Jump to content

Immigration Levels


Recommended Posts

Argus wrote:

What democratic deficit?

Where are the elites taking us? We don't know. And we're not allowed to ask. The country will travel in whatever direction the elites and their allies, the petty bourgeois in the media decide for us. This is the democratic deficit.

Twenty five years ago the elites decided to change Canada, to open its doors wide and allow in millions and millions from cultures which were far different from ours, had far different origins, principals and morals. I recall arguing at the time that this would be disastrous for the Canada which was. That so many people would soon have a profound impact on our national culture, would seep aside many of our cherished traditions, and would make this nation and entirely different place. Many sneered at my statement.

Sorry to cross-thread, but I believe this is an important topic and the above a compelling post. I agree with Argus that our immigration policies are flawed. They are so flawed that if one even questions this policy, they run the risk of being labelled racist. But our immigration policies are not entirely based on humanitarian sentiment folks. We generally take only the most skilled immigrants (to help ourselves) and accept a much smaller number of refugees to make us feel good about ourselves. How many immigrants should Canada accept on an annual basis?

Can we please ensure all posts on this topic are thoughtful and decent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a a good thread topic. Some basic statistics can be found here Citizenship Canada.

In general, we take in around 200,000 immigrants per year. Of these, about half (100,000) are admitted in the category of skilled workers, about a third (70,000) as family class and the rest (30,000) as refugees. Be cautious however. The 100,000 in the skilled worker categaory include dependants (children, spouse) so in fact, we only accept about 30,000 skilled workers.

In addition, Canada loses about 70,000 every year through emigration (primarily to the US). Statcan data

As a percentage of the population, we accepted more immigrants in the early 1900s than we do now. Australia accepts more net migrants than we do.

Canada's immigration law changed significantly in 1976. Since then, IMV, Canadian immigration has ressembled the kind of immigrants going to the US. North America is a dynamic society because of it.

Incidentally, the US has a lottery system now which I think is better than our system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StatCan's Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants from 2001 (updated 2003) might also be of interest, and brings up issues such as real employability vs. government estimated employability (including considerations on how just transferable foreign professional accreditation/educational standing is), selection of settlement sites, and other issues.

(note, you can download the entire Longitudinal Study in .pdf format at:

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/list...-611-XIE2003001)

This release is based on a new report, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada: Process, progress and prospects.

About 12,000 of the roughly 164,200 immigrants aged 15 and older who arrived from abroad in Canada between October 2000 and September 2001 were interviewed in the first wave of this longitudinal study. The first wave of interviews was conducted between April 2001 and June 2002, about six months after their arrival. This same group of individuals is currently being interviewed once again, (two years after their arrival), and will be interviewed for a third time about four years after their arrival....

47% of the immigrants reported that they wanted to bring their relatives to Canada by sponsoring their immigration...

A large proportion of immigrants (87%) already had some form of social support system in Canada. Over half (54%) of newcomers already had relatives and friends living in the country; another third (33%) had only friends. Most newcomers (78%) settled in areas where their network of friends and relatives lived. As well, they often turned to their family and friends when they encountered difficulties in settlement and needed help.  Between October 2000 and September 2001, Canada's three largest census metropolitan areas (CMAs) -Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal-attracted three-quarters of the new immigrants. This settlement pattern is consistent with long-term trends from the census and other survey data...

While almost half of newcomers found work within six months, 60% of working immigrants had taken jobs in fields other than their areas of expertise (in other words, only about one quarter of immigrants in this group were working in the field stated on their economic-class application, Advocat).  However, principal applicants in the economic class had a higher employment rate (59%) than immigrants admitted in the family class (39%) or those who entered Canada as a spouse or dependent in the economic class (34%)...

70% of newcomers who tried to enter the labour force identified at least one problem with the process, such as transferability of foreign qualifications, lack of contacts, and language barriers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a percentage of the population, we accepted more immigrants in the early 1900s than we do now.  Australia accepts more net migrants than we do.

