities to be hired in that profession.

About six in 10 newcomers have less than the desired level of literacy, the study says, and the employment rate for those with poor literacy skills is almost 20 percentage points lower than for those with the desired level.

TD Literacy

those who have a fear of immigration need to take into consideration that canadians are not having enough children and with the baby boomers starting to retire and no one to take their positions and to start paying taxes, we need immigrants more than ever.

This, of course, is the same old nonsense repeated ad nauseum, always without any kind of evidence to back it up. As I've already pointed out, the average age of immigrants is not much different from the average age of Canadian born people. Further, someone who comes here and winds up in a low income job, with a family, is unlikely to be contributing much of anything to the tax rolls. Quite the contrary. He's drawing from them more than he's paying.

[Michael Hardner]

Immigration is not a viable long term solution. Within a few decades, it may well be that most of the nations that provide the source for most of our immigrants will themselves be places of rapid economic growth and growing prosperity, and people will want to remain there. Just as immigration from Europe, which fueled the initial population growth of Canada and the US, eventually dried up, so too will immigration from Asia, and eventually even from Africa as well.

It has been the model in North America for some 300-400 years, though. It sounds like we will be competing for people soon. Great to hear.

And, if one is to consider things from a "humanitarian" perspective, think of the damage we are doing to developing and underdeveloped nations by stealing all their best and brightest.

As you point out, that's a transitional situation.

Anyway, the last paragraph is a bit of a digression, but if there is a systemic problem that causes Canadians (and people in many other Western nations) to have such a low number of children that they would die out within a few generations, then that problem should be very seriously considered and addressed.

It's a global problem.

Now, a baby bonus isn't necessarily what I have in mind, though it is certainly one approach. What should be considered is the root causes of why aren't people having kids? I think it has to do with a lot more than money. Many middle class and upper middle class couples could easily afford to have children, or more children than they have, but choose not to. Why do they make that choice? I think it has a lot more to do with a loss of personal freedom and lifestyle associated with having children. This could be addressed by providing employers with incentives to provide on-site daycare, funding schools to have several multi-day or week-long events annually (such as camps, etc) which would allow parents to take some time off without their kids, etc. Just simple things like this, that would slightly increase the freedom of people once they choose to become parents.

Still, all of these are government social programs and my point stands about the strangeness ...

Another prevalent sentiment I have noticed among some of my peers is the sense of "doom and gloom" or of overpopulation. People say things like "why would I bring kids into such a messed up world" and "there's already too many people, I want to be part of the solution". This is of course total BS, but there's a substantial thread in our media and culture that encourages this type of thinking. Something should be done to combat and countereducate against this mindset, I'd say.

You're combating it now.

[dre]

It has been the model in North America for some 300-400 years, though. It sounds like we will be competing for people soon. Great to hear.

As you point out, that's a transitional situation.

It's a global problem.

Still, all of these are government social programs and my point stands about the strangeness ...

You're combating it now.

Again the problem is theres too many factors involved and most of them are not things the government can fix.

The causes are our low fertility rates are not just things that you can roll back by writing some law...

1. Secularism.

2. Change in the role of women in society.

3. Technology

4. Affluence

5. Endemic short term thinking.

So it lets in immigrants to get the population growth we need, and its not going to stop no matter how much people whine.

[madmax]

No, the families of 'skilled immigrants' come in under the skilled immigrant program, not the family program. That's why as the cite points out, only 17% of immigrants are ever assessed according to their qualifications.

And what is the 'special interest' of the CIPR, other than the obvious 'immigration reform'?

.

That's a minor issue. The biggest problem is they don't have the requisite skills that are needed here, or if they do they don't have the language abilities to be hired in that profession.

About six in 10 newcomers have less than the desired level of literacy, the study says, and the employment rate for those with poor literacy skills is almost 20 percentage points lower than for those with the desired level.

TD Literacy

This, of course, is the same old nonsense repeated ad nauseum, always without any kind of evidence to back it up. As I've already pointed out, the average age of immigrants is not much different from the average age of Canadian born people. Further, someone who comes here and winds up in a low income job, with a family, is unlikely to be contributing much of anything to the tax rolls. Quite the contrary. He's drawing from them more than he's paying.

thank u,

Sometimes experience in government matters....

[bud]

It's a funny logic that sees a problem like:

"Canadians are not having enough children"

and sees the solution as:

"we need immigrants"

rather than figuring out why Canadians aren't having enough children and modifying the social and economic factors that cause this sub-replacement birth rate. The solution to "not enough children" is "more children", not "more immigrants".

perhaps you can start a government task force to go and start making people reproduce.

not sure how solving the problem of not having enough people by adding more people does not make sense to you.

[bud]

No, the families of 'skilled immigrants' come in under the skilled immigrant program, not the family program. That's why as the cite points out, only 17% of immigrants are ever assessed according to their qualifications.

And what is the 'special interest' of the CIPR, other than the obvious 'immigration reform'?

.

That's a minor issue. The biggest problem is they don't have the requisite skills that are needed here, or if they do they don't have the language abilities to be hired in that profession.

About six in 10 newcomers have less than the desired level of literacy, the study says, and the employment rate for those with poor literacy skills is almost 20 percentage points lower than for those with the desired level.

TD Literacy

This, of course, is the same old nonsense repeated ad nauseum, always without any kind of evidence to back it up. As I've already pointed out, the average age of immigrants is not much different from the average age of Canadian born people. Further, someone who comes here and winds up in a low income job, with a family, is unlikely to be contributing much of anything to the tax rolls. Quite the contrary. He's drawing from them more than he's paying.

the rules are always changing in immigration to try to address the problems we have. here are some examples:

1) an accepted occupation list for the federal skilled worker program. these are skills and occupations that canada needs.

2) less points for those who are above the age of 35

3) they've actually frozen the parents/grandparents sponsorship program and now have a visa program (called super visa) where the parents/grandparents are able to come to canada after private health insurance is bought for them. the program is still young and has its problems, but it is a start.

4) most of the jobs that need to be filled in canada are low-skilled and low income jobs and this is the reason provinces (under the provincial nominee program) have created their own programs to address their own needs.

at the end of it all, we need more people to come to canada. we need our population to go up. the success of first generation canadians is something we should look at. overall, children of new immigrants do quite well in test scores and in adopting the cultures and customs of canada.

there is very little time left for canada as the baby boomers are starting to retire. with the increasing number of retirees with higher than ever life expectancy, while birthrates are going down, we need to be pro-active.

[dre]

Another prevalent sentiment I have noticed among some of my peers is the sense of "doom and gloom" or of overpopulation. People say things like "why would I bring kids into such a messed up world" and "there's already too many people, I want to be part of the solution". This is of course total BS, but there's a substantial thread in our media and culture that encourages this type of thinking. Something should be done to combat and countereducate against this mindset, I'd say.

Its worse than you think.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/03/what-does-it-mean-when-one-in-seven-people-think-the-end-of-the-world-is-coming/?hpt=hp_t3

Im not sure if doom and gloom makes people less likely to have kids. According to that 22% of people in the US and Turkey believe the apolocalypse is almost apon us! And 15% of the worlds population believes that.