Ok, north of 50. That's as far as I go to giving free stuff away to noobs. Shift settlement resources there.
Immigrants Need More Financial Support, Study Says
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Ok, north of 50. That's as far as I go to giving free stuff away to noobs. Shift settlement resources there.
We should help the poor, even if they are subsistence, traditional poor people who don't want to change their backward ways and see famine and starvation as their fate. But there is a limit. We are now bringing in immigrants at the expense of the benefit of Canadians. Vancouver is growing with more and more immigrants, yet we cannot afford more transportation infrastructure to support this growth.
Because Immigration is now a dept of its own, it can make policy without regard to economics, in part because multiculturalism, no matter how much it costs, now defines Canada. Multicutluralism is now Canada and to be against it makes you prejudiced and your opinions worthless. The PC crowd has won in this because even to mention non-whites implies prejudice, colonization and white guilt. Immigration is billion dollar industry and they fight for it.
Kind of like professional pogey claimants?
We are? You keep saying this, but apart from an Op/Ed piece, you've offered no proof.
If these people are doing nothing but collecting welfare. Why are they using transit so much?
They have a budget they have to adhere to, and account for. They also have the ability to ask for more, so long as they show some facts as to why they need it.
You should know what facts are, I've been using them to prove you wrong for weeks, months, years.
That's not why you're called prejudiced and your opinions considered worthless.
It is?
Of course. What should we do with all these immigrants that don't have jobs the minute they land here? Put them up at your place?
Last edited:
From immigrationreform.ca
------
HOME > IMMIGRATION MYTHS
IMMIGRATION MYTHS
MYTH
Canada benefits from trade generated by immigrants with their former homelands.
The facts:
While immigrants increase Canada's trade with their home countries because their knowledge and connections lead to a reduction in the cost of such trade, evidence indicates that the increase is slight and that there is no significant relationship between immigration and trade. Moreover, to the extent that immigrants do generate more such trade, imports from their former homelands tend to grow more than twice as much as exports—leading to a trade deficit and a lower Canadian dollar in the longer term.
MYTH
Canadians benefit from the capital brought here by wealthy immigrants.
The facts:
Evidence suggests that the amount of capital investors have brought into Canada is on average relatively small and does not raise their income enough to make them pay taxes above the average. Studies have shown that the investments often go into real estate, mainly housing, which raises land prices and the housing costs of Canadians. A large proportion of investors buy small businesses, such as retail stores, that provide their owners with relatively low incomes and lead to low tax payments.
MYTH:
Even if many recent immigrants have not been successful, many of their children do very well.
The facts:
While it is true that in the past, the children and grandchildren of immigrants have successfully integrated into the Canadian labour force and performed comparably to the native born, there is no evidence yet available to suggest that this will continue to be the case for the children and grandchildren of the more recent cohorts of immigrants, who have performed so poorly economically. In the past, the first generation would usually close the earnings gap with the native born over a ten- or twenty-year period. This would provide them with the wherewithal to ensure their children got a good education and to follow their examples in working hard and doing well economically. Now, however, there is a real risk that the growing ghettoization and increasing poverty among many recent immigrants will undermine their capacity to give their children a good start in life, creating a poverty trap. This would feed a growing inequality that would persist even into the second and third generations. Consequently, it would be foolish for the government to continue to admit large numbers of new immigrants on the hope that their children and grandchildren will be able to succeed economically given the lack of solid empirical evidence that the immigrants themselves are succeeding.
MYTH:
Immigration does not have environmental consequences.
The facts:
Immigration currently accounts for most population growth in Canada, and population growth is by far the major pressure on the environment. In addition, immigration to Canada from developing countries (which is where most of our immigrants now come from) has significant negative effects on the environment in the world as a whole because, according to some estimates, such immigrants have an ecological footprint four times that which they had in their countries of origin. It is worth noting in this regard that, while Canada is often criticized for the environmental consequences of its oil sands development, the impact on the environment of our immigration intake is significantly greater. Immigration in fact has major environmental consequences.
MYTH:
Since most new immigrants come from developing countries and are members of visible minority groups, it would be an act of racism to reduce immigration levels.
The facts:
Canada’s immigrants are selected on the basis of criteria that exclude consideration of their origin, religion or skin colour. These criteria will continue to be applied if levels of immigration are reduced. The fact that the possible future reduction of immigration levels affects persons from visible minorities is simply the result of the fact that we do not need as many newcomers regardless of their backgrounds and is not motivated by racism.
MYTH:
Immigrants built Canada and are needed to continue this process in the future.
