The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration

[Argus]

Kevin O'Leary is, I think an 'open' personality type. He flies around the world constantly and seems to delight in it, rarely staying in the same place for long. Trudeau is much the same, also an "open" personality type. And I think this explains their enthusiastic support for immigration.

I've been discussing immigration here for almost fourteen years. The continuing discussion (angry disagreement) on immigration which pits almost all conservatives (O'Leary is not a conservative) and almost all liberals on opposite sides with little agreement or compromise between them seems to me to be an argument over something other than just immigration. After all, immigration ought to be a fairly dry subject based on statistics, economics and demographics. But it rarely is. And it often gets emotional.

My thinking on this is an outflow from a discussion recently held in the political philosophy area on a VIDEO presentation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Haidt explains how his studies generally say people can be divided into two groups, which he calls "open" and "closed". Open people value change and diversity, like novelty, variety and travel, and speak for the oppressed, wanting change and justice, even if that causes chaos. Closed people, on the other hand, are traditionalists, and like things which are familiar, safe and dependable. They value order and speak for institutions which maintain that order.

And clearly, as Haidt says, open people have an affinity for liberal political views while closed people tend to be conservatives.

Haidt puts our sense of social morality into five distinct categories.

Harm/care  (protecting from harm, caring for the helpless)
Fairness/reciprocity
Ingroup/loyalty (tribal feelings, affinity for and loyalty to the group
Authority/respect
Purity/sanctity

Open people ie liberals, only embrace the first two, and generally place little value or even oppose the last three. Closed people, ie conservatives, embrace all five. So it's not that they don't value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, but they have these other values which they take into consideration.

So now we look at how open people will treat immigration vs closed people. Open people love diversity, change (even if it causes chaos) and novelty. They don't have much respect for traditions and don't have much group loyalty. Conservatives are almost the opposite. They embrace group loyalty and respect for institutions and traditions.

So if masses of immigrants from wildly different cultures are brought to Canada on a continuing basis, open people love it. They have no care or concern for how that might dammage or diminish our traditional institutions since they don't have much respect for them to begin with. Their care and concern, aside from loving the change and novelty, is an earnest desire to help those foreigners, be they immigrants or refugees, to lead a better life here.

Conservatives place much higher value on our traditions and on loyalty to the group. They like things more or less the way they are and don't want our 'tribe' swamped by members of other tribes. They fear chaos and a lack of order.

Since 'open' people( those on the left) place no real importance on the concerns which affect 'closed' people (those on the right) they tend to simply dismiss their concerns as racism or xenophobia. Conservatives, in turn, tend to regard the enthusiasm for immigration/refugees from those on the Left as the result of short sighted idiocy, with overtones of treason (betrayal of the need to be loyal to and protect the group).

Douglas Murray talked rather eloquently about this in another video I recently saw, where he spoke of how liberals swooned with admiration for foreign cultures and were deeply respectful of them, while at the same time being dismissive of and mocking towards our own culture.
What happens, he says, when the place we know, the place we grew up in, is swamped so much it changes beyond all recognition? Where do British people (this was a discussion in the UK) go to find a home when their home has been swept out from under them and they no longer feel welcome there? And why should anyone think they would simply accept that happening without resistance?

So is it even possible to hold a reasonable discussion on immigration between two groups which have different social values?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Left and right is one political axis; globalist and nativist is another. Many working class people are both left-wing and anti-immigration. In France, the FN is not laissez faire capitalist by any means. 

A discussion on immigration is possible with most people by agreeing on what we don't want to see and restricting the range of debate a bit. However, there are those who believe there is no such thing as too many immigrants and discussion with them is rarely productive.

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

Kevin O'Leary is, I think an 'open' personality type. He flies around the world constantly and seems to delight in it, rarely staying in the same place for long. Trudeau is much the same, also an "open" personality type. And I think this explains their enthusiastic support for immigration.

I disagree. They have in common that they both ascribe to economic orthodoxy and that is what explains their immigration stance.

