Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The case for a change to Canada's Immigration

Recommended Posts

This is a complex subject and difficult to talk intelligently about without looking at a 'wall of text' which few on these types of forums is much interested in doing. This means you basically have to frame the discussion in a few brief paragraphs, which don't leave room for the nuance and complexity involved.

So in order to keep things readable I'm going to do a separate post on each of the four elements of immigration which concern people: economic, cultural, security. Even then, even isolating them, it's very difficult to post sufficient information to make a quality case while keeping things necessarily brief. I will also do a fourth post on refugees, since that ought to be separated from immigration - even though refugees now actually make up a significant portion of the intake for immigration itself.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing to know about the numbers of immigrants coming into Canada is it's a political decision. It's not decided upon by a learned and unbiased panel of experts deciding on the basis of Canada's needs. In fact, the numbers have almost nothing to do with Canada's needs. Nor is it done for Canada's economic benefit. Anyone who thinks otherwise need only read the following article from the Globe and Mail detailing the tremendous increase in immigration the Mulroney government made in 1990. 

The important elements of the story are that the Tories referred this to the Economic Council of Canada - a government economic think tank, in hopes of gaining a response about how tremendously helpful this would be to the economy so they could use to explain their decision to the public. They didn't get it.

But a major study of immigration by the Economic Council of Canada questions the over-all impact. ECC economist Neil Swan told the Commons committee that his tentative results suggested that “the economic impacts of immigration are not nearly as large as the public generally perceives them to be, whether positive or negative.” He said decisions about immigration should be made on non-economic grounds.

Instead, according to the article However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario.

https://immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

So the Economic Council of Canada found no real benefits. A study by the MacDonald Royal Commission found the same thing. Other studies done in the UK and Australia more recently have come out with similar answers. I stress that these are government studies done by bureaucrats, not politicized people invited to join because their views were already known. Almost every study I've seen touting immigration comes from some group with vest interests, such as the Conference Board of Canada - which is a shill for Corporate Canada.

Similar to the argument that Immigration helps the economy is the argument we need immigrants due to our low birth rate/aging population, in order to prevent a shortage of labour. Three studies done in the last couple of years, including one from the Parliamentary Budget Office, have debunked the idea we have a labour shortage or are likely to have one in the coming decades. And multiple studies have contradicted the theory that immigrants will have more than a minimal impact on our aging population. Some of these are summarized in this column by the former head of Immigration Canada.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/bissett-immigration-policy-is-out-of-control-and-needs-an-overhaul

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cultural argument is one of the hardest to make, because it's something of a gut feeling. There are no statistics on culture, values and traditions, except that we know  they pay a very strong part in building a cohesive, united civil society.  And if society and its culture and values is made up of those of its members, then bringing in massive numbers of people whose values, culture and traditions are inimical to our own is going to have a deleterious impact on ours.

The argument against that is that immigrants quickly assimilate. But this is based on the assumption the assimilation of the past will continue despite our present intake being far and away different, and the circumstances also being far removed from our past. Almost all immigrants in the distant past were European Christians. They were given little choice but to assimilate since no allowances were made for different languages or values, and there were no social services available.  You assimilated and worked or died, and nobody cared which. You were also nearly completely cut off from your homeland. You couldn't return easily. And your only contact came in letters or newspapers which took weeks to arrive.

Todays immigrants are in 24/7 contact with their homeland, have a ready supply of reading material, video, news and movies from home via TV, satellite and internet, and can return home regularly and easily. There is also far less pressure to quickly assimilate because of the availability of a wide array of government social and support services, a wide acceptance of different cultures and values, and large ethnic populations to live among.

Trudeau and others on the Left have claimed Canada has no central cultural value system or identity.  Although interestingly, they'd never make that claim about Quebec's francophones. I would make the argument Canada's Anglophones are as different from the UK or US as Canada's Francophones are from France. Acceptance of differing ethnicities and their cultures has become so widespread BECAUSE of that unique tolerance in Canada's society. Yet many, even most of those coming in are not tolerant at all, by our standards, not even of our ways, much less each others. We gloss over this and it's rarely ever mentioned in the mainstream media. But the idea people from extremely intolerant societies come to Canada and immediately lose their intolerance has no supporting evidence nor logic behind it. And we do not screen for values or intolerance or even religious extremism.

