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

[Bonam]

19 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No actually.  What's it like?

They are already major "cultural groups" in Vancouver, no need to wait a century. 

[Moonlight Graham]

44 minutes ago, Bonam said:

They are already major "cultural groups" in Vancouver, no need to wait a century. 

Yeah, I've seen that in other parts of Canada.  But in Van it seems more concentrated with one overwhelming group (Chinese) than a diverse mix, at least that's my impression.  The times, they are a changin'.  Diversity sounds good on paper, & it is good in many respects, but we have to be practical/realistic too, we need to look at the repeated history of how multiculturalism has worked & not worked in the past, we have to understand that when you have different cultural groups within a country & they become large enough groups to have a political voice, it's only natural that tensions can happen.  Anglos vs French vs aboriginals... we still haven't figured that one out yet how many centuries later?

We need to understand that if we don't handle things properly & look at the tensions that could occur in the future, if we don't understand that the utopian idea of all groups living together happily ever after within a single state is something that often isn't the norm & can/has easily disintegrated into hatred/resentment & violence, then we could learn that lesson the hard way.  It could make Donald Trump and Brexit look tame.  Culture can be so divisive because you're talking about a person's traditions and very way of life, a massive part of their identity, & when they see that threatened or parts of it being eradicated, normally peaceful people will kill/die to preserve it.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yeah, I've seen that in other parts of Canada.  But in Van it seems more concentrated with one overwhelming group (Chinese) than a diverse mix, at least that's my impression.  The times, they are a changin'.  Diversity sounds good on paper, & it is good in many respects, but we have to be practical/realistic too, we need to look at the repeated history of how multiculturalism has worked & not worked in the past, we have to understand that when you have different cultural groups within a country & they become large enough groups to have a political voice, it's only natural that tensions can happen.  Anglos vs French vs aboriginals... we still haven't figured that one out yet how many centuries later?

We need to understand that if we don't handle things properly & look at the tensions that could occur in the future, if we don't understand that the utopian idea of all groups living together happily ever after within a single state is something that often isn't the norm & can/has easily disintegrated into hatred/resentment & violence, then we could learn that lesson the hard way.  It could make Donald Trump and Brexit look tame.  Culture can be so divisive because you're talking about a person's traditions and very way of life, a massive part of their identity, & when they see that threatened or parts of it being eradicated, normally peaceful people will kill/die to preserve it.

Unless your a white person, then your labeled a racist. 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No actually.  What's it like?

Shanghai.

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

No actually.  What's it like?

Vancouver? It's wet.

[dre]

On 11/9/2016 at 4:08 PM, Army Guy said:

How do other nations mange economic growth such Japan, who happens to have a very restrictive immigration policies, how does one of the largest world economies mange it all without bringing in large numbers of immigrants.....or are you suggesting that there are no exceptions to the rules..... 

There are no rules, and there IS exceptions. There is no universal direct link between population growth, and per-capita GDP. In 1800 Thomas Malthus argued that population growth would eventually depress living standards simply because humans either directly or indirectly live off the land, and the more people there is in any given area the less natural resources there is for each one. If your "country" was the size of one farm, and that farm was fully utilized then doubling the population would mean everyone has half as much food. A simple concept. Of course he didn't realize how technological development could change that.

Every economy is different. What IS apparent however is that per-capita GDP in Canada has not followed the inverse relationship predicted my Malthus. In fact the opposite has happened. But you still cant infer from that a direct relationship between population growth and economic growth because there are so many other factors in play. The world bank did a study that shows growth in "human capital" accounts for roughly half of economic growth, but that still leaves the other half.

The problem with allowing the population to stagnate in the west is that our entire economic and monetary systems are designed around growth. They were built at a time when the British Empire was rapidly expanding across the world, and designed to facilitate that. Our standard of life is either directly or indirectly related to the consumption of natural resources. And in our system the rate at which we exploit those resources is controlled by the amount of synthetic money in the economy. And since that synthetic money is primarily created as "promise to pay" money when people take out a loan from a commercial bank, our economy (in this system) is dependent on an ever increasing number of borrowers. Population growth increases demand for everything from homes to roads, to stores, etc etc. All of those things increase the amount of synthetic money in the economy.

