Immigration

[Argus]

Argus, cranky old crackers have always been in the minority and hopefully always will be. Get over it already.

So you're saying that the only people who don't care if 50% - 60% - 70% of the population are foreigners are 'cranky old crackers"?

[On Guard for Thee]

So you're saying that the only people who don't care if 50% - 60% - 70% of the population are foreigners are 'cranky old crackers"?

My grandparents immigrated here. They became Canadian citizens, acquired a few acres and turned it into a farm, raised 6 kids, and were finally laid to rest under Canadian soil. Would you call them foreigners?

[Civis Romanus sum]

You are welcome to pick apart whatever pieces of the immigration system that you like/don't like. My point on this thread has been only that we do need it in one form or another for the reasons given, based on stats can published information.

I think any program has flaws and we should discover them and see how the program can be improved. This appears to be a flaw, don't you think? If the purpose of immigration is to positively affect our aging population we should not be bringing in older immigrants.

I don't believe, having read this topic from the first page, that anyone has proposed eliminating the immigration program. That would be pretty extreme. At the same time, taking the position that the immigration program is above criticism and flawless would seem to the other end of that extreme.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think any program has flaws and we should discover them and see how the program can be improved. This appears to be a flaw, don't you think? If the purpose of immigration is to positively affect our aging population we should not be bringing in older immigrants.

I don't believe, having read this topic from the first page, that anyone has proposed eliminating the immigration program. That would be pretty extreme. At the same time, taking the position that the immigration program is above criticism and flawless would seem to the other end of that extreme.

I don't recall anyone taking that position.

[eyeball]

So you're saying that the only people who don't care if 50% - 60% - 70% of the population are foreigners are 'cranky old crackers"?

No, you got it backwards - you're the only one's who care.

I also said to get over it - the world of the future including Canada is clearly not going to be pink. Heck climate change and a thinner ozone layer alone will ensure that.

Edited August 26, 2015 by eyeball

[Argus]

No, you got it backwards - you're the only one's who care.

You base this on.... your own feelings, I take it. Because I know you have zip in the way of evidence. And I don't even need to do any research to know how full of crap you are, because I can see it all around me in people of all ages and even political orientations.

But since personal feelings are not much to argue with here's something else.

Opposites attract. Although we love to repeat this optimistic cliche about human nature, decades of psychological research have demonstrated that the truism isn’t true. Rather, people seek out people who are just like them. This is known as the similarity-attraction effect, or SAE. Although there is slight variation in the strength of the effect, the SAE has been shown to exist in nearly every culture, from Western Europe to the remote tribes of the Brazilian rainforest. It doesn’t matter where we live or how we grew up or which language we speak – we still want to spend time with people who feel similar. It’s simply more comfortable.

http://www.wired.com/2012/01/opposites-dont-attract-and-thats-bad-news/

I also said to get over it - the world of the future including Canada is clearly not going to be pink.

Your fixation on race is probably due to the guilt you feel about your own paternalistic sense of racial superiority towards non whites. You should probably try and deal with that.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I don't recall anyone taking that position.

I did not say "you" had, although reading the replies on this topic, I have not found anything about the present system you appear to take issue with. You appear to be the most vociferous defender of the system, in its entirety, on this topic, and highly resistant to any criticism of the system as a whole, or any individual component.

So may we agree then, that it is foolish to be importing 40,000 or more seniors a year if the goal of our immigration system is to combat an aging population? And if we use that as a basis of agreement can we not also state that the proposal of the Liberal and New Democratic parties to increase this is also foolish?

[On Guard for Thee]

I did not say "you" had, although reading the replies on this topic, I have not found anything about the present system you appear to take issue with. You appear to be the most vociferous defender of the system, in its entirety, on this topic, and highly resistant to any criticism of the system as a whole, or any individual component.

So may we agree then, that it is foolish to be importing 40,000 or more seniors a year if the goal of our immigration system is to combat an aging population? And if we use that as a basis of agreement can we not also state that the proposal of the Liberal and New Democratic parties to increase this is also foolish?

What I and a number of others here got "vociferous" about to begin with was a certain, tinge shall we say, of bigotry towards the idea of immigration. My particular response to that was to simply show how, once again, our ageing pop. and low birth rate necessitates immigration. Now you seem to only want to criticize the NDP, and LPC policies, over this arbitrary 40k number, so lt e remind you, the CPC plan is to increase immigration to between 265 and 280 k, 35% of which will be for the purpose of family reunification. I'm sure you can handle the math.

