Jump to content

Increased Immigration not needed, will hurt workers


Argus

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

1. The people that sponsor the 400,000 new immigrants are votes nothing more nothing less. I would like to see a poll on how many municipalities are wanting a percentage of these 400,000?

2. This out of the woods idea of adding 400,000 (vaccinated) immigrants is not a great idea, as we are belittled to beg for vaccine from the USA. There are lots of problems both big and small and I see few being answered.

1. Why do Canadian banks want votes then ?  The part that is missing from this entire conversation, and that makes it feel like an uninformed conspiracy-type conversation is that nobody is talking about the obvious benefits of immigration as identified by conventional economics: increased economic activity.  The premise seems to be that there is a fixed economy, and more people means less to go around.  That is not how it works.

The exception to this view is Argus - perhaps the only critic of immigration I have read on here, or anywhere, who at least appreciates the economic orthodoxy and has a respectable response.  The other critic I have read (not on here) is Dr. David Suzuki.  So, Argus, this point 1. is not directed at you and - yes - I know and have read and considered your arguments on this already, and have nothing further to add.

2. And yet you seem to think there are no benefits to immigration - that governments are simply embarking on a bad idea to get 'votes'.  It's paper thin.  They all believe it's better for the economy, Conservatives too.  That's why Harper increased immigration along with the rest.  

If you don't think driving down wages is good for business, then you don't think driving down costs is good for business, then you don't like productivity and you belong in the NDP I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can say that Canada was founded in Christian 'principles', but to then pivot and say what that was about was intolerance, and anti-abortion is incorrect at best.

All good ideas, such as Christianity and Buddhism, which is related, are built upon and... yes... progress.

For example, we have divorce now.

While it is true divorce is often necessary for various reasons, the consequences of a high number of divorces creates a situation where a large segment of society and children are growing up without a father in the home.  This is a tragedy and has tragic consequences in many cases.  A father should be providing that leadership and stability that a family and children need.  He can't do that if he is not there.  The Bible teaches everyone is born with a depraved fallen nature and needs to be born again or converted by faith in Christ.  By abolishing Biblical Christianity from the education system and trying to abolish it from society, a country is really destroying it's only hope and is self destructing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge immigration is also causing significant increases in the cost of housing.  Both in rent and for buying.  Most of the middle class has been completely priced out of buying a home.  And rent is now the cost of a high mortgage.  But the globalists in our federal government don't care about the middle class.  Instead they engineer some lame tax rebate or home buying program that doesn't help much at all, and they think that solves the problem.  They're obsessed with the national benefits of a bigger economy and larger population, but they don't care at what cost.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. While it is true divorce is often necessary for various reasons, the consequences of a high number of divorces creates a situation where a large segment of society and children are growing up without a father in the home.   
2. By abolishing Biblical Christianity from the education system and trying to abolish it from society, a country is really destroying it's only hope and is self destructing.

1. It's refreshing to meet someone who doesn't support divorce, if anachronistic.
2. Luckily for you the foundations of this country guarantee that your religious rights will be protected, although I would say they are encroached upon.  Moreover, the conventionality of your metaphysical views are more or less welcomed by a broad public in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shady said:

Huge immigration is also causing significant increases in the cost of housing.  Both in rent and for buying.  Most of the middle class has been completely priced out of buying a home.  And rent is now the cost of a high mortgage.  But the globalists in our federal government don't care about the middle class.  Instead they engineer some lame tax rebate or home buying program that doesn't help much at all, and they think that solves the problem.  They're obsessed with the national benefits of a bigger economy and larger population, but they don't care at what cost.

Yet more NDP talking points... so strange to me.

I would be glad if the government put a pin in the balloon of real estate prices but that's a huge economic driver.  With resources in decline, international trade in the crosshairs ... what exactly will be left is anyone's guess.

The table is being set for actual Marxism, not Trudeauism.... and these types of posts help the cause IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I say again it is either out of ignorance or you are lying that it takes only 3 minutes per immigration application. It took my application 2 years to be processed plus many months of both health and background checks and two interviews each lasting an hour and my cousin 3 years to be processed (no medical degree for her) and my other cousin about 2 to 3 years and latest case was my niece taking her 5 years. I have real life cases but what you have is only false baseless allegations.

Do you think Immigration Canada spent two years processing your paperwork, working on it every day? Seriously? What do you imagine they were doing all that time? Your file sat in an in-basket somewhere waiting in line.

Nor did they give you any health check. You went to a doctor and had that done and either you or the doctor sent in the form. Your background check consisted of them putting your name into a system to see if you had a criminal record or were on the terrorist watch list. Time consumed, about 30 seconds.

You are hopelessly ignorant in both senses of the word.

Dr. Satzewich eventually got the access he required to write his book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, and, as a result, we now have valuable insight into how our immigration system works.

