How much refugees are costing us

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Shady said:

Michael, why do you abhor deniers in other topics, but participate in denying in this one?  Is it on purpose?

Deniers deny that a threat exists, and I don't do that.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Deniers deny that a threat exists, and I don't do that.

But you’re denying the existence of something different.  It’s still denying.  Or do you pick and choose when denying is ok and when it isn’t?  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

But you’re denying the existence of something different.  It’s still denying.  Or do you pick and choose when denying is ok and when it isn’t?  

Well I deny the existence of things that don't exist, but from my perspective of course.  Why don't you lay out what you're objecting to and let me explain how I see it ?

[Shady]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well I deny the existence of things that don't exist, but from my perspective of course.  Why don't you lay out what you're objecting to and let me explain how I see it ?

But they’ve been cited and linked to.  They absolutely do exist.  They only don’t exist if you purposely choose to ignore reality.  Why is denying that ok but denying other things not acceptable?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

But they’ve been cited and linked to.  They absolutely do exist.  They only don’t exist if you purposely choose to ignore reality.  Why is denying that ok but denying other things not acceptable?

What exists ?  There are people who leave war-torn areas intentionally to come here and do nothing ?  Or ?

[eyeball]

On 11/16/2019 at 9:54 AM, scribblet said:

These are not 'climate refugees', they are 'asylum seekers' crossing illegally.  

She said virtuously.

[Shady]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

She said virtuously.

And accurately!  Facts don’t care about your feelings.

[eyeball]

They're humans on the move just as predicted. You think reality gives a flying fuck about what you think?

[Argus]

The Canadian government gives out as little information about the cost of refugees as it can, and does no studies on it. It certainly doesn't examine the long-term ability of refugees to become self-sufficient in Canada, as opposed to living in whole or in part off government. But they did do such a study in Sweden, and, it turns out, most refugees/migrants, are never self-sufficient. Ever.

And if we consider the numbers, we see just what an anchor we are building on our economy. The numbers are growing every year.

2016      23,870

Trudeau makes his virtue-signalling tweet.

2017     50,389
2018     55,023
2019     63,830

According to the study’s results, it takes an average of 12-13 years after their arrival before even 50% of migrants in Sweden have achieved basic self-sufficiency, amounting to 12,800 kronor per month after tax (approximately 1,200 euros). For the most part, migrants live on government funding.

The study differentiated between self-sufficiency and the official employment rate, given that the Swedish government considers any citizen who does at least one hour of work per week to be employed. 55% of migrants were employed five years after arriving in Sweden, and yet fewer than 30% had actually attained self-sufficiency during the same period. The majority of migrants of working age failed to achieve self-sufficiency between 1990 and 2016 — in 2016, more than 600,000 working-age migrants were not self-sufficient.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/04/sweden-most-migrants-will-never-be-self-sufficient/

[Moonlight Graham]

9 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Canadian government gives out as little information about the cost of refugees as it can, and does no studies on it. It certainly doesn't examine the long-term ability of refugees to become self-sufficient in Canada, as opposed to living in whole or in part off government. But they did do such a study in Sweden, and, it turns out, most refugees/migrants, are never self-sufficient. Ever.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/04/sweden-most-migrants-will-never-be-self-sufficient/

A migrant is any immigrant, which is different than a refugee.  Immigrants tend to do alright, many refugees don't.  I think they're using the wrong terms.  Maybe they mean asylum seeker?

Edited April 19, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[Argus]

52 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A migrant is any immigrant, which is different than a refugee.

Migrants are not immigrants. They're economic migrants pretending to be refugees, like the ones who come to Canada across the US border. Very few of the asylum claimants we get in are legitimately fleeing persecution based on their race, religion, etc.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Migrants are not immigrants. They're economic migrants pretending to be refugees, like the ones who come to Canada across the US border. Very few of the asylum claimants we get in are legitimately fleeing persecution based on their race, religion, etc.

The definition of a migrant is someone who moves permanently to another country.  Economic immigrants and refugees and all types of immigrants are migrants.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A migrant is any immigrant, which is different than a refugee.  Immigrants tend to do alright, many refugees don't.  I think they're using the wrong terms.  Maybe they mean asylum seeker?

Deleted

Edited April 19, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The definition of a migrant is someone who moves permanently to another country.  Economic immigrants and refugees and all types of immigrants are migrants.

You're nitpicking. The migrants who crossed Europe and headed for Sweden were not 'immigrants' in the formal sense. They didn't apply. They didn't fill out forms. They simply went, just like the ones who show up at our border. An immigrant is someone who applies to come, and is accepted.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

You're nitpicking. The migrants who crossed Europe and headed for Sweden were not 'immigrants' in the formal sense. They didn't apply. They didn't fill out forms. They simply went, just like the ones who show up at our border. An immigrant is someone who applies to come, and is accepted.

Yes they were immigrants, just of a different class, called asylum seekers.  You don't know what you're talking about, you're defining your own terms.  Asylum seekers don't have to apply before they reach the borders of the new country, they can apply at a port of entry or whatnot.  If you're fleeing for your life you aren't going to waits months to get a letter back in the mail.

A migrant moves from one place to another, within or between countries.  An immigrant is a type of migrant who moves from one country to another.

[Argus]

On 4/19/2020 at 6:03 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes they were immigrants, just of a different class, called asylum seekers.  You don't know what you're talking about, you're defining your own terms

Maybe you should go start some topic about precise use of grammar for anal-retentive nags.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Maybe you should go start some topic about precise use of grammar for anal-retentive nags.

How can someone complain about migrants when it means something other that what that article makes it seem?

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

How can someone complain about migrants when it means something other that what that article makes it seem?

Everyone on the planet knows that when speaking of 'migrants' we're not talking about the ones who come in after applying and going through a process. Including you.

[jacee]

On 4/18/2020 at 8:54 PM, Argus said:

The Canadian government gives out as little information about the cost of refugees as it can, and does no studies on it. It certainly doesn't examine the long-term ability of refugees to become self-sufficient in Canada, as opposed to living in whole or in part off government.

Just not true, Argus. StatsCan does those follow up studies:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019007-eng.htm

The numbers are quite reassuring: Though source of income is not addressed, it's clear to me that after 10 years, few refugee incomes remain in the range of public welfare benefits - ie, they are employed and self sufficient. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, jacee said:

Just not true, Argus. StatsCan does those follow up studies:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019007-eng.htm

The numbers are quite reassuring: Though source of income is not addressed, it's clear to me that after 10 years, few refugee incomes remain in the range of public welfare benefits - ie, they are employed and self sufficient. 

The numbers are only reassuring because they threw in refugees from Europe and other areas from the 1980s who were mostly political refugees. But even this study points out that refugees from the areas of the world who now constitute 90% of our refugees - ie, north Africa and the Middle East, perform poorly on all metrics.

Refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, iraq, Ethiopia and Iran, not to mention China, had earnings after 15 years which were at or below minimum wage. The refugees who performed best are those from Yugoslavia, Poland and Columbia. The latter group also had higher employability. Interestingly, Somalian males had a lower employment rate after 15 years than they did after 5. By which I gather they've figured out how to milk the system in the intervening years.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Argus