And many of those cultural values which are hostile to ours are backed up by deeply felt and held religious beliefs which show little sign of moderating. Canada has never before in its history taken in so many people from such a wildly different cultural background as we are going now. And never before in history has there been less need for them to adapt and assimilate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument about security is largely predicated on concerns about two distinct groups entering Canada in large numbers; Muslims and Chinese.

These two groups present different security consideration, neither of which is being screened for. The first problem is, as Douglas Murray bluntly stated - the more Muslims you have, the more terrorism you have. Only a small percentage of a given Muslim population might be radicalized sufficiently for them to take violent action against their fellow citizens, but obviously, the raw numbers grow as that population grows.  A mere 1% of a population of one million still results in 10,000 radical members. That's more than enough to cause considerable problems. Yet despite the levels of extremism and intolerance in many of our source countries for Muslims we do literally nothing to screen them for views and beliefs which would lend themselves to radicalism and violence.

In the case of China, the security problem is entirely different. China has the world's most robust intelligence operation. It prioritizes intelligence to such an extent that all Chinese business, regardless of where in the world they operate, are required, by law to assist the government's intelligence activities upon request. It is heavily involved in its own overseas diaspora, which, due to the nature of modern travel and communication, is constantly either visiting back 'home' or talking with relatives back there. Certainly any Chinese businessman operating in Canada, regardless of citizenship, knows very well that not cooperating with requests from the Chinese government will end his business dealings with China, and quite possibly endanger his family there.

It would be painfully naive not to realize China would use the steady stream of immigrants heading to places like Canada to plant intelligence agents, as well, agents who would be tasked with moving into sensitive positions in local industry, especially tech industries, as well as in government. China has targeted Canada as one of the nations it is seeking to influence, through sponsorship of academic and cultural institutions, as well as funneling money into political campaigns through its overseas diaspora.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

You have good points, but continually pointing to a comment from 1990 when immigration is a constant source of discussion and information is flawed at best.

I point to this as an indication of why our immigration soared under Mulroney. Those who oppose cutbacks to immigration seem to feel that it's high for a reason. I'm pointing out that the reason was to get votes for the Tories. Also, a study of immigration in 1990 is really no different than a study done yesterday. These are studies that are economic, and based on numbers that don't change. The impact of X number of people on a population of Y, based on average age, known patterns of behaviour, etc, make government studies done then no less accurate for the time scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And the idea that past immigration was European and current immigration isn't ignores the increase in Asian immigration we have had for a few decades.

How does it ignore it? If you go back to what I wrote about Mulroney you'll see our immigration numbers began to explode only in the late 1980s. There would have been some Asian immigration prior to that but the numbers would have been far lower. Thus most Asians in Canada are first generation immigrants.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refugees. Our refugee system began to fall apart in 1985 after the Supreme Court's Singh decision. This required all would-be refugees to be given a hearing, where prior to this they filed an application and the paperwork was dealt with and then approved or disapproved without a hearing. The government then not only set up a system of hearings, with appeals, but granted refugees full legal rights to appeal through the federal courts, and also paid for lawyers for them. Decisions which were once dealt with quickly began to take years to wind their way through the system, and the expense rose exponentially.

In 2008 the Canada Border Services estimated the average cost of a failed asylum claim at $50,000. With the process growing longer due to increasing numbers of applicants that cost is only going to get worse.

Refugees, according to Statistics Canada, are the least economically successful portion of immigrants (refugees who are accepted become permanent residents and then citizens). so it's important to ensure we're not simply taking in economic migrants, but people who are legitimately refugees under the UN definition. It's nice to be nice, and Canada often is too nice to our own detriment in dealing with these sorts of issues. But the more impoverished people who come into Canada, the more impoverished Canada becomes.

And those numbers threaten to grow worse in the coming years through drought caused by global warming. I refer to a column in the Spectator which deals with the dilemma of being nice vs looking after our own interests.

Millions if not billions of decent, ordinary people in need of food, clean water, shelter and medical care are bound to constitute a form of moral blackmail. They will all have heartbreaking stories. And if we continue to confront the issue as a question of sympathy rather than existential self-interest, they will nearly all get in.