By and large our immigration system works well, but there are some things about the system that are concerning. Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216).

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities.

Canada's immigration officials are pressured to make decisions on at least seventy-five files a day meaning decisions are made in about three minutes — not including the time spent writing up notes.

As Dr. Satzewich writes, "time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making" (page 196). One immigration officer said, "Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. … Risk management means closing your eyes" (page 136). Another officer said: "If we didn't have the time demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate" (page 136).

A deputy manager in an overseas office put it this way:

We have become number freaks. We have to meet our targets, within +/- 3 percent. But you don't want to exceed your target either. If you reach your processing target by September, you can't issue any more visas, and that is a problem. And if you go over your target … they will say next time you can process the target numbers with fewer resources, or increase targets (page 134).

This is a problem. It is a problem because the priority is placed on numbers rather than individuals and some people are, in the words of immigration officers themselves, being allowed into the country that would otherwise not be admissible. The targets also keep out those who might otherwise be admissible because their application came to the top of the pile after the target visas had all been allocated.

To quote Dr. Satzewich: "Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork" (page 170). Interviews allow the opportunity to determine credibility through, as Dr. Satzewich writes, "verbal responses…demeanour and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer's concerns…" (pages 55-56).

These interviews were conducted as part of the language proficiency test, which was conducted in-person, face-to-face, with immigration officers.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dialamah said:

Thank goodness for that, at least!  Abrahamic religions are cruel and oppressive to anyone not male and of the "ruling class". 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/burma-myanmar/2017-11-06/religion-and-violence-myanmar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

 News stories focus on what is unusual, not what is usual - so I have no idea if that reported violence is representative or isolated.   

Also, the Bible, Torah and Koran all have an unfortunately misogynistic, homophobic and elitist belief system permeating their social culture.  Maybe whatever religious group referenced in those news stories do as well, but I don't know enough about them to have included them in my comment.

But having said that, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they equalled Abrahamic religions in their atiitudes about and treatment of women, gays and non-belivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 News stories focus on what is unusual, not what is usual - so I have no idea if that reported violence is representative or isolated.   

Also, the Bible, Torah and Koran all have an unfortunately misogynistic, homophobic and elitist belief system permeating their social culture. 

As opposed to the delightful equality women have in India? And if you think gays have it good in India you haven't checked that out either. Oh, and ever heard of the caste system?

You ought to look into the experiences of black people and Africans who visit China some day. They don't even make any attempt to disguise their racism, and that's not even based on religion.

And these are our number one and number two source countries for immigrants.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

As opposed to the delightful equality women have in India? And if you think gays have it good in India you haven't checked that out either. Oh, and ever heard of the caste system?

Like I said, I don't know so I didn't include "all religions" in my statement, only included the ones I know.   What is hard to understand about that?

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

And these are our number one and number two source countries for immigrants.

Individuals vary, so judging every individual by the worst of their group is wrong.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2021 at 4:01 PM, myata said:

Isn't there some kind of mathematical principle that left to its own instruments a bureaucracy would grow infinitely large consuming any imaginable amount of resourcing and producing ever less? Like what would be any one incentive to be, forget more efficient, just less inefficient? And in this country it has been at it for 150 years...

It is not a mathematical principal, it is carved in stone in the left wing playbook.   Non productive people always vote left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Do you think Immigration Canada spent two years processing your paperwork, working on it every day? Seriously? What do you imagine they were doing all that time? Your file sat in an in-basket somewhere waiting in line.

Nor did they give you any health check. You went to a doctor and had that done and either you or the doctor sent in the form. Your background check consisted of them putting your name into a system to see if you had a criminal record or were on the terrorist watch list. Time consumed, about 30 seconds.

 

30 seconds huh? 3 minutes for each application huh? Strings of lies and deception. Each applicant must go through interviews (sometimes more than one) and each interview lasting between half hour to full hour. On the top of that all other related matters I mentioned. You think like immigration officers twitch their nose and then stamps applications and all done? Seriously you have posted some credible posts here but with these incredible allegations you removed your credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

Referring to people as "monkeys" is despicable. 

Monkeys like in "too many monkeys on the tree".   Bringing more and more in, makes monkeys out of all of us.  Not enough trees left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Johnny said:

I would like to see a poll on how many municipalities are wanting a percentage of these 400,000?

Probably none.  And this is why I am saying we do not live in a democratic country.   It is a rigged system where the leadership will do what they want with the explanation that the majority of the electorate are too stupid to make a good choice.  The electorate is only smart enough to elect the right leaders who will be making all the "smart" choices for them.    This is the reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Argus said:

As opposed to the delightful equality women have in India? And if you think gays have it good in India you haven't checked that out either. Oh, and ever heard of the caste system?

You ought to look into the experiences of black people and Africans who visit China some day. They don't even make any attempt to disguise their racism, and that's not even based on religion.

