Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.


Recommended Posts

....It is difficult to think of more immoral action than by the British NHS when they have been actively poaching Nigerian nurses because the NHS in Britain is understaffed as if the nurses in NIgeria would not be needed.

This is not any more "immoral" for the UK than it is for many western nations, including Canada. The poaching of medical professionals has been going on for many years:

http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.06-canada-poaching-foreign-international-immigrant-doctors-larry-krotz/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, now youre really just reduced to incomprehensible babble.

It's called intelligent conversation, but I understand how that might confuse you.

Immigrants traditionally vote heavily liberal, yet conservatives governments have kept the exact same immigration policies in place.

Immigrants traditionally vote for the party that was in power when they came over, and the Conservatives have been making strenuous efforts (with considerable success) in co-opting that vote for themselves.

The reality the impotus behind our immigration policy is, and always has been economics

I work in government. I know that every program needs to justify itself. Immigration is an immense, mufti-billion dollar program. If it were designed for an economic purpose then there would be regular detailed studies of its effect on every aspect of the economy. These would be necessary in order to fine tune this huge program, to ensure it is serving those economic interests properly. Yet the federal government has never made any detailed study of the economic benefits of immigration or how to increase those benefits. Not once. Not EVER.

. Canadian businesses would actually like to INCREASE immigration

,

Of course they would. Business loves immigrants! They'll work for a lot less money, they'll work longer hours, under worse conditions, and rarely ever complain. After all, if you're brought up in a society where sixty hour work weeks are the norm, where safety considerations don't matter, and where you get paid a dollar a day, almost anything is a great improvement.

1. Demographics - aging population, low birth rate and shrinking work force.

This argument is often used but it's been shot down long ago. The demographics don't work, and the type of immigrants coming over doesn't work. The average age of immigrants is not much below the average age of Canadian born, because we don't emphasise youth.

2. “Baby Boomers” will need social, medical, and old age assistance – there is a need to be able to finance the numerous social programmes.

Which only comes from people who pay taxes. As mentioned in a post article last week, which I posted here earlier in another thread, the main bulk of wage earners pay little in the way of taxes. 75% pay only 12% of taxes. And since immigrants now fare poorly in all studies of their economic success (and are getting worse) most of them aren't actually paying much, if anything, in taxes. They're consuming social services, education, health care, etc., but not paying enough to support them.

4. Census data for 2002, predicts potential worker shortfalls in a vast range of occupations by 2011, from family doctors to bricklayers.

Perhaps, but a better solution is to train more doctors. The number of doctors has been kept deliberately low by provincial requirements to keep health care costs down. As for other occupations, we can train them. We have a lot of unemployed, after all. Fix the damn college system instead of trying to bring over immigrants, many of whom turn out to have poor qualifications anyway.

Most of your argument consists of aging boomers, but that is a bulge which will largely disappear in another couple of decades. Where, then, is your justification for this continued mass immigration? And in any event, if we really wanted to counteract that we'd stop bringing over older parents, aged grannies, uncles and aunts, and focus on bringing over younger immigrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I never said that it is being managed properly. However I think that we can assume that the immigration system is doing OK - but I am sure that we could being doing a better job.

Well, you can make that assumption, if you so choose. Perhaps you're an optimist. From what I've seen, I can't agree with you.

a) Canada's immigration levels have been stable for many years (> 220,000 since 2000) despite changing governments. To me this means that the current numbers are reasonable.

It means nothing of the sort. Immigration numbers are not measured against any kind of success criteria. We have no information from the government on what affect these numbers have had on the economy, society, or anything else. Immigration numbers are a political consideration, nothing more.

B) The goal of the Government of Canada is to work in the best interest of Canadians,

Oh my. You ARE an optimist. Having followed politics for over thirty years now I can tell you that the goal of the party in power is to work in the best interests of the party in power. There are innumerable examples of this being against the best interests of Canadians. And immigration is one of those examples.

if immigration were bad for the economy it would be an easy and populist fix to cut immigration.

There has always been a populist desire to cut immigration. But it's extremely attractive to any party in power as a recruiting tool, and to show how much they love this or that ethnic group they're courting. And it's one of those things which doesn't have a downside for ignoring. Ie, if you want to cut immigration, who are you going to vote for? So any party in power has nothing to lose by continuing the program. If it proposes cutting it, though, for any reason, it will be rabidly attacked as racist, heartless, anti-immigrant, etc. Those are the political realities.

I personally do not have evidence or studies to support my claim that immigration is a benefit to the Canadian economy, however, there is no doubt that Canada takes in much more immigrants than any OPEC countries and our economy has kicked everyone's ass. Therefore wouldn't the burden of proof be on your side?

No, I don't think so. In the government where I work, which happens to be the federal government, you don't operate programs without justifying them through careful analyses, statistics and evidence. You certainly don't operate them by simply saying "Meh, prove to me it's not in the country's interest".

More to the point, you can examine Fraser Institute report on immigration

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your proposal does have some merit; however we may be closing the door to some highly skilled immigrants: professionals, entrepreneurs...

