House Member
Posts: 3,167 
July 7th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Obviously, there are benefits to immigration but 'mass immigration' as employed by successive Canadian governments threatens the longterm stability of the country. Why aren't we given a larger say in the management of our own country? Who'll look out for us in the future if key infrastructure like health and education break down?
Obviously, there are benefits to immigration but 'mass immigration' as employed by successive Canadian governments threatens the longterm stability of the country. Why aren't we given a larger say in the management of our own country? Who'll look out for us in the future if key infrastructure like health and education break down?
House Member
Posts: 3,167
July 7th, 2006, 09:51 PM
Well, if the Star contributor is correct, the stakes are very high and especially for people living in the GTA and close to it. I'm parked less than two hours away. When I visit Toronto I see a growing sprawl of communities tied together by little more than the geography they share. In good times things wiggle through. But if bad times come, and they surely will, will we see a nightmarish Third World city arise where once stood one of the continent's jewels?
Well, if the Star contributor is correct, the stakes are very high and especially for people living in the GTA and close to it. I'm parked less than two hours away. When I visit Toronto I see a growing sprawl of communities tied together by little more than the geography they share. In good times things wiggle through. But if bad times come, and they surely will, will we see a nightmarish Third World city arise where once stood one of the continent's jewels?
Newbie
Posts: 5
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
July 11th, 2006, 01:09 AM
The author of the article makes some excellent points. Though I fully support liberal immigration policies, we can't maintain levels that are unhealthy for the people coming as well as the people already here. I'm not going to go off on "they're takin' our jobs!", but an immigration policy that ignores the reality of job markets in Canada isn't going to help anyone, least of all the immigrants themselves (as the article points out).
I think the problem with attempting to discourage mass immigration to overstretched urban areas is that there isn't really anywhere else to go. With increasingly unpredictable weather and ever-greater efficiency in agriculture, Canadian farmers are growing fewer and fewer, and those who do best own or at least tenant-farm vast stretches of land. Encouraging immigrant farmers to take back up the rake (so to speak) probably wouldn't work very well, due to the changing dynamics of Canadian agriculture.
Further, where should we send them besides places like GTA, Vancouver, and Montréal? Calgary? A cheap house costs $350,000. Edmonton? Same troubles. Every major urban area is facing massive growth, and those that aren't are in economically weak areas like Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, and frankly, is an influx of immigrant labour going to help anyone in those areas either?
Rather than accepting so many immigrants from poorer countries, why don't we help them and us by simply accepting fewer and spending more on infrastructure development and basic aid to impoverished nations?
Seems that's a better plan in the long-term anyway. Bring developing nations up to speed, rather than watching population pressures destroy us from the inside.
The author of the article makes some excellent points. Though I fully support liberal immigration policies, we can't maintain levels that are unhealthy for the people coming as well as the people already here. I'm not going to go off on "they're takin' our jobs!", but an immigration policy that ignores the reality of job markets in Canada isn't going to help anyone, least of all the immigrants themselves (as the article points out).
I think the problem with attempting to discourage mass immigration to overstretched urban areas is that there isn't really anywhere else to go. With increasingly unpredictable weather and ever-greater efficiency in agriculture, Canadian farmers are growing fewer and fewer, and those who do best own or at least tenant-farm vast stretches of land. Encouraging immigrant farmers to take back up the rake (so to speak) probably wouldn't work very well, due to the changing dynamics of Canadian agriculture.
Further, where should we send them besides places like GTA, Vancouver, and Montréal? Calgary? A cheap house costs $350,000. Edmonton? Same troubles. Every major urban area is facing massive growth, and those that aren't are in economically weak areas like Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, and frankly, is an influx of immigrant labour going to help anyone in those areas either?
Rather than accepting so many immigrants from poorer countries, why don't we help them and us by simply accepting fewer and spending more on infrastructure development and basic aid to impoverished nations?
Seems that's a better plan in the long-term anyway. Bring developing nations up to speed, rather than watching population pressures destroy us from the inside.
Bright Spark
Posts: 324
July 11th, 2006, 01:12 AM
Quoting
Wait a minute. They come here to Canada from their own country and you want to 'compensate' them for moving into rural areas? We would need to bribe them to do so? Here is a better idea. If they do not wish to settle in rural areas then tell them they cannot come here. Is this too difficult a concept to grasp? Why would we actually beg them to blackmail us? These liberals... jeez.
If the impact of immigration harm big cities, why don't governement restricts them to live in cities. They might promote some compasation for thouse who settle in rural areas.
