Is increasing immigration by 50% to 450k too high?

[Smallc]

We don't have any surplus money, and really haven't for years.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

All of those things you mentioned is a byproduct of population growth, no matter if it's immigrants or Canadian-born.  You need to realize that immigrants pay taxes like everyone else, so they're paying for all of this new infrastructure the same as you are.  They work, they buy houses, they pay taxes etc

The problem is many of them DON'T pay taxes. How much taxes they will pay is directly related to their employability, and the majority of them are not very employable.

[Army Guy]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 11:05 PM, Smallc said:

We don't have any surplus money, and really haven't for years.

So Harper never produced any surplus.....all that money that goes unspent from all the depts. just goes up in flames on 31 march/.....just like it was never there..........so I've asked several times Smallc do you or do you not know where this money goes.....

Edited October 29, 2016 by Army Guy

[Smallc]

22 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So Harper never produced any surplus.....all that money that goes unspent from all the depts. just goes up in flames on 31 march/.....just like it was never there..........so I've asked several times Smallc do you or do you not know where this money goes.....

Harper didn't produce many surpluses.  Certainly less than he created in debt.  

 

As for the answer to your question - I don't know specifically where each dollar goes, and what the actual net figure is.  What I do know is that governments of both political stripes bring in immigrants for largely economic reasons, and that it's proven to create growth.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Smallc said:

What I do know is that governments of both political stripes bring in immigrants for largely economic reasons, and that it's proven to create growth.

Your opinion, completely unsupported by fact in both cases.

[Smallc]

Except for already presented facts.

[-TSS-]

The stupidest argument in favour of immigration but unfortunately often used one is the ageing population-argument. By importing immigrants to address the problem of ageing population is like curing a hangover by having another drink. The incomers should be of some use and not just young to make the statistics look better.

It is inevitable that a lot of the so-called low-skilled jobs where immigrants these days are employed will disappear in the future. Mass unemployment will be the new normal even in case of no immigration at all.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

Except for already presented facts.

I know it's hard to grasp this, but your opinion is not a 'fact'.

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, Smallc said:

Harper didn't produce many surpluses.  Certainly less than he created in debt.  

 

As for the answer to your question - I don't know specifically where each dollar goes, and what the actual net figure is.  What I do know is that governments of both political stripes bring in immigrants for largely economic reasons, and that it's proven to create growth.

So for the record Mr Harper did produce Surpluses........You know what Smallc Bravo to you sir, for admitting you are wrong, or do not know.....That makes two of us, what I am sure of is everything in accounting has a positive or negative outcome....one does no just vanish results.....that much I do know......

 

My question is this IS immigration the only way to promote economic growth......Was it not the liberals who's plan was to spend large sums of money to kick start the economy.....why not spend those 27 bil dollars used to fund immigration every year....and spend it on Canadians to increase population growth, improve things for younger families, maybe start an free education  system with it etc etc.....Nobody wants to think outside the box.....for most it is bring in the immigrants at great cost....we don't want to hear any of that rubbish about new ideas......

[Smallc]

Well, I'll turn that around on you - why not bring immigrants?  The history of the country (the literal fact that this country exists) is because of immigration.  This country has become one of the greatest in the world (you're one of the few people that don't share that view) because of immigration.  

 

What do you have against immigrants?

[Bonam]

6 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Well, I'll turn that around on you - why not bring immigrants?  The history of the country (the literal fact that this country exists) is because of immigration.  This country has become one of the greatest in the world (you're one of the few people that don't share that view) because of immigration.  

Hasn't this been answered enough times on this forum?

• cost of supporting immigrants 
• lack of evidence to suggest that immigration really drives economic growth (all "evidence" is opinion only - even if it's an economist's opinion, it's still opinion). Economic growth means per-capita growth, not just the absolute size of the economy. 
• the downward pressure on wages caused by an ever-abundant supply of cheap labour
• environmental damage due to the need to constantly expand cities and land use
• social/cultural problems of bringing in large numbers of immigrants from cultures with very different ideas of rights and values, faster than they can be assimilated

Edited October 30, 2016 by Bonam

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Well, I'll turn that around on you - why not bring immigrants?  The history of the country (the literal fact that this country exists) is because of immigration.

Really? This is your excuse? Well, we used to have it, so we have to always have it!

