New poll shows majority of Canadians want NO new immigration.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They vote for politicians who maintain a system where some people are allowed to abuse our immigration system.  Please don't play stupid.

Brian Mulroney increased immigration from about 85k to 225k. Media reports at the time said this was primarily done to help the PC party make inroads into ethnic communities and gain more votes there. Since that time, the real purpose of immigration is to help the party in power get votes from ethnic communities whose primary reason for voting is to ensure more of 'their' people come here. Witness very conservative communities like Muslims voting almost entirely for parties that espouse beliefs regarding women and sexual minorities that Muslims utterly reject and despise.

Anyone with any familiarity with ethnic votes knows that ethnic communities vote for their own. Always. Regardless of what party that person is running for. Any riding with a strong minority of Sikhs/Tamils/Hindus/Chinese/Muslims/etc. generally elects one of those because every member of that community turns out to vote for them. Given voter turnout is usually fairly low that gives them disproportional influence. If the voter turnout is 50% and 20% of the riding is Muslim they already have 40% of the vote locked in, and that's often enough to win all on its own. That's why in a riding with a lot of minorities, even though it has a white majority, you'll generally see minorities as candidates for all parties.

Long-serving White politicians can survive only if they pander to them. Or as Melanie Joly said to Thomas Mulcair when discussing her position regarding Israel and Gaza, "Thomas, you seen the demographics in my riding?" Note that Muslims are less than 10% in her riding, but that's enough to swing votes if they all vote as a bloc. And they do.

[Goddess]

19 hours ago, Shady said:

The death of the West is pretty much accepted now, because of liberal immigration policy.  Mohammed is the most popular boys name in the UK now.  In Ireland, 20% of the population is now foreign born with no end in sight.  Scotland has a Muslim president.  Personally, I think countries like Ireland should stay predominantly Irish.  If you want a slow stream of immigration allowing people to assimilate to Irish culture, cool.  Same for other Western countries.

Hope they love Sharia law.

[Goddess]

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Please don't play stupid.

Sadly, he's not playing at it.

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There is a solution. Deregulation. Closed borders. Revived manufacturing. 

Let Canada strut. Affluence will return. Housing will become affordable. Families will flourish. The transformation would take at least a decade, but it would work.

The idea that the economy will grow when every business in the country would have a perpetually shrinking domestic consumer base is illogical.

 

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The idea that the economy will grow when every business in the country would have a perpetually shrinking domestic consumer base is illogical.

 

Only to you and only because you know it's true.

Experience has taught me many things. One lesson I can never forget is that our hormones demand one "be fruitful and multiply". If this is not the primary directive for our bodies and souls, it's a top 5. The instinct is strong. Denying it causes depression...leaves a mental scar on those unfortunates who cannot have children.

Given the choice between family and career, most people will opt for family because their very DNA is coded to demand reproduction. 

Remove all the stifling regulations, allow and even encourage investment, and in 10 years salaries will rise, work will be available, and there will be a lot more pregnancies.

A lot more.

[John Stone]

41 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Only to you and only because you know it's true.

Experience has taught me many things. One lesson I can never forget is that our hormones demand one "be fruitful and multiply". If this is not the primary directive for our bodies and souls, it's a top 5. The instinct is strong. Denying it causes depression...leaves a mental scar on those unfortunates who cannot have children.

Given the choice between family and career, most people will opt for family because their very DNA is coded to demand reproduction. 

Remove all the stifling regulations, allow and even encourage investment, and in 10 years salaries will rise, work will be available, and there will be a lot more pregnancies.

A lot more.

Def some truth to what you say .............. likely why the political right is so restrictive re: planned parenthood.

The 'pill' was def a deterrent to nation building ........more females entered and could stay within the work force. 

Nazi had something similar, more draconian tho. 

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

They vote for politicians who maintain a system where some people are allowed to abuse our immigration system.  Please don't play stupid.

There doesn't appear to be any system in the world that isn't open to abuse or politicians and political parties to enable it.

It's not to say there aren't systems that are run honestly but with no real way to validate and verify this they're all suspect.

Unfortunately this means every voters intention is just as suspect, especially to a partisan.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The idea that the economy will grow when every business in the country would have a perpetually shrinking domestic consumer base is illogical.

Our economy has been 'growing' for the last ten years. Do you feel richer? Is life better? Has Canada's economy improved?

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

There is a solution. Deregulation. Closed borders. Revived manufacturing. 

Let Canada strut. Affluence will return. Housing will become affordable. Families will flourish. The transformation would take at least a decade, but it would work.

Well you're not wrong, the fact is a decade is probably optimistic. It's not like we're starting from zero, we're actually in the hole a fair bit. Before we can even start what you suggested we would have to change Canada to the point where large amounts of investment money would be willing to come back and even that alone may take close to a decade. We would have to start building from there and another decade or so later it would be as you say.

But there's nothing to bridge that two or three decade gap, and without that people will never stay focused long enough to achieve the end goal. They're not going to want to give up all of their benefits to make our deficits reasonable anytime soon. They're not going to want to smash the unions or stop bringing in hordes of immigrants and refugees etc etc

You're right, i just don't see any reasonable or viable path from where we are and where you suggested going given the time and sacrifice it would take. No gov't would initiate something that won't pay off for 3 more terms. 

