Immigration down 25% in first quarter of 2011
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Wake up, Canada's not losing brains, just money for third rate immigrants we don't need. I think the federal govt can afford a hefty payment to parents for having a third baby, a third Canadian baby born and raised in Canada. If they leave Canada, no money.
850,000,000/$100,000 = $8500 per year, tax free, for a third baby. We are being scammed by our politicians and elites. Let's end the white guilt.
You're saying Canada doesn't have a skilled labour or professional shortage?
White guilt? WTF is that?
White guilt? WTF is that?
If you take in thousands of seniors, who can't work and contribute to the economy, which limit the number of professionals that can enter the country, then duh, you might have a labour shortage.
As for white guilt, have you heard of google?
If I Google something I'll feel guilty?
Canada is a perfect example. According to the January survey of employers by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (Are they Govt elitists?) , 34 per cent of corporations now regard “shortage of skilled labour” as their main business constraint – and, tellingly, another 13 per cent regard their biggest problem as “shortage of un/semi-skilled labour.” That means almost one in seven companies can’t find enough uneducated, non-experienced people.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...with-serious-labour-shortages/article1913704/
There ya go. If you apply for at least 7 no-brain jobs even you'll get one.
If you have a brain your odds of finding work are 1 in 3.
Nope. No shortages at all.
Canada is a perfect example. According to the January survey of employers by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (Are they Govt elitists?) , 34 per cent of corporations now regard “shortage of skilled labour” as their main business constraint – and, tellingly, another 13 per cent regard their biggest problem as “shortage of un/semi-skilled labour.” That means almost one in seven companies can’t find enough uneducated, non-experienced people.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...with-serious-labour-shortages/article1913704/
There ya go. If you apply for at least 7 no-brain jobs even you'll get one.
If you have a brain your odds of finding work are 1 in 3.
Nope. No shortages at all.
This is the kind of survey I wonder about because it is very vague. A better question might be, "How many new people would you hire if you could?"
At the same time the media puts out regular reports about "looming labour shortages." it's a cottage industry in the media. Keeps the working classes on edge. Screw big business.
They tried paying women in Japan to have more babies and it hasn't been working. It doesn't work in countries with sexually liberated women and we sure as hell are more liberated than Japan, so you're pay-for-more-white-babies solution probably won't work.
Different countries have different solutions to falling birthrates. To say Canadian families wouldn't think again about having another baby for almost $10,000 a year, every year, for 18 years, simply isn't true for all people. It hasn't been done yet on a serious scale. Having a familiy these days is a financial calculation and I'm sure many would bite.
Paying women to have children - Winds of Change.NET Here in 2006 Putin of Russia proposed giving families $9000 per year for more children, but there is no followup.
What are some countries that pay women to have babies?
That's a bit vauge on details... were those immigrants seniors when they first came to Canada or just simply got older after a number of years of contributing to society?
Your statistic could mean a little from column A and a little from column B
That's not called a "Brain Drain" ~ A "Brain Drain" when it comes to a nation, generally means many of that country's skilled workers are leaving the country to work in another country.... like I did.
The term "Brain Drain" focuses mostly towards many skilled & educated Canadians moving to the US.
When it comes to skilled workers coming to Canada to live, that's "Brain Gain"
In fact, it is mostly from one column. The majority of seniors who are immigrants came to Canada during or before 1960s. They've been here for about 50 years. If they arrived as seniors, they'd be 110 years old. They worked and contributed to society. And even then, they just barely qualify for a lot of social security benefits.
New immigrants arriving as seniors make up about 2% of annual immigration. They usually can only immigrate if they have a sponsor. A sponsor is someone who agrees to support them financially.
The immigrant senior mentioned above are from refugees, family reunification and those who immigrated here and worked here.
I could not get a break down between these categories. But I was able to find out that many are refugees who come here as seniors or near seniors. Many sponsor senior family members to come here, and then abandon them (the seniors) and they default to have the gov look after them because they are too old to send back to their country. It becomes a compassion issue.
Info is all on stats can .com
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.
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.
We have to have a way to determine if our immigration system is working to benifit all Canadians, and is helping to build Canada.
Feeling good because somebody says we're good or because we took in a bunch of third world country people, just does not do it for me.
Feeling good because somebody says we're good or because we took in a bunch of third world country people, just does not do it for me.
The Supreme Court ruled this year that sponsors cannot default on their financial obligations to those they sponsor. If the sponsored person ends up needing government assistance, the sponsor must pay the government back.
Fair warning: I work in immigration. I can walk down the hall at work and grab bookfuls of stats and laws. The only way any of you will get away with cherry picking stats and using weasel words like "many" to describe 2% of immigration is if I'm too busy or lazy to point out your bull****.
Yes, smarty pants, that's what the court said, but if they have no money to pay, or if they skip out and go back to their original country,,, who pays for the senior they brought here?? Ans. taxpayer pays!!
2% is far too high, it should be 0%, I don't pay taxes to look after seniors from some other country, that's their countries responsibility!!
If your so smart, and you know so much, why don't you yell us;
- by country of origin;
-immigration welfare rate
-immigration crime rate
-immigration unemployment rate
-immigration donation to charity rate
-assimilation rate
All by country of origin!!
This is just a start.
Why don't you dig up these stats, Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry. It would be refreshing to see you post something other then generalizations and outright lies.
That 2% is not the number of immigrant seniors on government assistance, but the average percentage of immigrants who arrive as seniors annually.
As I've already pointed out, the large numbers of immigrant seniors in this country, which make up a very large proportion of all seniors, are mostly people (over 50%) who have lived in Canada for over 40 years. Which means they were not seniors upon arrival and have contributed to society. Those percentages descend over decades. That is to say, the next highest percentage of immigrant seniors have been here for 30 years and so on. You cannot receive old age benefits unless you've lived here for 40 years, or Canada and your country of origin have a treaty to reciprocate social security benefits for immigrants and emigrants.
I'm not actually arguing either side of this issue. I said I would refute any bum stats you can come up with. However, you've already made it clear that you oppose immigration for racist reasons. I'm not even sure why you're bothering with costs, and why would I waste my time looking up information for someone who even if I could prove to them immigration had Canada boatloads of cash you still oppose it because he is a racist?
Last edited:
Sure, Canada has much to gain embracing immigrants, if they are productive. Spending almost a billion dollars a year to settle them, each year, doesn't seem like much of a benefit. They say the whole world is learning English, so they shouldn't have trouble finding work or adjusting, yet they do.
That is why letting in young students, emphasizing young here, to learn English in Canada is good, because they can test the country out, bring no children, and if they don't like it, they can go home easily. They pay, they require no subsidy, and start off in basic service jobs.
That is why letting in young students, emphasizing young here, to learn English in Canada is good, because they can test the country out, bring no children, and if they don't like it, they can go home easily. They pay, they require no subsidy, and start off in basic service jobs.