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Kevin O'Leary is, I think an 'open' personality type. He flies around the world constantly and seems to delight in it, rarely staying in the same place for long. Trudeau is much the same, also an "open" personality type. And I think this explains their enthusiastic support for immigration.

I disagree. They have in common that they both ascribe to economic orthodoxy and that is what explains their immigration stance.

I said in another thread there is no economic case to be made for immigration and no one has yet managed to contradict me.  The enthusiasm for immigration from the left has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. As I posted earlier, when the Economic Council of Canada was asked if greater immigration would boost the economy they replied that other reasons would have to be found to justify that.

Let me put it this way. If all immigrants to Canada came from the UK would the Left in Canada be nearly so enthusiastic about immigration, and would the Riight be nearly so opposed? (leaving out the certainty that immigrants from the UK would enjoy much better economic success here).

Edited April 18, 2017 by Argus

[blackbird]

The problem in Canada is the Liberal and NDP want open immigration from the third world and could care less how it effects our country.  I don't believe there is much opposition among the left to open immigration.  Most are either for it or at best take a neutral position.  Few oppose it.  None want to be seen as racist or xenophobic, and now Islamophobic.  The left know how to play this to silence any critics.  Few polictians will stand against open borders.   The odd politician that does, even in a very mild manner, such as Kelly Leitch, is immediately rejected as some kind of radical or racist, xenophobic.  The fewer from western Judeo-Christian countries, the happier the left are.  They are also globalists and believe in dragging Canada into some kind of global socialist order.  The more immigrants we get from the third world, the more political pressure the left can exert to increase the numbers from those areas even more.  They realize these type of immigrants are likely to vote for left leaning parties who will support open borders and immigration from the third world.   They are quite comfortable with illegal migrants walking across the border and getting onto our social system.  Since the U.N. is the current vehicle for globalism, they strongly support all things U.N.   If the U.N. decrees man-made global warming is a fact, they all jump and are ready to pay whatever carbon tax is imposed.  Of course there might be the odd person who protests, but this does little good because his voice is drowned out by the majority on the left.

Edited April 18, 2017 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) I said in another thread there is no economic case to be made for immigration and no one has yet managed to contradict me. 

2) The enthusiasm for immigration from the left has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. As I posted earlier, when the Economic Council of Canada was asked if greater immigration would boost the economy they replied that other reasons would have to be found to justify that.

3) Let me put it this way. If all immigrants to Canada came from the UK would the Left in Canada be nearly so enthusiastic about immigration, and would the Riight be nearly so opposed? (leaving out the certainty that immigrants from the UK would enjoy much better economic success here).

1) You quote one study over and over.  This is a huge topic in economics and there is no consensus.  Even the study you quote did some funny math such as counting military expenditures as 'spending money on immigrants'.  But in any case I want to stay on topic, and as such as said that Trudeau and O'Leary subscribe to economic "orthodoxy".  O'Leary likely did before he went into politics and his reasons for doing so are largely economic from what I have read.

2) Ok.

3) I guess it depends if you're using 'UK' to mean "not white nor Muslim" somehow.

[Argus]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You quote one study over and over.  This is a huge topic in economics and there is no consensus.

I'm quoting what the Economic Council of Canada said about Mulroney's plan to triple immigration. But you're right, there isn't a lot of consensus because no studies have shown that immigration helps except on a broader macro scale which does nothing for individuals. I've used the example before of in-laws coming over for dinner and bringing some food. Yes, there's more food, but there's also more people eating it. That doesn't mean you have more, just that you're more crowded. Increasing the overall GDP does not necessarily mean anything helpful to people here.

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) I guess it depends if you're using 'UK' to mean "not white nor Muslim" somehow.

I'm using the UK to mean white and Christian, ie, people who are largely similar in outlook, skills, preferences, values and culture to the main base of population here.

[Michael Hardner]

From the other thread...

You're implicitly predicting the demise of the US, but that's not happening.  And your knowledge of history seems to think that Diversity has happened since the 1960s.  Natives, Dutch, English Irish, Germans, French... they don't fit your narrative I suppose.

