Immigration

[CITIZEN_2015]

More importantly, all that really matters is this. We have this particular culture we like. Do we want people whose beliefs are antithetical to our own coming here by the tens and hundreds of thousand, by the millions, and influencing our politics and our cultural values to be more like theirs when theirs is demonstrably violently intolerant of almost anything different? Maybe you don't have a problem with this, but what do you think most women think of the idea of bringing over hundreds of thousands of men who instinctively, culturally, will treat them like whores if they're seen wearing short sleeved shirts?

I have said it many times we MUST BE MORE SELECTIVE on who we accept as immigrants. We must assess each INDIVIDUALLY not REGIONALLY. Those who look at women as wh***s must be filtered out and thrown away in the garbage but this has nothing to do with race or region but I do accept in certain religions it is more percentagewise but again not all. We take about 250K immigrants each year (I have said already the number for a country of 30 million is too high) and a good majority of them are from non-muslim countries. Those from Muslim countries are mostly with high education and advanced thinking. Muslims will never become a majority in this country so stop fearing. We must give more points to skills, education, assets and ADAPTABILITY and accept those who believe in total equality of women and are respectful to women.

Yes like yourself I have seen all previous Canadian governments do it often in the past including the liberals (I have been following Canadian politics since 1983 when I was a college student in Ottawa as politics has always been my favorite subject) but this Harper government has done it more frequent and much worse than before.

Edited August 14, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[PIK]

They don't have to be a majority, with trudeaus charter ,minorities run the show and they will use the courts to get their way. There will be some sort of sharia law in our life times. Sooner if the liberal get in. The same guy that tried to get Dalton to do it iONT is one of trudeaus advisors.

[left_alberta]

It was sometimes in late 90's. I don't remember the exact year but as my best guess I think it was summer of 1997. It wasn't mass gay bashing though. Altogether about half a dozen gays or suspected gays were beaten. It happens too often and also I am not sure the media followed up on every single incident and very often there is no complaint to the police as I said it happens too frequently and most gay people think they are not protected by the law as other citizens.

Thanks, I've just been reading up on gay bashings in Montreal over the last few years, most of which I wasn't familiar with, so I guess that some of this stuff does indeed go under-reported in the national news.

[left_alberta]

They don't have to be a majority, with trudeaus charter ,minorities run the show and they will use the courts to get their way. There will be some sort of sharia law in our life times. Sooner if the liberal get in. The same guy that tried to get Dalton to do it iONT is one of trudeaus advisors.

My understanding is that all that McGuinty ever considered was giving Muslim domestic tribunals the same jurisdiction as were at that time enjoyed by Catholic and Jewish tribunals. Facing backlash, he then nixed the proposal, along with the Muslim and Jewish bodies.

Long and the short, Muslims weren't asking for anything that hadn't already been given to other interested faiths.

[Hudson Jones]

Uhm... how? The general unemployment rate has nothing to do with how economically successful immigrants are in Canada. And I've already posted several cites indicating that immigrant economic success has been deteriorating for decades. They have higher unemployment and lower earnings than Canadians, and unlike in earlier years, they don't catch up.

And I posted a piece earlier today indicating the unemployment rate of immigrants with post secondary education is something like 14% while it's under 4% for Canadians.

I've also posted a study by the TD indicating immigrant illiteracy is costing us billions. Want me to post it again?

Much ink has been spilt on the difficulties faced by newcomers to Canada and, in particular, the challenges of integration into the labour market. The barriers they face, including inadequate language skills and credential recognition issues, are reflected in the widening gaps in labour market outcomes relative to native-born Canadians.

http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/ff0212_immigration.pdf

Here's another.

Immigration boosts Canada's illiteracy rate

Immigrants make up a large percentage of Canada's illiterate population. Findings in the Southam Literacy Survey also cast doubt on the effectiveness of immigrant language courses given an estimated 100,000 immigrants this year.

