Immigration

[CITIZEN_2015]

Great response HJ. Though I doubt it all the evidence in the world on how positive immigrants are, is going to convince those are are bigots and hate based on skin color, race, religion, nationality, language, gender or sexual orientation.

Edited August 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

Argus, I have known many university professors who taught thousands of students to work their way up to graduation to become future engineers and doctors in this country to build and cure citizens. I know of many researchers and doctors and nurses who came to this country who joined workforce soon after arrival and became tax payers. I know of many came as students and stayed on and later joined workforce and became tax payers for decades and positive contributors to this country. Why you concentrate only on a minority unsuccessful ones (or not as successful) who are doctors and for the first few years they have to drive taxis. Btw, taxi drivers are paying taxes too which pays for Canadian healthcare and else.[/size]

I'm trying to understand the relevance of any of that and failing. Did immigration bring some great people to Canada? Sure. Did it bring some miserable scumbags to Canada? Sure.

In order to gauge whether immigration has been a success we first need to know what the goal was. Since there doesn't seem to have been any goal ever set out, nor any yardstick to measure it by, we can only proceed on what we know. And that is that immigration was tripled by the PC party in order to get them more voters. Period. Is that what you mean about it being a success?

Argus, Based on many released statistics by government agency immigrants have higher education than Canadian born so this is my evidence not to mention that I have met lots of immigrants in my life.

Me too. But that's again irrelevant. Foreign credentials are often worthless if the institution is not recognized, or if it's one of those places where cheating and bribery are common and standards are low. It's also irrelevant if you can't get employed here because you don't have the necessary language skills to operate at a high level of business and industry.

Argus, Based on what you say it was okay then for your ancestors to come here since they were of English origin but now that some may come from non-English culture or because they wear hejab and look different then they must not have the rights to be here or enjoy equal rights right?

The point I made was that we swamped and destroyed the local culture. You haven't addressed this. Do you believe if a native of today could go back in time, he would advice his ancestors to be less welcoming?

As for British. British immigrants coming to a British colony don't disturb the cultural harmony of that colony. Muslims who fiercely believe that women are inferior and that society must be run according to the will of Allah, are going to cause a lot more trouble.

[Argus]

Great response HJ. Though I doubt it all the evidence in the world on how positive immigrants are, is going to convince those are are bigots and hate based on skin color, race, religion, nationality, language, gender or sexual orientation.

And here I was treating you with respect and simply using basic logic and common sense, despite the fact you had no facts to reply with but emotional rhapsodies about how wonderful the different ethnic groups are. Like most of those who support immigration you are almost entirely ignorant of every aspect of the program and have no ability to discuss it rationally without hurling insults.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I don't understand when you say you don't understand the relevance of my post you quoted. It was clear I was trying to say a lot more good comes out of immigration than bad. Sure we get bad apples too and in my previous post I did say we should be more selective and careful and less in numbers in order to properly absorb new immigrant but my point is that you paint every immigrant with the same brush and what I say is that there is a lot more good than evil. All that said HJ has brought a great point that in order to preserve our current standard of living and pensions we do need YOUNG immigrants to come to these country become tax payers and contribute to out pension fund. Not to mention the dropping population.

Most of immigrant that I know are able to communicate in at least one of the official languages but I agree as I said we should become more selective on skills, adaptability and assets.

Again I don't like to see the word "disturb the culture" that you use. THEY BRING THEIR VALUES AND CULTURE to this country and contribute to the culture in this country. They add theirs maybe they don't destroy yours. If a Chinese restaurant opens up in Toronto this will not cause the closure of an existing English restaurant next door it will just provide an alternative for people to have the choice or diversity of both the English as well as the Chinese food.

And here I was treating you with respect and simply using basic logic and common sense, despite the fact you had no facts to reply with but emotional rhapsodies about how wonderful the different ethnic groups are. Like most of those who support immigration you are almost entirely ignorant of every aspect of the program and have no ability to discuss it rationally without hurling insults.