And right now, we're still walking in the other direction away from the right solution, and god knows how far away we'll be when THAT stops.  If careny gets another floorcrosser and gets his majority, then 5 years from now we're going to be in such an incredible disaster of a position that recovery may simply not even be realistically possible. At least not within 100 years or so. Look at argentina, once as strong as us and then they fell the same way exactly we have under trudeau and now martin 

[Nationalist]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well you're not wrong, the fact is a decade is probably optimistic. It's not like we're starting from zero, we're actually in the hole a fair bit. Before we can even start what you suggested we would have to change Canada to the point where large amounts of investment money would be willing to come back and even that alone may take close to a decade. We would have to start building from there and another decade or so later it would be as you say.

But there's nothing to bridge that two or three decade gap, and without that people will never stay focused long enough to achieve the end goal. They're not going to want to give up all of their benefits to make our deficits reasonable anytime soon. They're not going to want to smash the unions or stop bringing in hordes of immigrants and refugees etc etc

You're right, i just don't see any reasonable or viable path from where we are and where you suggested going given the time and sacrifice it would take. No gov't would initiate something that won't pay off for 3 more terms. 

And right now, we're still walking in the other direction away from the right solution, and god knows how far away we'll be when THAT stops.  If careny gets another floorcrosser and gets his majority, then 5 years from now we're going to be in such an incredible disaster of a position that recovery may simply not even be realistically possible. At least not within 100 years or so. Look at argentina, once as strong as us and then they fell the same way exactly we have under trudeau and now martin 

These floorcrossers...I must be missing something. Are the Liberals offering high profile positions to these turncoats?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Are the Liberals offering high profile positions to these turncoats?

They’re offering “not Poilievre” for a leader. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

These floorcrossers...I must be missing something. Are the Liberals offering high profile positions to these turncoats?

It's illegal to do so technically. But yes, essentially that's the way it works.

There is an old saying that the worst day in government is still vastly better than the best day in opposition. They will be offered chances to sit on key committees, they'll be offered extra perks and benefits, there will probably be promises to support certain policies or the like that are important for that person's re-election, other things as well.

And they will then have a direct voice in caucus, Which means they will have more power and more ability to get things done for their friends. And I have no doubt that they're told night and day that they will be hailed as a hero when they cross and that all of the other liberals will look up to them and listen to what they say etc

It means vastly more money and vastly more power. You get paid for every of the Committees that you sit on or participate in etc and when you leave politics if you have been in government because you know the right people and have the relationships you are highly sought after by the private sector just as Christina Freeland is now making a multi-million dollar a year job while also serving for $800,000 a year as Canada's rebuilding ambassador to Ukraine

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

They’re offering “not Poilievre” for a leader. 

Yeah but they're stuck with mark carney as one, so they have to throw in a whole bunch of extra perks and money to make it fly  

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Only to you and only because you know it's true.

Experience has taught me many things. One lesson I can never forget is that our hormones demand one "be fruitful and multiply". If this is not the primary directive for our bodies and souls, it's a top 5. The instinct is strong. Denying it causes depression...leaves a mental scar on those unfortunates who cannot have children.

Given the choice between family and career, most people will opt for family because their very DNA is coded to demand reproduction. 

Remove all the stifling regulations, allow and even encourage investment, and in 10 years salaries will rise, work will be available, and there will be a lot more pregnancies.

A lot more.

You live in fantasy land.  The US has far fewer regulations than Canada and also has sub-replacement birth rate.

And if you have a perpetually shrinking population 1. there's continually lower and lower population of consumers buying groceries, doing banking, going to restaurants, getting haircuts, and buying items on the shelf etc.  The TSX would literally collapse because nobody would invest in businesses whose stock is going to continually decrease in value from shrinking revenues and profits.

People will always be having sex and having babies due to their internal drives.  But the problem is that for the last 60 years women have had access to reliable birth control and then abortions in order to choose the exact # of kids they want.  Most couples choose between only 1-3 kids as enough for them to handle, and an increasing # of couples don't want any kids, which has resulted in a sub-replacement birthrate.

The economic argument for not having more kids is nonsense.  People had far more kids the previous 100,000 years of human history and were much poorer than the last 60 years.  Even in the 90's the economics were very good in Canada and much of the West and the birthrate was still sub-replacement.

So what's the solution?  Either:  1. Social trends change and people decide they want to have more kids.  2. Couples are literally bribed with significant free money by the government to have more kids, or 3.  birth control and abortions stop being used or are banned (which would cause unwanted population explosion like in Asia due to far better medicine/healthcare than past centuries).

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Social trends change and people decide they want to have more kids.

How many children do you have?

10 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Couples are literally bribed with significant free money by the government to have more kids

Why would this change the birth rate?  The wealthiest people on the planet are not having as many children.  How would making them a little wealthier change this?  

 

13 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

birth control and abortions stop being used or are banned

Completely unrealistic and antithetical to Canadian values and laws. 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You live in fantasy land.  The US has far fewer regulations than Canada and also has sub-replacement birth rate.

