Is Immigration too High

[Zeitgeist]

I more or less agree with those adjustments, though I’m not sure we have to abandon all current immigration categories. We can add categories and reform/tighten up existing ones.  I think that citizenship should largely be a graduated process like obtaining a driver’s license.  If certain criteria are not met over time, then final citizenship isn’t granted.  The challenge is when immigrants involved in this process have children in Canada, these children can and should be granted citizenship.  We don’t want to separate families, so parents who fail to meet citizenship criteria over time and have children here may have to remain in a kind of limbo:  They are permitted to live and work here without citizenship until their children are 18, unless they re-enter the citizenship process (starting the 3-5 year residency requirement over again, for example). If they fail a second time or opt out of returning to this process, they would have to return to their home country when their children turn 18 until their families sponsor them to return, which is very fair. 

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Machjo said:

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

Not all of them.

13 hours ago, Machjo said:

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. 

All this complexity and you have yet to demonstrate just how a huge increase in the population will make life better for Canadians. Perhaps you'd like to compare us to India or Nigeria to use two examples.

[Argus]

12 hours 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, 

Of the top ten most populace countries on Earth, all but one is a shithole. 

Meanwhile, Norway's population is 5 million as is Finland, Denmark is at 6 million, Switzerland is 8 million and Sweden is 10 million.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your theory that the larger the population the better a country is for its citizens.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

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? 

Australia has a much better equipped military than Canada and it has a much smaller population. For that matter, Finland's is better, too. And both have nicely developed economies.

[Zeitgeist]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

Of the top ten most populace countries on Earth, all but one is a shithole. 

Meanwhile, Norway's population is 5 million as is Finland, Denmark is at 6 million, Switzerland is 8 million and Sweden is 10 million.

Perhaps you would like to rethink your theory that the larger the population the better a country is for its citizens.

Norway, though the largest Scandinavian country by land, is still much smaller than Canada.  We have a lot of territory to manage and defend.  The U.S. is pushing us to do more to defend ourselves.  I don’t think 300 million is an optimum population for Canada, but probably around 100 million is.  We would no longer have to accept the compromise of being a middle power, as we’d be larger than the UK.  However, if this larger population is crammed into the south, that’s a problem. Each province (west of the Maritimes) should target growth and development in at least one northern city.  St. Petersburg Russia, parallel with Anchorage, has about 5 million people.  Our biggest northern city is Edmonton at what, less than a million?  It’s a lot farther south than St. Petersburg.

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

Australia has a much better equipped military than Canada and it has a much smaller population. For that matter, Finland's is better, too. And both have nicely developed economies.

Australia has a very impotent military compared to China and the U.S.  It’s also surrounded by water and doesn’t share a continent with a populous superpower.  Canada should plan as though far more people are coming and scale up all of its infrastructure and institutions accordingly.   

Let’s put it this way:  At the end of WW2 Canada has the third largest navy in the world.  It played a major role in the war, yet France, a country of 41 million people at the time (a bit larger than Canada today), couldn’t defend itself against Germany.  After the war, France was one of five countries that got veto power on the Security Council and at the UN.  Canada didn’t get veto power because it had a much smaller population than France and didn’t have France’s economic heft.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Norway, though the largest Scandinavian country by land, is still much smaller than Canada.

So what? It's also one of the richest and most pleasant countries in the world to live. Should that not be the aim?

Quote

We have a lot of territory to manage and defend.  The U.S. is pushing us to do more to defend ourselves.

Against whom?

Quote

 I don’t think 300 million is an optimum population for Canada, but probably around 100 million is.  We would no longer have to accept the compromise of being a middle power, as we’d be larger than the UK.

What compromises are you talking about? And how do they impact the well-being and happiness of Canadians?

Quote

Australia has a very impotent military compared to China and the U.S.

I do not think it a reasonable expectation of us that we should grow our population to the same numbers as superpowers so we could resist an attack from them when no attack seems likely in the first place. Especially not at the damage to our environment and the contentment, happiness, wealth and well-being of our citizens. Nor are Canadians particularly concerned with any such attack. 

