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

[taxme]

23 hours ago, Bonam said:

Unfortunately, I don't think those are straw man, because I've seen both of those claims sincerely made on this forum. For example, dre has argued that without continued immigration to sustain the housing markets with new demand for housing, our real estate bubble would pop, sending Canada into a US-2008 style recession. And in this very thread, smallc has made the claim that economies do not grow without population growth. So no, I'm not arguing against strawman but against real positions that people have. 

In regards to your example effect of 0.5% increased economic growth due to immigration... if we had solid data that could reliably trace 0.5% of our GDP/capita growth specifically to immigration, this would be a reasonable argument. But I don't see such data. The comparison to Japan (0.7% growth from your numbers above) to Canada (1.3% growth from your numbers above) showing a 0.6% difference in GDP/capita growth rate could result from the difference in immigration policy, but it could also result from any number of other factors, since Canada and Japan are very different countries. For example, Canada's economy is fueled to a large extent by the export of natural resources, some of which (oil) have gone up considerably in value over the last 25 years, and new sources of oil have been tapped (oil sands) that now contribute to Canada's economy. Meanwhile, Japan is a huge net resource importer, and is now more reliant on fossil fuel imports than ever after having shut down most of its nuclear plants 5 years ago. Additionally, Japan's economy is largely based on the development and export of advanced technology, in which they had little competition in Asia 25 years ago, but which is now dominated by South Korea (Samsung). I expect these factors have had an impact on Canada's relative growth to Japan over the last 25 years, and therefore the 0.6% difference you noted in average GDP/capita growth cannot be clearly attributed to the difference in immigration policy. 

 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, msj said:

We have more clout with the US - our largest trading partner. We will not be some tiny country next door to them. 

If we do the immigration right it smooths out our demographic problems. 

I doubt immigration harms our society/economy and think it is of at least a small net benefit as we generally are getting some of the best and brightest from around the world (with global networking connections) into our country. 

 

Yup, those 25,000 plus Syrian refugees are sure going to be bringing their best and brightest to Canada, eh? I wonder how many jobs will they create for Canada? I guess that must mean for sure that there will be more jobs created for the welfare and medicare system, and the immigration lobby and immigration lawyers also. Yup, in Canada we sure know how to create new jobs. We should be getting all those millions of unemployed Canadians working very soon. Keep bringing them in because Canada needs more refugees.  

[taxme]

28 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Why should we care? Plenty of countries are great, prosperous, peaceful places to live without having a lot of "international clout". Ever been to, say, New Zealand? There is no reason to cram Canada full of a hundred million people just so a few politicos can feel better about themselves when chatting with their US counterparts.

Where's BC2004 to point out how your Canadian psyche is affected by living in the shadow of the beast when you need him?

We certainly don't need approx. 3 - 400,000 new immigrants every year that appear to be coming to Canada every year. Besides, there are probably just as many babies being born in Canada. Massive Immigration is a big joke being played on the taxpayer's of this country. It is costing Canadians billions to continue with this politically correct agenda of the globalist corporate elite, and the pro third world immigration lobbies that our politically correct fake politicians listen too. Deplorable.   

 

 

[taxme]

7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm sure we could shoe-horn in 30 million.

I am sure the Liberals believe that is possible, and maybe are getting ready to try and give it a shot. It is probably a part of one of their future programs and agendas on immigration for Canada down the road. And we think today that traffic is bad in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, Aw well. 

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, taxme said:

We certainly don't need approx. 3 - 400,000 new immigrants every year that appear to be coming to Canada every year. Besides, there are probably just as many babies being born in Canada. Massive Immigration is a big joke being played on the taxpayer's of this country.

Since Confederation, up until the 1970's the domestic growth of our population (ie. births-deaths) was above 1%. Since that time our domestic birth rate has decreased steadily, however our population continues to grow at just over 1% per year because immigration has increased. Current projections put the domestic birth rate to continually decrease to the point in about 20 years we will have a declining population unless there is immigration.

