Liberals to import more impoverished, homeless people

[Argus]

The Liberals had previously increased both our acceptance rate for refugees and the numbers permitted to settle here well beyond what the Harper government allowed. Now it's almost doubling the numbers again because... because it's 2021! And we're nice! That's why we're going to accept more refugees than Joe Biden, even though the US has vastly more people. 

But there's a problem with that which the noble progressive politicians don't seem to get. Many of those refugees wind up impoverished and homeless. But hey, who cares! It's the grand and noble gesture that matters! Not the results! Especially when a compliant media rarely ever mentions the results. But when you bring in tens of thousands of people from the third world without any screening for education, job skills or even suitability, well, what can any reasonable person expect?

In making the announcement, Mendicino claimed that the success refugees see in Canada is a reason that “Canada’s light shines brightly.” He added that, “We’ve seen refugees give back to their new communities and their countries, even during the pandemic.”

This stirring rhetoric from the minister is unfortunately not always matched by the reality on the ground. A number of recent studies document that a growing number of refugees and asylum seekers wind up homeless, increasing the burden on a system that is already stretched thin, and has only become worse throughout the pandemic.

According to 2019 data from the City of Toronto, 40 per cent of individuals living in the city’s homeless shelters were refugees and asylum claimants. Among families staying in Toronto shelters, in 2018, the city noted that refugees and asylum claimants represented a staggering 80 per cent of the total. Similarly, a study of Ottawa’s homeless shelters in 2018 revealed that almost a quarter of those using the shelters were refugees or immigrants.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rupa-subramanya-why-are-the-liberals-doubling-our-refugee-intake-when-so-many-of-them-end-up-on-the-streets

[myata]

What shines brightly is $185,000 basic salary plus allowances plus ministerial plus pension plan, etc. It shines so brightly that quite easily can blind one to the lowly earth far underneath with its small and trivial realities.

Edited June 25, 2021 by myata

[Moonlight Graham]

Nobody should be given PR in this country if they don't have the ability to make a modest living.  If they don't have education/skills we can resettle them in a country more suitable to their economic condition.  If you want gangs/shootings in our streets and slums in our cities the best thing to do is to bring people in who can't support themselves.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Nobody should be given PR in this country if they don't have the ability to make a modest living.  If they don't have education/skills we can resettle them in a country more suitable to their economic condition.  If you want gangs/shootings in our streets and slums in our cities the best thing to do is to bring people in who can't support themselves.

Which is what we're doing now. The origin of our street gangs and the violent shoot-outs and drive-bys in our cities is our refugee policy. Virtually every homicide where I live is gang/drug related and everyone mentioned is from North Africa, usually Somalia. And if you go to a public housing project you see an awful lot of black and brown faces.

I agree with you. It would be far cheaper to support these people in a nearby country. By some estimates you could support 7-10 people for what we're paying now to have them living in public housing or on the streets in Canada.

[Shady]

It’s all about votes.  Just like with Democrats, the Liberals believe that the more people they bring in from other countries, and whom are dependent on them, the more votes they’ve secured for future elections.  That way they don’t need to rely on as many pesky Canadian born voters.

[myata]

Is it too far off to say that representation is gone - what's left is recruitment by unelected partisan elites to support and promote their interests? The appearance of representation in exchange for privilege, the conflict of interest is too obvious. And each party uses it whatever way it suits it to stay in unchecked and non accountable power as long as possible. Don't see any surprises here.

At some point the effect, the consequences would inevitably seep down into the economy. With the third world level politics it would be a third world economy, and so the balance finally restored.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Is it too far off to say that representation is gone - what's left is recruitment by unelected partisan elites to support and promote their interests? 

1. Yes.  We are far better off, in terms of democracy, than most.  To say it's 'gone' is an exaggeration.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Those convicted of crimes should be deported back to the hell hole they come from the first time regardless of their status. There should be also a defined limit on number of refugees annually (not exceeding. If the number exceeds then the government must fall.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes.  We are far better off, in terms of democracy, than most.  To say it's 'gone' is an exaggeration.

How does one measure quality of democracy? Where is it measured, objectively and impartially? Or by a quote from the throne speech? Without independent and impartial evidence this is just like another case of just saying something. Like travel from Wuhan, like entitled to entitlements, like Phoenix will save money like fix healthcare for generation and child poverty and like so many, many others.

Don't even want to notice that you're just saying all those things but are they real, and how true?