Finland, with a population of just over 5 million has 900,000 reservists. Canada has 24,000. I would suggest that Canada's present size is more than sufficient to deter aggression from anyone if we actually chose to put resources into our military. We have not chosen to do so.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Argus

[Zeitgeist]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

So what? It's also one of the richest and most pleasant countries in the world to live. Should that not be the aim?

Against whom?

What compromises are you talking about? And how do they impact the well-being and happiness of Canadians?

I do not think it a reasonable expectation of us that we should grow our population to the same numbers as superpowers so we could resist an attack from them when no attack seems likely in the first place. Especially not at the damage to our environment and the contentment, happiness, wealth and well-being of our citizens. Nor are Canadians particularly concerned with any such attack. 

Finland, with a population of just over 5 million has 900,000 reservists. Canada has 24,000. I would suggest that Canada's present size is more than sufficient to deter aggression from anyone if we actually chose to put resources into our military. We have not chosen to do so.

 

I respect your argument, but how will Canada defend its border in the coming decades and centuries against the massive tides of migration that are coming due to climate, political, and other crises?  We need to plan for a certain amount of growth that is coming whether we want it or not.  Hitler showed us what even the most supposedly developed countries are capable of when they become desperate.  Trump made significant gestures in that direction.  We need to have our eyes open and prepare for conditions not of our making.  

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Not all of them.

All this complexity and you have yet to demonstrate just how a huge increase in the population will make life better for Canadians. Perhaps you'd like to compare us to India or Nigeria to use two examples.

Or Hong Kong or Singapore to use just two examples. Both are wealthier than Canada per capita.

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Or Hong Kong or Singapore to use just two examples. Both are wealthier than Canada per capita.

Yeah but I’d far rather live in Canada than Singapore or Hong Kong for so many reasons.  Canada has a good thing going, but we have to protect it carefully.  

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah but I’d far rather live in Canada than Singapore or Hong Kong for so many reasons.  Canada has a good thing going, but we have to protect it carefully.  

On a side note, though Hong Kong and Singapore might be less generous than Canada when it comes to social assistance for immigrants, they actually give out work and other visas more easily than Canada does.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I respect your argument, but how will Canada defend its border in the coming decades and centuries against the massive tides of migration that are coming due to climate, political, and other crises?  

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the US will defend our southern border. The snowy waste our northern. That just leaves the need for a navy to see off those few who can make it by sea, and a robust asylum system which will put those who fly in under false pretenses into camps where their claims can be heard, and then quickly deported if those claims are rejected.

[taxme]

On 8/26/2018 at 5:59 PM, Centerpiece said:

2016 deaths in Canada: 268,932. 2016 births in Canada: 383,102. Net increase with no immigration: 114,170

Given the above - and Canada's aging demographics, that net increase will get smaller if we had no immigration -  and the expense of an aging population will go up along with fewer working people to drive the economy. Even if Father Time eased up and we magically maintained the same net increase, it would take 10 years to add one million to our current population of 36 million.

So it seems clear that we require "needs based" immigration. We could argue about the number but I'm OK with a figure around 300,000, give or take. Where I have a problem is the selection process. We can pick and choose and we should. Here's the current criteria for immigration:

Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/supplementary-immigration-levels-2018.html

 

 

The population of Canada has now reached over 37 million. By those figures posted above there is no need to have as many as another 250,000(plus the tens of thousands of legal and illegal refugees)immigrants that will be allowed to immigrate to Canada every year. Everywhere one looks it is getting too busy out there with so many new immigrants running around. Traffic is getting worse by the day in many cities in Canada. What use to take a half hour to get home now pretty much takes an hour or more. Lineups for many things are getting bad and long everywhere. What is needed is a moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal. The damage that is being done to our infrastructure and the environment alone is enough to want to put a halt to all if this massive immigration madness. It would appear as though our dear leader foolish and crazy politicians want Canada to end up with a population of over 40 million in the next few years. This is insane. 

[turningrite]

On 8/26/2018 at 8:59 PM, Centerpiece said:

2016 deaths in Canada: 268,932. 2016 births in Canada: 383,102. Net increase with no immigration: 114,170

Given the above - and Canada's aging demographics, that net increase will get smaller if we had no immigration -  and the expense of an aging population will go up along with fewer working people to drive the economy. Even if Father Time eased up and we magically maintained the same net increase, it would take 10 years to add one million to our current population of 36 million.

