WWWTT Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 Absolutely no question about it. When the population is growing we are building. We are constructing new homes, new subdivisions, new roads, and new capacity to produce the things they will need and consume. Anyone that believes are standard of life would be as high if we stopped immigration and allowed our population to start to decline is absolutely kidding themselves. Not only are immigrants more highly educated than your average natural born Canadian, second generation immigrants are our most productive citizens. More likely to be successful, more likely to own a home, etc. Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers. This country would simply spiral down the drain without immigration. I would further add that many Canadians are jealous too! And that this is the true source of the problem here! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
Canuckistani Posted June 10, 2012 Report Posted June 10, 2012 I would further add that many Canadians are jealous too! And that this is the true source of the problem here! WWWTT Jealous of what? Quote
dre Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 Dre said "Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers" Well, since you dislike Canadians so much and like foreigners better why don't you move. I didnt say I dislike them. Im indifferent to Canadians as a group... I DO like my immediately circle of friends and the natural geography of the area where I live. But the government can stick their little flag up their ass. I wouldnt be a nationalist no matter which country I lived in. I wont move any time soon, but at some point Id like to live somewhere I can golf all year. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 We are doing that anyway, as everything we build has to be replaced and renovated and repaired. Besides, the bulk of our economy is based on resource extraction. If we had far fewer people, the profits and taxes on the extraction and exports of those resources would go much further than they presently do Of course. That's why every public housing project is jam-packed with immigrants, and why immigrants drive our taxes, scrub our toilets and do all the other menial work. Because they're so productive and highly educated.... Your opinion is not based on factual evidence, and there has never BEEN any neutral economic studies (I was going to say ANY period, but perhaps some business group has done some sort of study to justify it belong allowed to bring in lots of immigrant workers) to support your contention that mass immigration benefits us in any way, shape or form. Nor has the federal government, liberal or conservative, ever launched any such study to determine how many immigrants we ought to have. That is because the economic benefits, even supposing there are any, have nothing to do with our immigration policy. Immigration policy is strictly designed as a political instrument to get votes from various ethnic groups. There has been studies and I cited to them last time you trotted out all this xenophobic pap. That is because the economic benefits, even supposing there are any, have nothing to do with our immigration policy. Immigration policy is strictly designed as a political instrument to get votes from various ethnic groups. No thats just pure horseshit as evidenced by the fact that political parties of all stripes have kept up the same policies. They do this simply because their economic advisors tell them it would be an economic disaster to shut down the turnstyles. We are doing that anyway, as everything we build has to be replaced and renovated and repaired. Maintenance is a drop in the bucket compared to the economic activity created by providing for a growing population. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Peeves Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 Absolutely no question about it. Canadians are basically a bunch of entitled slackers. This country would simply spiral down the drain without immigration. Above truncated for brevity. That is a most egregious charge. Most (generations) of Canadians have been very hard and honest workers. Unfortunately the 'boomers' got pretty easy life of prosperity and 'things' formerly unavailable. Free medical care, maternity leave, E.I. which often was 'Extra Income' till they again felt like working. 40 hour work week, double overtime, child care, then the perks early Canadians never had. Cell phones, T.V., Cable, Movie rentals,2 or more big gas guzzlers and drug habits. There was a generation of entitlement created. Of course there was no longer the lifetime employer, but there were good benefit packages in the private sector, and especially in the Public or civil sector where jobs plus benefits now approach $ 40/ hr.compared to $28 in private industry. Where a Canadian after the war years was happy to be able to have a phone,a car, and be paying a mortgage on a 'starter' home, the boomers and their kids want double the size to start, 2 cars and all the trimmings. Now, I don't blame them a bit. Having lived the life of clawing an existence, a 48+ hour week PLUS a part time job to make ends meet, I realize that in their circumstance (we worked so things would be better after all for our kids), I would also take la dolce vita. But having said all that, I believe Canadians work ethic is still superior to most. Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland etc. all want more perks, entitlements at whatever the cost. So too unfortunately has been our civil-Public service sector, and, the chickens have come home to roost. Quote
carepov Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 A reasonable number is the number we have today 250,000 immigrants per year. Immigration, when managed properly, is a net benefit to the economy. My opinion is that we should gradually increase immigration through programs that would encourage immigration to sparsely populated areas with low unemployment rates, for example Manitoba's Provincial Nominee Program for Skilled Workers. Quote