Bright Spark
Posts: 324
July 11th, 2006, 01:16 AM
Quoting
Why should we send a single dime to impoverished nations? That money we currently have going out for foreign aid should be rerouted for our own people. We do have a homeless and poverty problem here. Take care of our own first. Do not bother with those nations outside of Canada. When it comes to our tax dollars, they are irrelevant.
The author of the article makes some excellent points. Though I fully support liberal immigration policies, we can't maintain levels that are unhealthy for the people coming as well as the people already here. I'm not going to go off on "they're takin' our jobs!", but an immigration policy that ignores the reality of job markets in Canada isn't going to help anyone, least of all the immigrants themselves (as the article points out).
I think the problem with attempting to discourage mass immigration to overstretched urban areas is that there isn't really anywhere else to go. With increasingly unpredictable weather and ever-greater efficiency in agriculture, Canadian farmers are growing fewer and fewer, and those who do best own or at least tenant-farm vast stretches of land. Encouraging immigrant farmers to take back up the rake (so to speak) probably wouldn't work very well, due to the changing dynamics of Canadian agriculture.
Further, where should we send them besides places like GTA, Vancouver, and Montréal? Calgary? A cheap house costs $350,000. Edmonton? Same troubles. Every major urban area is facing massive growth, and those that aren't are in economically weak areas like Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, and frankly, is an influx of immigrant labour going to help anyone in those areas either?
Rather than accepting so many immigrants from poorer countries, why don't we help them and us by simply accepting fewer and spending more on infrastructure development and basic aid to impoverished nations?
Seems that's a better plan in the long-term anyway. Bring developing nations up to speed, rather than watching population pressures destroy us from the inside.
I think the problem with attempting to discourage mass immigration to overstretched urban areas is that there isn't really anywhere else to go. With increasingly unpredictable weather and ever-greater efficiency in agriculture, Canadian farmers are growing fewer and fewer, and those who do best own or at least tenant-farm vast stretches of land. Encouraging immigrant farmers to take back up the rake (so to speak) probably wouldn't work very well, due to the changing dynamics of Canadian agriculture.
Further, where should we send them besides places like GTA, Vancouver, and Montréal? Calgary? A cheap house costs $350,000. Edmonton? Same troubles. Every major urban area is facing massive growth, and those that aren't are in economically weak areas like Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, and frankly, is an influx of immigrant labour going to help anyone in those areas either?
Rather than accepting so many immigrants from poorer countries, why don't we help them and us by simply accepting fewer and spending more on infrastructure development and basic aid to impoverished nations?
Seems that's a better plan in the long-term anyway. Bring developing nations up to speed, rather than watching population pressures destroy us from the inside.
Newbie
Posts: 5
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
July 11th, 2006, 01:22 AM
We should help to support the development of impoverished nations because, believe me, it will be in all our best interests in the long-run. Internationalism and globalization are scary words, but they're getting more and more powerful (globalization especially). And yes, we do have poverty and homlessness. Not so rarely amongst immigrant populations. As the world becomes more and more closely integrated, "taking care of our own" will become more and more a matter of ensuring others beyond us are doing well too.
Not by throwing money at ruthless dictatorships bent on genocide, but by providing know-how and support to democratic nations willing to accept help in their path to a Western standard of living.
We should help to support the development of impoverished nations because, believe me, it will be in all our best interests in the long-run. Internationalism and globalization are scary words, but they're getting more and more powerful (globalization especially). And yes, we do have poverty and homlessness. Not so rarely amongst immigrant populations. As the world becomes more and more closely integrated, "taking care of our own" will become more and more a matter of ensuring others beyond us are doing well too.
Not by throwing money at ruthless dictatorships bent on genocide, but by providing know-how and support to democratic nations willing to accept help in their path to a Western standard of living.
Bright Spark
Posts: 324
July 11th, 2006, 01:29 AM
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
Quoting
Why? Why should you have to work much harder only to see your money go to faraway lands? Globalisation is precisely why you should not want your money to leave the country. Why would you seek to improve another country's ability to compete with Canada in world markets? Why would you want to do this and watch the costs for our social programs skyrocket out of control? Why not use that 'foreign aid' and turn it into Canadian aid? What do I care what happens to idiots in an African nation? AS you well know, most of those countries are foreign dictatorships anyway. Why should we give money to people who although poor continue to pop out babies with ridiculous regularity? The more they pop out the more money they will want thus the more we will give. This will create a further strain upon our economy.
