Is Immigration too High

[Bonam]

8 hours ago, Machjo said:

I can't vote in that poll but I don't think of it in terms of numbers. If one billion people come to Canada and find work, that's just fine. 

If one billion people come to Canada to find work, even if they are the highest quality people, intelligent, driven, law-abiding, etc, Canada's environment would be utterly destroyed. There is simply no need for so many people in Canada. Part of what makes Canada a great and unique place is its vast untouched wilderness areas where nature can take its course as it has for millions of years. Add a billion people and Canada would have 100 more major cities and their surrounding farmland and suburbs, and essentially no natural environments left. No thank you!

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I hear "too bad" and "tough" and a poll saying that people want home prices to fall.  I don't see it... people want their homes to increase in value.

Wealthy GTA and GVRD landowners are a very tiny portion of the Canadian population. 

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Wealthy GTA and GVRD landowners are a very tiny portion of the Canadian population. 

 

Indeed, but they think the whole nation revolves around them.

[Machjo]

11 minutes ago, Bonam said:

If one billion people come to Canada to find work, even if they are the highest quality people, intelligent, driven, law-abiding, etc, Canada's environment would be utterly destroyed. There is simply no need for so many people in Canada. Part of what makes Canada a great and unique place is its vast untouched wilderness areas where nature can take its course as it has for millions of years. Add a billion people and Canada would have 100 more major cities and their surrounding farmland and suburbs, and essentially no natural environments left. No thank you!

Simple solution: impose environmental policies that restrict construction in any environmentally sensitive area. This would limit the availability of housing which would naturally push prices up and so make Canada naturally less attractive. Trust the market.

[Bonam]

Just now, Machjo said:

Simple solution: impose environmental policies that restrict construction in any environmentally sensitive area. This would limit the availability of housing which would naturally push prices up and so make Canada naturally less attractive. Trust the market.

Trust the market under an assumption of ideally crafted environmental policies? Sorry but I don't trust the government to have that much foresight. If politicians thought it would be to their political benefit over the next 2-4 years to let a billion people into Canada, I'm sure they would, future be damned. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

Immigration by itself may not be too high as most immigrant will become contributing citizens and tax payers which supports the Canadian health and education not to mention most will be doctors and engineers and nurses and teachers and help Canadians but what is to high is the level of refugees. Those from third world countries who jam up and clog the health and education and welfare systems. Immigration level should be reduced to between 100 to 150 thousand per year and selected based on how well they can contribute to Canada and Canadians not how Canada and Canadians can contribute to them. Compatibility as well as skills must become an important factor on selectivity which should eliminate many of those whose goal will be to change the democratic and secular way of life in this country otherwise we will be risking the well being of future Canada and you hear this from an immigrant myself.

Edited August 28, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

I watch Power and politics all the time - call me a masochist. Saw the program. It's not about the small numbers of these occurrences - it's about Canada standing on principles that make sense to Canadians. Perhaps a "small" thing - but how many insignificants make a significant? If you can't do what's right with the small things - how do you get the big things right? It ALL has to make sense - from top to bottom. Like I said - it makes you want to pull your hair out.

It's about Canadians being generous, but being really angry when they're played for suckers. Also, we don't actually KNOW what the numbers are. The number quoted by the CBC woman attributed to Stats Canada was quite low, about 300. But Stats Canada only knows what is reported, and almost no hospitals actually record when the mother of a newborn is or is not a citizen. An article on CTV a few years ago said one single hospital in Richmond which did record this found that 300 foreign babies were born there in a single year, in just that one hospital. Canadian immigration recommended changing the law, but since it's the Tories who are now talking about it the Liberals and NDP immediately jump in to insinuate they're intolerant of immigrants.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/is-birth-tourism-a-problem-in-canada-doctors-on-frontline-of-debate-1.3023973

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Simple solution: impose environmental policies that restrict construction in any environmentally sensitive area. This would limit the availability of housing which would naturally push prices up and so make Canada naturally less attractive. Trust the market.

So that housing costs a million dollars everywhere and not just in downtown Toronto and Vancouver? Not a good idea.

[Machjo]

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

So that housing costs a million dollars everywhere and not just in downtown Toronto and Vancouver? Not a good idea.

Oh... but I thought foreigners were all poor third-worlders, no?

 

Anyway, there is a simple solution to that too: maybe allow foreign nationals to reside visa-free only within X kilometres of a river bank for example. They would need a visa to reside anywhere else and the government could refuse it. This would mean that they'd have to squeeze themselves into a a small area while Canadian nationals, permanent residents, and visa holders would be the only ones allowed to reside beyond that zone. the rest would need to reside within the zone and it wouldn't take long for many to bail because of excessive costs.