Argus Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) There has been studies and I cited to them last time you trotted out all this xenophobic pap. I'm sure they were full of bullshit as most of what you choose to call 'cites', probably written by your uncle Larry or something. No thats just pure horseshit as evidenced by the fact that political parties of all stripes have kept up the same policies. Really? You mean all politicians act alike in pursuing blocks of voters? Maybe you should call up the media with that one, Sherlock. I'm sure you're the first to have ever clicked to that gem of a fact. But as to suggesting that since they all act that way it can't possibly be done out of self-interest - how old are you again? Edited June 11, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 A reasonable number is the number we have today 250,000 immigrants per year. Immigration, when managed properly, is a net benefit to the economy. What makes you think our immigration system is being managed properly? What economic evidence or studies can you show which support your contention that it is a net benefit to the economy? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Canuckistani Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) What makes you think our immigration system is being managed properly? What economic evidence or studies can you show which support your contention that it is a net benefit to the economy? GDP/capita has gone up a negligible amount from immigration. But a natural disaster also increases GDP/capita, nobody is recommending those as a way to prosperity. Immigration is of far greater benefit for the immigrant than Canada. But set that off against all the strains on our infrastructure caused by immigration. The wage depression. And that immigrants since the 1980's have been doing very poorly compared to native born Canadians - this means they draw disproportionately on govt services while paying less taxes for them. In effect we're importing poor people. Edited June 11, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
dre Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 I'm sure they were full of bullshit as most of what you choose to call 'cites', probably written by your uncle Larry or something. Really? You mean all politicians act alike in pursuing blocks of voters? Maybe you should call up the media with that one, Sherlock. I'm sure you're the first to have ever clicked to that gem of a fact. But as to suggesting that since they all act that way it can't possibly be done out of self-interest - how old are you again? Wow, now youre really just reduced to incomprehensible babble. Immigrants traditionally vote heavily liberal, yet conservatives governments have kept the exact same immigration policies in place. The reality the impotus behind our immigration policy is, and always has been economics. Canadian businesses would actually like to INCREASE immigration, and both the Liberals and Conservatives are essential business governments with different social platforms. Heres a few of the reasons why immigration will continue and probably increase... 1. Demographics - aging population, low birth rate and shrinking work force. 2. “Baby Boomers” will need social, medical, and old age assistance – there is a need to be able to finance the numerous social programmes. 3. The country's rapidly ageing population, coupled with a dearth of young workers, will cause a major shortage of potential employees and could mean immigrants will account for almost all of the labour force growth within a decade, Statistics Canada suggests. 4. Census data for 2002, predicts potential worker shortfalls in a vast range of occupations by 2011, from family doctors to bricklayers. 5. By 2021, Canada will have only two working Canadians for each retiree, compared with a current 6-to-1 ratio. 6. Changing world economic trends require Canada to have a dynamic and competitive society We have a shortage of young workers in this country, and a huge glut of old workers nearing retirement. The government is on the hook to provide all kinds of services for these people once they stop working, and they know they wont be able to do it if we dont have a whole bunch of new participants in what is essentially a ponzi scheme. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
carepov Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 What makes you think our immigration system is being managed properly? What economic evidence or studies can you show which support your contention that it is a net benefit to the economy? First of all, I never said that it is being managed properly. However I think that we can assume that the immigration system is doing OK - but I am sure that we could being doing a better job. a) Canada's immigration levels have been stable for many years (> 220,000 since 2000) despite changing governments. To me this means that the current numbers are reasonable. The goal of the Government of Canada is to work in the best interest of Canadians, if immigration were bad for the economy it would be an easy and populist fix to cut immigration. I personally do not have evidence or studies to support my claim that immigration is a benefit to the Canadian economy, however, there is no doubt that Canada takes in much more immigrants than any OPEC countries and our economy has kicked everyone's ass. Therefore wouldn't the burden of proof be on your side? Quote
carepov Posted June 11, 2012 Report Posted June 11, 2012 GDP/capita has gone up a negligible amount from immigration. But a natural disaster also increases GDP/capita, nobody is recommending those as a way to prosperity. Immigration is of far greater benefit for the immigrant than Canada. But set that off against all the strains on our infrastructure caused by immigration. The wage depression. And that immigrants since the 1980's have been doing very poorly compared to native born Canadians - this means they draw disproportionately on govt services while paying less taxes for them. In effect we're importing poor people. I think that you are dead wrong. The only poor people that Canada would allow are refugees, perhaps you are mixing refugees with immigrants. Many immigrants bring lots of money into Canada, invest and create jobs. I would argue that over the average lifetime of the average immigrant they will pay more in taxes than what they draw in services - can anyone provide a link that studied this question? Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 I think that you are dead wrong. The only poor people that Canada would allow are refugees, perhaps you are mixing refugees with immigrants. Many immigrants bring lots of money into Canada, invest and create jobs. I would argue that over the average lifetime of the average immigrant they will pay more in taxes than what they draw in services - can anyone provide a link that studied this question? http://global-economics.ca/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf A January 2007 study by Statistics Canada analyzed the drop in income of economic immigrants from several perspectives.