Canada's immigration law changed significantly in 1976. Since then, IMV, Canadian immigration has ressembled the kind of immigrants going to the US.  North America is a dynamic society because of it.

What exactly does that phrase mean? What is a "dynamic" society?

We take in far too many immigrants for our culture to absord. Period. What's more, unlike in the early 1900s, when most immigrants were of a virtually identical culture to ours (same religion, language and cultural makeup) most immigrants today vary drastically from our own culture and our own sense of cultural and moral values.

The problem is that once you surpass some critical figure in the numbers of ethnic groups coming here the degree to which they acclimate to the local culture is greatly eroded. We long ago passed that figure. We have ethnic communities now that are so great that even their children, born in Canada, learn no English and nothing of Canada until they become school age. At that point they need to go to ESL classes with others of their own culture. They come home to their "home" culture, watch Satellite TV from the old country, and as they grow up, watch movies from the home countrie, read books and magazines from the home country, and in virtually all respects are as Canadian as your average Tibetan.

Then as they reach marriageable age, their families send them back "home" to get a "proper" husband/wife, and because in many of these cultures they can demand a very high payment in terms of doweries or whatnot because of their ability to sponsor someone into Canada as a husband/wife. (aside, a study in Denmark found that 90% of 3rd generation Turkish men still return home to Turkey to find a wife. Pakistani girls born there are known as "tickets" because they are some Pakistani man's ticket to Denmark).

This is the cultural problem I have with high immigration. It is changing the cultural value set of Canada in ways which are entirely unpredictable, and which no one here ever asked for.

Then there are the economic problems. Our immigration operation is very, very expensive, and no one has ever done a formal study to justify the needs either of the numbers of immigrants or their economic impact. While we bring in many immigrants who are well-educated their foreign credentials are often suspect. And we let in far too many immigrants with little or no education. Language skills, or the lack thereof, is also a problem. Overall, immigrants of today are doing much less well than immigrants of previous decades. Their earnings are lower and their unemployment and welfare rates are higher. And despite statistics the fact is that if you want to step into a slum in Canada, into a public housing probject in any city in eastern Canada, you'll find it filled with non-white faces, most of whom are immigrants. This partly a byproduct of our very generous refugee determination system, and partly our generous family reunification system. Neither group is screened for economic viability, after all. And we let far too many of both into Canada.

Furthermore I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that an enormous amount of violent crime in our major cities is being commmited by people with non-white faces. Important, why? Because most non-whites, excluding aborigines, are immigrants or at best, first generation Canadians raised in immigrant communities. Has no one noticed that most murder victims in street crime are non-white, almost all of them immigrants? Has no one noticed most street crime, be it pimping, drug dealing, or whatnot, is being commited by non-whites (mostly immigrants)?

Oh and of course I recognize that saying this is controversial. But as I said, most non-whites outside certain areas of the country are still immigrants. So it seems to me to be fair to take in their affect on crime and the liveablilty of our cities.

Speaking of liveability, the urban sprawl in most cities is largely being driven by immigration. And whoever said this was a good thing? How is Canada, at 30 million population, in any way a better place to live than it was when it had a populaton of 20 million? I recognize that population aging is a fact, but its economic impact has been exagerated, and the degree to which immigration is needed to offset this has never been formally studied by government. Others have suggested it could be offset with far fewer immigrants. Besides which the average age of immigrants, due to family reunification, is really not lagging all that far behind the average age of Canadians.

Now if anyone would care to discuss any or all of this without resorting to name calling I'd be happy to oblige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly does that phrase mean? What is a "dynamic" society?
After the next Hollywood movie you see, sit in the cinema, listen to the music, relax and watch the titles go up across the screen. Look carefully at the family names. Argus, that's a dynamic society.
We take in far too many immigrants for our culture to absord.
The immigrant made the choice, so they are self-selected. Think.
The problem is that once you surpass some critical figure in the numbers of ethnic groups coming here the degree to which they acclimate to the local culture is greatly eroded. We long ago passed that figure.
Typical anti-Chinese answer in Vancouver in 1903. 100 years later, same nonsense.

