Tories to increase immigration levels for election year

[-TSS-]

There are two things which stop any Canadian politicians gaining points from being anti-immigration;

Firstly, the obvious, Canada itself is a country based and founded on immigration. Therefore anyone in Canada would seem a bit hypocritical to say the least to be fervently anti-immigration.

Secondly, Canada has a points-based system for immigration, which ensures that the smartest people get in and the dross are left out. Most Canadian-born people wouldn't pass the points-based system for immigration.

[Hal 9000]

Interesting comments - do you have any source to back that up?

Trying to have her prove that is meaningless. Whether the number is 80% or 50% matters not, as we all know that it's a women's program - men need not bother. As far as on and off in 3 years goes, that's simply not true unless she marries or gets put onto disability welfare.

Full time day care for 1 child is nearly - sometimes more than welfare benefits. It can never be a "solid earner". The best you can hope for is like OGfT suggested - self worth.

As much as there are problems with raising minimum wage, that would be way more palatable then free daycare - and that might actually help welfare moms. If Jacee or OGfT want to answer my questions, I'll explain the number of ways that the system will be scammed.

[Argus]

There are two things which stop any Canadian politicians gaining points from being anti-immigration;

Stupidity and ignorance?

Firstly, the obvious, Canada itself is a country based and founded on immigration. Therefore anyone in Canada would seem a bit hypocritical to say the least to be fervently anti-immigration.

Oh God, this is soooo cliche'd! Every country on this PLANET was founded on immigration, save a few in central Africa! The human species has been spreading out and crossing borders since we learned how to walk.

And every organized society in history has needed to control who and how many people crossed the borders they established as theirs.

Secondly, Canada has a points-based system for immigration, which ensures that the smartest people get in and the dross are left out. Most Canadian-born people wouldn't pass the points-based system for immigration.

I'm guessing you've read approximately nothing on this topic, right? I mean, there's twelve pages of stuff, much of it contradicting that sort of feel-good nonsense.

[Argus]

You're assuming that the average single welfare mother has 1 kid.

Not at all. I'm assuming they don't have ten, though, that's true. The vast majority will have one, and occasionally two. That still makes it far more efficient to centralize their care.

You're assuming that 8 out of 10 welfare mothers will seek and acquire full time employment (of about 2-300$ more than welfare rates).

Not at all. We're freeing up EIGHT people to work, vs paying TWO. Nor is the care for daycare workers particularly high in most places, though I'll grant you the Ontario Liberals have stated they want to increase their pay rates to the extent no one can afford day care any more. Few governments in our history have been as incompetent and stupid as the Ontario Liberals, though.

You're not accounting for the fact that this system will be utilized by already working people - therefore not injecting any money back.

Those working people are paying for daycare now. This is really kind of like a public health care argument. You can pay privately, through large insurance costs, or publicly through taxes. But it doesn't make a lot of difference to a society which way you pay. The money still has to be paid by the members of that society.

You're not factoring that if/when some of these people work, they'll take work away from someone else

Well, but some of them are on welfare now, and can go off welfare, saving the government that. Besides, more people working and earning money and paying taxes means a larger economy and more jobs. Hey, we can even lower immigration!

As for how to organize it, we do so the way we do any other government program, including limits to availability based on whatever criteria, including income, we deem most sensible.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't know what sort of reaction society would have towards this sort of small scale communal living arrangement if it started becoming popular. I suspect it would take governments decades to get their heads around the concept never mind trying to accommodate it some how but they'd probably manage to cock it all up, especially the conservative one's.

I suspect the conservative ones would find nothing wrong with it. The Liberal ones, on the other hand, would insist that each of the caregivers get investigated by police first, and get a clean bill of health, along with anyone else living in that home. They'd need inspectors to look into their houses to see if they were safe to be used for daycare. Of course, there would have to be training requirements, including first aid, and sufficient first aid equipment on hand. There'd be licensing, naturally, and the type of food given out would have to be approved. Oh, I'm sure there'd be scads of regulations in order to be approved!

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/orientation-package-en.pdf

[-TSS-]

Stupidity and ignorance?

Oh God, this is soooo cliche'd! Every country on this PLANET was founded on immigration, save a few in central Africa! The human species has been spreading out and crossing borders since we learned how to walk.