This is why banks, businesses, and governments are the primary drivers of population growth and immigration. 

But there is no RULE. There's no reason that a Canada with a static population of 1 million residents could not have very high standards of life... But we would have to separate usury from money creation, and make a totally different kind of economy, and a different kind of country. Could a Canada with 1 million residents afford to have a highway from Port Hardy to Newfoundland? Probably not. In a stagnant economy there will be almost no new construction, very few new businesses, very little in terms of new infrastructure development, etc

I guess we could replace the massive employment generated by growing our civilization with exports... the problem with that is competing in global markets depresses our own wages because we expect a way higher standard of life for our 40 hour work week than pretty much everyone else on earth.

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, dre said:

There is no universal direct link between population growth, and per-capita GDP.

1 hour ago, dre said:

There is no universal direct link between population growth, and per-capita GDP.

 

According to the study you can find at:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.2125.pdf

it states: 

"Some in fact state per capita GDP growth rate is uniquely determined by the current distribution of the personal income which, in turn, depends on population age distribution. "

For further clarification of the above at : https://jobmarketmonitor.com/2012/10/19/the-effect-of-population-growth-on-per-capita-gdp-growth-is-negative-in-developing-countries-minh-quang-dao/

are exerpts from a 2010 report from Dyson which stated:

"More recently, Dyson (2010) claims that mortality decline aids economic growth and hence leads to an increase in the standard of living. As people live longer, they tend to think more about the future and are more likely to take risk and innovate. For instance, Bloom and Canning (2001) and Kalemli-Ozcan (2002) find evidence in developing countries that mortality decline has the tendency to raise educational attainment and savings rates and thus to increase investment in both physical and human capital.

In addition to mortality decline, Dyson (2010) has identified population growth, fertility and age-structural change as well as urban growth/urbanization as demographic factors that affect economic growth.

Based on data from the World Bank and using a sample of forty-three developing economies, the author finds that the growth rate of per capita GDP is linearly dependent upon population growth, both the young and old dependency ratios, the mortality rate. Using interaction variables in light of the severe degree of multicollinearity among explanatory variables, the author also find that per capita GDP growth linearly depends on population growth, the old dependency ratio, the mortality rate, and the interactions between population growth and both the young and old dependency ratios, between population growth and whether or not the rate of population growth is less than 1.2 percent per year, and the interaction term between the young dependency ratio and whether or not the rate of population growth is less than 1.2 percent per year.

The effect of population growth on per capita GDP growth is linear and everywhere negative. It is stronger when interaction terms are included in the statistical model. Governments in developing countries can influence population growth in order to stimulate growth. China provides a clear example by suddenly introducing a collection of highly coercive methods to reduce the total fertility rate from about 5.8 to 2.2 births per woman between 1970 and 1980.

Since a decline in fertility affects the age structure of the population of a developing country, it is found to have no significant statistical impact on economic growth when both the young and old dependency ratios are included in the model. The effect of the old dependency ratio on per capita GDP growth is always negative and stronger when interaction terms are included in the model.

On the other hand, the interactions between the young dependency ratio and population growth and whether or not the average annual population growth rate is less than 1.2 percent exert a positive influence on economic growth.

Neither the level of urbanization nor urban growth has a statistically significant impact on per capita GDP growth. This result may be due to the fact that these two dimensions of the demographic transition exert positive and negative effects on economic growth and these effects are self-cancelling."

 

Bottom line is that  the relationship between population growth and the rate of increase in per capita income is fairly complex but there is indeed a relationship.

The problem is its a complex one.

Common sense alone would tell you that if the world’s population continues to increase at the rate that it grew in the past 20-60 years , economic growth will no keep up and therefore be unlikely to be translated into an improvement in the average standard of living.

