Jump to content

Should Canada reduce immigration/temporary residents to less than 200,000 for the next 5 years?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I think it's weird that we bring in immigrants faster than we can build houses - our gov't should be able to foresee the problems that will result from that. It's not like this is Jamaica, where humans can survive the elements in their bathing suits.

It's like Kamala Harris's brillyunt line of thinking: "Sure, we let 15M illegal immigrants into the country in just 4 years, but if we send them away, who will build all the houses that they need here 🤡🤡🤡"

If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed.

If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. 

"If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"

Posted
13 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Sure. But a lot of the others were dependents. And allowing people in who were able to take care of the families that they were bringing in with good skills and employable services makes a massive difference. In addition a significant portion of the remainder came in with programs where if you spent a certain amount of money or open businesses or the like then you were fast-tracked. So they didn't need to be skilled or provide credentials they just had to be successful business people.

These changes were massive. It literally overnight changed the success rate of immigrants and how much they contributed back to the Canadian economy and tax base.

So you can say what you like, but to pretend that harper did nothing is an utter and complete falsehood. He made a massive difference. That doesn't mean there's not more work to do but simple fact is that was a massive difference.

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I don't see it this way. Things improved somewhat, but immigrants continued to earn less than Canadians.

Sure. And the Research indicates that nothing is ever going to change that. A person with the same skills as a Canadian and same language skills which is one of the most important factors in whether or not they will be successful will still earn less than a natural born Canadian on average. The research shows several reasons why this is true, but at the end of the day companies tend to prefer Canadian born people.

But he closed that gap significantly, and their children were massive that contributors usually more so than the avergage natural Canadians.

19 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Second, they will always build enough to meet demand, whatever that demand is. I don't care if the demand slackens and builders build fewer homes then. Those workers will go and do something else.

No, they will always build slightly less than we need the way things are right now. We have not truly been building enough homes to satisfy our needs since about 2000. It was a severely minor problem in those days but it grew and grew. By 2008-2009 there was a significant amount of pressure on the housing market and prices were going up at an unusual rate. Still not out of control but unusual.

By 2016 the problem had become significant and now we really weren't building enough homes for the people we were bringing in. We weren't even coming close. We were falling behind approximately 100,000 homes a year on average between 2016 and about 2020. And during that time the housing and rental situation became worse and worse.

Now it's completely in the garbage heap. We aren't even building half the number of homes we need for the immigration levels we currently have. And I say immigration level but really I mean population growth, it's just that all of our population growth right now is due to immigration.

We need to correct that balance. We need to encourage more building by changing our systems so that it's worth it for Builders to do that and at the same time we need to control our population growth better to match the number of homes we actually are building

22 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The Trudeau government has not been shy about requiring universities to earn their grants by demonstrating how earnest they are about DEI and giving preference to nonsense studies on gender and race rather than science.

Fair enough I suppose, I'll concede the point

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

They already do this!

They do it a little. It could be far worse. Currently business and science courses are still subsidized to a similar rate as any other course. The number of grants and so on may be slightly different but it's relatively balanced. That could become very unbalanced.

24 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I could get a dozen degrees within a week. Would that impress you?

Yes, it would be proof that you were resourceful, committed, and know how to get things done. You're hired! :) 

24 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It should also be based on how much Canada can absorb and integrate

Absolutely. we are in agreement there.

And for quite a long time we had that. There was room for improvement of course but we were well on the right track. We had a system of mentorship that was the envy of the world and our ability to integrate people was nothing shy of legendary.

But those systems take ages to grow and mature, you simply can't throw money at them and make them get bigger. And Trudeau overloaded them till they broke.

There can be no doubt that we need to drastically reduce immigration until those kinds of systems can be rebuilt, until our infrastructure catches up with and can provide for the immigrants we've already brought in and the population increase we've already had, and then moving forward it has to be sustainable.

 

Posted
Just now, CdnFox said:

Sure. But a lot of the others were dependents.

