Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 10 hours ago, User said: Lets make this clear as mud, and I will focus on one response of yours from before. I asked if YOU supported the deportation of illegal immigrants and your response was to say a country has that right. So, yes, you answered, yes you responded, yes you did answer again when I asked this... but you didn't actually answer the question. Its stuff like this that leads me to say you are playing games. Even now, when I asked you point blank again, you still do not directly answer, you give me some vague response about how you support a country enforcing its laws, how they enforce their laws. I just don't know what you mean by "support"? I try to answer as best I can. Am I happy about it? Would I donate money to ICE? Do I approve of everything they do? It could be any of these questions or more. What do you think it means to support a government function or department? Asking honestly... 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
John Stone Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 The fertility rate for Canada (2025) was 1.48 children per female To sustain the population the estimated fertility rate needs to be at least 2.7 children per female. Time for the males to address this from a hard perspective. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 7 minutes ago, John Stone said: The fertility rate for Canada (2025) was 1.48 children per female To sustain the population the estimated fertility rate needs to be at least 2.7 children per female. Time for the males to address this from a hard perspective. I have been harping on this for awhile now. Thanks to a few analysts like Peter Zeihan it's getting some attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate According to the UN, 65 out of 237 countries have greater than 2.7 fertility rate. 1 Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
I am Groot Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Well it's pretty hard to argue cold statistics against a picture that's obvious, and a literal picture of brutal looking criminals, all immigrants. But it's possible. Immigration will never be zero. And criminals will always get in. You'd need more to establish want went wrong with these criminals and the system. The failings of our immigration system are many. There is no economic case that says bringing in 500,000 people a year improves life for Canadians. Backing it down to well under 100,000 would allow us to be a lot more choosy about who we let in. We could even, you know, interview them, like you would if you were managing a fast food restaurant and wanted to hire someone. We could set our standards higher. We could aim for young couples who were both well-educated and either came from similar cultures or had flexible, adaptable minds. We could even check out their credentials to see if they were being truthful. We could tighten up family class immigration to make sure large numbers weren't ending up on welfare as soon as their sponsorship time was done - or before. The refugees should simply be ended. It started out as a noble idea, to give asylum to the occasional person fleeing political or religious persecution. Now it's pretty much an open door for everyone who wants a better life but doesn't qualify as an immigrant. It's gone from 15-200k a year in the last ten years. And almost none of them will ever be paying income tax. The cost is in the hundreds of billions. Sponsor refugees in countries next to their homes to wait there. Accept very limited claims from specific individuals who are fleeing direct persecution from their governments. Immigrants need responsibilities, not just rights. They can't demonstrate criminal behaviour or disloyalty to Canada, or they're out. They're not eligible for welfare. Work or go home. Ten year period before they can apply for citizenship, and the citizenship test has to include an interview where they demonstrate both their facility in our language and their efforts at integration. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I have been harping on this for awhile now. Thanks to a few analysts like Peter Zeihan it's getting some attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate According to the UN, 65 out of 237 countries have greater than 2.7 fertility rate. There is no reason to sustain the current population. Nor can immigration do so without completely eliminating everything about Canada that is good. If the population declines housing becomes cheaper, wages rise, especially for younger people since there are fewer of them. 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/ https://donwright.substack.com/p/the-bogus-idea-that-will-not-die https://dominionreview.ca/the-sheer-idiocy-of-fighting-ageing-with-mass-immigration/ Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 12 minutes ago, I am Groot said: The failings of our immigration system are many. There is no economic case that says bringing in 500,000 people a year improves life for Canadians. Backing it down to well under 100,000 would allow us to be a lot more choosy about who we let in. We could even, you know, interview them, like you would if you were managing a fast food restaurant and wanted to hire someone. We could set our standards higher. We could aim for young couples who were both well-educated and either came from similar cultures or had flexible, adaptable minds. We could even check out their credentials to see if they were being truthful. We could tighten up family class immigration to make sure large numbers weren't ending up on welfare as soon as their sponsorship time was done - or before. The refugees should simply be ended. It started out as a noble idea, to give asylum to the occasional person fleeing political or religious persecution. Now it's pretty much an open door for everyone who wants a better life but doesn't qualify as an immigrant. It's gone from 15-200k a year in the last ten years. And almost none of them will ever be paying income tax. The cost is in the hundreds of billions. Sponsor refugees in countries next to their homes to wait there. Accept very limited claims from specific individuals who are fleeing direct persecution from their governments. Immigrants need responsibilities, not just rights. They can't demonstrate criminal behaviour or disloyalty to Canada, or they're out. They're not eligible for welfare. Work or go home. Ten year period before they can apply for citizenship, and the citizenship test has to include an interview where they demonstrate both their facility in our language and their efforts at integration. This sounds basically reasonable. They DO interview applicants though not in every case. I can't comment on the refugee system, if you want to give a cite I'll read that. I agree with deporting criminals but I don't think it's reasonable to not give any welfare to refugees as they come here with nothing much at all, basically beggars. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 minutes ago, I am Groot said: 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. Yes, this is true also. But the population does go up. If we want to re-invent our thinking about economics, I would be very happy for that to happen. Unfortunately, though, I would say that a re-do on that level would require someone who understands the status quo well enough to understand what works today. And that gives us... guess who... I'm not sure that I trust Carney to lead a re-do given that he is marinated in Keynesian secret sauce from birth. You could go 1000% the other way and sign up for MMT and space-age whirlygigs like that... basically print money when you need it and stop printing when you don't. Easy right ? The thing that gives me heart is that populism is at the core a workers' movement and the easiest path to success would be for it to revitalize, not destroy, our institutions. Cutting taxes sounds great... but it's not going to bring good-paying jobs on its own. But ... interesting ideas. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
John Stone Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 Economic instability is the greatest concern for women of child bearing age ......... women want to work - the days of them being chattel, barefoot and pregnant is looooong gone. Women today are well educated, independent, ambitious and political. A huge concern for young mothers is childcare costs and availability............ notice I didn't say fathers? To stimulate a baby-boom, addressing these concerns makes more sense than spending money on immigration and there is no cultural clash. Oh, forgot .............. that sounds xenophobic not to mention racist and discriminatory. Charity begins at home (?) .............. let it be so? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 24 minutes ago, John Stone said: To stimulate a baby-boom, addressing these concerns makes more sense than spending money on immigration and there is no cultural clash. There was a podcast I heard on this appr, maybe it was The Economist... and the costs to make an impact on fertility rates with the kinds of domestic subsidies you're describing are higher than just daycare funding. People would still choose 1 or 2 kids max because of the salary loss, so you'd have to subsidize the salary gap too. I think South Korea is doing something like that. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I just don't know what you mean by "support"? I try to answer as best I can. Am I happy about it? Would I donate money to ICE? Do I approve of everything they do? It could be any of these questions or more. What do you think it means to support a government function or department? Asking honestly... how is it that you can respond to anything I say without asking for a definition, but you get hung up on support? See? These are the games you play and exactly what I’m talking about when I say you are playing games. You have taken a simple question, and turned it into several responses and still not actually answered the question. Quote
Zeitgeist Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Stone said: Economic instability is the greatest concern for women of child bearing age ......... women want to work - the days of them being chattel, barefoot and pregnant is looooong gone. Women today are well educated, independent, ambitious and political. A huge concern for young mothers is childcare costs and availability............ notice I didn't say fathers? To stimulate a baby-boom, addressing these concerns makes more sense than spending money on immigration and there is no cultural clash. Oh, forgot .............. that sounds xenophobic not to mention racist and discriminatory. Charity begins at home (?) .............. let it be so? Many women may choose to work, but how many of these women would prefer not to work and to stay home and raise their kids if it was economically viable to do so? How much of our new social engineering trying to create equal numbers of women on boards of directors and in Parliament is actually undermining our society’s fertility rate and creating generations of lost men who cannot get a sense of self-worth through having kids on their own the way women who can afford it can (e.g. with a trip to the sperm bank)? I won’t even get into the consequences of kids missing out on having both a mother and father. Men, who are wired to get more of their sense of self-worth through work outside the home, are now less able to afford homes than single women. Significantly more women are in university than men. We created this situation through “progressive” social engineering like affirmative action No doubt some women still want to work even if they don’t have to. Some don’t want to have kids, but I think we need to make it possible for families to thrive on one salary. In that regard our living standards have dropped. We need to glorify traditional values and families through media and policy or face cultural erasure. This is what Orban is getting at. Make no mistake, this is all about cultural and tribal warfare and what’s at stake is Western civilization and culture. Canada is one of the most vulnerable countries in this war. The reasons for our collapse in birth rates are obvious and have already been mentioned. Edited January 2 by Zeitgeist Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 1 hour ago, User said: 1. how is it that you can respond to anything I say without asking for a definition, but you get hung up on support? 2. See? These are the games you play and exactly what I’m talking about when I say you are playing games. 3. You have taken a simple question, and turned it into several responses and still not actually answered the question. 1. I don't know, I just find it hard to respond to whether I support a security group. 2. How is asking questions "playing games"? What do I achieve by asking questions, other than getting back a better way to respond to YOUR question, which I assume that you still want an answer to? 3. Okay, but I think you liked one of the answers I provided above right? So we are getting somewhere. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. I don't know, I just find it hard to respond to whether I support a security group. This particular obfuscation of yours is current centered around deportation of illegal immigrants, not a particular security group. You are still playing games. 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. How is asking questions "playing games"? What do I achieve by asking questions, other than getting back a better way to respond to YOUR question, which I assume that you still want an answer to? I already explained how you are playing games. Here you go again: You have taken a simple question, and turned it into several responses and still not actually answered the question. 6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 3. Okay, but I think you liked one of the answers I provided above right? So we are getting somewhere. Yeah, one small baby step, but still not directly answering the actual question. Again: Do you support (or insert whatever word you want here that indicates you approve of, condone, agree with, etc) the deportation of illegal immigrants. Not that you think a country has a right to do this or any other sideways way of avoiding the question. YOU Michael Hardner, what do YOU support (or insert whatever word you want here that indicates you approve of, condone, agree with, etc) Quote