So it seems clear that we require "needs based" immigration. We could argue about the number but I'm OK with a figure around 300,000, give or take. Where I have a problem is the selection process. We can pick and choose and we should. Here's the current criteria for immigration:

 

Your demographic argument repeats a myth that's often used by immigration proponents. Australia, which has pursued a large scale immigration program similar to Canada's and which largely modeled its selection process on Canada's system, fairly recently undertook a thorough examination of its program and policies. Interestingly, it concluded that the demographic argument for high immigration levels is largely overstated as its impact on the age structure of the population isn't particularly large and can't be sustained without constantly maintaining very high immigration levels. Commentators in Australia have thus noted that the demographic strategy essentially amounts to a ponzi scheme. So, we have to discuss immigration in terms of its real impacts both good and bad and determine a level that is ideal for both the existing population and for new arrivals. I believe that level is probably around 150,000 to 180,000 annually. Sure, the rate of population growth with drop but there is no proof it would in any way undermine economic conditions and/or living standards and it could in fact have many beneficial impacts.

Edited August 29, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the US will defend our southern border.

 

Nope....thousands of "irregular" border crossings happen on the southern border each year.    Buh-bye....enjoy Canada !

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

You're demographic argument repeats a myth that's often used by immigration proponents. Australia, which has pursued a large scale immigration program similar to Canada's and which largely modeled its selection process on Canada's system, fairly recently undertook a thorough examination of its program and policies. Interestingly, it concluded that the demographic argument for high immigration levels is largely overstated as its impact on the age structure of the population isn't particularly large and can't be sustained without constantly maintaining very high immigration levels. Commentators in Australia have thus noted that the demographic strategy essentially amounts to a ponzi scheme. So, we have to discuss immigration in terms of its real impacts both good and bad and determine a level that is ideal for both the existing population and for new arrivals. I believe that level is probably around 150,000 to 180,000 annually. Sure, the rate of population growth with drop but there is no proof it would in any way undermine economic conditions and/or living standards and it could in fact have many beneficial impacts.

Like I said - we can pick and choose and we should.......all on a "needs basis". If it's skills, lets be smart in defining what those skills are - real skills - not nannies. If it's propping up an aging country, lets focus on young, educated families. It's so frustrating to have the immigration industry, lawyers and leftist media and academics oppose every attempt to rationalize the system - calling it discriminatory, racist, unfair, un-Canadian, mean-spirited, blah, blah, blah.

[turningrite]

21 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Like I said - we can pick and choose and we should.......all on a "needs basis". If it's skills, lets be smart in defining what those skills are - real skills - not nannies. If it's propping up an aging country, lets focus on young, educated families. It's so frustrating to have the immigration industry, lawyers and leftist media and academics oppose every attempt to rationalize the system - calling it discriminatory, racist, unfair, un-Canadian, mean-spirited, blah, blah, blah.

I largely agree with you, particularly with your final sentence. I think we need to examine our system to see whether it's meeting the country's needs but think we should avoid trying to reinvent the wheel. The Australian analysis likely offers many insights into the problems in our system. I believe it also addresses the problem of the disconnect between immigration selection and real labour market needs. And it's my understanding that it addresses some of the concerns about sponsored relatives (aside from legal spouses and natural children). Unless there is clear acknowledgement on the part of politicians, policy analysts, corporations and mainstream media that the current system is deeply flawed, a reactive alternative, whether in the form of Bernier's proposed party or something else, will eventually emerge.

[-TSS-]

Allegedly there are about 33,000 gangs in the USA and it has very much to do with immigration from the Latin-America. Is there a lot of problem with Latin-American immigration in Canada? For sheer geographical reasons certainly not as much as in the USA but surely more than Europe.