And these are our number one and number two source countries for immigrants.

 

So your objection isn't immigrants per se, just the ones that are darker than a sheet of photocopier paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why do Canadian banks want votes then ?  The part that is missing from this entire conversation, and that makes it feel like an uninformed conspiracy-type conversation is that nobody is talking about the obvious benefits of immigration as identified by conventional economics: increased economic activity.  The premise seems to be that there is a fixed economy, and more people means less to go around.  That is not how it works.

I'm more than a little reserved on all of the 'economic growth' claptrap I see on a regular basis, but we still benefit from immigration in other ways: re-balancing aging demographics would be #1.

I've heard economic commentators mention that Japan's shrinking population and resistance to immigration is the main reason why they are in decline and not really one of those 'Asian Tigers' we hear so much about from the investment brokers. It's up to the Japanese to decide how to run their island nation, but so far they are very lucky they have one of the healthiest and most active aging populations in the world today.

#2. cosmopolitan culture. I know, I know, I'm going to get rocks and stones thrown at me from all sides on this board, but even though I'm mostly white (with a Metis grandmother), the only thing I don't like about living in one of Canada's immigration meccas - southern Ontario, is that all of the people moving in to the GTA are the prime motivation for our idiot conservative government to demand zoning changes for new home construction everywhere..........literally - everywhere! No such thing as conservation areas and protected wildlife habitats under the Ford Administration.......bring in the bulldozers!

When it comes to dealing with more recent immigrants....either they're friendly or standoffish. Their children do well in school, and don't commit crimes at the same rate as white kids from lower income families. There is an added advantage, when you get to know some of your international neighbors, that they might have first hand or at least 2nd hand knowledge of what it's like living in some of the violent hotspots the US is always looking for excuses to regime change.

A lot of people who come from places like Guatemala, Afghanistan or Haiti may be a little reluctant to open up to some gringo about how they feel about the regime installed in their homeland, but I started learning over 20 years ago, that many people from poor nations of the global south who have been targeted for our benevolent gifts of democracy and loans, have done more reading and have a lot more insight on what's going on and what has happened in their countries of origin than 99% of Canadians, let alone Americans are aware of!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:


2. And yet you seem to think there are no benefits to immigration - that governments are simply embarking on a bad idea to get 'votes'.  It's paper thin.  They all believe it's better for the economy, Conservatives too.  That's why Harper increased immigration along with the rest.  

There certainly is an undisguised vote-buying aspect of lax immigration policy. I got a close up look at this back in the late 70's, when Canada...under Pierre Trudeau agreed to take in 20,000 of a much larger population of Ugandan refugees, who were forced to leave Uganda by the Idi Amin Gov. at the time. These ethnic Indian and Pakistani Ugandans had made up most of the bureaucratic and business classes in Uganda under the British Empire. So, Amin's play at national and racial identity was to drive out all those were a legacy of the old colonial days. 

A small factory I was working at in 1977 hired an Indian and a Pakistani, who were about the same age as me at the time, and were part of that emergency exodus from Uganda five years earlier. The subject of federal politics happened to come up one day, and I recall both of them saying they voted for the Libs, even though they weren't happy with Pierre's economic performance at the time. In fact nobody was! It wasn't all the Fed's fault, dealing with an economy in recession from high oil prices (this was at a time when Canada - from Ontario east - depended on imported oil from the Middle East, while the west was swimming in much cheaper Alberta crude).

So, late 70's Canada was not a happy place, but there was more hope things would turn around in the future than there is today. My Indian and Pakistani friends had voted for the first time in the prior year and declared that they were "obligated" to vote for Trudeau, because he got them and their families to Canada...case closed!  It wouldn't matter what happened with the economy, or what kind of Liberal Prime Minister took over after Trudeau was gone, they and the rest of their families who were voting age, would have to vote Liberal .... just out of loyalty apparently.  And I'm sure that example has been repeated many times over the years, and made the difference for the Liberal Party - seen as the most open and accommodating of the three to new Canadians. 

 

Quote

You don't think driving down wages is good for business, then you don't think driving down costs is good for business, then you don't like productivity and you belong in the NDP I guess.

Can't follow you on this one!  How does low wages improve productivity? And how do some nations like Germany have high wages and yet also rank high on these productivity stats?

But, I'm further left than the NDP anyway!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yet more NDP talking points... so strange to me.

I would be glad if the government put a pin in the balloon of real estate prices but that's a huge economic driver.  With resources in decline, international trade in the crosshairs ... what exactly will be left is anyone's guess.

The table is being set for actual Marxism, not Trudeauism.... and these types of posts help the cause IMO

Real estate price increases are NOT an economic driver, they are simply inflationary.  Economies are driven by creating wealth, and doubling the price of an existing asset or resource simply re-distributes wealth and adds an inflationary pressure from the requisite increase in money supply.

