Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s fair to debate the numbers of immigrants and criteria for entry.  The labour market is fairly tight in Canada.  There are skilled worker shortages in some sectors.  The temporary foreign workers have been controversial because it is sometimes felt that these workers are taking jobs Canadians would do, but are taking them at lower wages, which drives down wages for everyone

Unless someone can explain why 65% of graduating software engineers leave the country even as thousands of foreign software engineers enter to work here I'd say there isn't a hell of a lot of doubt.

[Rue]

In response to the Fraser report I already stated and repeat again the report based its conclusions on a study of immigrants to Canada between 1986-2004.  It claimed those immigrants average incomes were lower than non-immigrant Canadians and therefore inferred their contributions to paying taxes must have been lower as well.  The report claimed that each immigrant caused an average net drain of $6,329 per year.  They then assumed they could multiply that number by 4.2 million, because there were 4.2 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1987 and 2010, then came up with the number 26 billion as the cost to Canada.

The above was repudiated by numerous economists.

Here is one of many direct repudiations of the Fraser Report:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/each-immigrant-costs-canada-450-per-year-report-1.674930

I already referred to the following which Argus dismissed without any substantial argument simply some name calling to address why immigrants are a benefit for economic growth in Canada:

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/2018/05/15/imagining-canada-s-economy-without-immigration?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1t

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/17-10-02/450_000_Immigrants_Per_Year_Could_Boost_Canada_s_Economy_If_Newcomers_Have_Better_Job_Outcomes.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/press/newsrelease/10-10-15/Immigrants_Make_Significant_Contributions_To_Innovation.aspx

I maintain smeering all immigrants as Argus has done is erroneous. I contend we need properly qualified immigrants to help continue to build our economy and the issue is not immigration, it is about how we determine who is qualified to be an immigrant and I believe Argus does not understand basic economic principles and their co-elation to matching qualified candidates to specific positions to enable an economy to function and grow.

It is absolutely ridiculous in today's global economy to think one can shut themselves off and inbreed to sustain economic growth.

The dialogue on this forum does not distinguish between qualified immigrants and unqualified ones or for that matter legitimate and non legitimate refugees. It  simplifies and generalizes and labels all persons coming to Canada in one negative definition and I call that out as bullshit.

I support the Conservative Party of Canada's position on immigration which is to encourage qualified immigrants and not confuse them with illegitimate ones taking advantage of deficiencies in the immigration laws which need to be fixed.

If people on this forum want to embrace a reactionary simpleton like Bernier or accuse anyone who is not against immigrants as a Trudeau lover, make my day and tell me I love Justin. Lol. I am a son of a refugee and immigrants and proud of it as are most Canadians. The only non immigrants in this country are indigenous people.  The people against immigration are immigrants who forget their origins and how and why their families before them came here. Hard working immigrants are not and have never been the issue. Genuine refugees are not the issue.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

 The only non immigrants in this country are indigenous people. 

Not actually the case. 

This country was never ruled by the indigenous.

This country was Nouvelle France under the House of Bourbon which was then taken as a war prize in the Seven Years War by the British House of Hanover.

The Indian Act states that the Indians are not Canadians but a segregated group called the First Nations.

These First Nations also deny that they are Canadians, they embrace their segregated status under the Indian Act and in fact demand it.

[jacee]

On 9/8/2019 at 9:00 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

Can't tell people where to live, that's blatantly unconstitutional. Keep digging the grave deeper for yourself Zeitgeist, it's pretty funny.

And Zeitgeist's 'idea' is a ridiculous and unnecessary NIMBY 'idea' anyway.

 

[cougar]

13 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

This country was never ruled by the indigenous.

The only reason for that would be they did not want to rule it in the same way.  If they had their own tribes (that can be considered regions, or provinces) they probably did not need a global government from coast to coast.

And a global government is in many cases detrimental to regional interests as we now see with many of the big hazardous projects.

Whichever way we look at it, we took over what could have been theirs and then brought people from all over the world to make it look like it wasn't an act of one nation.

[Dougie93]

37 minutes ago, cougar said:

The only reason for that would be they did not want to rule it in the same way.  If they had their own tribes (that can be considered regions, or provinces) they probably did not need a global government from coast to coast.

And a global government is in many cases detrimental to regional interests as we now see with many of the big hazardous projects.

Whichever way we look at it, we took over what could have been theirs and then brought people from all over the world to make it look like it wasn't an act of one nation.

It was not one unified nation of indians running the continent as a country.

We did not immigrate to Indian Land, we conquered it, we never joined them, they never joined us, the Indians were displaced, we are not the immigrants to their nations.

The purpose of Indian Act of 1876 is to force assimilate them, get them to take "franchise" and immigrate to Canada.

