Trudeau on the Wrong Side of an Issue......Again!

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2015

Very well then.

You're cherry picking, though. You have enough information to post a conspiracy theory that governments are doing this to get power, but it's not enough to convince.

There is no economic, demographic or social case to be made

Complete hyperbole. "No" economic case ? Really.

Nevertheless, if you question the numbers or types of immigrants you can count on at least several ignorant, braying asses of the Left to start screaming names at you.

You're starting to get more extreme I think. If you can show me that there is really no economic case to be made for immigration then I will believe you. But you're going from being able to make an argument against immigration to saying that there's no argument for immigration ?

That's delusional.

Argus · February 21, 2015

I haven't seen that one before - cite ?

The original cite I posted here some time ago seems to no longer be up. And it's difficult to weed through all the mass of data on immigration to find something which projects NO immigration since no official agency even offers that up as an alternative. However, if we examine the following stats Canada chart we see that population increase is divided into 'natural' increase and 'migratory' increase. Ignoring the migratory increase we see that the population of Canada would begin to decline - in 15 years. That's with ZERO immigration, and assuming our current birth rate remains unchanged. The decline would not exactly be abrupt, however, and we see it reaches a decline of 100k per year in 2056. Therefore with immigration of 100k per year our population would be stabilized.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/figures/4129879-eng.htm

If the suggestion is we need immigration for the economy:

In their discussion of the economic efficiency of immigration, the ECC researchers quoted from a background paper prepared for the 1985 Macdonald commission, which stated that, according to their own examination of the subject, “The broad consensus... is that high levels of immigration will increase aggregate variables such as labour force, investment and real gross income, but cause... real income and real wages to decline”

And

The most comprehensive examination of the relationship between immigration and economic benefit was that released by the Economic Council of Canada (ECC) in 1991. In analyzing the relationship between immigration and economic growth in Canada in the course of the last century, the researchers of Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration found that the fastest growth in real per capita income occurred at times when net migration was zero or even negative.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/fipaper_secondedition2003.pdf

And in case anyone then decides to cite that old canard that we need large scale immigration because of an aging population.

Although higher immigration can mitigate the imminent slowing down and reversal in labour-force growth, and can certainly meet specific labour-market shortages, no conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working-age Canadians

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

Edited February 21, 2015 by Argus

Argus · February 21, 2015

You're cherry picking, though.

How am I cherry picking? I've previously posted a cite which explained why we tripled immigration, and which The Economic Council of Canada stated there was no economic case and the proposal needed other reasons to support it.

You have enough information to post a conspiracy theory that governments are doing this to get power, but it's not enough to convince.

How is it a conspiracy theory when I posted a report on the cabinet meeting? How is it a conspiracy theory to suggest political parties will act in a which which they perceive benefits them?

Complete hyperbole. "No" economic case ? Really.

So make one. The Economic Council of Canada couldn't.

You're starting to get more extreme I think. If you can show me that there is really no economic case to be made for immigration then I will believe you.

You're getting pretty extreme when you demand I prove a negative. You support immigration because.... of certain reasons and you have NO supportive evidence for ANY of them. Now you insist I prove you're wrong.

But you're going from being able to make an argument against immigration to saying that there's no argument for immigration ?

That's delusional.

Don't create straw men for me and then say I'm delusional. That's just utterly dishonest argument. I never said there was NO argument for immigration. I said the current economic and demographic arguments are unsupported by fact or study, and in fact, are flatly contradicted in many cases. I've pointed out that the federal government has never done a study to determine what the costs and effects of immigration are, what the numbers ought to be, what our goals are, or how they are to be measured. You simply don't like one of your sacred cows challenged.

Michael Hardner · February 21, 2015

How am I cherry picking? I've previously posted a cite which explained why we tripled immigration, and which The Economic Council of Canada stated there was no economic case and the proposal needed other reasons to support it.

You're stringing together a couple of events and implying that that is the reason for our current immigration policy. But economic growth and population growth are part of the political economic orthodoxy.

You're getting pretty extreme when you demand I prove a negative.

You're the one who stated the negative, though. If you say there's NO economic case, then show some evidence, ie. some believable authority that agrees with you.

You support immigration because.... of certain reasons and you have NO supportive evidence for ANY of them.

I don't particularly support it because of the economic case, I just think that people should be free to migrate ... especially if money is free to migrate.

I never said there was NO argument for immigration. I said the current economic and demographic arguments are unsupported by fact or study, and in fact, are flatly contradicted in many cases.

" There is no economic, demographic or social case to be made for the Left's assumptions about why we take in so many immigrants each year, just bland, general statements by the government. "

I don't think my paraphrase if your quote is that far off.

overthere · February 21, 2015

overthere, on 19 Feb 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

I am a Harper supporter and think she is right and he is wrong in this case.