Anyway I have already made the point elsewhere that you need to have an objective mindset to examine culture, NOT to set out to blame some group or cast aspersions across a cultural divide.  As such, I think this conversation is a non-starter.

[blackbird]

The Council of European Canadians has a great article called "Islamization of Canada - Without a Counter Reaction" - by Peter Goodchild

For those who are concerned about the future of Canada with regard to immigration, this organization seems well worth consideration.

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2017/04/islamization-of-canada-without-a-counter-reaction.html#more

"Globalists such as Justin Trudeau would like to fill the West with people who will help to create a vast dictatorship, where the main population consists of uneducated people accustomed to autocracy, and where the dissidents are reduced in numbers, taught to be ashamed of their own culture, and brainwashed into a belief in what is euphemistically called multiculturalism. Ultimately this so-called multiculturalism means a world of no culture at all — a world of no values, no pride, no self-respect, no past, and no future, only obedience.

Tens of thousands of "Syrian refugees" have already been brought into Canada by Trudeau, and many more will be coming. Most do not speak English, most are not employable, and most are Muslim. And why is no Muslim country willing to take these people?

Canada already has serious problems of unemployment and poverty, and our health-care system is rated 30th by the World Health Organization, yet Trudeau spends vast amounts of money on such questionable issues as his so-called humanitarianism — more accurately referred to as "grabbing the ethnic vote." The total expected cost of bringing in these Syrians is said to be about a billion dollars, though the real figure may be considerably more than that. And of course Syrians are not the only Muslims coming into Canada.

Canada has the world's highest overall rate of immigration. It also has the world's fastest growing Muslim population. Yet most of Canada is barren land, not suitable for further growth in population of any sort."

   

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Argus you've written an eloquent & well-thought opening post, that's fair to both sides of the spectrum regarding immigration. Things get heated, bitter, & hateful when it comes to discussing immigration so it's nice to see a balanced take on the philosophical basis of it all.

I agree with much of your OP.  People who are conservative on immigration see their society & the fabric of their culture changing at a rapid clip, & those concerns shouldn't be dismissed.  It's easy to see these people are just racist/xenophobic, & some of them are, but using isolated examples of hatred/racism towards immigrants doesn't discount these valid concerns of conservatives who value their own culture, which in many ways is either changing or disappearing.  It's the same with people in Quebec, who also value their culture & want to preserve it from changing due to the encroaching anglo (& now international) cultural influence that could indeed undermine it or possibly eventually dominate it.

Western populations, from Britain to France to Canada etc, who aren't reproducing enough to replace their population are beginning to deal with the consequences of the need to immigrate from non-Western countries in order to grow or even maintain their populations (yes, largely for economic reasons).

This is creating in Canada, &most of the West, a cultural (& racial) schism due to these demographic & cultural changes, like we've seen with Brexit & Trump & Notley. If white westerners are having 1.5 babies or less for every 2 people, it means their numbers will continue to shrink indefinitely.  But that's assuming whites procreate only with whites, which isn't the case, & as more people from other cultures immigrate to western countries, more whites will marry/procreate with non-whites.  This means that, over the long-term, Caucasian populations in most western countries eventually will become a minority, & after that a small minority, and traditional western culture will inherently mix with the foreign cultures to become the "new" western culture.

Racial interbreeding, which will only increase in the West, means that it's almost inevitable that, over the long-term (a century or more?) in western countries we'll see a largely mixed-race population, within a dominant culture that's an indistinguishable mix of all domestic & immigrant cultures, with minorities from other races/cultures still scattered here and there as they continue to immigrate or (for those already here) hold on to the past.  Some "old-stock" white Canadians/Westerners will find that a scary thought as their  unique culture and gene pool disappears, and will seek to maintain their traditions.  Others may find the concept beautiful and maybe even the inevitable evolution of an ever-globalizing species, as races become erased & fluid.