And if you have a perpetually shrinking population 1. there's continually lower and lower population of consumers buying groceries, doing banking, going to restaurants, getting haircuts, and buying items on the shelf etc.  The TSX would literally collapse because nobody would invest in businesses whose stock is going to continually decrease in value from shrinking revenues and profits.

People will always be having sex and having babies due to their internal drives.  But the problem is that for the last 60 years women have had access to reliable birth control and then abortions in order to choose the exact # of kids they want.  Most couples choose between only 1-3 kids as enough for them to handle, and an increasing # of couples don't want any kids, which has resulted in a sub-replacement birthrate.

The economic argument for not having more kids is nonsense.  People had far more kids the previous 100,000 years of human history and were much poorer than the last 60 years.  Even in the 90's the economics were very good in Canada and much of the West and the birthrate was still sub-replacement.

So what's the solution?  Either:  1. Social trends change and people decide they want to have more kids.  2. Couples are literally bribed with significant free money by the government to have more kids, or 3.  birth control and abortions stop being used or are banned (which would cause unwanted population explosion like in Asia due to far better medicine/healthcare than past centuries).

Ye of little faith. A common failing of the Liberal mind. Set the table with prosperity and nature will take its course.

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

They’re offering “not Poilievre” for a leader. 

As compared to what? Trudeau famously never even met with his cabinet ministers. From what we've seen of Carney, he's similar, with no desire for input from the plebes in his caucus and all power vested in the PMO. The only difference between them was that Trudeau was an extrovert while Carney seems to have all the personality of a dead fish.

[I am Groot]

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The wealthiest people on the planet are not having as many children.  How would making them a little wealthier change this?  

From a few articles I've read, the wealthiest people actually have a much higher birthrate than the middle classes. I'm not saying they're all Elon Musk or Donald Trump, but wealthy men rarely lack for females willing to have babies with them.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

As compared to what? Trudeau famously never even met with his cabinet ministers. From what we've seen of Carney, he's similar, with no desire for input from the plebes in his caucus and all power vested in the PMO. The only difference between them was that Trudeau was an extrovert while Carney seems to have all the personality of a dead fish.

It is being said that he runs his caucus like a business executive and doesn't take any feedback or opinion from anyone else. It has been suggested this may be one of the reasons he's getting rid of as many of the old liberals as possible and replacing them with his buddies from the banking community. At grossly inflated wages

And we're seeing his lack of political acumen. He has advisors he knows what they're doing but I don't think he listens to them as well as he needs to. And that's going to trip him up over time

[suds]

Climate change, a functioning economy, population, energy capacity, resource availability, food supply, water, defense, healthcare, AI, managing debt, financing major projects, living standards, and perhaps the most important thing ..... sustainability, are all things to be considered on where we're going to be as a country (or world) or would like to be in the not so distant future. And I'm not bright enough to put them all together. Just increasing population growth is only a short term solution that could possibly have long term negative effects at the stage we're at now. All these people we bring in get old too. We should be getting the right people to start figuring some of this stuff out. NOW. I'm not knocking politicians but they don't really have a clue.

[Goddess]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

they'll be offered extra perks and benefits

Ma, very recently, told his riding that a priority for him was making sure all 25,000 Hong Kong'ers waiting to get into Canada, get in.

No way the conservatives would go for this.  But I suspect the Liberals would.  I wouldn't doubt it's part of the "perks".

[Goddess]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

while Carney seems to have all the personality of a dead fish.

I don't generally agree with going after the spouses of politicians, but his wife looks like Gary Busey and seems to prefer wearing tablecloths instead of clothes.

That's all I'm gonna say about that.

51 minutes ago, suds said:

Climate change, a functioning economy, population, energy capacity, resource availability, food supply, water, defense, healthcare, AI, managing debt, financing major projects, living standards, and perhaps the most important thing ..... sustainability, are all things to be considered on where we're going to be as a country (or world) or would like to be in the not so distant future.

None of that is as important as orangemanbad, though.

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Ma, very recently, told his riding that a priority for him was making sure all 25,000 Hong Kong'ers waiting to get into Canada, get in.

You’re making this up. Show us the video. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You’re making this up. Show us the video. 

And when you see the video what are you going to do? You'll make up another lie to accuse her of

. This is how the left operates

[eyeball]

On 12/12/2025 at 12:46 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

They vote for politicians who maintain a system where some people are allowed to abuse our immigration system.  Please don't play stupid.

You're doing it too. LMAO!

Look, when you loons say politicians maintain things that allow abuse to happen it means you actually believe a bunch of them sat around discussing it premeditatively and followed it up with actual orchestration.  DON'T VOTE FOR THIS? Ummmm okay, I didn't. So WTF makes you think or say I did anyway?

I guess you're all just so stoned out of your minds on conspiracy gas for so long now your skewed thinking is just automatic.  You're not just playing stupid, you really can't help it.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Ummmm okay, I didn't.

You did. You supported the liberals for that exact sort of reason.

You know they're corrupt, you know that their policies for the most part are bad for Canada, but you still support them