You are NOT a Harper supporter, just a dishonest Liberal who likes to troll.

Three completely wrong statements in sentence of only 14 words. I think you have achieved a personal best. Congratulations

You're angry because you've been exposed. Now let's get to the heart of it.

What exactly is it about this woman that frightens you so badly?

poochy · February 21, 2015

It's offensive to Canadians that men should tell women how they should dress and Stephan Harper says take off that veil.

Welcome to ~~Canada~~ Bizzaro World.

What world is it you live in? The, I wish i could formulate a cogent argument world?

Argus · February 21, 2015

Three completely wrong statements in sentence of only 14 words. I think you have achieved a personal best. Congratulations

You're angry because you've been exposed. Now let's get to the heart of it.

What exactly is it about this woman that frightens you so badly?

Why don't you first explain why you believe in extremist Islam and why you want to see more of it in Canada?

Are you a Muslim, by the way? Do you believe Sharia law should be implemented in Canada?

Argus · February 21, 2015

You're stringing together a couple of events and implying that that is the reason for our current immigration policy. But economic growth and population growth are part of the political economic orthodoxy.

I've already posted cites showing immigration does not lead to economic growth. If you read those cites through you'll also see where immigration fostered economic growth is good for one group only, that being employers. It's not good for ordinary people.

You're the one who stated the negative, though. If you say there's NO economic case, then show some evidence, ie. some believable authority that agrees with you.

Already posted that.

I don't particularly support it because of the economic case, I just think that people should be free to migrate ... especially if money is free to migrate.

So you don't believe in Canada as a nation? You want millions and millions of people to come here and as to what becomes of Canada, well, who gives a damn, right? Are you an anarchist?

Argus · February 22, 2015

You're the one who stated the negative, though. If you say there's NO economic case, then show some evidence, ie. some believable authority that agrees with you.

This is worth posting again. It's an article on how our immigration was TRIPLED by Mulroney in order to get immigrant votes.

Despite concerns about the social and financial impact of increased immigration and doubts about the country's ability to assimilate new arrivals at the current rate, Ms McDougall will announce tomorrow that Canada will begin accepting up to 250,000 immigrants a year.

...

But a major study of immigration by the Economic Council of Canada questions the over-all impact. ECC economist Neil Swan told the Commons committee that his tentative results suggested that “the economic impacts of immigration are not nearly as large as the public generally perceives them to be, whether positive or negative.” He said decisions about immigration should be made on non-economic grounds.

...

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

Moonbox · February 22, 2015

You're the one who stated the negative, though. If you say there's NO economic case, then show some evidence, ie. some believable authority that agrees with you.

The burden of proof in this case has to be on the positive side of the debate. If people are saying that immigration is necessary for a functional/strong/growing economy, and someone says it is not, the burden of proof is on the first party. That's fundamental logic, as I'm sure you understand. If you're capable of providing evidence to support the initial claim, then the burden of proof shifts to the negative side. As far as I can tell, however, this hasn't happened in this thread.

WestCoastRunner · February 22, 2015

I can't wait to see Trudeau as PM! And he does have nice hair!

Edited February 22, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Bob Macadoo · February 22, 2015

The burden of proof in this case has to be on the positive side of the debate. If people are saying that immigration is necessary for a functional/strong/growing economy, and someone says it is not, the burden of proof is on the first party. That's fundamental logic, as I'm sure you understand. If you're capable of providing evidence to support the initial claim, then the burden of proof shifts to the negative side. As far as I can tell, however, this hasn't happened in this thread.

That's not logic. Logic would be to disprove the status quo, which is the level of immigration being disparaged.

Argus · February 23, 2015

That's not logic. Logic would be to disprove the status quo, which is the level of immigration being disparaged.

I've already done that, actually.

Moonbox · February 23, 2015

That's not logic. Logic would be to disprove the status quo, which is the level of immigration being disparaged.

No, your choice of status quo is crud. Permitting immigrants into the country is a disruption of the status-quo in itself. The 250,000/year number was a decision that was made 20+ years ago (IIRC) and the rational and support for it was flimsy. Regardless, it's not hard to show how changes to the current levels would be positive in a purely economic sense. You need only demonstrate the unemployment rates for various groups within the refugee or family reunification class.

guyser · February 23, 2015

No, I mean anywhere. Nobody does business in Halloween masks. Go to a bank wearing a Frankenstein mask and ask for a loan. Tell us how that goes, okay?

Oh you mean in the privacy of ones own business? Ok, your business your rules.

