Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I certainly don't.  I also don't rely on what i want to hear.

What's sad is that it's very difficult to get an unbiased assessment on the costs and/or benefits of immigration because everyone has an agenda to prove it's either good or bad, so they'll stack the stats with ones they want while ignoring inconvenient ones.

As I pointed out in an earlier post virtually all the information we get is biased, and mostly pro-immigration because it comes from corporate groups, or groups which profit in other ways off immigration, as well as left wing activists. The government ought to be studying immigration, what it's doing, what we want it for, what it can actually accomplish, and how to best reach those goals. It does none of that. Australia, by way of example, did a far ranging inquiry into their immigration system a few years back. They determined that language ability was extremely important in both economic success, and in integration. As a result, they tightened up their language requirements.

Canada, as an example, gives you two thirds of a possible score for language if you meet the bare minimal requirements.

Australia gives you nothing. Meeting the bare minimum is expected. If you want more points you had best improve your language skills. The result is that Australia's immigrants are outperforming Canada's now.

Canada's immigration system seems to be guided mainly by numbers, and those numbers are arbitrarily set by politicians around election time as a way to make points with ethnic groups. Thus Trudeau's promise to double the number of elderly immigrants allowed to be sponsored before the last election, and then doubling the number again this year. Thus his promise to increase family class, who perform poorly in Canada, at the expense of the economic class.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is true that we need an improved immigration policy and in particular be more SELECTIVE as who we admit into Canada (rather than stopping immigration altogether as we do NEED immigrants for future economic growth and secured pensions)

Do we? Do you have evidence to support this from an unbiased source? Bear in mind that even Trudeau8 has admitted 40% of the population pay no income tax. If immigrants have lower earnings than average it stands to reason that even more of them are exempt from income tax. Thus they aren't going to pay our pensions, we'll have to pay theirs. As for future economic growth I've posted a couple of cites earlier today which disagree with how much immigration is going to help economic growth. I suggest you give them a look. You might also have a look at this, which points out that immigration is not going to have much impact on an aging population.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-alas-immigration-wont-replace-canadas-aging-workforce

Quote

but what is not true is the hidden fact from some anti-immigration members posted in this thread that there are also many immigrants who contribute positively to Canada and Canadian society, They arrive and though some initially may depend on assistance (like subsidized tuition fees for college and education) but in the long term they become contributing members of the society which has welcomed them and tax payers for decades to come.

Many do. Many do not. The thing about a sane immigration policy would be to weed out those less likely to do this, and bring in more people who are MORE likely to do this. Right now, the majority of our immigrants don't come here because they'll bring an economic benefit but because they're related to someone.

Edited August 25, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Finally, there's the 1000 pound elephant that always stirs controversy, which is the cultural conflict that can arise when too many immigrants from very different cultures than the local home population settle in one area too quickly.  If immigration was more evenly distributed across the country, the impact of the influence of these cultural differences would be less concentrated.  The local population could better adjust to newcomers because they wouldn't come as a large society-altering wave.  It would also mean that we would have less regional disparity (economically and culturally), less racism among the local home-born population, and less of a divide between rural and urban attitudes.  

It isn't just that they're focused in large urban areas. It's the sheer numbers involved AND their concentration, which deters integration. As an internal report from Immigration Canada(released only after an access to information request) pointed out Canada is reaching its ability to absorb immigrants. And integration with such numbers is not guaranteed.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

When you add in that the government does nothing to justify ever increasing numbers aside from mouth noises and platitudes, it makes for growing conflict.

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Many do. Many do not. The thing about a sane immigration policy would be to weed out those less likely to do this, and bring in more people who are MORE likely to do this. Right now, the majority of our immigrants don't come here because they'll bring an economic benefit but because they're related to someone.

I agree with first part of your paragraph and I said it myself but disagree with the second part. Though there are some immigrants who may be a burden on Canadians for a long time but they are not a majority (and they are mostly refuges not immigrants). As I said Canada must become more selective as who they are bring in. Adaptability must become a very important criterion for example. By adaptability I mean those who do not believe in freedom and western democracy and western values which includes respect and equality for women must be weeded out and the decision must be made on individual basis during carefully assessed personal interviews not regional selectivity as some are advocating. other assets (money and or education) and potential of contributions for future must also be the other important criteria but second to adaptability,

Statistics from independent sources indicate that Canada's population is aging and birth rate is falling so we do need young professionals as immigrants to come and support the aging population. So we must not stop immigration but enhance it by being more selective.

Edited August 25, 2019 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I agree that skilled immigrants add positively to the Canadian economy.  However, they are moving to the parts of the country with the greatest population density and bypassing the parts of the country that need economic development the most. 