Or refugees. A component of our immigrant system that gets bigger every year.

Just now, CdnFox said:

And allowing people in who were able to take care of the families that they were bringing in with good skills and employable services makes a massive difference.

American immigrants perform better than ours do. And they don't have a points system. Ponder that.

Just now, CdnFox said:

These changes were massive. It literally overnight changed the success rate of immigrants and how much they contributed back to the Canadian economy and tax base.

That's a very left wing belief not echoed by such organizations as the Fraser Institute. We still have very large numbers of immigrants who will never earn enough to pay income taxes. That was what the report in 2017 that I cited earlier today and the other one I cited in this thread about Canada losing its absorptive capacity were both saying. And another study done by Immigration Canada says immigrants from certain poor countries tended to earn less than poverty wages in Canada. Places like Haiti, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Turkey, Columbia, Iran, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, Iraq, etc. 

Just now, CdnFox said:

And for quite a long time we had that. There was room for improvement of course but we were well on the right track. We had a system of mentorship that was the envy of the world and our ability to integrate people was nothing shy of legendary.

For a while, when we were only bringing in about 86k immigrants a year. Until Mulroney discovered or was told that new immigrants, especially from unsophisticated countries without experience in democracy would become lifelong supporters of whoever was in power when they came in.

Just now, CdnFox said:

But those systems take ages to grow and mature, you simply can't throw money at them and make them get bigger. And Trudeau overloaded them till they broke.

We need to diminish immigration at least to the point that immigrants do not make up three-quarters of the class in every urban school. How do they learn to integrate if there are so few Canadian born kids there? But we also need to abandon Trudeau's 'post nation' multiculturalism, for the reasons Ujjal Dosanjh says in the new topic I posted earlier.

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Or refugees. A component of our immigrant system that gets bigger every year.

Sure. But that's a slightly different discussion. 

Quote

American immigrants perform better than ours do. And they don't have a points system. Ponder that.

Absolutely entirely completely untrue.  And if they had the levels of immigration per capita we have they'd be 100 times worse off. They only reason theres isn't a complete disaster is that they have much less immigration (Iegal) and it's easier to absorb without problems. 

 

Quote

That's a very left wing belief not echoed by such organizations as the Fraser Institute.

It's a simple fact backed by plenty of studies with hard numbers. A little searching on the web and you'll find numerous studies indicating it and showing their math.  It's like arguing that the sun coming up in the East is somehow a liberal ideal. That's not how facts work.

Quote

For a while, when we were only bringing in about 86k immigrants a year. Until Mulroney discovered or was told that new immigrants, especially from unsophisticated countries without experience in democracy would become lifelong supporters of whoever was in power when they came in.

With the exception of world wars and similar events we have always had very high levels of immigration. The Canadian population traditionally going back to the beginning has always been between about 15 and 20% recent immigrant. It's slightly higher than that right now but we've always been extremely high.

 

Quote

We need to diminish immigration at least to the point that immigrants do not make up three-quarters of the class in every urban school. How do they learn to integrate if there are so few Canadian born kids there? But we also need to abandon Trudeau's 'post nation' multiculturalism, for the reasons Ujjal Dosanjh says in the new topic I posted earlier.

Whatever the sustainable level is is whatever the sustainable level is. But has things are we are currently having about 1.3 children per female which means even if we maintain our current population about half the kids will probably have to be from immigrants. If you want to resolve that, you're going to have to start looking at how to get Canadian people to have more children

Posted
On 11/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, CdnFox said:

With the exception of world wars and similar events we have always had very high levels of immigration.

