Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Not that this is AT ALL related, of course! That the Tories, for no particular reason, would proudly state they are increasing immigration levels next year to the highest 'in recent history' surely wouldn't be conneced to next year being an election! I mean, it's not like they're trying to suck up to ethnic groups right!?

So I ask eh, Tory guy, why do you feel the need to increase immigration levels to 'the highest in recent history' given you weren't even able to fill your quota for this year? (crickets chirping).

But don't worry, even more of them will be 'economic immigrants'! Which is good for Canada eh!? Except a long series of repors from the government itself has detailed the deteriorating economic performance of recent immigrants, notwithstanding the focus on 'economic immigrants'. In fact, some suggest that's only made things worse. These 'high caliber' immigrants come with credentials and skills and education and expect a high level job. Unfortunately most of them don't have the language skills to get a high level job. As demonstrated by the taxi driver who once complained to me he was a 'photoelectric engineer', whatever the hell that is. An immigrant bricklayer, on the other hand, doesn't need high level communications skills.

This announcement simply serves to reinforce the belief that the Tories, just like the Liberals before them, use the immigration system for electoral purposes not to help Canada in any way.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-open-the-door-wider-to-higher-calibre-immigrants/article21417126/

"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

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

This idea that the Conservative party needs to do this to reach out to immigrants approaches conspiracy theory in my mind. Why would the same party deny healthcare to refugees if these topics are so politically sensitive ?

The answer is that immigration provides lots of cheap labour to Canadian business, increasing productivity and growing the economy. That's all I can think of.

Posted

This announcement simply serves to reinforce the belief that the Tories, just like the Liberals before them, use the immigration system for electoral purposes not to help Canada in any way.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-open-the-door-wider-to-higher-calibre-immigrants/article21417126/

Gee, that redneck Harper - letting in all these immigrants! :lol: In 2010 we had 280,000 newcomers......and now we're shooting for 285,000. One difference between the Liberal policies and the current government is that Ottawa is at least trying to target immigrants that can more readily contribute.

Back to Basics

Posted

This idea that the Conservative party needs to do this to reach out to immigrants approaches conspiracy theory in my mind. Why would the same party deny healthcare to refugees if these topics are so politically sensitive ?

The answer is that immigration provides lots of cheap labour to Canadian business, increasing productivity and growing the economy. That's all I can think of.

If that were the case I would expect there to be studies which support such claims. I mean, we've been operating this system for many years and no one has EVER done any academic/economic study which supports the above. Certainly the government never has. Oh it'll make bland, reassuring statements but where's the evidence? On the contrary, the only studies I'm aware of say it does the reverse. It increases unemployment and costs the economy billions every year.

"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

Posted

If that were the case I would expect there to be studies which support such claims. I mean, we've been operating this system for many years and no one has EVER done any academic/economic study which supports the above. Certainly the government never has. Oh it'll make bland, reassuring statements but where's the evidence? On the contrary, the only studies I'm aware of say it does the reverse. It increases unemployment and costs the economy billions every year.

Then perhaps reduce the costs of having/raising a family to provide a small incentive to have one more child - and reduce the need for immigration over time?

Back to Basics

Posted

If that were the case I would expect there to be studies which support such claims. I mean, we've been operating this system for many years and no one has EVER done any academic/economic study which supports the above.

There have been, and I don't believe they're hard to find. I have posted one before, but here's another one:

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/immigration-boosts-economy-national-bank

Immigration is proving a strong source of population growth for Canada, and it's driving the formation of new households in particular, which provides an important boost to the economy, says a new report from National Bank Financial Inc. (NBF).

"At a time when the drivers of Canadian economic growth are losing steam and many observers are bearish on the country's housing market, we think it is important to highlight a reassuring factor in the economic backdrop," NBF says in its report.

More general overviews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf

I'm open-minded on this, and I have read studies that are more ... or less favourable. I do believe that these policies are driven by a desire to keep Canada's population growth up, and to serve business interests.