As for the  rate of population growth on the planet its not evenly spread and it does not grow in a near flat line because disease, famine, draught, mutating viruses, war, poverty, all grow unevenly. We also know there are large and sudden movements of migrants caused by draught, famine, flooding, earthquakes, natural disasters and wars some predictable, some not and they impact on economic forces. 

if you go to:

Phillip Appleman, ed., Thomas Robert Malthus: An Essay on the Principle of Population—Text, Sources and Background, Criticism (New York: Norton, 1976), xi.

You will find an article that says among other things:

“At the end of each day, the world now has over two hundred thousand more mouths to feed than it had the day before; at the end of each week, one and one-half million more; at the close of each year, an additional eighty million. … Humankind, now doubling its numbers every thirty-five years, has fallen into an ambush of its own making; economists call it the “Malthusian trap,” after the man who most forcefully stated our biological predicament: population growth tends to outstrip the supply of food.”
 

In Canada some believe if we bring in too many refugees or unskilled workers unable to quickly assimilate and begin contributing to the economy they will be a burden on the economy. That's a different fear based theory than the above which prettty much is an argument for birth control in the third world.

The problem is people in the third and fourth world deliberately have as many children as they can because they have no social safety net so large numbers of children increases the chance of  1 of them growing old enough to look after their parents or siblings.

In Canada population is not the issue, its population distribution according to placing people with the skills needed in specific areas. That we are not doing. No one would have a problem wit immigrants directly placed in underpopulated areas providing skills and services badly needed.

The problem is our federal, provinicial and municipal governments are not working in unison on this as they could. There is also a legal problem because now the Charter of Rights applies to anyone in Canada, even illegals and the Charter says they can't be forced to live anywhere they don't want to.

Incentives to get people to move to the North have failed. n fact when communities and smaller cities pay to send students to medical schools down South on the understanding they will return to serve the communities that paid for them, few actually do.

There is one medical school designed to encourage gp's to go up North.

Most doctors coming out with huge debts want to start making money fast.

Our immigration policies lack imagination. In fact they have tried point systems, incentive systems, private sponsorship systems, none have really caught on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Rue

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, dre said:

There are no rules, and there IS exceptions. There is no universal direct link between population growth, and per-capita GDP.

 

The problem with allowing the population to stagnate in the west is that our entire economic and monetary systems are designed around growth. They were built at a time when the British Empire was rapidly expanding across the world, and designed to facilitate that. Our standard of life is either directly or indirectly related to the consumption of natural resources. And in our system the rate at which we exploit those resources is controlled by the amount of synthetic money in the economy. And since that synthetic money is primarily created as "promise to pay" money when people take out a loan from a commercial bank, our economy (in this system) is dependent on an ever increasing number of borrowers. Population growth increases demand for everything from homes to roads, to stores, etc etc. All of those things increase the amount of synthetic money in the economy.

 

 

So your saying is we need change , change can be good, always more than one way to skin a cat....

Well if what you say is true, Our economy should be booming.....after all Canadians are holding on to record levels of debt.....and they got there by taking out a simple bank loan, to create your synthetic money.....But those in charge of financial matters are sending us warnings ALL Canadians need to lower their levels of debt....pay those loans off, and not take more out....and while immigration  does increase growth, it is not the prime mover of growth......and population growth can be done in many forms , internally, or externally.....

 

Quote

But there is no RULE. There's no reason that a Canada with a static population of 1 million residents could not have very high standards of life... But we would have to separate usury from money creation, and make a totally different kind of economy, and a different kind of country. Could a Canada with 1 million residents afford to have a highway from Port Hardy to Newfoundland? Probably not. In a stagnant economy there will be almost no new construction, very few new businesses, very little in terms of new infrastructure development, etc

The economy is stagnant now, and Canadians have record levels of debt.....the fact that the nations has a huge infra structure debt also at record levels.....this has been going on for years....Immigration is also at record numbers for Canada......and we want to bring in more because history has shown that large numbers of immigrants improve these conditions....like some magic pill.....and this is what I don't get.....we tried that, bringing in over 300,000 immigrants and refugees, last year.....has the economy improved....if not why would we want to continue banging our heads again'st the wall...how more do we bring in to make a difference.....and if Immigrants are the answer.....why not rent a bunch of boats head to some of these 3 rd world countries and load them up.....bring in millions........that would get things going would it not...all of this has been going on for more years than I can remember.....and you guys are acting like we found more dead sea scrolls.....touting it as the answer.....we can spend our way out of trouble....Canadians tried that and now it's time to pay the banker.....

