Canada's population will hit record 40M on Friday: StatCan

[ExFlyer]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:48 PM, RedDog said:

Totally unnecessary as POTawa floods in the wrong people destroying a nation.

The wrong people???

Who may they be?

[-TSS-]

Canada's population is large considering the latitudes of Canada's location but yet they think it'¨s small because they compare it to a certain other country.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Canada's population is large considering the latitudes of Canada's location but yet they think it'¨s small because they compare it to a certain other country.

In fairness, we're the second largest country on earth and about the 38th country in population size.  I think it's more than one we're getting compared to  

[-TSS-]

You're right. Canada's population is the size of Poland and nobody in Europe refers to Poland as a small country.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

You're right. Canada's population is the size of Poland and nobody in Europe refers to Poland as a small country.

they do if they're comparing it to us   Landmass wise anyway.

Our population "feels" small because per square foot its tiny.  But considering we don't live on a lot of our land the population is actually  relatively condensed.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The wrong people???

Who may they be?

People who can't pay their way. People with values and beliefs inimical to ours who have no intention of changing or adapting. People with no interest in integrating.

[ExFlyer]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

People who can't pay their way. People with values and beliefs inimical to ours who have no intention of changing or adapting. People with no interest in integrating.

Oh, people like we have now and have had for centuries?

Oh, like our aboriginals?

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh, people like we have now and have had for centuries?

Oh, like our aboriginals?

 

We certainly have people who cause trouble and don't pull their weight. 

So the question would be: is it a good idea to import more?

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by I am Groot

[ExFlyer]

43 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

 

We certainly have people who cause trouble and don't pull their weight. 

So the question would be: is it a good idea to import more?

 

You cannot imply that allowing immigration is the cause of problems. We have home grown and generational "people who cause trouble and don't pull their weight." and have done that and will still do that.

I have no evidence or statistic but I believe immigrants are less of an economic drain that our own home grown peoples.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

You cannot imply that allowing immigration is the cause of problems.

I'm not implying it I'm saying it outright.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

We have home grown and generational "people who cause trouble and don't pull their weight." and have done that and will still do that.

Because we don't have a lot of choice.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I have no evidence or statistic but I believe immigrants are less of an economic drain that our own home grown peoples.

Some are. Some are not. The question was who to allow in. The answer is those who are going to draw an income sufficiently high to be paying income taxes, and who are interested in joining and integrating with Canadians. Not those who want to work here just long enough to get a green card to head south. And not those who want to work here to get a stake to open up a business back 'home' and not those whose job skills are insufficient to make them contributing taxpayers.

Recall, that according to Statistics Canada over 2/3rds of visible minorities are immigrants, and most of the remainder are their kids, and then explain this, if you say you have no evidence immigration causes problems.

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You cannot imply that allowing immigration is the cause of problems. We have home grown and generational "people who cause trouble and don't pull their weight." and have done that and will still do that.

I have no evidence or statistic but I believe immigrants are less of an economic drain that our own home grown peoples.

 There is a lot of research on this and a good hunk is available online.

If you read through it, you will find the following consistent results that seem well proven and supported:

• prior to 2006, immigrants tended to be a drain albiet a small one.
• After 2006 reforms changed that a great deal and the current system with it's points show that even averaged out across all types of immigrants they tend to be net contributors although at a lesser rate than 'natural' canadians, although over time that gap closes.
• The ability to speak one of the two official languages is the largest single determining factor in how successful they will be and how well they will contribute. More than race religion country of origin sex or anything else. If they can speak it when they get here or their skills are pumped when they get here to be at a conversational level or better then they will likely be net contributors and succeed
• While the immigrants themselves will, on average,  be lower net contributors than natural Canadians, their CHILDREN will tend to be above the average.

So - i think your initial statement is a little flawed in the sense that on average our people  AREN'T drains on the system BUT - it is certainly fair to say that over all between 2006 and about 2019 anyway (last year i had data for) on average immigrants are not a drain.

I worry about how trudeaus radically increased immigration is doing though.  The system only got better by the effective use of points and flags which kept the quality of immigrant high overall, i'm concerned that may have been watered down a little.

[ExFlyer]

53 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I'm not implying it I'm saying it outright.

Because we don't have a lot of choice.

Some are. Some are not. The question was who to allow in. The answer is those who are going to draw an income sufficiently high to be paying income taxes, and who are interested in joining and integrating with Canadians. Not those who want to work here just long enough to get a green card to head south. And not those who want to work here to get a stake to open up a business back 'home' and not those whose job skills are insufficient to make them contributing taxpayers.

Recall, that according to Statistics Canada over 2/3rds of visible minorities are immigrants, and most of the remainder are their kids, and then explain this, if you say you have no evidence immigration causes problems.

 

So, you are biased enough to say immigrants are an economic burden?

