Jump to content

The cost of Migrants


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Would like to see the calculations of $2 billion. But let's say those numbers are correct. So what?

Maybe we can take it from the $56 Billion (omfg!) fund for scrap metal called the F35's.

Whether you feel that we need fighter planes in the future or not the billions to be spent on bringing more Muslims to Canada could otherwise be spent on health care or public housing or education or tax cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As more and more pour into Europe and more Iraqis are lining up to join in, Merkel is starting to tighten up. They will have to, they (et al) cannot possibly take in that many and more to come.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/598924f0-555d-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3l42K7w5F
Germany’s governing coalition moved on Monday to tighten benefits for migrants as Angela Merkel, chancellor, displayed a sharper tone towards those drawn to the country for economic reasons.

Just read this from a Euro Blogger, a first hand account of what is happening and good reason to get a better handle on the numbers.

http://m.niezalezna.pl/70607-granica-z-austria-wstrzasajaca-relacja-polaka-z-autokaru-napadnietego-przez-imigrantow

translation:

"The coach in which I was in the group, tried to swing. Was thrown at us g ... banging on the door to be opened driver, spat on the glass" - reports on Facebook Kamil Bulonis, the author of the travel blog.

Author entry leading blog travel "citizen of the world", it is difficult to be accused of right-wing, Catholic and nationalist "oszołomstwo." Kamil Bulonis openly because he writes about himself on Instagramie: "journalist, globetrotter, gay," and on the Facebook page shows your photo in the colors of the rainbow. Yesterday night Kamil Bulonis posted a travel journal bus ride from Italy to Austria. It is so moving that we quote it in its entirety. Especially since not count on it to the mainstream media wyłamały the scheme narrative talking about "bad Hungarian nationalists" and "poor immigrants". Here the relationship Kamila Bulonisa: One and a half hours ago on the border of Italy and Austria with my own eyes I saw a great many immigrants ... With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I have seen, arouses horror ... This huge mass of people - I'm sorry I'll write - but it's an absolute wilderness ... Vulgar, throwing bottles, loud shouts of "We want Germany" - and Germany is now a paradise? I saw how the older Italian women surrounded the car, pulled her by the hair out of the car and wanted the car drive away. The coach in which I was in the group, tried to swing. Shit thrown at us, banging on the door to be opened driver, spat on the glass ... I ask you, what purpose? How does this wilderness is to assimilate in Germany? I felt for a moment like a war ... I really feel sorry for these people, but if they reached the Polish - I do not think that they will receive from us any understanding ... We have three hours to the border, through which ultimately passed. The whole group of police cordon was transported back to Italy. Coach is butchered, faeces smeared, scratched, broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea of the demographics? These big powerful hordes of savages?

Among them it was actually not women, no children - the vast majority of aggressive were young men ... Just yesterday, reading the news on all websites. subconsciously compassion, worried about their fate, and today after what I saw, just afraid, and at the same time I'm glad that you do not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people - neither culturally nor financially. I do not know if anyone is ready. EU walks pathology, which has not had a chance to ever see. And excuse me if anyone offended his entry ... I think that drove up the car with humanitarian aid - mainly food and water, and they just rolled their car they ...

Edited by scribblet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Mr. Trudeau, in his emotional demand that Canada take in 25,000 Syrian refugees immediately, nor Mr. Mulcair, in his more restrained but similar demand, have mentioned costs. In money terms is likely to be at least $2 billion as well as the ongoing maintenance for some years.

Would like to see the calculations of $2 billion.

the OP's number... substantiated? Oh my... that ain't gonna happen! When you look at the Harper Conservative government's own document on benefits for GARs (Government Assisted Refugees), there seems to be quite the cost gap... between reality and a $2 billion number pulled out of his azz! :lol:

- The cost of your travel to Canada and medical examination will be covered by a loan that the Canadian government will give you. This is a loan, which means that you will have to pay back the total amount to the government. Within 30 days of your arrival in Canada, you must start repaying the money for both your travel and medical examination. Repayment can be made in installments and you will have between one and six years to pay back the full amount, depending on the amount of the loan.

- Within a few weeks of your arrival, you will start to receive financial support from the Government of Canada. This will help you to cover the cost of essential needs such as food, furniture, clothing and basic household items. You will also get a monthly allowance for up to one year to be used for food and shelter. The government will also cover the costs of some medical services that you may need after your arrival. [waldo: the best I've been able to do in an attempt to quantify this financial support is from a macleans (days old article) that provides an example for Ontario; specifically: "Contrary to popular perception, the government of Canada pays very little to support refugees arriving in Canada. Financial support can be provided for up to one year or until they find work, whichever comes first. In Ontario, a single refugee could receive up to $781 per month for a year, in addition to a one-time allowance of $905."]

as for medical care, applicants receive a pre-screening health assessment as a part of the application review process... I would expect this would "filter out" pre-existing conditions - clearly... the humanitarian thing to do! (/snarc). The above Harper Conservative government document also reinforces that refugees are responsible for their own dental costs. To the point made here by a few concerning massive resettling in VanCity or TO "enclaves"s, that same document speaks about being directed by the government to assigned areas... with a recommendation suggesting to stay there for at least a year to avail themselves of provided services; specifically: "You might be resettled to any one of a number of cities. While you will be free to move to another place in Canada, we encourage you to stay in the same place for at least one year. This will allow you to benefit from the services planned for you."

