Muslim woman tells judge to go to hell.

[taxme]

8 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Taxme's criteria appears to be tighter than yours CITIZEN_2015, he eludes to this "superior race" which he's afraid to name but seems to be white, American and possibly male.

Do you not read all the replies I send to you? I told you that I believe that the Caucasian race has done a lot more to make the world a better place to live and has been way more technology advanced than any other. This is why just about every race and culture out there always want to immigrate to Western countries because they know that they can have a better life and better safety and freedom and democracy. This is from my observations over the years. This is not saying here that all other races are in some way all bad, but from all of the advances in technology and inventions and creations by the Caucasian race, especially in the last two centuries, pretty much all of the technology that you are surrounded by in your own home or for your transportation needs have pretty much all been invented by the Caucasian people. Indeed I am proud and quite happy to be one of those "Caucasian Canadian males", and why not?

If native Indians can say that they are proud of their heritage and who they are, then why can't I say the same thing also? This does not have to mean that I am racist just because I believe in what I am saying here. Hopefully, this makes it clear enough for you?  Probably not. 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, marcus said:

Then who do you trust and how are you ever going to make an informed decision on anything related to statistics? No other organization keeps statistics on Canadians. It's only Statistics Canada.

I do not believe anything that the government tells me anymore. The politicians have only proven to me over the years that they prefer to spread bull chit rather than tell the truth. They have the power to alter statistics any time they want too. They can tell me all they want that immigration is good and great for Canada and Canadians but in no way do I believe those lies. Yes, we do need some immigration but not the amount that we are now going to get every year. Over 450,000 more new immigrants coming to Canada and who will be causing more damage to the environment, our medical and social services and to our infrastructures. Of course I know that politicians like to tell us all that more immigration is better for Canada and Canadians but I do not believe that one dam bit. It will be more of a disaster than a good thing, especially for the British/European people of Canada. But yet you will most likely believe those lies. Too bad for you. If you have not yet learned over the decades that politicians tell fibs all the time well what more can I say. You will never be properly informed of any true and real facts by our dear leader politicians. Live with it as I have to do also. 

[Bonam]

On 11/13/2017 at 2:04 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

You could be describing how the First Nations felt when my ancestors moved in. We did not assimilate and we forced our religion and customs on them.

And had they the foresight and power to do so, it would have very much been in their interest to prevent Europeans from colonizing the Americas. Of course, they had no such ability, and so were mostly killed and the descendants of those few that survived mostly live in poverty to the present day. 

On the other hand, modern Westerners are aware of this history, and many among them have the foresight to know the dangers of mass immigration at a rate that replaces the existing population. And, unlike the native peoples of the Americas, they very much have the power to control how many newcomers enter their countries. And yet, despite all this, they choose to embrace the same fate as the native Americans.

[marcus]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

I do not believe anything that the government tells me anymore. The politicians have only proven to me over the years that they prefer to spread bull chit rather than tell the truth. They have the power to alter statistics any time they want too. They can tell me all they want that immigration is good and great for Canada and Canadians but in no way do I believe those lies. Yes, we do need some immigration but not the amount that we are now going to get every year. Over 450,000 more new immigrants coming to Canada and who will be causing more damage to the environment, our medical and social services and to our infrastructures. Of course I know that politicians like to tell us all that more immigration is better for Canada and Canadians but I do not believe that one dam bit. It will be more of a disaster than a good thing, especially for the British/European people of Canada. But yet you will most likely believe those lies. Too bad for you. If you have not yet learned over the decades that politicians tell fibs all the time well what more can I say. You will never be properly informed of any true and real facts by our dear leader politicians. Live with it as I have to do also. 

It's healthy to be a skeptic, but it's unhealthy to reject everything, without making the effort to look into it.

By the way, the immigration rate is at 300,000 a year.

Regardless... here is the thing: We have a large number of the population, the baby boomers, going into retirement. Many of them are leaving their jobs and are not going to pay as much in taxes. They are also going to be using our healthcare system more, meaning that it's going to cost more. Since families are not having enough children, many of the jobs that these retirees are leaving behind are not being filled. Despite numerous federal and provincial programs to push Canadians to go into engineering, trades and the healthcare system, there is a real shortage of workers. I see this first hand, because I work in the recruitment and immigration industry.