[dre]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So your saying is we need change , change can be good, always more than one way to skin a cat....

Well if what you say is true, Our economy should be booming.....after all Canadians are holding on to record levels of debt.....and they got there by taking out a simple bank loan, to create your synthetic money.....But those in charge of financial matters are sending us warnings ALL Canadians need to lower their levels of debt....pay those loans off, and not take more out....and while immigration  does increase growth, it is not the prime mover of growth......and population growth can be done in many forms , internally, or externally.....

 

Yeah... I don't really disagree with you. I'm not saying that expanding the population and the amount of debt/money forever is a smart thing to do. Clearly it can only go on for so long. I was just trying to explain WHY it happens.  I think for sure in the long term we need some kind of system of "real" money, and the best way for us to grow our standard of life will be to slow population growth or stop it, or even let it contract. The problem is no government wants to be in charge when the music stops, and there's massive pressure on governments coming from the financial sector to keep things going. 

What we need to do is get rid of commercial banking, and replace the credit system with an automatic system of self issued debt run by a computer system. Fix the size of the money supply to GDP, and just issue interest free credit to citizens based on their balance of trade. We keep investment banking but those banks have nothing to do with money creation.

So for example... lets say the economy grew enough to warrant the introduction of 1 trillion dollars of new credit into the system... The system would allocate that money to citizens and corporations. You would just log on and access your credit. A really productive person or business would have access to quite a bit of credit. Someone that is not productive would have access to none. We would have to endure recessions instead of borrowing money to lessen the impact but neither our government or our people would ever be one cent in debt (with the exception of people that borrowed venture capital from investment banks)

 

[taxme]

On 11/17/2016 at 9:29 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

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!

The real problem as to why the white race all over the world is in decline is because of the program and agendas of the promotion of multiculturalism, promotion of the gay agenda, promotion of feminism, and the promotion of interracial couples and marriage. These have all had an effect on white decline. 

 

But this decline I am pretty sure can be rectified if the provincial and federal governments were to make an offer white men and women couples cannot refuse. Offer white women huge sums of money to have more white children. The money wasted on programs and agendas by the leftist Marxist liberal white hating elite on bilingualism, multiculturalism,refugees, foreign-aid alone could be instead given as a reward too white couples to have more white babies. I am pretty sure that there are many white women out in the working world that would take up that offer. Because of the high cost of living most women have to work to maintain an existence in a married relationship.

I have heard that there are many white people from other white countries that would like to come to Canada but because they are white, most end up in the back of the line. It would appear as though non-whites are getting priority to immigrate to Canada over white people. Our fake and phony politicians can do a lot more in trying to turn this policy around but for some n/k reason they are not.

The way things are being done today, and if allowed to continue, it will surely end up putting Canadian Caucasians into a minority situation, and I can tell you right now, our children and grandchildren are the ones that will suffer for it. And the few white children that will be born in Canada after Caucasians become the minority will never know or learn anything about their white history because it will no doubt be erased and kept from them in non-white controlled schools. They will no doubt only be taught non-white history.

It is not too late to do something about it now because in another two decades it will be too late. Occasionally I get to see some white couples with three or four or even five kids, and this gives me great hope that this will continue on, and that more white couples have plenty of white kids, and help preserve our culture, traditions and heritage alive. If they can do it then offer incentives to other white couples to have more children, and we just may save our race from becoming a minority in our own Caucasian country. 

Works for me.     

