Canada spending $850 million per year to settle immigrants, stop the madness

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
I just can't take it anymore. This needs its own thread. The federal govt is spending $850 million a year settling immigrants into the country. This social program has got to go. Business should hire it people it needs who can be productive right away and we can keep unedicated third world workers and seniors at home in their own country.

The last paragraph discusses the obscene cost of immigrants to Canada. Almost a billion a year.This is a joke.
http://www.metronews.ca/ottawa/comment/article/919390--feds-asking-tough-questions-about-the-future-of-immigration--page1

Feds asking tough questions about the future of immigration


METRO CANADA

Published: July 18, 2011 3:00 p.m.
Last modified: July 17, 2011 6:07 p.m.

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is asking some pretty tough questions about the future of Canada’s immigration program.

On July 12, he launched a national consultation in Calgary on the levels and mix of immigrants that Canada should be accepting in the coming years. He will travel to meet stakeholders in Vancouver on July 18, in Toronto on July 20, and in Montreal on July 22.

The bbackgrounder issued online by Citizenship and Immigration Canada reveals a department anxious to address big questions but seemingly constrained by the need to obtain public approval.

The department wants input on three major questions:


  • How many people should we let in each year as permanent residents?
  • What should the mix be?
  • How do we ensure a fair and efficient system?

The department acknowledges that Canada has an “aging population,” that we are experiencing “fertility rates below replacement values,” and that Canada’s labour force is experiencing “slowing” growth. Aging baby boomers are creating a bulge in Canada’s retirement rates, which raises the question of who will be there to pay the taxes to cover the costs of their care.

CIC describes the dilemma this way: “Although increasing levels would be one way to mitigate some of these pressures, it would require broad buy-in from the public and additional funding. Is that likely?”

It is clear from this statement that the department assumes increased levels of immigration will mean the need for extra tax dollars. In 2011-12, more than $250 million will be spent on settling immigrants destined to Quebec and another $600 million plus will be spent on those destined elsewhere in the country.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
There is a new term I'd like you to meet....

Human Capital

Google it but don't feel guilty about doing it.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
From the article: "The department acknowledges that Canada has an “aging population,” that we are experiencing “fertility rates below replacement values,” and that Canada’s labour force is experiencing “slowing” growth."

In this city, birth stats were on the news a while ago. In the population from the three quadrants of the city that are mostly of Canadian birth; European from the last 60-100 years, the birth rate was about 1.2 children, while in the quadrant that is mostly new immigrant from countries other than Europe, the birth rate was about 5 or 6. I think the above statement needs to be qualified. New immigrants seem to be surpassing replacement values ... so ... is the solution for more new immigrants to populate the country at 3-4 times the rate of native Canadians?

My grandfather was born 143 years ago today. I don't think he nor my father relied on someone else to provide for their retirement. To suggest that Canada needs to populate the country with immigrants because there is an aging baby boomer population and someone (presumably these new immigrants?) has to pay for their retirement seems very misguided. Generations have managed their olden age without a huge influx of immigrants to look after it. If there are no jobs for the new immigrants and their large families, who is going to look after them?

Over-population seems to be a problem only when it comes to food, water and land, but economically, for the babyboomers, it sounds like the only solution. Confusing.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
$850 000 000 / 250 000 = $3400

The country spends $3400 per immigrant, per year, to settle one immigrant. Some never get jobs and consume social services until they die years or decades later. We would likely get much better results paying Canadian families to have a third child if we want population growth.

Canada has plentiful cheap energy, so our large use of resources has no meaning yet.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Are Canadians prepared to cover the cost, to hopefully replenish baby boomer retirement funds, when new immigrants often have difficulty finding jobs in their field, sometimes become dependent on the government for almost everything and have a birth rate of 3-4 times that of native Canadians?

"According to data by Manitoba Agriculture, Drake estimates the average expenses related to raising a child to 19-years-old is CAD$191,665."