We used to have it because there were no people here. That isn't the case any more. There's lots of people here, and no frontiers that need exploring or colonizing.

Furthermore, the day when some ignorant yokel could come here and get work on a farm or in a forest are long gone. Now the ignorant yokel comes here and goes on welfare or tries to drive a cab.  Also different, when they failed in the old days, they turned around and went home. Now they go on welfare while we feed their kids and provide them all with free housing and health care. Every public housing project in central Canada is jammed with immigrants.

 

[Smallc]

So, again, we're talking about a country that was created by immigration.  Similar stories exist in the US, Australia, New Zealand.  Through immigration these countries became some of the most successful in the world.  Creating an arbitrary cutoff, now, because you happen to be here, doesn't really change that.  The same arguments have been used (unsuccessfully, I might ad) by people throughout history.  It has more to do with fear of change and the immigrants themselves than the actual economic arguments.

From the Tyee (just as trustworthy ad the Fraser Institute:

Even if immigrants pay less in taxes than average Canadians (because their incomes are lower), that does not tell us that immigrants are drains on the public system. In order to know that, we must also know whether immigrants withdraw in excess of what they contribute from the public services to which they are entitled. Perhaps the authors believe they have evidence indicating that immigrants are net takers (if so, it does not appear in the report), but the wealth of evidence suggests otherwise: immigrants are less likely than native-Canadians to use employment insurance, subsidized housing, social assistance, and so on.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/09/12/Fraser-Institute-Immigrants-Costly/

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Smallc said:

From the Tyee (just as trustworthy ad the Fraser Institute:

And once again, you seem incapable of telling the difference between an onion and a fact. The Fraser Institute people spent months researching data to come up with their findings. The Tyree offers up an unsupported opinion and to you, that's just as good. 

Quote

Even if immigrants pay less in taxes than average Canadians (because their incomes are lower), that does not tell us that immigrants are drains on the public system. In order to know that, we must also know whether immigrants withdraw in excess of what they contribute from the public services to which they are entitled.

Do their kids go to school? Do they make use of roads, health care, and other public services? If they're not paying income tax then they're unquestionably withdrawing 'in excess' of what they contribute.

The Fraser Institute did a response to crtiics, which, like the original study, I know you will not read because you despise any source of information which is not Left wing, but here it is anyway.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada.pdf

 

 

Edited October 30, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Trudeau has increased the number of family class immigrants at the expense of skilled immigrants, which is good for him getting votes from ethnics, but bad for Canada. But since when did a Liberal ever care about Canada anyway? The problem of family immigration is clearly stated in a Fraser Institute report on the subject.

Family Class immigration has long been a major element of Canada's immigration policy. Within this program, a key aspect in recent decades has been the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. After being sponsored for entry by their sons or daughters in Canada, these parents can bring with them their unmarried dependent children. The latter can then marry spouses from their country of origin, who in turn become eligible to sponsor their own parents and their parents' offspring, resulting in 'chain migration'. None of these sponsored immigrants are required to meet the educational, work experience, and language competency standards required of Economic Class immigrants.

As for sponsored parents, which the Trudeau government has also promised to DOUBLE, the report quotes the government's own study from five years ago on the costs.

The government memorandum estimated that in 2010 there were 275,000 senior (i.e., older than age 65) sponsored parents and grandparents in Canada and that their balance-of-life health care costs were $27 billion (Access to Information request by author to Citizenship and Immigration Can ada, 2011c: 3). 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/canadian-family-class-immigration

[msj]

Can we get a cite on the stats for the claim that Trudeau has increased family class proportionately more as compared to skill? 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, msj said:

Can we get a cite on the stats for the claim that Trudeau has increased family class proportionately more as compared to skill? 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-immigration-levels-plan-2016-1.3479764

[msj]

Doesn't exactly give firm numbers, does it? 

So it means, what? 15,000 more family class/refugee as compared to previous? 

If you can tease out the figures then go ahead but I don't think they are available in that terrible article and I know better than to trust a headline.  

So, again, any stats from a reliable source that is not filtered through by a journalist who likely has doubtful numeracy skills? 

[Army Guy]

15 hours ago, Smallc said:

Well, I'll turn that around on you - why not bring immigrants?  The history of the country (the literal fact that this country exists) is because of immigration.  This country has become one of the greatest in the world (you're one of the few people that don't share that view) because of immigration.  

 

What do you have against immigrants?

