I am the New Minister of Immigration!

[taxme]

23 hours ago, Machjo said:

Like in the past you mean? Historically, indigenous peoples were great international traders. That's why Chinuk Wawa spread across Cascadia.

They were now, eh? So, who did they trade with? Africans, Arabs who? What kind of international trade are you talking about? 

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

They were now, eh? So, who did they trade with? Africans, Arabs who? What kind of international trade are you talking about? 

Hawaiians, Chinese, English, and French Canadians. I think I remember reading that they traded with the Spanish and Russians too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_Jargon

[taxme]

42 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Hawaiians, Chinese, English, and French Canadians. I think I remember reading that they traded with the Spanish and Russians too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_Jargon

Okay, so they were not ocean voyagers like the rest that you mentioned above. They dealt in what you called "international trade" by dealing with people who came to North America. The Indians never went to any of those countries by boat. All they used for transportation were canoes to get around in North America. They could not sail to Europe or Russia in a canoe.

So, what did they have to trade with anyway? Buffalo bones? 

[CITIZEN_2015]

I as an immigration minister will

1 - Cut immigration to 150,000 and refugees to 50,000 a year..

2 - A much tougher criteria for refugees qualification. A solid proof beyond reasonable doubt that deportation will result in torture or execution for political beliefs.

2 - Adaptability test based (for both immigrants and refugees) on Canadian values, that is to believe in equality and respect for women , respect for human rights and all religions and races. Adaptability coming before assets and skills or political reasons.

4 - Fluency in one of official languages for immigrants.

5 - The first 3 years will be on probation for immigrants and first 10 years probation for refugees. Anything other than a traffic violation will result in immediate deportation to the country of origin.

Edited September 18, 2018 by CITIZEN_2015

[turningrite]

 

I as an immigration minister will

1 - Cut immigration to 150,000 and refugees to 50,000 a year..

2 - A much tougher criteria for refugees qualification. A solid proof beyond reasonable doubt that deportation will result in torture or execution for political beliefs.

2 - Adaptability test based (for both immigrants and refugees) on Canadian values, that is to believe in equality and respect , respect for human rights and all religions and races. Adaptability coming before assets and skills or political reasons.

4 - Fluency in one of official languages for immigrants.

5 - The first 3 years will be on probation for immigrants and first 10 years probation for refugees. Anything other than a traffic violation will result in immediate deportation to the country of origin.

Good suggestions. I think we now take in about 40K to 50K refugees a year on average, though, so your number there might be a little high. You also might have added that preference would be given to those who have job offers. If we continue to permit skilled temporary foreign workers perhaps we can give preference for permanent residency to those who've already arrived and are already working as long as their numbers are calculated into the permitted intake level.

Edited September 18, 2018 by turningrite

[Army Guy]

There is no agreed view on the net impact of immigration in current times. Historically, Canada's unusually high immigration rates can be traced to the nation's unique economy. One factor is that Canada has one of the world's largest supplies of natural resources such as oil, metals, and lumber. It also has a sparse population spread over a vast landscape.

 

Another factor that contributes to the immigration question is Canada's low birth rate (see List of countries by birth rate). The theory is that new residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities.

The economic dangers of population decline are not universally accepted. Organizations like the Fraser Institute question whether a declining population would reduce or increase per capita income, noting that in the short term, with a stable economy, fewer people would increase the per capita income simply because you divide the income among fewer people. The study's authors conducted a series of studies using large amounts of census data (844,476 individuals) and conclude that immigrants who arrived from 1987–2004 paid only 57% of the taxes paid by average Canadian in 2006, with the effect that taxes from immigrants do not exceed the government expenses relating to them (a gap of $23 billion annually according to their numbers).

 

A study by the C. D. Howe Institute suggests that immigration cannot keep Canada's population young and could possibly contribute to population ageing in the near term.^[12] Employment statistics also bring into question whether skilled worker immigrants, with a 34% unemployment rate,^[13] are successfully meeting existing labour market needs in Canada. Many developed nations have much lower fertility rates than Canada but have not embraced immigration.

 

he first detailed analysis of Canadian immigration policy came from the Economic Council of Canada; it called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, noting that "a historical perspective gives little or no support to the view that immigration is needed for national prosperity", it also concluded that the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains

 

What would I do as PM of Canada fire all those thinking immigration is the answer to all our problems, perhaps address our employment shortfalls through education, either subsidizing a Canadian students education or offering free education ,which could be paid back by serving time in some national program, one year service for every year of education.... IE the medical fields could see doctors, nurses , all medical field jobs serve all across the nation like our  our military or RCMP do, where they would serve is up to the government . where ever needed the most....send home all our foreign medical students, replace them with Canadians. 