Some do, but most resist.  The Reservation is their Bantustan.  Their microstate.

What they are invoking is the Royal Proclamation of 1763 issued by George III.

They are not Canadians, they don't want to be Canadians, they are all their own little countries, which simply ran out of land as we settled it.

Also note, we did not conquer them by force of arms, they conquered each other by force of arms, but the European method of conquest was to convert them to Christianity and get them to settle themselves instead of being nomadic.

Jesus was the conqueror, and he conquered nary a shot fired.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Rue said:

In response to the Fraser report I already stated and repeat again the report based its conclusions on a study of immigrants to Canada between 1986-2004.

And I pointed out when you said that you were wrong, and basing it on a previous report. The updated report is based on 2016 data.

14 hours ago, Rue said:

The above was repudiated by numerous economists.

 

Here is one of many direct repudiations of the Fraser Report:

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/each-immigrant-costs-canada-450-per-year-report-1.674930

And here is the rebuttal to that rebuttal.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada.pdf

14 hours ago, Rue said:

I already referred to the following which Argus dismissed without any substantial argument simply some name calling to address why immigrants are a benefit for economic growth in Canada:

And I will do the same again. I have zero interest in propaganda pieces from corporate Canada's lobby group telling us we need ever more immigrants. I trust nothing corporate Canada's lobby groups have to say.

14 hours ago, Rue said:

I maintain smeering all immigrants as Argus has done is erroneous.

I don't 'smear' all immigrants except insofar as to consider their economic and social effects and impacts in a macro environment. There is, after all, no other way to make such considerations.

14 hours ago, Rue said:

I contend we need properly qualified immigrants to help continue to build our economy and the issue is not immigration, it is about how we determine who is qualified to be an immigrant and I believe Argus does not understand basic economic principles and their co-elation to matching qualified candidates to specific positions to enable an economy to function and grow.

And you maintain this because... because.... help me out here, Rue. Your economic training consists of what, again? You cite economists who agree with you and dismiss without even mentioning them the ones who don't. The cites of studies provided in the Citizen story mentioned studies done by government agencies, not lobby groups for immigrants or corporate Canada. You ignored them because they don't agree with you. You cite studies done by parties which profit from immigration instead.

14 hours ago, Rue said:

The only non immigrants in this country are indigenous people.

That is perhaps the most pathetic, time-worn, idiotic cliche imaginable. It's also racist in that it presumes that only the aborigines have true right to this country, and everyone else is second class and illegitimate.  If someone turned that argument on Israel and said all the Jews who came since 1947  and their descendants born there are illegitimate you'd call them antisemitic. But nooo, people who have been here for hundreds of years are STILL immigrants to you? Seriously? Drivel.

[Argus]

37 minutes ago, cougar said:

Whichever way we look at it, we took over what could have been theirs and then brought people from all over the world to make it look like it wasn't an act of one nation.

And this was different from how they behaved in what way, exactly?

I mean, other than us not exterminating all of them, which is how they waged war and conquered territory.

[Dougie93]

The Indians used the exact same method, assimilation.

It's not that they killed their enemies, they enslaved them, then integrated them slowly, extermination by changing the status from enemy to immigrant.

The Indians had their own Indian Act, the British didn't invent it, they were trying to integrate the Indians by the Indian way.

[Dougie93]

Also note, the British were not out to destroy the Indians, to the British they were a vital military force to offset a lack of British boots on the ground.

The British were operating like the American Green Berets now, the Indians were the friendly Partisans.

The British did not think it was a harm to the Indians to assimilate them, they thought they were doing them a favour.

The main thing was to get them to settle down, to occupy lands and defend them, for the British Crown, in return the British would improve their lives for them; Missionary Impulse.

This did of course work out for the British, as it was the settled Christian Grand River Mohawks who ended up saving the British at Queenston Heights.

Queenston Heights was Unconventional Warfare.  The British are outnumbered 10 to 1, don't stand a chance head to head.

The mere presence of the Mohawks on the battlefield incited the Americans to flee.  Special Operation.  Asymmetrical.

All part of the British plan from the start.  The British seapower relying on Jesus to convert partisans in order to project power inland.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Rue]

15 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Not actually the case. 

This country was never ruled by the indigenous.

This country was Nouvelle France under the House of Bourbon which was then taken as a war prize in the Seven Years War by the British House of Hanover.

The Indian Act states that the Indians are not Canadians but a segregated group called the First Nations.

These First Nations also deny that they are Canadians, they embrace their segregated status under the Indian Act and in fact demand it.

Does not change a thing I said.  The entire area known as Canada was inhabited by indigenous peoples who came before the rest of us,. Their inhabiting the land first, determines their status not your interpretation of what ruling means. The fact the indigenous peoples did not have a centralized government or body to dictate to them rules does not mean they did not inhabit the land and functionally operate with their own systems of decentralized laws and regulations.

