Rob Ford vs. Immigration Facts
Since Critical1 was interested in having a discussion about immigration in the face of Rob Ford's recent rants on that topic, I did some poking around to come up with the following facts. They are rather different than the myths we keep hearing from Fold and his ilk.
Ford claimed last week that Toronto is planning for an additional one million immigrants in the next ten years. Actually, the city's Official Plan predicts half that many (537,000) over the next twenty years. Quite a difference. You could even call it significant. Ford is either lying to play to his base, or just doesn't know the facts.
Our own Critical1 opines that maybe we are getting the wrong kind of immigrants since most of them end up in poverty. That ignores the reality that our government rules make it almost impossible for trained professionals to qualify to work at their professions once here. Despite years of promises to change those rules, nothing much has happened and we have trained doctors driving cabs. We have rigorous screening programs that eliminate prospective immigrants who don't have money and skills. That is the truth of the matter. So we are getting the "right kind" of immigrants, we just go to extraordinary lengths to grind them down once they are here. Ask the provincial Medical Associations why they do that, my own speculation might suggest a motive like hobbling the competition and that would be totally unfounded, only the gut feeling of a tired cynical socialist.
The Conference Board of Canada, hardly a special interest group, tells us our national economy would gain five billion annually if immigrants were able to work in the professions they trained in. Sounds good to me.
The Royal Bank of Canada recommended boosting immigration in Canada from the current rate of 240-265,000 per year, up to 400,000. The report, called "Diversity Advantage" was produced in 2005. Among other things, it reminded us that we need more people in Canada to keep the engines turning, meaning working and paying taxes. As someone poised to begin collecting my government retirement pension after all those years paying into it, I certainly see the value in having younger, working people continuing to pay into Canada Pension as well as funding our vital public services like health care and education. Since people of my generation and younger just haven't produced enough offspring to do it, more people from other parts of the world are required if we want to maintain our current system and lifestyle, and most of us do.
Immigrants aren't the problem, it's how the federal and provincial governments go about their settlement that does that. For starters, we should be running aggressive programs to ensure they choose smaller centres to go to live, then providing whatever additional training they need to get to work in their chosen fields. Our new citizens will fare much better that way, and all of us will benefit from their presence here.
We can no longer pretend that Canada is some sainted haven only for those born here. Our future will be bleak if we persist in that kind of xenophobic thinking. In the 21st century it is all one world, and we will sink or swim together.
44 comments:
Frankly, I hate it that Ford is leading in the mayoral posts... but given the high unemployment rate (particularly high in TO), I think the time has come to question the orthodoxy that that Canada needs to maintain its immigration rate as the hightest per capita rate in the world. Of course the Conference Board wants a high immigration rate -- it means more cheap labor, more customers for housing, mortgages, and retail, etc. But the evidence also overwhelmingly shows that high immigration without corresponding job growth dampens wages. (Check out the report at this url: http://global-economics.ca/ImpactofImmigrationonCanadasLabourMarket.pdf ) Bottom line is that we don't do recent immigrants any favours by maintaining a high immigration rate when good jobs are so scarce... we are only making it harder and harder for new arrivals to succeed. I have many friends who are fairly recent immigrants and virtually all of them are angry about the job opportunities that they were lead to believe.
Yes, Canada has benefitted from immigration. But the current rates are not justified given the lacklustre job growth. Oh, and as much as I dislike Ford, it is not xenophobic to question immigration policy.
Deb O suggested, "For starters, we should be running aggressive programs to ensure they choose smaller centres to go to live,..."
Aggressive in what way? What kind of programs would be appropriately aggressive? What kind of contract must the successful immigrant sign?
In my work with immigrants in Toronto I understand why they gravitate to the 3 cities -- kith and kin, a great comfort zone, a community where they can obtain all their products and services. Safety in numbers. The program would have to be effectively aggressive to entice immigrants to set up shop/family in smaller communities.
The goal is quite agreeable, but ... how to achieve it?
"it reminded us that we need more people in Canada to keep the engines turning, meaning working and paying taxes."
It also reminds me of the ultimate limitations that will be reached and then the whole thing must implode or at least, cease to be.
Think of one of those Saturn rockets that launches every shuttle into earth orbit. The longer you need it to run, the more fuel you need to send along with it, and the fuel you need to add to send the additional fuel, and so on and so on. There IS a limit to how much you can send and so a limit to how long or how far you can ultimately go before it all stops and you end up stranded there.
We can transpose that principle to our sustainability issues and see that, no matter what we do at this time to keep "the engines running", we use more than we produce and it WILL all stop somewhere and we will be stranded. And we can view "immigration" under this light as well. No matter how many people you transplant, it will take yet more to support them and more to support the supporters, and so on, as before, until you no longer have the means to support the system loading and it all has to crumble, and start fresh, with minimal resources to boot. That's not an anti-immigration view, but a pragmatic one.