The facts:
It is true that in the past, immigrants were responsible for much of Canada’s population and economic growth. However, this fact does not imply that immigrants are needed for the continued existence and prosperity of the country. The population and economy are large enough to be self-sustaining. The merit of continued high levels of immigration is determined by the effects the immigrants have on the living standards and culture of the existing population. In the absence of large immigration flows, the growth in population and incomes will be determined by the decisions of Canadians about the number of children they have and the sacrifices they make for them through savings and investment. This is how it should be. Politicians, buying votes from immigrant communities, should not interfere with this process.
MYTH:
Canadian society is constantly enriched through the increasing diversity brought about by large-scale immigration.
The facts:
While compared to other countries Canada has done a relatively good job of integrating newcomers of different backgrounds, sustained high levels of immigration slow down the process of integration and can have negative implications for social cohesion. There is growing evidence that, although Canadians enjoy the benefits of cultural diversity brought by immigrants, in recent years they have begun to feel that the large numbers of immigrants threaten our national identity and institutions—a reaction that has become widespread in a number of European countries and given rise to significant political movements favouring reduced immigration.
MYTH:
If we don’t let people from other counties immigrate here legally, they in any event find other ways of coming.
The facts:
While Canada should be doing a much better job of screening those who come here and removing those who do not have the right to stay, the fact is that because of our geographical location we are much better placed to control our borders than are most other countries. We do not have a land border with any low-income countries nor are we easily accessible by sea from any of them. We can do quite an effective job of exercising control over who enters our territory and who stays here if we put our mind to it and make available the requisite resources.
MYTH:
As one of the more wealthy countries, Canada has an obligation to share its bounty with people from poorer countries who want to come here to benefit from our standard of living.
The facts:
Canada is too small to have an appreciable impact on global poverty through immigration. It only accounts for around 2.5% of global GDP. Sharing this indiscriminately with the rest of the world would only impoverish Canadians without substantially reducing global poverty. Canada can do more to combat global poverty through its foreign policies and development assistance.
MYTH:
Canadians support high levels of immigration.
The facts:
Although throughout history most Canadians have been positive about immigration in general, many polls show that more recently, and after many years of very high levels of immigration, those who want our intake lowered far outnumber those who want it raised. Despite this, advocates of high immigration have been far more influential in setting immigration goals than average Canadians. The former include immigration lawyers looking to expand their client base, employers in search of cheap labour, immigrant settlement organizations that receive government funding and political parties seeking support from immigrant communities. Until Canadians in general understand the extent to which current immigration policies do not serve their interests and begin to demand that political parties adopt more sensible policies, they can expect little improvement to this situation.
This is not to oppose immigration per se. There will always be important fields where critical shortages exist and where Canadians choose to go elsewhere. Historically, Canada has greatly benefited from its immigrants and always will, but the careful selection and nurture of immigrants is critical.
MYTH:
We need immigrants to do the jobs Canadians won’t do.
The facts:
Sufficiently high wages will induce Canadians to fill all jobs needed in the economy. The increased use of capital and new technologies induced by higher wages will raise workers’ productivity enough so that employers can afford to pay the higher wages. The filling of these jobs by immigrants prevents such pay increases, which in turn causes more Canadians to live in poverty than would otherwise have been the case.
MYTH:
Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.
The facts:
There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs.
MYTH
Canada is sparsely populated and can support a much larger population.
The facts:
Despite Canada's large surface area, much of it is not suited for human habitation. It would require a large input of food and energy for any significant number of people to live there and this would have both economic and environmental costs.*
A large majority of recent immigrants have chosen to live in large cities, most notably Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, because of the wider range of social services, the higher quality of life, economic opportunities and the presence of relatives and immigrant communities in these locations.
This does not result in net benefits for most of the residents of these large cities and increases pressure on educational and health care facilities as well as adds to housing costs, commute times and environmental problems.
MYTH:
With an aging population and lower fertility rates, Canada needs high levels of immigration to provide the workers and tax base required to support social services for retirees.
The facts:
While it is true Canadians are living longer and having fewer babies, research shows that immigration has almost no impact on offsetting the costs of an aging population. Immigrants themselves grow old and draw on social support services while on average they have families as small as those of other Canadians.
For immigrants to make a net contribution to the support of social services, they would have to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. In recent years this has not been the case as newcomers have usually earned substantially less than native-born Canadians and have drawn significantly more in social services than they have paid in taxes.
The only ways to deal with the effects of an aging population involve increases in productivity and raising the age of retirement to accord with improvements in the population’s health and longevity.
MYTH:
High levels of immigration are required to ensure Canada’s prosperity.