I am puzzled as why you would interpret my post as insult to you. All I said was that to those who are bigots and hate based on color, race, religion, language, gender or orientation no evidence would convince them that immigration is positive. I don't see anywhere in my post I referring to you or even quote your post. So unless you are any or all that then my post was NOT directed at you. You may say that since HJ responded to your post and I responded to his post then indirectly this relates to you? But this was not my intention. They were meant as general comments and I do apologize if somehow you took them personally and were offended. That said your post is very clear that you are directly quoting my post and calling me ignorant in what was supposed to be a debate.

Edited August 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

His last two paragaphs in post #23 is all opinion based on Argus' feelings.

Uhm, no, they weren't. They were cold facts. Which do you dispute? Are you even capable of understanding the difference between 'feelings' and facts?

Among 1990s immigrants, 310,000 were children between the ages of 5 and 16.

]Way to cherry pick statistics! Wow, you mean little kids who come here can learn English! What a concept!

Of course, we were talking about the adults and their degrees, but hey, nice try.

We need immigrants to fill the jobs that the baby boomers are leaving behind.

No, we actually don't. In fact, the recent studies completely pummel the notion there's going to be some kind of big worker shortage in the future. They've been posted here several times already.

Despite immigration, we're still coming short in filling the positions left behind by the retiring baby boomers.

No, we actually aren't.

“There is little evidence to suggest a national labour shortage exists in Canada, although there appears to be regional and sectoral pockets of labour market tightness,” the report said, identifying Saskatchewan as one of those markets.

"With data in hand, we debunk the notion that Canada is facing an imminent skill crisis.”

http://immigrationre...rsity-press.pdf

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

http://www.diversity...Immigration.pdf

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small.

http://www.fraserins...y.aspx?id=13504

Edited August 13, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I don't understand when you say you don't understand the relevance of my post you quoted. It was clear I was trying to say a lot more good comes out of immigration than bad. Sure we get bad apples too and in my previous post I did say we should be more selective and careful and less in numbers in order to properly absorb new immigrant but my point is that you paint every immigrant with the same brush and what I say is that there is a lot more good than evil

Really? Find me anywhere I have painted immigrants as anything. I am not insulting immigrants, I am asking why we have immigration. The Fraser Institute did a study documenting the cost of immigration as something like $22 billion per year. Why? I have already posted a cite which showed the numbers we have are due to political not economic considerations. The government has never stated any goal to immigration and has never shown any evidence it helps Canadians in any way, shape or form. Nor have you. That was why I said your statement was irrelevant. It was a happy-feel-good statement with no actual evidence when I am discussing the big picture.

All that said HJ has brought a great point that in order to preserve our current standard of living and pensions we do need YOUNG immigrants to come to these country become tax payers and contribute to out pension fund. Not to mention the dropping population.

But you posted no evidence to show how that would happen. For example, all statistics show that the economic success of immigrants has been deteriorating for years now. The disconnect between this society, which is a very technology driven, very advanced one, and the lands most immigrants come from, makes it much more difficult for them to succeed here now. If an immigrant comes here and his average earnings are $25,000 a year, then with our progressive tax system he's not going be paying any income tax. He's going to be consuming goods and services, such as education and health care, but not contributing to them. So how does that help Canada?

The myth that immigrants will help deal with our aging population is just that, a myth, which demographics experts say is nonsense.

Again I don't like to see the word "disturb the culture" that you use. THEY BRING THEIR VALUES AND CULTURE to this country and contribute to the culture in this country. They add theirs maybe they don't destroy yours.

What if I think theirs is socially backwards and I don't want it adding to mine? What if I think Canada's culture and value system are quite modern and the addition of a sixteenth century attitude about women ad morality is not something I really want to see here? You know that all immigrants wind up voting, right? The larger the group of people with medieval social values voting, the greater the impact on our politics and society.