Yes I will agree with you Immigration built this country to what it is today....But let me ask you this, do you think the immigration process of the past was a fair and equable one , or was it slanted to mostly white men and women, from mostly Europe....less Jews, and other small unwanted groups.....Is that the process you slapping me in the face with.....  

I have no problem with immigration, but not in the numbers they have today....and not at the cost .....

And just because i'm one of the few people that do not agree, does not mean that immigration is the only way to keep our country viable for the future..... 

I have nothing again'st immigration, except i'd rather see that 27 Bil put back into Canadians hands vice newly arrived immigrants....it is after all their money is it not.....unless you think they are unworthy.....what do you have again'st Canadians....of all colors, race, creeds.....

[Army Guy]

49 minutes ago, msj said:

Doesn't exactly give firm numbers, does it? 

So it means, what? 15,000 more family class/refugee as compared to previous? 

If you can tease out the figures then go ahead but I don't think they are available in that terrible article and I know better than to trust a headline.  

So, again, any stats from a reliable source that is not filtered through by a journalist who likely has doubtful numeracy skills? 

You would think all this info would be on our federal web sites.....you know in advent we had a government interested in transparency....but they are not ...why is that ....is it because the numbers are too high for the average Canadian to swallow....shit even the liberals said the numbers are huge.....and a lot of Canadians are not going to like it.....what code is that for I wonder......soften the blow a bit....why not mention the number in the same article.....because they don't want you to see it....The numbers will come out sooner than later...and when they do, I wonder if You guys are going to all for immigration......or be looking for an alternative.

 

[msj]

Of course they are not available. 

Why? Because we need to wait a couple more years to see what actually happens and then another year to gather the stats so we know what happened. 

I'll wait for that information while you guys speculate endlessly about headlines and what this politician says versus what that politician says. 

[Smallc]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And once again, you seem incapable of telling the difference between an onion and a fact. The Fraser Institute people spent months researching data to come up with their findings. The Tyree offers up an unsupported opinion and to you, that's just as good. 

Do their kids go to school? Do they make use of roads, health care, and other public services? If they're not paying income tax then they're unquestionably withdrawing 'in excess' of what they contribute.

The Fraser Institute did a response to crtiics, which, like the original study, I know you will not read because you despise any source of information which is not Left wing, but here it is anyway.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada.pdf

 

 

Look I wouldn't trust the Fraser Institute with my coffee, so citing them won't convince me.

 

They're the same people that say 46% of our economy is taxed, when the OECD, IMF, and even the Heritage Institute say it's 32 - 33%.

 

The article I quote, btw, served to tear apart the flawed methodology used in the study.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Yes I will agree with you Immigration built this country to what it is today....But let me ask you this, do you think the immigration process of the past was a fair and equable one , or was it slanted to mostly white men and women, from mostly Europe....less Jews, and other small unwanted groups.....Is that the process you slapping me in the face with.....  

I have no problem with immigration, but not in the numbers they have today....and not at the cost .....

And just because i'm one of the few people that do not agree, does not mean that immigration is the only way to keep our country viable for the future..... 

I have nothing again'st immigration, except i'd rather see that 27 Bil put back into Canadians hands vice newly arrived immigrants....it is after all their money is it not.....unless you think they are unworthy.....what do you have again'st Canadians....of all colors, race, creeds.....

 

I don't find it useful to judge the past through the prism of the present when it comes to race and gender equality.

 

There is no $27B - it is a figment of the imagination of the Fraser institute.

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Look I wouldn't trust the Fraser Institute with my coffee, so citing them won't convince me.

Let's be honest.  You wouldn't trust God himself if he came down from Heaven if he said anything that disagreed with Justin.

24 minutes ago, Smallc said:

They're the same people that say 46% of our economy is taxed, when the OECD, IMF, and even the Heritage Institute say it's 32 - 33%.

And I bet you haven't the first idea of why they might differ, or what each study covers or considers, because you haven't bothered to look into it. Didn't the IMF recently say Canada gave its oil and gas industry $34 billion a year in subsidies? I think I'd trust them with very little.

 

[Smallc]

I find it funny that you're unwilling to believe that figure, but quite willing to believe the figure related to immigration.

 

The Fraser institute has been caught more than once creating figures.

 

Also, I myself have criticized Trudeau in cash for access, so I don't know what you're talking about.