Do we need an increasing population to maintain our growth in standard of living, can we accomplish that with a steady or declining population?

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

I am sure the Liberals ...

There is nothing partisan about it. I have yet to hear any party give clear alternatives on population growth, they all have been sticking to the status quo for decades. Yes, some like to spout a bunch of bigoted rhetoric, but non address the fundamental issue about population.

Edited November 17, 2016 by ?Impact

[msj]

56 minutes ago, Bonam said:

 

Where's BC2004 to point out how your Canadian psyche is affected by living in the shadow of the beast when you need him?

When you live in the shadow it is best to be bigger than a runt. 

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, msj said:

When you live in the shadow it is best to be bigger than a runt. 

 

It's been 150 years....still a runt.

[taxme]

33 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Since Confederation, up until the 1970's the domestic growth of our population (ie. births-deaths) was above 1%. Since that time our domestic birth rate has decreased steadily, however our population continues to grow at just over 1% per year because immigration has increased. Current projections put the domestic birth rate to continually decrease to the point in about 20 years we will have a declining population unless there is immigration.

Do we need an increasing population to maintain our growth in standard of living, can we accomplish that with a steady or declining population?

There is nothing partisan about it. I have yet to hear any party give clear alternatives on population growth, they all have been sticking to the status quo for decades. Yes, some like to spout a bunch of bigoted rhetoric, but non address the fundamental issue about population.

A once liberal immigration minister, name escapes me, said many decades ago that as many people die in Canada, they are replaced by new births. Immigration may be needed under some circumstances but not in the numbers that we are allowing in today, especially when Canada brings in people that are of no need to us. At the numbers of what our population is today, we can survive just fine without bringing in hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and refugees every year. I believe that the promotion of multiculturalism in Canada today has a lot to do with all of this immigration, and especially all this immigration coming from the third world which no one here seems to have a problem with.   

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

My point was Liberals are talking about spending massive amounts of tax payers dollars, not only on infra structure, but they have already spent 30 plus bil.....and are now talking amount 186 Bil over 12 years......but just months ago when DND approached the government on spending it was told sit down, your stuff is to expensive.....things like basic trucks to move logistics,a basic need...not a want....from my side of the bench it looks like the liberals are talking out the side of their mouths, and many items that need to be fixed have now been declared a bad word.....we don't talk about it....So much for an necessary expense....How many people put off Necessary expenses....What does necessary mean to you ?

i think you're probably absolutely right.  It simply comes to down to ideology and philosophy.  The Liberals now want to spend, spend, spend, but on the areas that fit with the party's more socially sympathetic ideology.  Yes, the military is a necessary expense, and you have to put in the money to keep it at least modestly functional.  I actually don't know much of anything about the state of our country's military infrastructure, but I do know that the priorities of giving funding to help immigrants/refugees vs strengthening the military are the complete opposites when comparing the Liberals to Conservatives.

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

The great thing is we don't really have to deal with it very much. The world population is projected to reach a maximum around about 10 billion and then slowly decline.  

So that must either mean the end of the economy or some sort of singularity.

[Bonam]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So that must either mean the end of the economy or some sort of singularity.

End of the economy - no.

Singularity - maybe, but population will likely level off without it (although ?impact is correct that some projections do have it continuing to grow). If the singularity does happen, it's hard to say anything about what will happen after that. For all we know, the idea of population might not even have any meaning post-singularity. 

[?Impact]

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

singularity.

 

Yes, it will end with Mada. Kind of like Benjamin Button, but on a global scale. 

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Bonam said:

End of the economy - no.

Singularity - maybe, but population will likely level off without it (although ?impact is correct that some projections do have it continuing to grow). If the singularity does happen, it's hard to say anything about what will happen after that. For all we know, the idea of population might not even have any meaning post-singularity. 

It's really hard to square this projection with a lifetime of hearing dire warnings about the need to grow the economy and how integral population growth is.  