Because that is where their skills are needed the most and where the jobs fitting their skills exist. Will there be 100,000 jobs for doctors and engineers and professionals and skilled workers in Yukon or NWT every year? What percentage of hospitals or schools are in those two places or what percent of budget is allocated?

[CITIZEN_2015]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Finally, there's the 1000 pound elephant that always stirs controversy, which is the cultural conflict that can arise when too many immigrants from very different cultures than the local home population settle in one area too quickly.  If immigration was more evenly distributed across the country, the impact of the influence of these cultural differences would be less concentrated.  The local population could better adjust to newcomers because they wouldn't come as a large society-altering wave.  It would also mean that we would have less regional disparity (economically and culturally), less racism among the local home-born population, and less of a divide between rural and urban attitudes.  

 

Yes cultural conflict is an issue with current policies however, the answer to that is not to force immigrants to go where there are no jobs for them but rather be selective on who we bring in. Let's accept immigrants who are already adopted to Canadian culture which is based on respect for individuals, freedom of choice and religion, tolerances for differences and believing in equality f women and individuals regardless of race, religion, national origin, wealth and orientation. Bear in mind that there ate many who are born here who do not believe in those principals so we don't need to bring in more weeds from outside.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Statistics from independent sources indicate that Canada's population is aging and birth rate is falling so we do need young professionals as immigrants to come and support the aging population. So we must not stop immigration but enhance it by being more selective.

Immigration is not going to do anything about an aging population. I posted the cite about that already. And we have too many immigrants who are a long term drain on resources as evidenced by every public housing project I see being full of immigrants.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. When you start reading the posts on this forum, it soon becomes abundantly clear that the real divide is between the urban cosmopolitans who tend to embrace the variety and anonymity of the city with its high immigrant population versus the smaller more Canadian-born settlements where social change happens more slowly and the scale and intensity of the cultural differences found in large cities are often perceived as threats to the Canadian way of life.

2. If we don't manage immigration more carefully, we will see a greater strain on municipal services, more cultural conflict and racism, more congestion on transit and highways, a more polluted environment with more rapid climate change, higher home prices, and probably a surge in support for far-right political parties. 

3. We would probably also see drastic cuts to immigration levels overall, which is counter-productive if we want our economy to continue to grow in a healthy way and to provide the pensions and services we value to Canadians.  

1. Spot on.

2. Strain on services is coming from poor government support for growth, which is coming from immigration.  The 'blame' should go to them.

3. Growth... it's not understood.

 

[Zeitgeist]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

It isn't just that they're focused in large urban areas. It's the sheer numbers involved AND their concentration, which deters integration. As an internal report from Immigration Canada(released only after an access to information request) pointed out Canada is reaching its ability to absorb immigrants. And integration with such numbers is not guaranteed.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

When you add in that the government does nothing to justify ever increasing numbers aside from mouth noises and platitudes, it makes for growing conflict.

 

The issue with fast and furious immigration that leads to high concentrations of one or even a few ethnicities in a community is that there is no incentive to adjust to the local culture, and in some cases, to learn an official language.  It becomes too easy to form a ghetto and retreat inside it.  We see this a lot with older family members who immigrate on family status.  The non-immigrant community have a harder time accepting such immigrants because of the lack of engagement between the two societies.  It tends to breed suspicion, even though all parties may be great people.  There’s simply no compelling reason to try to integrate.  

The Cultural Mosaic is a nice idea where the ethnic communities are porous and outsiders feel that they are welcome, but also where the immigrants feel compelled to get out of their comfort zone and join the wider society.  

This should have nothing to do with colour, race, or religion unless the newcomers’ belief systems are opposed to Canadian rights and freedoms.  

I do think that we have to be certain that the skilled immigrants we bring in aren’t simply taking jobs from Canadians who have those skills, which is why the demand in the labour market must always be watched closely.  

It’s one thing for a software developer to come to a community where there aren’t enough Canadian software developers and there’s a high demand for such skills in the job market.  It gets more complex, for example, when we talk about a doctor shortage, because if the doctors we import only want to live in the parts of the country where we have enough doctors, then instead of meeting a need for doctors in remote parts of the country, we are simply making it harder for Canadian doctors to find jobs in their community of choice.

Similarly, adding millions of immigrants to already large cities in the south will make housing less affordable for Canadians in those cities.  Immigration must be much more carefully managed.  I would rather see a more even distribution of small cities across Canada, including in the north, than see most of Canada’s population crammed into a few cities where infrastructure and the environment are seriously strained and quality of life is in decline.  

Edited August 26, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[CITIZEN_2015]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Immigration is not going to do anything about an aging population. I posted the cite about that already. And we have too many immigrants who are a long term drain on resources as evidenced by every public housing project I see being full of immigrants.