[taxme]

On 11/18/2016 at 7:02 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Yeah, I've seen that in other parts of Canada.  But in Van it seems more concentrated with one overwhelming group (Chinese) than a diverse mix, at least that's my impression.  The times, they are a changin'.  Diversity sounds good on paper, & it is good in many respects, but we have to be practical/realistic too, we need to look at the repeated history of how multiculturalism has worked & not worked in the past, we have to understand that when you have different cultural groups within a country & they become large enough groups to have a political voice, it's only natural that tensions can happen.  Anglos vs French vs aboriginals... we still haven't figured that one out yet how many centuries later?

We need to understand that if we don't handle things properly & look at the tensions that could occur in the future, if we don't understand that the utopian idea of all groups living together happily ever after within a single state is something that often isn't the norm & can/has easily disintegrated into hatred/resentment & violence, then we could learn that lesson the hard way.  It could make Donald Trump and Brexit look tame.  Culture can be so divisive because you're talking about a person's traditions and very way of life, a massive part of their identity, & when they see that threatened or parts of it being eradicated, normally peaceful people will kill/die to preserve it.

We are dealing with a globalist corporate elite that do not believe in borders. They want all countries to get rid of their borders, and just let any and everyone waltz right on into any country in the world like with the EU. The corporate elite globalists hate the word nationalism because it does not meet with their expectations and plans for their new world order and world domination. In order to stop their globalist plans, all the people of all western countries in the world need to start thinking about nationalism in their countries. I believe that nationalism is on the rise, and especially in western countries where we see massive third world immigration piling into just about every Caucasian country out there. They are starting to see the threat of what this disaster of a program called multiculturalism is and has been doing to western countries for decades now. Hopefully, with Donald Trump as President he will put an end to globalism as he appears to be against many NAFTA type trade agreements.   

[taxme]

On 11/18/2016 at 0:48 AM, Bonam said:

In a century? Been to Vancouver lately?

Been to BC lately? I have, I live there. In Vancouver 40% of the population is non-white. In Richmond, BC whites are now in the minority. Surrey will soon be that way also. In BC alone 25% of the population is non-white. For those who are in love with multiculturalism and are all for diversity well this little tidbit should make your day. 

[Argus]

9 hours ago, taxme said:

The real problem as to why the white race all over the world is in decline is because of the program and agendas of the promotion of multiculturalism, promotion of the gay agenda, promotion of feminism, and the promotion of interracial couples and marriage.

More like most white woman in rich countries aren't enthusiastic about having five or six kids and spending a lifetime at home raising them. Partly that's economic, and partly it's cultural. Women are no longer being pushed to have a lot of kids by friends, family or society. Instead, for the last half century or so, they've been pushed to get degrees and have rewarding careers.

Notwithstanding that most of them don't have rewarding careers.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Argus

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

More like most white woman in rich countries aren't enthusiastic about having five or six kids and spending a lifetime at home raising them. Partly that's economic, and partly it's cultural. Women are no longer being pushed to have a lot of kids by friends, family or society. Instead, for the last half century or so, they've been pushed to get degrees and have rewarding careers.

Notwithstanding that most of them don't have rewarding careers.

Then I guess that the Caucasian race is on the verge of becoming a minority in all western countries. We did it to ourselves thanks to all those programs and agendas that I mentioned that was foisted on Caucasian people. I can only blame one ethnic group for this mess who have been the push behind multiculturalism and massive third world immigration for decades now. Our children and grandchildren will not know the same country that you and I grew up in. It will be a new country for them. They will feel like new immigrants in their own country. Way the go.  

[Rue]

3 hours ago, taxme said:

Then I guess that the Caucasian race is on the verge of becoming a minority in all western countries. We did it to ourselves thanks to all those programs and agendas that I mentioned that was foisted on Caucasian people. I can only blame one ethnic group for this mess who have been the push behind multiculturalism and massive third world immigration for decades now. Our children and grandchildren will not know the same country that you and I grew up in. It will be a new country for them. They will feel like new immigrants in their own country. Way the go.  

We homo sapiens have always  defined our pack differences by looking at colour and texture  of fur/hair, teeth shape, eye size and shape , ear/nose structure, smell.

As Taxme shows, like all homo sapiens he defines his pack that way. He calls his pack  "Caucasian".