Many other western countries are having the same issue. There aren't enough skilled workers in specific industries, to fill positions that have been left behind or positions that have been created due to innovation and technology. So there is a big battle between Western countries to attract skilled workers from around the world. Right now, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the most robust immigration programs which are attracting these skilled workers. Over 60% of our immigrants come through these economic programs. FYI:  

Even Trump has said that U.S. needs to change its immigration system to resemble Canada's, which is merit based and targets groups, based on needs. Contrary to Canada, majority of immigrants in the U.S. come through the family class.

[taxme]

28 minutes ago, marcus said:

It's healthy to be a skeptic, but it's unhealthy to reject everything, without making the effort to look into it.

By the way, the immigration rate is at 300,000 a year.

Regardless... here is the thing: We have a large number of the population, the baby boomers, going into retirement. Many of them are leaving their jobs and are not going to pay as much in taxes. They are also going to be using our healthcare system more, meaning that it's going to cost more. Since families are not having enough children, many of the jobs that these retirees are leaving behind are not being filled. Despite numerous federal and provincial programs to push Canadians to go into engineering, trades and the healthcare system, there is a real shortage of workers. I see this first hand, because I work in the recruitment and immigration industry.

Many other western countries are having the same issue. There aren't enough skilled workers in specific industries, to fill positions that have been left behind or positions that have been created due to innovation and technology. So there is a big battle between Western countries to attract skilled workers from around the world. Right now, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have the most robust immigration programs which are attracting these skilled workers. Over 60% of our immigrants come through these economic programs. FYI:  

Even Trump has said that U.S. needs to change its immigration system to resemble Canada's, which is merit based and targets groups, based on needs. Contrary to Canada, majority of immigrants in the U.S. come through the family class.

I think that I have made the effort to look into things, and I don't like what I have seen what our politicians and bureaucrats have done so far so far. 

The last I heard it will be going up to 450,000 starting next year according to the website RightEdition.

There are suppose to be two million Canadians unemployed. Where is the shortage of workers? No one can make me believe that all of those unemployed do not want to work. And I think that we are having plenty of babies being born in Canada every day, for several past decades now, to help pay for the healthcare system and take care of the retirees. Retirees still have to pay taxes, don't you know? 

You said that 60% of our new immigrants come through these economic programs that Canada has. And what about the other 40%? What are they doing here? Washing dishes or family reunification? What America appears to be getting all the time are illegals and family reunification.  

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think that immigration level of 300,000 is just too much for a country of 30 million. With so many people out of work and shortage of housing and overloaded healthcare system we really don't need to import so many every year. I would say about 150,000 is the right balance but even that level has to be SELECTED among the best qualified best of tough merit system on which ADOPTABILITY and cultural COMPATIBILITY plays a major role and of course education and capital or potential for contributions should play a role too. No more unhealthy uneducated illegals and refugees and no more of those who wish to come here and live diffrently or impose their own way or try to change ours or have no respect for women or other religions. I am basiclly saying what Taxme is saying except that everyone should be considered for entry regardless of race and religion and national origin but we must select them based on above merits.

Edited November 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Michael Hardner]

45 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I think that immigration level of 300,000 is just too much for a country of 30 million. With so many people out of work and shortage of housing and overloaded healthcare system we really don't need to import so many every year.

You think based on what ?  Your second sentence echoes the 'fixed pie' fallacy of economics, ie. that there is a pot of money here and adding more people takes away from that.  That's just incorrect.  Your point about healthcare is well taken, but people need to have that discussion apart from immigration as the system just doesn't correct itself.

45 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I would say about 150,000 is the right balance but even that level has to be SELECTED among the best qualified best of tough merit system on which ADOPTABILITY and cultural COMPATIBILITY plays a major role and of course education and capital or potential for contributions should play a role too

150,000 based on what ?  You do realize that there are complex economic models that are argued by people with PhDs in mathematics right ?  Your view is symptomatic of the problems with our society, where somebody with no idea just says "I think it should be half of what it is".  Why you think you are qualified to have an opinion on such a complex topic is beyond me.

Given that you have put inadequate levels of thought into the primary economic questions, I suspect that whatever you are saying about adoptability [sic] is not well thought out either.

