Jump to content

Will the Liberal plan to bring in 1.45 million immigrants over the next three years be good for Canada?


Recommended Posts

Just now, Dougie93 said:

it's the native born Canadians who are the Communists now

it's the native born Canadians who hate their own history & culture

I will gladly stand with my Eastern European Anticommunist neighbours who escaped from behind the Iron Curtain

 

Yes because they value the way of life that our Cultural Marxist leaders are actively destroying.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, herbie said:

and best of all, not one of those immigrants will be infected by the 'we can't DO anything because of..." attitude prevalent among N Americans.

Two kinds of immigrants. One was the guy who owned the company that painted my house last week. The other kind is the woman who talked to him during an orientation for immigrants who told him he was doing it all wrong. All you have to do, she told him, was tell them you have a bunch of children and they'll send you money every month! And they won't even check!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

T. All you have to do, she told him, was tell them you have a bunch of children and they'll send you money every month! And they won't even check!

This is nonsense. If they send you money for having kids then this rule is not limited to immigrants. This applies to Canadian born as well. But I don't think there is such rule,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We don't need half a million a year. That's not designed for stability. It's designed to more than double our population under the Century Initiative. 

This creates chaos and unemployment for those born here or have been living for a long time, Canada's haltable land is very small. It cannot fit 60 million people in 20-30 years. What kind of brains are the decision makers in this country. Not to mention the cultural backlash..  Don't they see what is happening in Europe? Clashes of cultures with those with backward ideologies?

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2022 at 2:37 PM, blackbird said:

I see several serious negatives as a result of bringing in such a huge number of immigrants.

1.  Canada is already in a serious housing shortage.  Where will these new immigrants be housed and who will pay for it since rent is out of sight.

.....

But most Liberal voters are urban, or suburban.

Immigrants increase house prices.

====

But why are Canadian house prices increasing? Around the world, all things considered, we Canadians have created a safe, civilised society where different people can live in peace together. 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We don't need half a million a year. That's not designed for stability. It's designed to more than double our population under the Century Initiative. 

and you're of course basing your assessment on visible demographic trends such as (but not limited to) a generation representing 25% of our population all retiring between 2015-2030, leaving millions of jobs to be filled and subsequently requiring elderly care and health support into older ages than we've ever seen, right?  ?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, August1991 said:

But most Liberal voters are urban, or suburban.

Immigrants increase house prices.

====

But why are Canadian house prices increasing? Around the world, all things considered, we Canadians have created a safe, civilised society where different people can live in peace together. 

Why are house prices so high in Canada?  Maybe you can find out and tell me.  Canada has one of the largest geographical areas for a small population in the world.  The number of square kilometers per person is huge, yet millions cannot afford a home.  There are obviously serious problems in our country at all levels of government that have led to this situation of a small home on a city lot costing over a million dollars in the major cities.  That leads to the question is Canada heading in the direction of becoming a "failed state" where few people can afford to buy a home?  Yet there are millions of square kilometers of land sitting out there with nothing on them.

I am not sure the statement we are a civilized society where people can live in peace together really describes Canada in a full way.  It may be a bit of an over simplification and ignore some issues that exist.  Compared to many other countries, we are one of the best in the world though.  However, depending on the policies of government and depending on a number of factors, we could become a troubled country in the future with far more serious problems.  There is no guarantee which direction Canada will go.  There are serious potential problems in the world that could have serious effects on Canada.  I listed some of the problems in the opening post related to the failing health care system, extreme housing prices, rising crime in some towns and cities where criminals are caught and released constantly, homelessness and people living in tents on the streets, a high number of drug deaths in B.C. per month, etc.  Where are the solutions?  We also have an aging population and so the question must be asked:  how is the government going to pay for old age pensions, CPP, and where will the people get the money to afford to pay the high rent and cost of living as prices rise rapidly?  Where will the aging population live?  Not everyone has a good job with a good pension plan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

and you're of course basing your assessment on visible demographic trends such as (but not limited to) a generation representing 25% of our population all retiring between 2015-2030, leaving millions of jobs to be filled and subsequently requiring elderly care and health support into older ages than we've ever seen, right?  ?

No, on this. And this.

Do you really think immigration is designed to counter an aging population? If so please explain why Trudeau increased the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored three times now since he's been in power, from 5k to 30k. 

Thirty thousand is a small city's worth of elderly immigrants coming in every year, none of whom have contributed a dime towards the healthcare services they will need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Thanks Groot - some food for thought.

I will bookmark the Vancouver Sun article as it takes an entirely new angle on things.  The government doesn't want to destroy the speculation industry but as the columnist for the Sun points out:

A frenzy of investors is superheating housing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

This is nonsense. If they send you money for having kids then this rule is not limited to immigrants. This applies to Canadian born as well. But I don't think there is such rule,

The Canada Child Benefit will pay a couple on welfare with three kids over $38,000 a year. This is non-taxable, so it's actually equivalent to something more like $45,000. And that will go on top of whatever you get as a family of five for welfare.

Now here is the trick with immigrants. If you're native born we have a record of your children being born and where. But if you're an immigrant we have no such records. Immigration Canada would know how many kids you brought in but they consider that private information. Thus it's much easier to cheat the system.

Edited by I am Groot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The Canada Child Benefit will pay a couple on welfare with three kids over $38,000 a year. This is non-taxable, so it's actually equivalent to something more like $45,000. And that will go on top of whatever you get as a family of five for welfare.

