The Liberals are lying about fixing immigration

[I am Groot]

There is no longer a priority to bring in skilled workers. Forty two percent of those in that category last year were only 'skilled' in that they spoke French. That was their skill! The government's priority is to pump up the number of French speakers outside Quebec. Naturally, there is no such priority for English speakers inside Quebec. Nor would Quebec tolerate such a thing.

Instead of bringing over highly skilled people, they continue to simply transition the temporary foreign workers who came to work at Tim Hortons and for Doordash into permanent residents. And they continue to give permanent residency to fake refugees, many of whom never even get an interview but are hand-waved through because they say they're gay (which is never questioned).

And the number of new permanent residents is not falling, it's rising. The targets over the next three years are higher than they were the previous three years.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-what-ottawa-isnt-saying-about-immigration/

[Michael Hardner]

Excellent article, although there are facts you chose to skip over.  The G&M describes the effect of policies as 'muddied' which I agree with.

For example new entries for temporary are cut significantly but permanent entry is on a "temporary" upswing.

 

 

"The government has made big cuts in new temporary work and study permits, but Canadians shouldn’t expect huge departures of temporary residents who are already here. They are being prioritized for permanent residency through Express Entry draws for workers with Canadian experience."

 

 

 

One thing that you, Groot, should be pleased with is reduced family unification.  That means fewer grandparents coming over to add burdens on the health system.

 

Incidentally here's a conservatives' take on the effects of immigration, full perspective.

 

[eyeball]

The article Groot posted, like almost all discussions around immigration, misses an aspect that will inevitably lead to more refugees.

High-grading immigrants robs the economies they come from of the best and brightest they need to make their countries places that are worth staying in.

Letting their skilled people go is  ultimately self-defeating for them. It's also self-defeating for us because as these places become even less desirable places to stay it generates more refugees which nobody wants to see.

If we want less refugees we should be investing more in the economic development of target countries instead of head-hunting their best and brightest to develop our own.

[ironstone]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If we want less refugees we should be investing more in the economic development of target countries instead of head-hunting their best and brightest to develop our own.

For decades, Western nations have poured hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into many nations as foreign aid. Canada sends out lot's of money to every conceivable kinds of projects.

Pick a country, any country.

https://w05.international.gc.ca/projectbrowser-banqueprojets/filter-filtre?lang=eng&sc=72010

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, ironstone said:

For decades, Western nations have poured hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars into many nations as foreign aid. Canada sends out lot's of money to every conceivable kinds of projects.

Pick a country, any country.

https://w05.international.gc.ca/projectbrowser-banqueprojets/filter-filtre?lang=eng&sc=72010

Probably not enough...stop now and just watch what happens.

[ironstone]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Probably not enough...stop now and just watch what happens.

So we should just continue to pour money into foreign aid while we have serious problems of our own to deal with? Homelessness, food banks, health care in crisis, and we have brought in millions of newcomers in a very short time.

 

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So we should just continue to pour money into foreign aid while we have serious problems of our own to deal with? Homelessness, food banks, health care in crisis, and we have brought in millions of newcomers in a very short time.

 

We should be pouring money into all of it.

[Legato]

Just now, eyeball said:

We should be pouring money into all of it.

Why don't we get foreign aid like any other 3rd world country?

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, Legato said:

Why don't we get foreign aid like any other 3rd world country?

We don't need it. Even those of you who live in a box down on East Hastings have it better than many 3rd world countries.

[Legato]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We don't need it. Even those of you who live in a box down on East Hastings have it better than many 3rd world countries.

You sure?

[ironstone]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We should be pouring money into all of it.

That's a rather typical leftist kind of response, just throw money at problems and when that often fails, just throw even more money into it. 

I would rather have smart, targeted spending instead of the reckless kind we've had for over 10 years now.

Since this government is clearly going to keep upping the spending, where is that money going to come from? More printing and borrowing, higher taxes?

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

You sure?

Sure, they have access to help, resources and opportunities that most 3rd world people can only dream of.

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, they have access to help, resources and opportunities that most 3rd world people can only dream of.

Only if you're from the 3rd world.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

That's a rather typical leftist kind of response, just throw money at problems and when that often fails, just throw even more money into it. 

My response to that would be to fix what causes failure. But that would be more an exercise in reforming our system of representation - primarily relegating political parties to being no more influential or important than the Kiwanis Club.

8 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I would rather have smart, targeted spending instead of the reckless kind we've had for over 10 years now.

Me too.

8 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Since this government is clearly going to keep upping the spending, where is that money going to come from? More printing and borrowing, higher taxes?