Average cost of raising a child in Canada


5 children per new immigrant family amounts to about a million per family.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
We are in uncertain times, and at this time in our history I would say no people are not going
to willing spend that kind of money for a project like this. It goes beyond immigration in fact.
Earlier this year the WTO proposal failed and that means many of the trading agreements are
now in limbo. Economically we are experiencing tough economic times and when that happens
nationalism takes over. At the top of the list when Nationalism comes to the fore is immigration,.
Canadians are slowly turning against the programs like NAFTA and other international agreements.
Put that up against people coming here and what do you find? Canadians want jobs for Canadians,
never mind the fact that there won't be enough younger Canadians to fill the job market.
They are taking our jobs mentality has been increasing for some time now, taking Canadian jobs
and immigration go hand in hand and have nothing to do with what the facts are.
The truth is there are more jobs now that there are Qualified people to fill them. We need to retrain
large sections of the present work force to do the jobs that are coming on line.
The truth is, we need new Canadians to fill the job markets and pay the taxes to keep the system
running. The problem is as the economy slows, people become less tolerant of certain groups.
Discrimination, well actually yes, it goes on all the time its just it is more evident during times of stress.
My problem with the system is we allow refugees to come with no skills at all half the time.
We allow family reunification, and some are unskilled and some are older people who soon become a
drain on present resourses. Immigrants coming here should not automatically be allowed to bring
extended family period, We said the individual can come here not the entire neighbourhood.
Spending that kind of money on immigrants is not the best way to go when we have programs and
certified Canadians in need. I have nothing against people coming here I just think we need to follow
our own rules and be much more focussed on who comes and who does not.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
I probably encounter a higher number of new immigrants through work than most Canadians, and I know for a fact that these very qualified people cannot find work. If there were jobs, they would be employed. I think it's a myth that there are more jobs than people to fill them. Furthermore, what makes anyone think that new immigrants want to fill jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians? New immigrants have training, skills and professional objectives. Canada may need people to dig ditches, but that doesn't mean Somalian immigrants want to do that! They most likely want to live their lives and pursue their own professional aspirations with all the benefits of Canada to assist them fulfill their personal, not Canada's economic, goals.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
I probably encounter a higher number of new immigrants through work than most Canadians, and I know for a fact that these very qualified people cannot find work. If there were jobs, they would be employed. I think it's a myth that there are more jobs than people to fill them. Furthermore, what makes anyone think that new immigrants want to fill jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians? New immigrants have training, skills and professional objectives. Canada may need people to dig ditches, but that doesn't mean Somalian immigrants want to do that! They most likely want to live their lives and pursue their own professional aspirations with all the benefits of Canada to assist them fulfill their personal, not Canada's economic, goals.

There are lots of jobs to be filled. It is more a matter of location. Resource jobs are largely in remote areas and even though many require nothing more than being able to walk and breath at the same time new immigrants mostly want to settle in cities, generally within a group of their own culture. Same goes for many home grown young. They are so accustomed to the parents or the government looking out for them they won't go to where the jobs are. Now professional immigrants do face other hurdles such as the old boys club that does not recognize their credentials which often are better than required.
Currently the government is using immigration to cover the ponzi scheme called Canada pension which has been under funded and missmanaged from the start. We are now about to reap the rewards of this poor management.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
I have posted this before on here. I find it very interesting.
From immigrationreform.ca

Did you know?

1. Immigration increases the size of Canada’s population and economy but does not improve Canadians' standard of living.

2.* It is estimated that recent immigrants receive billions of dollars a year more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

3. Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills.

4. While the average age of Canadians is increasing and the proportion of seniors will almost double in the next few decades, immigration will do very little to offset this trend despite the widely held belief that it will do so.*

5.* There are more than 100,000 parents and grandparents of immigrants who have met requirements and are waiting to enter Canada. They will receive the benefits of our public health care system without having contributed to costs by paying income tax.

