Who thinks Canada needs to be much more right wing?

[rightwingcanadian]

We as a country are WAY too liberal. We've become the "nice guys up north who say yes to everything", and it has let a lot of people take advantage of us. In Canada, say yes or Jane Thornthwaite will call you a racist!

Also, let's talk military spending. Why is it so low? Doesn't it bother anybody that Canada's military is too small to scare anyone?

We need to cut way back on our immigration levels. 250,000 a year. That's 684 per day. We cannot possibly need that many when there are over 3 million Canadians out of work. Immigration costs us enough money as it is. Yes, I understand Canada has a low birth rate. I understand that skilled jobs can go unfilled. So, why not make the cost of living more affordable? This would encourage Canadians to have more children, and if employers were more willing to train their staff, they could gain the skills they need to fill the jobs. On top of that, we've got teenagers across the country who can't even get a job at McDonald's because a non-Canadian got there first. If that's not sick, I don't know what is.

And speaking of our immigration numbers, why do refugees make up nearly 20% of it? It's patently ridiculous. You're bringing in somebody's grandma not to work, not to become Canadian, not to learn either of our official languages, and not to contribute to anything useful. If we're lucky, he/she will sit around the house all day watching TV and collect some welfare they never earned. Why is this allowed to happen? See the first part of my article. And this one, for that matter:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/refugee-claimants-still-collecting-welfare-even-being-deported-185558868.html

What do you think?

Edited August 31, 2013 by rightwingcanadian

[Guest]

Who's Jane Thornthwaite?

[rightwingcanadian]

Who's Jane Thornthwaite?

The drunk driving Liberal who unfortunately was re-elected as an MLA for North Vancouver. I shouldn't have dropped names, but just saying Liberal would have gotten too repetitive.

Edited August 31, 2013 by rightwingcanadian

[Guest]

The drunk driving Liberal ...

Hey, just like Gordon Campbell!

[Bonam]

The "right wing", just like the left, supports high immigration. Whether under Liberal or Conservative governments, immigration rates to Canada have continued to rise. The "wing" that would oppose rapid immigration in Canada does not exist.

[cybercoma]

Without even reading your post, judging by your user name, I'm guessing you.

[cybercoma]

We need to cut way back on our immigration levels. 250,000 a year. That's 684 per day. We cannot possibly need that many when there are over 3 million Canadians out of work.

You've incorrectly assumed that for every immigrant that comes to this country it's one less job for Canadians. It's not a zero-sum game, since every working immigrant that comes to this country is also a consumer and taxpayer. As the population grows, the GDP grows. That's introductory-level economics.

And speaking of our immigration numbers, why do refugees make up nearly 20% of it? It's patently ridiculous. You're bringing in somebody's grandma not to work, not to become Canadian, not to learn either of our official languages, and not to contribute to anything useful.

Your topic sentence has absolutely nothing to do with this paragraph. There are three primary categories of immigrants with subclass in each category: Economic Immigrants, Family Class, and Refugees. You open up your paragraph by complaining about refugees--whom we are required to accept as part of international treaties by the way--but go on to discuss Family Class immigrants as though they're the same thing.

What do you think?

I like your zeal. You seem like a passionate person that wants to make Canada a better place. Maybe our immigration system needs improvement, but it seems pretty clear that you have little understanding of how it works. It seems like you've decided in your mind that immigrants are bad and you're going to go around the internet complaining about it without ever taking the time to read immigration legislation, parliamentary debates about it, economic research about it and Statistics Canada reports on it. If you took the time to do that, then perhaps you could make a sound argument about exactly what's wrong with our immigration system and maybe even make suggestions to improve it. Right now, you just sound like a mindless adherent to partisan ideology. That never makes for good policy.

[cybercoma]

The "right wing", just like the left, supports high immigration. Whether under Liberal or Conservative governments, immigration rates to Canada have continued to rise. The "wing" that would oppose rapid immigration in Canada does not exist.

If you look at Canada's immigration rate, it has remained relatively the same since the end of WWII. We're letting more immigrants in by absolute numbers, but the number of immigrants we accept as a proportion of our population has remained largely unchanged.

[Shady]

This sounds a lot like a previous banned forum member.

[Keepitsimple]

So, why not make the cost of living more affordable? This would encourage..........

Your rambling seems to be based on this......how do you propose to make the cost of living more affordable?

[Wilber]

Your rambling seems to be based on this......how do you propose to make the cost of living more affordable?

Socialism?

