300,000 more refugees coming to Canada.

[taxme]

On the CBC news this morning the reporter mentioned in one of their news stories that the liberals have decided that 50,000 new refugees is not enough, and so they are now planning on bringing in another 300,000 new refugees, and included in there is a thing called family reunification. This is getting ridiculous.

So who is going to pay for all of this? I will give you one guess? If you said me the taxpayer than you are right. This is going beyond ridiculous, and instead it is now going beyond sheer stupidity. Are you the taxpayer ready to fork out billions more for a bunch of strangers who have no right to be coming here because the taxpayer's who will have to pay for all of these refugees did not have a say in this great new plan created by the spend crazy liberals today. Where is their mandate for doing this? Shouldn't I as a taxpayer have a right to have a say as to whether I want all these people to be allowed to come here? Look at the toll that this is going to take on our medical and social services, and infrastructure, not to forget the environment damage that all of this immigration is going to do. It's sheer madness is all I can say for now.

[Smallc]

That's not what it says - it says the Liberals plan to admit 300,000 immigrants this year.

[BC_chick]

Whoa I see why the forum asks for links.

K so I found one. It's 300,000 permanent residents, not refugees. Refugees are 60,000 of which:

"The 2016 admissions target for refugees and protected persons is nearly 60,000. That includes nearly 25,000 government-assisted refugees, 44,800 resettled refugees and 17,800 privately-sponsored refugees."

So same 25,000 as 2015?

I'm not commenting one way or another if that's too many but if you're going to post something do it truthfully.

[taxme]

Whoa I see why the forum asks for links.

K so I found one. It's 300,000 permanent residents, not refugees. Refugees are 60,000 of which:

"The 2016 admissions target for refugees and protected persons is nearly 60,000. That includes nearly 25,000 government-assisted refugees, 44,800 resettled refugees and 17,800 privately-sponsored refugees."

So same 25,000 as 2015?

I'm not commenting one way or another if that's too many but if you're going to post something do it truthfully.

I did not just make that up. That is how I heard it being told by the newscaster. Maybe they should have gone more into the plan so the listener can get it right. After all aren't we suppose to believe what the media tells us without question?

[BC_chick]

After all aren't we suppose to believe what the media tells us without question?

Maybe in sheep school.

Personally, I was always told to think critically and investigate when something doesn't sound right.

[Spiderfish]

After all aren't we suppose to believe what the media tells us without question?

I wouldn't recommend it.

That's not what it says - it says the Liberals plan to admit 300,000 immigrants this year.

Actually, the target is up to 305,000, which is about 45,000 more than 2014.

Canada will welcome up to 305,000newcomers this year

I love the photo in the Star column, it looks like McCallum is a sorcerer trying to conjure up more immigrants from thin air.

[taxme]

Maybe in sheep school.

Personally, I was always told to think critically and investigate when something doesn't sound right.

Personally, I wish for a moratorium on all immigration for at least five years for starters. When a country is suppose to have a 7% unemployment rate it makes no sense to be bringing in more new immigrants where no doubt many of them will likely end up on the taxpayer's payroll eventually. Our politically correct politicians appear to live strickly off of emotion, and show signs of a lack of judgement, common sense and logic.

[taxme]

I wouldn't recommend it.

Actually, the target is up to 305,000, which is about 45,000 more than 2014.

Canada will welcome up to 305,000newcomers this year

I love the photo in the Star column, it looks like McCallum is a sorcerer trying to conjure up more immigrants from thin air.

I know what I would like to say to McCallum but I would get fired here. My personal opinion of the guy is that he needs big time help. One has to be crazy to do what he plans on doing. I wonder what we the people would say if there was a poll taken asking Canadians if they were in favor of this crazy liberal immigration plan or not, and the costs associated with all these immigrants coming to Canada? Something tells me McCallum would lose.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Well now that it is clear the comments on 300,000 refugees was falsely made (which if it was deliberate then it was a big lie by anti-immigrant crowd of few and we all know who they are). That said I believe that we need to slow down a bit on immigration for a while (between 150,000 to 200,000 max) and select our new comers based on skills and education and wealth. Those wealthy immigrants must prove that they would create jobs for Canadians and be followed up after arrival on their commitments and those with skills and education must secure jobs before coming and more importantly screening out those who don't share our values which include equality of gender and race, freedom of religion (or no religion) and respect for individuals and caring for neighbors and sick and elderly and the needy. The liberals never said they would do such thing.

Edited March 9, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

Whoa I see why the forum asks for links.

K so I found one. It's 300,000 permanent residents, not refugees. Refugees are 60,000 of which:

I remember Denmark setting aside over US$2 billion in their budget in order to take care of an expected 33,000 refugees for the coming year.

We are to believe that bringing in 60,000 costs, what, a million or two bucks, right?