We don't need to keep having this same discussion on this same point. The past cannot be used as a comparison to the present. Everything was different back then. Up until the 1970s immigrants had roughly the same education and came from roughly similar cultures to Canada. Ie, they mostly came from Europe, and most Western European languages have similar roots as English. The immigrants of today have different ALPHABETS, not to mention different cultures, religions, educations and skills. In many cases, their cultures and values are diametrically opposed to ours. In addition, of course, up until about the middle of the last century Canada had little or no responsibility for immigrants. They came, they found their own homes, they found their own jobs, or they starved. And we didn't much care which. There were few, if any government services available. So failed immigrants didn't cost us anything. They mostly went home (an untold story of Canadian history)

Reminder, immigration was 86k when Mulroney took office.

On 11/3/2024 at 3:28 PM, CdnFox said:

Whatever the sustainable level is is whatever the sustainable level is. But has things are we are currently having about 1.3 children per female which means even if we maintain our current population about half the kids will probably have to be from immigrants. If you want to resolve that, you're going to have to start looking at how to get Canadian people to have more children

Then do so. And I'll just stick this here before I go.

In 2001, I attended some sessions at a demographic conference in Ottawa. I was astonished when a speaker from Statistics Canada said that immigration had essentially no impact on the Canadian age structure. Even back then, following a decade of high annual immigration initiated in 1990 as a government policy by Brian Mulroney’s immigration minister Barbara McDougall, immigration was being touted as a solution to an aging population.

Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government fell in 1993, but every government, Liberal or Conservative, that succeeded it continued McDougall’s policy of high immigration regardless of economic conditions. And the “aging population” shibboleth became an integral part of the narrative used to justify this policy as being in the interest of Canadians.

But the argument that high immigration could be a “solution” to a low birth rate (based on the Ponzi-scheme economic paradigm of continuous growth) was never supported by any actual data. Unfortunately, reality does not stand in the way of those profiting from mass migration.

https://dominionreview.ca/the-lie-that-wont-die-immigration-is-the-solution-for-canadas-aging-population/

Posted
3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

We don't need to keep having this same discussion on this same point.

You brought it up! :) 

Look, I'm certainly not saying that immigration has to continue to be this current rate because of the past at all. But everything I've seen suggests that negative growth rate in the population is more detrimental then growth and that some growth is extremely valuable.

Now I would be just as happy if that growth was coming from Canadian births. But we are down to 1.2 births per female. Without significant immigration we're not only not going to increase our population but it will fall rapidly and it's fairly easy to see that that would result in significant financial problems for the country

Long as we have a good point system where the people coming in are well suited to thrive and survive and do well and prosper, and the total number is tapped to reflect new infrastructure to support them, I say have at it. But right now our point system needs a lot of work and we are not even coming close to beginning to provide enough infrastructure and housing for our increase in population.

So we can both agree that what we've got right now is way too high and needs to be lowered substantially

 

Posted
On 11/7/2024 at 11:45 PM, CdnFox said:

Look, I'm certainly not saying that immigration has to continue to be this current rate because of the past at all. But everything I've seen suggests that negative growth rate in the population is more detrimental then growth and that some growth is extremely valuable.

Negative growth isn't good but it takes a while before it causes trouble. And in the interrum, we need to get people having more babies. To start, we need to ensure we have a society where young people can afford to rent/buy a house/apartments appropriate to raising children. And they need to be able to afford it and still have sufficient disposable income to then afford the cost of the child/children. So housing costs have to come down. And we're not going to do that while we're bringing in far more people than we can possibly build houses for. There is a shortage of people to build them, and a shortage of land to build them on without spreading cities ridiculously wide. 

We also need to create a society in which children are valued, in which having children is the thing to do, not avoid, in which, you'll pardon me, going childless is frowned upon, not celebrated as a 'lifestyle choice'. Because if you have the money and don't have kids it's selfishness. You want to enjoy material things and not give a damn about the health of society. And who will you be relying on to take care of you when you're old and ill? Where are the doctors, nurses, etc. to come from? The children of other people, of course. The government needs to strongly push an image of family that the left now calls old fashioned and passe'. Because as in everything else, the Left's view is one that damages society.