We have lost of choice but we are to nice to make people work for what they get.

And how are you going to discriminate for entry? Only white? Only English? Only rich?

Explain what?? Are truly saying visible minorities and their kids are economic burdens?? Pretty accusatory of you.

 

[ExFlyer]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 There is a lot of research on this and a good hunk is available online.

If you read through it, you will find the following consistent results that seem well proven and supported:

• prior to 2006, immigrants tended to be a drain albiet a small one.
• After 2006 reforms changed that a great deal and the current system with it's points show that even averaged out across all types of immigrants they tend to be net contributors although at a lesser rate than 'natural' canadians, although over time that gap closes.
• The ability to speak one of the two official languages is the largest single determining factor in how successful they will be and how well they will contribute. More than race religion country of origin sex or anything else. If they can speak it when they get here or their skills are pumped when they get here to be at a conversational level or better then they will likely be net contributors and succeed
• While the immigrants themselves will, on average,  be lower net contributors than natural Canadians, their CHILDREN will tend to be above the average.

So - i think your initial statement is a little flawed in the sense that on average our people  AREN'T drains on the system BUT - it is certainly fair to say that over all between 2006 and about 2019 anyway (last year i had data for) on average immigrants are not a drain.

I worry about how trudeaus radically increased immigration is doing though.  The system only got better by the effective use of points and flags which kept the quality of immigrant high overall, i'm concerned that may have been watered down a little.

Oh, a Harper change to immigration??

So, you agree, "on average immigrants are not a drain."

I think the increased influx is pretty well refugee issues as opposed to immigration. Roxham Road  allowed 43,000 last year alone.

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh, a Harper change to immigration??

 

Not really.  I mean yes, it happened under his watch in the year that he was elected but the changes MUST have been in the works for at least 2 or 3 years minimum, you don't just pull that out of your ass as a minority gov't the year you get elected and completely reform the system.

Harper obivously approved tho, he would go on to make very significant tweaks along the same lines that significantly improved the new system over time. And the changes and tweaks were wildly popular, it was one of their more successful portfolios.

Quote

So, you agree, "on average immigrants are not a drain."

The data certainly supports that, at least up to 2019 ( and probably beyond, i just don't have that).   They are not a DIRECT drain, which is what most people think, and then there is also the economic activity they create which contributes.  They are net contributors overall, even if it is at a lower rate than natural canadians generally speaking.

Quote

I think the increased influx is pretty well refugee issues as opposed to immigration. Roxham Road  allowed 43,000 last year alone.

Most of the studies i looked at included refugee claims in the over all figures. If we took them out and dependents of immigrants and just looked at people who immigrated based on the point system their contribution is WAY higher than the total averages.  So when you blend them together you get a lower number.

But - as you say the percentage of immigrants who are refugees has been climbing a bit and of course immigration has been increasing - i'm not sure that the latest numbers would be the same as it used to be. But they're probably still a net benefit.

Fact is - if a refugee shows up here and can speak english (or french) well then they can probably earn a living. Might not be making a tonne of money especially right away but they're not likely to be on gov't assistance for long.

[-TSS-]

Isn't there a long term-target of 100m people in Canada by the end of the century? That would be a 1% annual growth of population every year for 77 years. 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Isn't there a long term-target of 100m people in Canada by the end of the century? That would be a 1% annual growth of population every year for 77 years. 

1.2 percent, which is a little high. And it's not a plan, that was a recommendation by a group that's buddies with Trudeau.

The challenge is that ALL of that growth plus a bit would come from immigration. Our birth rate is not even keeping up with replacement levels. And that rate is very high if it's all based on immigration. it takes time and resources to intergrate immigrants and they are not as productive economically as natural born canadians, and that does create some serious issues. We would have to seriously tighten up on our points program and avoid immigrants who are harder to integrate.

[August1991]

What a thread!

====

Here's my question:

Each chlld is born with the random DNA of two parents. No child is born with the ability to count or tie shoes.

Are we Canadians "imperialists" if we show these others how we civilised people live together? 

[August1991]

My second question:

The world does not lack for children. It lacks educated children.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, August1991 said:

What a thread!

====

Here's my question:

Each chlld is born with the random DNA of two parents. No child is born with the ability to count or tie shoes.

Are we Canadians "imperialists" if we show these others how we civilised people live together? 

Depends on how you show them.  By example? No.  By force? Yes.

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So, you are biased enough to say immigrants are an economic burden?

WHy would you presume such a judgment resulted from bias?

Some are pretty clearly a burden. The trick is to only bring in those who are NOT. Or bring in the fewest possible of those who will be. Or change our system so we can boot out those who are a burden.

20 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And how are you going to discriminate for entry? Only white? Only English? Only rich?