The facts:
A country’s prosperity does not depend on a growing population or workforce. This is particularly true in the case of Canada since we are a trading nation and do not require an increasingly large domestic market to achieve economies of scale. Our prosperity depends rather on sound economic policies that stimulate productivity, make good use of capital investment and maximize the potential of the existing workforce.
------
HOME > IMMIGRATION MYTHS
IMMIGRATION MYTHS
MYTH
Canada benefits from trade generated by immigrants with their former homelands.
The facts:
While immigrants increase Canada's trade with their home countries because their knowledge and connections lead to a reduction in the cost of such trade, evidence indicates that the increase is slight and that there is no significant relationship between immigration and trade. Moreover, to the extent that immigrants do generate more such trade, imports from their former homelands tend to grow more than twice as much as exports—leading to a trade deficit and a lower Canadian dollar in the longer term.
MYTH
Canadians benefit from the capital brought here by wealthy immigrants.
The facts:
Evidence suggests that the amount of capital investors have brought into Canada is on average relatively small and does not raise their income enough to make them pay taxes above the average. Studies have shown that the investments often go into real estate, mainly housing, which raises land prices and the housing costs of Canadians. A large proportion of investors buy small businesses, such as retail stores, that provide their owners with relatively low incomes and lead to low tax payments.
MYTH:
Even if many recent immigrants have not been successful, many of their children do very well.
The facts:
While it is true that in the past, the children and grandchildren of immigrants have successfully integrated into the Canadian labour force and performed comparably to the native born, there is no evidence yet available to suggest that this will continue to be the case for the children and grandchildren of the more recent cohorts of immigrants, who have performed so poorly economically. In the past, the first generation would usually close the earnings gap with the native born over a ten- or twenty-year period. This would provide them with the wherewithal to ensure their children got a good education and to follow their examples in working hard and doing well economically. Now, however, there is a real risk that the growing ghettoization and increasing poverty among many recent immigrants will undermine their capacity to give their children a good start in life, creating a poverty trap. This would feed a growing inequality that would persist even into the second and third generations. Consequently, it would be foolish for the government to continue to admit large numbers of new immigrants on the hope that their children and grandchildren will be able to succeed economically given the lack of solid empirical evidence that the immigrants themselves are succeeding.
MYTH:
Immigration does not have environmental consequences.
The facts:
Immigration currently accounts for most population growth in Canada, and population growth is by far the major pressure on the environment. In addition, immigration to Canada from developing countries (which is where most of our immigrants now come from) has significant negative effects on the environment in the world as a whole because, according to some estimates, such immigrants have an ecological footprint four times that which they had in their countries of origin. It is worth noting in this regard that, while Canada is often criticized for the environmental consequences of its oil sands development, the impact on the environment of our immigration intake is significantly greater. Immigration in fact has major environmental consequences.
MYTH:
Since most new immigrants come from developing countries and are members of visible minority groups, it would be an act of racism to reduce immigration levels.
The facts:
Canada’s immigrants are selected on the basis of criteria that exclude consideration of their origin, religion or skin colour. These criteria will continue to be applied if levels of immigration are reduced. The fact that the possible future reduction of immigration levels affects persons from visible minorities is simply the result of the fact that we do not need as many newcomers regardless of their backgrounds and is not motivated by racism.
MYTH:
Immigrants built Canada and are needed to continue this process in the future.
The facts:
It is true that in the past, immigrants were responsible for much of Canada’s population and economic growth. However, this fact does not imply that immigrants are needed for the continued existence and prosperity of the country. The population and economy are large enough to be self-sustaining. The merit of continued high levels of immigration is determined by the effects the immigrants have on the living standards and culture of the existing population. In the absence of large immigration flows, the growth in population and incomes will be determined by the decisions of Canadians about the number of children they have and the sacrifices they make for them through savings and investment. This is how it should be. Politicians, buying votes from immigrant communities, should not interfere with this process.
MYTH:
Canadian society is constantly enriched through the increasing diversity brought about by large-scale immigration.
The facts:
While compared to other countries Canada has done a relatively good job of integrating newcomers of different backgrounds, sustained high levels of immigration slow down the process of integration and can have negative implications for social cohesion. There is growing evidence that, although Canadians enjoy the benefits of cultural diversity brought by immigrants, in recent years they have begun to feel that the large numbers of immigrants threaten our national identity and institutions—a reaction that has become widespread in a number of European countries and given rise to significant political movements favouring reduced immigration.
MYTH:
If we don’t let people from other counties immigrate here legally, they in any event find other ways of coming.