This schism, which we're just starting to see, might be the greatest crisis Western civilization has ever faced. because it's an existential crisis, and many people won't give up their way of life easily.  And it will continue to be filled with blood and hate.  Trump & Brexit & church/mosque vandalism is only the beginning.  Choose your side and buckle up!

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

From the other thread...

You're implicitly predicting the demise of the US, but that's not happening.

Probably not but I'm pretty sure there will be major violence.

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

 And your knowledge of history seems to think that Diversity has happened since the 1960s.  Natives, Dutch, English Irish, Germans, French... they don't fit your narrative I suppose.

Natives mostly  warred on each other. They didn't live together in the same villages. The English and Irish fought bitterly for centuries. The dutch fought each other for centuries and it was their inability to get along which brought their 'golden age' to a halt, and the French have a dozen or so active separatist groups in the country from several regions, which often erupt into violence.

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Anyway I have already made the point elsewhere that you need to have an objective mindset to examine culture, NOT to set out to blame some group or cast aspersions across a cultural divide.  As such, I think this conversation is a non-starter.

I wasn't blaming a group or casting aspersions. I was pointing out the origin of why left and right oppose and support widespread immigration, and how they see each other.

[eyeball]

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

They are also globalists and believe in dragging Canada into some kind of global socialist order. 

I suppose that would sorta be me...I guess...I'm way more into simply acknowledging we're all just Earthlings.  I see national borders as being of little benefit to anyone other than putrescently wealthy people who use them, and us, in a giant shell-game to move 'their' wealth around to avoid taxation and social accountability/responsibility.  I subscribe to the view their wealth should serve humanity.  Sweet smelling wealthy people OTOH who seem to do this naturally out of the goodness of their hearts are great and the best argument I can think of for believing capitalism is better than the fearfulness that usually swirls around any mention of a global government.

One global economy without one global government to govern it just seems dumb.

[Argus]

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Western populations, from Britain to France to Canada etc, who aren't reproducing enough to replace their population are beginning to deal with the consequences of the need to immigrate from non-Western countries in order to grow or even maintain their populations (yes, largely for economic reasons).

The problems with this are twofold. First, these newcomers will either assimilate, adopt our culture, and also stop having babies, or they will retain their own culture, not assimilate, and be, in effect, foreigners in our midst who do not share our values. Also, according to demographics experts, and I have posted them repeatedly, it simply won't work. In order to address our low birth rate and get growth we'd need much, much, much higher immigration for many decades. And all that does, in effect, is replace us with foreigners. The Canada that is here now won't retain much, if anything, of its existing culture, character and values.

A better resolution would be to find ways of encouraging our own people to have more children.

25 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This is creating in Canada, &most of the West, a cultural (& racial) schism due to these demographic & cultural changes, like we've seen with Brexit & Trump & Notley.

I think the continuing flow of migrants from Mexico and south/central America, and from Africa and the middle east, and the continuing inability of the left wing political parties to deal with it in any way, shape or form, is driving people to the extreme right. The politicians might not care about all these 'others' coming into people's cities, but the people do. Or as David Frum said, if liberals say only fascists guard borders, then the public will hire fascists to guard the borders.

 

 

[Bonam]

53 minutes ago, Argus said:

The problems with this are twofold. First, these newcomers will either assimilate, adopt our culture, and also stop having babies, or they will retain their own culture, not assimilate, and be, in effect, foreigners in our midst who do not share our values. Also, according to demographics experts, and I have posted them repeatedly, it simply won't work. In order to address our low birth rate and get growth we'd need much, much, much higher immigration for many decades. And all that does, in effect, is replace us with foreigners. The Canada that is here now won't retain much, if anything, of its existing culture, character and values.

A better resolution would be to find ways of encouraging our own people to have more children.

Or simply explore ways of making economies work in the face of stagnant or slowly-declining population, rather than continuous population growth. The world's population won't keep growing forever, and birth rates are falling all across the world, including all our immigrant source countries. Sooner or later, economies will have to work with a constant or shrinking population and we might as well get to work on addressing that eventual economic reality early. 