Thomas Friedman has astutely characterized the West vs the rest as order vs disorder. But with over-stressed welfare systems, accelerating cultural upheaval and rising right-wing militancy, the lands of order can slide to 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. I’m not sure which is worse.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/the-march-of-the-migrants-poses-a-dilemma-for-america/

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarize.

There's damn all evidence mass immigration is an economic boon. It brings with it considerable expense to government, and considerable societal upheaval, overcrowding, pollution, and security risks. The only people it seems to benefit are politicians seeking votes from ethnic and immigrant groups. Increasing the amount of immigration simply requires a lower standard for those who get in, and less screening on them, with an inevitably poorer outcome in all respects. It is is also causing an increasing level of anxiety by native born Canadians, who are becoming less welcoming and more suspicious of immigrants and refugees.

Lowering our immigration back to say, 200,000 and assessing the results would seem to make excellent sense - if the system was designed for Canada's benefit. But good luck finding a politician with more interest in Canada's well-being than his or her own political prospects, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Argus said:

Lowering our immigration back to say, 200,000 and assessing the results would seem to make excellent sense - if the system was designed for Canada's benefit. But good luck finding a politician with more interest in Canada's well-being than his or her own political prospects, though.

I wouldn't even object to that.  If 200,000 is enough for whatever it is immigrants are supposed to do (clean our office buildings, serve our coffee, drive our taxis?) then ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I wouldn't even object to that.  If 200,000 is enough for whatever it is immigrants are supposed to do (clean our office buildings, serve our coffee, drive our taxis?) then ok.

Is that what you get out of all the info Argus has provided , That all we need immigration for is to do the jobs we as Canadians don't want to....BTW did you read your post it sounds like something taxme would write, or better yet racists as fuc*….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Is that what you get out of all the info Argus has provided ,

Not being scared sh**less of brown people, I didn't see anything else worth responding to.

Quote

That all we need immigration for is to do the jobs we as Canadians don't want to....

According to Argus, immigrants do not provide any economic benefit, they lower the overall wage scale of all Canadians and will have negligible effect on mitigating the effect of our aging population.  We put obstacles in the path of immigrants with advanced education and training so that they end up working jobs far below their skill level.  So you tell me, why do we need immigration?

Quote

BTW did you read your post it sounds like something taxme would write, or better yet racists as fuc*….

Why?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Not being scared sh**less of brown people, I didn't see anything else worth responding to.

According to Argus, immigrants do not provide any economic benefit, they lower the overall wage scale of all Canadians and will have negligible effect on mitigating the effect of our aging population.  We put obstacles in the path of immigrants with advanced education and training so that they end up working jobs far below their skill level.  So you tell me, why do we need immigration?

Why?  

WTF are you talking about, no one is bringing up brown people....

And it is not according to Argus, he has provided many sources here just read them , before we sound the brown people alarm, ....we do put obstacles in front of some trades, that require a high, level of education, they are there for a reason .....to make it a level playing field some countries standards are below western standards and require more education....you know doctors or surgeons, etc etc ….some countries have much higher standards than Canada, these people are given credit for that as well.....

If you had read all the info you would have known what immigration is for, instead you come looking for a fight....pulling out the racist flag before you even found out what the topic was about.....

We don't need immigration to clean toilets, serve our coffee, clean up after ourselves….we need immigration to help us enlist the next generation of Canadians, that will contribute to this nations growth.....what we don't need is hotels full of immigrants living off the tax payers money that really offer no benefit to this nation...and if that includes some brown people to f***king bad.....and Yes there are lots of white people doing the same thing that should be dumped in BC some place....

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

 

If you had read all the info you would have known what immigration is for, instead you come looking for a fight....pulling out the racist flag before you even found out what the topic was about.....

 

I read each of his posts here and responded to the part I felt I could agree with, while noting that many immigrants are employed in fast food joints, as janitors and as taxi drivers.  You bopped on here, and called me a racist.  I am not at all perturbed by that, but I do wonder who is "looking for a fight".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not being scared sh**less of brown people, I didn't see anything else worth responding to.