The facts:
While Canada should be doing a much better job of screening those who come here and removing those who do not have the right to stay, the fact is that because of our geographical location we are much better placed to control our borders than are most other countries. We do not have a land border with any low-income countries nor are we easily accessible by sea from any of them. We can do quite an effective job of exercising control over who enters our territory and who stays here if we put our mind to it and make available the requisite resources.
MYTH:
As one of the more wealthy countries, Canada has an obligation to share its bounty with people from poorer countries who want to come here to benefit from our standard of living.
The facts:
Canada is too small to have an appreciable impact on global poverty through immigration. It only accounts for around 2.5% of global GDP. Sharing this indiscriminately with the rest of the world would only impoverish Canadians without substantially reducing global poverty. Canada can do more to combat global poverty through its foreign policies and development assistance.
MYTH:
Canadians support high levels of immigration.
The facts:
Although throughout history most Canadians have been positive about immigration in general, many polls show that more recently, and after many years of very high levels of immigration, those who want our intake lowered far outnumber those who want it raised. Despite this, advocates of high immigration have been far more influential in setting immigration goals than average Canadians. The former include immigration lawyers looking to expand their client base, employers in search of cheap labour, immigrant settlement organizations that receive government funding and political parties seeking support from immigrant communities. Until Canadians in general understand the extent to which current immigration policies do not serve their interests and begin to demand that political parties adopt more sensible policies, they can expect little improvement to this situation.
This is not to oppose immigration per se. There will always be important fields where critical shortages exist and where Canadians choose to go elsewhere. Historically, Canada has greatly benefited from its immigrants and always will, but the careful selection and nurture of immigrants is critical.
MYTH:
We need immigrants to do the jobs Canadians won’t do.
The facts:
Sufficiently high wages will induce Canadians to fill all jobs needed in the economy. The increased use of capital and new technologies induced by higher wages will raise workers’ productivity enough so that employers can afford to pay the higher wages. The filling of these jobs by immigrants prevents such pay increases, which in turn causes more Canadians to live in poverty than would otherwise have been the case.
MYTH:
Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.
The facts:
There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs.
MYTH
Canada is sparsely populated and can support a much larger population.
The facts:
Despite Canada's large surface area, much of it is not suited for human habitation. It would require a large input of food and energy for any significant number of people to live there and this would have both economic and environmental costs.*
A large majority of recent immigrants have chosen to live in large cities, most notably Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, because of the wider range of social services, the higher quality of life, economic opportunities and the presence of relatives and immigrant communities in these locations.
This does not result in net benefits for most of the residents of these large cities and increases pressure on educational and health care facilities as well as adds to housing costs, commute times and environmental problems.
MYTH:
With an aging population and lower fertility rates, Canada needs high levels of immigration to provide the workers and tax base required to support social services for retirees.
The facts:
While it is true Canadians are living longer and having fewer babies, research shows that immigration has almost no impact on offsetting the costs of an aging population. Immigrants themselves grow old and draw on social support services while on average they have families as small as those of other Canadians.
For immigrants to make a net contribution to the support of social services, they would have to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. In recent years this has not been the case as newcomers have usually earned substantially less than native-born Canadians and have drawn significantly more in social services than they have paid in taxes.
The only ways to deal with the effects of an aging population involve increases in productivity and raising the age of retirement to accord with improvements in the population’s health and longevity.
MYTH:
High levels of immigration are required to ensure Canada’s prosperity.
The facts:
A country’s prosperity does not depend on a growing population or workforce. This is particularly true in the case of Canada since we are a trading nation and do not require an increasingly large domestic market to achieve economies of scale. Our prosperity depends rather on sound economic policies that stimulate productivity, make good use of capital investment and maximize the potential of the existing workforce.
The times are a changin'. Did you know there are black people in the Yukon and they don't play football?
There are changes that have to be made which is where the immigrant will spend the money. The monthly cheque has to be replaced by a refillable debit card that only the person can use and has to refill by an ATM machine that has a camera.
The money can only be used for food, shelter and medical care.
Any money the immigrant gets from the government will be redistributed back into the economy, to the grocer, and the landlord and the drugstores on a government approved list and if the immigrant wants more then that person has to get a job sooner
Back in the old days immigrants never got any money from the government because in those days there was a lot more opportunities in a growing economy then there are now where the jobless rates are on the rise because the citizens don’t want to downsize and get entry level jobs that pay less.
New immigration supplies workers for restaurants, hotels, and agriculture, and healthcare with cheap labour as in cleaners, kitchen help and farm hands healthcare helpers in the greying market
The government has always had programs that attracted people to this country like the homesteading program that was a free piece of land that a person would get in some out of the rural area where you had to make major improvements to your land for a number of years before the land title is transferred to you.