Now whether the apes in our government when planning immigration  are welcoming in too many brown or black furred  apes or those slanty eyed ones from Asia  I do not know. You'd have to ask  a Zoologist. They all seem to like bananas though and playing with themselves in public and urinating on people if they get too close. Call them crazy.

What I do know is on this planet of the apes some people like Taxme are fretting certain ape packs are becoming extinct. Maybe he should catch some and put them in the Toronto zoo and have their experts help them  reproduce.

Curious George On Immigration

like I told my girl friend Annah

its all about dah banana

big or small

short or tall

someone needs to tell Taxme

we'z all just a monkey

an he aint any different than a Jew

cuz he  also lives in a zoo

yah dats ryt

we'z all quite the site

he wants to call himself  Caucasian

but that don't explain his situation

and that God only knows 

why none of us wear clothes

or why terrorists aint  guerillas

just extremist fellas

the sign they put on his cage

don't mean anything in this information age

its just a label

on his stable

no one cares about  his name

monkeys all  look the same

 so welcome to Canada

 or is it Granada

 

.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Rue

[carepov]

On 11/16/2016 at 4:38 PM, Bonam said:

 

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. 

You are right, it is not possible to draw and significant conclusions when comparing such different countries as Japan and Canada.  Canada's growth in the last 20 years was double that of Japan, I think that immigration helped but cannot prove it.

Here are some studies that support the Advisory Council's proposal to increase growth with increased economic immigration:

“… a large body of research that provides theoretical and empirical support for other benefits of immigration beyond fiscal costs/benefits. For instance, a comprehensive study done by a panel of experts in National Research Council 15 (National Research Council, 1997) to assess the effects of immigration on US economy, using a basic economic model and plausible assumptions, suggests that “immigration produces net economic gains for domestic residents, for several reasons.” At the most basic level, immigration facilitates the production of new goods and services through increasing the labour supply. This will generate a gain for domestic workers as a whole since immigrant workers are paid less than the total value of these new goods and services. Immigration also increases the productivity of domestic workers by enabling specialization in producing goods and services in which they are relatively more efficient. Immigration also generates specialization in consumption, and similar to the effect of international trade, breaks the link between domestic production and domestic consumption. This study estimates the domestic gains from immigration to be between $1 billion to $10 billion a year for the US economy. Immigration could also increase the total welfare of all Canadians as a result of cheaper price of goods and services produced by immigrants with lower wages. Another comprehensive study done by the World Bank (Ratha et al. 2011) summarizes some of the findings regarding gains from immigration: “Even though quantitative estimates of the direct gains from migration are difficult to obtain, economic simulations suggest that an increase in South-North migration would produce substantial income gains in the long-run; these income gains could exceed those from comprehensive trade liberalization; and the destination countries in the North would capture one fifth the overall benefits of increased immigration (World Bank 2006, Winters et al. 2003, Anderson & Winters 2008, van der Mensbrugghe & Roland-Holst 2009). Documented welfare gains from South-North migration work primarily through the increase in the available labor force. Ortega and Peri (2009) found that immigration increases employment in the destination countries in the North one for one, implying no crowding-out of natives. This result implies that immigration increases the total GDP of the receiving country without affecting average wages or labor productivity. Immigration has also been observed to boost productivity through innovation and specialization. Data from the United States show that one percent increase in the share of migrant university graduates increase the number of patent applications and grants issued per capita (Chellaraj et al. 2008, Hunt & Gauthier-Loiselle 2008). However, burdensome regulatory requirements and 16 procedures that foreign doctors, engineers, architects and accountants have to meet in order to practice in the destination country can impose significant financial and other costs on these highly skilled immigrants (Mattoo and Mishra 2009). Also the less-educated immigrants increase labor productivity as they complement the uneducated local labor force that, based on their knowledge of the local language and institutions, will be better able to specialize in more productive complementary tasks (Peri & Spaber 2009). Furthermore, immigrants are often willing to do jobs that locals no longer are interested in, such as care for the elderly (UNDP 2009, p. 85). Also, the availability of low-cost childcare by the immigrants can enable young local women to go back to work (Kremer & Watt 2006) thus boosting economic development further.” Countries could also benefit from immigration through its effect on international trade. An important channel through which immigrants influence international trade is the knowledge they have of their home economies, as well as expertise, linguistic skills and personal connections with their home country which facilitates the international trade. International Trade accounts for 36% of the Canadian GDP and plays an important role in Canadian economy. A study by Head and Ries (1998) suggest that “immigration has a significant positive relationship with Canadian bilateral trade.”” http://www.sfu.ca/~pendakur/Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20Immigration_V5.pdf