Edited June 27, 2021 by myata

[myata]

And in reality we have been at it before: why travel from Wuhan was not going to be a problem? Who has explained it, and defended it clearly, meaningfully and responsibly in 18 months so far and counting?

Until there's an answer to this question, it's not whose democracy is better but whether a democracy with responsible and accountable government exists at all in reality. There, the difference.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. How does one measure quality of democracy? Where is it measured, objectively and impartially? Or by a quote from the throne speech? Without independent and impartial evidence this is just like another case of just saying something.

2.Phoenix will save money like fix healthcare for generation and child poverty and like so many, many others.

 

1. In different ways.  The footnote to this page likely can explain to you why Canada ranks so high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

2. If failed promises and government boondoggles were THE measure of democratic health, no nation would be healthy.
 

[myata]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. In different ways. 

Of course, paper ratings, what a consolation! I would bother to point to many flaws of this expert approach, however there's a shorter and easier way: just look out the window. If one simple and obvious question cannot be answered, no matter what, what then is the meaning of all the glorious ratings, elections and institutions?

US is a "flawed democracy", while Canada's a stellar one. Stellar-free elections from exactly two choices, eggs or porridge if not eggs then sorry, has to be the porridge. Connections (or another word on the same letter) investigation? sex scandals inquiry? Nope, sorry but look at the rating! President under inquiry for election behavior no but look we have sponsorship commission decade after the fact and theirs is a "flawed democracy"!

I doubt to vote again like why if it doesn't matter one bit, is voter participation reflected in the rating? What does it mean for the democratic rating if half of the country wouldn't bother to raise a finger because it wouldn't change anything? Of course can have the rating instead and isn't it so pretty.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

1. Of course, paper ratings, what a consolation! I would bother to point to many flaws of this expert approach, however there's a shorter and easier way: just look out the window. If one simple and obvious question cannot be answered, no matter what, what then is the meaning of all the glorious ratings, elections and institutions?

2. US is a "flawed democracy",  while Canada's a stellar one.  

3. I doubt to vote again like why if it doesn't matter one bit, is voter participation reflected in the rating? What does it mean for the democratic rating if half of the country wouldn't bother to raise a finger because it wouldn't change anything? Of course can have the rating instead and isn't it so pretty.

1. You tend to make absolute and negative claims, and then when I follow up to answer your concerns you move the goal posts.

 

2. I don't think it's stellar. I don't think it says stellar.

 

3. You expect everything to be perfect, and if it's not you're not even going to get out of your chair to vote. This sounds like entitlement to me.

[myata]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I don't think it's stellar. I don't think it says stellar.

3. You expect everything to be perfect, and if it's not you're not even going to get out of your chair to vote. This sounds like entitlement to me.

2. This is simple: 9.1 something rating out of 10 in a school means A+. Very simple question: can a democracy get a passing mark (C-) without a government that is accountable to the citizens? Is it even a democracy in a full sense of the word? It's very clear from the observable facts that the level of accountability of a majority and often (as we see) minority government in this country is exactly zero, round and absolute. So, one of the two must be right 1) the eyes or 2) the rating.

3. Incorrect. A meaningful and responsible answer does not have to be a perfect answer. But there's a minimal standard of responsibility and honesty. Now, which category "travel from Wuhan" would fall into, with many, many others too bothered to count?

Edited June 27, 2021 by myata

[myata]

By the way, our insightful discussion on the measures and values of democracy inspired this undoubtedly valuable advice to our aspiring democracies Russia, Iran, and maybe North Korea at some point. A grant from our democracy promoting department would be much appreciated! So listen, you already figured out the elections and it wasn't even hard. There's just one more step, please don't stop there. You need to make it a two party system. Yes, another and same communist party but call it something else, Liberal or Conservative doesn't really matter. Conservative Party of North Korea, not so bad, eh?

Anyways give them leaders of different facial appearance, and make them bash each other in the "question period" (this is an absolute must for a class A+ democracy). Invent a thousand of rules, hooks and nudges making creating another party next to impossible and entirely impractical. And that's basically it, 9.something status on the scale of great democracies is all yours, and way ahead of the "flawed" States. Feel free to credit.