Whatever studies show makes for the best fit. What kind of person/people are the ideal immigrants? Certainly language skills, applicable job skills, and adaptability/flexibility would be pretty high on the list.

 

20 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Explain what?? Are truly saying visible minorities and their kids are economic burdens?? Pretty accusatory of you.

I've said from the beginning that some are. Are you going to deny that?

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

WHy would you presume such a judgment resulted from bias?

Some are pretty clearly a burden. The trick is to only bring in those who are NOT. Or bring in the fewest possible of those who will be. Or change our system so we can boot out those who are a burden.

Whatever studies show makes for the best fit. What kind of person/people are the ideal immigrants? Certainly language skills, applicable job skills, and adaptability/flexibility would be pretty high on the list.

 

I've said from the beginning that some are. Are you going to deny that?

I presumed you have  a bias by your previous pots on this subject. Adamant that immigration causing economic problems in Canada.

So only "some are" ? Your posts so far made it clear that you think all immigrants are.

I ask you again, how are you going to determine who to let in???  A refugee that has been bombed out of their homes and life should not be allowed? Only corrupt immigrant millionaires allowed in? How are you going to discriminate?

Some Canadians are an economic burden too. As I have said, our native aboriginal peoples, almost in their entirety, have been economically supported by Canada since confrontation. Immigrants are more of benefit to our economy than our own aboriginals.

Edited June 27, 2023 by ExFlyer

[RedDog]

Canada should accept immigrants from about 8 countries on earth. 

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I presumed you have  a bias by your previous pots on this subject. Adamant that immigration causing economic problems in Canada.

Maybe that belief arises from information, and so is not so much a bias as a judgment.

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So only "some are" ? Your posts so far made it clear that you think all immigrants are.

You are reading things into what I say. Perhaps because like many you are suspicious of anyone who dares to speak a word against our present immigration system.

 

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I ask you again, how are you going to determine who to let in???  A refugee that has been bombed out of their homes and life should not be allowed? Only corrupt immigrant millionaires allowed in? How are you going to discriminate?

Strictly speaking, people fleeing war don't qualify as refugees under the UN asylum treaty we signed. And I'm for taking in as few refugees as possible. I'd rather the government send money to help the UN take care of them in countries near to where they live so they can eventually return. You can take care of a lot more people for the same amount of money that way.

As for how to determine immigrants - the same way you determine employees you want to hire. You set standards for what will best fit what you want, then you examine their credentials with that in mind, interview them, and choose those who seem likely to be most successful. This is not rocket science.

You use the word 'discriminate' as if there's something wrong with it. Should employers simply take whoever applies and has the right credentials without making any effort to determine which would be best fit? Is that 'discrimination'? Have you ever gotten hired without an interview? 

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Some Canadians are an economic burden too. As I have said, our native aboriginal peoples, almost in their entirety, have been economically supported by Canada since confrontation. Immigrants are more of benefit to our economy than our own aboriginals.

So what do you want to do, shoot them? As I've already pointed out we're stuck with whoever doesn't perform well or who goes into crime or whatever. That doesn't imply we have a duty to accept more of the same.

[Dougie93]

22 hours ago, August1991 said:

Are we Canadians "imperialists" ? 

the only Confederation of the British Empire

under the rule of the British Crown

conquered by General Wolfe upon the Plains of Abraham

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Maybe that belief arises from information, and so is not so much a bias as a judgment.

You are reading things into what I say. Perhaps because like many you are suspicious of anyone who dares to speak a word against our present immigration system.

 

Strictly speaking, people fleeing war don't qualify as refugees under the UN asylum treaty we signed. And I'm for taking in as few refugees as possible. I'd rather the government send money to help the UN take care of them in countries near to where they live so they can eventually return. You can take care of a lot more people for the same amount of money that way.

As for how to determine immigrants - the same way you determine employees you want to hire. You set standards for what will best fit what you want, then you examine their credentials with that in mind, interview them, and choose those who seem likely to be most successful. This is not rocket science.

You use the word 'discriminate' as if there's something wrong with it. Should employers simply take whoever applies and has the right credentials without making any effort to determine which would be best fit? Is that 'discrimination'? Have you ever gotten hired without an interview? 

So what do you want to do, shoot them? As I've already pointed out we're stuck with whoever doesn't perform well or who goes into crime or whatever. That doesn't imply we have a duty to accept more of the same.

Don't know what information you are getting but cdnfox has shown information debunking you.

Incorrect, I am only reading exactly what you are writing.

We (Canada) are not the UN. To be a refugee a person or family has"to meet the definition, a person must be outside their country of origin and have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."  So, you say, send them somewhere else, as long as it is not to my house??

So, you are hiring immigrants?

I used the word discriminate exactly as it is defined in the dictionary.  Again with the hiring?

Shoot them?? Shoot who? What are you implying here??