No one has mentioned colour. But this argument tends to be the fallback of those supporting immigration when they have no other arguments. So let's deal with it.

An unavoidable fact of the world is that the most highly developed, technologically and socially advanced parts of the world are mostly white. Suggesting it would be preferable to have people from this part of the world - which government studies show are far and away more economically successful immigrants than people from other countries - is not to prefer white over brown, but simply to prefer the most successful immigrants.

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

According to Argus, immigrants do not provide any economic benefit, they lower the overall wage scale of all Canadians and will have negligible effect on mitigating the effect of our aging population. 

According to government studies.

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

We put obstacles in the path of immigrants with advanced education and training so that they end up working jobs far below their skill level. 

The only obstacles are that they must demonstrate their capabilities. The reasons for this vary, but they boil down to the fact most of the universities in the developing world are... fifth rate, at best, compared to the educations offered in Western universities. In addition, false academic credentials are widespread in many of the countries which are our principal sources of immigrants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

The only obstacles are that they must demonstrate their capabilities. The reasons for this vary, but they boil down to the fact most of the universities in the developing world are... fifth rate, at best, compared to the educations offered in Western universities. In addition, false academic credentials are widespread in many of the countries which are our principal sources of immigrants.

 

And here is the reason why we have the "obstacle" of making them prove their capabilities:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-doctor-suspended-botched-circumcisions-1.4953561

Quote

 

Dr. Ejaz Ahmad pleaded guilty to professional misconduct on Oct. 15 for performing circumcisions on as many as 18 pediatric patients in 2016 and 2017, when he lacked the training and know-how to do the procedures.

Several of his young patients ended up in the emergency room with complications.

"It is disturbing any time a physician practises and performs procedures that they are not competent to do," said Dr. Anna Ziomek, CEO and registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, in an interview Thursday.

Among the complications, two boys were rushed to hospital with potentially life-threatening bleeds, one after a portion of his penis was amputated and the other with arterial bleeding.

Other boys experienced complications like swelling, pain, embedded gauze from improper wound care, possible infections and disfigurement.

At least one boy's penis was left so deformed he required a revision surgery.

 

And the worst part is that this "doctor" KNEW he was grossly under-performing and just didn't care:

Quote

Ahmad admitted to using an inappropriate technique and lacking knowledge, skill and judgment. He acknowledged he provided anesthetic at a "non-specific dose," used only alcohol swabs to sterilize the surgical site and did not suture after circumcision.

The removal of each patient's foreskin was done for cultural reasons and not insured by Manitoba Health, the college found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

But this argument tends to be the fallback of those supporting immigration

And yet, my first comment on this thread was that I didn't object to your suggestion of lowering immigration to 200,000 if that was all that was required.

Funny how you ignore what I have said in favor of attacking me for what I haven't said.  Something you have in common with Goddess.  I suppose it would hurt both your heads too much to think beyond your stereotypes of "leftists", "progressives", Muslims, Blacks, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

And yet, my first comment on this thread was that I didn't object to your suggestion of lowering immigration to 200,000 if that was all that was required.

Funny how you ignore what I have said in favor of attacking me for what I haven't said.  Something you have in common with Goddess.  I suppose it would hurt both your heads too much to think beyond your stereotypes of "leftists", "progressives", Muslims, Blacks, etc.

I didn't 'ignore' your first post. I noted it. And, as is typical behaviour in topics, since I had nothing to say in disagreement, I had nothing to say. Do you typically reply to posts which you have no argument with? Your latest one, bringing up 'brown' people merited a response since that is one of the typical complaints against those who argue for lower immigration - that they just don't like brown people. It has underlined much of your argument against those who decry the current immigration system for a very long time now.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Goddess said:

And here is the reason why we have the "obstacle" of making them prove their capabilities:

If we look to the UK, we see the results of not requiring strict proof of qualifications. There are all kinds of calls from progressives to allow foreign trained doctors to practice here without subjecting them to careful checks. 70% of doctors who lose their license to practice in the UK are foreign born and trained.

FOREIGN doctors are much more likely to be investigated for incompetence than their British-trained counterparts, according to new research. A study found medics who qualified in Bangladesh in particular were a staggering 13 times more likely to be investigated for poor practice.