I am puzzled as why you would interpret my post as insult to you. All I said was that to those who are bigots and hate based on color, race, religion, language, gender or orientation no evidence would convince them that immigration is positive. I don't see anywhere in my post I referring to you or even quote your post. So unless you are all that then my post was NOT directed at you. You may say that since HJ responded to your post and I responded to his post then indirectly this relates to you? But this was not my intention. They were meant as general comments and I do apologize if somehow you were offended.

You were congratulating a guy who responded to me and telling him that 'all the evidence in the world" NONE of which you have provided, by the way, won't convince those 'bigots" and you claim to be amazed anyone would think that was a reference to me? :angry:

[CITIZEN_2015]

My evidence is based on the many immigrants that I have met in my life and an INDEPENDENT government agency statistics clearly indicating that immigrants have higher than Canadian born education and earning more as well. WHERE DOES YOUR STATISTICS COME FROM!!!??. That immigrants income is only $25000 or worse that economic situation for immigrants has been deteriorating!!!! Did you invent all these or is based on those minority failed immigrants you met?

Yes I can see as I said that one may think I was indirectly referring to you but I have already said that this was not my intention and apologized too if you thought that way. I am not going to jump off the bridge though lol to make you happier.

Edited August 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

My evidence is based on the many immigrants that I have met in my life and an INDEPENDENT government agency statistics clearly indicating that immigrants have higher than Canadian born education and earning more as well. WHERE DOES YOUR STATISTICS COME FROM!!!??. That immigrants income is only $25000 or worse that economic situation for immigrants has been deteriorating!!!! Did you invent all these or is based on those minority failed immigrants you met?

The Census data provided in Table 1 below reveals that these recent immigrants only earned an average of $25,714 in 2005 with immigrants in Canada longer doing better than the most recently arrived. Nevertheless, it is still striking that on average recent immigrants only earned 69.1 per cent of the $37,213 earned on average by non-immigrants in the same year.

http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

Today's newcomers, despite being highly educated, take longer to become self-supporting than their predecessors. Some never do. What is even more worrisome is that their children are dropping out of school, creating an intergenerational cycle of poverty.

"They're pulling the economy down," Drummond said. "I don't think people have really understood that."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2007/07/25/immigrant_dream_turning_sour.html

The overall economic performance of immigrants has declined irrespective of whether they have come in under the “skilled immigrant” provisions or under the “family class” provisions of the Immigration Act. Poverty is a much more prevalent attribute of recent immigrants than it was among immigrants in the past, and recent immigrants are much less likely to achieve the levels of earned income of either their predecessors or the native-born population. Martin Collacott also finds that social stresses and “ghettoization” associated with the inability to speak either of the official languages is a serious problem, as are criminal activities in some communities.

This paper reviews the increase in the earnings gap between immigrants and Canadian-born over the past two decades, and the current explanations of this labour market deterioration among recent immigrants in particular. The paper also outlines the rising gap in low-income rates between immigrants and non-immigrants. Like previous research, the paper concludes that the earnings gap at entry has increased for immigrants entering Canada during the 1990s, as

compared to those of the 1970s. Furthermore, the gap in the low-income rate has been increasing.

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/31289/

This is evident when entry into the labour market is considered. In 1981, immigrants who had been in Canada for five years or less were slightly more likely than Canadian-born individuals to be in the workforce (see Table 1). Furthermore, they were just as likely to be employed full-time, full-year. Since then, the employment rate has fallen among immigrant cohorts (Reitz, 2001). In 2001, immigrants who had been in Canada five years or less had a lower employment rate than the Canadian-born population, with a particularly large gap emerging between immigrant and Canadian-born women. Furthermore, the decline in the employment rate was not confined to immigrants who had just arrived in Canada, but was also evident among those who had resided here

for up to 15 years.