Same goes for other jobs or careers, start pumping out educated Canadians , promote those positions that are in need, other nations already have this type of program and provide free education to all who qualifiy.. 

Start offering Canadians incentives to having more kids....such as free day care, or large cash incentives , I mean it does cost the federal government 23 bil a year for immigration, that's a lot of incentives....or perhaps put a huge tax on contraceptive's, instead of carbon tax we could call it " the make Canada great again tax"

Maybe we could also look into our welfare systems and put some of these folks back to work as well , through up grading education or moving them to where the jobs are. give them every opportunity to get real paying jobs, and for those that refuse, give them a pink slip, sorry we tried your on your own....we have some guy from Haiti  that would die for a job, here's your plane ticket to Haiti, good luck....

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Army Guy

[turningrite]

 

1.) There is no agreed view on the net impact of immigration in current times. Historically, Canada's unusually high immigration rates can be traced to the nation's unique economy. One factor is that Canada has one of the world's largest supplies of natural resources such as oil, metals, and lumber. It also has a sparse population spread over a vast landscape.

2.) Another factor that contributes to the immigration question is Canada's low birth rate (see List of countries by birth rate). The theory is that new residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities.

3.) The economic dangers of population decline are not universally accepted. Organizations like the Fraser Institute question whether a declining population would reduce or increase per capita income, noting that in the short term, with a stable economy, fewer people would increase the per capita income simply because you divide the income among fewer people. The study's authors conducted a series of studies using large amounts of census data (844,476 individuals) and conclude that immigrants who arrived from 1987–2004 paid only 57% of the taxes paid by average Canadian in 2006, with the effect that taxes from immigrants do not exceed the government expenses relating to them (a gap of $23 billion annually according to their numbers).

4.) [T]he first detailed analysis of Canadian immigration policy came from the Economic Council of Canada; it called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, noting that "a historical perspective gives little or no support to the view that immigration is needed for national prosperity", it also concluded that the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains

 

Army Guy:

1.) There are emerging studies indicating that the net economic benefits of immigration are marginal. I believe Australia's extensive study of its immigration policies determined that its large-scale immigration program doesn't increase incomes or per capita wealth and mainly amounts to a population growth policy. In other words, a bigger pie is simply divided among more people.The British economist, Sir Paul Collier, has noted that the net economic impacts of large scale immigration in advanced economies is both marginal and unequal, with a tendency to benefit the already wealthy and further impoverish those at the bottom of the economic ladder, including new immigrants.

2.) Canada's birth rate is not as low as is the case in many other Western countries and in fact has been heavily impacted by government policies favoring wage suppression and large-scale immigration. Australia's study also examined the demographic impacts of immigration and determined that any gains obtained aren't statistically large and can't be sustained without maintaining continuously high levels of immigration, leading some critics of Australia's program to characterize it as a ponzi scheme. The mythical demographic benefit afforded by large-scale immigration is mainly propaganda. It won't pay for future social costs.

3.) The poor economic performance of Canada's most recent generation of immigrants warrants serious caution in continuing with our immigration programs in their current form. A massive and objective analysis, along the lines of the Australian study, should be undertaken.

4.) Does the Economic Council of Canada still exist? My understanding it that it doesn't. In any case, any plan to increase Canada's population to 100 million is daft. The UN estimates that after 2050 global population growth with level off significantly and many countries will experience population decline. Canada's population prediction for 2100 is in the low 50 millions. As for the impacts of massively increasing immigration, any assertion that the benefits to Canadians in general, while admittedly modest, might be worthwhile is ludicrous as most growth has occurred and in the future will occur in a handful of urban areas. People living in the Toronto and Vancouver areas are experiencing the nightmare of massive immigration-driven growth as it is. Do those in Canada's other major cities want this kind of future? For those who don't understand the problem of encouraging uncontrolled population growth, my advice is to be wary - very wary. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

 

Army Guy:

1.) There are emerging studies indicating that the net economic benefits of immigration are marginal. I believe Australia's extensive study of its immigration policies determined that its large-scale immigration program doesn't increase incomes or per capita wealth and mainly amounts to a population growth policy. In other words, a bigger pie is simply divided among more people.The British economist, Sir Paul Collier, has noted that the net economic impacts of large scale immigration in advanced economies is both marginal and unequal, with a tendency to benefit the already wealthy and further impoverish those at the bottom of the economic ladder, including new immigrants.