By the way, are you saying that Canada circa 1984 was a better compared to Canada 2012?

Why use 1984, the midst of a deep recession? Why not use 1968, before Trudeau opened up immigration and started flooding us with people from the third world? Our population was far lower then than now. Were we worse off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pro union. You probably think I'm some right winger, but I skew left a lot of the time. If unions were truly looking out for their members they'd be against mass immigration as well. Part of the decline of the union movement can be attributed to mass immigration.

Absolutely correct. In the US, unions are not nearly as supportive of mass immigration as they are in Canada. In fact, their position is often anti-immigration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to your second point, which at bottom is about cultural differences I know nothing about.

But your first point is 100% and unequivocally the fault of the employers, not of those desperately seeking work.

Why not kick out the employers, rather than the immigrants?

(I kid...but it is thei employers' fault. )

A wolf will always attack sheep. Employers act the way employers act. You're not going to change their nature. Their ideal employee will work 12hrs a day, 7 days a week for minimum wage and no benefits, do it enthusiastically, and offer to work unpaid overtime on top of that. They will always prefer employees who are willing, for cultural reasons, or because they're desperate, to work longer for less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The permutations can get even stranger than that - you also got your collective-hating, immigrant-denying people who wouldn't hesitate to bring in foreign-workers or employ sweatshops in communist countries.

I imagine you'd call me 'immigrant denying', but I'm a shop steward in a union and extremely cynical about employer behaviour. I also admire the way unions and management work together in places like Germany and Scandinavia. As for bringing in foreign workers, I'm completely opposed to it, and have already said I oppose the government's initiative to increase this and to allow them to have lower wages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's unconscionable to impede the movement of human beings in search of a better life around the world while corporations are free to roam it as if they owned the place, we're people too and we were also here first.

The problem is that not impeding these people would result in me having a worse life. It's my interests against theirs and I choose me.

As for corporations, that's another argument, but to my mind, we should police their behaviour here, and leave other governments to police their behaviour THERE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in government. I know that every program needs to justify itself. Immigration is an immense, mufti-billion dollar program. If it were designed for an economic purpose then there would be regular detailed studies of its effect on every aspect of the economy. These would be necessary in order to fine tune this huge program, to ensure it is serving those economic interests properly. Yet the federal government has never made any detailed study of the economic benefits of immigration or how to increase those benefits. Not once. Not EVER.

Absolutely right. The studies that have been done show GDP/capita for Canadians to be a wash - ie no net benefit or loss from immigration. But compare that to the stress on infrastructure and downward push on wages caused by immigrants - those are negative that impact Canadians.

,

Of course they would. Business loves immigrants! They'll work for a lot less money, they'll work longer hours, under worse conditions, and rarely ever complain. After all, if you're brought up in a society where sixty hour work weeks are the norm, where safety considerations don't matter, and where you get paid a dollar a day, almost anything is a great improvement.
Exactly
This argument is often used but it's been shot down long ago. The demographics don't work, and the type of immigrants coming over doesn't work. The average age of immigrants is not much below the average age of Canadian born, because we don't emphasise youth.
We would have to bring in a million young immigrants a year to impact the demographic trend. And then, guess what, those immigrants also get old, so we would just be kicking that problem down the road a piece.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why use 1984, the midst of a deep recession? Why not use 1968, before Trudeau opened up immigration and started flooding us with people from the third world? Our population was far lower then than now. Were we worse off?

Hi Argus,

1984 was chosen because the poster claimed that our immigration issues started with Mulroney.

My main thesis is that Canadians, on average, have never been better off than the present. This is supported by Life Satisfaction data I referenced earlier. I say: there were no "good ole days" and millions of immigrants have contributed to the collective success of Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Argus,

1984 was chosen because the poster claimed that our immigration issues started with Mulroney.

My main thesis is that Canadians, on average, have never been better off than the present. This is supported by Life Satisfaction data I referenced earlier. I say: there were no "good ole days" and millions of immigrants have contributed to the collective success of Canada.

That might be because of the immigrants we have brought in More than half of our country is of European descent. And Asians are pretty good. Some groups bring in more trouble than others

Edited by Anti-Am
Link to post
Share on other sites
We would have to bring in a million young immigrants a year to impact the demographic trend. And then, guess what, those immigrants also get old, so we would just be kicking that problem down the road a piece.

We allow each new immigrant to sponsor both parents. My grade six arithmetic tells me that if a high enough percentage of them do so, we will age our population even faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We allow each new immigrant to sponsor both parents. My grade six arithmetic tells me that if a high enough percentage of them do so, we will age our population even faster.

Reality shows this isn't happening when you look at the numbers. This fear about over-immigration is completely unfounded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Argus,

1984 was chosen because the poster claimed that our immigration issues started with Mulroney.

My main thesis is that Canadians, on average, have never been better off than the present. This is supported by Life Satisfaction data I referenced earlier. I say: there were no "good ole days" and millions of immigrants have contributed to the collective success of Canada.