46 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No more unhealthy uneducated illegals and refugees and no more of those who wish to come here and live diffrently or impose their own way or try to change ours or have no respect for women or other religions.

You have no idea how much of a problem this is, if at all.  If you did, you would provide a cite.

46 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I am basiclly saying what Taxme is saying except that everyone should be considered for entery regardless of race and religion and national origin but we much select them based on above merits.

The flaws in Taxme's logic are at least as numerous as the times they have been pointed out to him, without acknowledgement.  It's donut-shop thinking at its worse.  If you come back with acknowledgment that you are talking out of your... hat... I will accept that.  Good luck.

[Queenmandy85]

I am against the increase in immigration. Canada in a northern country and therefore cannot sustain a population of more than twelve million without further degrading the natural wilderness that makes us who we are. Yes, we need immigration. I don't care where immigrants come from, what their religion is. For me, it is a simple question of numbers. We have to reduce our population. People argue that the economy will suffer. We can't provide jobs for everyone as it is and nobody can afford to live in Vancouver or Toronto because there are too many people. Take a look at BC on Google satellite images an see the vast stretches of forest destroyed by logging. It is our wilderness that made this country special. You could take a ferry across Burrard Inlet and within a four KM hike,be in untouched wilderness.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Canada in a northern country and therefore cannot sustain a population of more than twelve million without further degrading the natural wilderness that makes us who we are.

Where did this number come from ?

 

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Yes, we need immigration.

Why ?

 

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We have to reduce our population

Why ?  And why did you just contradict your point above in the same post ?

 

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We can't provide jobs for everyone as it is and nobody can afford to live in Vancouver or Toronto because there are too many people

That's not sound economics.  We allow unemployment, but we could pay people to do useful work, make-work, or no-work if we wanted no unemployment.  If nobody can afford to live in those cities who are the two many people who live there ?  

 

6 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Take a look at BC on Google satellite images an see the vast stretches of forest destroyed by logging.

Logging for export.  We could have a population of zero and still have robots destroying the forests to create exported lumber.

If you come back with acknowledgment that you are talking out of your... hat... I will accept that.  Good luck.

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you come back with acknowledgment that you are talking out of your... hat... I will accept that. 

I acknowledge that I am probably talking out of my hat but it makes me despair that the country is being wrecked; not by immigrants, but by too many people. I pulled the number 12 million out of my hat because that was the population before WW2.

We need immigration on a small scale to invigorate innovation. We should focus our economy on areas such as finance rather then being hewers of wood and drawers of water. We need to transition from fossil fuel based energy to nuclear. Make our oil reserves last longer by using it for petrochemicals and lubricants. As you say, much of the work we do should be done by robotics. 

I hope this is audible. I'm talking through my hat because it is Saturday morning and if I take the hat away, my nose will freeze because it is #&$%^$% -23.

Please excuse my ranting. I'm cold, tired and homesick for the Kootenays. All I want is a short line up for the lift and un-broken powder snow. Sorry for the thread drift.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You think based on what ?  Your second sentence echoes the 'fixed pie' fallacy of economics, ie. that there is a pot of money here and adding more people takes away from that.  That's just incorrect.  Your point about healthcare is well taken, but people need to have that discussion apart from immigration as the system just doesn't correct itself.

150,000 based on what ?  You do realize that there are complex economic models that are argued by people with PhDs in mathematics right ?  Your view is symptomatic of the problems with our society, where somebody with no idea just says "I think it should be half of what it is".  Why you think you are qualified to have an opinion on such a complex topic is beyond me.

Given that you have put inadequate levels of thought into the primary economic questions, I suspect that whatever you are saying about adoptability [sic] is not well thought out either.

You have no idea how much of a problem this is, if at all.  If you did, you would provide a cite.

The flaws in Taxme's logic are at least as numerous as the times they have been pointed out to him, without acknowledgement.  It's donut-shop thinking at its worse.  If you come back with acknowledgment that you are talking out of your... hat... I will accept that.  Good luck.