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

i think you're probably absolutely right.  It simply comes to down to ideology and philosophy.  The Liberals now want to spend, spend, spend, but on the areas that fit with the party's more socially sympathetic ideology.  Yes, the military is a necessary expense, and you have to put in the money to keep it at least modestly functional.  I actually don't know much of anything about the state of our country's military infrastructure, but I do know that the priorities of giving funding to help immigrants/refugees vs strengthening the military are the complete opposites when comparing the Liberals to Conservatives.

 

Should it come down to ideology and philosophy when we are talking about a necessary expenses......I think there are some expenses that should be paid before we start looking at ideology or philosophy of one party or another.....just like we must pay the power company, or the lights get turned off.....what would happen if the government just decided it was not part of their ideology to give the provinces their share of the taxes, or pay out CPP.....Talking about military infra structure....DND has been scraping together dollars for equipment purchases, infra structure was one of those areas that were slimmed down.....while improvements to PMQ's and single quarters are still being made, most PMQ's were built in 1950's.....and no matter how much lipstick you put on a duck....it is still a duck.....DND was suppose to be creating a brand new set of modern PMQ's but that project was shelved....base Infra structure continues to grow, however, there are units in Petawawa that have been waiting for new infra structure since the mid 70's.....and even then those buildings were past due for replacement.....I can remember in the 80's our section was working out of buildings that were condemned and not fit for human occupancy....those buildings are still in service today.....still condemned and still being used.....

 

It should not be a liberal or conservative thing.....it should be a Canadian thing.....after all we are not talking about an army that has many capabilities....we are talking about the Canadian military.....and if we as Citizens can't see that, then perhaps we don't deserve the time the men and women put into our defense.....

 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, taxme said:

We certainly don't need approx. 3 - 400,000 new immigrants every year that appear to be coming to Canada every year. Besides, there are probably just as many babies being born in Canada.

A problem is that Canadian-born couples, especially white ones, have as an average about 1.5 babies per couple.  This is similar in most western developed countries.  So their population is shrinking, they aren't even replacing themselves.  Then add the baby boomers dying off soon.  If there was no immigration the population would actually be shrinking.

Given this, Caucasians are going to keep shrinking in numbers as visible minorities immigrate to fill the gap.  And the more that happens, caucasians will mate more often with visible minorities.   So caucasians could become an endangered race at some unknown point in the future.  And they certainly won't be the majority race in western countries if currents trends continue.  I'm sure I just made your day!

[Bonam]

34 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Given this, Caucasians are going to keep shrinking in numbers as visible minorities immigrate to fill the gap.  And the more that happens, caucasians will mate more often with visible minorities.   So caucasians could become an endangered race at some unknown point in the future.  And they certainly won't be the majority race in western countries if currents trends continue.  I'm sure I just made your day!

Caucasians are already a small minority worldwide, and their share of the world population has been falling for generations, though Western liberals like to paint them as majority oppressors. 

[Moonlight Graham]

29 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Caucasians are already a small minority worldwide, and their share of the world population has been falling for generations, though Western liberals like to paint them as majority oppressors. 

Yes very true.  Which is why, when immigration comes from anywhere, you're going to get mostly non-caucasians from countries people want to leave.  In a century we could have Chinese and Indian as major sub-cultural groups to go along with Quebecois and Anglos, possibly even demanding equal language rights.  If we think Trump or Brexit or Quebec separation is bad, what kind of divisive identity politics will that bring out?  This will be a major social/political tension in western countries over the next century.

[DogOnPorch]

9 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes very true.  Which is why, when immigration comes from anywhere, you're going to get mostly non-caucasians from countries people want to leave.  In a century we could have Chinese and Indian as major sub-cultural groups to go along with Quebecois and Anglos, possibly even demanding equal language rights.  If we think Trump or Brexit or Quebec separation is bad, what kind of divisive identity politics will that bring out?  This will be a major social/political tension in western countries over the next century.

Blue eyes are overrated.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Caucasians are already a small minority worldwide, and their share of the world population has been falling for generations, though Western liberals like to paint them as majority oppressors. 

Point of order... its oppressors of the majority, not the other way around.

 

Carry on.

