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 *** 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 (external - login to view)
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).
www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...iminary/01.asp (external - login to view)
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.
www.irpp.org/po/archive/jul10/nanos.pdf (external - login to view)
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.