Among those immigrants who entered the workforce, earnings trajectories have deteriorated as well. In the initial years after arrival, immigrants have long had earnings below those of their Canadian-born counterparts, with the size of this ‘earnings gap’ narrowing as time passes (see Chart 1).

However, through the 1980s and 1990s the size of the initial earnings gap increased considerably, raising questions about whether immigrants would ever ‘catch up’ to their Canadian-born counterparts. http://canada.metropolis.net/pdfs/econ_well_being_e.pdf

Edited August 13, 2015 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

In spite of all the positive contributions that I have listed immigrants have made to this country I think that Immigration numbers are too high. For a country of only 30 million, a 250,000 annual is just too many. A figure half that would enable the country to absorb better and gives time for new comers to adjust and become contributors best. Also immigration should be more based on skills , adoptability and assets. This country is VAST with enormous resources so we do have the capacity to absorb millions more of immigrants but only over a good number of years not to flood our health and education system and create housing crisis (though what has kept housing starts so high creating many jobs are immigrants). We also have to be more selective on skills and adoptability. People who prefer to live in their own traditional way then they can do so best in their home country and please don't bring your discords and political problems and infightings to this country and more importantly don't try to change our way of living or try to impose yours upon us. Take the good parts of this culture and leave the bad out and add the good of yours to the good of ours.

Edited August 13, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Bonam]

In spite of all the positive contributions that I have listed immigrants have made to this country I think that Immigration numbers are too high. For a country of only 30 million, a 250,000 annual is just too many. A figure half that would enable the country to absorb better and gives time for new comers to adjust and become contributors best.

125k a year would certainly be a lot more reasonable.

[Michael Hardner]

On the other hand, you don't care about Canada or its culture one bit. You've said as much. If we could bring over a hundred million immigrants you'd be all for it.

I haven't said that I don't care about Canada or its culture. I think it's better for the people to realize that culture can't be defended, and that it's better for all people if we let people immigrate as freely as capital does. The idea that culture changes is scary to some, to protectionists and to people afraid of change, but it's realistic and we should adapt to it rather than protect dying ideas.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would actual ramp it up to isolationist from protectionist at least in some cases. I suspect that many who rant on about immigration have likely never been far away from home, and have a 6 o'clock news vision of the world. I've been lucky enough to see some of the far flung corners of the planet, and while it isn't all wine and roses, it's important moving forward to learn to engage, and adapt, regardless of who's feet are on who's turf.

[PIK]

No more immigrants form Muslim countries will be fine by me.

[Michael Hardner]

No more immigrants form Muslim countries will be fine by me.

A prejudiced point of view for sure, but it's yours and the rest of us have to deal with it.

[On Guard for Thee]

No more immigrants form Muslim countries will be fine by me.

What will you ever do when the continents drift back together?

[PIK]

LOL

[PIK]

Sorry mike but it is not. I am just sick of the way this country is going, and the idea of forcing people to live with each other ,especially when the 2 do not mix well is what is wrong. The biggest problem is people like your self that have no balls to stand up for this country and just give in to whatever you are told by the politically correct. And the fear someone might call you a racist for standing up for this country. Muslims do not mix well with anybody, because Mohammad comes 1st before anything else and that is dangerous. And I am sure you have that muslim neighbour which is just a great guy and probably is, but when the shit hits the fan, their religion overtakes common sense. And that goes for all religious fanatics . I am just sick of people and their religions. Skin colour means nothing to me, It is all about religion.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry mike but it is not. I am just sick of the way this country is going, and the idea of forcing people to live with each other ,especially when the 2 do not mix well is what is wrong. The biggest problem is people like your self that have no balls to stand up for this country and just give in to whatever you are told by the politically correct. And the fear someone might call you a racist for standing up for this country. Muslims do not mix well with anybody, because Mohammad comes 1st before anything else and that is dangerous. And I am sure you have that muslim neighbour which is just a great guy and probably is, but when the shit hits the fan, their religion overtakes common sense. And that goes for all religious fanatics . I am just sick of people and their religions. Skin colour means nothing to me, It is all about religion.

