Who are the 500,000 immigrants headed to Canada? A look at the numbers (and the problem)

[CdnFox]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10084659/canada-immigration-target-breakdown/

The globe tends to lean to the left tho they're not pawns of the libs the way the cbc is.  So they're trying here to put as much of a positive spin on the immigration numbers as possible. But this shows the problem in a nutshell - here's the breakdown of the new people coming in.

About 40 percent are non economic. These are family or children and refugees etc who are NOT expected to contribute much to canada at least for some time. 

But they ARE expected to require housing, and medical services and educational services, etc.

And of course there's little guarantee the 'economic' people will be contributing much for several years either.

When immigration is moderate - that's not such a big burden. Over time they will tend to be net contributers, and their children certainly will be

But when you bring in this many and increase the amount and we don't have the resources for the people we've already got - there's no chance of these people contributing enough to provide for  their needs in a timely fashion.

That greatly reduces the GDP percapita, the efficiency of the canadian worker, and puts a drag on our economy that is brutally hard to overcome and causes abnormally slow growth.

Not to mention the support systems to integrate new arrivals tends to break down.

 Canada needs immigrants. Plain and simple. But this is just way too many and way too many of them are not economic.

[eyeball]

Why aren't they screening for ideology?

Maybe PP will. That'll fix everything. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Why aren't they screening for ideology?

Maybe PP will. That'll fix everything. 

No, I already asked on here what PP is going to do to save us.  The answers were surprisingly in agreement: cut spending (?excess? Spending) and cut out the divisive woke talk.

?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Unfortunately the PC record on immigration was only slightly better though the Liberal really screwed up.

What Canada needs is

To reduce immigration to 150,000 a year.

To screen out for compatibility.

Increase citizenship to 10 years from 3 years after landing and immediate deportation for any crime short of traffic violation during those 10 years including violent demonstration.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

 

What Canada needs is

To reduce immigration to 150,000 a year.

To screen out for compatibility.

Increase citizenship to 10 years from 3 years after landing and immediate deportation for any crime short of traffic violation during those 10 years including violent demonstration.

Yeah - that kind of sounds like the same lack of thinking as "we need half a million!!!! DERP!!!!"

How do you get to those numbers.  They make NO sense. And 'screen for compatability' sounds like those re-tarded 'morals tests' that truly stupid people put forward a decade or so ago.  We already use a points based system so we're already screening for 'compatibility'.   And what benefit do we get increasing the length of qualification?

I think we're done with just making shit up on the fly for immigration without thinking about it.  We need people who can actually sit back and come to some numbers that make sense, not just base immigration on 'muh feels'.

[CITIZEN_2015]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - that kind of sounds like the same lack of thinking as "we need half a million!!!! DERP!!!!"

How do you get to those numbers.  They make NO sense. And 'screen for compatability' sounds like those re-tarded 'morals tests' that truly stupid people put forward a decade or so ago.  We already use a points based system so we're already screening for 'compatibility'.   And what benefit do we get increasing the length of qualification?

I think we're done with just making shit up on the fly for immigration without thinking about it.  We need people who can actually sit back and come to some numbers that make sense, not just base immigration on 'muh feels'.

Canada needs immigrants to secure the future as population gets okder so zero immigration is not an option but withour swamping the country with people of different culturres too fast. 150,000 was the level 25 years ago and it was working and was reasonable. 25 years ago I didn't have to come across so many hijab wearing women with their weird looking husbands when I was walking in a Canadian shopping center.

as for screening for compatibility, immigration officers can be trained to screen out the undesirables. I don't need training. Put me in charge of screening out Middle Easterns.

[Michael Hardner]

42 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Unfortunately the PC record on immigration was only slightly better though the Liberal really screwed up.

What Canada needs is

To reduce immigration to 150,000 a year. .

Where did you get this number?

It would be 1/2 the replacement rate.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Canada needs immigrants to secure the future as population gets okder so zero immigration is not an option but withour swamping the country with people of different culturres too fast. 150,000 was the level 25 years ago and it was working and was reasonable. 25 years ago I didn't have to come across so many hijab wearing women with their weird looking husbands when I was walking in a Canadian shopping center.

 

Ahhh - so the number is based on racism.  Well...  fair enough i suppose.

but frankly that still doesn't make sense.  So - if we bring all 150 thousand from hijab friendly countries woudlnt' you have the same problem? There'd be fewer asians and fewer white immigrants, but probably a similar number of "hijabers"  and a corresponding number of weird husbands.

