[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= The Saint] [QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> …Everyone is invited to be a Canadian regardless of skin colour but if you move here and identify with the culture of your home country yet call yourself a Canadian at the same time then what does that make of Canadian identity. It implies that there is none nor was there ever one and that is offensive.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Maybe rather than implying that there is no Canadian identity, it implies that a fundamental part of Canadian identity is inclusiveness?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Inclusiveness? Then I guess the Miss Indo-Canadian pageant is not Canadian becuase only those of Indian extraction can compete. Same goes for the myriad of other ethnically exclusive pageants that have arisen in Canada (meaning Toronto). Multi-culturualism is about exclusion because people are defined by their differences. And don't confuse sharing one's culture with inclusion.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan]If someone has spent the first thirty years of his life in Elbonia, then emigrates to Canada, and subsequently earns Canadian citizenship...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> "Earn" is a choice word. Immigrants only have to spend 50% of their time here (3 out of 6 years thanks to immigration lawyers). We have immigrants taken their oath of citizenship who cannot even speak an official language and have to be coached through the ceremony. If you want to really know what it means to earn Canadian citizenship then talk the many immigrants who came to Canada after the second world war. They cherish their citizenship, more so than many domestics, because they had to EARN it as opposed to today's immigrants who feel they are entitled to it.<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan]it would seem rather strange to completely compartmentalise those decades of Elbonian life. Perhaps he still thinks in Elbonian, mentally translating to English or French before speaking to his new countrymen? Maybe childhood memories in the mudfields of Elbonia will still hold a special place in his heart, not in competition with being Canadian but as a complement to being Canadian?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> All of the above is specultion. I don't expect them to fully abandon their past lives in their coutries of origin if they do not wish to but don't call it Canadian because it is not. Elbania is not Canada. But of course, if you import enough of them then parts of Canada will be practically Elbanian and removing anything Candian.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> I love the way you think.....Canadian citizenship has been rendered meaningless by all parties, due to a number of complicated factors, from greed, to corruption, to special interests, to party electoral greed, to an attempted destruction of nations by elites, and this is happening not just in Canada and Australia where it is official, but in the U.S.A. and all of western Europe as well.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= The Saint] [QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] <br /> It is no secret Jesse that Canada has spent billions over the last 40 years on subsidies, ESL programs, integration, living allownances etcettera. Naturally these programs were helpful, many of them, but are not required for native-born Canadians, mpst of whom want to be left alone.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> "It is no secret" is basically saying that "I heard it from my cousin's accountant's brother"; you are attempting to lend credibility to pure unsubstantiated rumour. If it is such public knowledge, you should be able to find facts to back it up. Since it is your claim, it is your responsibility to support it. You are not yet doing that.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Actually it is a secret but only to Canadians. Ottawa knows how much it spends on immigration but it refuses to release these figures or acknowledge any figure publicly. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If it is only a secret to canadians, than you should easily be able to provide links to publications elsewhere in the world that know those numbers. Otherwise, you are still only quoting rumours. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE]<br /> It might be because public opinion might turn sour at the knowledge that billions of their dollars are being spent to import aprox. 250,000 people a year while our medicare and education system is in desperate need of huge cash injections and while job opportunites and our standard of living diminish. This could hurt the steady flow of new voters, cheap labour, and work for the immigration industry (lawyers, social workers, consulting firms, etc.).<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> I won't do the reasearch for you as you clearly don't want to hear what I have to say anyway.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I will not do *your* research, as it is *your* claim, and *your* responsibility to provide proof of same. Until you furnish some facts to back you up, I am not going to believe you. You'll note I am expecting the same amount of proof from dino; you may very well be right, and I will gladly admit it when you show me some proof. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Since their are no official figures to go by estimation by comparison is needed. Britian imports about 100,000 people into the country a year (officially at lease and 70,000 less than Toronto accepts a year I might add!!!) This is at a cost of around $1 bil. CDN a year. The conservative and U.S. based Center for Immigration Studies examined Canada's immigration system and estimates that our immigration system costs Canadians over $1 bil. U.S. a year. If this is not good enough for you I suggest that you read "Betrayal and Deceit" by Charles M. Campbell and "Who Gets In" by Daniel Stoffman instead of the ill informed editorial pages of the Toronto Star. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is not good enough for me, no. *Any* program will cost money to run, that says absolutely nothing about the effect on the economy of said immigrants. Where did you get that figure for the number of immigrants that toronto accepts? <br /> <br /> All I am asking is that you provide numbers that actually pertain to the question at hand, and you provide sources for those numbers. Is that so much to ask? <br /> <br /> But, since you refuse to do even that much, here's some actual provable facts and figures, publicly released by the canadian government and definitely NOT secret. <br /> <br /> In the period of 1996-2001 (we're due for a census soon) Canada's total population change was a net increase of 1.4 million people, with 1.7 million births and 1.2 million immigrants.<br /> <br /> Since 2000, Canada's immigration rate has been about 220,000 per year, which is consistent with the above numbers (multiply by 5). In 2003, over half of new permanent residents are 'economic immigrants', meaning they are directly contributing to the economy. (A quarter of new permanent residents are spouses, and the rest are children and grandparents.) <br /> <br /> <br /> Canada's Immigration program itself has an operating budget of $170.9m for 2005-2006. The total operating budget for the department of Citisenship and Immigration is $411.2m, with an estimated $422m in grants and contributions (which are probably what you have a problem with). The total planned spending for the department in 2005-2006 is $1,023.5 million canadian.<br /> <br /> However, immigration programs are an investment, which attempt to get more economic benefit from the immigrants than it costs to integrate them into Canada. As I stated above, the costs of Citizenship and Immigration say nothing about the economic costs or benefits of those immigrants, and it would be foolish to throw around such numbers and claim they prove immigrants are lowering our standard of living. <br /> <br /> I do not see how you can say that there are "no official figures". There are plenty of figures out there to be had. I got all of the above in less than an hour. An hour, I might add, which I could have spent being productive instead of doing other people's research. <br /> <br /> <br /> sources:<br /> <a href="http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo03.htm">http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo03.htm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2003/overview/1.html">http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2003/overview/1.html</a><br /> <a href="http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc4ae.htm">http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc4ae.htm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20052006/CI-CI/CI-CIr5604_e.asp">http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20052006/CI-CI/CI-CIr5604_e.asp</a><br /> <br /> (see how that works everybody? I'm providing sources instead of telling you to go look it up! Amazing!)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> All western nations have problems surrounding the issue of immigration in many people's opinion, and Canada's immigration rate is roughly double that of the western average.<br /> <br /> My Toronto statistics are visual. Simply ride the subway. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/redface.gif' alt='Oops!'>

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by The Saint]</b> Inclusiveness? Then I guess the Miss Indo-Canadian pageant is not Canadian becuase only those of Indian extraction can compete. Same goes for the myriad of other ethnically exclusive pageants that have arisen in Canada (meaning Toronto).<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> That could well be — but as an American, the Canadianness (or lack thereof) of pageants with ethnic prerequisites is not my call to make. Call me slow, but I’m just not seeing the dots being connected between the existence of such pageants and their contribution to a possible nullification of Canadian identity.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> …If you want to really know what it means to earn Canadian citizenship then talk [to] the many immigrants who came to Canada after the second world war. They cherish their citizenship, more so than many domestics, because they had to EARN it as opposed to today’s immigrants who feel they are entitled to it.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I tried searching for the text of the 1952 Immigrant Act online, to see how much has changed regarding citizenship eligibility qualifications over the years, but was unable to find the text. Does anyone here have access to it?<br /> <br /> Do you believe that there are no immigrants today who feel that they have to earn Canadian citizenship?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> All of the above [Elbonian theorizing] is speculation.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Absolutely true. I have never tried to emigrate elsewhere, so I can only imagine my own reactions if I tried to emigrate to and become a citizen of a country with a significantly different culture — say, Japan.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> I don’t expect them to fully abandon their past lives in their countries of origin if they do not wish to but don’t call it Canadian because it is not. Elbonia is not Canada.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I’m not calling their previous lives Canadian, and I’m not equating Elbonia with Canada. I’m calling their previous Elbonian lives a complement to their current Canadian lives.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Perturbed]</b> …before [1967] assimilation into the English Canadian state of mind was expected if one was to participate in society. Union Jacks were all over the place. How many red ensigns do we see now?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Not a lot. How many <i>should</i> be seen now? Is the disappearance of the red ensign one sign of the nullification of Canadian identity?<br /> <br /> My guess would be that even pre-1967, the goal was not so much to assimilate the immigrants as to assimilate their children. For example, how prepared for Canadian culture would the Hungarian refugees of 1956 have been? Their children would likely have found it far easier to adapt to Canadian ways.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> Inclusiveness? Then I guess the Miss Indo-Canadian pageant is not Canadian becuase only those of Indian extraction can compete. Same goes for the myriad of other ethnically exclusive pageants that have arisen in Canada (meaning Toronto).<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> That could well be — but as an American, the Canadianness (or lack thereof) of pageants with ethnic prerequisites is not my call to make. Call me slow, but I’m just not seeing the dots being connected between the existence of such pageants and their contribution to a possible nullification of Canadian identity.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> …If you want to really know what it means to earn Canadian citizenship then talk [to] the many immigrants who came to Canada after the second world war. They cherish their citizenship, more so than many domestics, because they had to EARN it as opposed to today’s immigrants who feel they are entitled to it.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I tried searching for the text of the 1952 Immigrant Act online, to see how much has changed regarding citizenship eligibility qualifications over the years, but was unable to find the text. Does anyone here have access to it?<br /> <br /> Do you believe that there are no immigrants today who feel that they have to earn Canadian citizenship?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> All of the above [Elbonian theorizing] is speculation.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Absolutely true. I have never tried to emigrate elsewhere, so I can only imagine my own reactions if I tried to emigrate to and become a citizen of a country with a significantly different culture — say, Japan.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by The Saint]</b> I don’t expect them to fully abandon their past lives in their countries of origin if they do not wish to but don’t call it Canadian because it is not. Elbonia is not Canada.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I’m not calling their previous lives Canadian, and I’m not equating Elbonia with Canada. I’m calling their previous Elbonian lives a complement to their current Canadian lives.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Perturbed]</b> …before [1967] assimilation into the English Canadian state of mind was expected if one was to participate in society. Union Jacks were all over the place. How many red ensigns do we see now?<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Not a lot. How many <i>should</i> be seen now? Is the disappearance of the red ensign one sign of the nullification of Canadian identity?<br /> <br /> My guess would be that even pre-1967, the goal was not so much to assimilate the immigrants as to assimilate their children. For example, how prepared for Canadian culture would the Hungarian refugees of 1956 have been? Their children would likely have found it far easier to adapt to Canadian ways.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Good point about assimilating children. However, in 1956 that was expected, but now, we are taking people in from countries much more different than our own, and PAYING THEM to keep their own cultures in our country.

[The Saint]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= The Saint] Actually it is a secret but only to Canadians. Ottawa knows how much it spends on immigration but it refuses to release these figures or acknowledge any figure publicly. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If it is only a secret to canadians, than you should easily be able to provide links to publications elsewhere in the world that know those numbers. Otherwise, you are still only quoting rumours.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Like I said, Ottawa has not published any figures that reflect the costs of importing and settling close to 220,000 people (including refugees) each year so one has to resort to estimates. The Centre for Immigration Studies estimates that is costs close to $1 billion just to settle 40,000 refugees alone. Here is the link<br /> <a href="http://url">www.cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html#7</a><br /> <br /> But you seem to provide figures of your own...<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Canada's Immigration program itself has an operating budget of $170.9m for 2005-2006. The total operating budget for the department of Citisenship and Immigration is $411.2m, with an estimated $422m in grants and contributions (which are probably what you have a problem with). The total planned spending for the department in 2005-2006 is $1,023.5 million canadian.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> An operating budget of $1,023.5 million huh?. In other words a budget in excess of $1.02 billion. I guess the rumours are true. And if your figures and CIS estimates are correct then we are spending just over $2 billion a year to import and settle a target of 250,00 people a year considering the pitance we spend on foreign aid and domestic poverty. It is worse than I thought.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= The Saint]Since their are no official figures to go by estimation by comparison is needed. Britian imports about 100,000 people into the country a year (officially at lease and 70,000 less than Toronto accepts a year I might add!!!) This is at a cost of around $1 bil. CDN a year. The conservative and U.S. based Center for Immigration Studies examined Canada's immigration system and estimates that our immigration system costs Canadians over $1 bil. U.S. a year. If this is not good enough for you I suggest that you read "Betrayal and Deceit" by Charles M. Campbell and "Who Gets In" by Daniel Stoffman instead of the ill informed editorial pages of the Toronto Star. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is not good enough for me, no. *Any* program will cost money to run, that says absolutely nothing about the effect on the economy of said immigrants. Where did you get that figure for the number of immigrants that toronto accepts?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is not good enough for you? Then what is? The accounting books themselves? Do you want Sheila Fraser's number? You are intentionally being difficult. As for the econominc effects StatsCan has reported that immigrant productivity has been declining for the last twenty years. This is also noted by Daniel Stoffman in his book "Who Gets In?" The real problem is that we accpent too many immigrants especially family class immigrants who serve no economic purpose. Less immigrants means less backlogs and less money spent and better job markets for Canadian and immigrants.<br /> <br /> As for the Toronto figure I read it several times in the Toronto Star which is terribly pro-immigration. I conceed that the figure might be a little overblown but it is common knowledge that 60%-70% of immigrants settle in the Toronto area and that is more than Britain accepts as a whole. The density, traffic congestion, and the loss of farmlands and greenspaces attest to that.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]All I am asking is that you provide numbers that actually pertain to the question at hand, and you provide sources for those numbers. Is that so much to ask? But, since you refuse to do even that much...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I did provide sources for numbers. I mentioned the CIS. Go visis their website sometime <a href="http://url">www.cis.org</a>. I also mentioned books by Charles Campbell ("Betrayal and Deceit") and Daniel Stoffman ("Who Gets In?"). Do you want their reference and page numbers as well. All I am asking is that you go to a library sometime and read a book. "Is that so much to ask?" Or do only online references count?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]In the period of 1996-2001 (we're due for a census soon) Canada's total population change was a net increase of 1.4 million people, with 1.7 million births and 1.2 million immigrants.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Super! Now what was your point for stating this?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Since 2000, Canada's immigration rate has been about 220,000 per year, which is consistent with the above numbers (multiply by 5). In 2003, over half of new permanent residents are 'economic immigrants', meaning they are directly contributing to the economy. (A quarter of new permanent residents are spouses, and the rest are children and grandparents.)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Actually that "half of all immgrants are economic" is not wholly true and it is a contested figure. The acutally figure is closer to 25%. According ot 2003 figures 45,370 people of 221,352 entered Canada under the skilled class. The rest entered Canada as dependents, family class, live-in caregivers and their dependents, refugess, and those who bought their citizenship under the business class. Daniel Stoffman agrees with the 25% figure and did George Borjas (an American comparing that number with U.S. figures to show how better our system is I might add). Charles Campbell argues the number even lower. Half of our immigrants are not economic even though Ottawa likes to say the 45% of them are with 45% comprising family reunificatin and 10% refugees. Actual numbers contest the official figures. That reminds me. You were saying something about official figures?<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]However, immigration programs are an investment, which attempt to get more economic benefit from the immigrants than it costs to integrate them into Canada. As I stated above, the costs of Citizenship and Immigration say nothing about the economic costs or benefits of those immigrants, and it would be foolish to throw around such numbers and claim they prove immigrants are lowering our standard of living.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I got a better idea. How about we spend that money and invest it in Canadian families and their children as opposed to those of a foreign country. You do not look after your neighbours children at the expense of your own. Now that is really foolish! <br /> <br />

[Spud]

How can we possibly go green,use less energy blah blah blah,while overpopulating?<br /> The "you are rascist" BS always starts up when anyone mentions immigration.But we are overpopulating,overconsuming.<br /> Why is poverty getting worse?Why do we have unemployment if all the immigrants are creating jobs??<br /> Lets eliminate the social problems here first.<br /> If this makes me rascist,so be it. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Spud] How can we possibly go green,use less energy blah blah blah,while overpopulating?<br /> The "you are rascist" BS always starts up when anyone mentions immigration.But we are overpopulating,overconsuming.<br /> Why is poverty getting worse?Why do we have unemployment if all the immigrants are creating jobs??<br /> Lets eliminate the social problems here first.<br /> If this makes me rascist,so be it. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Are you saying being called racist is a compliment these days?? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <br /> <br /> At least you're thinking. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= The Saint] [QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= The Saint] Actually it is a secret but only to Canadians. Ottawa knows how much it spends on immigration but it refuses to release these figures or acknowledge any figure publicly. <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If it is only a secret to canadians, than you should easily be able to provide links to publications elsewhere in the world that know those numbers. Otherwise, you are still only quoting rumours.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Like I said, Ottawa has not published any figures that reflect the costs of importing and settling close to 220,000 people (including refugees) each year so one has to resort to estimates. The Centre for Immigration Studies estimates that is costs close to $1 billion just to settle 40,000 refugees alone. Here is the link<br /> <a href="http://url">www.cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html#7</a><br /> <br /> But you seem to provide figures of your own...<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Canada's Immigration program itself has an operating budget of $170.9m for 2005-2006. The total operating budget for the department of Citisenship and Immigration is $411.2m, with an estimated $422m in grants and contributions (which are probably what you have a problem with). The total planned spending for the department in 2005-2006 is $1,023.5 million canadian.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> An operating budget of $1,023.5 million huh?. In other words a budget in excess of $1.02 billion. I guess the rumours are true. And if your figures and CIS estimates are correct then we are spending just over $2 billion a year to import and settle a target of 250,00 people a year considering the pitance we spend on foreign aid and domestic poverty. It is worse than I thought.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse] [QUOTE BY= The Saint]Since their are no official figures to go by estimation by comparison is needed. Britian imports about 100,000 people into the country a year (officially at lease and 70,000 less than Toronto accepts a year I might add!!!) This is at a cost of around $1 bil. CDN a year. The conservative and U.S. based Center for Immigration Studies examined Canada's immigration system and estimates that our immigration system costs Canadians over $1 bil. U.S. a year. If this is not good enough for you I suggest that you read "Betrayal and Deceit" by Charles M. Campbell and "Who Gets In" by Daniel Stoffman instead of the ill informed editorial pages of the Toronto Star. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is not good enough for me, no. *Any* program will cost money to run, that says absolutely nothing about the effect on the economy of said immigrants. Where did you get that figure for the number of immigrants that toronto accepts?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That is not good enough for you? Then what is? The accounting books themselves? Do you want Sheila Fraser's number? You are intentionally being difficult. As for the econominc effects StatsCan has reported that immigrant productivity has been declining for the last twenty years. This is also noted by Daniel Stoffman in his book "Who Gets In?" The real problem is that we accpent too many immigrants especially family class immigrants who serve no economic purpose. Less immigrants means less backlogs and less money spent and better job markets for Canadian and immigrants.<br /> <br /> As for the Toronto figure I read it several times in the Toronto Star which is terribly pro-immigration. I conceed that the figure might be a little overblown but it is common knowledge that 60%-70% of immigrants settle in the Toronto area and that is more than Britain accepts as a whole. The density, traffic congestion, and the loss of farmlands and greenspaces attest to that.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]All I am asking is that you provide numbers that actually pertain to the question at hand, and you provide sources for those numbers. Is that so much to ask? But, since you refuse to do even that much...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I did provide sources for numbers. I mentioned the CIS. Go visis their website sometime <a href="http://url">www.cis.org</a>. I also mentioned books by Charles Campbell ("Betrayal and Deceit") and Daniel Stoffman ("Who Gets In?"). Do you want their reference and page numbers as well. All I am asking is that you go to a library sometime and read a book. "Is that so much to ask?" Or do only online references count?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]In the period of 1996-2001 (we're due for a census soon) Canada's total population change was a net increase of 1.4 million people, with 1.7 million births and 1.2 million immigrants.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Super! Now what was your point for stating this?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Since 2000, Canada's immigration rate has been about 220,000 per year, which is consistent with the above numbers (multiply by 5). In 2003, over half of new permanent residents are 'economic immigrants', meaning they are directly contributing to the economy. (A quarter of new permanent residents are spouses, and the rest are children and grandparents.)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Actually that "half of all immgrants are economic" is not wholly true and it is a contested figure. The acutally figure is closer to 25%. According ot 2003 figures 45,370 people of 221,352 entered Canada under the skilled class. The rest entered Canada as dependents, family class, live-in caregivers and their dependents, refugess, and those who bought their citizenship under the business class. Daniel Stoffman agrees with the 25% figure and did George Borjas (an American comparing that number with U.S. figures to show how better our system is I might add). Charles Campbell argues the number even lower. Half of our immigrants are not economic even though Ottawa likes to say the 45% of them are with 45% comprising family reunificatin and 10% refugees. Actual numbers contest the official figures. That reminds me. You were saying something about official figures?<br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]However, immigration programs are an investment, which attempt to get more economic benefit from the immigrants than it costs to integrate them into Canada. As I stated above, the costs of Citizenship and Immigration say nothing about the economic costs or benefits of those immigrants, and it would be foolish to throw around such numbers and claim they prove immigrants are lowering our standard of living.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I got a better idea. How about we spend that money and invest it in Canadian families and their children as opposed to those of a foreign country. You do not look after your neighbours children at the expense of your own. Now that is really foolish! <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> As for the Toronto Star they are the best paper Canadian sovereignty wise, but their immigration views are utopian marxist.

[Jesse]

[QUOTE BY= The Saint]<br /> Like I said, Ottawa has not published any figures that reflect the costs of importing and settling close to 220,000 people (including refugees) each year so one has to resort to estimates. The Centre for Immigration Studies estimates that is costs close to $1 billion just to settle 40,000 refugees alone. Here is the link<br /> <a><br /> <br /> But you seem to provide figures of your own...<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Indeed, my figures show how much Canada has budgeted for the importation and settlement of said immigrants. Can you find fault with my figures which were published by the government?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]<br /> I got a better idea. How about we spend that money and invest it in Canadian families and their children as opposed to those of a foreign country. You do not look after your neighbours children at the expense of your own. Now that is really foolish! <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Because Canadian families are already here, already settled, already speak the languages, and are expected to be able to support themselves by now. If we spent that money instead on (somehow) helping existing canadian families, you would be complaining about the waste of money that is represented by such government handouts. We already have EI and support programs in place; there is no reason to create further ones.

[The Saint]

[QUOTE BY= jesse] Indeed, my figures show how much Canada has budgeted for the importation and settlement of said immigrants. Can you find fault with my figures which were published by the government?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I wasn't finding fault with your figures in the sense that they are wrong. I just found it interesting how you condemned those numbers (as in billions spent on immigration) to rumour when I cite them yet you support my citation with numbers of your own. That just characterizes the whole debate on immigration in this country. When someone critizes Canada's immigration policy based on data and analysis that condemns our immigration system such data and analysis is dismissed as "rumour", or "unsubstantiated, or, as is most common, "racist." Yet behind such dimsissals lurks facts that suggest that "there is something rotten in Gotham." <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Because Canadian families are already here, already settled, already speak the languages, and are expected to be able to support themselves by now. If we spent that money instead on (somehow) helping existing canadian families, you would be complaining about the waste of money that is represented by such government handouts. We already have EI and support programs in place; there is no reason to create further ones. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> One of the key arguements supporting the influx of immigrants is Canada's low birth rate. A low bith rate is not uncommon to industrialized nations and Canada's is not the lowest. It is on par with France. Japan has the lowest birth rate in the world and is in danger of having a negative birth rate (yet it remains one of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced nations in the world). Canada enjoys the highest intake of immigrants per capita of all the industrialized nations yet Canada has one of the smallest economies with the sparsest of populations. <b>There is no justifiaction for the numbers Canada takes in but by doing so hurts our birth rate making labour markets more competitve and affecting wage and salary rates</b>. Birth rates are tied to economics and if the country was serious about our birth rate then the government would be taking measures to prop it up. Japan does not offer a good example. It is an overworked and stressed out society. What are needed are polices with the corresponding funding to support Canadian families to prop up the birth rate. <b>Immigrant women adopt the same birth rates as domestic women (thus proving that birth rates are tied to socio-economic reasons) proves that immigration does not solve the problem.</b> Our immigration intake would have to exceed 600,000+ if it were to be effetive in combating our low birth rates. Thus, Canada must depend on a natural population growth supported by a high birth rate. <br /> <br /> But Canadian families are hesitant to have children due to increased job insecurity, diminised spending power, women having to work just to get by, and so on. Housing prices in Toronto are expensive and the introduction of 140,000+ people into the city each year does not help contribute to affordable housing. This drives people (Canadian and immigrants) outside the city to find housing. This propels housing development and is threatening the Rouge Moraine, green spaces, and fertile farmlands.<br /> <br /> Spending billions on the importation of only 250,000 people a year is absolutly insane. Such money should be spent to help and encourage Canadian families to have more children. This is my point. The importation of so many people is an investment in maintaining our low births rates and this has to stop. I conceed that our immigration system is one of several contributing factors to our low birht rate but it does contribute to the problem. As it now stands Canadians are wasting so much of their money to import and buy votes to support the party in power.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= The Saint] [QUOTE BY= jesse] Indeed, my figures show how much Canada has budgeted for the importation and settlement of said immigrants. Can you find fault with my figures which were published by the government?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> I wasn't finding fault with your figures in the sense that they are wrong. I just found it interesting how you condemned those numbers (as in billions spent on immigration) to rumour when I cite them yet you support my citation with numbers of your own. That just characterizes the whole debate on immigration in this country. When someone critizes Canada's immigration policy based on data and analysis that condemns our immigration system such data and analysis is dismissed as "rumour", or "unsubstantiated, or, as is most common, "racist." Yet behind such dimsissals lurks facts that suggest that "there is something rotten in Gotham." <br /> <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= jesse]Because Canadian families are already here, already settled, already speak the languages, and are expected to be able to support themselves by now. If we spent that money instead on (somehow) helping existing canadian families, you would be complaining about the waste of money that is represented by such government handouts. We already have EI and support programs in place; there is no reason to create further ones. [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> One of the key arguements supporting the influx of immigrants is Canada's low birth rate. A low bith rate is not uncommon to industrialized nations and Canada's is not the lowest. It is on par with France. Japan has the lowest birth rate in the world and is in danger of having a negative birth rate (yet it remains one of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced nations in the world). Canada enjoys the highest intake of immigrants per capita of all the industrialized nations yet Canada has one of the smallest economies with the sparsest of populations. <b>There is no justifiaction for the numbers Canada takes in but by doing so hurts our birth rate making labour markets more competitve and affecting wage and salary rates</b>. Birth rates are tied to economics and if the country was serious about our birth rate then the government would be taking measures to prop it up. Japan does not offer a good example. It is an overworked and stressed out society. What are needed are polices with the corresponding funding to support Canadian families to prop up the birth rate. <b>Immigrant women adopt the same birth rates as domestic women (thus proving that birth rates are tied to socio-economic reasons) proves that immigration does not solve the problem.</b> Our immigration intake would have to exceed 600,000+ if it were to be effetive in combating our low birth rates. Thus, Canada must depend on a natural population growth supported by a high birth rate. <br /> <br /> But Canadian families are hesitant to have children due to increased job insecurity, diminised spending power, women having to work just to get by, and so on. Housing prices in Toronto are expensive and the introduction of 140,000+ people into the city each year does not help contribute to affordable housing. This drives people (Canadian and immigrants) outside the city to find housing. This propels housing development and is threatening the Rouge Moraine, green spaces, and fertile farmlands.<br /> <br /> Spending billions on the importation of only 250,000 people a year is absolutly insane. Such money should be spent to help and encourage Canadian families to have more children. This is my point. The importation of so many people is an investment in maintaining our low births rates and this has to stop. I conceed that our immigration system is one of several contributing factors to our low birht rate but it does contribute to the problem. As it now stands Canadians are wasting so much of their money to import and buy votes to support the party in power.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Very, very good post. I would argue that our immigration is not really tied to birth rates, as our politicians never mention the issue. I think our immigration is about vote buying, and ruining nation states, cultures and traditions to make it easier for the rich to dominate the world as a whole.<br /> <br /> I would argue low birth rates are due to oodles of factors, especially feminism, liberalism, and cultural marxism.(regardless of the fact our economy is capitalist, we are culturally marxist.)<br /> <br /> Having children is unfashionable, life is expensive, and many people are consumerist dolts, rather than responsible citizens. <br /> <br /> Interestingly enough, the rich and the poor have kids, the middle sacrifices the kids to get the house and car.

[lesouris]

Okay, I have noticed some glaring misconceptions in this thread, so I will attempt to correct them:<br /> <br /> 1. MISCONCEPTION: Native-born Canadians have a responsibility to procreate and maintain the population.<br /> TRUTH: Women have the right to decide what they want to do with their own body and shouldn't have to be forced to have children in order to be considered a nationalist<br /> <br /> 2. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants are freeloaders, and are a financial drain to this country.<br /> TRUTH: Whatever money is spent on immigrants by the government is usually paid back by the immigrants via taxes. Remember, Canada only takes in immigrants that can sustain themselves financially, meaning those that can pay taxes and contribute to the country. The only excepmtion would be in the case of refugees, but that's more of a humanitarian issue.<br /> <br /> 3. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants steal Canadians' jobs.<br /> TRUTH: There is actually a cycle, which means that the more people living here, the more jobs are created. For example:<br /> More people = more demand = more supply = more jobs in the primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors of the economy.<br /> Of course there are people who are unemployed, but that is not because of immigration, it is because of Canada's (and the world's for that matter) economic system, in which keeping inflation down is more important than acheiving full employment (see the Canadian Action Party's platform for a solution to this problem).<br /> <br /> 4. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants no longer earn the right to live here.<br /> TRUTH: Immigrating to Canada is one of the hardest things these people will ever have to do. It is financially and emotionally draining - it would be for anyone. Why do you think these people would go through so much to come here? To exploit us? No, to make a better life for themselves. That's the whole point of immigration.<br /> <br /> 5. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants don't assimilate into Canadian society.<br /> TRUTH: Immigrants do assimilate, to a degree - just as much as Scottish, Italian, Ukrainian, and Jewish immigrants have done for over a century. I mean, can you picture Canadian culture without Scottish influence? What about Italian influence? Even Chinese influence is widespread in our culture. I think that wherever immigrants are coming from now (which I think most people on here would say India), will add their own influence to our culture and we will continue to evolve. I'd like to put Canadian culture into the context of the Buddhist concept of impermanence - the culture of Canada today is not the same culture of Canada one hundred years ago, fifty years ago, last year, or even yesterday, and it won't be the same culture in as soon as five seconds. It is always evolving, always changing. I would suggest you accept the change, because change is inevitable no matter what you do.

[samuel]

The biggest misconception in this tread and everytime immigration is brought up by responsible people wanting to discuss the subject, lesouris, is people like you trying to stifle the issue with accusations of racism. Immigration is no different than finance, environment or trade. It can and is often abused or mismanaged by governing political parties.<br /> <br /> Take your point number 2 for example, that is simply not the case when these "productive" Canadians are promised "easy" entry for their foreign parents and grandparents. It's especially troubling when this precampaign "promise" is directed at a specific ethnic group which already accounts for 3% of the population. Do the math on these unproductive "New Canadians" (health care costs etc.) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[The Saint]

lesouris: your entire post is based on assumptions and has no footing in substantiated fact.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris] Okay, I have noticed some glaring misconceptions in this thread, so I will attempt to correct them:<br /> <br /> 2. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants...are a financial drain to this country.<br /> TRUTH: Whatever money is spent on immigrants by the government is <b>usually</b> paid back by the immigrants via taxes.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> You shoot yourself in the foot by implying that this is not always this case by use of the word "usually." <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]Remember, Canada only takes in immigrants that can sustain themselves financially...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is an assumption. Consider the fact that roughly 20-25% of immigrants to this nation enter through the skilled class. The majority are sponsored relatives, chiefly aged parents, who need no job or language skills to get into the country. In other words the majority of immigrants to this country cannot sustain themselves without some form of financial assistance. Couple this with the fact that no concrete proof exists to support this claim. <br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]3. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants steal Canadians' jobs.<br /> TRUTH: There is actually a cycle, which means that the more people living here, the more jobs are created. For example:<br /> More people = more demand = more supply = more jobs in the primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors of the economy.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is another assumption and unsupportable. If you are going to use Economic theory to argue points then keep in mind that that entire discipline thrives on assumptions, with little application to real world conditions. <br /> <br /> I'll take this opportunity to correct a favourite quote of mine: "Immigrants take jobs that Canadians won't do." It should read as "Immigrants take jobs that Canadians won't do <b>at that pay</b>". Thus immigrants contribute to the stagnation of salaries and wages.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]4. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants no longer earn the right to live here.<br /> TRUTH: Immigrating to Canada is one of the hardest things these people will ever have to do. It is financially and emotionally draining...Why do you think these people would go through so much to come here?...to make a better life for themselves.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This is utter nonsense. Greed is a driving factor in an immigrants choice to move west. I think we can agree that there are many stories circulating that tell tales of well educated immigrants who "lived the good life" back home yet must drive cabs when they arrive here. Besides, if it were so financially and emotionlly draining then why move at all? Those who are prepared and willing to endure this are driven by one of two factors: fear for their lives or greed. I also find the statement that immigrants come here "for a better life" racist. It implies that just because someone is non-Western and/or non-White then he or she must be poor and in search of "a better life." That statement is just part of the con to keep immgration numbers inflated.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]5. MISCONCEPTION: Immigrants don't assimilate into Canadian society.<br /> TRUTH: Immigrants do assimilate, <b>to a degree</b>...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Meaning?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= lesouris]...just as much as Scottish, Italian, Ukrainian, and Jewish immigrants have done for over a century. I mean, can you picture Canadian culture without Scottish influence? What about Italian influence? Even Chinese influence is widespread in our culture...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> All right. I'll agree with you once you can point out the Scottish, Italian, Ukrainian, Jewish and Chinese influences in the Canadian identity (culturally, politically, etc.). If you are having difficulty try this: imagine yourself to be Japanese planning a trip to Canada. What impressions do you think you would have of the country? Would you be coming here for the Chinese food and dragon boat races? I am not trying to downplay the contributions these immigrants made to this country but Canada has evolved beyond its immigrant roots and has formed something unique to itself. Multiculturalism is not it. Multiculturalism is a mish mash of this and that and argues against the existance of a Canadian.

[lesouris]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] The biggest misconception in this tread and everytime immigration is brought up by responsible people wanting to discuss the subject, lesouris, is people like you trying to stifle the issue with accusations of racism. Immigration is no different than finance, environment or trade. It can and is often abused or mismanaged by governing political parties.<br /> <br /> Take your point number 2 for example, that is simply not the case when these "productive" Canadians are promised "easy" entry for their foreign parents and grandparents. It's especially troubling when this precampaign "promise" is directed at a specific ethnic group which already accounts for 3% of the population. Do the math on these unproductive "New Canadians" (health care costs etc.) and you've got a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Unproductive is a little harsh a word to describe these people. I mean, they support their families emotionally, reduce stress, help raise the children in the family (which is especially needed with immigrants who are often forced to work harder than native-born Canadians, and with the high cost of day care, et cetera), and volunteer in community organizations that more "productive" immigrants don't have time for. Look at this from a humanitarian point of view: if you're children and grandchildren all emmigrated to a land far far away, and you're left alone, wouldn't you want to join them? Besides, the more people in a household, the more staples the family needs to buy, the more we collect in GST and PST (in some provinces), and the more people in a family, the more room they need, the bigger dwelling (or dwellings) they move into, the more rent/property tax is paid. These people do bring in revenue for the government, you just need to look at the bigger picture.<br /> <br /> I don't deny that there are problems with the immigration system, although I might disagree with what those problems are. I do think it's a bit of a stretch to say that immigrants are only allowed into the country to vote Liberal - why then does Calgary, even the immigrant-dominated ridings, consistantly go to the Conservatives? Why do native-born Canadians in Toronto and Montreal vote overwhelmingly Liberal? I think that immigrants just absorb the political culture of the city that surrounds them. So why has Toronto gone from a Conservative stronghold to a Liberal one? Maybe it's because the Conservative platform is mainly concerned with rural areas. Maybe it's because the Liberals pronmise to fix the city's problems (which they don't do). Maybe it's because most of the business elite have relocated to the suburbs. Maybe it's becaue the Conservatives of today are radically different from the Conservatives of Diefenbaker, or even Mulroney. Maybe it's Ontario's experience with PC governments that download their responsibilities onto city governments. It's probably a mix of them all. I think it's too easy to just blame immigrants for the switch to the Liberal Party.<br /> <br /> That being said, I don't deny that Liberals are rather strong in Toronto's ethnic communities, but you have to understand that a lot of these people have never lived under a different government, and they're scared of voting for the Conservatives. Add into that equation that popular ethnic figures in communities tend to run for the Liberals or the NDP, leaving the Conservatives with candidates with little name recognition or popularity in the community.