The problem lies in how economists measure the economy.   Just counting the dollars changing hands is a fool's game...and economists (a function far more of banking than of actual management of our economy) seems to be stuck on stupid for that reason.

To correct speculation (the driver of inflation) you do NOT need to use Marxist controls on pricing, all you need to do is tax unwanted movement of money - and STOP penalizing the shit out of wealth creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Right To Left said:

1. I'm more than a little reserved on all of the 'economic growth' claptrap I see on a regular basis, but we still benefit from immigration in other ways: re-balancing aging demographics would be #1.

2. cosmopolitan culture. ...

When it comes to dealing with more recent immigrants....either they're friendly or standoffish. Their children do well in school, and don't commit crimes at the same rate as white kids from lower income families. There is an added advantage, when you get to know some of your international neighbors, that they might have first hand or at least 2nd hand knowledge of what it's like living in some of the violent hotspots the US is always looking for excuses to regime change.

1. Regardless of whether you agree with the idea, it is bought into by business and economic orthodoxy, so this is to me what is driving immigration. 
2. A lot won't agree with you here.  I would say that having cosmopolitan ideas, and especially entrepreneurship is something we can use,though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

1. Real estate price increases are NOT an economic driver, they are simply inflationary.  Economies are driven by creating wealth, and doubling the price of an existing asset or resource simply re-distributes wealth and adds an inflationary pressure from the requisite increase in money supply.

2. The problem lies in how economists measure the economy.   Just counting the dollars changing hands is a fool's game...and economists (a function far more of banking than of actual management of our economy) seems to be stuck on stupid for that reason.

3. To correct speculation (the driver of inflation) you do NOT need to use Marxist controls on pricing, all you need to do is tax unwanted movement of money - and STOP penalizing the shit out of wealth creation.

1. If you look at real estate as 'housing' then sure.  I am not saying you should or shouldn't do that.  (You should, definitely.) But there are other aspects: Tourism, development, Air BnB and that whole ball of fun... It drives economic activity

2. Should we employ a "General Happiness Quotient" or somesuch ?  I love such conversations... preferably had on a hill in summertime,with bongos playing and shirtless women passing a doob around.  Me in my tweed suit and Starbucks just taking it all in.

3. If the powerful want money to move then it will be moved by the movers, and the poor will be shaken by the shakers.  

Please start a thread on blue-sky utopian futurism because I would love to hear others' ideas ?  [puts on bongo tape]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Right To Left said:

So your objection isn't immigrants per se, just the ones that are darker than a sheet of photocopier paper.

I realize this might be a shocking idea to the ludicrous left, but a lot of people care more about what's in a person's mind than what skin is on their back. The far left only cares about race, of course, and considers that far more important than anything involving character, education, skill, values or culture.

Edited by Argus
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

30 seconds huh? 3 minutes for each application huh? Strings of lies and deception. 

I'm sorry you lack the ability to read and comprehend information. It must make life very difficult for you.

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Right To Left said:

When it comes to dealing with more recent immigrants....either they're friendly or standoffish. Their children do well in school, and don't commit crimes at the same rate as white kids from lower income families.

Right. Poor things have to dodge all the bullets being fired around by all those Irish and Ukrainian street gangs.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/homicide/mostwanted.php

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cannuck said:

Real estate price increases are NOT an economic driver, they are simply inflationary. 

I think there are two components to this.

Imagine you could pay off your house with value X over a 10 year mortgage while having income Y.

Then imagine you have a person with lower expectations who is willing to pay twice for your house and is willing to pay it off over 20 years while having the same income as you.  All other prices remain relatively the same.

a few years later there is someone with even lower expectations who is willing to work 40 years to pay off the same house while making the same money as you.

Finally there is that group of people who are used to living a dozen per square foot who do not even aspire to own the place but are happy to just pay rent, so they end up paying for your house like it was a palace.

Isn't this why we are bringing all these people from overseas?  To just bring our own standard of life expectations down while making the main players of the monopoly game richer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

That is not true. I don't care who say these lies but I have real life cases of myself, my close family members and close friends who were able to immigrate to Canada (about a dozen real cases I witnessed with my own eyes) and they were ALL interviewed. Some even had to fly to another country to do that.

The anti-immigration group though small in numbers but they are powerful and in my view are behind these misinformation.

I too do not support 400,000 immigrants to Canada each year. I think a number like 150,000 per year would be much better for Canada to absorb new immigrants. Also I believe the selection of new immigrants is somewhat flawed. We need to give priority to those adopted to Canadian values (like tolerance, respect for women, equality, respect for religions) but we don't and also skills and prospects for future positive contributions to Canada should play a major role too and currently we do not do these well but unlike you I am not going to resort to lies to advance my cause.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...