eyeball Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 3 hours ago, I am Groot said: The refugees should simply be ended. It started out as a noble idea, to give asylum to the occasional person fleeing political or religious persecution. Now it's pretty much an open door for everyone who wants a better life but doesn't qualify as an immigrant. It's gone from 15-200k a year in the last ten years. Another noble idea was that the reasons for fleeing persecution were declining as the world became a better place. Instead there's now some 72% of the global population, almost 6 billion human beings, who live in autocracies or worse. The proportion of the world's population living in liberal democracies has fallen to its lowest level in 50 years, now less than 12%. Whatever is meant by rising tides lifting all boats is kind of moot don't you think? And FYI...you haven't seen anything yet. It's not that the borders are open they're simply overwhelmed. Edited January 2 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, User said: 1. You are still playing games. 2. Do you support (or insert whatever word you want here that indicates you approve of, condone, agree with, etc) the deportation of illegal immigrants. 1. No, I'm not. It's easy to phrase questions in such a way that they're ambiguous, and when I ask you to rephrase, it should be easy for you to do so. I don't "support" or "unsupport" ICE, is my answer. Move on. 2. Yes, I think I already said that I agree that illegal immigrants can and should be deported. You already asked that. Ok, I have no questions for you and I have answered your question, let's continue on the other thread about The Rebel. We're making progress, thanks for rewarding your question. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
I am Groot Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, eyeball said: And FYI...you haven't seen anything yet. It's not that the borders are open they're simply overwhelmed. By bureaucratic inertia and laziness. These people are, for the most part, not fleeing persecution. They are economic migrants. They know we're suckers. That's why they bypass Europe and the US to come here. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes, this is true also. But the population does go up. Which isn't helping us. In fact, it's hurting our birthrate. 6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: If we want to re-invent our thinking about economics, I would be very happy for that to happen. Unfortunately, though, I would say that a re-do on that level would require someone who understands the status quo well enough to understand what works today. And that gives us... guess who... There are lots of bright economists. The current head of the Bank of Canada has one similar to Carney. Don Wright, whose blog is one of those I cited, has a PHD in economics and has spent the last twenty years in government, the last ten or so running the public service in BC. The problem isn't finding educated guys. The problem is finding guys motivated to do it. And Carney seems to be a corporatist through and through. The fact that the first people he added to his council of advisors were two of the founders of the Century Initiative, and that he's resisted all efforts to cut immigration in any meaningful way, gives me no confidence that he is interested in changing anything. 1 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: This sounds basically reasonable. They DO interview applicants though not in every case. I will quote here from an email I got from the Kellie Lietch campaign in 2017 Points of Entry (Canada’s newest book on the Canadian Immigration System): Dr. Satzewich’s book, “Points of Entry”, is about how Canadian visa officers make decisions about potential immigrants on a day-to-day basis. Canada has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and immigration is one of the most researched subjects in Canada today, yet what goes on in visa offices is clouded in secrecy” (page 7). In writing this book, Dr. Satzewich has provided a valuable service in casting light on what he describes as a government department that “could have written the manual on how to design a truly nameless and faceless bureaucracy” (page 8). That Dr. Satzewich, through perseverance and tenacity managed to get inside the “black box” of the immigration system, something very few could do before him, is a testament to his commitment to his research. One of Dr. Satzewich’s key findings is that far fewer interviews are conducted today than were conducted before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002. The result is that immigration officers meet “only a handful” (page 240) of the people whose applications they process and lose “opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216). 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I can't comment on the refugee system, if you want to give a cite I'll read that. I agree with deporting criminals but I don't think it's reasonable to not give any welfare to refugees as they come here with nothing much at all, basically beggars. The two most important facts about refugees don't really need a cite, though I'm sure I can find one. First, refugees are the worst performing group among newcomers by a large percentage. And only the principal applicant in the economic group actually earns above the Canadian average. Their spouses and sponsored family never earn that much. And refugees are quite a bit lower than them. We currently accept 87% of applicants, the highest in the Western world. We have gone well beyond the treaties we signed, which specifically did NOT include causes like fleeing war, for example (because the signatories knew the numbers could overwhelm them), much less being LGBT or a woman. We no longer require a well-founded fear of persecution, either. As I mentioned earlier, in another topic, we granted refugee status to a lesbian couple from Japan because they said they faced discrimination in Japan. With a standard like that, almost any claim is accepted. We also know refugee employment earnings as a whole are around $30k, which is less than what you'd get on minimum wage if working full time. We are essentially importing tens of thousands of poor people every year. We can't afford to continue like this. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