Researchers concluded that a lack of a grasp of the language means some foreign-born doctors are unable to communicate fluently with patients in English, which in turn negatively impacts their medical ability. The study’s authors, from University College London, also found Egyptian and Nigerian-born GPs faced an eight-fold higher risk.

In addition to the language barrier, the study found poor training in countries with lower standards.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/790269/foreign-doctors-more-likely-investigated-incompetence-than-british-trained-medics

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dialamah said:

I read each of his posts here and responded to the part I felt I could agree with, while noting that many immigrants are employed in fast food joints, as janitors and as taxi drivers.  You bopped on here, and called me a racist.  I am not at all perturbed by that, but I do wonder who is "looking for a fight".  

 

Here I am again bopping on here to once again point out that your original post sounded very racist...."

Quote

wouldn't even object to that.  If 200,000 is enough for whatever it is immigrants are supposed to do (clean our office buildings, serve our coffee, drive our taxis?) then ok. "

It reads like you think immigrants are for nothing more than cleaning up after you, serving you, or driving you around...I was pointing it out to you that it is racist ….

 

Quote

Not being scared sh**less of brown people, I didn't see anything else worth responding to.

Then you responded with this shit....WTF ?

Quote

I read each of his posts here and responded to the part I felt I could agree with, while noting that many immigrants are employed in fast food joints, as janitors and as taxi drivers.  You bopped on here, and called me a racist.  I am not at all perturbed by that, but I do wonder who is "looking for a fight". 

I'm not looking for a fight, it was your actions called out not mine, it was your chioce of words, and "ou decided to respond they way you did, no one put any words in your mouth....you came on here to troll Argus post...instead you got your hand stuck in the cookie jar....        

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

you came on here to troll Argus post...

So ridiculously arrogant, assuming you can read minds and motivations of people you don't know and refusing to pay attention to anything but your own misguided assumptions.  

Many immigrants are janitors, taxi drivers and fast food workers.  Often its because they can't get work in whatever field they may have trained for at home.  Many of the jobs they do are the ones non-immigrants avoid.  That isn't racist, that's reality.

As for trolling Argus, I essentially agreed with something he said.  Till you showed up, no trolling was happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So ridiculously arrogant, assuming you can read minds and motivations of people you don't know and refusing to pay attention to anything but your own misguided assumptions.

**hands you a mirror**

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Many immigrants are janitors, taxi drivers and fast food workers.  Often its because they can't get work in whatever field they may have trained for at home.  Many of the jobs they do are the ones non-immigrants avoid.  That isn't racist, that's reality.

If Argus said those very words you'd be calling him a racist.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

**hands you a mirror**

Prove it.

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If Argus said those very words you'd be calling him a racist

When Argus says Muslims are "goat herders", "barbaric", "ignorant", "misogynist" etc. I call him a bigot.  

If he said "most immigrants work in menial jobs like janitor, fast foods, taxis" I'd either agree or say nothing.  

If he added that they worked those jobs because they were lazy, or ignorant or too stupid to do more complex jobs, I might indeed call him racist.

I am sure the difference will escape you, given how subtle it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Prove it.

When Argus says Muslims are "goat herders", "barbaric", "ignorant", "misogynist" etc. I call him a bigot.  

Aren't some Muslims goat herders, barbaric, ignorant and misogynistic?

Quote

If he said "most immigrants work in menial jobs like janitor, fast foods, taxis" I'd either agree or say nothing.  

If he added that they worked those jobs because they were lazy, or ignorant or too stupid to do more complex jobs, I might indeed call him racist.

I am sure the difference will escape you, given how subtle it is.

My position on immigrants coming here to do menial work because 'Canadians won't' has never altered.

It should not happen. If the work is unpleasant and unrewarding, and yet needs to be done, then the employer will simply have to raise wages to the point it can attract sufficient employees. No immigrant, no temporary foreign workers. I feel the same about skilled jobs, too. Except in extraordinary circumstances, we should not be bringing in immigrants. If we have a shortage, then address that shortage.  Train more people. The marketplace is great at providing incentives for employers to pay higher wages for hard to find employees, and for employees to learn new skills if those skills are well-rewarded. The only thing that gets in the way of this is government.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...