Thirty-five per cent of foreign-born residents in the survey were unable to handle everyday literacy tasks; this rises to 42 per cent when adults from the U.S. and British Isles are excluded.

http://www.nald.ca/library/research/brokword/page22.htm

Looks like the following responded to your half-truths and misinformation well:

yet more of your weasel moves... earlier you dropped a couple of quotes without providing linked references! And now... please provide a quote reference within your "go fetch" linked reference that directly supports your statement that, as you say, "immigrant illiteracy is costing us billions" - waiting...

.

wow! That's some mighty self-serving quote mining you're doing there! Here, let me fill out your narrative a bit from that same article:

but hey, good on ya for taking on Canada's illiteracy problem... but, uhhh.... although your reference is from the survey "Why 5 million Canadians are illiterate", you don't seem to be at all concerned about the other '4 million illiterate non-immigrants'!

.

[PIK]

And it seems to be using up our health care money because they cant handle our fat way of living.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't care how much data we need to collect, I'm in favour of it. Which immigrants are more/less likely to be unemployed, on welfare, in prison, starting business, getting hired and promised at good jobs, hell, joining local non-ethnic clubs and interacting with the community, whatever we decide are the measure of what we want.

I'm on the same page.

Because as far as I can determine, we make no such assessment now. The Tories have tried to use education and job skills as a screening criteria to get more successful immigrants. The jury is out on whether that has had much success.

But, of course, it won't result in "people from country X (Muslim or non-Muslim) can't come in". There are desirable immigrants from every nation on earth.

[Argus]

Looks like the following responded to your half-truths and misinformation well:

So you actually have no response and no rebuttal, possess no information to counter the numerous cites I've posted, but instead felt the need to post in order to applaud the information-free response of another poster?

If that's the best you can do, son, you really need to find another subject. Surely there's still Jews that need bashing on the international topics?

[Argus]

But, of course, it won't result in "people from country X (Muslim or non-Muslim) can't come in". There are desirable immigrants from every nation on earth.

Never said there wasn't. Although there still remains the objective. Uh, what is the objective again?

Because if they won't impact an aging population, and demographers are consistent in agreeing they will not, if they're not really any benefit to the economy, and the only academic study I've seen says they actually cost us $20 billion a year, then why do we have this massive immigration program? And why do the opposition want to increase the numbers still higher? Why aren't we taking more like 85,000 a year like we did when Mulroney took power? What is the purpose of this costly program?

[Michael Hardner]

Never said there wasn't. Although there still remains the objective. Uh, what is the objective again?

Best policy for Canadians.

Because if they won't impact an aging population, and demographers are consistent in agreeing they will not, if they're not really any benefit to the economy, and the only academic study I've seen says they actually cost us $20 billion a year, then why do we have this massive immigration program?

You've convinced me of this fact, but obviously long-term population growth is a necessity and desirable isn't it ? How do we achieve that with lower immigration numbers ?

[PIK]

Who says we need more people here?

[Argus]

You've convinced me of this fact, but obviously long-term population growth is a necessity and desirable isn't it ? How do we achieve that with lower immigration numbers ?

I am unconvinced that continuing to grow the size of a population is something which can be sustained anywhere, let alone everywhere. I haven't seen any studies on the subject which aren't influenced by business, which obviously has an interest in continuing market expansion. But what's good for GM is not necessarily good for Canada any more. I think politicians have seized on population expansion because they're lazy and don't want to do the work necessary to bring about long-term economic sustainability in terms of both training proper job skills and instilling discipline in an economy.

[Machjo]

I accept unrestricted immigration because I believe in only one God of the universe who created all of mankind and not a separate God for each nation. To me, national boundaries are manmade lines drawn on God's green earth.

[Bonam]

I am unconvinced that continuing to grow the size of a population is something which can be sustained anywhere, let alone everywhere.

And even if population growth could be sustained, is it desirable? Do we want Canada to have the population density of Bangladesh? Or even that of China? I don't see how Canadians would benefit from living in an overcrowded sea of people.

The reality is, birth rates are below replacement in almost all advanced nations and are rapidly dropping in developing nations. Within a few decades, global population will likely have plateaued, and then will start to drop. As most developing nations reach advanced status, and as their own populations start to level off and then drop, the massive flows of immigration will slow. At the same time, life expectancies will continue to get ever longer. Countries like Canada will have to deal with a population that is both declining in number and increasing in average age. Might as well get a head start on figuring out how now.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Bonam

[waldo]

Who says we need more people here?

your boy Harper says so! C'mon PIK... watcha gonna do now?