2.) Canada's birth rate is not as low as is the case in many other Western countries and in fact has been heavily impacted by government policies favoring wage suppression and large-scale immigration. Australia's study also examined the demographic impacts of immigration and determined that any gains obtained aren't statistically large and can't be sustained without maintaining continuously high levels of immigration, leading some critics of Australia's program to characterize it as a ponzi scheme. The mythical demographic benefit afforded by large-scale immigration is mainly propaganda. It won't pay for future social costs.

3.) The poor economic performance of Canada's most recent generation of immigrants warrants serious caution in continuing with our immigration programs in their current form. A massive and objective analysis, along the lines of the Australian study, should be undertaken.

4.) Does the Economic Council of Canada still exist? My understanding it that it doesn't. In any case, any plan to increase Canada's population to 100 million is daft. The UN estimates that after 2050 global population growth with level off significantly and many countries will experience population decline. Canada's population prediction for 2100 is in the low 50 millions. As for the impacts of massively increasing immigration, any assertion that the benefits to Canadians in general, while admittedly modest, might be worthwhile is ludicrous as most growth has occurred and in the future will occur in a handful of urban areas. People living in the Toronto and Vancouver areas are experiencing the nightmare of massive immigration-driven growth as it is. Do those in Canada's other major cities want this kind of future? For those who don't understand the problem of encouraging uncontrolled population growth, my advice is to be wary - very wary. 

We need to incentivize moving to the North big time. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

We need to incentivize moving to the North big time. 

Why? There's not sufficient economic justification to locate large numbers of people in the north. It costs way more to keep alive there. The winters are long and cold, the summers short and cool. Besides, where is your concern for swamping the culture of natives?! 

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Why? There's not sufficient economic justification to locate large numbers of people in the north. It costs way more to keep alive there. The winters are long and cold, the summers short and cool. Besides, where is your concern for swamping the culture of natives?! 

In addition to this, once people are permanent residents in Canada they can legally live wherever they wish. The government can't tell people where to live, thus, most immigrants move into Canada's handful of larger cities.

[Zeitgeist]

41 minutes ago, turningrite said:

In addition to this, once people are permanent residents in Canada they can legally live wherever they wish. The government can't tell people where to live, thus, most immigrants move into Canada's handful of larger cities.

Then expect overcrowding of our major cities, continued poverty on reserves, high costs to service small far flung communities, and more challenges bringing a large, permanent, viable workforce to tap the vast natural resources of the North.  Russia did it.  Why can’t we?

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Then expect overcrowding of our major cities, continued poverty on reserves, high costs to service small far flung communities, and more challenges bringing a large, permanent, viable workforce to tap the vast natural resources of the North.  Russia did it.  Why can’t we?

Because we can't shoot people in the face if they move from where we put them.

[h102]

You seem to forget that most people choose canada as a 3rd or 4th choice after being rejected from warmer climates, no one will come here under your plan, it failed in the past.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, h102 said:

You seem to forget that most people choose canada as a 3rd or 4th choice after being rejected from warmer climates, no one will come here under your plan, it failed in the past.

It's not even that they're rejected by other countries with warmer climates, it's that it's easier and takes less time to get into Canada, which is often seen as a kind of 'stepping stone' or consolation prize. I recall speaking to a former co-worker who had come to Canada along with her family members from a country in the developing world. She was absolutely clear about the fact that their first choice was the U.S. but Canada was seen as an acceptable temporary alternative. Getting into the U.S., however, remained their dream and having Canadian work experience and children educated here sure wouldn't hurt their chances of achieving it, she bluntly told me.

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, h102 said:

You seem to forget that most people choose canada as a 3rd or 4th choice after being rejected from warmer climates, no one will come here under your plan, it failed in the past.

You just don't get the high level of demand for immigration to Canada.  It would be very easy to create a new category of immigration targeted to the north. 

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

It's not even that they're rejected by other countries with warmer climates, it's that it's easier and takes less time to get into Canada, which is often seen as a kind of 'stepping stone' or consolation prize. I recall speaking to a former co-worker who had come to Canada along with her family members from a country in the developing world. She was absolutely clear about the fact that their first choice was the U.S. but Canada was seen as an acceptable temporary alternative. Getting into the U.S., however, remained their dream and having Canadian work experience and children educated here sure wouldn't hurt their chances of achieving it, she bluntly told me.