On 11/7/2024 at 11:45 PM, CdnFox said:

Now I would be just as happy if that growth was coming from Canadian births. But we are down to 1.2 births per female.

They can't afford a place where they can raise kids. And they're not earning enough and don't have secure jobs. Government can do something to discourage the whole 'gig economy' and part-time jobs and encourage businesses to be more responsible. Because what's good for business is not always good for society.

 

On 11/7/2024 at 11:45 PM, CdnFox said:

good point system where the people coming in are well suited to thrive and survive and do well and prosper,

We have not had that for decades. The bureaucrats decide what THEY believe will be the right jobs and professions, but there's been a lack of communication with business and industry. And they've done a lousy job of checking those credentials, and especially, in making sure the people coming in can speak English well enough to get a job in their chosen profession. Taxi driver English does not get you a job in many professions where you're expected to be able to read, digest and write complex reports or documents.

The answer to that is an interview with an immigration officer AND an online interview with a Canadian professional contracted by Immigration Canada who can quiz them on their experience and knowledge and then report back on whether that individual is likely to find work in Canada.

 

Posted
45 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Negative growth isn't good but it takes a while before it causes trouble. And in the interrum, we need to get people having more babies. To start, we need to ensure we have a society where young people can afford to rent/buy a house/apartments appropriate to raising children. And they need to be able to afford it and still have sufficient disposable income to then afford the cost of the child/children.

You're right, I can't argue with that in the slightest Even if I do disagree on how much immigration we should bring in. There can be no doubt at the very best answer is for Canadians to have positive population growth organically rather than through immigration

Quote

So housing costs have to come down. And we're not going to do that while we're bringing in far more people than we can possibly build houses for. There is a shortage of people to build them, and a shortage of land to build them on without spreading cities ridiculously wide. 

We can build a lot of homes and in fact we do build a lot of homes. We don't need to go to negative growth in order to be able to catch up. We definitely have to significantly reduce the number of people but we don't have to eliminate growth altogether.

And think about this. You're a developer with several hundred millions of dollars in the bank thinking about doing another project. And you just heard that they are going to allow negative population growth. Or even Neutral population growth.

Which means nobody's coming to buy your homes. How many new homes are you going to build this year in Canada? Might you spend your money investing somewhere else for a while?

So unless the government is prepared to build all the homes what happens is the developers are motivated to stop building almost all together. And the fact is if you look at it the way our system is designed not by intent but in practice it will always guarantee currently that the number of homes bills are slightly less than what we need. While cutting down on immigration helps make a solution possible it's not a solution in and of itself and you can make things worse really quick

 

Quote

We also need to create a society in which children are valued, in which having children is the thing to do, not avoid, in which, you'll pardon me, going childless is frowned upon, not celebrated as a 'lifestyle choice'.

Yeah. Even I, arguably the most arguable arguer on forum can't fault anything you said there.

 

 

Quote

They can't afford a place where they can raise kids. And they're not earning enough and don't have secure jobs. Government can do something to discourage the whole 'gig economy' and part-time jobs and encourage businesses to be more responsible. Because what's good for business is not always good for society.

Well whatever they do they do need to make it reasonable for people to be able to have more than one child and afford it. That's not so easy but that's where we need to be, families need to be able to have 3 kids and survive. 

.

Quote

The answer to that is an interview with an immigration officer AND an online interview with a Canadian professional contracted by Immigration Canada who can quiz them on their experience and knowledge and then report back on whether that individual is likely to find work in Canada.

Perhaps. One way or another I do believe in the screening process and the points concept. If it needs to be strengthened or beefed up or needs to have the addition of interviews and the like and those are all things we can consider but I do believe that we need to have enough immigration to at least have some positive population growth until we someday can start replacing ourselves organically as a country

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Canada should halt immigration and deport temporary residents until there is a negligible number of nprs in the country. Once the total temporary resident population is below 1% of the national population, then we can start taking in permanent immigrants, maybe between 150,000 and 200,000 a year, as long as the vast majority (70%) are high skilled workers. Total population growth via immigration should be capped from 250,000 to 300,000 per year maximum.