I think YOU are in the state of denial. You live in a fictitious world. You (we for sure) see it on the day to day of our lives. I am not anti-immigrant. I am an immigrant myself since my teenage years. I got my doctoral degree and a great job 15 years ago except that I was replaced by a recent immigrant from China who worked like a donkey (part of their culture) as oppose to us who have rights and obligations at any workplace he stayed overnight and worked 7 days. Then I had to compete with 50 to 100 other applicants (all having Ph.Ds and most recent immigrants) for every job. I was a lucky one to find a job after a short while but the reality is that many immigrants Ph.Ds are driving taxis with degrees in engineering and mediical sciences and we still import more. Even jobs with less education and no education there are more people out of work than jobs so why we need unskilled workers (or Ph.D's even) when we don't have enough jobs ourselves. I do not need complex economic models to tell me the reality (unless like you I wish to live in a fictitious world) as I am (was) a living example of that. We have too many immigrants. They are a burden on our employment (unemployed and working people as well) and a huge burden on our health system. The best is to stop immigration until we can sort out our own problems but that is an extreme so the moderate view would be to cut it in half as a compromise.

My point on adoptability is very valid and clear. Take a trip to Europe and see it for yourself. Huge racial problems. Clashes between various races. Attacks on South West Asian businesses and on blacks and jews and Arabs. No one is secure as these people also fight back. Rumors of Caucasian girls being targeted by these individuals as revenge attacks. The new years party of 2 years ago is a good example. Germany let some Syrian refugees in without selecting them. See what happened? This is part of their culture in that region. We do not want them here. We do not want all this so we have to be SELECTIVE as who is coming here. We do not wish the bearded fanatic whose view is no respect for women and is against pre-marital sex and alcohol and bars and fun and have no respect for other cultures and religions. They can stay where they are. We do not wish to gradually turn this country into a dictatorship as after a few decades they may become a majority. In fact they may be a minority and still impose their laws upon us. We should select the good and educated who are adopted already and have respect (I am against regional selectivity) but leave the garbage where there are and pick the flowers and bring them over to flourish and contributes positively.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I think YOU are in the state of denial.

Your post does not address anything that I pointed out.  It's actually shocking how someone who has a PhD (I suppose I have to accept your claim) has simply jumped over what I said about your thesis to perpetuate the fallacies already stated, and assume that I am pro-immigrant before you even cleared up my objections.  If you really do have a PhD then that says something about the state of our education system, I suppose, and explains why we need 1,000 Chinese people to come and take jobs away from unqualified Canadians who will drive business and public institutions into the ground.  You're supposed to be masterful at dealing with conceptual thinking at this level but the post reflects something far from that.

Also I lived in Europe so I don't know what you're talking about and why "rumours" are even relevant.  Then you put a cherry on it by talking up "bearded" (gee I wonder what that means...) fanatics.  Your point of view is so narrow and misinformed that I really doubt your worldliness on this topic, sorry.

I appreciate that you have a point of view, and I think the best use of it is to keep it to yourself frankly.  Best of luck.

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your post does not address anything that I pointed out.  It's actually shocking how someone who has a PhD (I suppose I have to accept your claim) has simply jumped over what I said about your thesis to perpetuate the fallacies already stated, and assume that I am pro-immigrant before you even cleared up my objections.  If you really do have a PhD then that says something about the state of our education system, I suppose, and explains why we need 1,000 Chinese people to come and take jobs away from unqualified Canadians who will drive business and public institutions into the ground.  You're supposed to be masterful at dealing with conceptual thinking at this level but the post reflects something far from that.

Also I lived in Europe so I don't know what you're talking about and why "rumours" are even relevant.  Then you put a cherry on it by talking up "bearded" (gee I wonder what that means...) fanatics.  Your point of view is so narrow and misinformed that I really doubt your worldliness on this topic, sorry.

I appreciate that you have a point of view, and I think the best use of it is to keep it to yourself frankly.  Best of luck.

You didn't point out anything except attacking my post and asking me where my 150,000 came from and I responded to second part. Though you acknowledged that our health system is overloaded but did not recognized the burden some new immigrants place on our employment and other systems like education (visit Toronto schools, it is overcrowded with new arrivals) and transportation (try to drive in major Canadian cities over-populated) or housing (many Canadian borns are in the waiting list for affordable housing) and other systems and health care.