That's an old take on Canadian immigration.  Some only want to come to Canada.  Some of them are my neighbors from New Zealand, China, and Italy.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

23 hours ago, Argus said:

Because we can't shoot people in the face if they move from where we put them.

There are many positive incentives to push people north.  For would-be immigrants it's citizenship.  For Canadians it can be access to cheap or free Crown land, job offers, tax breaks...

Edited September 22, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There are many positive incentives to push people north.  For would-be immigrants it's citizenship.  For Canadians it can be access to cheap or free Crown land, job offers, tax breaks...

 

Really ?   More legal immigrants would still head for the United States, just as they have in the past.    Hell, so do natural born Canadian citizens !

Canada has a problem with net migration....always has.

Edited September 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Really ?   More legal immigrants would still head for the United States, just as they have in the past.    Hell, so do natural born Canadian citizens !

Canada has a problem with net migration....always has.

Well Canada is teaming with immigration applications.  From Wikipedia:

"In 2016, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent residents, vs. 271,845 admitted the previous year — the highest admissions levels since 2010.^[1] Of those admitted, 53% were economic immigrants and their accompanying immediate families; 26% were family class; 20% were either resettled refugees or protected persons; and 1% were in the humanitarian and other category.^[1] [...] However, in 2017, the majority of Canadians indicated that they agree that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.^[6"] "

May 11, 2016 - The number of immigrants from the United States of America (USA) increased 10.7% from 237920 in 2001 to 263480 in 2011.

From the American Academy of Political and Social Science: "The net loss from Canada to the United States appears much smaller than has been thought, mainly because the number of Canadian citizens returning to Canada has been underrecorded."

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well Canada is teaming with immigration applications.  From Wikipedia:

 

 

That's nice, but I have personally spoken to ex-Canadian immigrants whose ultimate goal was to get into the United States, along with their families.   As posted above, Canada is just a stepping stone for some immigrants.

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's nice, but I have personally spoken to ex-Canadian immigrants whose ultimate goal was to get into the United States, along with their families.   As posted above, Canada is just a stepping stone for some immigrants.

Maybe for some with a circa 1960, 1995, or even 2014 idea of the U.S..  Times are changing.  Believe me, I want the U.S. to attract more immigrants, be the "shining city on a hill", all that good stuff, but that means being big about things, taking the high road, not making belligerent moves in foreign affairs.  I get the whole America First idea to a point, but you need to dial it back or promote some higher ideals.  Just the opinion of many, including inside the U.S.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Maybe for some with a circa 1960, 1995, or even 2014 idea of the U.S..  Times are changing.  Believe me, I want the U.S. to attract more immigrants, be the "shining city on a hill", all that good stuff, but that means being big about things, taking the high road, not making belligerent moves in foreign affairs.  I get the whole America First idea to a point, but you need to dial it back or promote some higher ideals.  Just the opinion of many, including inside the U.S.

 

Doesn't matter...far more legal and illegal immigrants will still try for the U.S. instead of Canada.   

The U.S. has more landed immigrants than any other nation in the world.

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Doesn't matter...far more legal and illegal immigrants will still try for the U.S. instead of Canada.   

The U.S. has more landed immigrants than any other nation in the world.

Please make that an upward trend in the U.S., as we can't process all of the illegal and legal immigrants to Canada fast enough.  Canadians are getting concerned about these levels.  

Edited September 22, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Please make that an upward trend in the U.S., as we can't process all of the illegal and legal immigrants to Canada fast enough.  Canadians are getting concerned about these levels.

 

No, I rather like watching Canada struggle with the aftermath of Trudeau's big mouth.

Immigrants could flood Canada tenfold and never reach U.S. levels/population.

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, I rather like watching Canada struggle with the aftermath of Trudeau's big mouth.

Immigrants could flood Canada tenfold and never reach U.S. levels/population.

They already represent a greater proportion of our population.  According to the 2016 Census, there were 7,540,830 foreign-born individuals who came to Canada through the immigration process, representing over one-fifth (21.9%) of Canada's total population. This proportion is close to the 22.3% recorded during the 1921 Census, the highest level since Confederation.

And from Wikipedia: "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born." By 1970, immigrants accounted for 4.7 percent of the US population and rising to 6.2 percent in 1980, with an estimated 12.5 percent in 2009.