Posted
On 11/19/2024 at 2:31 PM, BlahTheCanuck said:

Canada should halt immigration and deport temporary residents until there is a negligible number of nprs in the country. Once the total temporary resident population is below 1% of the national population, then we can start taking in permanent immigrants, maybe between 150,000 and 200,000 a year, as long as the vast majority (70%) are high skilled workers. Total population growth via immigration should be capped from 250,000 to 300,000 per year maximum.

That level probably wouldn't even maintain our population at its current level

Posted (edited)
On 11/20/2024 at 7:03 PM, CdnFox said:

That level probably wouldn't even maintain our population at its current level

1. I am automatically sceptical of any pro-immigration arguments that involve staving off population decline. Population decline due to low fertility is going to be global problem in the near future, including in the countries where the majority of our immigrants come from (India, China, Phillippines, etc.), so what you're doing by mass importing people here is delaying the population decline temporarily while shifting the burden of the population decline from the economies of those countries to the expensive and largely outdated Canadian welfare state.

2. Canada has 350,000 births and 330,000 deaths annually, as well as an emigration rate of about 100,000 per year. This adds up to a total population loss of about 80,000 per year, so we do not need more than 300,000 people a year to maintain our population.

3. Even when we took in 250,000 permanent residents annually for decades, our population growth was one of the highest in the world. I highly doubt that reducing that number slightly is going to make our population fall. According to several economists at the National Bank of Canada, we need our population growth to be below 500,000 annually to get out of the 'population trap' situation we are currently in. FTR, when both permanent and temporary residents are included, our aggregate population growth has been over 500,000 annually every year since 2018 (minus 2020, for obvious reasons). We are already saturated and don't have the jobs, housing, infrastructure, etc. to accommodate all the people currently here.

4. If the cost of increasing our population is importing cheap labour to depress our wages, saturate our infrastructure and subsequently reduce our standard of living to third world levels, maybe increasing our population by that much isn't such a good idea.

Edited by BlahTheCanuck
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

1. I am automatically sceptical of any pro-immigration arguments that involve staving off population decline. Population decline due to low fertility is going to be global problem in the near future, including in the countries where the majority of our immigrants come from (India, China, Phillippines, etc.), so what you're doing by mass importing people here is delaying the population decline temporarily while shifting the burden of the population decline from the economies of those countries to the expensive and largely outdated Canadian welfare state.

2. Canada has 350,000 births and 330,000 deaths annually, as well as an emigration rate of about 100,000 per year. This adds up to a total population loss of about 80,000 per year, so we do not need more than 300,000 people a year to maintain our population.

3. Even when we took in 250,000 permanent residents annually for decades, our population growth was one of the highest in the world. I highly doubt that reducing that number slightly is going to make our population fall. According to several economists at the National Bank of Canada, we need our population growth to be below 500,000 annually to get out of the 'population trap' situation we are currently in. FTR, when both permanent and temporary residents are included, our aggregate population growth has been over 500,000 annually every year since 2018 (minus 2020, for obvious reasons). We are already saturated and don't have the jobs, housing, infrastructure, etc. to accommodate all the people currently here.

4. If the cost of increasing our population is importing cheap labour to depress our wages, saturate our infrastructure and subsequently reduce our standard of living to third world levels, maybe increasing our population by that much isn't such a good idea.

First off, there is no such thing as mass importing. How many immigrants does it take to be a mass? Is five a mass? Or do you just mean that all immigrants have mass? How many kg of immigrants is the right amount?

Even critical mass would make some sort of sense sort of but mass immigration is just a term that was invented by mad Max who isn't terribly bright to begin with and it doesn't mean anything. It's just a way of saying to the world that you are more interested in buzzwords than facts and reason, you should stop using it and use something more accurate and descriptive. Excessive immigration might make more sense as an example. Just something to think about.