World population is regretfully increasing rapidly. Canada's share of population is decreasing considering that it has a vast area (even excluding the non-habitable lands still Canada is very large compare to Britain, France and Germany and most of Europe and Asia). Are you saying that Canada's population would be still increasing from current levels at a reasonable rate if we stop immigration? Considering that the birth rate is falling among Canada born Canadians?

Edited August 26, 2019 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

3 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

World population is regretfully increasing rapidly. Canada's share of population is decreasing considering that it has a vast area (even excluding the non-habitable lands still Canada is very large compare to Britain, France and Germany and most of Europe and Asia). Are you saying that Canada's population would be still increasing from current levels at a reasonable rate if we stop immigration? Considering that the birth rate is falling among Canada born Canadians?

I've seen studies which suggest high immigration actually tends to cause a lower birthrate locally, by increasing cost of living and making it more difficult to find jobs. In any event, you're talking about a ponzi scheme under which we have to continually increase population in order to have a decent economy. Clearly that has to end at some point. The cites I've posted have said there is no clear evidence that high immigration helps an economy. Even with no immigration it would take many decades before our population started to slip more than marginally, and almost no one is calling for no immigration.

I would suggest, however, that if you think bringing in 20,000 elderly immigrants a year is going to help us solve a problem of an aging population you might want to reconsider. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

Flooding the country with immigrants is all part of controlling the population which is already here.  
 

There is no real economic growth, it's all a central bank incited debt financed bubble.

The name of the game is deflationary pressure to keep the debt bubble from popping.

 

To include suppressing prices by suppressing wages, by making work scarce.

 

Work is bullshit, jobs are jails, mass immigration is a lever of control.

[CITIZEN_2015]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

 

I would suggest, however, that if you think bringing in 20,000 elderly immigrants a year is going to help us solve a problem of an aging population you might want to reconsider. 

I believe we have close to 250,000 new immigrant every year (I believed it should be reduced to 150,000) so 20,000 of them elderly based on your post then we are bringing over 90% younger people. So lets also mention the positive side. Citizens of this democratic country have the right to be with their parents as the born citizens do. If if deprive our citizens from joining their parents then where would we be as a western democracy.

Since your concentration is on elderly immigrants It is also worth pointing out that most of those elderly immigrants are coming under family sponsorship programs. That means for up to 20 years after their arrivals they are not allowed to benefit from our social programs that low income citizens born here are entitled too like Guaranteed Income supplement.

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by CITIZEN_2015

[Army Guy]

21 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I believe we have close to 250,000 new immigrant every year (I believed it should be reduced to 150,000) so 20,000 of them elderly based on your post then we are bringing over 90% younger people. So lets also mention the positive side. Citizens of this democratic country have the right to be with their parents as the born citizens do. If if deprive our citizens from joining their parents then where would we be as a western democracy.

 

Have you done the math on this problem , that you seem to think is a right... where do you plan on drawing the line, at just parents, what about sisters, brothers, all of their kids, uncles and aunts, grand parents ...spouses brothers and sisters, parents, kids , grand kids, their grand parents...the numbers quickly bloom out of control, 150 ,000 soon becomes 10 times that...

 

The  current liberal doctrine is to raise immigration levels as high as 350 K , not counting Refugees....Sunny ways indeed...reducing immigration numbers is just racist conservative thought, something only heard out of cons mouths...there is still time for you to correct your evil thoughts....

Edited August 26, 2019 by Army Guy

[cougar]

On 8/20/2019 at 2:33 PM, Argus said:

A new study done by the Fraser Institute shows the fiscal burden imposed on Canadians from its high immigration rate is now up to $30 billion  per year.

Imposed on Canadians?   Keep in mind there are Canadians and then there are Canadians.  There are business owners who profit from immigration, there are property owners who also profit from immigration  - inflated prices dues to out of control demand and depressed wages due to out of control supply of labor.

It continues not because our Government is dumb, but because someone profits from it and has enough influence over the government to make them continue the practice.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Have you done the math on this problem , that you seem to think is a right... where do you plan on drawing the line, at just parents, what about sisters, brothers, all of their kids, uncles and aunts, grand parents ...spouses brothers and sisters, parents, kids , grand kids, their grand parents...the numbers quickly bloom out of control, 150 ,000 soon becomes 10 times that...

 

The  current liberal doctrine is to raise immigration levels as high as 350 K , not counting Refugees....Sunny ways indeed...reducing immigration numbers is just racist conservative thought, something only heard out of cons mouths...there is still time for you to correct your evil thoughts....

I was responding to Argus's post which focused on the elderly. Brothers and sisters and all of their kids are not elderly. So read my post carefully. 

Many Canadians likely a majority have parents, grandparents or grand grand parents who have been born elsewhere and have come to Canada as immigrants. Those who we are admitting now  as immigrants will have children and grand children as well who will be second and third generations immigrants and this means fully adopted and forming or maybe even running the future Canada which will be a sunny Canada indeed. 

