The case for a change to Canada's Immigration

[Argus]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

I can agree with concerns about letting in too many people over 30. Immigration should focus on younger people to replace our aging population. I don't, however, buy the rhetoric about lesser quality "third world" immigrants who will destroy our society. It's pretty obvious where that sort of sentiment is coming from.

Is it? A recent poll found 40% of Canadians felt we were letting in too many visible minorities. I'm sure on the surface you'd call that a  manifestation of racism, but digging into the poll showed 38% of the white respondents felt this but 42% of the visible minorities felt this. So maybe the desire to not have so many third world immigrants is not solely based on white supremacy but on the general perceptions of the cultures, values, behaviour and skill levels of third world types who come here?

Australia recently did what Canada ought to have done long ago. First they did a nationwide consultation to ask Australians what they wanted out of immigration. Then they consulted experts - unbiased ones - about what immigration had accomplished to date, and then how to get it to accomplish what the people wanted. Ie, setting actual goals for immigration. What type and what number would make the best fit to accomplish the economic goals of immigration without too much damage to the local culture and values people were concerned about.

The Canadian government has never consulted the people on immigration. It's not interested in what people want, except in narrowly defined identity group voting blocks. Immigration has no goal in Canada other than the promotion of the government brand among ethnic Canadians. On the rare occasion the government consults anyone it consults 'interested parties' rather than people. Ie, those with an immediate monetary stake in immigration, like big business, and the immigration industry.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Argus

[scribblet]

Those figures from yesterday didn't include the illegal border crossers which is still a problem to the extent Trudeau is now building a new facility.   http://www.netnewsledger.com/2019/07/16/conservatives-say-illegal-border-crossings-are-increasing/

This is from the U.S. 2008 a Washington D.C.-based organization that advocates for stricter immigration controls which finds that immigration to the U.S.  increases global pollution.

https://cis.org/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-0

 

Too much immigration is a method with which to suppress wages and provide low wage labour.  It causes increases in housing costs in high demand areas which is not improving as more people will worsen the lack of affordable housing .

The U.K. is starting to address this by building modular/prefab housing, not sure if Canada will want to do that  due to our winters, maybe they are really well insulated.   

 

https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/homeless-family-first-in-to-pre-fab-homes-in-coventry/?fbclid=IwAR2QnFfg1a-O0aLvZ-7N6lVFPCkRmdbq7ZRvuN-dlAUW7-mBkbhTh06qByQ

 

 

[dialamah]

From Media Bias Fact Check. 

CIS.ORG - Questionnable source.   A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.

NET NEWS LEDGER - Right Bias.  These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes.

Your last link wasn't found,  but no doubt it's equally "reliable/honest."

I know you don't care Scribblet - you only want info that supports your world view,  facts be damned.  

[scribblet]

Back atcha, but just because you don't like any thing that isn't far left doesnt mean it isn't  so.  it's only common sense to understand that more people equals more pollution and  carbon footprints etc. Etc.  but it's good to know you don't  believe that more people increases pollution, consumption,  garbage  carbon footprints and urban sprawl (  loss of farmland, evironment)    etc.   but it doesn't fit the support for higher immigration so global warming be damned. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by scribblet