Setting aside the semantics, while it is true we would be setting aside our own population decline  it wouldn't actually be doing anything about the population decline in other countries. If anything it would help them address their overpopulation.

Declining population brings with it a number of significant problems. Avoiding that would be wise. Immigration helps us do that for now, we may have to come up with other solutions down the road. Obviously in a perfect world we would go back to a time when it was possible to live on the wage of a single earner and raise a family. but those days are not coming back anytime soon. 

Having said that excessive population growth is even worse than declining growth.

The current statcan birth rate is about 1.3 per female.  Sorry but that's well below replacement.  Your stats don't allow for people leaving the country for example who don't show up in our records, or foreign people who die while here but aren't permanent residents (very temp or visiting) and don't count as part of our population. 

As you can see we lose about 100 k a year these days just to emmigration. 

Canada: number of emigrants 2023 | Statista

 

There's Little doubt that 500,000 immigrants is too high. Regardless of anything else, we aren't building homes and hospitals fast enough to accommodate that.

250,000 may very well be a little bit too low But it's probably a lot closer than 500 To the correct number.

You have to sit down with the actual books and do the actual math and we don't even have access to all of the data you need, but basically you have to work out how many homes and resources and jobs we're being added to Canada each yearcalculate how many new immigrants for that year that those numbers could comfortably support and cap it at that. And then that becomes the maximum, not the minimum and then we start having other conversations about the point system and who we want to allow in and who we don't

 

Fundamentally I agree with you that it's way too high right now. I think we both on the same page there. Would agree that we should lower it to the point of population loss but I do think that our population gain should be modest and a cap should be set based on our increased capacity to provide for people. We probably agree more than we disagree but it's that last little bit that I think we're disputing.

Posted

Canada now has proportionally to its population more Sikhs than any other country in the world. Percentagewise even more than India.

Posted
On 10/24/2024 at 12:24 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Considering the extremely negative effects of letting in over 1,000,000 new Canadians per year, since the beginning of 2022, would it be wise to limit the amount of new Canadians (immigrants/temp workers/international students) to 200,000/year until 2030, considering we lack the employment, housing, infrastructure, health care, and educational institutions needed for the 3.1 million new people we have let in in the past 33 months?

I'd pretty much eliminate immigration altogether because just about any sort of population growth is environmentally unsustainable now.

There is also an ethical issue if we high grade immigrants for their best and brightest and prioritize them for their skills. This only robs their countries of the skilled people they need which makes them less sustainable and increases the pressure for even more people to migrate.

It's a vicious circle we help to keep in motion and that only contributes to greater unsustainability.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd pretty much eliminate immigration altogether because just about any sort of population growth is environmentally unsustainable now.

 

You realize that the people are already born? If they don't live here they're living somewhere else and the environmental footprint remains exactly the same.

Did you think we were allowing immigration from mars or another planet or something? Wait, which planet did you think you were on right now?

Posted

Should we worry about the unjust who don't want immigrants:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

Posted (edited)

Canada has made itself dependent on immigration to sustain itself because of policies and a cost of living that make it expensive and difficult to have kids.  Countries with negative birth rates commit cultural and literal suicide.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Posted

Jesus said that intention is like facts, Matthew 5:28, so those who do not want to welcome strangers do not enter the Kingdom of God and as proof, it is not possible for someone who wants to do evil to enter the Kingdom even if he has not done anything wrong at the moment. Jesus explained to us that justice is to treat others as we want to be treated, Matt. 18:23-35.

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has made itself dependent on immigration to sustain itself because of policies and a cost of living that make it expensive and difficult to have kids.  Countries with negative birth rates commit cultural and literal suicide.  

In fairness, all countires on Earth have a declining birth rate. Can you think of a first World country that has a birth rate of over 2.2 children per family?