Life in Canada did not start with a European model of law and how that model defines the country. Its precisely why the Magna Carta Act and King John did not deny the pre-existence of aboriginal laws and customs but honoured them.

 

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, Rue said:

Does not change a thing I said.  The entire area known as Canada was inhabited by indigenous peoples who came before the rest of us,. Their inhabiting the land first, determines their status not your interpretation of what ruling means. The fact the indigenous peoples did not have a centralized government or body to dictate to them rules does not mean they did not inhabit the land and functionally operate with their own systems of decentralized laws and regulations.

Habitation is not sovereignty, they were not sovereign over this land by the standards of that day, they are not sovereign over this land now, they have never been sovereign.

Moreover, they themselves acknowledge this and invoke the British Crown as their protector, they are not Canadians, but they are British by default.

We built a federation around them, there was no war of annihilation, their countries simply ran out of land as it was conquered by French, then we British took it from the French.

The Indians made a choice; can't beat them so join them.  They joined the British, they just never joined Canada after.

They are still invoking the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in the face of Canada.

Canadians may not feel any connection to their British history, but the Indians still do

Particularly the part where the British Crown is their protector from a mob of lawless Canadians showing up to push them around.

The British Crown is supposed to keep a check on those Canadians, and to a certain extent, by way of the judiciary, it still does.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

On 9/8/2019 at 10:00 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

Can't tell people where to live, that's blatantly unconstitutional. Keep digging the grave deeper for yourself Zeitgeist, it's pretty funny.

We already have programs that dictate where immigrants / refugees live, the Atlantic immigration pilot program is one example where immigrates are restricted to certain areas within Atlantic Canada , mainly the large Atlantic cities. They may move after spending 5 or more years in Atlantic Canada. Yes they volunteered for the program, but it does restrict them in where they can move to or live...another would being sponsored if that sponsorship is in say Manitoba then that is where they must live, until they are no longer dependent on their sponsor...Again they are restricted on where they can live....most immigrants do have a preferred city, such as Toronto , Montreal, etc.. but not every one can go there, alternatives are suggested, immigrants accept, because their end goal is to get into the country.

 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We already have programs that dictate where immigrants / refugees live

The immigrants have to agree to the terms.  The AIP is a fast track, you get citizenship faster if you agree to the terms.

Only the desperate agree to those terms, the vast majority of immigrants don't need to agree to those terms because they will gain entry anyways as Landed Immigrants right away.

You can't force people to live anywhere without their consent, the AIP is with their consent, so you are invoking a glaring fallacy.

The AIP is not a law.    Program; voluntary participation, fast track to citizenship.

If you try to pass a law mandating residency requirements, that will be overthrown by the judiciary.

That cannot be overruled by the Notwithstanding Clause in this case.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Before the Charter of Rights,  British Canada had residency requirements and it was white supremacist picking and choosing by race.

When the Liberals enshrined the Charter, that British system of unwritten rights which existed before was overthrown by a new American style constitution.

Hence why many Tories opposed and still oppose the Charter, it empowers the masses in ways which Canadian Conservatives  do not like.

Everything is before and after the Canada Act 1982. 

Those asserting that things can be done as they used to be before 1982, are either delusional or just full of shit.

The only way to get out from under it, is by way of Quebec, they never signed it, and if it is rammed down their throats, they will invoke the Clarity Act and leave.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

35 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The immigrants have to agree to the terms.  The AIP is a fast track, you get citizenship faster if you agree to the terms.

Only the desperate agree to those terms, the vast majority of immigrants don't need to agree to those terms because they will gain entry anyways as Landed Immigrants right away.

You can't force people to live anywhere without their consent, the AIP is with their consent, so you are invoking a glaring fallacy.

The AIP is not a law.    Program; voluntary participation, fast track to citizenship.

If you try to pass a law mandating residency requirements, that will be overthrown by the judiciary.

That cannot be overruled by the Notwithstanding Clause in this case.

How can it be fallacy, the government wants immigrants to move to certain areas....it offers programs such as these, and yes immigrants  jump at the opportunity to skip ahead of the line...and yes they would agree to pretty much anything...but in the grand scheme of things the government is telling these people live here , and agree to our conditions or good luck with the waiting in line....

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

How can it be fallacy, the government wants immigrants to move to certain areas....it offers programs such as these, and yes immigrants  jump at the opportunity to skip ahead of the line...and yes they would agree to pretty much anything...but in the grand scheme of things the government is telling these people live here , and agree to our conditions or good luck with the waiting in line....

The fallacy is because we are discussing laws which would impose residency requirements, which I have rightly pointed out are unconstitutional.