We offer freedom - who cares what language anyone speaks.

Argus, would you be upset to learn that your great-great-great granddaughter will speak no word of English but that she will be a free woman. What is more important to you?

While we bring in many immigrants who are well-educated their foreign credentials are often suspect.
And they all know that, as they drive taxis.
This is the cultural problem I have with high immigration. It is changing the cultural value set of Canada in ways which are entirely unpredictable, and which no one here ever asked for.
Kemo Sabi says: "Too many white man." Buzz Hargrove says: "Too many imports." So Argus, you agree with Buzz Hargrove.
Our immigration operation is very, very expensive, and no one has ever done a formal study to justify the needs either of the numbers of immigrants or their economic impact.
I agree that Canada's immigration selection system is pointless. I think that we should choose immigrants by lottery.
Speaking of liveability, the urban sprawl in most cities is largely being driven by immigration.
Urban sprawl makes homeowners rich. Immigrants make property values rise. Argus, are you upset?

----

Argus, I liked your response but I would really prefer to read Hugo's answer. Hugo, why do we have an immigration law restricting newcomers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of liveability, the urban sprawl in most cities is largely being driven by immigration.
Urban sprawl makes homeowners rich. Immigrants make property values rise. Argus, are you upset?.

It makes existing homeowners rich - it leaves younger Canadians out in the cold.

Argus, I liked your response but I would really prefer to read Hugo's answer.  Hugo, why do we have an immigration law restricting newcomers?.

Allowing unrestricted immigration would certainly make our society more productive because the supply of labour for menial jobs will sky rocket and the price will go down. This will, in turn, reduce the cost of services as the minimum wage drops to reflect this. Those people who have the education/skills/connections to work in high paying service jobs will see their standard of living rise and will most likely be able to pay for many servants to take care of menial household tasks such as caring for children and cleaning.

Of course there would be the minor problem that all the poor immigrants in a democratic society would use their vote to demand public services which would likely increase taxes on those with good paying jobs. That, of course, would not do, so we would need to have some constitutional amendments to ensure our society remains as productive as possible with low taxes and an over supply of cheap labour.

If you want to experience what Canada would look like with such 'progressive, libertarian' policies then I suggest a trip to India: Bombay or Calcutta would be good first stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes existing homeowners rich - it leaves younger Canadians out in the cold.
Out in the cold? Younger Canadians benefit from richer parents.
If you want to experience what Canada would look like with such 'progressive, libertarian' polcies then I suggest a trip to India: Bombay or Calcutta would be good first stops.
Huh? Our immigration policies ensure that the world's poor are out of sight in third world countries. In Canada, we don't have to see them daily as those people in Calcutta and Bombay have to.

Worse, our immigration policies barely offer people a choice.

Allowing unrestricted immigration would certainly make our society more productive because the supply of labour for menial jobs will sky rocket and the price will go down. This will, in turn, reduce the cost of services as the minimum wage drops to reflect this. Those people who have the education/skills/connections to work in high paying service jobs will see their standard of living rise and will most likely be able to pay for many servants to take care of menial household tasks such as caring for children and cleaning.
Right. Those ignorant third worlders can only clean toilets, and they would just impoverish us anyway.
Of course there would be the minor problem that all the poor immigrants in a democratic society would use their vote to demand public services which would likely increase taxes on those with good paying jobs. That, of course, would not do, so we would need to have some constitutional amendments to ensure our society remains as productive as possible with low taxes and an over supply of cheap labour.
I'm willing to help some people but I can't help all.

Sparhawk, what is Live-8 really about?

-----

Sparhawk, imagine a world in which we all could compete on price. Imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes existing homeowners rich - it leaves younger Canadians out in the cold.
Out in the cold? Younger Canadians benefit from richer parents.