 

Not going to go through the calculator but a casual Google shows it much less than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess overwhelming the healthcare system is moot since most doctors still refuse to see patients in person.  Instead of doing careful in-person diagnosis, the shotgun approach of prescribing Amoxicillin seems to do the trick more often than not.  Oh wait, now there’s an Amoxicillin shortage.  I wonder why?

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you celebrate the Zeitgeist, then, or just keep it in your thermos ?  

Sing out, friend, SING OUT !

When in doubt, prescribe Amoxicillin.  If you’re rushed or not able to do more detailed diagnosis, Amoxicillin is the shotgun blunt instrument.   Tried seeing a doctor in person lately?  Voila, Amoxicillin shortage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

When in doubt, prescribe Amoxicillin.  If you’re rushed or not able to do more detailed diagnosis, Amoxicillin is the shotgun blunt instrument.   Tried seeing a doctor in person lately?  Voila, Amoxicillin shortage.  

Ok.  Laziness, then.   Seems simple and plausible.

Side coincidence: I just ASKED a GP for this two weeks ago and my prescription ran out when the shortage was announced. IT WASN"T ME !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

No, on this. And this.

first article offers some interesting numbers.  Second article is pretty biased and loaded, though it also has some interesting points.

family reunification as an immigration policy is dumb (imo).  If we’re bringing elderly parents along then there’s no point.  You are absolutely right on that.  

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Do you really think immigration is designed to counter an aging population? If so please explain why Trudeau increased the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored three times now since he's been in power, from 5k to 30k

 I don’t, but if 30/500 is the ratio we’re obviously netting positive on increased workforce, aren’t we?

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Thirty thousand is a small city's worth of elderly immigrants coming in every year, none of whom have contributed a dime towards the healthcare services they will need.

470,000 younger immigrants is a large city worth of potential workforce.  

As I said earlier, we can absolutely have a debate on who we allow to come to Canada, but actually needing people is not really in question, is it?  
 

That’s a good post though and does bring up some things that we can actually have a worthwhile conversation about.?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

family reunification as an immigration policy is dumb (imo).  If we’re bringing elderly parents along then there’s no point.  You are absolutely right on that.  

Family reunification AS WE DO IT is dumb.

The thing which gets me is we have something much of the world wants. We can be choosy. We can make high demands. We can pick those who are most likely to succeed and seem most adaptable. We don't bother.

The same goes for the skills program. We can be very choosy. We can conduct interviews, try to see who is most interested in learning about and joining in with Canada, ensure they have higher language skills and make it a requirement that their spouse also learn the language before coming. We can do a lot of things to ensure that immigrants do well, but perhaps not when we want half a million a year. 

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 I don’t, but if 30/500 is the ratio we’re obviously netting positive on increased workforce, aren’t we?

470,000 younger immigrants is a large city worth of potential workforce. 

You know the deal. Younger workers pay into healthcare which they mostly don't need, and then become heavier users as they get older. And even then the system is starved. But bringing in tens of thousands of people each year who never paid and just immediately begin to use resources is... not helpful.

Other countries require people who sponsor parents to have health insurance. But we can't really do that here since there is no health insurance to pay for regular hospital or other services here. That should change.

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

As I said earlier, we can absolutely have a debate on who we allow to come to Canada, but actually needing people is not really in question, is it?  

No. But when a billion people want to come here we can and should be much more discerning about who we select. We should also be out there looking for people in specific industries (like medicine and the trades) that we want to recruit rather than just taking whoever applies. We should be focusing on couples who both have skills. And we should not be bringing in people just to bring in people. Our population was already rising. We didn't need to double immigration, with all the resulting problems in housing, immigrant poverty, etc. that this brings.

And we absolutely should shut down the back door to immigration sitting on Roxham road. We need to withdraw from the asylum treaties we signed in the 1950s. They were never designed with the kind of floods of people surging around the world we have today. When people come to the United States, dump their papers, and then show up at our border we should automatically turn them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Family reunification AS WE DO IT is dumb.

The thing which gets me is we have something much of the world wants. We can be choosy. We can make high demands. We can pick those who are most likely to succeed and seem most adaptable. We don't bother.

The same goes for the skills program. We can be very choosy. We can conduct interviews, try to see who is most interested in learning about and joining in with Canada, ensure they have higher language skills and make it a requirement that their spouse also learn the language before coming. We can do a lot of things to ensure that immigrants do well, but perhaps not when we want half a million a year. 

You know the deal. Younger workers pay into healthcare which they mostly don't need, and then become heavier users as they get older. And even then the system is starved. But bringing in tens of thousands of people each year who never paid and just immediately begin to use resources is... not helpful.

Other countries require people who sponsor parents to have health insurance. But we can't really do that here since there is no health insurance to pay for regular hospital or other services here. That should change.

No. But when a billion people want to come here we can and should be much more discerning about who we select. We should also be out there looking for people in specific industries (like medicine and the trades) that we want to recruit rather than just taking whoever applies. We should be focusing on couples who both have skills. And we should not be bringing in people just to bring in people. Our population was already rising. We didn't need to double immigration, with all the resulting problems in housing, immigrant poverty, etc. that this brings.

I mostly agree with everything you say here.  I don't know enough about the asylum seekers.  I think like most cases, sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad.  The Vietnamese refugees from the 1960's and 70's turned into highly productive members of society.  That's unfortunately not always the case.  The problem is that it's hard to codify it into law and policy without being overtly racist and you rarely have empirical data that suggests, "these people turn out largely as deadbeats, and these people do not".  

The filtering of skillsets and education, I think, would really help.  

  • Like 1
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
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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