eyeball Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: By bureaucratic inertia and laziness. These people are, for the most part, not fleeing persecution. They are economic migrants. They know we're suckers. That's why they bypass Europe and the US to come here. Well, consider the state of catastrophism you people routinely fall into when you talk about your economic fears. Its enough to make you believe a bad economy is even worse than persecution. And BTW Germany and the US are, respectively, where the highest numbers of refugees go. Edited January 2 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Michael Hardner Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: The fact that the first people he added to his council of advisors were two of the founders of the Century Initiative, and that he's resisted all efforts to cut immigration in any meaningful way, gives me no confidence that he is interested in changing anything. I don't know if you missed it but I was saying just that. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: 1. First, refugees are the worst performing group among newcomers by a large percentage. 2. We can't afford to continue like this. I'm going to leave the part about a high percentage of admissions based on applicants because I have no dispute to your points. 1. They brought in for humanitarian purposes so this isn't surprising 2. We can afford them at some level, likely a higher level than we could a generation ago. If we're just discussing levels of refugees, again, I don't think I have much to dispute with you. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
User Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 1. No, I'm not. It's easy to phrase questions in such a way that they're ambiguous, and when I ask you to rephrase, it should be easy for you to do so. I don't "support" or "unsupport" ICE, is my answer. Move on. Yes, you are. You still are. You only quoted one part of my sentence as I already explained we were not talking about ICE "This particular obfuscation of yours is current centered around deportation of illegal immigrants, not a particular security group." And yet you still respond about ICE. 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: 2. Yes, I think I already said that I agree that illegal immigrants can and should be deported. You already asked that. No, you said you supported a nation's right to do so... and I have been pressing you for a specific response about what you believe. You finally answer. 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Ok, I have no questions for you and I have answered your question, let's continue on the other thread about The Rebel. We're making progress, thanks for rewarding your question. Finally. Why you had to make it this difficult to begin with is beyond me. 1 Quote
I am Groot Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I'm going to leave the part about a high percentage of admissions based on applicants because I have no dispute to your points. 1. They brought in for humanitarian purposes so this isn't surprising 2. We can afford them at some level, likely a higher level than we could a generation ago. If we're just discussing levels of refugees, again, I don't think I have much to dispute with you. The only thing I would add then is that given the massive increase in the levels, more than tenfold in the last ten years, and given that if global warming has any actual effect to the south, these numbers will certainly continue to grow, we have to put a stop to it. Because yes, we take them in for humanitarian purposes, but the cost to our systems is enormous now and continues to grow. Like the spending on climate change (Did Trudeau ever tell you he'd spent $200 billion on it, or did that number surprise you when Carney said it?), nobody really puts together the cost of refugees. That cost is not just the cost of their initial entry, legal and bureaucratic processing, and paying their room and board during this period. The cost continues during their lifetimes, and each year, another large number of people is added to that burden. It is the cost of supporting poor people and paying for their services and benefits in a progressive state. And according to economists, we are no richer than we were in a previous generation. In some ways, given stagnating wages, stagnating productivity, and rising prices, we are worse off. So I would dispute that would can afford them at a higher level than a generation ago. 2 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
I am Groot Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 15 hours ago, eyeball said: Well, consider the state of catastrophism you people routinely fall into when you talk about your economic fears. Its enough to make you believe a bad economy is even worse than persecution. Nobody thinks that. But we do know what misery it leads to in terms of higher unemployment, unaffordable housing, rising crime and suicide rates, and government unable to afford basic services like healthcare. And we'd like to avoid that, thanks. 15 hours ago, eyeball said: And BTW Germany and the US are, respectively, where the highest numbers of refugees go. And both countries have become destabilized due to that. In fact, all of Western Europe is becoming destabilized. Which one again reminds me of an article from years ago in The Spectator by Lionel Shriver. Thomas Friedman has astutely characterised the West vs the rest as order vs disorder. But with overstressed welfare systems, accelerating cultural upheaval, and rising right-wing militancy, the lands of order can slide into chaos themselves. If in the next few decades we’re looking at migration on the scale I think we are, we may be required to develop a hard heart, or simply surrender to forces larger than we can control. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
eyeball Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 2 hours ago, I am Groot said: Nobody thinks that. Sure they do, according to widespread conventional right wing wisdom the left is destroying the economy. You don't believe it? You're either backpeddling or not paying attention, and you're one of this forums premier catastrophists. 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
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.