Only those that have richer parents.
If you want to experience what Canada would look like with such 'progressive, libertarian' policies then I suggest a trip to India: Bombay or Calcutta would be good first stops.
Huh? What policies ensure that the poor are out of sight in third world countries? In Canada, we don't have to see them daily as those people in Calcutta and Bombay have to.

Sparhawk, what is Live-8 really about?

You missed my point entirely. There are very rational economic arguments for allowing unrestricted immigration. However, the benefits of such policies would not be uniformly distributed and would end up turning Canadian society into something that resembles India with the bulk of the population living in poverty while a wealthy minority reaps the benefits.

You can argue that restricting immigration to rich countries is a convenient way to keep the 'poor' who do the menial work geographically separated from the rich who reap the benefits. However, creating a large underclass that geographically lives in rich countries is not going to do a thing to reduce global poverty.

Anyone who thinks that allowing unrestricted immigration into Canada is a good thing is either: over-confident/naive regarding their own ability to stay within the wealthy class or an idealist willing to shoot him/her self in the foot to resolve a social hypocrisy.

I used to think that the problem would be solved over time through free trade that would bring other economies up to rich world status like what happened with Japan and Korea. My concern now is there is simply too much labour in the world and that it is impossible to raise everyone out of poverty. I don't have any good solutions at the moment but I feel unrestricted immigration would just move the problem around - not solve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of menial household tasks such as caring for children and cleaning.
Right. Those ignorant third worlders can only clean toilets, and they would just impoverish us anyway.

We have people trained as doctors and engineers cleaning toilets today - do you really think an illiterate farmer from a third world country would do any better?

Sparhawk, what is Live-8 really about?.

Making some has-been rich entertainers feel good about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are very rational economic arguments for allowing unrestricted immigration. However, the benefits of such policies would not be uniformly distributed and would end up turning Canadian society into something that resembles India with the bulk of the population living in poverty while a wealthy minority reaps the benefits.
Blah, blah, blah. Hugo would rip such arguments to threads. (I would argue that you are defending your own perceived self-interest.) In either case, you are arguing against free trade, and against new technology. You are arguing against the future.
You can argue that restricting immigration to rich countries is a convenient way to keep the 'poor' who do the menial work geographically separated from the rich who reap the benefits. However, creating a large underclass that graphically lives in rich countries is not going to do a thing to reduce global poverty.
So, keeping poor people isolated in their countries is better?

It seems to me that the anti-globalisation crowd is entirely populated by rich kids, or people from rich countries. Why?

Immigrants make house prices rise and this benefits anybody who wisely bought a house. To this Sparhawk, your answer is:

Only those that have richer parents.
Huh? Are you upset that your parents were dumb? Bald? Ugly? This is reason to stop immigration? (Even the house price of dumb parents rises... )

Or maybe, Sparhawk, your parents didn't buy a house. Or maybe worse, your parents have decided to give it all to charity.

You only get what your general society gives to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I would argue that you are defending your own perceived self-interest.)

Of course I am arguing about self-interest. That is what capitalism is all about: everyone acting out of their own perceived self-interest. I assume you have no problem with capitalism.

In either case, you are arguing against free trade, and against new technology.  You are arguing against the future.
Free trade was never about free movement of labour anywhere in the world. Many proponents of free trade are against unrestricted immigration. Although, I agree that, from the perspective of an economic purist, free movement of labour should be part of free trade.
So, keeping poor people isolated in their countries is better?

Picture yourself in a life raft after a ship wreck. There is only room for 10 people in the boat but there are a 100 survivors in the water trying to get in. You have loaded the boat up with 14 people but anymore will cause it to sink. Do you:

a - push everyone else back into the water.

b - let them in, cause the boat to capsize, and drown yourself.

I might not get any points from St. Peter for picking choice a) but it is rational.

It seems to me that the anti-globalisation crowd is entirely populated by rich kids, or people from rich countries.

I questioned the merits of allowing unrestricted immigration to Canada. That does not make me part of the 'anti-globalization crowd'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Globalization

Here is a link to some realities about what Globalization has achieved to date. It is not a pretty picture.