Edited June 28, 2021 by myata

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. In different ways.  The footnote to this page likely can explain to you why Canada ranks so high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

2. If failed promises and government boondoggles were THE measure of democratic health, no nation would be healthy.
 

Leaving any one party aside, could we count Could we could our health care system, indigenous reconciliation, education system, current state of our security apparatus, out of control housing markets, how the nation is fractured, and divided. the constitution is not finalized, out national debt load, not to mention major departments in the government having issues with sexual assaults harassments, and racism.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Army Guy

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, myata said:

1. This is simple: 9.1 something rating out of 10 in a school means A+.

2. Very simple question: can a democracy get a passing mark (C-) without a government that is accountable to the citizens? Is it even a democracy in a full sense of the word? It's very clear from the observable facts that the level of accountability of a majority and often (as we see) minority government in this country is exactly zero, round and absolute. So, one of the two must be right 1) the eyes or 2) the rating.

3. But there's a minimal standard of responsibility and honesty.  

1. Stellar is your word.

2. You are the one saying it's not accountable.  I have provided lots of evidence that it's relatively good and you keep stating that it's not accountable and not a democracy, zero accountability in this paragraph.

3. "Minimal" standard hasn't been met and yet one of the highest rated in the world.

I do think that we have lots of room for improvement, but hearing your hyperbole is getting too tiresome even for someone looking for something to post about.  If you can't admit you are blinded by your own negativity, and unable to determine subjective from objective then you really need to stop posting.

[cougar]

On 6/25/2021 at 11:35 AM, Argus said:

But when you bring in tens of thousands of people from the third world without any screening for education, job skills or even suitability, well, what can any reasonable person expect?

If you bring only the highly skilled and highly trained you create another imbalance.  They have to compete with one another for a small number of suitable jobs, which leaves most of them stuck in low paying dead end positions.

When you bring those who would do those position instead, tension goes down, less disappointed people.

But I find the whole immigration concept unsustainable on environmental grounds.

We are removing the last remaining large forests, get baked in 49C record breaking heat (and each new year we get new records), produce mountains of garbage we cannot recycle and we are asking for more people so we can do the degradation faster.     It will end soon, we should be seeing the signs.

Now I want to see what salmon will survive in the Fraser river once the water gets to the boiling point - excessive heat, combined with most of glacial run off going down to zero.

[myata]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Stellar is your word.

2. You are the one saying it's not accountable.  I have provided lots of evidence that it's relatively good and you keep stating that it's not accountable and not a democracy, zero accountability in this paragraph.

3. "Minimal" standard hasn't been met and yet one of the highest rated in the world.

You're saying it's wrong to apply the term to an (ostensibly) round A+ student? The rating gives that impression and in the view of our daily news (i.e. facts) it's very wrong, misleading, or plain false. And even without recent discoveries that waited centuries to be uncovered.

Unlike some instances, here I'm not just saying it because it can be seen. Travel from Wuhan, SNC, Phoenix, sponsorship inquiry that did not happen while PM Chretien was in power etc. Why RCMP started "independent" investigation of the former government figures only after media reports and two commissions? Shouldn't it be the other way around (as in some "flawed" states)? The rating would know.

3. Interesting isn't it? Let's see again: 1) highest in the world; 2) minimal standard not met. A kid in third grade math class may get an aha moment: what if the rating is pointing in the wrong direction? Not in the direction higher rating means higher standard and stronger democracy, but the opposite? Wouldn't it explain the conundrum quite easily and instantly?

One can always see only what they want to see and make any cute badges and ratings from carefully selected observations. All the way up to the meeting point with the back of the reality shovel. And in this age after all the boring centuries and millennia it would hardly be big surprise.

Edited June 28, 2021 by myata

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, Shady said:

It’s all about votes.  Just like with Democrats, the Liberals believe that the more people they bring in from other countries, and whom are dependent on them, the more votes they’ve secured for future elections.  

Bingo.

The Libs and Dems see the federal budget as an unlimited resource for paying off the MSM and low-income voters.

Joe Biden was just bragging about the fact that people aren't working because they're getting so much covid money. The stupid old bastard thinks it's great that people won't get off their asses for far more than they're worth as employees. 

Abysmal leadership can sink anything, and right now the SS America is in iceberg and mine-infested waters. 

[myata]

Canadian bureaucracy has grown (or possibly was for some time, I wasn't there to attest) ineffective; expensive and inept in fulfilling any non-trivial tasks and achieving real goals. It needs a lot of fuel aka taxpayer dollars to keep going; and because it cannot create directions for dynamic and sustainable development of the society, it has come to one extensive and expensive strategy: bring in a lot of immigrants; hope that they'll find many good, high-paying jobs; and (hope that) those jobs would generate enough taxes to burn to live another day. Tomorrow it'll figure out again, and again and etc.