[eyeball]

...people seek out people who are just like them....his is known as the similarity-attraction effect, or SAE. Although there is slight variation in the strength of the effect, the SAE has been shown to exist in nearly every culture, from Western Europe to the remote tribes of the Brazilian rainforest. It doesn’t matter where we live or how we grew up or which language we speak – we still want to spend time with people who feel similar. It’s simply more comfortable.

That's right, I'm attracted to fellow Earthlings.

Your fixation on race is probably due to the guilt you feel about your own paternalistic sense of racial superiority towards non whites. You should probably try and deal with that.

What do you suggest, can people like us get therapy?

Edited August 27, 2015 by eyeball

[Big Guy]

I find it interesting and revealing that the same posters who are all for bombing the bejeebers out of the Middle East are the same ones who are concerned that Canada is letting too many immigrants into our country. There are currently millions of refugees trying to find a place to go where they and their families will not be killed.

We are part of alliances which use superior military power to bomb bridges, water purification stations, sewage processing plants, food producing structures and other infrastructure, both physical and societal, which maintain living conditions in distant nations. Our boys drop bombs from thousands of feet or operate drones as if they were playing a video game. We wipe our hands of the consequences and responsibilities for our actions because they are "over there" and besides they are all "foreigners".

Well these policies are just beginning to come back to bite us right in our assets. We are being warned by our government of "Lone wolf" retaliatory actions. The chaos and societal economic pressures that millions of refugees (many of which we created) are exerting on Europe are already beginning to negatively effect Canada and are guaranteed to increase in the future.

The world is getting smaller every day. The Balkan, Iraqi, Syrian or Palestinian refugee who is burrowing under that barbed wire at Hungary's border will soon be crossing those bridges from the USA and into Canada.

The bright lights here who take no responsibility for creating foreign homelessness there are trying to rationalize not accepting any of "them" here.

Well guess what, there are more of "them" than there are of us - so maybe the bright lights should start building the Trump-like 50 foot fence around our land borders and get those thousands of armed ships ready to turn back those refugee filled boats that will continue to stream into Canada.

What goes around, comes around.

[Civis Romanus sum]

What I and a number of others here got "vociferous" about to begin with was a certain, tinge shall we say, of bigotry towards the idea of immigration.

How can you be bigoted against an idea?

My particular response to that was to simply show how, once again, our ageing pop. and low birth rate necessitates immigration.

Okay. But you seem very determined about that even though no one has said we don't need immigration. I mean to say, no one is arguing to end immigration, are they?

Now you seem to only want to criticize the NDP, and LPC policies, over this arbitrary 40k number,

Implicit in my suggestion that it is foolish to be bringing over 40,000 seniors a year is criticism of the Conservative Party. However, according to the cite posted they had been making moves to make it harder to bring over seniors, which I believe is an intelligent move. Don't you think that parties which want to increase the number of seniors should come in for more severe criticism? You seem to find it wrong of me for not criticizing the Conservative party but I have seen no criticism of the Liberal or New Democratic Party plans by you. Do you believe it is wrongheaded of them to propose we increase the number of seniors coming into Canada?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[On Guard for Thee]

How can you be bigoted against an idea?

Okay. But you seem very determined about that even though no one has said we don't need immigration. I mean to say, no one is arguing to end immigration, are they?

Implicit in my suggestion that it is foolish to be bringing over 40,000 seniors a year is criticism of the Conservative Party. However, according to the cite posted they had been making moves to make it harder to bring over seniors, which I believe is an intelligent move. Don't you think that parties which want to increase the number of seniors should come in for more severe criticism? You seem to find it wrong of me for not criticizing the Conservative party but I have seen no criticism of the Liberal or New Democratic Party plans by you. Do you believe it is wrongheaded of them to propose we increase the number of seniors coming into Canada?

Family reunification is family reunification. I don't see anywhere the CPC plan says anything about age. Apparently you didn't bother to do the math; 35% of 265,000 is over 90000. Where does the CPC plan say what age group your family has to be in to be allowed to be reunited? Ad yes, you ca be bigoted towards an idea.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I find it interesting and revealing that the same posters who are all for bombing the bejeebers out of the Middle East are the same ones who are concerned that Canada is letting too many immigrants into our country.

I'm not sure how these subjects are related. It might be, however, that those who feel antipathy for violence religious extremists would be opposed to importing to Canada a population which is heavily infected with the ideas which precipitate violence.