Canada faces a labour shortage now that will only worsen as the aging population retires from the workforce.

Even with the challenging economic situation, we have serious labour shortages in many regions of our economy and in many sectors of our economy.

Tackling the labour shortage in the long-term will require changes to the immigration system as well as changes at home to the education system.

What we really need are Canadians trained for the jobs and we need an immigration system that’s going to bring people in permanently to take advantage of those opportunities.

.

[Michael Hardner]

I am unconvinced that continuing to grow the size of a population is something which can be sustained anywhere, let alone everywhere. I haven't seen any studies on the subject which aren't influenced by business, which obviously has an interest in continuing market expansion. But what's good for GM is not necessarily good for Canada any more.

Well, you're really laying out a fundamental shift in the way the economy is thought of. The only other person I know that talks about this approach is a hard-left environmentalist.

I'm intrigued by big ideas, it's in my nature, so I'd like to hear more about how this would work.

[Argus]

Well, you're really laying out a fundamental shift in the way the economy is thought of. The only other person I know that talks about this approach is a hard-left environmentalist.

Why is it a surprising idea that your population cannot grow indefinitely? Finland's population has hardly changed in thirty years. Are they living off rats they scavenge in their ruined cities? Not so far as I can see.

Most of our economy is in the service sector. If there are fewer people then fewer services will be needed and there'll be fewer jobs. But... there'll be fewer people in need of them anyway...

In any event, I'm not advocating population reduction. I'm simply suggesting we don't need to nor can we grow the population indefinitely. In a few years, Canada's population will reach 40 million. I remember when it was 20 million and I can't, for the life of me, figure out how doubling our population has improved one single thing.

[Hudson Jones]

Why is it a surprising idea that your population cannot grow indefinitely? Finland's population has hardly changed in thirty years. Are they living off rats they scavenge in their ruined cities? Not so far as I can see.

Most of our economy is in the service sector. If there are fewer people then fewer services will be needed and there'll be fewer jobs. But... there'll be fewer people in need of them anyway...

In any event, I'm not advocating population reduction. I'm simply suggesting we don't need to nor can we grow the population indefinitely. In a few years, Canada's population will reach 40 million. I remember when it was 20 million and I can't, for the life of me, figure out how doubling our population has improved one single thing.

You continuously forget to take into account the ratio of those going into retirement vs those going into work force. Because if you did, your argument would fall apart.

This can become a big problem in Canada just like it has in Japan.

If we don't have enough workers and taxpayers, not only will we not be able to replace those going into retirement, but we also will not be able to replace the taxes they paid. Someone will have to pay for our roads, healthcare and other services.

[Argus]

You continuously forget to take into account the ratio of those going into retirement vs those going into work force. Because if you did, your argument would fall apart.

You continuously ignore the cites I've posted showing we do not have and are not going to have a shortage of workers.

[Vega]

Hi, first post here.

I would make my own thread for this, but I'm barred from doing so.

My question is this - in the upcoming election, how will Asian Americans (especially East Asians) vote?

Thanks.

[Smallc]

I don't think they'll be allowed to.

[Michael Hardner]

There's still the possibility of dual citizenship, though, smallc.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is it a surprising idea that your population cannot grow indefinitely?

I think it is unsurprising.

But it's a big change.

[waldo]

You continuously ignore the cites I've posted showing we do not have and are not going to have a shortage of workers.

just a few posts back, I provided statements directly from Harper that state otherwise. Is it your contention that your boy is misinformed? Damn, just who is feeding him info?

Edited August 22, 2015 by waldo

[Hudson Jones]

You continuously ignore the cites I've posted showing we do not have and are not going to have a shortage of workers.

?

Statistics are showing that you're wrong.

Number of people going into retirement outnumber those going into the workforce.

Your opinion is not going to change the numbers:

• In 2011, census data showed for the first time that there were more people aged 55 to 64, typically the age group where people leave the labour force, than aged 15 to 24, typically the age group where people enter it.