Reason being that Eskimo Communist Zeitgeist is pretending that you can go back to before the Post National State and do what British Canada used to do

Which you can't.  That Canada is gone now, that Canada was swept aside by the Canada Act 1982 and associated American style Charter.

Then you are coming in now to assert something else, which is that Canada can offer the immigrants incentives, which is not a law, not a requirement and not the question at hand.

Hence, glaring fallacy, non sequitur, changes the subject.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Also bear in mind that these incentive programs are targeted at those who would not otherwise qualify easily.

Those immigrants represent only a small number of those coming to Canada.

The majority of immigrants qualify under the merit based point system which Canada already has in place (and which Trump wants to bring to America)

Most immigrants are wealthy by the standards of where they come from, so they basically buy their way in by purchasing property and/or investing in business.

You think the Hong Kong Chinese need help to get in? No, they are richer than Canadians, they simply dangle their US dollars under Canada's nose and Canada takes the money.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

So what your saying is the incentive programs are accomplishing the same goals only with a carrot. which plays on the immigrants need to change his current living conditions, the government  already knows what the answer is going to be.......And this some how breaches the terms of the post. The agreement still dictates where that immigrant is going to live, and the terms are a take it or leave it offer.. 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So what your saying is the incentive programs are accomplishing the same goals only with a carrot. which plays on the immigrants need to change his current living conditions, the government  already knows what the answer is going to be.......And this some how breaches the terms of the post. The agreement still dictates where that immigrant is going to live, and the terms are a take it or leave it offer.. 

No, I don't think the incentive programs are accomplishing what the British used to accomplish with legal force which is the assertion that the Eskimo Communist was making

The incentive programs are just fast tracks for immigrants who would otherwise not easily qualify. Extra immigrants piling in,  who would otherwise be rejected,

Again, the vast majority who come, Indian, Chinese, Filipino, qualify by purchasing property and/or starting businesses, Landed Immigrants on the spot without further ado.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Also bear in mind that these incentive programs are targeted at those who would not otherwise qualify easily.

Those immigrants represent only a small number of those coming to Canada.

The majority of immigrants qualify under the merit based point system which Canada already has in place (and which Trump wants to bring to America)

Most immigrants are wealthy by the standards of where they come from, so they basically buy their way in by purchasing property and/or investing in business.

You think the Hong Kong Chinese need help to get in? No, they are richer than Canadians, they simply dangle their US dollars under Canada's nose and Canada takes the money.

These migrants numbers are larger than you think, each province has these programs, and while not in the majority, they are still large enough to warrant their own category. 

less than 60 % of the total immigrants Canada accepts are economical, and of those 60 % not as many as you think are buying there way in with wealth. Not saying it is not happening but not on the scale your suggesting. 

https://www.immigration.ca/how-many-immigrants-come-to-canada-each-year

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

These migrants numbers are larger than you think, each province has these programs, and while not in the majority, they are still large enough to warrant their own category.

And when the terms of the contract are fulfilled, they will get citizenship and be issued passports and will then go where they want to go, which is not Down Home.

Zeitgeist has said that people from Down Home can't even live Down Home anymore, they have to go to Fort Mac or Toronto.

Again, this is like the Mainland Chinese who learn French to get fast tracked into Canada by way of Quebec, but have no intention of staying there

Once they are in, they move to Toronto or Vancouver with everybody else.

[Dougie93]

Furthermore, this is a global epoch which no government can hold back.

Information Age Revolution.

Information is the most valuable commodity on earth.

The cities are the engines of the economy, that is why everybody is going there.

You can't hold back this tide to keep people Down Home on the farm, we're talking about a world altering paradigm exactly like the industrial revolution, but even more urbanized.

So a hundred years from now, when the Liberals reach their target of 100 million?   They're not going to be living in New Brunswick.

25 million will live around Toronto, 25 million will live around Vancouver, 25 million will live around Montreal, the number of people in rural Canada will not grow

The future looks like China; Megacities with the population of Canada now,  in one metropolitan area.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dougie93

[cougar]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And this was different from how they behaved in what way, exactly?

I mean, other than us not exterminating all of them, which is how they waged war and conquered territory.

Which nation exactly did you manage to exterminate?  You did not exterminate the Irish, they remained their own country, not the Scots, they also kind of have their own country and currency, and so on and so forth.  In fact, I do not know of an exterminated nation in Europe or any other place.  

The difference is there were people here already who could legitimately lay claim on all lands in North America.  Then "the crown" showed up to take all it could take and the taking continues to this date.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, jacee said:

And Zeitgeist's 'idea' is a ridiculous and unnecessary NIMBY 'idea' anyway.

 

It just means you and your millennial friends will have to rent rather than buy...