It is not true. I believe that immigrants needs to be absorbed slowly and believe in lower immigration levels and I am a Liberal and strongly against conservatism.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I believe we have close to 250,000 new immigrant every year (I believed it should be reduced to 150,000) so 20,000 of them elderly based on your post then we are bringing over 90% younger people. So lets also mention the positive side. Citizens of this democratic country have the right to be with their parents as the born citizens do. If if deprive our citizens from joining their parents then where would we be as a western democracy.

Since your concentration is on elderly immigrants It is also worth pointing out that most of those elderly immigrants are coming under family sponsorship programs. That means for up to 20 years after their arrivals they are not allowed to benefit from our social programs that low income citizens born here are entitled too like Guaranteed Income supplement.

We are responsible for their health care. Back when the Tories locked the numbers at 5,000 in 2013 the minister said that 25% were ending up on welfare, and that each one was costing Canada an average of $200,000 in health care costs. Given health care inflation that number is about 30% higher now. That means we're spending $5.2 billion per year just on health care costs on these elderly immigrants. I see no reason why we should be paying that money. If people want to bring elderly relatives here they should be required to have private health insurnce for them, and their elderly relative should be ineligible for social benefits and be deported if their sponsor refuses to pay for them.

[cougar]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

We are responsible for their health care. Back when the Tories locked the numbers at 5,000 in 2013 the minister said that 25% were ending up on welfare, and that each one was costing Canada an average of $200,000 in health care costs.

Nothing to get excited about.  Our system is one scam built upon another.  Ultimately all moneys comes from exploiting our environment and the wildlife and plants (trees and anything else) pay the ultimate price.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, cougar said:

Nothing to get excited about.  

Especially because cherry picked numbers with assumptions and no cites are likely problematic.

[Army Guy]

On 8/26/2019 at 7:11 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I was responding to Argus's post which focused on the elderly. Brothers and sisters and all of their kids are not elderly. So read my post carefully. 

Many Canadians likely a majority have parents, grandparents or grand grand parents who have been born elsewhere and have come to Canada as immigrants. Those who we are admitting now  as immigrants will have children and grand children as well who will be second and third generations immigrants and this means fully adopted and forming or maybe even running the future Canada which will be a sunny Canada indeed. 

It is not true. I believe that immigrants needs to be absorbed slowly and believe in lower immigration levels and I am a Liberal and strongly against conservatism.

I did read your post, and in reply I asked you the question where do you draw the line ? ...right now your advocating for parents, grand parents etc....but that is not where family starts and stops is it...

Current liberal policy sees 1,000,000 over next 3 years , thats 350 k per year not counting refugees according to our immigration minister...I was pointing out your out of tune with your lord and master....your immigration ideas follow the conservative doctrine , but you already knew that right ?

 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-canada-2018-1.4371146

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Especially because cherry picked numbers with assumptions and no cites are likely problematic.

I know the onus is on Argus to provide a source, but it does seem convenient that when numbers are provided they are no good, or Fraser ins numbers are bogus, the list of excuses goes on forever.......So what are the numbers if the right can't seem to find them perhaps the left can give them a little help...

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

...your immigration ideas follow the conservative doctrine , but you already knew that right ?

My immigration ideas follows my own doctrine. Immigration levels were increased during Harper conservatives and Selectivity based on adaptability never became a main criterion.

Edited August 27, 2019 by CITIZEN_2015

[Michael Hardner]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-017-0530-4

 

Quote

This paper evaluates the potential impact of education levels of immigrants and Canadian-born on economic growth in Canada and its smaller provinces by using data for the period 2006–2013. 
....
The results show that all educational levels of immigrants have positive and statistically significant effects on economic growth. 

Borjas, though, has a highly cited paper on economic effects:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.9.2.3

Quote

The available evidence suggests that the economic benefits from immigration for the United States are small, on the order of $6 billion and almost certainly less than $20 billion annually.

That's in the US where they don't select via a points system, ie. less educated immigrants than Canada.  

[Shady]

There are pluses and minuses to everything, including immigration.  I don't trust politicians that refuse to even acknowledge that fact.

[taxme]

On 8/24/2019 at 12:18 PM, -TSS- said:

I see. I still haven't figured out what the purpose of the Commonwealth even is if it doesn't grant rights or privileges to the citizens of the member-countries.

IWith the controversial immigration I  was thinking about the news that most of the property-market in the western parts of Canada have been taken over by the Chinese mega-rich tycoons. 

Between the Sikhs and the Asians, both have pretty much bought up and are slowly taking over British Columbia altogether. The ordinary British/European citizen's living in BC are fast being put out to pasture by those two other ethnic groups of people. They both are taking over BC. It may come down to one day where those two ethnic people will be fighting it out for control of the BC turf. Hey, one never knows.