Very disappointed to see how narrow minded you are in addition to the fact that if someone has a Ph.D. then automatically he should be a better debater than others. and then concluding that our education system is not good enough because my political views or debate skills is not to your agreement or top notch!!!!!!! so then we are right to import some Chinese with Ph.Ds who can hardly speak English and to put those born here out of work. Those leftist commies reveal themselves as how hollow they are  by their comments. Well first off my Ph.D. is not in political science or anything close. One may be good at mathematics or physics but not knowing much about social sciences or politics. You also purposely ignoring the fact that I am debating in my second language which means I may not be able to debate as good or get my points across as well and as skillful as yourself and then put the blame on our education system is low!!!! And second if you lived in Europe then maybe you didn't feel the tension either because your eyes were closed or you looked Caucasian so you were never targetted but I don't believe that you never read the news (like Syrian refugees attacking and sexualy assaulting white German girls were all over the news and you purposely try to ignore). 

This is a political forum where everyone can express an opinion and a political view and debate it and you by telling me to keep these to myself it shows the nature of left and their lack of tolerance for other views. The extreme left and right are the SAME point on a circle. I don't see you any different than the other guy who wishes to select based on race only (white Caucasian Europeans) you are only the other extreme who attacks my moderate views who is asking for more moderate number of immigrants so that the country can absorb them gradually and a selection based on merits rather than illegals and criminals.

Edited November 18, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[marcus]

On 11/18/2017 at 1:22 AM, taxme said:

I think that I have made the effort to look into things, and I don't like what I have seen what our politicians and bureaucrats have done so far so far. 

The last I heard it will be going up to 450,000 starting next year according to the website RightEdition.

Well, it's not 450,000. You should perhaps investigate RightEdition's numbers. I find it odd that you're so quick to dismiss one source but so willing to embrace another. The number of immigrants coming in will be a little over 300,000. This I'm sure about.

Quote

There are suppose to be two million Canadians unemployed. Where is the shortage of workers? No one can make me believe that all of those unemployed do not want to work.

You can't just put someone into a job and expect them to perform. If a person is not qualified or educated to work as a civil engineer, mechanical engineer, carpenter, auto car mechanic, nurse, electrician... then you can't just hire them. There are provincial and federal incentives for people to go into these programs so that they can be qualified. Some Canadians are taking advantage of them, but majority of the unemployed are not. 

Quote

And I think that we are having plenty of babies being born in Canada every day, for several past decades now, to help pay for the healthcare system and take care of the retirees. Retirees still have to pay taxes, don't you know?

No we're not.

We're having 1.6 child per woman. We need 2.1 children in order for the population to remain the same. Women are having less and less children and are having them at an older age. This is the trend in pretty much all of the developed world. 

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

There are more seniors living in Canada than children and the proportion of young people in the country isn’t changing anytime soon.

By 2031, close to one in four Canadians could be 65 years of age or older, while the proportion of children under 15 could remain similar to the 2016 rate

Link

Quote

You said that 60% of our new immigrants come through these economic programs that Canada has. And what about the other 40%? What are they doing here? Washing dishes or family reunification? What America appears to be getting all the time are illegals and family reunification.  

Watch this video to have a better understanding:

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by marcus

[marcus]

On 11/18/2017 at 7:26 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

For me, it is a simple question of numbers. We have to reduce our population. 

For the first time, the population of seniors have gone above the population of children. Why is this bad for the economy? Because skilled job opening are not being replaced and less money is going towards taxes. Not only that but seniors end up costing more when it comes to the healthcare system. This, despite our immigration. Even the Harper government, very quietly, had acknowledged that this is a problem and that we need to have more children and increase immigration.

Lowering the population makes no sense at all.

Have a look at this: https://globalnews.ca/news/3423047/more-seniors-than-children-in-canada-2016-census/

Edited November 19, 2017 by marcus

[Queenmandy85]

The baby boomer problem will only last perhaps 15 years. A population of 40 million is forever. When we die off, in the next few years, the demographics will be back in balance. If we bring in millions of people, are they going to leave when the boomers are gone?

[taxme]

3 hours ago, marcus said:

For the first time, the population of seniors have gone above the population of children. Why is this bad for the economy? Because skilled job opening are not being replaced and less money is going towards taxes. Not only that but seniors end up costing more when it comes to the healthcare system. This, despite our immigration. Even the Harper government, very quietly, had acknowledged that this is a problem and that we need to have more children and increase immigration.

Lowering the population makes no sense at all.

