War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact

[paxamericana]

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s why I think a loose economic union is the way to go.  Maximum benefits and freedoms for both countries with minimum disruption.  I also think unity would strengthen both countries.  Important given the rise of China.  

We already have one...its called the Usmca 

[turningrite]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s why I think a loose economic union is the way to go.  Maximum benefits and freedoms for both countries with minimum disruption.  I also think unity would strengthen both countries.  Important given the rise of China.  

Sorry, but I think you've gone off-topic here.

[Argus]

On 12/18/2018 at 6:59 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Anything will be legally binding if countries pass it into law.  The article itself states it as such:

". As well, that it will be adopted as rule for all UN Member states once enacted."

Given the horse-shit and lies immigration issues get from The Rebel, The Sun and so on I'm starting to think we should strengthen laws against lying in media and extend it to the web.  Of course, this will make people who love lies go purple in the face... 

Does that law include your beloved pro-immigration groups, media and politicians, all of whom lie through their teeth about the benefits and needs of immigration?

I"m guessing... .uh, nope!

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

On 12/18/2018 at 5:34 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I will say this about Trump, Ford and the rest of those baying nothings with dull-eyed followers: they have made me truly appreciate Canadian Conservatism as it used to be.

You mean when they were liberals?

Ford is not a conservative, though he and his followers took over the provincial tories in the same way Sikhs took over the federal NDP.

Trump has no ideology, although I will admit the idiots who follow him tend to call themselves conservatives, even though they have no conservative fiscal or social beliefs other than a love of guns and a hatred of abortion and queers.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

I"m guessing... .uh, nope!

 

There is a well-known body of support for immigration in economic orthodoxy.  You are free to criticize it.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

You mean when they were liberals?

Ford is not a conservative, though he and his followers took over the provincial tories in the same way Sikhs took over the federal NDP.

Trump has no ideology, although I will admit the idiots who follow him tend to call themselves conservatives, even though they have no conservative fiscal or social beliefs other than a love of guns and a hatred of abortion and queers.

Ok.  You don't like Trump, Ford or Progressive Conservative tradition.  Some conservative.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is a well-known body of support for immigration in economic orthodoxy.  You are free to criticize it.

There is a well-known body of support against immigration but you seem to feel we need a law against those who are part of it.

Hey, I'm perfectly willing to admit the Sun is not the most reliable source out there, but I bet you trust the Star, and I consider them to be every bit as bad, if not worse.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok.  You don't like Trump, Ford or Progressive Conservative tradition.  Some conservative.

Yeah, someone who believes in conservative principles, as none of the above do or did.

[eyeball]

On 12/17/2018 at 4:15 AM, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 

Agenda 21 is about sustainable development.  What do you see in Toronto's mushroomic growth that is sustainable ?  There's nothing about immigration in it.

No oligarchs?  The money fuelling that growth had to come from somewhere.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

No oligarchs?  The money fuelling that growth had to come from somewhere.

We will be burning oligarchs for fuel.

[turningrite]

On 12/21/2018 at 7:52 PM, Michael Hardner said:

There is a well-known body of support for immigration in economic orthodoxy.  You are free to criticize it.

Really? Please identify your sources. I think there's growing proof that economic orthodoxy on immigration isn't supported by evidence in relation to its impacts on post-industrial economies. The British economist and Oxford professor Sir Paul Collier has concluded that immigration doesn't in and of itself promote economic growth insofar as improvement in living standards is concerned. He's pointed out that there are winners and losers, with owners of capital benefiting from reduced wages and greater demand for the products and services they sell while those nearer the bottom of the economic scale suffer as a result of increased competition for employment, housing and access to public services. He also notes that large-scale immigration reduces social cohesion in developed economies as those who pay to support social programs lose interest in paying for services they don't access and in many cases are precluded from accessing. Australia, which has conducted a broad study of its immigration program, which was modeled on Canada's, has concluded that large-scale immigration offers no effective or realistic remedy for the so-called "demographic deficit" generated by falling fertility rates and increasing life expectancy. Canada, predictably, chooses to stick its head in the sand and listen to its bought-and-sold politicians recite babble about immigration that isn't grounded in evidence. We don't monitor economic outcomes for refugees much less subject our broader immigration program to objective analysis. Why bother when politicians can just sell blithe assumptions as good policy? 

Edited December 25, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Really? Please identify your sources. I think there's growing proof that economic orthodoxy on immigration isn't supported by evidence in relation to its impacts on post-industrial economies.   