The cost of this enormous refugee resettlement program is one of things government has consistently downplayed. In all likelihood we're talking about $4-5 billion per year just for each new group. And these groups are unlikely to become self-sustaining in their second or third or tenth year insofar as becoming well enough paid to be taxpayers. Most of these people have neither language nor job skills nor education, and the best they can hope for in Canada is that once they learn the language they can get clerk jobs at Wal-mart or work as security guards or janitors or taxi drivers.

Given our progressive tax system this means they will, in all likelihood, never be contributing taxpayers, but will instead be consumers of government services their entire lives. So what does that cost the various federal, provincial and municipal government budgets? $20 billion a year? $30 billion? $40 billion? It adds up when you're bringing in hundreds of thousands of third world refugees who have very little hope of becoming economically successful here.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

I did not just make that up. That is how I heard it being told by the newscaster. Maybe they should have gone more into the plan so the listener can get it right. After all aren't we suppose to believe what the media tells us without question?

You need to post a link. I can't comment on something somebody supposedly heard on the radio. I'm sure you would feel the same.

[taxme]

You need to post a link. I can't comment on something somebody supposedly heard on the radio. I'm sure you would feel the same.

I had mentioned that I saw this being reported on the CBC news channel this morning. Check the CBC website if you want more info.

[BC_chick]

I remember Denmark setting aside over US$2 billion in their budget in order to take care of an expected 33,000 refugees for the coming year.

We are to believe that bringing in 60,000 costs, what, a million or two bucks, right?

The cost of this enormous refugee resettlement program is one of things government has consistently downplayed. In all likelihood we're talking about $4-5 billion per year just for each new group. And these groups are unlikely to become self-sustaining in their second or third or tenth year insofar as becoming well enough paid to be taxpayers. Most of these people have neither language nor job skills nor education, and the best they can hope for in Canada is that once they learn the language they can get clerk jobs at Wal-mart or work as security guards or janitors or taxi drivers.

Given our progressive tax system this means they will, in all likelihood, never be contributing taxpayers, but will instead be consumers of government services their entire lives. So what does that cost the various federal, provincial and municipal government budgets? $20 billion a year? $30 billion? $40 billion? It adds up when you're bringing in hundreds of thousands of third world refugees who have very little hope of becoming economically successful here.

If only you'd read my whole post you would not have wasted all that time typing. As I mentioned at the end of my post, I was not commenting one way or another on the number of refugees, I was just correcting the OP's initial post because 300K refugees seemed incredible to me.

I actually agree to some level with you.

[Smoke]

I remember Denmark setting aside over US$2 billion in their budget in order to take care of an expected 33,000 refugees for the coming year.

We are to believe that bringing in 60,000 costs, what, a million or two bucks, right?

The cost of this enormous refugee resettlement program is one of things government has consistently downplayed. In all likelihood we're talking about $4-5 billion per year just for each new group. And these groups are unlikely to become self-sustaining in their second or third or tenth year insofar as becoming well enough paid to be taxpayers. Most of these people have neither language nor job skills nor education, and the best they can hope for in Canada is that once they learn the language they can get clerk jobs at Wal-mart or work as security guards or janitors or taxi drivers.

Given our progressive tax system this means they will, in all likelihood, never be contributing taxpayers, but will instead be consumers of government services their entire lives. So what does that cost the various federal, provincial and municipal government budgets? $20 billion a year? $30 billion? $40 billion? It adds up when you're bringing in hundreds of thousands of third world refugees who have very little hope of becoming economically successful here.

Yeah but it gets the Liberals lots of votes. Remember when Liberals used to complain all the time about Harper buying votes. I'm sure they will criticize Trudeau Jr. for this, right?

[poochy]

It's not that much more than we have been taking, but the liberals do need to look super nice so they can pat themselves on the back for it and so stupid people can feel good about themselves, so it would have to be more. It would be nice if they took people who can actually contribute, but ...liberals, so yea.

[jacee]

Personally, I wish for a moratorium on all immigration for at least five years for starters. When a country is suppose to have a 7% unemployment rate it makes no sense to be bringing in more new immigrants where no doubt many of them will likely end up on the taxpayer's payroll eventually. Our politically correct politicians appear to live strickly off of emotion, and show signs of a lack of judgement, common sense and logic.

The unemployment rate - 5.8% for 2015 overall - includes all former immigrants and refugees.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor90a-eng.htm

They have somewhat higher rates of unemployment for the first 10 years, but then no different than those born in Canada.

There isn't much evidence of them 'taking jobs from Canadians', if that's what you're suggesting:

http://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2014/11/18/immigrants_took_the_brunt_of_recessionyear_turn_toward_selfemployment.html

Economic downturns do not impact all groups of workers equally. It is newcomers, particularly those recently arrived, who are more likely to lose their paid employment compared to Canadian-born workers, says the 48-page study.