So it makes no sense ,

And 25 years ago is just a number you picked at random. Why not 24? Or 23? Or 30?   ANd how does 150 k  precisely solve the needs of immigration you mentioned as our people get older? Will that be enoogh? Why?

You're basing your numbers on your dislike for certain ethnicity and 'muh feels' and that just doesn't work.

[CITIZEN_2015]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh - so the number is based on racism.  Well...  fair enough i suppose.

but frankly that still doesn't make sense.  So - if we bring all 150 thousand from hijab friendly countries woudlnt' you have the same problem? There'd be fewer asians and fewer white immigrants, but probably a similar number of "hijabers"  and a corresponding number of weird husbands.

So it makes no sense ,

And 25 years ago is just a number you picked at random. Why not 24? Or 23? Or 30?   ANd how does 150 k  precisely solve the needs of immigration you mentioned as our people get older? Will that be enoogh? Why?

You're basing your numbers on your dislike for certain ethnicity and 'muh feels' and that just doesn't work.

Screening out based on compatibility is not racism. I didn't say screen out all Middle Easterns or all Africans or even all Muslims.

Yes I will have a problem because this means we didn't screen out based on compatibility. Is hijab a Canadian culture? Is it compatible?-. Hijab is a symbol of repression of women and is not compatible with Canadian culture.

No this is a lie. I never said screen out based on ethnicity.

Edited November 13, 2023 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Where did you get this number?

It would be 1/2 the replacement rate.

And where the replacement rate came from? 

If true then we need incentives within Canada for Canadians to have more children including huge tax incentives and family support programs.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Screening out based on compatibility is not racism. I didn't say screen out all Middle Easterns or all Africans or even all Muslims.

Yes I will have a problem because this means we didn't screen out based on compatibility. Is hijab a Canadian culture? Is it compatible?-. Hijab is a symbol of repression of women and is not compatible with Canadian culture.

No this is a lie. I never said screen out based on ethnicity.

Well if you're saying that people must be compatible with our ethnicity (which is what culture is largely) then you are kind screening based on ethnicity.

Give me some examples of what specifically this screening would look like.  When we talk in generalities it could go either way, what specifically would you screen  for?

[CdnFox]

Just saw this article - I thought you'd find it interesting, i'm not saying i agree or disagree but it seemed like a relevant viewpoint.

Canadians are turning against immigration. Labour economist Mikal Skuterud on how to reform the system and reverse this trend

Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist at the University of Waterloo and director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum, offers his expertise on the topic in an exclusive exchange with The Hub’s editor-at-large, Sean Speer. He breaks down the numbers and highlights the ways Canada can reform its system to reverse these trends and better serve the country as a whole.

 

"In 2015, an economic narrative surfaced in this country that claimed heightened immigration rates, from what were already high rates when compared to other OECD countries, would be a tonic for economic growth. Canadians were told that higher population growth would not only make Canada more prosperous but that higher immigration was necessary for economic growth. For economists like me, who have been studying the economics of Canadian immigration for decades, these hyperbolic claims did not line up with the predictions of standard economic models of economic growth or with the Canadian empirical evidence. "

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

And where the replacement rate came from? 

If true then we need incentives within Canada for Canadians to have more children including huge tax incentives and family support programs.

Replacement rate equals the mortality rate.

The billions that such incentive programs would cost might still not work, is the thing.  Of we had ten years ' full salary for my spouse we would likely have had Four kids instead of two.  That would have cost EI $1M instead of $20K.

[CITIZEN_2015]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well if you're saying that people must be compatible with our ethnicity (which is what culture is largely) then you are kind screening based on ethnicity.

Give me some examples of what specifically this screening would look like.  When we talk in generalities it could go either way, what specifically would you screen  for?

No ethnicity means ethnic origin or race unless my English is outdated.

I will screen out based on my responses to questions the same way that an interrigator can use his skills to investigate crimes.

Exanples - If from Middle East - how a certain religion was spread by peaceful means or force of invasion,

what do you think about women's choices on hijab or pre-marutal sex,

What do you think about clubs serving alcohol in your nrighborhood

What do you think about certain terrorist organizations by name.

I also look at physical looks and check their background thoroughly.

[CITIZEN_2015]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Replacement rate equals the mortality rate.

 

Strange!!!!. I thought the birth rate would make up for mortality rate.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No ethnicity means ethnic origin or race unless my English is outdated.