"A survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.^[69] A survey of the same economists also shows support behind the notion that low-skilled immigration, while creating winners and losers, makes the average American better off.^[70] A survey of European economists shows a consensus that freer movement of people to live and work across borders within Europe makes the average European better off, and strong support behind the notion that it has not made low-skilled Europeans worse off"

I can't believe that this is news to you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

If course there are trade-offs.  How could there not be?

 

 

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"A survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.^[69] A survey of the same economists also shows support behind the notion that low-skilled immigration, while creating winners and losers, makes the average American better off.^[70] A survey of European economists shows a consensus that freer movement of people to live and work across borders within Europe makes the average European better off, and strong support behind the notion that it has not made low-skilled Europeans worse off"

I can't believe that this is news to you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

If course there are trade-offs.  How could there not be?

You realize these are not studies, but merely people who checked boxes on a survey, right? Which leaves the definitions wildly uneven. There is a consensus behind 'high skilled' people immigrating, but most of our immigrants are not high skilled. The consensus behind low skilled is more shaky. It says 'the average'. What does that mean? How much better off would 'the average' American be? It also, btw, had a part B to the question, in which the majority of those asked also agreed many low skilled American workers would be substantially worse off.

I prefer studies where things like taxation and government expenditures are clearly taken into account and terms are clearly defined.

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"A survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.^[69] A survey of the same economists also shows support behind the notion that low-skilled immigration, while creating winners and losers, makes the average American better off.^[70] A survey of European economists shows a consensus that freer movement of people to live and work across borders within Europe makes the average European better off, and strong support behind the notion that it has not made low-skilled Europeans worse off"

I can't believe that this is news to you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

If course there are trade-offs.  How could there not be?

 

 

So I've read some of the literature on the net benefit of immigration. To summarize, it is not immigrants that you need it is more child birth. More people means more gdp yes. But immigrants bringing more gdp is a mis-perception amongst academics. The first generation usually take more from the state than give back but it is the second generation that really benefit society. Essentially proving the point that we need more child birth. As for the high skill labor part, it is true that America has historically been a large brain drainer of the world. Talents come here because of the opportunity for a better life, economically, politically, etc...  

http://time.com/4503313/immigration-wages-employment-economy-study/

"It’s true that first generation immigrants can take more money from state, local and federal governments than native-born citizens, and that especially on a state and local level, it can be costly to educate the children of immigrants. But the report found that as adults, children of immigrants in the next generation are huge boosters of the economy, contributing more to the government in taxes than either their first-generation parents or native-born citizens."

Edited December 25, 2018 by paxamericana

[Guest]

On 12/22/2018 at 6:40 AM, Michael Hardner said:

We will be burning oligarchs for fuel.

Burning the rich for fuel is the same as taxing them.  There just aren't enough of them to keep everyone warm for very long.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

You realize these are not studies, but merely people who checked boxes on a survey, right? Which leaves the definitions wildly uneven. There is a consensus behind 'high skilled' people immigrating, but most of our immigrants are not high skilled. The consensus behind low skilled is more shaky. It says 'the average'. What does that mean? How much better off would 'the average' American be? It also, btw, had a part B to the question, in which the majority of those asked also agreed many low skilled American workers would be substantially worse off.

I prefer studies where things like taxation and government expenditures are clearly taken into account and terms are clearly defined.

Yes, a survey of economists.  Your assertions about immigration are worthy of consideration.  The other poster, not so much.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Burning the rich for fuel is the same as taxing them.  There just aren't enough of them to keep everyone warm for very long.

Still.  You can get warmth.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Still.  You can get warmth.

For a while.  Warm your hands a bit. 

But if you really want to stay warm, you have to burn the middle class.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

You realize these are not studies, but merely people who checked boxes on a survey, right? Which leaves the definitions wildly uneven. There is a consensus behind 'high skilled' people immigrating, but most of our immigrants are not high skilled. The consensus behind low skilled is more shaky. It says 'the average'. What does that mean? How much better off would 'the average' American be? It also, btw, had a part B to the question, in which the majority of those asked also agreed many low skilled American workers would be substantially worse off.