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The costs are laid out in several sources, the Fraser Institute did a study that captures cost per year per Refugee,or immigrant, cost to todate...

today Canadian taxpayers pay out more 17 to 21 billion on both Immigrants and refugees, they also quote 6051 dollars per year ( in 2006) so these cost have risen....it should be noted that this costs are not just for a full year and then there are on their own, but ongoing costs...every year...

While the CBC story has those numbers up to around 26 bil a year.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report

There is also another study done a 2011 Simon Fraser University study that found immigrants impose a far lower annual cost of about $450 per immigrant, or about $2 billion per year.

As it does not explain how they arrived at their figures, it is somewhat clouded....

CBC also did a piece on this subject, as seen below...which lays out another study done by the fraser Institute titled studies of immigration policies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/immigrants-a-fiscal-burden-fraser-institute-report-suggests-1.1366906

Recently on CTV news they had done a piece on private sponsor ship, her group and i forget the name was going to sponsor 1000 refugees....in the piece she had said that to sponsor a family of four would cost on average 26,000 k for one year....that covers finding a temp place to live, food, clothing, and searching for employment etc....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for medical care, applicants receive a pre-screening health assessment as a part of the application review process.

Spare us your crap, Waldo. These people are coming from the third world, mostly from rural areas, with the poor education you can expect from that. Almost none speak English, and pretty close to zero have any job prospects here until they learn it. At best, AT BEST, you're looking at taxi drivers and shop clerks making minimum wage. Which means they're not ever going to be paying taxes. Which means that in addition to flying them over here, housing them, somehow, and feeding them, we'll be responsible for their health care and the education of their kids for the rest of their lives. Maybe the kids raised here will grow up to be taxpayers, but it's not likely many of these people will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angela Merkal said the flood of immigrants was going to cost Germany ten billion Euros next year alone, and also that the migrants would 'occupy and change' Germany.

I don't know about you lot but I don't want my country occupied and changed by middle east Muslims, the most socially regressive people in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cause you've seen surveys, right? :lol:

Is there even any debate on that point, Waldo?

We make fun of the US deep south for their plethora of ignorant, anti-science, bigoted religious conservatives... but those people are educated liberal intellectuals compared to the people we're being asked to bring in en masse. If you're a supporter of things like women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on, why would you be excited about the prospect of drop-shipping to Canadian cities tens of thousands of people who find those concepts completely foreign?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... compared to the people we're being asked to bring in en masse. If you're a supporter of things like women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on, why would you be excited about the prospect of drop-shipping to Canadian cities tens of thousands of people who find those concepts completely foreign?

per StatsCan (albeit immigration related):

Immigration

  • In 2011, Canada had a foreign-born populationNote 1 of about 6,775,800 people. They represented 20.6% of the total population, the highest proportion among the G8 countries.

  • Between 2006 and 2011, around 1,162,900 foreign-born people immigrated to Canada. These recent immigrants made up 17.2% of the foreign-born population and 3.5% of the total population in Canada.

  • Asia (including the Middle East) was Canada's largest source of immigrants during the past five years, although the share of immigration from Africa, Caribbean, Central and South America increased slightly.

  • The vast majority of the foreign-born population lived in four provinces: Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta, and most lived in the nation's largest urban centres.

if one accepts your premise, and that screening will occur (which, of course, it will), it presumes your boogeyman will filter through those checks. I would suggest the onus is on you to speak to why you believe those checks/screening will be any less diligent than those that reflect upon the above historical/recent StatsCan summary stats. Alternatively, you could also help make your case by speaking to Canada directly, in relation to your stated 'the people", and how/why you feel your boogeyman has also filtered through into Canada today, vis-a-vis, as you said, "women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on".

a broad reference from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers... a challenge to it with real data/facts is encouraged:

9. Refugee Claimants do not pose a threat to Canada’s security

Refugee claimants do not pose threats to Canada’s national security – they are seeking security and protection from threats to their own lives. Canadian law excludes refugee claimants if they are found to be inadmissible on the basis of national security, serious criminality, organized criminality or human rights violations. Refugee claimants go through a front-end security screening, in place since November 2001. Through this process, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service checks all refugee claimants on arrival in Canada. Since the screening was put in place, the number of claimants found to represent any kind of security concern has been statistically insignificant.

now, certainly... security is not your implied social thinking/standing emphasis... but it's a reflection upon it. Which kind of brings the discussion back again to how well screening is performed and... how well refugees integrate with, adopt to and accept so-called "Canadian values"... presuming they don't already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even any debate on that point, Waldo?

We make fun of the US deep south for their plethora of ignorant, anti-science, bigoted religious conservatives... but those people are educated liberal intellectuals compared to the people we're being asked to bring in en masse. If you're a supporter of things like women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on, why would you be excited about the prospect of drop-shipping to Canadian cities tens of thousands of people who find those concepts completely foreign?