[Zeitgeist]

We need immigration to bring our population to a scale where Canada can be as self-reliant as possible, probably at least 80 million and up to about 300 million, but only if this population is distributed throughout the country, not just in the south.  Immigration should not be cut, and can probably be increased, but only if it is targeted to Canada's goals.  We need population in the north to tap the tremendous resources in the ground and make currently far-flung communities more self-sustaining.  We also need to target immigration to skills shortages, which we already do to some extent. 

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Immigration by itself may not be too high as most immigrant will become contributing citizens and tax payers which supports the Canadian health and education not to mention most will be doctors and engineers and nurses and teachers and help Canadians but what is to high is the level of refugees. Those from third world countries who jam up and clog the health and education and welfare systems. Immigration level should be reduced to between 100 to 150 thousand per year and selected based on how well they can contribute to Canada and Canadians not how Canada and Canadians can contribute to them. Compatibility as well as skills must become an important factor on selectivity which should eliminate many of those whose goal will be to change the democratic and secular way of life in this country otherwise we will be risking the well being of future Canada and you hear this from an immigrant myself.

It's my understanding that the two immigration categories that exert a considerable drag on taxpayer funded services are refugees and sponsored relatives (other than spouses and natural children). As those who enter the country under these categories aren't assessed for economic potential I believe the approach needs to change. First, Canada needs to align its refugee determination criteria with those of other Western countries in order to avoid attracting benefits seekers. Secondly, sponsored immigrant criteria should involve an economic test, including language proficiency, and sponsors should be required to purchase health insurance for their sponsored relatives throughout the period of the sponsorship.

[turningrite]

53 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We need immigration to bring our population to a scale where Canada can be as self-reliant as possible, probably at least 80 million and up to about 300 million, but only if this population is distributed throughout the country, not just in the south.  Immigration should not be cut, and can probably be increased, but only if it is targeted to Canada's goals.  We need population in the north to tap the tremendous resources in the ground and make currently far-flung communities more self-sustaining.  We also need to target immigration to skills shortages, which we already do to some extent. 

I think your vision is somewhat 'pie in the sky' as immigrants tend to gravitate to about half a dozen urban areas upon arriving in Canada. And they can't be forced by governments to move elsewhere. Personally, I don't believe Canada's population should exceed about 45 million and we should strive to reach this level over a period of perhaps 35 years or so, which would entail a lower population growth level than we're currently experiencing.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I think your vision is somewhat 'pie in the sky' as immigrants tend to gravitate to about half a dozen urban areas upon arriving in Canada. And they can't be forced by governments to move elsewhere. Personally, I don't believe Canada's population should exceed about 45 million and we should strive to reach this level over a period of perhaps 35 years or so, which would entail a lower population growth level than we're currently experiencing.

Well, you can enforce limiting immigration to certain regions if full citizenship is a staged process: place of work and residence must remain within identified areas for at least 3 or perhaps even 5 years for full citizenship to be granted, as declared on tax forms, subject to random audit.  

How do you expect to have a complete, well equipped armed forces and a fully diverse economy with 45 million people in a country the size of Canada?  Germany can fit within Ontario and has over 80 million people.  Without immigration Canada’s population would barely grow, as in most western countries.  Quebec has a negative birth rate.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well, you can enforce limiting immigration to certain regions if full citizenship is a staged process: place of work and residence must remain within identified areas for at least 3 or perhaps even 5 years for full citizenship to be granted, as declared on tax forms, subject to random audit.  

Why more bureaucracy?

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Why more bureaucracy?

It’s easy to manage and necessary to growing the economy in the North, which is currently too sparsely populated. 

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s easy to manage and necessary to growing the economy in the North, which is currently too sparsely populated. 

Hmmm... well... if it's 'too' sparsely populated, then I presume it must have many employment and business opportunities too, no? You don't trust the market?

[Zeitgeist]

13 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Hmmm... well... if it's 'too' sparsely populated, then I presume it must have many employment and business opportunities too, no? You don't trust the market?

Of course not.  Who wants to freeze their asses off, unless they know citizenship comes at the end of it?  As these centres grow they become more appealing and get all the amenities, such as Ft. McMurray.  A good pay check helps.  Mining companies don’t have the labour forces up north to tap these resources.  Stalin did it with the stick: gulags.   We do it with the carrot: citizenship.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

It's about Canadians being generous, but being really angry when they're played for suckers. Also, we don't actually KNOW what the numbers are. The number quoted by the CBC woman attributed to Stats Canada was quite low, about 300. But Stats Canada only knows what is reported, and almost no hospitals actually record when the mother of a newborn is or is not a citizen. An article on CTV a few years ago said one single hospital in Richmond which did record this found that 300 foreign babies were born there in a single year, in just that one hospital. Canadian immigration recommended changing the law, but since it's the Tories who are now talking about it the Liberals and NDP immediately jump in to insinuate they're intolerant of immigrants.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/is-birth-tourism-a-problem-in-canada-doctors-on-frontline-of-debate-1.3023973

Perfect summary. Thank you.