[Argus]

That immigration has been holding steady for many years is no reason to continue it. As Herb Grubel stated in his recent report documenting a $20 billion per year cost of immigration:

“No explicit economic rationale exists in the economic literature or government documents to justify the current level of annual immigration. Nor are there explicit discussions of its cultural and social implications.”

Given the massive cost of this program, not to mention its role in shifting our cultural mosaic, it really is shocking that there is no rational, economic, social or otherwise, no government study, no economic study, no criteria which states what the program's goals are, or how to measure them.

Having worked in government for over a decade I can attest to the fact you can't impliment even the smallest new program without documentation justifying all of the above, with multiple support from various other departments, studies, stakeholder buy-ins, etc. Yet for a massive program like immigration we have not one damned thing.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

As to military spending. I fully agree it's too low, and that our military is too small. Military procurement is a mess, and we haven't had a white paper in forever. But for all their high sounding words, once the immediacy of the war had ended the Harper government quickly moved to cut the military, just like the Liberals had done before.

Then again, the Harper government isn't particular right wing.

But you haven't explained what 'right wing' is. Generally, it's associated with traditional conservatism, but there is also an element which could simply be described as 'reactionary' - and also stupid, imho (please see Republican party, United States).

Edited August 31, 2013 by Argus

[Topaz]

The of the reasons for let in so many people is they become very grateful to the government and will ended up voting for that party and so 250,000 yearly, by the time election comes Tories could have well over 2 mil new voters.

[Wilber]

The of the reasons for let in so many people is they become very grateful to the government and will ended up voting for that party and so 250,000 yearly, by the time election comes Tories could have well over 2 mil new voters.

You mean what the Liberals were accused of doing for decades?

[hitops]

You've incorrectly assumed that for every immigrant that comes to this country it's one less job for Canadians. It's not a zero-sum game, since every working immigrant that comes to this country is also a consumer and taxpayer. As the population grows, the GDP grows. That's introductory-level economics.

Maybe Introductory level is where you are stuck at. Every immigrant is a not working immigrant. Many do no generate wealth. And consuming accomplishes nothing if its simply done by use of public services or support with redistributed funds. In that case nothing is being gained, it's just shifting around the deck chairs. Population can grow and GDP can either shrink of grow. Humans do not produce economic gain just by breathing and residing within our borders. They actually have to produce something.

Some kind of immigrants are a positive for Canada, some are not.

[BC_chick]

Subsidize daycare/after-school care for more than just low-income families and that alone will increase birthrates. So many middle-class couples stop at one child because half their wages would be gone with two kids in daycare so it's either 1) you space them out five years apart and have to start all over again or 2) one parent leaves the workforce for 5+ years.

It's a wise investment to help middle-class educated families have more kids, but something tells me rightwinger against the idea of helping out anyone, yet alone middle-class families.

No right to complain about immigration then.

Edited September 1, 2013 by BC_chick

[G Huxley]

Too many humans. If anything higher birth-rates should be strongly discouraged.

Edited September 1, 2013 by G Huxley

[cybercoma]

Maybe Introductory level is where you are stuck at. Every immigrant is a not working immigrant. Many do no generate wealth. And consuming accomplishes nothing if its simply done by use of public services or support with redistributed funds. In that case nothing is being gained, it's just shifting around the deck chairs. Population can grow and GDP can either shrink of grow. Humans do not produce economic gain just by breathing and residing within our borders. They actually have to produce something.

Some kind of immigrants are a positive for Canada, some are not.

The majority of immigrants are granted citizenship under economic status. But taking what you've said, despite it not being true, the ones that don't "produce" anything are still part of the economy. Family members are sponsored by a working immigrant and their money goes towards the demand for goods and services, which encourages production and in turn creates jobs.

If you're so concerned about economic activities that don't "produce" anything then I would expect you to be more concerned with the billions of dollars lost in market manipulation and speculation. Those people are getting rich by moving "deck chairs" as you say. Yet, I've never seen any criticism from you about that non-productive area of the economy, about people getting rich without ever actually making anything or providing any kind of service to folks. Yet, you seem to criticize immigrants whose income is almost entirely disposable and goes into back into the economy. I wonder why.

[Argus]

You mean what the Liberals were accused of doing for decades?

Yes, they both do it. Canad'a immigration system is run largely for the benefit of the political parties and their election hopes, not for the benefit of Canada.

[Argus]

Subsidize daycare/after-school care for more than just low-income families and that alone will increase birthrates. So many middle-class couples stop at one child because half their wages would be gone with two kids in daycare so it's either 1) you space them out five years apart and have to start all over again or 2) one parent leaves the workforce for 5+ years.

It's a wise investment to help middle-class educated families have more kids, but something tells me rightwinger against the idea of helping out anyone, yet alone middle-class families.