Fertility rate by country:

France 1.8

United States 1.7

United Kingdom 1.6

Australia 1.6

Germany 1.5

Canada 1.4

Japan 1.3

Italy 1.3

 

Edited by DUI_Offender
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

In fairness, all countires on Earth have a declining birth rate. Can you think of a first World country that has a birth rate of over 2.2 children per family?

Fertility rate by country:

France 1.8

United States 1.7

United Kingdom 1.6

Australia 1.6

Germany 1.5

Canada 1.4

Japan 1.3

Italy 1.3

 

Yes, only countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia have positive birth rates of at least 2.1.  Within Canada Muslim and Indigenous have higher birth rates. Traditional religious communities also have higher birth rates.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes, only countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia have positive birth rates of at least 2.1.  Within Canada Muslim and Indigenous have higher birth rates. Traditional religious communities also have higher birth rates.  

That is only noticeable for Indigenous people, who have, by far, the highest birth rates in Canada. For second generation Muslims, it drops off significantly. 

Many Asian countries (China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, etc) have very low fertility rates. 

Philippines is the only large Asian country above the 2.2 replacement rate (2.7).

Edited by DUI_Offender
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

That is only noticeable for Indigenous people, who have, by far, the highest birth rates in Canada. For second generation Muslims, it drops off significantly. 

Also interesting is that the only countries replacing their populations without immigration after accounting for mortality rates are Israel, Ireland, Turkey,  Mexico, India, Egypt, Senegal, and Afghanistan.  My only take-away is that it’s the ancient cultures with the ancient cultural wisdom that will endure culturally and biologically. At first I wasn’t sure if Ireland and Mexico fit, but Ireland of course is ancient Celt and early Christian.  Mexico has a mix of ancient Indigenous blood and traditional Catholic families.  I’d like to see how policies support this within each country as well.  How much of this is cultural versus socially engineered through policy?  Of course culture drives policy and vice versa.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Also interesting is that the only countries replacing their populations without immigration after accounting for mortality rates are Israel, Ireland, Turkey,  Mexico, India, Egypt, Senegal, and Afghanistan.  My only take-away is that it’s the ancient cultures with the ancient cultural wisdom that will endure culturally and biologically. At first I wasn’t sure if Ireland and Mexico fit, but Ireland of course is ancient Celt and early Christian.  Mexico has a mix of ancient Indigenous blood and traditional Catholic families.  I’d like to see how policies support this within each country as well.  How much of this is cultural versus socially engineered through policy?  Of course culture drives policy and vice versa.  

The fertility rate of Ireland has dropped to 1.5 children per family, according to the most recent statistics I could find:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2024/november/fertility-rate-continues-to-drop-sharply-in-ireland/

Mexico is a impoverished third World country, so it i not uprising that they ahve a high fertility rate. Income and the number of children a family has are usually inversely related. 

Edited by DUI_Offender
Posted
34 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

The fertility rate of Ireland has dropped to 1.5 children per family, according to the most recent statistics I could find:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2024/november/fertility-rate-continues-to-drop-sharply-in-ireland/

Mexico is a impoverished third World country, so it i not uprising that they ahve a high fertility rate. Income and the number of children a family has are usually inversely related. 

When you can't afford Netflix or condoms, some things are inevitable

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

The fertility rate of Ireland has dropped to 1.5 children per family, according to the most recent statistics I could find:

https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2024/november/fertility-rate-continues-to-drop-sharply-in-ireland/

Mexico is an impoverished third World country, so it i not uprising that they ahve a high fertility rate. Income and the number of children a family has are usually inversely related. 

So basically Israel is tip of the spear as the only wealthy advanced country with a positive fertility rate. Interesting. They’re in for the long haul. Smart. Maybe Canadians can have all adult males and females in the reserve armed forces as well.  We need to make it as easy as possible for Canadian families and individuals to thrive economically and otherwise.  Everything else is BS.

Edited by Zeitgeist

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
      10,859
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    DARYLE
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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