There are many benefits to avoiding rapid population growth. For example, with a stable population, we could actually build the appropriate infrastructure for that population and not have it be woefully inadequate by the time it is constructed. We could have cities without gridlock and congestion. We could stop needing to destroy more and more pristine wilderness to accommodate the growing footprint of a growing population. 

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I said in another thread there is no economic case to be made for immigration and no one has yet managed to contradict me.  The enthusiasm for immigration from the left has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. As I posted earlier, when the Economic Council of Canada was asked if greater immigration would boost the economy they replied that other reasons would have to be found to justify that.

Let me put it this way. If all immigrants to Canada came from the UK would the Left in Canada be nearly so enthusiastic about immigration, and would the Riight be nearly so opposed? (leaving out the certainty that immigrants from the UK would enjoy much better economic success here).

It is an established fact that Canada has an aging population.  The only way Canada can continue to provide a decent health care system and Old Age Pensions to the increasing number of seniors is if we have significant immigration which will contribute to the tax base, not drain the system.  However, this immigration should come from Europe because that is where culture most closely matches the Judeo-Christian culture which built Canada.

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

I've been discussing immigration here for almost fourteen years.

Why the new thread then? I prefer all immigration discussion to be centralized so that I know exactly where to go for my daily entertainment.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

I said in another thread there is no economic case to be made for immigration and no one has yet managed to contradict me.  The enthusiasm for immigration from the left has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. As I posted earlier, when the Economic Council of Canada was asked if greater immigration would boost the economy they replied that other reasons would have to be found to justify that.

Let me put it this way. If all immigrants to Canada came from the UK would the Left in Canada be nearly so enthusiastic about immigration, and would the Riight be nearly so opposed? (leaving out the certainty that immigrants from the UK would enjoy much better economic success here).

Hey, I think that you hit the nail on the head. In the past several decades now there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Canadian government to severely curtail the amount of immigration of people from countries like Britain and Europe, and Australia. Do you think that race may have something to do with it? No, that can't be, can it? 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Why the new thread then? I prefer all immigration discussion to be centralized so that I know exactly where to go for my daily entertainment.

Our present day Canadian immigration policy has not been very entertaining for the past several decades now. Rather it has been quite pathetic to say the least. Personally, I am getting quite fed up just thinking or talking about it. The only thing that could fix my problem is if there were a moratorium put on immigration for a decade or so. That should work and help make me fell a whole lot better. 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Council of European Canadians has a great article called "Islamization of Canada - Without a Counter Reaction" - by Peter Goodchild

For those who are concerned about the future of Canada with regard to immigration, this organization seems well worth consideration.

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2017/04/islamization-of-canada-without-a-counter-reaction.html#more

"Globalists such as Justin Trudeau would like to fill the West with people who will help to create a vast dictatorship, where the main population consists of uneducated people accustomed to autocracy, and where the dissidents are reduced in numbers, taught to be ashamed of their own culture, and brainwashed into a belief in what is euphemistically called multiculturalism. Ultimately this so-called multiculturalism means a world of no culture at all — a world of no values, no pride, no self-respect, no past, and no future, only obedience.

Tens of thousands of "Syrian refugees" have already been brought into Canada by Trudeau, and many more will be coming. Most do not speak English, most are not employable, and most are Muslim. And why is no Muslim country willing to take these people?

Canada already has serious problems of unemployment and poverty, and our health-care system is rated 30th by the World Health Organization, yet Trudeau spends vast amounts of money on such questionable issues as his so-called humanitarianism — more accurately referred to as "grabbing the ethnic vote." The total expected cost of bringing in these Syrians is said to be about a billion dollars, though the real figure may be considerably more than that. And of course Syrians are not the only Muslims coming into Canada.

Canada has the world's highest overall rate of immigration. It also has the world's fastest growing Muslim population. Yet most of Canada is barren land, not suitable for further growth in population of any sort."