We have always had immigration, always will. Otherwise the population of Canada would be decreasing. Our economy runs on growth. 300,000 is on the high side, not seen since the early 1900's, but a moratorium isn't reasonable.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=how+many+immigrants+canada+per+year&oq=how+many+immigrants+canada+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.14937j0j4&client=tablet-android-bell-ca&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=vsyTySEOhK-JpM%3A

Edited March 9, 2016 by jacee

[scribblet]

The Liberals are planning for huge influx of refugees, immigrant spouses at the expense of a reduction in skilled economic immigrants - not a reasonable plan as cutting skilled workers crazy. Bringing in large numbers of people who will likely be dependants and unskilled will not help our economy at all.

How are they going to pay for this as we know that the Liberals are not straight with us about cost of setting refugees

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberal-government-is-planning-to-bring-in-a-record-of-more-than-305000-new-permanent-residents-in-2016

[dialamah]

Being a refugee does not equally mean unskilled. They may be dependents at first, but just like other newcomers, they will look for work. Other than fear, there is no proof that immigrants or refugees are a net drain on our economy. Also the article notes that businesses in Albera are crying out for employees, the types of businesses who are looking for unskilled workers. Perhaps they are hoping for more unskilled refugees, than skilled.

Edited March 9, 2016 by dialamah

[scribblet]

I don't believe there's a consensus on the net drain overall but they are a net drain for the first 10 years at least. Considering the billions allready spent out of country and the the projected billions for refugees, it doesn't make sense to add more financial burdens to the country.

Canada's jobless rate went up to 7.2 percent in January so it seems to me we should only be bringing in people with skill sets matching Canadian job requirements. Alberta in January was 7.4%, maybe they are looking for unskilled workers but how many will go to Alberta?

It will of course increase the number of Liberal voters

[dialamah]

"It will of course increase the number of Liberal voters"

Trudeau voters perhaps in the next election, but beyond that and perhaps surprising to you, newcomers actually do make up their own minds about political issues and who to vote for. One immigrant (now citizen) I spoke with recently is dead set against more immigration even though he's only here because Liberal gov't allowed him in 15 years ago. He does not like Trudeau in the least.

[PIK]

The killer is family unification. All it does is fill up the hospitals so people that live here all there life or most of it and paid taxes ,cant get in. Liberal do not care about the country as a whole ,it is just something they can use to stay in power.

[BC_chick]

Trudeau voters perhaps in the next election, but beyond that and perhaps surprising to you, newcomers actually do make up their own minds about political issues and who to vote for. One immigrant (now citizen) I spoke with recently is dead set against more immigration even though he's only here because Liberal gov't allowed him in 15 years ago. He does not like Trudeau in the least.

I see a lot of this, myself included in a way. It's not really about shutting the door after us, it's about the influx being at a rate which can be absorbed properly. Even if immigrants were being located throughout the country it would have a different effect but we're mostly in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa. It kinda changes the society as a whole and I think that's where the problems arise. A lot of immigrants I know say the same things, be they Indian, Asian or middle-eastern.

[Argus]

If only you'd read my whole post you would not have wasted all that time typing. As I mentioned at the end of my post, I was not commenting one way or another on the number of refugees, I was just correcting the OP's initial post because 300K refugees seemed incredible to me.

I actually agree to some level with you.

I was simply speaking to the refugee question, not trying to refute anything you had said. It was the first post which gave the number of refugees as 60,000.

[Argus]

Yeah but it gets the Liberals lots of votes. Remember when Liberals used to complain all the time about Harper buying votes. I'm sure they will criticize Trudeau Jr. for this, right?

BOTH parties use the immigration system as a means of getting votes. I have previously posted the news report on the Mulroney cabinet decision from 1985 which tripled our immigration intake. The report said cabinet was informed by the economists that there was no real evidence this would provide any kind of economic benefit, and the deciding argument made by immigration minister Barbara McDougal was that all those newcomers would wind up voting Tory. Immigrants do tend to vote for whichever party was in power when they were let in.

Trudeau's changes to the system to date are not being done in Canada's interest either. Lowering our standards, allowing in more seniors who will require expensive health care, allowing in more 'family class' immigrants who are not tested for language, education or job skills, and allowing in more third world refugees all pose significant economic costs, none of which are being accounted for. And this is being done entirely for political reasons, not for Canada's benefit.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

The unemployment rate - 5.8% for 2015 overall - includes all former immigrants and refugees.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labor90a-eng.htm

They have somewhat higher rates of unemployment for the first 10 years, but then no differen t than those born in Canada.

Most people don't come to Canada wanting to spend their lives on welfare. However, when we're speaking about people who come here from third world countries who are not screened for education, language or job skills, many, if not most of whom will have significantly inferior educations, even those who do get work are not going to get good work. As I said above, they'll be working largely minimum wage, low skill jobs for the rest of their lives. Which means they aren't going to be contributing anywhere near enough in taxes to pay for the government services supplied to them.

Nor has the government ever provided any detailed rationalization of why we're bringing in a particular number of immigrants as opposed to some other number. Or why we're bringing in so many third world immigrants vs European immigrants who, statistics say, perform two to three times better, economically.