We should help to support the development of impoverished nations because, believe me, it will be in all our best interests in the long-run. Internationalism and globalization are scary words, but they're getting more and more powerful (globalization especially). And yes, we do have poverty and homlessness. Not so rarely amongst immigrant populations. As the world becomes more and more closely integrated, "taking care of our own" will become more and more a matter of ensuring others beyond us are doing well too.
Not by throwing money at ruthless dictatorships bent on genocide, but by providing know-how and support to democratic nations willing to accept help in their path to a Western standard of living.
Not by throwing money at ruthless dictatorships bent on genocide, but by providing know-how and support to democratic nations willing to accept help in their path to a Western standard of living.
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
July 11th, 2006, 09:00 PM
While I tend to agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer, I think the key to a large part of the problem is education. When some of these countries have literacy rates as low as 40%, these people don't have a chance. Outsourcing and manufacturing still marginalizes a good chunck of the population and leaves very little backwards and forwards econcomic "flows" (did I say that right, Toro, bitwys?). Anyway, educate, educate, educate!
Quoting
Why? Why should you have to work much harder only to see your money go to faraway lands? Globalisation is precisely why you should not want your money to leave the country. Why would you seek to improve another country's ability to compete with Canada in world markets? Why would you want to do this and watch the costs for our social programs skyrocket out of control? Why not use that 'foreign aid' and turn it into Canadian aid? What do I care what happens to idiots in an African nation? AS you well know, most of those countries are foreign dictatorships anyway. Why should we give money to people who although poor continue to pop out babies with ridiculous regularity? The more they pop out the more money they will want thus the more we will give. This will create a further strain upon our economy.
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
By the time many, many products etc are able to be produced in the developing world, they've reached their peek profit wise in the west. Their at the end of the technological life cycle.Why? Why should you have to work much harder only to see your money go to faraway lands? Globalisation is precisely why you should not want your money to leave the country. Why would you seek to improve another country's ability to compete with Canada in world markets? Why would you want to do this and watch the costs for our social programs skyrocket out of control? Why not use that 'foreign aid' and turn it into Canadian aid? What do I care what happens to idiots in an African nation? AS you well know, most of those countries are foreign dictatorships anyway. Why should we give money to people who although poor continue to pop out babies with ridiculous regularity? The more they pop out the more money they will want thus the more we will give. This will create a further strain upon our economy.
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
While I tend to agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer, I think the key to a large part of the problem is education. When some of these countries have literacy rates as low as 40%, these people don't have a chance. Outsourcing and manufacturing still marginalizes a good chunck of the population and leaves very little backwards and forwards econcomic "flows" (did I say that right, Toro, bitwys?). Anyway, educate, educate, educate!
Bright Spark
Posts: 324
July 11th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Quoting
While I tend to agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer, I think the key to a large part of the problem is education. When some of these countries have literacy rates as low as 40%, these people don't have a chance. Outsourcing and manufacturing still marginalizes a good chunck of the population and leaves very little backwards and forwards econcomic "flows" (did I say that right, Toro, bitwys?). Anyway, educate, educate, educate!
So we in the West should pay for their education? Why? Look at China as a perfect example. For many, many years we sent them economic aid. This caused them to become educated and their economy to grow. It is through Western education and influence that Deng Xiaoping realised the only thing that could save China was to open his country's economy to the West. After al those years of working our humps off aiding the poor Chinese population look at the result of our efforts! China's economic growth is outpacing our own! For almost a century we were the USA's greatest trading partner. Now China is fast catching up to us in that area and will soon bypass us as the USA's greatest trading partner! What do you think this means to Canadians? Loss of jobs. Bankruptcies left and right. All because bleeding heart lefties feel we should feel sorry for the poor nations just as we did to China. Now not only is China an economic powerhouse thanks to the West and our aid to their nation but they are now a military powerhouse. During WWII do you think the Chinese paid for their own military equipment? No. It was supplied to them by the Americans and British. Free of charge. This meant after the war China was free to do some growing without any debts. Here again the West has offered the noose to our foes with which they may hang us!
Quoting
Why? Why should you have to work much harder only to see your money go to faraway lands? Globalisation is precisely why you should not want your money to leave the country. Why would you seek to improve another country's ability to compete with Canada in world markets? Why would you want to do this and watch the costs for our social programs skyrocket out of control? Why not use that 'foreign aid' and turn it into Canadian aid? What do I care what happens to idiots in an African nation? AS you well know, most of those countries are foreign dictatorships anyway. Why should we give money to people who although poor continue to pop out babies with ridiculous regularity? The more they pop out the more money they will want thus the more we will give. This will create a further strain upon our economy.