[1] Economic immigrants are now more likely to begin their stay in Canada with a "low-income" (less than 50% of the median income) than an immigrant in any of the other immigration classes (see Table 16 in the study). This drop occurred during the 1990s and early 2000s despite the percentage of immigrants arriving with degrees in the economic class (including principal applicants, spouses, and dependents) rising from 29% in 1992 to 56% in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#Decline_in_economic_well_beingThe study finds that low-income rates among “recent” immigrants (in Canada for less than fiveyears) almost doubled between 1980 and 1995, and then fell during the strong recovery of the late 1990s. However, when focusing on outcomes at business cycle peaks (1980, 1990 and 2000) to establish comparable long-term trends, low-income rates rose continuously for each successive cohort of immigrants. Furthermore, the gap at entry in their low-income rate relative to the Canadian-born also rose over the 1980-2000 period. The changing composition of “recent” immigrants with respect to language, source country, family type and age accounted for, at most, half of the rise in the low-income rate among this group, and likely substantially less than that. Most of the increase was a result of the widespread rise in low-income among recent immigrants in all age groups, family types, language groups, education groups, and most of the more significant (numerically) source regions, notably Africa and the Asian source regions. The peak to peak rise in the low-income rate between 1980 and 2000 was not restricted to recent immigrants, and was observed (to a lesser extent) among immigrants who had been in Canada for up to 20 years. http://canadianstudiesprogramme.artsandsocialsciences.dal.ca/Files/immlow-income.pdf Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 OTTAWA — The decision of successive Canadian governments since the early 1990s to maintain high immigration flows during tough economic times has contributed to the poor performance of newcomers over the past 30 years, according to a study released Wednesday."During recessions economic outcomes deteriorate more among recent immigrants than among the Canadian-born," wrote Arthur Sweetman and Garnett Picot in a paper published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Montreal-based think-tank. Reducing immigration during recessions probably would improve the overall performance of immigrants and reduce the damage caused when newcomers to the labour market can't find work for lengthy periods of time and become disengaged from the labour force, they argue. Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/immigration+rates+during+recessions+think+tank/6412185/story.html#ixzz1xYEX893J Quote
carepov Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Hi Cannuckistani, Thank you for the links. The Frasier Institute study does strongly support your position; I am swayed but not convinced. This link is a brief refutation of the study's main point: http://www.burnabynow.com/Burnaby+economists+dispute+Fraser+Institute+immigration+cost+numbers/5162945/story.html My main issue is with the importance given to income levels of recent immigrants. Of course upon arrival, they make less money than the average Canadian over time they catch up (> 20 years). Immigration is an invenstment for the long term. I do not think it is right to assume that over time immigrants draw the same benefits as the average Canadian especially when sponsored parents and grandparents ere exempt from many benefits for 10 years. We can both agree that there is room for improvement - ensure that the immigrants that arrive have the best chance of earning high incomes and the least chance of drawing excessive benefits. I would start with the system and numbers we have now. What would you propose? Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Hi Cannuckistani, Thank you for the links. The Frasier Institute study does strongly support your position; I am swayed but not convinced. This link is a brief refutation of the study's main point: http://www.burnabynow.com/Burnaby+economists+dispute+Fraser+Institute+immigration+cost+numbers/5162945/story.html My main issue is with the importance given to income levels of recent immigrants. Of course upon arrival, they make less money than the average Canadian over time they catch up (> 20 years). Immigration is an invenstment for the long term. I do not think it is right to assume that over time immigrants draw the same benefits as the average Canadian especially when sponsored parents and grandparents ere exempt from many benefits for 10 years. We can both agree that there is room for improvement - ensure that the immigrants that arrive have the best chance of earning high incomes and the least chance of drawing excessive benefits. I would start with the system and numbers we have now. What would you propose? Actually, as a group, immigrants are having trouble catching up, as those studies demonstrate. If you spend a long time in the doldrums you will never catch up. The same is true for Canadian born people,just that they face less barriers to put then in the doldrums in the first place. I don't think we do a very good job of matching immigrants to actual jobs. Family sponsored immigrants is a whole other problem. They become eligible for Medicare after 6 months, and since they are older they will disproportionately make use of it. Medicare is a huge expense. My proposal is that during times of high unemployment we don't need to bring in nearly the numbers of immigrants we have now. But numbers aside, my first concern is providing the proper training for Canadians so that we're not always looking outside of the country to fill specific jobs, while Canadians are un or underemployed. Canadians should come first. Then, if there are jobs we just can't fill because the demand is greater than the people we have available, bring in immigrants matched to a specific job. (The CPC has already started moving in that direction). Cut the family reunification class way back - we don't need to be importing old people. I would allow a generous number of refugees to come to Canada, but ones that are sponsored by the UN, not the ones that come here illegally. My guess is that if we truly put Canadians first, we would not be bringing in nearly the number of people we do now. The one exception is if somebody could figure out how to settle immigrants in the north to build it up economically. But that would take huge govt subsidies, and probably result in something similar to remote native reserves - ie places just dependent on welfare. Quote