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes very true.  Which is why, when immigration comes from anywhere, you're going to get mostly non-caucasians from countries people want to leave.  In a century we could have Chinese and Indian as major sub-cultural groups to go along with Quebecois and Anglos, possibly even demanding equal language rights. 

In a century? Been to Vancouver lately?

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bonam

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes very true.  Which is why, when immigration comes from anywhere, you're going to get mostly non-caucasians from countries people want to leave.  \

We could easily fulfill our immigration needs just from Europe. There are many talented, educated professionals there who would love to come and live here, particularly in some of the countries where the unemployment rate has been in double digits for many years.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Blue eyes are overrated.

Civilization isn't.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Civilization isn't.

I think we see eye to eye, there.

Blue eyes are recessive...perhaps we can Mendel Box a few for the museum of humanity in the 23rd century.

[Rue]

Immigration policy traditionally is supposed to consider the following:

1-does the potential immigrant have a skill that is needed in Canada

2-pursuant to 1, is not a redundant skill

3-not going to be dependent on the Canadian government

4-pursuant to 3, is not bringing a medical condition hat will be a burden on Canada

5-a candidate whose religious or day to day lifestyle, views, is compatible with the existing values of our democratic society.

 

In regards to 1, the political refugee process completely ignores that and has allowed a side door for unskilled individuals who

will be dependent on Canada for at least one to two generations to gain immediate entry and benefits and legal rights-its

a reaction to guilt for turning back Jews during WW2 to their deaths in Nazi occupied Europe-its based ona humanitarian theory and some

say its gone too far and the selection criteria is flawed, bias, and unfair-most people understand we need to show compassion to

the politically persecuted but the argument comes are you better off supporting housing, water and good supplies for refugees overseas or

is it better to bring them to Canada and if so how many-some believe Canada has unlimited resources to accommodate refugees others argue

they in fact compete for the same benefits as our born in Canada underclass.

 

In regards to 1 and 2, we supposedly have an objective method of criteria which classifies job occupations and determines what trades or skills

we need and then give people points as part of a selection process-however over the years people have lied about their skills and others claim

the tests to determine if their skills are adaptable to Canadian professional and regulatory standards are fair.

 

In regards to 1 and 2, at the present time we have a chronic shortage of social workers geriatric workers. industrial and residential plumbers, carpenters, construction workers, electricians.

 

We have a glut in lawyers, dental hygienists,  automobile mechanics, engineers, unskilled labour and students with Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Social Science but no applicable vocational skills.

 

We have a pressing need for animal doctors, physicians and dentists  of all kinds of specialties  outside the large urban cities. We have a xchronic shortage of nurses, nurse practitioners. Medical professions with shortages are oncology, psychiatry, gerontology/geriatrics. We even have a shortage of denturists (people who make false teeth).

 

In regards to 3, 95% of people who claim they will sponsor immigrants and guarantee to pay for them once they come to Canada, DO NOT.

 

In regards to immigrants and refugees sponsored by private non profit or other organizations, 95% of them become meaningful contributors.

 

Refugees suffer higher rates of heart disease, diabetes cancer and mental illness than immigrants or regular Canadians but not as high as aboriginals but higher or rquivalent to our underclass of chronically unemployed.

 

For every Canadian we see and believe exists is another living here illegally and working under the table for wages less than required under out minimum wage laws. These people often if not almost always can not speak English and depend on their children to translate for them and their children go to our schools  but do not exist as Canadian citizens acknowledged by the federal government.

 

The vast majority of refugees, legitimate and illegal immigrants come to Canada for medical care for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other fatal illnesses such as kidney and liver disease.

 

In regards to 4, some estimates believe as much as 50% of medicare patients may be using fake id's.

 

In regards to 5, it generates the most attention and controversy when in fact the ethical issues associated with 4 and the overhwleming failure of sponsors are the t wo most pressing issues. The cost to our medical system and the failure of sponsors to step up leads directly to tax increases to pay for these areas.