Have a look at this: https://globalnews.ca/news/3423047/more-seniors-than-children-in-canada-2016-census/

Ya, and many of those seniors were brought over to Canada as part of the reunification program. Some of them never paid a cent of tax in their life while living in Canada but are now receiving services.  

Well, isn't that a shame. Seniors who paid taxes all their life are now using some healthcare benefits. Shame on those nasty people. 

Indeed we need to have more Canadian babies not foreign babies. We just have to stop wasting our tax dollars on foreigners and start up programs that will encourage our people to have more children. Stop giving billions to refugees and foreign aid would be a good start. 

What is needed is to lower the immigrants coming into Canada. The more we bring in the more problems are created. It only takes some common sense and logic to realize and figure it out. 

Re: Global News. What Global should be saying is stop all seniors coming to Canada by way of family reunification. 

[marcus]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The baby boomer problem will only last perhaps 15 years. A population of 40 million is forever. When we die off, in the next few years, the demographics will be back in balance. If we bring in millions of people, are they going to leave when the boomers are gone?

That's not how it works. We're not having enough children to replace the population that is no longer working. Without immigration, our population would go down. Each woman would need to have an average of +0.5 child more in order for the population to not decrease. At the moment, we are having 1.6 children per woman.

Despite some fluctuations, the total fertility rate in Canada has been below the replacement level for over 40 years. In fact, 1971 was the last year the replacement-level fertility of 2.1 children per woman was reached—meaning that couples, on average, had produced enough children to replace themselves.

Link

There are other factors at work here; As life expectancy continues to go up, the strain on our social services continues to go up as well.

"As people get older, they need more health care, more home care, and that puts increasing demands on government spending," says Dr. Frances Woolley, economics professor at Carleton University in Ottawa. "There are big challenges for the government coming on the fiscal side."

Link

[marcus]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

Ya, and many of those seniors were brought over to Canada as part of the reunification program. Some of them never paid a cent of tax in their life while living in Canada but are now receiving services.  

You make it very difficult to have a debate with you because you just say things without looking at the facts.

Canada, currently, only allows around 10,000 parents/grandparents a year through immigration sponsorship/family reunification. Same thing when it comes to refugees. The average, despite the one-time spike in admittance of Syrian refugees last year, has been around 10,000.

That's not even a drop in the bucket. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by marcus

[taxme]

3 hours ago, marcus said:

You make it very difficult to have a debate with you because you just say things without looking at the facts.

Canada, currently, only allows around 10,000 parents/grandparents a year through immigration sponsorship/family reunification. Same thing when it comes to refugees. The average, despite the one-time spike in admittance of Syrian refugees last year, has been around 10,000.

That's not even a drop in the bucket. 

I get all my facts from the alternative media sources unlike you where you appear to be getting all your "facts" from the left wing main stream liberal media. That is why you and I cannot agree with one another. 

And what happens after these parents/grandparents have been here for a certain number of years? Are they then allowed to become a Canadian citizen and start to receive all the perks that go along with being a Canadian citizen? Can they then start to collect a pension from the taxpayer's? 

In case you are not aware there has been approx. 35,000 illegal criminal so-called refugees that have crossed into Canada this year alone, and that is not even counting the tens of thousands of Syrian refugees that have been brought over to Canada. And the RCMP and the liberal media refuse to talk about this criminality going on anymore and doing anything about it because they know that if Canadians found this out they might decide to start getting a little or a lot upset, and maybe revolt.

"That's not even a drop in the bucket"? You mean that Canada should allow more refugees to immigrate to Canada? Have you gone daft? The Canadian taxpayer's have been forking out billions of tax dollars for decades now for all these so-called refugees, tax dollars that could have been better spent in Canada and on Canadians, and not a bunch of welfare foreigners who who do not deserve those tax dollars and who will never be able to pay back the Canadian taxpayer's for what they have paid for their being allowed to immigrate to Canada. 

Apparently, you have no idea at all as to what is really going on in Canada, now do you? You just like to parrot what your dear leader politicians tell you, and then you are told to repeat after them. I am a patriotic nationalist who is fed up with how this country is being destroyed by our elected politicians who are forcing all these different races and cultures and traditions on me and they appear to be only concerned about the rest of the world and the hell with Canada. You need to start visiting some alternative websites and try and get the other side of the story that you appear to be in need of. A drop in the bucket? Are you kidding me? It's not a bucket anymore, it is a barrel, and it is full. Enough already. 