Michael Hardner · February 23, 2015

The burden of proof in this case has to be on the positive side of the debate. If people are saying that immigration is necessary for a functional/strong/growing economy, and someone says it is not, the burden of proof is on the first party.

If somebody asserts that there is 'no case', though, as a starting point for a discussion then I think it's on them to quote an economic idea that that's the case.

overthere · February 23, 2015

No, your choice of status quo is crud. Permitting immigrants into the country is a disruption of the status-quo in itself. The 250,000/year number was a decision that was made 20+ years ago (IIRC) and the rational and support for it was flimsy. Regardless, it's not hard to show how changes to the current levels would be positive in a purely economic sense. You need only demonstrate the unemployment rates for various groups within the refugee or family reunification class.

Taking a more macro view, permitting a quarter million people into the country each year is the status quo. And what has been the result in Canada since changes to immigration policy and adminsitration in 1989? A relatively strong, vibrant and growing economy is what I see .

If you'd like an example of how having very limited immigration harms an economy, review what has happened and is happening in Japan. hey have had the opposite experience to Canada and the opposite result, their economy is in severe trouble as their population ages rapidly.

Immigration is not the only factor to success or failure, but it is a critical component.

Argus · February 23, 2015

Taking a more macro view, permitting a quarter million people into the country each year is the status quo.

Only since Mulroney's time. Slavery was the status quo too, at one time. Lots of stupid things are the 'status quo' for a time, before people can show they're stupid. It thus behooves people who defend the status quot to do so with some kind of reasonable evidence when others give evidence of its stupidity. No one is doing that. Instead they're calling it 'the status quo' and calling people names.

And what has been the result in Canada since changes to immigration policy and adminsitration in 1989? A relatively strong, vibrant and growing economy is what I see.

And yet, no one can demonstrate any linkage between increased immigration and a better life for Canadians. As stated in several of the cites I posted, bringing in masses of people inflates the size of the economy, but that hardly means individuals within it are any more prosperous since there's now more of them. What good is a bigger pie if more people are eating it? What exactly are the benefits which can be linked to this increased immigration other than more votes for the Tories?

After all, the US economy has beaten ours in almost every year, save a few years after the 2008 recession, and yet their unemployment rate is half of ours.

If you'd like an example of how having very limited immigration harms an economy, review what has happened and is happening in Japan.

Japan's economic issues are hardly due to low immigration. I know much has been said about the aging Japanese population, but that is not an issue currently affecting its economy. Misspending and poor economic management are the root of it. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/nikkei.html

They have had the opposite experience to Canada and the opposite result, their economy is in severe trouble as their population ages rapidly. Immigration is not the only factor to success or failure, but it is a critical component.

No, it isn't a component, nor is there any evidence it's a component in Canada's economic health. Oil money is by far the bigger factor, here.

overthere · February 23, 2015

The status quo of 25 years of 200k to 250k of immgrants makes that the standard, not lower levels of immigration.

Oil money is by far the bigger factor, here.

Rubbish. The price of oil rarely cracked the teens for more than half the last 25 years. In any case, all energy sector items(oil, gas, etc) are less than 10% of GDP.

Japan's economic issues are hardly due to low immigration.

Of course it is a component, as Immigration /low birth rates are in our economy. Our native birthrate was and is very low, and immigration addresses the serious problems that produces , like- who pays for that fat social contract we all enjoy. In Canada that question is largely answered by immigration, and in Japan it is largely answered by 'taking on debt'.

Argus · February 23, 2015

The status quo of 25 years of 200k to 250k of immgrants makes that the standard, not lower levels of immigration.

That's irrelevant. You don't get to say 'since this is how things are I don't have to show any kind of evidence it works'.

Rubbish. The price of oil rarely cracked the teens for more than half the last 25 years. In any case, all energy sector items(oil, gas, etc) are less than 10% of GDP.

The oil industry has been getting larger and larger, and if you don't think 10% of GDP is A LOT then just see what happens if our GDP goes down by 1 or 2%

Of course it is a component, as Immigration /low birth rates are in our economy.

Evidence? Cite? Statistics?

Our native birthrate was and is very low, and immigration addresses the serious problems that produces , like- who pays for that fat social contract we all enjoy.

No, it does not. In fact, several of the cites I've posted have addressed and dismissed that notion.

overthere · February 23, 2015

That's irrelevant. You don't get to say 'since this is how things are I don't have to show any kind of evidence it works'.

As usual you've missed the point.

When you have a situation that exists for 25 years- steady immigration under a standardized system for entrance- that IS the status quo. It's not the old system or something else that you have imagined as the status quo.