But as you stated, that 'happiness' study only goes back 10 years. I go back... further. You might not think there was a 'good ole days' but my memory extends back to that point in time. Now it's true my memories might be tinged somewhat with youth, but I do recall that crime was slight, and there were no such things as street gangs shooting at each other, just to start. Schools were non-violent places. There were no homeless wandering the streets. There was no shortage of doctors, and you could see one within minutes of going to an emergency room. Parents were not afraid to let their kids outside, and the roads, insofar as my memory goes, were better maintained, as were the sidewalks. We had no huge budget deficit or debt, cities weren't particularly crowded, and you could buy a cottage not so very distant from town for a fairly low price (now they can cost as much as a house). Children were actually allowed out to play all by themselves, and when they became teenagers they could get their own car, because insurance really wasn't much at all...

So how are we better off now again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to show that it's immigration that has made us as happy as we are. (And we're not at the top of the list). 50% of Canadians think immigration levels are too high - so we might be even more contented with less immigration. Let's Canada's financials decline, and people might be much more in arms about our immigration levels.

I think we've benefited from having people from all over the world some to settle here. It's expanded our horizons. But, we over did it, we brought in too many at one time. And continue to do so, despite no rational reason for it. Time to cut back, train Canadians for the jobs we need filled, and do a much better job matching immigrants to jobs before they ever come here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine you'd call me 'immigrant denying', but I'm a shop steward in a union and extremely cynical about employer behaviour. I also admire the way unions and management work together in places like Germany and Scandinavia. As for bringing in foreign workers, I'm completely opposed to it, and have already said I oppose the government's initiative to increase this and to allow them to have lower wages.

I'm completely opposed to bringing in foreign workers too but I also think there is a huge difference between them and an immigrant. The fw's are just in it for the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as you stated, that 'happiness' study only goes back 10 years. I go back... further. You might not think there was a 'good ole days' but my memory extends back to that point in time. Now it's true my memories might be tinged somewhat with youth, but I do recall that crime was slight, and there were no such things as street gangs shooting at each other, just to start. Schools were non-violent places. There were no homeless wandering the streets. There was no shortage of doctors, and you could see one within minutes of going to an emergency room. Parents were not afraid to let their kids outside, and the roads, insofar as my memory goes, were better maintained, as were the sidewalks. We had no huge budget deficit or debt, cities weren't particularly crowded, and you could buy a cottage not so very distant from town for a fairly low price (now they can cost as much as a house). Children were actually allowed out to play all by themselves, and when they became teenagers they could get their own car, because insurance really wasn't much at all...

So how are we better off now again?

Crime is dropping and is at a 40 year low.

Life Satisfaction is > 90 %

Canada ranks fifth in the world in Life Satisfaction

Life expectancy is at a record high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that not impeding these people would result in me having a worse life. It's my interests against theirs and I choose me.

I hear you, I just said it was unconscionable to impede them in the face of corporate freedom to move.

As for corporations, that's another argument, but to my mind, we should police their behaviour here, and leave other governments to police their behaviour THERE.

I totally disagree. We should have complete control over their behaviour no matter where they are and especially when they have any kind of dealing with another government. The last thing I want is some government that's worse than our's screwing over their own people's lives or the ecosystems they depend on at the behest of one of our corporations. We have no more business exporting them abroad without strict controls than we do meat from a mad cow and for the very same reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. You ARE an optimist.

More to the point, you can examine Fraser Institute report on immigration

You are probably right and I am being too optimistic/naive. I am however getting more bitter and cynical with evry passing year... I have little trust in elected officials, however for some reason I imagine that government civil servants are working towards the best interests of Canadians.

I appreciate the Fraser report, learned from it and is has dampended my enthusiasm for immigration. However, in the long term (>20 years) immigrants catch up and I still think that the current level is reasonable. Also, I would like to see studies comparing social benefits collected by immagrants over their lifetime compared to the national average. The Fraser report assumes they are the same, I would expect them to be less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peeves

You are probably right and I am being too optimistic/naive. I am however getting more bitter and cynical with evry passing year... I have little trust in elected officials, however for some reason I imagine that government civil servants are working towards the best interests of Canadians.

I appreciate the Fraser report, learned from it and is has dampended my enthusiasm for immigration. However, in the long term (>20 years) immigrants catch up and I still think that the current level is reasonable. Also, I would like to see studies comparing social benefits collected by immagrants over their lifetime compared to the national average. The Fraser report assumes they are the same, I would expect them to be less.

Did you read the original post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime is dropping and is at a 40 year low.

Life Satisfaction is > 90 %

Canada ranks fifth in the world in Life Satisfaction

Life expectancy is at a record high.

You know what they say about statistics...

Let's examine the first. Crime is at a 40 year low? The reporting of crime is at a 40 year low. Stats Canada's own figures show that more and more people are not bothering to report crimes to police, even serious crimes, largely because they don't think it will do any good due to inadequate police investigations and limp wristed sentencing.

Let's look at 90+% being happy. Given that this number would have to include virtually everyone not actually living in poverty, and even some who are. Does that make sense to you? I mean, according to the statistics about 10% of Canadians are living in poverty. Do you really think everyone else is satisfied? Ie, the ones working two jobs to scrape by and pay the rent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...