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, marcus said:

hat's not how it works. We're not having enough children to replace the population that is no longer working. Without immigration, our population would go down

That is the whole point. The pressure of our current population is causing over harvesting of forests, degradation of wildlife and in accessibility to housing. 

[marcus]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the whole point. The pressure of our current population is causing over harvesting of forests, degradation of wildlife and in accessibility to housing. 

Shutting the doors because we're afraid of the others is not going to change the issues. Who is going to build the new houses? Who is going to tend to the seniors whose jobs are not being replaced? 

Look at the East coast provinces as the perfect example of how things will turn out if we shut the doors. An aging population, desperately trying to fill positions left behind or jobs that are supposed to be created through innovation and technology.

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

14 hours ago, marcus said:

You make it very difficult to have a debate with you because you just say things without looking at the facts.

Canada, currently, only allows around 10,000 parents/grandparents a year through immigration sponsorship/family reunification. Same thing when it comes to refugees. The average, despite the one-time spike in admittance of Syrian refugees last year, has been around 10,000.

That's not even a drop in the bucket. 

I don't think these numbers are facts either. Underestimation by a large margin, likely a factor of 2 to 5, in my view. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

Shutting the doors because we're afraid of the others is not going to change the issues. Who is going to build the new houses? Who is going to tend to the seniors whose jobs are not being replaced? 

Look at the East coast provinces as the perfect example of how things will turn out if we shut the doors. An aging population, desperately trying to fill positions left behind or jobs that are supposed to be created through innovation and technology.

 

I am not afraid of the 'others'. It is numbers. If we reduce the population, we don't need new houses and in the major cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, there is no room for houses. How can we continue to permit a house in these cities to cost millions of dollars? Who can afford that? They cost that much because there are too many people and not enough houses.

Many of the jobs can be automated. Many seniors will continue working since we don't force them out at 65. 

The jobs in future should be focused on transition into nuclear power, and non-resoused based industries such as finance and investment.

We should bring forward former Conservative Finance critic, Jim Gillies', Guaranteed Annual Income. 

When these people talk about increasing the population of Saskatoon from 250,000 to 500,000, you have to ask, what are they going to drink. Much of western Canada's water supply comes from disappearing glaciers. 

In your favour is the fact that the Government listens to others and not to me. Cheers. Again, sorry for the thread drift.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Queenmandy85

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is the whole point. The pressure of our current population is causing over harvesting of forests, degradation of wildlife and in accessibility to housing. 

 

2 hours ago, marcus said:

Shutting the doors because we're afraid of the others is not going to change the issues. Who is going to build the new houses? Who is going to tend to the seniors whose jobs are not being replaced? 

Look at the East coast provinces as the perfect example of how things will turn out if we shut the doors. An aging population, desperately trying to fill positions left behind or jobs that are supposed to be created through innovation and technology.

 

Our dumb gang of politicians that we have keep bringing in more immigrants than Canada can handle. There are 2 million Canadians unemployed and we need more immigrants? Think about it, fella? And Canadians should have a fear of some of those immigrants immigrating to Canada. Many bring with them crime, more welfare recipients who end up on food stamps, and more poverty. The kinds of immigrants that Canada is taking in are not adding all that much to the economy. Those new immigrants pretty much start their own little business, hire their own, and pay taxes which go to creating more services that would not be needed if they did not come to Canada. Think about it, fella? 

I am sure glad that not all Canadians think like you. Unfortunately, for people like myself, and how we would have things done  in Canada are in the minority and that is why people like yourself get to be able to flood this country with more immigrants, especially of those that we do not need. We need more housing because we keep bringing in more immigrants. It's that simple. The seniors are doing just fine and are still contributing to society because they are still paying taxes. The seniors jobs are being replaced by Canadians. Why bring in more immigrants that are going to probably take those jobs away from Canadians? The people in Newfoundland are doing just fine. They all have homes and jobs and they do not need more immigrants to fill any jobs that come open. Their children will take those jobs.That also goes for the Maritimes, and for the rest of Canada. All Canada is doing is just creating more of a problem and infrastructure. More immigrants, more housing, more infrastructure. What don't you get about this?