So the government is doing what it has always been doing since the pilgrims came to the new land
The money can only be used for food, shelter and medical care.
Any money the immigrant gets from the government will be redistributed back into the economy, to the grocer, and the landlord and the drugstores on a government approved list and if the immigrant wants more then that person has to get a job sooner
Back in the old days immigrants never got any money from the government because in those days there was a lot more opportunities in a growing economy then there are now where the jobless rates are on the rise because the citizens don’t want to downsize and get entry level jobs that pay less.
New immigration supplies workers for restaurants, hotels, and agriculture, and healthcare with cheap labour as in cleaners, kitchen help and farm hands healthcare helpers in the greying market
The government has always had programs that attracted people to this country like the homesteading program that was a free piece of land that a person would get in some out of the rural area where you had to make major improvements to your land for a number of years before the land title is transferred to you.
So the government is doing what it has always been doing since the pilgrims came to the new land
Homesteads were free?
People came from all over Europe, Asia, Middle East to get free land, chucked some wheat on the ground waited 4 months and blammo, instant riches?
When they arrived which farm tool did they use first?
If homesteading were to take place in Canada again, would a quarter section be enough to feed yourself and earn a good living to raise a family?
People came from all over Europe, Asia, Middle East to get free land, chucked some wheat on the ground waited 4 months and blammo, instant riches?
When they arrived which farm tool did they use first?
If homesteading were to take place in Canada again, would a quarter section be enough to feed yourself and earn a good living to raise a family?
In a word, yes. Shipping and handling were a few bucks.
ie: "The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 outlined the provisions for granting homesteads to settlers: free homesteads of 160 acres were offered to farmers who cleared ten acres and built a residence within three years of a registered intent to settle a specific land claim."
I'm sure there are plenty of research folk to dig up more info.
My ancestors settled in the Parry Sound District on similar 'rules' I'm told. Given the land and a government inspector would pop by yearly to ensure stones were picked, land cleared and residence maintained. That sort of thing. They seemed to make a go of things and raised very large families afterwards. Not wealthy...just folks working a lot harder than I ever have to. Lottsa kids, blackflies, sweat and faith I imagine.
With the hight unemployment rate in the US, I'm sure we should be able to get all the additional workers we need from the US. No English language lessons required, no family reunification required (because they are so close), no lessons in our legal system etc etc..
We just got to open our doors to the right people..
We just got to open our doors to the right people..
Actually, my grandfather came from the Ukraine in the 1920's and, evenutally, settled in N. Alberta. He worked his way across Canada from Halifax, working on farms and the railway - hard labouring jobs. By the time he got to the Peace River area, he had a few dollars and went into farming. I suspect he was considered a "homesteader" and he worked the land from nothing. He met my grandmother and they farmed for 40 or so years. In the beginning, he traded his labour/skills for whatever he needed. Eventually, after the crops were in he got chickens, cows, horses etc. The horses were used in the fields for plowing etc. He traded eggs and milk for sugar and flour. That was the way it was back then - people making it work. And it was back-breaking work too.
My dad ended up "homesteading" in the early 1960's up near High Level, Alberta and worked his piece of land as well. He grew wheat, barley and rape seed (canolla) as well.
Government assistance? Yeah, after so many years of working the land, the deed was transferred to them both.
My dad ended up "homesteading" in the early 1960's up near High Level, Alberta and worked his piece of land as well. He grew wheat, barley and rape seed (canolla) as well.
Government assistance? Yeah, after so many years of working the land, the deed was transferred to them both.
Demand and supply. We opened up a can of worms when we decided to mine for oil in Alberta. Now there is a gaping industry with no labour force to take advantage of it.
Oh, except the Chinese that will come here on contract.
But those aren't immigrants.
They're "foreigners" - ie. the people you should really be worrying about.
Last edited:
If the Canadian Govt handed money over to CPR to give credit to homesteaders, how is that not funding immigration from the top down?
We have hundreds if not thousands of Jamaican and South American migrant workers around these parts.
I think they're awesome. So does SCB. Between the cat calls and marriage proposals, she's got me doing double duty trying to keep her happy here with me, lol.
If I thought it was being used to furnish transport back to their country of origi9n, I'd willingly donate. It has to be a one time trip home with no returns ever. To me that doantion would be far cheaper to our nations than putiing them on a free handout role which waould last fpr infinity. Dump the dopes and lops now!
I AGREE!!! How much do I have to donate to ship your immigrant ass back to wherever you came from?