I prefer studies where things like taxation and government expenditures are clearly taken into account and terms are clearly defined.

this might be interesting reading....when we regard who we claim are the experts and how much stock should we put into these surveys.

https://voxeu.org/article/views-among-economists-are-economists-really-so-divided

 

Quote

 

Conclusion

If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be remembered that it is simply not possible to fund social programs by bringing in large numbers of immigrants with relatively little education. This is central to the debate on illegal immigration given that such a large share of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education. The fiscal problem created by less-educated immigrants exists even though the vast majority of immigrants, including illegal immigrants, work and did not come to America to get welfare. The realities of the modern American economy coupled with the modern American administrative state make large fiscal costs an unavoidable problem of large-scale, less-educated immigration.

This fact does not reflect a moral defect on the part of immigrants. What it does mean is that we need an immigration policy that reflects the reality of modern America. We may decide to let illegal immigrants stay and we may even significantly increase the number of less-educated legal immigrants allowed into the country. But we have to at least understand that such a policy will create large, unavoidable

 

 

https://cis.org/Why-LessSkilled-Immigration-and-Amnesty-Are-so-Costly-Taxpayers

Edited December 26, 2018 by Army Guy

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Still.  You can get warmth.

Briefly. Then you get no more warmth. Ever. Burning the rich is like eating the sheep and cow and chicken. Tastes good, but then you get no more continuing streams of milk and wool and eggs.

[turningrite]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

You realize these are not studies, but merely people who checked boxes on a survey, right? Which leaves the definitions wildly uneven. There is a consensus behind 'high skilled' people immigrating, but most of our immigrants are not high skilled. The consensus behind low skilled is more shaky. It says 'the average'. What does that mean? How much better off would 'the average' American be? It also, btw, had a part B to the question, in which the majority of those asked also agreed many low skilled American workers would be substantially worse off.

I prefer studies where things like taxation and government expenditures are clearly taken into account and terms are clearly defined.

American immigration is largely successful. One of the reasons is that immigrants are eligible for far fewer social benefits than is the case in many other Western immigrant receiving countries, including Canada. Immigrants who enter the U.S. quickly become net contributors to the tax base and by-and-large tend to enthusiastically integrate into the American mainstream. Also, on a per capita basis the U.S. accepts far fewer "regular" (i.e. legal) immigrants each year than does Canada. Were Canada to adjust its immigration intake to match the American level it would accept about two-thirds fewer immigrants than it does at present. Even after adjusting for higher Canadian emigration (those born in Canada who leave) and remigration (immigrants who leave) rates, our immigration intake would have to be cut roughly in half to match the American net regular migration level. Were Canada to adopt American-style immigration policies, "progressives" would no doubt be horrified: Reduced numbers would be met with cries of xenophobia. The expectation of integration would be cast as amounting to cultural brutality. The lack of broad access to publicly funded benefits, including health care, would be deemed inhumane. And the expectation that immigrants pay their own way essentially from arrival would no doubt be categorized as abominable. Well, you get the picture.

American economists have every reason to tout the success of that country's immigration program. It attracts the most ambitious from around the world and offers them very little other than the opportunity to succeed on their own, which most do. Its intake levels are very modest (in comparison to Canada's) and respond to the country's actual economic conditions. It encourages integration into a society that considers itself a "melting pot" and expects overarching allegiance to American values. The main criticism, even among economists, is that American immigration is too heavily focused on family reunification and too little on skilled migrants. But its system is in many respects fundamentally different from those in Canada and several Western European countries. If we could adopt much of America's immigration strategy tomorrow, tweaking it to meet our own needs, mainly to facilitate the entry of specific categories of workers to match actual labour market needs, I and many other critics of our immigration system would view it as an improvement. But it won't happen unless we see major political change in Ottawa. Our current policies and practices are based on unicorns, lollipops, blithe assumptions and endless subsidies. Come back here and tout American immigration policy once our system has adopted its productive characteristics.

Edited December 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

American immigration is largely successful. One of the reasons is that immigrants are eligible for far fewer social benefits than is the case in many other Western immigrant receiving countries, including Canada. Immigrants who enter the U.S. quickly become net contributors to the tax base and by-and-large tend to enthusiastically integrate into the American mainstream. Also, on a per capita basis the U.S. accepts far fewer "regular" (i.e. legal) immigrants each year than does Canada. Were Canada to adjust its immigration intake to match the American level it would accept about two-thirds fewer immigrants than it does at present. Even after adjusting for higher Canadian emigration (those born in Canada who leave) and remigration (immigrants who leave) rates, our immigration intake would have to be cut roughly in half to match the American net regular migration level. Were Canada to adopt American-style immigration policies, "progressives" would no doubt be horrified: Reduced numbers would be met with cries of xenophobia. The expectation of integration would be cast as amounting to cultural brutality. The lack of broad access to publicly funded benefits, including health care, would be deemed inhumane. And the expectation that immigrants pay their own way essentially from arrival would no doubt be categorized as abominable. Well, you get the picture.