[turningrite]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1.) Well, you can enforce limiting immigration to certain regions if full citizenship is a staged process: place of work and residence must remain within identified areas for at least 3 or perhaps even 5 years for full citizenship to be granted, as declared on tax forms, subject to random audit.  

2.) How do you expect to have a complete, well equipped armed forces and a fully diverse economy with 45 million people in a country the size of Canada?  Germany can fit within Ontario and has over 80 million people.  Without immigration Canada’s population would barely grow, as in most western countries.  Quebec has a negative birth rate.  

1.) I doubt your suggestion would be possible. For one thing, the Charter in Section 6 guarantees mobility rights: "Citizens and Permanent Residents have the ability to move to and take up residence in any province to pursue gaining livelihood." Neither the Charter nor current Canadian law appear to contemplate the possibility of conditional residency and court challenges would likely strike down any attempt to implement such a regime unless a government were willing to impose the notwithstanding clause. But a change in government could easily cancel a conditional residency policy, rendering any long-term ability to impose such a regime highly impractical.

2.) It's believed that by mid-century birth rates could fall below replacement rates in at least half the world's countries and very likely in most Western countries. So the world will simply have to get used to this. A smaller global population will not be a bad thing. We're not doing a very good job at keeping older workers economically productive and we're not fully utilizing the skills of Canadian post-secondary graduates, a significant percentage of whom leave the country for better opportunities elsewhere. We should address these issues before bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year, many of whom take years to become economic contributors. And your comparison of Germany with Ontario is highly artificial as only about 4 percent of Ontarians reside in the province's vast north while the other 96 percent reside in the much smaller region known as Southern Ontario, which has a population density of about 260 persons per square mile, which isn't much below France's population density of around 300 persons per square mile and exceeds Spain's population density of around 240 persons per square mile.

Edited August 28, 2018 by turningrite

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed, but they think the whole nation revolves around them.

Yeah who want's to be a Trump anyways.

[Zeitgeist]

Rules that apply to citizens and permanent residents don’t have to apply to this new category of migrant.  I think we need to seriously consider such a move if we want to tap Canada’s resource potential and make the North viable.  Really, the alternative is abandoning and consolidating communities, which has happened to many villages in places like Newfoundland.  Our biggest problems on reserves are in northern communities.  Why do we treat people with temporary work visas better than our own citizens?

Such a restriction on residency need only be temporary, say for up to five years.  The reward is citizenship.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[turningrite]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Why do we treat people with temporary work visas better than our own citizens?

That's a good question but it raises another topic altogether: Why does the federal government sponsor an unfair labour competition scheme against Canadian workers? To me, the answer is that the situation illustrates the fealty of successive governments to corporate interests and power. It also raises the issue of why we need so many temporary and visa workers, particularly in highly-skilled fields, when at the same time so many immigrants are entering the country and struggling to establish themselves. The situation suggests a massive disconnect between our immigration policies and the requirements of our labour market(s).

[Zeitgeist]

I think the point is that none of the non-refugee migrants is owed citizenship or its concomitant rights.  On the way to receiving these rights, there’s nothing wrong with requiring certain sacrifices.  If potential immigrants don’t want to make those sacrifices, they don’t have to immigrate.  Again, I’m only proposing the residency requirement for a new fast-track category of immigration.  It may also be applied to certain would be immigrants who would fall short of meeting the normal criteria. 

[turningrite]

16 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think the point is that none of the non-refugee migrants is owed citizenship or its concomitant rights.  On the way to receiving these rights, there’s nothing wrong with requiring certain sacrifices.  If potential immigrants don’t want to make those sacrifices, they don’t have to immigrate.  Again, I’m only proposing the residency requirement for a new fast-track category of immigration.  It may also be applied to certain would be immigrants who would fall short of meeting the normal criteria. 

Are you proposing then that we basically abandon regular immigration and simply permit workers to enter on a temporary basis in order to demonstrate their ability to contribute, integrate and sustain themselves? This might be feasible provided Canadian workers are not pitted against these new entrants in seeking and obtaining opportunities in this country, and in particular provided the system isn't set up as an inherent form of wage arbitrage as temp workers cost less to employ mainly due to the lack of non-wage benefits costs associated with employing Canadian workers. Governments would have to require that wages and salaries paid to this temporary class of workers be grossed up to match the equivalent costs of Canadian workers, perhaps stipulating that the gross up funds be paid into pension plans that the temp workers can remove if or when they leave the country.

[Machjo]

9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Of course not.  Who wants to freeze their asses off, unless they know citizenship comes at the end of it?  As these centres grow they become more appealing and get all the amenities, such as Ft. McMurray.  A good pay check helps.  Mining companies don’t have the labour forces up north to tap these resources.  Stalin did it with the stick: gulags.   We do it with the carrot: citizenship.  

Well if it pays well...