Your english is outdated, but that happens it's not like we're all walking encyclopedias.  Ethnicity can refer to common histoy, language, religion, genetics, country or geography, or culture

 

.   In short - when a group of people share a bunch of things in common they are considered to be of the same ethnic background. Jews for example would be considered an ethnic group even tho they do not share a common geography (they're from all over), and they're definitely not all of the same race.

ethnic

eth·nic ˈeth-nik 

: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

So - we'll use that definition moving forward - i totally get why you might have thought it was the same race or country.

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I will screen out based on my responses to questions the same way that an interrigator can use his skills to investigate crimes.

Exanples - If from Middle East - how a certain religion was spread by peaceful means or force of invasion,

what do you think about women's choices on hijab or pre-marutal sex,

What do you think about clubs serving alcohol in your nrighborhood

What do you think about certain terrorist organizations by name.

I also look at physical looks and check their background thoroughly.

So - those are basically all opinions.

So you are screening based on ethnic and personal belief.  And that is bigoted if not racist.  You'd have to defend why that makes them a better candidate

Further - there's no way to test that unless they're hooked up to a lie detector.  we screen for english but it's easy to test that - write something in english. We screen for skills but that's easy to test for.  Show us your transcripts.  We screen for criminal background but that's easy to test for - we contact the cops in tehir country.

But - this is all just opinon. So ... how long do you think it will take before anyone coming to canada learns what the correct answers to all those questions are and just tells you what you want to hear?

So what's the point?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Strange!!!!. I thought the birth rate would make up for mortality rate.

Sorry you're right.

[CITIZEN_2015]

59 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

Further - there's no way to test that unless they're hooked up to a lie detector.  we screen for english but it's easy to test that - write something in english. We screen for skills but that's easy to test for.  Show us your transcripts.  We screen for criminal background but that's easy to test for - we contact the cops in tehir country.

But - this is all just opinon. So ... how long do you think it will take before anyone coming to canada learns what the correct answers to all those questions are and just tells you what you want to hear?

So what's the point?

If you have better option then present it. 

Short of

Banning immigration regionaly (ban everyone from Islamic and African countries - not an option unless we wish to be taken to international courts of assume same level as Rhodezia.

Stop immigration all together - not an option. Study after study shows we need immigration to secure the well being of our aging population.

When you criticize suggestions you need to propose alternatives.

 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

If you have better option then present it. 

 

Don't screen for that stuff.  It's a waste of time.

Really all we should be screening for is 'do they have the ability to make it here in canada and contribute'.  THat means do they have money, can they speak english or french (which is a prime factor), do they have marketable skills in need, and if i was going to add anything i would say we should look at how many non working family members they'll be bringing.  For example if its a non skilled wife , 3 kids, 2 grandparents who are retired and some guy named bernard that just hangs around - that's a lot of dead wood on our medical and housing.  At least the kids WILL produce some day.

So maybe cap the number of non-productive people they can bring - but you can't really screen for attitues.

you could say no people from such and such a country if it's a known conflict country - the us does that.

 

[August1991]

In 1900, Canada had a population of some 6 million people.

In the year 1900 alone, some 400,000 new people (settlers) arrived and lived among us.

And imagine, in 1900, some 200,000 left Canada to live in America.

=====

Canada is a gateway to America.

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by August1991

[August1991]

I once had a discussion with an Australian immigration officer.

Canada and Australia - we receive about the same.

She noted: Ours stay, yours go south. Look at net migration numbers

Edited November 14, 2023 by August1991

[Perspektiv]

15 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Put me in charge of screening out Middle Easterns.

Make sure you hire this woman, and a couple sniff dogs.

 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

She noted: Ours stay, yours go south.

Can you blame them?

We want to legalize the ability for a man to be called a woman, with no question. Vice versa.

They also are looking at an average rent of over 2, 000$ in most larger markets. Closer to 3, 000$ for the largest ones.

And the reality. Your education is useless. You could be a highly certified doctor. 

Irrelevant.

You're best off in the US, if wanting a realistic means of working within the field you studied for.

Many are lied to prior to coming here. Reality for many, are low wage jobs. 

[ironstone]

I think the numbers are about to get an awful lot higher if certain, highly influential people get their way.

 

[August1991]

On 11/14/2023 at 4:09 AM, Perspektiv said:

Can you blame them?

====

You miss her point: Canada is a way to go to America.

In Canada, we have many immigrants - some 400.000 per year.

But many "Canadians" leave south - some 200,000 or so leave Canada.

====

Australia is different from Canada. Immigrants stay in Australia. They leave Canada.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by August1991