American economists have every reason to tout the success of that country's immigration program. It attracts the most ambitious from around the world and offers them very little other than the opportunity to succeed on their own, which most do. Its intake levels are very modest (in comparison to Canada's) and respond to the country's actual economic conditions. It encourages integration into a society that considers itself a "melting pot" and expects overarching allegiance to American values. The main criticism, even among economists, is that American immigration is too heavily focused on family reunification and too little on skilled migrants. But its system is in many respects fundamentally different from those in Canada and several Western European countries. If we could adopt much of America's immigration strategy tomorrow, tweaking it to meet our own needs, mainly to facilitate the entry of specific categories of workers to match actual labour market needs, I and many other critics of our immigration system would view it as an improvement. But it won't happen unless we see major political change in Ottawa. Our current policies and practices are based on unicorns, lollipops, blithe assumptions and endless subsidies. Come back here and tout American immigration policy once our system has adopted its productive characteristics.

American immigration isn’t skills based. Many politicians on the left and right in the US would prefer a skills based immigration system rather than a lottery.  The Canadian system is better and we have far fewer illegals than the US.  We have accepted more refugees than the US, but that is a political decision based on the government’s reading of Canadian values. Given the current pressure on government services, my guess is that immigration and refugee policy will tighten.  If a federal election was held today, Trudeau would lose.  

[Army Guy]

Thats not a fair statement saying our immigration system is better....When ours is screwed up....we have fewer illegals because we are not bordered next to Mexico….not many want to live in our climate, and this is a liberal decision based not on facts but touchy feely things.....so I guess you meant liberal values...as for Justin group of feminists, they still are in the lead on every poll I've seen, and THATS SCARY.... I know polls are not worth shit, but they are close.....What needs to happen is the anything but Justin campaign gets on the trail today.....and convert all those potheads Justin bribed…..that would be a start....

[betsy]

8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats not a fair statement saying our immigration system is better....When ours is screwed up....we have fewer illegals because we are not bordered next to Mexico….

We should be rooting for Trump's border wall between US and Mexico - the USA will be like a buffer for us!  

I think, a lot of migrants from that side of the world will eventually be eye-balling Canada for all the socialist goodies we give. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by betsy

[turningrite]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

American immigration isn’t skills based. Many politicians on the left and right in the US would prefer a skills based immigration system rather than a lottery.  The Canadian system is better and we have far fewer illegals than the US.  We have accepted more refugees than the US, but that is a political decision based on the government’s reading of Canadian values. Given the current pressure on government services, my guess is that immigration and refugee policy will tighten.  If a federal election was held today, Trudeau would lose.  

Actually, you're at least in part incorrect. About one-half of those granted permanent resident (i.e. Immigration) status in the U.S. each year already live there and a large percentage of these are working visa holders. These immigrants enter the U.S. with jobs in hand and demonstrate their economic value from Day 1. Family reunification dominates among the entry characteristics of other immigrants. However, given the much lower per capita overall immigration entry rate the American family reunification program is probably roughly similar in size to Canada's in proportion to the general population. As for the argued benefits of our system, which purportedly results in more skilled immigrants entering the country (although many end up leaving), there's been criticism, particularly relating to the inability to match skilled immigrants to actual labour market needs and employment opportunities. I believe that Australia, which copied Canada's points system a few decades ago, has concluded that prioritizing (English) language skills and permitting employers to select newcomers from abroad to fill actual labour market needs  results in better outcomes than the points system has generated.

Were we to adopt the benefits of the American system, these would include: 1.) Encouraging economic self-sufficiency by reducing dependency incentives, 2.) Bringing total intake numbers into a more reasonable range, 3.) Adjusting intake levels to account for actual economic conditions, and 4.) Granting permanent resident status to those already in the country and integrated into the economy, perhaps by transforming the skilled temporary foreign worker and visa programs into a conditional entry program.  Were we to undertake these reforms I suspect a lot of the current angst about immigration would dissipate.

The sad reality in Canada is that proponents of our immigration system seem utterly unable or unwilling to subject it to objective evaluation. My guess is that there are too many vested interests involved, particularly where family reunification is concerned. Thus, the political answer will likely have to emerge from outside the current mainstream party clique in Ottawa.

Edited December 27, 2018 by turningrite