Namely, we here in Europe don't consider Latin-Americans anything serious at all. That is because their worst people don't come here. They come to you. We are always talking about islamisation of Europe and Africanisation of Europe but I guess if we for some reason had 33,000 vicious Latin-American gangsour view of the cool Spanish-speaking people would change a lot.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Allegedly there are about 33,000 gangs in the USA and it has very much to do with immigration from the Latin-America. Is there a lot of problem with Latin-American immigration in Canada? For sheer geographical reasons certainly not as much as in the USA but surely more than Europe.

I've never heard we have much of an issue with Latins. Our gang members are mostly from the Caribbean, mainly Jamaican and Haiti, and from Somalia. Out west we have native gangs, and some east Indians.

[-TSS-]

Do you in Canada have a similar thing as we in Finland make fun of that many of the so-called asylum-seekers from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia etc once they have been granted asylum they go on holiday in the very same countries they claim to flee from because of persecution and the authorities who granted them asylum don't see anything wrong about it.

Edited September 4, 2018 by -TSS-

[bush_cheney2004]

19 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Namely, we here in Europe don't consider Latin-Americans anything serious at all. That is because their worst people don't come here. They come to you. We are always talking about islamisation of Europe and Africanisation of Europe but I guess if we for some reason had 33,000 vicious Latin-American gangsour view of the cool Spanish-speaking people would change a lot.

 

Interesting...in my part of the USA, there was a big problem in the early 20th century with immigrants from...Finland.    Not only were they despised by other immigrants (particularly the Swedes), they also brought socialism/Marxism with them to mining and timber labour groups.    Bad idea.....

[Argus]

51 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Do you in Canada have a similar thing as we in Finland make fun of that many of the so-called asylum-seekers from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia etc once they have been granted asylum they go on holiday in the very same countries they claim to flee from because of persecution and the authorities who granted them asylum don't see anything wrong about it.

Happens all the time. When there was a renewal of the fighting in Lebanon the Canadian government suddenly found it had something like 50,000 citizens there who wanted to be evacuated. They were people who had come to Canada as refugees many years earlier, then returned home to live. Since we deposit government benefits directly into people's bank accounts and don't keep track of when they're in or out of the country (just starting to do so) they can actually go home the next day and continue to collect their government benefits.

If you question this then you clearly worship Adolph Hitler and wear a KKK sheet. There's no evidence of it, of course. The government does not keep track and keeps no statistics and the media is entirely uninterested.

 

[-TSS-]

42 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Interesting...in my part of the USA, there was a big problem in the early 20th century with immigrants from...Finland.    Not only were they despised by other immigrants (particularly the Swedes), they also brought socialism/Marxism with them to mining and timber labour groups.    Bad idea.....

No other nation than the Irish hear this argument more often than the Irish. There has been mass-immigration into Ireland for the last 10-15 years. Anyone who questions it is reminded how millions and millions of Irish themselves have emigrated to North-America, Australia and especially Britain so those who are against immigration to Ireland should really be ashamed of themselves.

They always forget the crucial difference that the in the mid 1800's there was no social security. You either worked or you starved. A stark contrast to present-day immigration to Western-Europe where the welfare-system is stretched to the limit because of immigration.

However, Friedman will be proved right; you can either have open borders or you can have a generous welfare-state but you just can't have both. Take your pick.

[turningrite]

On 9/4/2018 at 2:46 PM, -TSS- said:

Do you in Canada have a similar thing as we in Finland make fun of that many of the so-called asylum-seekers from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia etc once they have been granted asylum they go on holiday in the very same countries they claim to flee from because of persecution and the authorities who granted them asylum don't see anything wrong about it.

I've heard anecdotally that this is a problem in Canada as well. I believe Germany has a staged status system whereby approved refugee claimants don't automatically obtain permanent residency and perhaps some variation of this might be adopted by other refugee receiving countries in order to stem the tide of marginal asylum seekers. Also, I believe refugee claimants who arrive in Germany get processed relatively quickly but have to wait for a longer period to obtain citizenship than is the case in Canada. The notion that attainment of asylum is seen as conferring permanent status is in its own right quite bizarre. Most crises that generate refugee populations, like the civil war in Syria, aren't permanent. So, conditional asylum applicable to periods of conflict may be a more effective way to manage these situations than granting permanent status, which likely encourages a greater degree of economic migration.