6. Most of the quarter of a million people who immigrate to Canada every year are not interviewed by a visa officer to determine if they are well-suited to integrate into Canadian society and its economy.

7. Far more Canadians want immigration levels lowered rather than increased. Despite this, and the lack of economic or demographic benefits to Canadians, we maintain the highest per capita intake in the world.

8. In terms of Canadians’ attitude towards a multicultural mosaic, a 2007 survey indicated that 18%* thought that it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities while 53% thought immigrants should adapt fully to Canadian culture.

9. The number of visible minority neighbourhoods in Canada’s three largest cities increased from six in 1981 to 254 in 2001.

10. Canada’s acceptance rate for refugee claimants is three times the average of other countries, suggesting that two-thirds of those accepted would probably not be considered genuine refugees by other countries.

11. In 2003 Canada accepted 76% of refugee claims by Sri Lankans while Britain accepted 2% and Germany 4%. That year Canada accepted 1,749 refugee claims by Sri Lankans while all the other countries together accepted only 1,160.

12. Canada, uniquely among nations, allows nationals of many democratic countries with good human rights records to make refugee claims in Canada on the basis that they fear persecution in their homelands.

13.* As cities have increased in population, largely because of international immigration, urban expansion has devoured a large amount of Canada’s best,*Class 1, *agricultural land, consuming 7,400 kilometers between 1971 and 2001 and occupying 7%* of the total during this period.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I love how people just re-post the same slop without acknowledging the criticisms. It's kind of like, making a new thread when you don't enjoy getting your ass handed to you in a previous one - a tactic well employed by the AGW deniers.

I guess I'll have to re-post what you failed to acknowledge last time around Durry.


1. Immigration increases the size of Canada’s population and economy but does not improve Canadians' standard of living.
How was this determined? What constitutes the standard of living and how has it become worse?

2.* It is estimated that recent immigrants receive billions of dollars a year more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
A total myth. Absolutely false.
Economic impact of immigration to Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3. Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills.
Again, false. By doing simple math, around 60,000 “principal” applicants are chosen within the FSW and Provincial Nominee classes. These classes have very strict mandatory education, work, language and adaptability criteria that have to be met. 60,000 of 250,000 admitted is around 25%.

Therefore, simple math would suggest that ATLEAST 25% of all immigrants admitted are EDUCATED. This is of course assuming that all the spouses and dependants and every family member sponsored is illiterate or uncultured (which I bet is not the case).
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...iminary/01.asp

4. While the average age of Canadians is increasing and the proportion of seniors will almost double in the next few decades, immigration will do very little to offset this trend despite the widely held belief that it will do so.
There is a belief that immigration will stop an aging demographic? I don't think anyone believes that.

5.* There are more than 100,000 parents and grandparents of immigrants who have met requirements and are waiting to enter Canada. They will receive the benefits of our public health care system without having contributed to costs by paying income tax.
Many will also be working minimum wage jobs for quite a long time (if not the entire duration of their stay), so this is really a moot point.

6. Most of the quarter of a million people who immigrate to Canada every year are not interviewed by a visa officer to determine if they are well-suited to integrate into Canadian society and its economy.
What factors determine what is an appropriate social and economic integration?

7. Far more Canadians want immigration levels lowered rather than increased. Despite this, and the lack of economic or demographic benefits to Canadians, we maintain the highest per capita intake in the world.
Wrong. They want to maintain existing levels.
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul10/nanos.pdf

8. In terms of Canadians’ attitude towards a multicultural mosaic, a 2007 survey indicated that 18%* thought that it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities while 53% thought immigrants should adapt fully to Canadian culture.
So what? Canadians can't even agree on what their own culture is, let alone comment on what a "multicultural mosaic" would signify in that context. What a load of bull.

9. The number of visible minority neighbourhoods in Canada’s three largest cities increased from six in 1981 to 254 in 2001.
This is a problem because??