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
By the time many, many products etc are able to be produced in the developing world, they've reached their peek profit wise in the west. Their at the end of the technological life cycle.Why? Why should you have to work much harder only to see your money go to faraway lands? Globalisation is precisely why you should not want your money to leave the country. Why would you seek to improve another country's ability to compete with Canada in world markets? Why would you want to do this and watch the costs for our social programs skyrocket out of control? Why not use that 'foreign aid' and turn it into Canadian aid? What do I care what happens to idiots in an African nation? AS you well know, most of those countries are foreign dictatorships anyway. Why should we give money to people who although poor continue to pop out babies with ridiculous regularity? The more they pop out the more money they will want thus the more we will give. This will create a further strain upon our economy.
I would ask that you remember by far the majority of those nations are civilisations much, much older than ours. Where were they when our people were living in caves starving or freezing to death? Did they send us 'aid'? No. It is our wealth and our time to enjoy that wealth. It is their turn to suffer as my people did. Works both ways.
While I tend to agree that throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer, I think the key to a large part of the problem is education. When some of these countries have literacy rates as low as 40%, these people don't have a chance. Outsourcing and manufacturing still marginalizes a good chunck of the population and leaves very little backwards and forwards econcomic "flows" (did I say that right, Toro, bitwys?). Anyway, educate, educate, educate!
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
July 11th, 2006, 09:23 PM
And, as I said, many products developed in developing nations have reached the end of their technological or product life cycle in the west, taking more inputs to produce than profits they are producing.
Quoting
I really don't think Ethiopia will surpass Canada or the US economically any time soon. And no, I have no problem contributing to implementation programs aimed at educating women and children in developing nations. When the need is no longer there, then I have a problem, as would be the case with China. Not that I'm privy to any information with respect to aid ear marked for education sent direct from Canada to the Chinese government. Are you?
[
So we in the West should pay for their education? Why? Look at China as a perfect example. For many, many years we sent them economic aid. This caused them to become educated and their economy to grow. It is through Western education and influence that Deng Xiaoping realised the only thing that could save China was to open his country's economy to the West. After al those years of working our humps off aiding the poor Chinese population look at the result of our efforts! China's economic growth is outpacing our own! For almost a century we were the USA's greatest trading partner. Now China is fast catching up to us in that area and will soon bypass us as the USA's greatest trading partner! What do you think this means to Canadians? Loss of jobs. Bankruptcies left and right. All because bleeding heart lefties feel we should feel sorry for the poor nations just as we did to China. Now not only is China an economic powerhouse thanks to the West and our aid to their nation but they are now a military powerhouse. During WWII do you think the Chinese paid for their own military equipment? No. It was supplied to them by the Americans and British. Free of charge. This meant after the war China was free to do some growing without any debts. Here again the West has offered the noose to our foes with which they may hang us!
So we in the West should pay for their education? Why? Look at China as a perfect example. For many, many years we sent them economic aid. This caused them to become educated and their economy to grow. It is through Western education and influence that Deng Xiaoping realised the only thing that could save China was to open his country's economy to the West. After al those years of working our humps off aiding the poor Chinese population look at the result of our efforts! China's economic growth is outpacing our own! For almost a century we were the USA's greatest trading partner. Now China is fast catching up to us in that area and will soon bypass us as the USA's greatest trading partner! What do you think this means to Canadians? Loss of jobs. Bankruptcies left and right. All because bleeding heart lefties feel we should feel sorry for the poor nations just as we did to China. Now not only is China an economic powerhouse thanks to the West and our aid to their nation but they are now a military powerhouse. During WWII do you think the Chinese paid for their own military equipment? No. It was supplied to them by the Americans and British. Free of charge. This meant after the war China was free to do some growing without any debts. Here again the West has offered the noose to our foes with which they may hang us!
And, as I said, many products developed in developing nations have reached the end of their technological or product life cycle in the west, taking more inputs to produce than profits they are producing.
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
July 11th, 2006, 09:28 PM
And Germany provided rhe largest part of China's arms prior to 1937, then Russia until '40 or '41. They didn't get any military aid until after 1945 from the allies. They had their share of debt from war with Japan up until that point. But anyway.
And Germany provided rhe largest part of China's arms prior to 1937, then Russia until '40 or '41. They didn't get any military aid until after 1945 from the allies. They had their share of debt from war with Japan up until that point. But anyway.
Bright Spark
Posts: 313
July 11th, 2006, 09:30 PM
quote: "And no, I have no problem contributing to implementation programs aimed at educating women and children in developing nations".