You've heard at least a bit about the Tea Party I hope. Does that mean you want to ban Americas from emigrating also?

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry mike but it is not. I am just sick of the way this country is going, and the idea of forcing people to live with each other ,especially when the 2 do not mix well is what is wrong.

This is all about your personal feelings about these people, which is evidenced by you saying you are "sick"... your emotional reactions aren't shared by me or most on this board. If you don't like people because of their religion, colour or what have you, and if you're unable to put the extra thought required to judge them as individuals then that is your problem.

Take responsibility for your own point of view and don't project it on everybody else.

The biggest problem is people like your self that have no balls to stand up for this country and just give in to whatever you are told by the politically correct.

Since you're going after me personally, and not anything that I'm doing wrong you have lost the argument. You think I'm brainwashed, well that's just your perspective. I won't attack you personally, instead I will address your statements.

I am just sick of people and their religions.

Yes, it's all about you that much is clear. I don't share your opinions, no matter how loudly you state them. Sorry if your feelings are hurt.

[Argus]

125k a year would certainly be a lot more reasonable.

Unfortunately, both he NDP and the Liberals have said they will increase it to 1% of the population. That would be 350,000 in the first year, but would rise each year as the new immigrants further increase our population. Ie, as we reach a population of 40 million immigration would then rise to 400,000.

They have also both said they would focus more on bringing over relatives than people with applicable educational and job skills.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I haven't said that I don't care about Canada or its culture. I think it's better for the people to realize that culture can't be defended, and that it's better for all people if we let people immigrate as freely as capital does. The idea that culture changes is scary to some, to protectionists and to people afraid of change, but it's realistic and we should adapt to it rather than protect dying ideas.

Dying idea like the equality of women, you mean?

It's one thing to accept a small number of immigrants each year, to absorb them and integrate them. It's quite another to bring them in in huge numbers so that they don't need to integrate. Used to be when an immigrant kid went to school he'd find himself or herself in a class full of Canadians. Now, in a lot of places, there's very few Canadian kids in a class full of foreign born, or at least, kids born to immigrants and being raised according to their 'home country's values.

[Argus]

A prejudiced point of view for sure, but it's yours and the rest of us have to deal with it.

Prejudice, to quote Dennis Miller, means to 'pre judge'. On the subject of Muslims, he says, he's not 'pre judging' them, he's JUDGING them, according to their behaviour and cultural values.

[Argus]

You've heard at least a bit about the Tea Party I hope. Does that mean you want to ban Americas from emigrating also?

The tea party is a small, if powerful rump of the US conservative movement. Are you suggesting Islam is a small, isolated rump of the Muslim world?

[On Guard for Thee]

Dying idea like the equality of women, you mean?

It's one thing to accept a small number of immigrants each year, to absorb them and integrate them. It's quite another to bring them in in huge numbers so that they don't need to integrate. Used to be when an immigrant kid went to school he'd find himself or herself in a class full of Canadians. Now, in a lot of places, there's very few Canadian kids in a class full of foreign born, or at least, kids born to immigrants and being raised according to their 'home country's values.

Can you back any of that up or are we just hearing another Argus assumption?

[Argus]

If you don't like people because of their religion, colour or what have you, and if you're unable to put the extra thought required to judge them as individuals then that is your problem.

The funny thing about this as an argument is that you don't even realize the hypocrisy you're showing.

It is patently obvious that YOU don't "like" people if they have a certain conservative viewpoint. Yet you love to pretend that you're superior to those who don't approve of Muslims because of the conservative viewpoints held by most Muslims.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say everyone on this site who defends Muslims hate conservatives for their social views. This despite the fact conservative social views in this country are miles to the Left of most Muslim immigrants.