Sparhawk, you are making sense and I think August is uncomfortable playing Devil's Advocate in this one.

There is unrestricted immigration and there is unrestricted immigration. The first is unrestricted for the core countries that provided us with the nation we have. The second is a swamping mechanism that would destroy any prosperous nation very quickly.

Your argument about housing fails, August, unless there is qualification as to type and location. Massive construction to meet much larger numbers leads us to further dysfunction in our cities. That is, of course, with the proviso that the immigrants can afford to house themselves in a market that would soon pass the affordability point. We now have "ghettoization" with a modern slant as immigrants settle in communities that have become ethnic enclaves in suburbia. Much greater levels will soon render these unaffordable to newcomers - those driving taxis etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picture yourself in a life raft after a ship wreck. There is only room for 10 people in the boat but there are a 100 survivors in the water trying to get in. You have loaded the boat up with 14 people but anymore will cause it to sink. Do you:

a - push everyone else back into the water.

b - let them in, cause the boat to capsize, and drown yourself.

I might not get any points from St. Peter for picking choice a) but it is rational.

I have never seen a more graphic, horrific and simplistic example of zero-sum thinking than yours, Sparhawk.

According to you, we should still be living in caves because we never would have imagined building a house.

Or as you would say, there's only so much space in the boat.

----

If life were a raft, we would still be in caves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen a more graphic, horrific and simplistic example of zero-sum thinking than yours, Sparhawk.

According to you, we would still be living in caves because we never would have imagined that we could build houses.

Or as you would say, there's only so much space in the boat.

A hypothetical question for you: assume that Canada allowed unrestricted immigration and it did create a huge underclass as I predict. Also assume that you were no longer able to make money at the high skill job you have (i.e. cheap labour competition undercut you or maybe technology made your skills obsolete) and your only options you had for a new career put you in the underclass with no access to the social services you take for granted now. Would you still look back and say that unrestricted immigration was a good thing even if you personally had to live in poverty in you old age because of it? If you can honestly answer yes then you are an incredible altruist.

Of course, you believe that allowing more people will increase the size of the pie and, therefore, that hypothetical situation can never come to pass. That is why I have a different opinion than you on this issue even though we probably agree on many elements of free trade and globalization. I am deeply sceptical of social and economic theories that promise perfection. Every way of organizing our lives has a downside and you cannot have a reasonable discussion about these theories without discussing the negative consequences and whether you would be willing to live with them. Extreme disparities in wealth distribution are the consequence of economic liberalism and as globalization advances we will see these disparities increase - the only question is what we as a society choose to do about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I am arguing about self-interest. That is what capitalism is all about: everyone acting out of their own perceived self-interest. I assume you have no problem with capitalism.
Capitalism is not about self-interest. Capitalism is about trading claims on an item.

Self-interest? Let me say something about greed.

Adam Smith was arguably the first to notice that greedy, self-interested people using prices in a free market lead to anonymous, perfect cooperation in a collective. Smith described the utility of what an unknown dealer discovered thousands of years before: numbers, prices or terms of trade.

IMV, too many people in the modern world don't understand this, perhaps because they are bad at math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hypothetical question for you: assume that Canada allowed unrestricted immigration and it did create a huge underclass as I predict.
Underclass? There you go again with zero-sum thinking.
Also assume that you were no longer able to make money at the high skill job you have (i.e. cheap labour competition undercut you or maybe technology made your skills obsolete) and your only options you had for a new career put you in the underclass with no access to the social services you take for granted now.
Well, according to you, people from the Third-World would offer the same product/service at a lower cost. (Think about what you're saying. It is better to take the escalator than the elevator because the escalator takes longer, uses more electricity and pollutes more.)
Would you still look back and say that unrestricted immigration was a good thing even if you personally had to live in poverty in you old age because of it? If you can honestly answer yes then you are an incredible altruist.
Altruist? No, I would prefer to be a typist in a world of scanners. Or a fire-keeper in a world of fire-makers. But I'll admit that if I must change jobs, the collective will be better off - and I'll be better off too.
That is why I have a different opinion than you on this issue even though we probably agree on many elements of free trade and globalization. I am deeply sceptical of social and economic theories that promise perfection.
Are you in a cave? Without fire? [HINT: Buy the DVD and watch what Ron Perlman does.]
Every way of organizing our lives has a downside and you cannot have a reasonable discussion about these theories without discussing the negative consequences and whether you would be willing to live with them.
Right, of course. Some people go up, but others go down. As the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun. There will always be winners and losers. That's life, it's all the same. The trickle down theory is BS because it never trickles down. If some are rich, others must be poor.