Would that not be logical?

There are currently millions of refugees trying to find a place to go where they and their families will not be killed.

Most of the turmoil which spawns refugees is the result of poor governance, and cultures rife with corruption. We can discuss the reasons for this poor governance if you choose. But again, I'm not sure of the relationship to of your statement to this topic.

We are part of alliances which use superior military power to bomb bridges, water purification stations, sewage processing plants, food producing structures and other infrastructure, both physical and societal, which maintain living conditions in distant nations.

My understanding is that we drop bombs on extremist military combatants and in defense of civilian population centres which they are attacking. While it's true we also bomb the 'capital' of the extremists, again, my understanding is that since it's almost impossible for civilians to leave that area the refugees you are referring to are the victims of the attack upon their homes, towns, villages and cities, by the people we bomb.

So you seem to be imputing a responsibility to us when logically the responsibility is to the local combatants.

The bright lights here who take no responsibility for creating foreign homelessness there are trying to rationalize not accepting any of "them" here.

I'm confused again about where you're drawing the relationship here. This discussion is with regard to immigration, not the refugee program. The people who apply for and are granted immigrant status are not fleeing war in Syria. And as I said, even if they were, we did not cause the war and upheaval. We are merely trying to end it.

Well guess what, there are more of "them" than there are of us - so maybe the bright lights should start building the Trump-like 50 foot fence around our land borders and get those thousands of armed ships ready to turn back those refugee filled boats that will continue to stream into Canada.

Trumps suggestion of building a wall with regard to their southern border is due to Latin Americans flooding into the United States for a better life, not due to wars we caused. Similarly, those who want to immigrant to Canada want to do so for a better life, not because of wars elsewhere. You appear to be confused both about how immigration works, and the cause of refugees. We don't need a wall around our country, however, since we have the Atlantic Ocean. The only people who come here and stay here are the ones we allow.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Family reunification is family reunification.

But we aren't discussing family reunification broadly, but the specific idea of bringing over 40,000 seniors each year whose health care will be extremely expensive. Given the purpose behind immigration is to combat an aging population, where is the sense in bringing in tens of thousands of additional seniors each year? Where is the sense in increasing that number? How does this combat an aging population?

Apparently you didn't bother to do the math; 35% of 265,000 is over 90000. Where does the CPC plan say what age group your family has to be in to be allowed to be reunited? Ad yes, you ca be bigoted towards an idea.

I'm confused about why you are criticizing the Conservative plan when the plans by the New Democrats and Liberals which you evidently support without reservation call for increasing immigration higher than the Conservatives have, and focusing that increase on sponsored relatives.

My understanding of how the sponsorship program works is that implicit in it is the expectation that the sponsored relative will be supported for a few years by the sponsoring person, and then be able to support themselves. That won't work with seniors. I would also say that sponsoring a relative who will work for probably decades and contribute to our social programs is entirely different from allowing people to sponsor relatives who will not be working and will almost immediately put a heavy strain on our health care system. So in fact, instead of helping ease the strain on our health care system brought about by an aging population it will increase that strain!

Edited August 27, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[On Guard for Thee]

But we aren't discussing family reunification broadly, but the specific idea of bringing over 40,000 seniors each year whose health care will be extremely expensive. Given the purpose behind immigration is to combat an aging population, where is the sense in bringing in tens of thousands of additional seniors each year? Where is the sense in increasing that number? How does this combat an aging population?

I'm confused about why you are criticizing the Conservative plan when the plans by the New Democrats and Liberals which you evidently support without reservation call for increasing immigration higher than the Conservatives have, and focusing that increase on sponsored relatives.

My understanding of how the sponsorship program works is that implicit in it is the expectation that the sponsored relative will be supported for a few years by the sponsoring person, and then be able to support themselves. That won't work with seniors. I would also say that sponsoring a relative who will work for probably decades and contribute to our social programs is entirely different from allowing people to sponsor relatives who will not be working and will almost immediately put a heavy strain on our health care system. So in fact, instead of helping ease the strain on our health care system brought about by an aging population it will increase that strain!

I didn't criticize the CPC plan, only pointed out they have similar intents as the others, and that overall, they all understand we need immigration. Of course some will end up needing healthcare, as will those of us bor here eventually as well. In the meantime they will work and pay taxes to support that and other systems.