And every organized society in history has needed to control who and how many people crossed the borders they established as theirs.

I'm guessing you've read approximately nothing on this topic, right? I mean, there's twelve pages of stuff, much of it contradicting that sort of feel-good nonsense.

Cliche? Perhaps so. Unfortunately the indigenous people on the American continent didn't have sufficient force to fend off intruders and look what happened to them and their continent.

The same thing is happening to Europe today with the notable difference that there would certainly be enough force to turn the tide but there is no political will to do so.

The big question is: Who is behind all this and gives orders that Europe must be inundated with Africans?

[Hal 9000]

Argus, I understand the line of thinking you're using, and it could very well help people - anything free will. My issue is that it's a system that's ripe for abuse and can never be self-sustainable. You simply cannot pay $800-1000 per month per child and expect that the mother will earn enough (or save us enough) to counter set that cost.

I would be more in favour of just raising welfare rates and for those low income people who have kids and are working; raise minimum wage a dollar or so, give them a supplement of 1 dollar per hour per child that they have, and lower their tax rate. Low income working people paying a lower rate will be more cost effective than taxing middle class higher rates and it will also give them more money.

[jacee]

Trying to have her prove that is meaningless. Whether the number is 80% or 50% matters not, as we all know that it's a women's program - men need not bother. As far as on and off in 3 years goes, that's simply not true unless she marries or gets put onto disability welfare.

Either may be true and also education/training and employment. That's where child care backups cost unnecessarily.

Full time day care for 1 child is nearly - sometimes more than welfare benefits. It can never be a "solid earner". The best you can hope for is like OGfT suggested - self worth.

You mean working, paying taxes, buying, contributing.

Unh yes.

As much as there are problems with raising minimum wage, that would be way more palatable then free daycare - and that might actually help welfare moms. If Jacee or OGfT want to answer my questions, I'll explain the number of ways that the system will be scammed.

I do mean universal child care.

Stay-at-home parents seldom do: They're doing errands and appts with children, and could also use public child care services when needed.

Eg, In the NZ model everybody gets 4 free half days.

Raising minimum wage would be good - a living wage.

And free child care as needed for parents learning and earning.

.

Edited November 16, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Cliche? Perhaps so. Unfortunately the indigenous people on the American continent didn't have sufficient force to fend off intruders and look what happened to them and their continent.

The same thing is happening to Europe today with the notable difference that there would certainly be enough force to turn the tide but there is no political will to do so.

The big question is: Who is behind all this and gives orders that Europe must be inundated with Africans?

Corporate resource extraction destroying livelihoods, environments, displacing peoples, creating subjugation and wars ...

.

[Hal 9000]

Either may be true and also education/training and employment. That's where child care backups cost unnecessarily.

You mean working, paying taxes, buying, contributing.

Unh yes.

I do mean universal child care.

Stay-at-home parents seldom do: They're doing errands and appts with children, and could also use public child care services when needed.

Eg, In the NZ model everybody gets 4 free half days.

Raising minimum wage would be good - a living wage.

And free child care as needed for parents learning and earning.

.

I'm more inclined to help out a person getting their education, than make a multi Billion dollar commitment to a group of people who we don't even know want to work.

Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does.

We should be enable women to raise their own children, not enable them to have someone else raise them.

[eyeball]

Oh God, this is soooo cliche'd! Every country on this PLANET was founded on immigration, save a few in central Africa! The human species has been spreading out and crossing borders since we learned how to walk.

I guess there's no limit to how far in the past people will project their politics in their attempt to make a point.

I bet I could go find some extinct fossilized ancestor of ours that was symbiotic as proof of our egalitarian nature.

[Michael Hardner]

And every organized society in history has needed to control who and how many people crossed the borders they established as theirs.

How did they control borders in medieval times ? During the Roman era ? Babylon ?

[Keepitsimple]

80% of welfare recipients are single Moms, most of them on and off welfare within 3 years.

Availability of child care is the key factor.

It has a huge impact on welfare.

When you add welfare money saved to the taxes paid when working, the child care cost is a solid earner for government

Still waiting for a cite/source.....or were you just making things up again?

[jacee]

Interesting comments - do you have any source to back that up?

It's what I recall from a presentation a few years back. I may have the single mom stat wrong, but the interesting thing to me was the 3 year or less turnover. While not specifically stated that way, the Ontario regional caseload profile stats support the majority are short term users. Very few are long term. Interesting stuff.

Caseload profiles

[jacee]

I'm more inclined to help out a person getting their education, than make a multi Billion dollar commitment to a group of people who we don't even know want to work.

Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does.

We should be enable women to raise their own children, not enable them to have someone else raise them.

You are just waffling all over the place on this one.

Single moms are helped out with education/training to become employable and self supporting. That requires child care.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Trying to have her prove that is meaningless. Whether the number is 80% or 50% matters not, as we all know that it's a women's program - men need not bother. As far as on and off in 3 years goes, that's simply not true unless she marries or gets put onto disability welfare.

Full time day care for 1 child is nearly - sometimes more than welfare benefits. It can never be a "solid earner". The best you can hope for is like OGfT suggested - self worth.

As much as there are problems with raising minimum wage, that would be way more palatable then free daycare - and that might actually help welfare moms. If Jacee or OGfT want to answer my questions, I'll explain the number of ways that the system will be scammed.

How exactly would raising the minimum wage help people who can't leave their home/child to work?

[WestCoastRunner]

Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does.

We should be enable women to raise their own children, not enable them to have someone else raise them.

Perhaps if we had men who were not deadbeats and were supporting their children we would not have such a big problem with single parent families led by women.

Women who are in charge of their single parent families and living on welfare are not dummies. They may very well be intelligent but have lacked the ability/opportunities to an education/and or employment opportunities.

Just imagine for a minute if a single parent woman was able to achieve an education and pursue an above average income and contribute back to society with her contribution to taxes, charitable donations to the very services that helped her along the way. And of course, her children to receive high quality child care to start them off on the right foot in society. Do you not think the children would be better off receiving high quality/safe child care instead of at the neighborhood babysitter who is most likely taking care of kids well beyond the regulated # of children.

[Hal 9000]

Perhaps if we had men who were not deadbeats and were supporting their children we would not have such a big problem with single parent families led by women.

Women who are in charge of their single parent families and living on welfare are not dummies. They may very well be intelligent but have lacked the ability/opportunities to an education/and or employment opportunities.

Just imagine for a minute if a single parent woman was able to achieve an education and pursue an above average income and contribute back to society with her contribution to taxes, charitable donations to the very services that helped her along the way. And of course, her children to receive high quality child care to start them off on the right foot in society. Do you not think the children would be better off receiving high quality/safe child care instead of at the neighborhood babysitter who is most likely taking care of kids well beyond the regulated # of children.

How can you read and even quote my post and not realize what I wrote in the first paragraph?

[WestCoastRunner]

How can you read and even quote my post and not realize what I wrote in the first paragraph?

I take offense when you say: "Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does."

Women don't 'simply have kids' to deserve a reward. You need to think before you speak. It's a two way street with the father of these children.

Edited November 17, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[Hal 9000]

I take offense when you say: "Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does."

Women don't 'simply have kids' to deserve a reward. You need to think before you speak. It's a two way street with the father of these children.

Ok, now you're off track just a little.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Hal 9000

[WestCoastRunner]

Ok, now you're off track just a little.

Not at all.

[Hal 9000]

Not at all.

Look, we all support the idea that men should pay their share - if you're looking for a fight on this, sorry!

But, that's not the issue were talking about.

[WestCoastRunner]

Look, we all support the idea that men should pay their share - if you're looking for a fight on this, sorry!

But, that's not the issue were talking about.

I'm not looking for a fight and I'm just following the flow of posts.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm more inclined to help out a person getting their education, than make a multi Billion dollar commitment to a group of people who we don't even know want to work.

Simply having kids doesn't deserve a reward - working and schooling does.

We should be enable women to raise their own children, not enable them to have someone else raise them.

Boy oh boy you have really outdone yourself with that silly comment! It doesn't warrant any type of sensible response.

[Hal 9000]

Boy oh boy you have really outdone yourself with that silly comment! It doesn't warrant any type of sensible response.

...and so, here you are!