[/turn off sarcasm]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, according to you, people from the Third-World would offer the same product/service at a lower cost.  (Think about what you're saying.  It is better to take the escalator than the elevator because the escalator takes longer,  uses more electricity and pollutes more.).

I have no problem allowing someone in the 3rd world to produce the good or service and export to a rich country. That will ensure the free market works and technology continues to improve the lives of people everywhere.

I do have problem with allowing that same someone to move to the rich country and produce the same good or service.

The main reason is unrestricted immigration would undermine social infrastructure because for every self-motivated entrepreneur that moves there would be likely 100 or more people that would have to be supported by the state or allowed to starve to death (it is a lot cheaper to feed people living in a 3rd world country than it is to feed people living here). Since it would not be possible to restrict access to social programs based on origin it would likely be necessary to eliminate most of them to make it possible to manage the government budgets.

Of course, if you are a person who believes that all social programs are bad then you would see this a positive outcome.

Furthermore, in a democratic country poor people vote for politicians that look after their interests: that is one of the reasons India has had so many problems liberalizing its markets because the poor people do not see the benefit and they elect politicians that think the same. A similar phenomena happen in Iran recently too. Therefore, I believe that unrestricted immigration would ultimately undermine the free market philosophy that you advocate.

Every way of organizing our lives has a downside and you cannot have a reasonable discussion about these theories without discussing the negative consequences and whether you would be willing to live with them.
Up, down, of course. The trickle down theory is BS. As the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun. There will always be winners and losers. That's life.

What this discussion is about is a change in immigration policy would produce enough winners to justify the the number of losers. You say yes. I say no. Difficult to prove either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly does that phrase mean? What is a "dynamic" society?
After the next Hollywood movie you see, sit in the cinema, listen to the music, relax and watch the titles go up across the screen. Look carefully at the family names. Argus, that's a dynamic society.

So you think "dynamic" means "people with funny sounding names.

Can you expand upon why you think a society is more dynamic with more people with funny sounding names in it?

The problem is that once you surpass some critical figure in the numbers of ethnic groups coming here the degree to which they acclimate to the local culture is greatly eroded. We long ago passed that figure.
Typical anti-Chinese answer in Vancouver in 1903. 100 years later, same nonsense.

Difference was the majority population in many parts of BC 100 years ago wasn't Asian. Nor was the Asian population growing far faster than the general Canadian population. And I'm not refering specifically to Chinese or Asians.

We offer freedom - who cares what language anyone speaks.
So you're in favour of flooding Quebec with English immigrants and eliminating all protection of and promotion of the French language?
This is the cultural problem I have with high immigration. It is changing the cultural value set of Canada in ways which are entirely unpredictable, and which no one here ever asked for.
Kemo Sabi says: "Too many white man." Buzz Hargrove says: "Too many imports." So Argus, you agree with Buzz Hargrove.

I agree with both. And I thought better of you, August, than to make that tired old response about the Natives thinking there were too many white men. After all, look what uncontrolled immigration did to them.

Our immigration operation is very, very expensive, and no one has ever done a formal study to justify the needs either of the numbers of immigrants or their economic impact.
I agree that Canada's immigration selection system is pointless. I think that we should choose immigrants by lottery.