Posted

This idea that the Conservative party needs to do this to reach out to immigrants approaches conspiracy theory in my mind. Why would the same party deny healthcare to refugees if these topics are so politically sensitive ?

They are certainly increasing the numbers for the ethnic/minority vote. The cut to the refugee healthcare was done a couple of years ago. So well before the election. They can always count for a huge portion of the population having short term memories.

The type of advertising and marketing that the tories are doing in the Chinese and Sikh communities is quite impressive. Right here in B.C., they are focusing on ridings in Richmond, Surrey and North Vancouver, where the Liberals have regained support.

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted (edited)

That said, statistics show that Canada "needs" immigrants. With the baby boomers retiring and the major need for skilled workers, it's important for Canada to open its doors. I think the current attempt by the Conservatives to bring in selected immigrants is the right approach. There is a huge competition for skilled workers around the world. Engineers, nurses and those in the trades are being heavily courted in Australia, New Zealand, England and to some extent, the U.S. There is an international competition for these types of workers and Canada should not sit back.

Edited by marcus

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted

There have been, and I don't believe they're hard to find. I have posted one before, but here's another one:

http://www.investmentexecutive.com/-/immigration-boosts-economy-national-bank

This is not an academic study, it is a study done for and released by a commercial bank which, no surprise, says immigration is good for the banking industry. Sure it is. But is it good for me and you? We're not loaning out money for mortages, nor do we benefit by having wages supressed. There's no question immigration 'grows' he economy, but as I've said many times before, a larger economy doesn't necessarily mean the individuals in it are going to benefit. I note in the study it talks about how great it is that immgiration increases 'household formation' and in a chart I found in the study it shows Canada outstrips the US in this and has for fifty years. Nice. Except US economic performance has been better than Canada's almost that entire time, save for a few years during the most recent recession. So just how meaningful is this 'household formation'?

From the above cite: There is no agreed view on the net impact of immigration in current times

Mostly about an immigrant from the Phillipines who couldn't find substantive work and now earns money sending remittance money back home to the families of other Filpino immigrants. His long term goal is to open a hog farm - in the Phillipines! Aside from that, there's only the columnist's statements.

You didn't read this, I guess, or you probably wouldn't have used it as a cite. It's a survey of existing literature and concludes that immigrants use social welfare more, cause wages to be lowered, and that more recent immigrants are doing more poorly than their historical ancestors in part because of a change in source countries is bringing in less educated people with poorer language skills.

"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

Posted

That said, statistics show that Canada "needs" immigrants.

But what kind of immigrants and how many? Shouldn't the government be engaging in a detailed economic study before it decides on such things?

"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

Posted

This is not an academic study, it is a study done for and released by a commercial bank which, no surprise, says immigration is good for the banking industry.

Banks have enormous influence on the government.

We're not loaning out money for mortages, nor do we benefit by having wages supressed.

"We"... meaning ? "We" are employers and employees, and "we" have high wages in Canada.

There's no question immigration 'grows' he economy, but as I've said many times before, a larger economy doesn't necessarily mean the individuals in it are going to benefit.

Yes, true... but certainly many people do benefit and they have influence.

From the above cite: There is no agreed view on the net impact of immigration in current times

Yes, that's one of the views in the many cites I posted. It's seen as a benefit, but not by universal consensus.

You didn't read this, I guess, or you probably wouldn't have used it as a cite.

I read the conclusion, that gave a tepid support of immigration.

As I said, I'm open-minded as to the facts, however I do believe Harper is motivated by economics, as with everything else he does it seems. He's the least political PM I've seen in my lifetime.

Posted

But what kind of immigrants and how many? Shouldn't the government be engaging in a detailed economic study before it decides on such things?

The question isn't whether they have studied it - they probably have - but why they haven't shared their findings, their goals and so on.... They very well could have a view to reduce wages, as a way of attracting investment to some industries but even they would be politically limited in explaining that.

Posted

But what kind of immigrants and how many? Shouldn't the government be engaging in a detailed economic study before it decides on such things?

If health care and other benefits are largely unavailable to immigrants shouldn't the quality of the immigrants increase?