And the fact that it's based on religion means it's not likely to change any time soon. My next door neighbour was born in Canada, of Arab immigrant parents. He seems like a pretty nice guy overall, but his wife still wears the chador, and he said it's mandatory because the Prophet says women should be modestly covered, including their hair, to protect men from lust. He says this in the kind of serious, absolute way only the religious can. There are little girls who look about six years old riding bikes around my neighborhood with scarves hiding their hair from lustful men, and wearing skirts down to their ankles on hot days. The little boys, of course, wear shorts and T-shirts. I've never actually spoken to his wife, of course. She's been hovering in the background a time or two as he and I talked but he's never introduced her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigration has been in general positive for Canada in many ways and I have posted about the past and present benefits previously but if Canadian government become more selective on immigrants then not only immigrants don't cost anything but they would significantly benefit the country and the nation. Those qualifying by assets must be followed up after arrival and they must open up business(s) and create jobs within certain number of year or be deported back. Those chosen based on education and skills must be selected carefully to fill up vacant positions which there is a shortage of Canadians. Adoptability must become most important criteria. Those not compatible must be kept out no matter how much the assets or skills. Those who respect democracy and equality based on race, color, religion, gender, orientation only must only be admitted. Therefore there is no place in Canada for white supremacists, Arab Sheikhs (no matter how much assets) and religious fanatics and you can guess the rest. My views anyhow.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even any debate on that point, Waldo?

We make fun of the US deep south for their plethora of ignorant, anti-science, bigoted religious conservatives... but those people are educated liberal intellectuals compared to the people we're being asked to bring in en masse. If you're a supporter of things like women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on, why would you be excited about the prospect of drop-shipping to Canadian cities tens of thousands of people who find those concepts completely foreign?

-k

And that is really the crux of the matter. Call it any name you like but while people want to help feed and house people and are willing to take in a few thousand, I doubt they would not happily accept tens thousands of people who in those numbers would eventually change the face and culture of our country - and not for the better IMO. Europe is going through this now and it will only get worse, if you think the riots in Sweden and France were bad, wait for a few years to see what happens as the demographics change. Once the demographics change it won't be long before they will start advocating for more and more accommodation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. The pew research survey of Muslim world attitudes has been posted on this site numerous times. I'm sure you've seen it.

yup... it's been one of member Argus' regular ready reach go-to sources in the past. I've also had a few things to state about the much profiled Pew survey that regularly gets all the mileage from your ilk... rather, I've passed on some of the significant scrutiny that's been brought to bear on the methodology and results of that particular survey. So ya, I'm quite familiar with how you might choose to leverage such a survey... sort of like how you chose to leverage those recent (failed) links of yours tied to "Swedish rape", hey! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there even any debate on that point, Waldo?

We make fun of the US deep south for their plethora of ignorant, anti-science, bigoted religious conservatives... but those people are educated liberal intellectuals compared to the people we're being asked to bring in en masse. If you're a supporter of things like women's rights, gay rights, tolerance of diversity, and so on, why would you be excited about the prospect of drop-shipping to Canadian cities tens of thousands of people who find those concepts completely foreign?

-k

I honestly think it's just an attempt to attack Harper with no regard for the unintended consequences that might follow any ad hoc mass migration of Syrian refugees. Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...We make fun of the US deep south for their plethora of ignorant, anti-science, bigoted religious conservatives...

It's all good....those in the "US deep south" make fun of Canadians with their ignorant religious and language issues, restrictive hate speech laws, bigoted pipeline aversions, and Canada's famous Great Expulsion of Acadians, who are still doing quite well there as "migrants".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all good....those in the "US deep south" make fun of Canadians with their ignorant religious and language issues, restrictive hate speech laws, bigoted pipeline aversions, and Canada's famous Great Expulsion of Acadians, who are still doing quite well there as "migrants".

oooh snap! That's a real burn!!! :lol: Clearly you've met the challenge and the intelligence of 'U.S. Deep Southerners' has been restored!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think it's just an attempt to attack Harper with no regard for the unintended consequences that might follow any ad hoc mass migration of Syrian refugees.

That`s exactly what this is. The left is politicizing a tragic event for their own gain, with no thought to consequences. At least Harper has said he won`t let them in without processing/vetting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Harper has said he won`t let them in without processing/vetting.

you're simply perpetuating a false statement/claim that an increase of refugees into Canada (per the calls from Mulcair/Trudeau) will bypass, as you state, "processing/vetting". Of course, you do have the option to actually substantiate your statement... the implications you're making. You could do that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're simply perpetuating a false statement/claim that an increase of refugees into Canada (per the calls from Mulcair/Trudeau) will bypass, as you state, "processing/vetting". Of course, you do have the option to actually substantiate your statement... the implications you're making. You could do that, right?

They're falling all over each other, trying to beat the other in the most irresponsible plan. There's no such thing as "fast tracking" tens of thousands of refugees with all the proper protocols that must be in place. They're both coming off as complete amateurs. It's pathetic and unbecoming for anybody seeking higher office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,749
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Charliep earned a badge
      First Post
    • Betsy Smith earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Charliep earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...