 

Most studies will argue immigrants and refugees as a whole cost less to Canada then they generate.

 

The stats for all of the above start with Statistics Canada and are then part of demographic studies done by the Ministry of  Immigration Canada, certain universities and private non profit institutions.

 

The assumption Canada is not growing fast enough population wise to pay into the tax system to support the bay boomer bubble now placing inordinate strains on our social system as these people age and no longer work is so far true but if the baby boomers all die off and we will including the tail enders like myself, there will then be a sudden rebound effect caused by the gap.

Canada has a population problem.

Our problem is 90% of our population only wants to live in a 500 square mile strip running West to East or vice versa along the US border.

New Canadians wish to come to established large urban centres where others of their own kind have already set up communities so they will feel safe and sheltered and be able to easier handle assimilation through the cushion of same language and culture ghettos.

Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Windsor, constitute to the urban centres and these urban centres run counter-productive to encouraging new immigrants to move North.

Every province to its North has chronic shortages of skilled professions such as doctors, dentists, paramedics, plumbers because there is not enough work or the wages paid for work is perceived inferior or the communities are viewed as too small or unwelcoming to people born outside them whether they be new Canadians our born Canadians from outside.

 

Those are the issues. We don't talk about them. What we do is focus on whether new Canadians are terrorist and/or are a burden to Canada. Its easier than examining all the issues and realizing the loyalty or cultural compatibility issue is actually not the most important one.

Me personally I say anyone who wants to work and be a loyal Canadian and is willing to go to towns and villages or small cities to the North and help build those areas is needed.

In terms of skin colour and religion and issues like that it tricky. Consider this. In the 1950's over 25,000 to up to 50,000  Lebanese left Lebanon's civil wars and came to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They were Maronite Christian so their adjustment was not the same as say Muslims with fundamentalist beliefs incompatible with existing Canadian beliefs.

Two ethnic groups, the Filippinos and Jamaicans defy immigration wisdom and show while their people come from tropical climates they have been willing to move anywhere in Canada and cold does not put them off. Other ethnic groups have high departure rates due to the weather.

In fact in Canada today there is a phenomena in West Toronto with Indians, Pakistanis and Arabic peoples to see them live in Canada seasonally, i.e, pull th eir children and leave from November to April and come back for May to October/ This delays assimilation with people living one foot in two different places.

It causes the children to be caught as non citizens of either country and serving constantly as translators.

There's also interesting trends as to how many people are coming to Canada because children have serious illnesses or autism they in their countries won't be treated. The provinces and cities don't refuse such services to illegal immigrants and it causes confusion  between federal and provincial governments in terms of ransferring of fubnds for certain services.

Certainly immigration policies federally can cause added tax increases provincially for welfare, health care, infrastructure, education.

Bottom line. The number of immigrants is meaningless. Its the support systems in place for those immigrants who will need benefits and what that capacity is that needs to be looked at. That's not just based on numbers. Coming up with an arbitrary number is pointless if all the other factors are not considered first. The problem is we come up with the no. first and then and only then begin to wrap our heads around whether we can accommodate. It should be the other way around.

Trudea showed vividly how he came up with an arbitrary no. of refugees for a feel good election exploitation exercise. As soon as he got his photo op handing out winter coats he was gone. Now who is dealing with the reality of these people. Where is feel good Trudeau now? Well he's off on some photo op again while social woorkers, teachers, welfare workers, hospitals, etc., wrestle with the adjustment disorders, mental illness and increase in cancer, diabetes, heart disease, tuberculosis, on and on.

I personally think it cruel to dump refugees into Canada without proper support which we did. It simply sets them up to fail and suffer from adjustment disorder which can take 2 maybe as many as 4 generations of families to overcome and sometimes is never overcome creating ghettoes of permanently unemployed, welfare families from generation to generation.

I also think we need to understand that up North is an epidemic of children killing themselves. They surely are as much a priority as bringing in new Canadians with similar adjustment and social maladies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

17 hours ago, Bonam said:

In a century? Been to Vancouver lately?

No actually.  What's it like?