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

As I said, I'm open-minded as to the facts, however I do believe Harper is motivated by economics, as with everything else he does it seems. He's the least political PM I've seen in my lifetime.

Not sure how anyone could come to that conclusion. Harper has attempted to introduce more ideologically driven legislation than anyone I can remember. Law and order, surveillance, etc.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

Not sure how anyone could come to that conclusion. Harper has attempted to introduce more ideologically driven legislation than anyone I can remember. Law and order, surveillance, etc.

That's spin - the security establishment has pushed for these things everywhere, including with the Democratic administration in the US.

Harper has been pursuing major trade deals with China and Europe, that's where his interests lie.

Posted

That's spin - the security establishment has pushed for these things everywhere, including with the Democratic administration in the US.

Harper has been pursuing major trade deals with China and Europe, that's where his interests lie.

Its not spin at all. And trade deals are political as well. The Harper government has a reputation for exactly the opposite of what you claim.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger

Posted

But what kind of immigrants and how many? Shouldn't the government be engaging in a detailed economic study before it decides on such things?

Statistics Canada (I can get you the link once I'm on my computer) has shown the number of people going into retirement is going to jump and how we're not able to replace them.

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted

The Harper government has a reputation for exactly the opposite of what you claim.

But I posted reasons. Let me repeat them:

1) The security apparatus increases its reach, because that's what all organizations do. They're organic and they grow. The environment is perfect for the growth of surveillance, security, intelligence etc. It's not Harper, Obama is doing it just as much, except that they don't try to pin it on his ideology.

2) Those trade deals are huge, and mark the most significant policies the Conservatives will produce. Many of the other bills amount to tinkering, despite the huge response that they get. Even his environmental policies are based on economics. Maybe that's ideology too, but it's economics that he's interested in.

Posted

Statistics Canada (I can get you the link once I'm on my computer) has shown the number of people going into retirement is going to jump and how we're not able to replace them.

You can't make up for an age bulge with immigration. Numberous experts in demographics have already said so.

"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

Posted

Banks have enormous influence on the government.

Why should they have? They can't donate money any more.

"We"... meaning ? "We" are employers and employees, and "we" have high wages in Canada.

Meaning, we the people. I'm interested in what is good for the people, not for corporations. And having our wages supressd is not in our interests.

As I said, I'm open-minded as to the facts, however I do believe Harper is motivated by economics, as with everything else he does it seems. He's the least political PM I've seen in my lifetime.

You're kidding, right? That was just a statement to see if anyone was paying attention? You had a good laugh when you typed it in?

"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

Posted

Why should they have? They can't donate money any more.

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't.

Meaning, we the people. I'm interested in what is good for the people, not for corporations. And having our wages supressd is not in our interests.

Our wages are high on a global scale. If you can compete with lower wages, at least the work (and money) will stay onshore.

You're kidding, right? That was just a statement to see if anyone was paying attention? You had a good laugh when you typed it in?

I meant to communicate that he's the least "politician like". Go back a bit... who is less likely to kiss a baby than Harper ? He's got the charisma of a roll of scotch tape.

Posted

I for one am not shocked at all . As you stated it is about time to call an election so we should be prepared for many new fairy tales from lord Harper in the months to come. Remember it is not about facts or truth for them but rather votes.

The election date is fixed and know. A few weeks under a year from now.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

This idea that the Conservative party needs to do this to reach out to immigrants approaches conspiracy theory in my mind. Why would the same party deny healthcare to refugees if these topics are so politically sensitive ?

Conspiracy theory? No, it's pretty obvious it's being done for election purposes. Bringing in more immigrants means they please those voters and their families who vote, but bumping mostly "economic immigrants" means they can explain it better to their aging white conservative base

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted

The election date is fixed and know. A few weeks under a year from now.

No it isn't. A majority government can call a snap election at any time. Pending a GG rubber stamp, they could call one next week.

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,909
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    miawilliams3232
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • derek848 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Benz earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • stindles earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...