It's a symptomatic issue.
Are you that biased that you can't look at immigration objectively?
Do you enjoy making empty claims?
It's a symptomatic issue.
Are you that biased that you can't look at immigration objectively?
It's a symptomatic issue.
Are you that biased that you can't look at immigration objectively?
Hmmm, somehow, I don't think you want to understand. Must be as a result of an entitlement mindset???Your claim that we're required to join the military in order to make a societal contribution still is not justified.
Hmmm, somehow, I don't think you want to understand. Must be as a result of an entitlement mindset???
Hmmm, somehow, I don't think you want to understand. Must be as a result of an entitlement mindset???
Entitlement?
You're the one claiming that enlisting in the military is a mandatory requirement in order to contribute.
Ummmm, and just where did I say that ??
Man, you are some indoctrinated dude on immigration,,,,your way !!
Some like to contribute, others expect to be looked after.
Only two percent of our military are visible minority, why??
You must like my posts, you keep repeating them.You're the one claiming that enlisting in the military is a mandatory requirement in order to contribute.
You must like my posts, you keep repeating them.
You still have not answered my question, where did I say "enlisting in the military is a mandatory requirement". ??
Is it that you can't read or is it that you can't comprehend??
Some like to contribute, others expect to be looked after.
Only two percent of our military are visible minority, why??
This post implies that more visible minorities should be joining the military to 'contribute' to society.
That's the claim. If you want to argue over semantics, that's fine. But there is nothing to back up that claim.
Looks like someone's whispering sweet nothings in your ear to try and prop you up.
Why don't you be a man and tell the rest of us who it is.
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
Immigration is a poltical football. We decide immigration is good, yet we must spend $850 million per year to settle them. That is a definite number and a very real expense. I say it's too high. Anyone got some offset numbers?
$3,400 per person really doesn't seem like a bad deal.
And that cost to taxpayers is basically $30/year.
That isn't unreasonable.