10. Canada’s acceptance rate for refugee claimants is three times the average of other countries, suggesting that two-thirds of those accepted would probably not be considered genuine refugees by other countries.
Yes, I agree with second point that many non-genuine refugees are taking advantage of the Canadian system to apply when they indeed are bogus. But this is not a systemic fault. This is fault of lack of stamina to prosecute false claimants.

11. In 2003 Canada accepted 76% of refugee claims by Sri Lankans while Britain accepted 2% and Germany 4%. That year Canada accepted 1,749 refugee claims by Sri Lankans while all the other countries together accepted only 1,160.
Cherry picking other countries to compare us with is disingenuous. If you want a comparison, then Canada is way behind India or Indonesia or Malaysia or even Australia in accepting Sri Lankan refugees.

If you want to say Canada is too generous in its acceptance, then yes, you will find stats to back you. On the flip side, if you want to prove that Canada is not humanitarian in its acceptance rate of refuges, then you can also find other countries in the world (usually poorer) that have generously accepted refugees. The number game goes both ways.

12. Canada, uniquely among nations, allows nationals of many democratic countries with good human rights records to make refugee claims in Canada on the basis that they fear persecution in their homelands.
Now here is a claim that actually needs some stats to show what proportion of immigrants fall under this header. If it's less than 10% of all immigrants, who really gives a ****?

13.* As cities have increased in population, largely because of international immigration, urban expansion has devoured a large amount of Canada’s best,*Class 1, *agricultural land, consuming 7,400 kilometers between 1971 and 2001 and occupying 7%* of the total during this period.
More humans = more resource use. News at 11.

Also, there is no evidence to back up any claim that population increases in urban areas are primarily caused by immigration.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
Well, I read your comments the last time but I did not agree with most of your comments.
I chose not to reply because there would be no final correct answer that we would agree on. So I just decided we were both entitled to our points of view and left it at that!!
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
This relates to the recent statements by Kenney..

Canada has much to gain by embracing immigrants


In Canada, the Conservative government is alert for any sign that irregular refugee claimants might try to reach our shores.Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said last week his government is determined to head off a migrant ship carrying 87 Sri Lankan Tamils moored off New Zealand. The migrants say they are seeking asylum in New Zealand, not Canada.

In the United States this spring, the Supreme Court upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which allows the state to close businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. In the Huffington Post, Raul A. Reyes noted the law has two major flaws: It has not reduced illegal immigration and, in its first year, 2008, it led to a 13-per-cent drop in state income tax.

In Britain, news that more immigrants settle there than in any other European country - about 400,000 in 2009 - was met with consternation by the Conservative government. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith warned that if the government did not tighten immigration rules, native-born Britons would not be hired. British businesses snapped back immigrants have a better work ethic.

Three snapshots, three examples of how irrationally countries behave when faced with migration. These are the same countries struggling with aging populations, low birthrates and growing labour shortages.


Into this stalemate has come an interesting book, Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future.


Written by Oxford professor Ian Goldin and researchers Geoffrey Cameron, a Canadian academic, and Meera Balarajan, Exceptional People traces the history of migration from when the first Africans set out 50,000 years ago to today, when Kenney stands guard against a small group of Tamils.

Migrants are far from the welfare layabouts/job thieves/reluctant citizens that current political discourse makes them out to be. Exceptional People persuasively argues that migrants throughout history have generated great material, social and intellectual wealth. They fuel innovation. They connect markets with their far-flung networks. They spread knowledge and add to social diversity. If, over a period of 25 years, between 2005 and 2025, borders around the world were thrown open, gains would run "as high as $39 trillion for the world economy," the book says.

Immigrants to the U.S. have filed the majority of patents by leading American companies. A similar connection between immigrants and innovation holds for Canada. Canadian research from 2008 showed that with a 10-percent increase in immigrants with "a sufficient level of language proficiency," there has been an increase of 7.3 per cent in the "patent flow." (Language proficiency highlights the importance of communication skills, researchers said.)