Why do you think we should even have immigrants? To have more people with funny sounding names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of liveability, the urban sprawl in most cities is largely being driven by immigration.
Urban sprawl makes homeowners rich. Immigrants make property values rise. Argus, are you upset?.

It makes existing homeowners rich - it leaves younger Canadians out in the cold.

It also increases your taxes, increases your cost of living, forces you to spend more time and effort on commuting, and generally decreases your quality of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to experience what Canada would look like with such 'progressive, libertarian' polcies then I suggest a trip to India: Bombay or Calcutta would be good first stops.
Huh? Our immigration policies ensure that the world's poor are out of sight in third world countries. In Canada, we don't have to see them daily as those people in Calcutta and Bombay have to.

No? I see them begging on stret corners throughout the city. I see them overcrowding our public housing projects and overfilling food banks. Where do you live that you don't see any poor people?

Worse, our immigration policies barely offer people a choice.

Why should they? Our immigration policies are supposed to have only one criteria; the good of Canada. If that isn't the object then we should have no immigration.

Allowing unrestricted immigration would certainly make our society more productive because the supply of labour for menial jobs will sky rocket and the price will go down. This will, in turn, reduce the cost of services as the minimum wage drops to reflect this. Those people who have the education/skills/connections to work in high paying service jobs will see their standard of living rise and will most likely be able to pay for many servants to take care of menial household tasks such as caring for children and cleaning.
Right. Those ignorant third worlders can only clean toilets, and they would just impoverish us anyway.

To a certain degree - quite true. The gap between the educational and skill level of Canadians and the educational and skill level of the average person in our major immigration source countries is greater than it has ever been. We are no longer a country where people can come over without an education, without language skills and without modern job skills and expect to prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are very rational economic arguments for allowing unrestricted immigration. However, the benefits of such policies would not be uniformly distributed and would end up turning Canadian society into something that resembles India with the bulk of the population living in poverty while a wealthy minority reaps the benefits.
Blah, blah, blah. Hugo would rip such arguments to threads. (I would argue that you are defending your own perceived self-interest.) In either case, you are arguing against free trade, and against new technology. You are arguing against the future.

And where did defending our own interests become a crime? If it is in the interests of present Canadians to restrict immigration we have a perfect right to do so. If it is in the interests of our children then we have an obligation to do so. No one can present a logical argument for how uncontrolled immigration will make us better off, and I don't really care if it will make third world people better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A hypothetical question for you: assume that Canada allowed unrestricted immigration and it did create a huge underclass as I predict.

You don't have to theorize on this. We are already creating an underclass made up of large third world immigrant communities. You can find them in most major cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I am arguing about self-interest. That is what capitalism is all about: everyone acting out of their own perceived self-interest. I assume you have no problem with capitalism.
Capitalism is not about self-interest. Capitalism is about trading claims on an item.

Self-interest? Let me say something about greed.

Why do you own a computer, August? Why haven't you sold everything and given the money to the poor? Do you live with two dozen homeless people in your house? Why not? Do you spend all your pay helping the poor? Why not?

Self interest is not the same as greed. Arguing that they are is dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have a really sad story about immigration problems. i knew this family in an undisclosed Latin American country that tried to get to Canada. they were a hard working family, she was a dentist, he worked in pharmasuticles, they had 2 kids a boy and girl, under 3 years old. the family had a sister that had immigrated in the early 90s and was willing to sponser them. The family was even able to obtain a 200 name petition of support from a local church. The papers were filed and all looked good to go until guess what ... DENIED! Why? they're was the slight technicality that the husband had been born and raised in Cuba which OBVIOUSLY made him a Communist. At the same time, a guy with a criminal record applied for immigration and because of the Candian Immigration Regulation that protects people with Criminal Records the guy was easily given the papers in a month. So hard working family with intention to start up a life in Canada BAD! Guy with criminal record that has no university degree GOOD! :unsure: i'm comfused, how is this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,764
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    robretpeter42
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...