carepov Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Hi Canuckistani, Thanks for sharing your point of view. Immigration is a big part of what made Canada what it is today. I would be very careful in making any changes to the system. I am sure we will meet up on a different topic. Quote
guyser Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 especially when sponsored parents and grandparents ere exempt from many benefits for 10 years. Could you please expand and provide a link? Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Hi Canuckistani, Thanks for sharing your point of view. Immigration is a big part of what made Canada what it is today. I would be very careful in making any changes to the system. I am sure we will meet up on a different topic. Yes, and what made Canada what it is today is that before Mulroney we opened and closed our doors according to the needs of Canada - ie we based immigration on our needs. Also, at one time we were an agricultural society with lots of land that needed to be opened for farming. The immigrants opened the country they didn't all just sit back east in what was already developed. Those days are gone. Quote
carepov Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Could you please expand and provide a link? Here is where I originally read it: http://www.darpanmagazine.com/2011/05/refuting-immigrant-report-by-the-fraser-institute/ Actually the immigration door is shut now to parents and grandparents, but the new 10 year super-visa is open. I am assuming that there are no taxpayer benefits paid to visitors: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/index.asp To this seems to be a good move by the government. Quote
carepov Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Yes, and what made Canada what it is today is that before Mulroney we opened and closed our doors according to the needs of Canada - ie we based immigration on our needs. Also, at one time we were an agricultural society with lots of land that needed to be opened for farming. The immigrants opened the country they didn't all just sit back east in what was already developed. Those days are gone. "opened and closed our doors according to the needs of Canada" is easier said than done. We need to open/close the door today to meet the needs of Canada 5,10, 20+ years from now. Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 "opened and closed our doors according to the needs of Canada" is easier said than done. We need to open/close the door today to meet the needs of Canada 5,10, 20+ years from now. Somehow we managed to do it successfully before Mulroney. We can do so again. The way to meet our needs is to look to Canadians first to do so - give them the chance to fill our needs. If we have specific shortages, they could be addressed with temp work permits, and we could then allow those temp workers to apply for expedited pr status after they've been in Canada a while and shown they can succeed. If we don't need workers, we shut down that temp permit process until we do again. Bada bing. Quote
carepov Posted June 12, 2012 Report Posted June 12, 2012 Somehow we managed to do it successfully before Mulroney. We can do so again. The way to meet our needs is to look to Canadians first to do so - give them the chance to fill our needs. If we have specific shortages, they could be addressed with temp work permits, and we could then allow those temp workers to apply for expedited pr status after they've been in Canada a while and shown they can succeed. If we don't need workers, we shut down that temp permit process until we do again. Bada bing. Your proposal does have some merit; however we may be closing the door to some highly skilled immigrants: professionals, entrepreneurs... By the way, are you saying that Canada circa 1984 was a better compared to Canada 2012? Quote
Canuckistani Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Your proposal does have some merit; however we may be closing the door to some highly skilled immigrants: professionals, entrepreneurs... By the way, are you saying that Canada circa 1984 was a better compared to Canada 2012? Define better? Vancouver IMO was certainly better, as in less crowded, a more pleasant place to live. The gang problem was much less - in fact right about then it seems to me we had some of the Vietnamese refugees start using automatic weapons to settle disputes - we'd never heard of that before. Air India was in 1985, and the Sikh temple disputes were in full swing. First attempt on Tara Singh Hayer was in 1988, Ujal Dosanjh was attacked in 1985. Houses were affordable. Roads weren't as congested. Unions were stronger and so was the middle class. So it certainly seemed better to me. How much of that is related to immigration is another matter, but some of it certainly is. In migration has transformed Vancouver, not in a positive way IMO. We wouldn't be closing the door to highly trained professionals, we'd only be opening the door to them if we really couldn't create enough highly trained professionals of our own. Which we are not trying nearly hard enough to do. Entrepeneurs come in on a totally different program - we need to tighten that up too because there are so many scams being run there. And Shafirs were let in on a business class permit - no vetting for how well they would fit in here. Edited June 13, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Houses were affordable. Roads weren't as congested. Unions were stronger and so was the middle class. So it certainly seemed better to me. How much of that is related to immigration is another matter, but some of it certainly is. It's not clear to me how any of these specific points are related to immigration policies. In fact, I would suggest to you that most of the people who despise unions are the same people who oppose increased immigration (yourself excluded, yes), through some fluke of ideological positioning. The other points don't seem to obviously correlate, either. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.