There are many unqualified assumptions and loose ends in the strategy. It may work for a while or a shorter while but it's obvious that it's not sustainable in the long run. But that's no problem, simply because there isn't any other.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, cougar said:

If you bring only the highly skilled and highly trained you create another imbalance.  They have to compete with one another for a small number of suitable jobs, which leaves most of them stuck in low paying dead end positions.

When you bring those who would do those position instead, tension goes down, less disappointed people.

That's not really true. Bringing in unskilled, uneducated people increases welfare rolls and also keeps wages down in low skilled jobs. If those wages rise, as they ought to, more Canadians would be attracted to them. We dont need to import foreigners to so them. 

9 hours ago, cougar said:

But I find the whole immigration concept unsustainable on environmental grounds.

I can't see one way in which this country is better off today with 38 million people than it was in 1971 at 22 million. And people want it to grow to 100 million! Why?!

[myata]

48 minutes ago, Argus said:

I can't see one way in which this country is better off today with 38 million people than it was in 1971 at 22 million. And people want it to grow to 100 million! Why?!

Very true that the assumptions, methods and policies that worked in a country of 20 million may not hold true for that of 100. But bureaucracy does not even think about that because it needs to burn money every day, daily, and this is the only way to generate it that worked (for a while).

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I can't see one way in which this country is better off today with 38 million people than it was in 1971 at 22 million. And people want it to grow to 100 million! Why?!

Well, firstly that's an impossibly negative assessment.  Lots of things are better in Canada today.  I'll put on my conservative hat to name a few you might relate to:

-Government-owned companies are on the wane
-Deficits are much more of a concern (emergencies like Covid notwithstanding) than they were (Preston Manning, Paul Martin)
-Manufacturing tax is gone (thanks to Brian Mulroney)
-Canadian exports are something like 30X what they were
-Quebec Nationalism has largely been quelled (Stephen Harper acknowledgement of Quebec's status)
-Personal identity is no longer constraints, ie. equal rights for women and other groups

Secondly, you have a baked-in assumption that any problems we have experienced are due to our population increasing, which isn't the case.  Europe and Japan were always going to catch up to us from 1970 (25 after their infrastructure was bombed to the ground) and for us to pine for the "good old days", assuming that that factor isn't significant is fallacious.

As I have pointed out to you in the past, the 'No Growth' team is largely eco-left, and Green.  David Suzuki is a leading proponent of no growth.  Go to them, they are calling.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, firstly that's an impossibly negative assessment.  Lots of things are better in Canada today.  I'll put on my conservative hat to name a few you might relate to:

-Government-owned companies are on the wane
-Deficits are much more of a concern (emergencies like Covid notwithstanding) than they were (Preston Manning, Paul Martin)
-Manufacturing tax is gone (thanks to Brian Mulroney)
-Canadian exports are something like 30X what they were
-Quebec Nationalism has largely been quelled (Stephen Harper acknowledgement of Quebec's status)
-Personal identity is no longer constraints, ie. equal rights for women and other groups

Secondly, you have a baked-in assumption that any problems we have experienced are due to our population increasing, which isn't the case.  Europe and Japan were always going to catch up to us from 1970 (25 after their infrastructure was bombed to the ground) and for us to pine for the "good old days", assuming that that factor isn't significant is fallacious.

As I have pointed out to you in the past, the 'No Growth' team is largely eco-left, and Green.  David Suzuki is a leading proponent of no growth.  Go to them, they are calling.

I think you missed my point. I'm not suggesting that nothing has improved in Canada. My question was in what way has heavy immigration raising our population to 38 million improved the lives of Canadians? How is Canada a better, richer, stronger country now than it was in 1971 (due to population increase)? Cities are more crowded and dirty with enormous transportation problems and much longer commutes. Wages have not remotely kept pace with the cost of living. Government services which used to be free  now carry hefty surcharges. Our health care system has markedly deteriorated. Governments at all levels have much more debt (even before Covid). 

How have those extra 17 million people made Canada better for me? And how will bringing in millions more make my life better in the future?

I do not care who is on the 'no growth' team. Not everything supported by the Left is bad, nor is everything supported by the Right good.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Argus