The oil industry has been getting larger and larger, and if you don't think 10% of GDP is A LOT then just see what happens if our GDP goes down by 1 or 2%

Once again, you ignore the reality that the price of oil in the period under discussion has been for the most part much lower. The high price of poil has been the exceptioon in that period, not the rule. So your claim that oil is responsible for what has been a pretty long run of prosperity in Canada is simply untrue. I would suggest that NAFTA and the huge bump it gave to manufacturing had a much bigger effect. And what was required to feed and fill all those new jobs? Yes, it is immigrants for the most part, since we simply do not breed fast enough - and of course even if we could you cannot slot infants into manufacturing or resource based jobs.

Evidence? Cite? Statistics?

This is where you explain how you get a four year old to work in a gas plant.

No, it does not. In fact, several of the cites I've posted have addressed and dismissed that notion.

On;ly natural born Canadians and their descendants pay taxes? Where does it say that?

Argus · February 24, 2015

As usual you've missed the point.

No, I'm ignoring your point. There's a difference. Your point is illogical nonsense.

When you have a situation that exists for 25 years- steady immigration under a standardized system for entrance- that IS the status quo.

And your contention that anything which, in your opinion, is 'the status quo' is by defacto "good" and so needs no evidence of that is utterly ridiculous. It's basically the same reasoning the Catholic Church used in defending their belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

It's not logic. It's the antithesis of logic.

Once again, you ignore the reality that the price of oil in the period under discussion has been for the most part much lower.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The price of EVERYTHING was much lower twenty five years ago. People were still getting filthy rich on oil, and industries were growing, spreading, and hiring people to produce it.

So your claim that oil is responsible for what has been a pretty long run of prosperity in Canada is simply untrue. I would suggest that NAFTA and the huge bump it gave to manufacturing had a much bigger effect.

I'm not suggesting oil alone is responsible for our economic well-being. I'm saying there is ZERO evidence that immigration has anything to do with it.

You can at least look at oil and see how much it has contributed to our economy. No one can do that with immigration. In fact, the only people who have tried were the Fraser institute, and their study shows immigration costs us tens of billions every year.

And what was required to feed and fill all those new jobs? Yes, it is immigrants for the most part,

No evidence of this whatsoever. In fact, most of our immigrants over the past twenty five years have been pretty low skilled people who filled low skilled jobs in the service industry. They became the taxi drivers and convenience store clerks and janitors, not even making enough, collectively, to pay enough taxes for the government services they consume.

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2015

No, I'm ignoring your point. There's a difference. Your point is illogical nonsense.

And your contention that anything which, in your opinion, is 'the status quo' is by defacto "good" and so needs no evidence of that is utterly ridiculous. It's basically the same reasoning the Catholic Church used in defending their belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

It's not logic. It's the antithesis of logic.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The price of EVERYTHING was much lower twenty five years ago. People were still getting filthy rich on oil, and industries were growing, spreading, and hiring people to produce it.

I'm not suggesting oil alone is responsible for our economic well-being. I'm saying there is ZERO evidence that immigration has anything to do with it.

You can at least look at oil and see how much it has contributed to our economy. No one can do that with immigration. In fact, the only people who have tried were the Fraser institute, and their study shows immigration costs us tens of billions every year.

No evidence of this whatsoever. In fact, most of our immigrants over the past twenty five years have been pretty low skilled people who filled low skilled jobs in the service industry. They became the taxi drivers and convenience store clerks and janitors, not even making enough, collectively, to pay enough taxes for the government services they consume.

Complete and utter nonsense. Unless Canadians start having a lot more babies, thousands of future jobs will go unfilled, and of course we know what that does to the economy. Well unless you are blinded by bigotry of course.

LemonPureLeaf · February 24, 2015

Complete and utter nonsense. Unless Canadians start having a lot more babies, thousands of future jobs will go unfilled, and of course we know what that does to the economy. Well unless you are blinded by bigotry of course.

We have an unemployment rate that includes thousands of people so I think we have enough people in Canada to fill those jobs. We don't really need to let these people in. I don't see a lot of skilled people being let in but instead a lot of family type of people including many elderly people. Those types of people aren't paying taxes at all or aren't paying enough taxes to pay for the services they are using.

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2015

We have an unemployment rate that includes thousands of people so I think we have enough people in Canada to fill those jobs. We don't really need to let these people in. I don't see a lot of skilled people being let in but instead a lot of family type of people including many elderly people. Those types of people aren't paying taxes at all or aren't paying enough taxes to pay for the services they are using.

You are completely and utterly wrong. Without immigration somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million jobs will be unfilled in the next 5 years. In case you need some education, people with jobs pay tax. Income and sales.