   

 

According to Immigration Watch Canada so far this year 2017 it has cost the Canadian taxpayer's almost 10 billion of their tax dollars. Your tax dollars at work. Does that work out well for you?  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

According to Immigration Watch Canada so far this year 2017 it has cost the Canadian taxpayer's almost 10 billion of their tax dollars. Your tax dollars at work. Does that work out well for you?  

Works just fine for me. It means there's less money available for wasting on things that cause refugees.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is an established fact that Canada has an aging population.  The only way Canada can continue to provide a decent health care system and Old Age Pensions to the increasing number of seniors is if we have significant immigration which will contribute to the tax base, not drain the system.  However, this immigration should come from Europe because that is where culture most closely matches the Judeo-Christian culture which built Canada.

So just turn Europe into an aging population? That'll fix it

[cannuck]

I am still on the fence about most immigration issues, but when it comes to the economic side, I see some distinctly different values related to country/region of origin.  Europeans obviously constitute the core of business in this country, and due to the culture and educational standards, Euro immigrants can arrive one day and be paying taxes the next.  I think back to the Vietnamese refugees who came maybe 30 years ago.  The parents seldom spoke any English, and few "went to work", but their children assimilated economically very quickly and successfully - while still clinging to their culture within their communities.  India seems to provide us with immigrants who - let's just be charitable and say they behave here pretty much as they did at home.  Again, though, second generation at least around here pretty much just blend in and get on with life.  Strangely, I find Central and South American immigrants from arrival seem to do pretty well here (would love to hear other's experience and opinions on that one).

I would like to cut some slack to the ACTUAL refugees coming here from Syria (and other conflict zones) and can just hope that their second generation will do what the first is very unlikely EVER to do (i.e. contribute to Canada economically in any useful or meaningful way).   BUT:  I have absolutely no tolerance for economic "refugees" who seem to be bringing not much of anything except criminal records to our country (I understand that over 50% of those now crossing from the US have criminal records).  It is hard to ignore the clear ethnicity of certain criminal groups related to drugs and violence in places such as Toronto.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that this is mostly a "barren land".   Uh, you COULD say that about the North, but the South is pretty much all arable and potentially very productive.  What I do NOT see is a wave of immigrants flooding to those vast open spaces, but instead clustering around the social services of the second most expensive places in Canada to live (big cities - the far North is by far the most expensive).   If there is any one thing I could say about the difference between Canada and the US is that rural USA is FULL of a completely diverse range of business and industry, whereas in rural Canada, we have pretty much nothing but services to the ag and resource industries outside of the a-hole factories...er...I mean major urban centers.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

It is an established fact that Canada has an aging population.  The only way Canada can continue to provide a decent health care system and Old Age Pensions to the increasing number of seniors is if we have significant immigration which will contribute to the tax base, not drain the system.  However, this immigration should come from Europe because that is where culture most closely matches the Judeo-Christian culture which built Canada.

Again, I have repeated posted demographic experts who say this will not work. We cannot counter an aging populace with immigration. Though I agree it would at least work a little better if we ensured the immigrants were skilled enough to take good jobs and pay taxes, rather than being poor and on welfare much of their lives.

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf

 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, hot enough said:

Why the new thread then? I prefer all immigration discussion to be centralized so that I know exactly where to go for my daily entertainment.

I was actually hoping to discuss the motivation behind those who take strong positions on immigration rather than simply the wisdom of immigration itself. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

10 hours ago, taxme said:

Hey, I think that you hit the nail on the head. In the past several decades now there has been a concerted effort on the part of the Canadian government to severely curtail the amount of immigration of people from countries like Britain and Europe, and Australia. Do you think that race may have something to do with it? No, that can't be, can it? 

In the latest government projections the number of immigration visas allotted to Europe has fallen and the number allotted to the middle east has risen. A cynic might suggest that has something to do with the wholehearted electoral support the Muslim community showed to the Liberal party last election, despite government data showing immigrants from the middle east are the least economically successful immigrants to Canada.