[-1=e^ipi]

Trumps suggestion of building a wall with regard to their southern border is due to Latin Americans flooding into the United States for a better life, not due to wars we caused.

It's interesting that according to leftists it's not okay for Trump to build a wall between Mexico and the USA, but it's okay for the Saudis to build a wall between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Double standard?

[cybercoma]

It's interesting that according to leftists it's not okay for Trump to build a wall between Mexico and the USA, but it's okay for the Saudis to build a wall between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Double standard?

Cite one.

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Tories let in 250,000 per year and if so, are the families looking after these people and what about the ones who haven't found a job...welfare? I'm not sure of rules now but I do remember it use to be,if someone wanted to bring their family over THEY had to support them, not the taxpayers.

[Argus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Tories let in 250,000 per year and if so, are the families looking after these people and what about the ones who haven't found a job...welfare? I'm not sure of rules now but I do remember it use to be,if someone wanted to bring their family over THEY had to support them, not the taxpayers.

That was the theory, but a lot of sponsors reneged, and as far as I know we never force them to live up to it, and we certainly never expel the sponsored relative then.

The Tories have moved away from family reunification, toning it down in favour of the bringing in people with job skills and education. The Liberals and NDP want to move back to family reunification, which requires no education or job skills.

[Michael Hardner]

Why transitional? Do you assume that at some point in time we wouldn't need any controls?

Long term- yes. I don't have much to say about a shorter timeframe, we have discussed that

[marcus]

This is sheer nonsense. I've already posted cites from studies on the high level of immigrant illiteracy and how it negatively effects their job prospects, as well as information on the deteriorating economic situation of immigrants. They are now more likely to be unemployed, to be on welfare, to be flat out poor, and they don't catch up like they used to.

You people simply refuse to even read anything which detracts from your world view.

You have no clue what has happened since your out-dated articles.

In response to some research and studies, there have been massive changes in the immigration programs in the past two years. In the last year specifically.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I didn't criticize the CPC plan, only pointed out they have similar intents as the others, and that overall, they all understand we need immigration. Of course some will end up needing healthcare, as will those of us bor here eventually as well. In the meantime they will work and pay taxes to support that and other systems.

We're speaking of seniors, here. ALL of them will wind up needing lots of health care and very soon and on a continuing basis. Further, just how much work and taxes do you expect to get out of foreign seniors who have been sponsored. Sponsored relatives do not necessarily have any linguistic or job skills, and are unlikely to be working at all.

Why should Canadians be expected to pay for this? Further, you have continually danced around the issue of why Canada would choose to bring tens of thousands of seniors to Canada every year given the entire purpose of the immigration program is to counter Canada's aging population.

It seems to me as though you cannot bring yourself to make any criticism of a part of this program which is supported by political parties you like. Don't you think this make honest discussion difficult?

[Civis Romanus sum]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the Tories let in 250,000 per year and if so, are the families looking after these people and what about the ones who haven't found a job...welfare? I'm not sure of rules now but I do remember it use to be,if someone wanted to bring their family over THEY had to support them, not the taxpayers.

If you sponsor a parent or grandparent you must promise to pay for their basic needs, and to reimburse the government for any social assistance the sponsored relative makes use of for the next 20 years. Under no circumstances, however, will the sponsored relative be deported merely because the agreement was not kept. The government's record on prosecuting people who fail to support relatives is poor. About the most they usually do is refuse to allow them to sponsor another relative.

Regardless, the government, the taxpayer, is responsible for paying for all medical costs of the sponsored senior, which, since they are a senior, will be high.

[On Guard for Thee]

We're speaking of seniors, here. ALL of them will wind up needing lots of health care and very soon and on a continuing basis. Further, just how much work and taxes do you expect to get out of foreign seniors who have been sponsored. Sponsored relatives do not necessarily have any linguistic or job skills, and are unlikely to be working at all.

Why should Canadians be expected to pay for this? Further, you have continually danced around the issue of why Canada would choose to bring tens of thousands of seniors to Canada every year given the entire purpose of the immigration program is to counter Canada's aging population.

It seems to me as though you cannot bring yourself to make any criticism of a part of this program which is supported by political parties you like. Don't you think this make honest discussion difficult?

The majority of people targeted by various plans are for economic immigrants. The family reunification is a way to make it fair, and also attractive to people we need, but who might not otherwise choose to come to Canada.

[waldo]

in 2014, immigrant 'seniors' were just 3.5% of the total immigrant number: