5846 replies to this topic

[RFS]

I personally think I already pay enough for other people's babies thank you very much.

Shortsighted of you.  How about how much you pay for foreign aid or for other people to move and live here from other countries?

[sdwright.vic]

You didn't mention those in your first post. You mentioned paying people to have children.

1) Foreign aid yes is high, but I don't want people in Africa starving to death either.

2) Aid to immigrants is high as well, hell I had to prove I could support myself. BUT is a homosexual is not put to death then fine.

Attempting to blanket cause and paint them with a very broad brush is dishonest at best.

[Casual Kev]

It's a bit disingenuous to characterize current migration trends as "massive" when the early 1900s still hold the record for new settlers, at a time when the national population was a fraction of the current one. Canada has also had great waves of non-British or French migration like Americans, Germans, Ukrainians and Italians. Maybe for European countries that aren't traditional settlement its what they're experiencing right now but we aren't them and it's the norm for the country to add people through new arrivals, likewise with the source countries changing over time.

[RFS]

It's a bit disingenuous to characterize current migration trends as "massive" when the early 1900s still hold the record for new settlers, at a time when the national population was a fraction of the current one. Canada has also had great waves of non-British or French migration like Americans, Germans, Ukrainians and Italians. Maybe for European countries that aren't traditional settlement its what they're experiencing right now but we aren't them and it's the norm for the country to add people through new arrivals, likewise with the source countries changing over time.

You are missing a lot with the early 1900s comparison. The 1910s surge was only 7-9years. Now is lower per capita but much more sustained.. 40years with no end in sight. Also we have a higher foreign born population as a percentage now than in 1910 because of this fact.
And the most obvious main point is the 1910 wave was ENDED after 10 years because it was considered too much.

[Mystic-Pizza]

You are missing a lot with the early 1900s comparison. The 1910s surge was only 7-9years. Now is lower per capita but much more sustained.. 40years with no end in sight. Also we have a higher foreign born population as a percentage now than in 1910 because of this fact.
And the most obvious main point is the 1910 wave was ENDED after 10 years because it was considered too much.

 

Then Mad Max is your man come next year.

[spanky123]

You are missing a lot with the early 1900s comparison. The 1910s surge was only 7-9years. Now is lower per capita but much more sustained.. 40years with no end in sight. Also we have a higher foreign born population as a percentage now than in 1910 because of this fact.
And the most obvious main point is the 1910 wave was ENDED after 10 years because it was considered too much.

 

Go to any major city now and see how many people there are who speak no English or French and who have limited education and skills. We can't pay those costs and balance our budgets in the boom years, what is going to happen during the next downturn?

[Casual Kev]

You are missing a lot with the early 1900s comparison. The 1910s surge was only 7-9years. Now is lower per capita but much more sustained.. 40years with no end in sight. Also we have a higher foreign born population as a percentage now than in 1910 because of this fact.
And the most obvious main point is the 1910 wave was ENDED after 10 years because it was considered too much.

And back then people popped a lot more babies, whereas now they hardly reach replacement level. The population grew 34% between 1901 and 1911, whereas between 2006 and 2016 it grew around 12%. The recent immigration figures lead to predictable and manageable growth in the grand scheme. Odds are they'll need to take a dip once a recession nears (though we're at very low unemployment right now) but it's hardly unreasonable or something that the country hasn't gone through before.

[RFS]

And back then people popped a lot more babies, whereas now they hardly reach replacement level. The population grew 34% between 1901 and 1911, whereas between 2006 and 2016 it grew around 12%. The recent immigration figures lead to predictable and manageable growth in the grand scheme. Odds are they'll need to take a dip once a recession nears (though we're at very low unemployment right now) but it's hardly unreasonable or something that the country hasn't gone through before.

I am sorry but that is not correct.  This kind of sustained mass immigration for nearly half a century is totally unprecedented 

[sdwright.vic]

So what's your solution then besides a $10K a baby bonus (creating welfare babies) and a free house (do we get to choose where they live)?

[RFS]

So what's your solution then besides a $10K a baby bonus (creating welfare babies) and a free house (do we get to choose where they live)?

No, that's basically it.  Minor details would be worked out as we go

[Casual Kev]

I am sorry but that is not correct. This kind of sustained mass immigration for nearly half a century is totally unprecedented

The "sustain without big drops" pattern is not usual, but in the context of how much population growth it actually yields or the % of the population who are immigrants, it's not. And even if we were to believe there is indeed an unprecedented amount of immigrants, so what? Housing issues and population distribution can be fixed independent of how many people actually come.

[RFS]

The "sustain without big drops" pattern is not usual, but in the context of how much population growth it actually yields or the % of the population who are immigrants, it's not. And even if we were to believe there is indeed an unprecedented amount of immigrants, so what? Housing issues and population distribution can be fixed independent of how many people actually come.

The metric to look at is percentage of population that is foreign born.  That is how you know it is unprecedented.  And in terms of "so what", do Canadians have a right to say at some point that we don't want any further change to the cultural and societal make up of our country?  I am seriously asking.  People don't like to admit it, but in countries like China and India this kind of mass demographic change would be totally intolerable.  

My main point is that our taxes and efforts would be better spent supporting and funding natural births here in Canada rather than just importing people from elsewhere (which also seriously hurts those countries).  Fund childcare, provide basic income to mothers, I don't know, think outside the box a little.  

[Casual Kev]

The metric to look at is percentage of population that is foreign born.  That is how you know it is unprecedented.  And in terms of "so what", do Canadians have a right to say at some point that we don't want any further change to the cultural and societal make up of our country?  I am seriously asking.  People don't like to admit it, but in countries like China and India this kind of mass demographic change would be totally intolerable.  

My main point is that our taxes and efforts would be better spent supporting and funding natural births here in Canada rather than just importing people from elsewhere (which also seriously hurts those countries).  Fund childcare, provide basic income to mothers, I don't know, think outside the box a little.  

 

Sure conversations about how immigration patterns affect national culture can be had, but evidently there's a big problem when that cascades into wanting to allow or not allow certain people based on sports-like preferences and very unscientific appraisals of whether X person will "fit in" or "assimilate". And these discussions often rob the immigrants and their offspring of their individuality; as in "well he's Muslim so I think too many of him is trouble" or "she's Chinese so she'll just hang out with other Chinese", regardless of how our actual immigration levers assess new arrivals, taking into consideration what happens beyond the first generation (as a hint, even many of those who identify as indigenous have at least one immigrant in their lineage) or that whatever we may call "Canadian culture" is already strongly shaped by waves of immigration from the past.

 

In terms of the cost-benefit between subsidizing birth and encouraging immigration, European countries that took in lots of migrants recently had already invested heavily in propping up a new baby boom, without much avail. France is still all-in on pro-natalism and they only slowed the fertility decline, bearing more kids than us (2.01 vs 1.6) but that only puts them at replacement (and the cynic in me wonders if it's their Arab and African communities pushing up the number, which to some would put them in the same place as "unwanted" foreigners). 

[RFS]

 very unscientific appraisals of whether X person will "fit in" or "assimilate". 

Not sure why anyone would think discussing which potential immigrants are most likely to fit in and assimilate is "unscientific" or not a legitimate discussion.  It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing for a host nation to do when forming immigration policy

[Casual Kev]

Not sure why anyone would think discussing which potential immigrants are most likely to fit in and assimilate is "unscientific" or not a legitimate discussion.  It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing for a host nation to do when forming immigration policy

 

That's not what I meant at all. Current discourse is "unscientific" =/= Having a discourse at all is "unscientific".

[RFS]

From the Vancouver Sun 'Opinion: Canada replacing its population a case of wilful ignorance, greed, excess political correctness'


https://vancouversun...cal-correctness

[Casual Kev]

"If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere."

 

Lol. Just let it go dude.

[spanky123]

"If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere."

 

Lol. Just let it go dude.

 

Whether the population is white or otherwise is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is that historically we had goals targeting immigrants (not referring to refugees) with a minimum level of education, language ability, and economic sustenance. That ensured that people arriving in Canada had at least a reasonable opportunity to get a job or invest and help contribute to society.

 

The problem over the past few years in my opinion is that we have allowed hundreds of thousands of people into the country with minimal educational background, minimal language skills and little to no economic resources. Of course some of those people still succeed, but most are left struggling years after they arrive. Because of the ethnic divide in our country, the problem is much more elevated east of BC. 

 

Sure we are short or workers in some parts of the country at this point in the economic cycle, but people who have no education and can't speak the language are of little use. We need to move past the racists positioning that the socialists are taking and deal with this issue on a practical level. Once this economic cycle passes, we will have a massive social services bill with much reduce resources to deal with it.

[RFS]

"If Canada continues along its present path as described by Kaufmann, we will become one of the first and perhaps the only country in the world to voluntarily allow its population to be largely replaced by people from elsewhere."

Lol. Just let it go dude.

Whoa. There is something really disturbing and nihilistic about that reply. Who hurt you?

[Casual Kev]

Whether the population is white or otherwise is irrelevant in my opinion. The issue is that historically we had goals targeting immigrants (not referring to refugees) with a minimum level of education, language ability, and economic sustenance. That ensured that people arriving in Canada had at least a reasonable opportunity to get a job or invest and help contribute to society.

 

The problem over the past few years in my opinion is that we have allowed hundreds of thousands of people into the country with minimal educational background, minimal language skills and little to no economic resources. Of course some of those people still succeed, but most are left struggling years after they arrive. Because of the ethnic divide in our country, the problem is much more elevated east of BC. 

 

Sure we are short or workers in some parts of the country at this point in the economic cycle, but people who have no education and can't speak the language are of little use. We need to move past the racists positioning that the socialists are taking and deal with this issue on a practical level. Once this economic cycle passes, we will have a massive social services bill with much reduce resources to deal with it.

 

Reality is literally the opposite; new arrivals are on average more educated than the Canadian-born (humanitarian-basis refugees are only a fraction of total immigrants) and tend to be white-collar. If anything the problem is that they're too educated as they aren't filling all the vacancies showing up in sectors like construction, natural resources and healthcare frontlines (which is why businesses are basically always calling for more TFWs). All the Chinese you overhear when you go to Richmond certainly aren't coming from poor, barely literate people...

 

 

Edited by Casual Kev, 29 September 2018 - 09:26 AM.