The free flow of people is also the right moral choice: The world will not become a better place if rich countries continue to treat the poor of the world as barbarians at the gate as they struggle to escape persecution and poverty. Given how much the world stands to gain from immigration, why don't governments promote its benefits?

"Our discourse has become disconnected from economic realities," said Cameron, research associate at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. In an interview, Cameron said that looked at from a national perspective, immigration has both costs and benefits. Benefits, which include greater innovation and economic dynamism, are more diffuse than costs. They are general to the country and tend to be more long-term. Costs tend to be short-term and local.

He praised Canada as a "pioneer in crafting a concept of citizenship that isn't racial or ethnic in character." By opening the door to people who are willing to sacrifice everything to ensure a better future for themselves and their children - to people who form what Cameron calls a truly "aspirational class of people" - Canada has everything to gain. Kenney can stand down.

Canada has much to gain by embracing immigrants
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
A summary from wikipedia, but you can follow their links to government reports and studies:

>>There is no consensus on the net impact of immigration to government finances. A 1990 study found that an average immigrant household paid $22,528 in all forms of taxes and on average each household directly consumed $10,558 in government services. By contrast an average native Canadian household paid $20,259 in tax and consumed $10,102 dollars in services. Across the country this means that immigrant households contributed $2.6 billion more than their share to the public purse.[60] A 1996 study found that over a lifetime a typical immigrant family will pay some forty thousand dollars more to the treasury than they will consume in services.[61] Explanations for this include that immigrant households tend to be larger, and have more wage earners, increasing taxes. Newcomers are also less likely to make use of many social services. Immigrants are less likely than native Canadians to receive employment insurance, social assistance, and subsidized housing.[62] Immigrants are also much less likely to become homeless or suffer from mental illness.[63] Recent immigrants are also less likely to make use of subsidized housing than native Canadians of the same income level. In 2004 22.5% of low-income native Canadians lived in subsidized housing, but only 20.4% of low income recent immigrants did so, though this number was considerably higher among more established immigrants.[64] The libertarian think tank Fraser Institute has also studied this issue claims that the immigrants who arrived between 1987 and 2004 cost governments $23 billion per annum (as of 2006) in excess of taxes raised from those immigrants, relating to universal social services (e.g., welfare, medicare, public education).[13]
Economic impact of immigration to Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Good post eao.

I really hope that our conservative government can see the big picture before cutting away to appease its narrow-minded install base.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
Good for Kenny.
Now all they have to show us is that they are doing the best for Canada.

An example;
I do a lot of runs/walks for fund raising events. About a month ago I was at an MLS run where there were about 8000 participants. Mostly were white people and oriental people who are always well represented at these type of events. But there were absolutely no participants from two very prominent ethnic groups, why?? Some like to contribute, others expect to be looked after.

Second, only two percent of our military are visible minority, why??
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Good for Kenny.
Now all they have to show us is that they are doing the best for Canada.

An example;
I do a lot of runs/walks for fund raising events. About a month ago I was at an MLS run where there were about 8000 participants. Mostly were white people and oriental people who are always well represented at these type of events. But there were absolutely no participants from two very prominent ethnic groups, why?? Some like to contribute, others expect to be looked after.

Second, only two percent of our military are visible minority, why??

Who cares?

You don't have to join the military to be a 'contributor'.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Good for Kenny.
An example;
I do a lot of runs/walks for fund raising events. About a month ago I was at an MLS run where there were about 8000 participants. Mostly were white people and oriental people who are always well represented at these type of events. But there were absolutely no participants from two very prominent ethnic groups, why?? Some like to contribute, others expect to be looked after.

Second, only two percent of our military are visible minority, why??

Perhaps certain ethnic groups prefer to volunteer within their own communities?