[taxme]

On 11/22/2016 at 4:57 PM, Rue said:

We homo sapiens have always  defined our pack differences by looking at colour and texture  of fur/hair, teeth shape, eye size and shape , ear/nose structure, smell.

As Taxme shows, like all homo sapiens he defines his pack that way. He calls his pack  "Caucasian".

Now whether the apes in our government when planning immigration  are welcoming in too many brown or black furred  apes or those slanty eyed ones from Asia  I do not know. You'd have to ask  a Zoologist. They all seem to like bananas though and playing with themselves in public and urinating on people if they get too close. Call them crazy.

What I do know is on this planet of the apes some people like Taxme are fretting certain ape packs are becoming extinct. Maybe he should catch some and put them in the Toronto zoo and have their experts help them  reproduce.

Curious George On Immigration

like I told my girl friend Annah

its all about dah banana

big or small

short or tall

someone needs to tell Taxme

we'z all just a monkey

an he aint any different than a Jew

cuz he  also lives in a zoo

yah dats ryt

we'z all quite the site

he wants to call himself  Caucasian

but that don't explain his situation

and that God only knows 

why none of us wear clothes

or why terrorists aint  guerillas

just extremist fellas

the sign they put on his cage

don't mean anything in this information age

its just a label

on his stable

no one cares about  his name

monkeys all  look the same

 so welcome to Canada

 or is it Granada

 

.

 

 

Hey, where is the sound?    As your tribe likes to promote themselves, so why can not gentile Caucasians be able to do the same themselves, uhmm? Just asking? 

[H10]

From the government's perspective the immigration racket is obvious. 

Most immigrants are supposed  to come to the country with money.  It is not 1 million, but just $50,000 because you won't work instantly, so you have to cover your expenses, buy new everything spend it on rent, spend it on furniture, beddings, etc.  So the immigrant ends up spending $50,000 on average and bringing that money from India or China of what is the lifesavings of a 30 year old or whatever in these nations.  You multiply that by 450k people a year and you are looking at a 23 billion dollar cash injection into the Canadian economy A YEAR.  The realtors, the lawyers, the schools, they make money off these people.  Imagine you are a landlord in Calgary right now with that 40% vacancy rate.  Right now, a bunch of immigrants coming in with money is some low hanging fruit, yeah let them in and let them rent my building so I can make money.

 

And people talking about white immigrants numbers being low.  why on earth would someone leave Europe where they have access to London (financial capital of the world) or the EU (access to Norway with lower taxes, higher quality of living and vacations in Italy, Spain and Greece) to live in this heck hole?  Look at where Canadian immigrants come from, they are not coming from Bahamas, Japan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bermuda, Brunei and E.Guinea and Gabon.  They are coming from the lower middle income countries in Asia, ME, Africa, Carribean.  Countries who are just rich enough to have some middle class, but still poor enough to have a standard of living way below that of Canada.  The European immigrants to Canada are largely from the dirt poor eastern half, the ukranians and russians.  And who is going to pass over Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and France to live in Nova Scotia?

[betsy]

Of the 35,000 refugees in Canada, 10 percent will find jobs.

What about the rest?

 

So....yes, we shouldn't be adding more! 

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy

[Smallc]

Refugees are not brought over for their job prospects.

[betsy]

32 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Refugees are not brought over for their job prospects.

 

So yes, we shouldn't be adding more.  For practical, and possibly humane reasons.

Edited December 1, 2016 by betsy