The only aid I agree with is condoms. Boat loads full of condoms. Whenever I get one of those envelopes in the mail requesting a donation I drop in the best aid you can give...a condom.
quote: "And no, I have no problem contributing to implementation programs aimed at educating women and children in developing nations".
The only aid I agree with is condoms. Boat loads full of condoms. Whenever I get one of those envelopes in the mail requesting a donation I drop in the best aid you can give...a condom.
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
July 11th, 2006, 09:35 PM
Quoting
Those too. Still, it would help if those not able to attend the seminar could read the fliers.
quote: "And no, I have no problem contributing to implementation programs aimed at educating women and children in developing nations".
The only aid I agree with is condoms. Boat loads full of condoms. Whenever I get one of those envelopes in the mail requesting a donation I drop in the best aid you can give...a condom.
The only aid I agree with is condoms. Boat loads full of condoms. Whenever I get one of those envelopes in the mail requesting a donation I drop in the best aid you can give...a condom.
Bright Spark
Posts: 324
July 11th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Ethiopia? You do realise China was not too far from being like Ethiopia yes? Where do you think all of our monetary aid to Ethiopa goes? Food? You wish. Think military. Think tinpot dictator. There you do. We are handing cash over to African military dictators who simply divert all of that Canadian cash aid to their bank accounts in Zurich. Do not believe me? Look it up on any site. It is fact.
Quoting
And, as I said, many products developed in developing nations have reached the end of their technological or product life cycle in the west, taking more inputs to produce than profits they are producing.
China is a developing nation. What was that about their technological or product life cycle? The Chinese produce by far the majority of the world's products. So it takes more to produce than they are receiving in return? This is why they are by far the world's fastest-growing economy? Oooookkkkkk. Quoting
I really don't think Ethiopia will surpass Canada or the US economically any time soon. And no, I have no problem contributing to implementation programs aimed at educating women and children in developing nations. When the need is no longer there, then I have a problem, as would be the case with China. Not that I'm privy to any information with respect to aid ear marked for education sent direct from Canada to the Chinese government. Are you?
[
So we in the West should pay for their education? Why? Look at China as a perfect example. For many, many years we sent them economic aid. This caused them to become educated and their economy to grow. It is through Western education and influence that Deng Xiaoping realised the only thing that could save China was to open his country's economy to the West. After al those years of working our humps off aiding the poor Chinese population look at the result of our efforts! China's economic growth is outpacing our own! For almost a century we were the USA's greatest trading partner. Now China is fast catching up to us in that area and will soon bypass us as the USA's greatest trading partner! What do you think this means to Canadians? Loss of jobs. Bankruptcies left and right. All because bleeding heart lefties feel we should feel sorry for the poor nations just as we did to China. Now not only is China an economic powerhouse thanks to the West and our aid to their nation but they are now a military powerhouse. During WWII do you think the Chinese paid for their own military equipment? No. It was supplied to them by the Americans and British. Free of charge. This meant after the war China was free to do some growing without any debts. Here again the West has offered the noose to our foes with which they may hang us!
So we in the West should pay for their education? Why? Look at China as a perfect example. For many, many years we sent them economic aid. This caused them to become educated and their economy to grow. It is through Western education and influence that Deng Xiaoping realised the only thing that could save China was to open his country's economy to the West. After al those years of working our humps off aiding the poor Chinese population look at the result of our efforts! China's economic growth is outpacing our own! For almost a century we were the USA's greatest trading partner. Now China is fast catching up to us in that area and will soon bypass us as the USA's greatest trading partner! What do you think this means to Canadians? Loss of jobs. Bankruptcies left and right. All because bleeding heart lefties feel we should feel sorry for the poor nations just as we did to China. Now not only is China an economic powerhouse thanks to the West and our aid to their nation but they are now a military powerhouse. During WWII do you think the Chinese paid for their own military equipment? No. It was supplied to them by the Americans and British. Free of charge. This meant after the war China was free to do some growing without any debts. Here again the West has offered the noose to our foes with which they may hang us!
And, as I said, many products developed in developing nations have reached the end of their technological or product life cycle in the west, taking more inputs to produce than profits they are producing.
Ethiopia? You do realise China was not too far from being like Ethiopia yes? Where do you think all of our monetary aid to Ethiopa goes? Food? You wish. Think military. Think tinpot dictator. There you do. We are handing cash over to African military dictators who simply divert all of that Canadian cash aid to their bank accounts in Zurich. Do not believe me? Look it up on any site. It is fact.