I would rather have smart, targeted taxation instead of the kind that keeps our wealth and income gap growing at the expense of our economy.

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

Only if you're from the 3rd world.

Nope, over 85% of people using homeless shelters are Canadian citizens.

[Legato]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope, over 85% of people using homeless shelters are Canadian citizens.

Over 85%, so, 3rd world scenario. Why are we not receiving aid.

[ironstone]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I would rather have smart, targeted taxation instead of the kind that keeps our wealth and income gap growing at the expense of our economy.

Taxing who?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

Taxing who?

Everyone, progressively as we do now, but notwithstanding lower income earners. I've also been warming to the idea of a zero tax on corporate income and shifting that burden to shareholders and owners income.

It sounds more targetted and should smartly attract a lot more corporate investment in start ups,  productivity and create more employment.

I particularly like the idea the way Andrew Coyne pitches it. He suggests an immediate zeroing of corporate taxes to clearly and boldly signal that Canada is open for business right now.

[I am Groot]

On 3/1/2026 at 12:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Excellent article, although there are facts you chose to skip over.  The G&M describes the effect of policies as 'muddied' which I agree with.

For example new entries for temporary are cut significantly but permanent entry is on a "temporary" upswing.

I have seen of cuts to the TFW program. I have heard no one even mention the IMP, which is the larger one. So I'll reserve judgment here.

 

On 3/1/2026 at 12:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

One thing that you, Groot, should be pleased with is reduced family unification.  That means fewer grandparents coming over to add burdens on the health system.

Maybe. The grandparent sponsorship is a different system. The Liberals increased it sixfold in the last ten years. I have not heard it mentioned for a decrease.

On 3/1/2026 at 12:16 PM, Michael Hardner said:

 

Incidentally here's a conservatives' take on the effects of immigration, full perspective.

 

For those who are allowed to immigrate due to their skills, which is what he appears to be talking about, yes. But most of our immigrants over the past ten years were not here due to any particular high skill set. He talks about the issues with bringing one skilled person in and them sponsoring all kinds of others as if that is unique to the UK and not similar in Canada. The last time I saw any figures on this, which was years ago, it was in an article from a former head of Immigration Canada, who said only about 15% of newcomers were the actual skilled person. All the rest were sponsorees, including their families. The last statistical analyses I saw said only this particular group (the principal applicant under the skilled category) earned the same or higher than  Canadians. All other newcomer groups earned less, in some cases substantially less.

When it comes to crime, all I can say is all official figures I've seen from Europe show a MUCH higher degree of criminality among 'foreign-born'. I have never seen this broken down between skilled vs sponsored vs refugees, though.

Talking about social cohesion and how some countries are used to integrating newcomers due to a long history of doing so, I would suggest integrating Italians is considerably easier than integrating people who don't even have the same alphabet as us, much less any similar linguistic roots, and have strong religious-based values that are inimical to our own. 

[Moonbox]

The last chart seems pretty flimsy.  Minimum 8 suspects per data point??  Where is this even from?  

I don't really have much of a point to make but that chart makes me suspicious and looks like the sort of thing you go digging for to reinforce an already-formed opinion, rather than for actual information purposes.  

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The last chart seems pretty flimsy.  Minimum 8 suspects per data point??  Where is this even from?  

I don't really have much of a point to make but that chart makes me suspicious and looks like the sort of thing you go digging for to reinforce an already-formed opinion, rather than for actual information purposes.  

Or it could just be stuff popping up in my feed, y'know. Like all the other such charts and tables and graphs I've posted. Do you think the information is wrong? I've posted stuff from each of the countries named, which gives much the same sorts of information. Canada does not record such information, of course. And wouldn't tell us if it did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5 by I am Groot

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Or it could just be stuff popping up in my feed, y'know.

So the algo feeding you the conclusions it knows you want to hear makes it more reliable?  I think there's a term for that.  

[Goddess]

If you watch any of the committee meetings on immigration, you'd see our numbers are not coming down.  I don't care what the Liberal MPs tell CBC to report.

If you watched the meetings, you'd see what a total f'ing mess our immigration is.

[Moonbox]

23 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If you watch any of the committee meetings on immigration, you'd see our numbers are not coming down.  I don't care what the Liberal MPs tell CBC to report.

If you watched the meetings, you'd see what a total f'ing mess our immigration is.

You do realize that nobody is just taking your word for granted though, right?  

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You do realize that nobody is just taking your word for granted though, right?  

CBC reports the numbers that the Immigration Ministry Reports.

If they're wrong, that's on the government.