No right to complain about immigration then.

The Europeans generally have much better day care and social services than we do, yet have even lower birth rates. The Americans have almost no support for daycare, yet have higher birthrates. So I don't think daycare is really the answer you seem to believe it is.

I'm all for helping others who need help. However, as a real conservative, I don't adopt new ideas without proof of their value. I don't spend other people's money willingly. I think the government should do only what the government needs to do.

An awful lot of people who say they can't afford more than one or two children really mean they can't afford more than one or two children as well as pay the big bills for large homes with central air, new cars, annual holidays, multiple cells phones and internet service, satellite radio for the car, etc. etc. etc. I don't believe we should be taking money from taxpayers in order to pay for bills these people should be paying themselves so they can have big houses, cars, and all that. People make a choice in life. If you choose to be childless so you can have a bigger house and all there's no reason other people should have to kick in money on your behalf.

Of course, they better be saving a lot of money, because when they're older and running into medical issues nobody is going to give a crap about them or help them who they don't pay.

[Argus]

The majority of immigrants are granted citizenship under economic status. But taking what you've said, despite it not being true, the ones that don't "produce" anything are still part of the economy. Family members are sponsored by a working immigrant and their money goes towards the demand for goods and services, which encourages production and in turn creates jobs.

With regard to an economy, you're either a contributor or a drain. We could bring in a million people to go on welfare and they'd still be creating demand for goods and services, but they'd be producing nothing, and be a huge drain on the economy.

All the studies have shown that immigrants are fairing much more poorly than in the past, paying fewer or no taxes, while consuming government services. These people are not an economic benefit to Canada.

[scribblet]

Well, didn't David Suzuki just tell us that we don't need more people, including immigrants, surely he can't be wrong.

Elderly parents tend to be a drain on our health system but if their sponsors take responsibility for their parents’ health (and financial )care then fine.

Canada has agreed to take in 1,500 Syrian refugees but Justin Trudeau tells us it's not enough. I have no idea what their skill sets or education would be, or if they would be able to improve themselves once here.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/not-doing-enough-for-refugees-trudeau-221899561.html

However, The Fraser Institute tells us that immigrants and refugees impose a fiscal burden on Canada. I think many of us have long believed that, especially when it comes to the family class immigrants.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/29/fraser-institute-report-says-immigrants-refugees-impose-fiscal-burden-on-canada-urges-reform/

Edited September 1, 2013 by scribblet

[BC_chick]

The Europeans generally have much better day care and social services than we do, yet have even lower birth rates. The Americans have almost no support for daycare, yet have higher birthrates. So I don't think daycare is really the answer you seem to believe it is.

I'm all for helping others who need help. However, as a real conservative, I don't adopt new ideas without proof of their value. I don't spend other people's money willingly. I think the government should do only what the government needs to do.

An awful lot of people who say they can't afford more than one or two children really mean they can't afford more than one or two children as well as pay the big bills for large homes with central air, new cars, annual holidays, multiple cells phones and internet service, satellite radio for the car, etc. etc. etc. I don't believe we should be taking money from taxpayers in order to pay for bills these people should be paying themselves so they can have big houses, cars, and all that. People make a choice in life. If you choose to be childless so you can have a bigger house and all there's no reason other people should have to kick in money on your behalf.

Of course, they better be saving a lot of money, because when they're older and running into medical issues nobody is going to give a crap about them or help them who they don't pay.

Europe's birthrates may be lower than the US, but they've been trending upward ever since they started subsidizing daycares. France is leading the way and other European countries have tried to study their model.

As for parents wanting to live in the lap of luxury while raising children, I'm going to take a guess here and say you don't have children. You lose subsidy at 45,000/year which does not provide a luxurious life by any stretch of the imagination. With daycare costs running between 900-1300/month that's 1/3 or 1/2 of middle-class earner's net pay.

Gone are the days when single-income families can live a modest life, both parents need to work and therefore having that second child is not viable when the entire second income is gone to daycare costs. It's either foregoing the second child, spacing them out five years and starting all over again, or one parent staying out of the workforce for 5+ years.

Still, for argument's sake, let's say parents just want to have a big house and all the luxuries in life as you say. We're here now. If someone is against immigration, they need come up with an alternative solution for replenishing our workforce and dealing with our aging population.

My point is that the same people who are against immigration (you and the OP) are the same people who are also against creating a system where we encourage middle-class families to have more kids.

You really can't have it both ways.

Edited September 1, 2013 by BC_chick

[westguy]

Topaz - imimi9gration is how the Libs stayed in power fo so long.