Ben said "more people from other parts of the world are required if we want to maintain our current system and lifestyle"
The answer to Ben's issue surely is not endlessly transplanting more people, but the reduction of wants and over-consumption to levels that can be sustained by a balance between input and output. Otherwise, we're simply selfishly foisting the inevitable decomposition of this system of "over-everything" upon the generations that follow.
While Toronto's Ford is expressing it in his own way, what he's articulating may well be what is at the core of a solution to the problem, regardless of how it is interpreted or viewed politically.
The hard answer is that we have to escalate the rate at which we make the really hard decisions before we lose the freedom to even choose at all.
nice stuff here, very very nice
To Trying to Make Sense:
Ben did not write this post. It was mine alone, so any credit or blame belongs to me too.
my apologies to both Ben and Deb O.
That was careless on my part.
Why does the Royal Bank have any say in how many people should be allowed to come to Canada? That is like Walmart telling the Government to import people so they can sell more stuff to them. Immigration is not the problem here. The problem is the would be immigrant who is told no after applying properly because their trade is not deemed in demand, or the Doctor that drives a taxi here, because his medical degree in the old country doesnt measure up to Canadian standards. What message do we send to these people when all you have to do is get on a boat and come. This boat load has been refered to by some as the "dregs of their country" perhaps we should export some of our "dregs" the ones who dont want to work but still demand money usually while making an illegal profit on the side somehow. That would free up lots of space as well as money for training, and education of those who come to be productive members of Canadian society.
I get such a kick out of reading the nation's leading demagogues on this. The Christie Blatchford's, the Rob Ford's and especially Ezra Levant -who's real claim to fame ought to be that he's a Newman (from Seinfeld) lookalike.
Levant is so rabidly opposed to letting the Sri Lankans stay that he all but destroys his own argument talking about gunboats and high-seas seizure and gawd only knows what else. But the kicker is this: Not once have I heard Newman -er, Levant- reference the turning away of the St. Louis,the ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler during the Second World War. What would Levant, a Jew, have thought of Mackenzie King's government and its policy of One Is Too Many?
It has been said that many of the hapless Jews on that ghastly voyage eventually died in Nazi concentration camps after any number of countries -not just Canada- turned them away.
I haven't read anything from Levant about the Komagata Maru either or any of the other shameful episodes in Canada's pre-Trudeau WASPs-Uber-Alles immigration policies either.
Funny thing though how as soon as people like Ezra Levant manage to stake a claim to Canada they want the door closed to anybody who isn't just like them. Funny thing too that these inarticulate rabble-rousers always seem to find nothing but favour with our American neighbours' hard line policies, never mentioning slavery, the inscription at the base of The Statue Of Liberty or how virtually all manual labour from Florida to Maine is done by Mexican day workers -without whom there wouldn't be a trimmed hedge or an interlocking brick driveway for 3,000 miles.
Yeah....funny, isn't it?
The casting of stones is becoming so wide-spread and popular that it may one day become an Olympic sport of sorts.
DebO is so eager to lambaste Rob Ford as a liar and demagogue that she rushes ahead without reading her own "immigration facts".
Recall that Ford apparently claimed that Toronto would be home to a million more new immigrants in ten years, putting a strain on the city's infrastructure and quality of life. Deb counters Ford with a number from the Toronto Offical Plan that suggests only 537,000 new immigrants in 20 years.
Well apart from the fact that the Federal govt not the Toronto Official Plan will decide how many immigrants Canada will accept and where they will settle, twenty years is a pretty distant guestimate.
Deb also states Canada's current immigration rate is 240-260,000 a year. So, unless the Royal Bank and their friends have their way, in ten years Canada will still have an additional 2,500,000 or so new immigrants.
On the reasonable assumption that about 100,000 of this 240-260,000 will eventually find their way to Toronto, this gives the new immigrant total for Toronto of, not 537,000 in twenty years, but (surprise surprise) 1,000,000 new immigrants in ten years. Come on down Rob Ford.
Add to this number, the significant number of refugees to be expected to locate in Toronto, not to mention all the current Canadian residents who may be likely to relocate to Toronto from rural backwaters over the next ten years and I think Toronto faces some social issues that need serious discussion.
DebO also manages to trot out the cliches of doctors driving cabs and claims "rigourous screening programs eliminate prospective immigrants who don't have money and skills".
I hope we can get some reliable immigration facts on these issues. Personally, I don't see why prospective immigrants can't be selected for available Canadian jobs before they arrive rather than just showing up with hopes of finding something. I wouldn't expect to simply jump on a plane and immigrate to Britain or France (even if this were possible) unless I was pretty likely assured of a job.
As for the "rigourous screening" Deb mentions, Canada's most famous recent immigrant was Robert Dziekanski, unfortunately tasered to death at Vancouver Airport. However, despite being accepted in Canada as a landed immigrant, Dziekanski apparently couldn't speak and hadn't bothered to learn a single word of English before he arived and possessed the job skills of a construction worker, of whom no doubt there are many currently unemployed in B.C.
So what is our current immigrant profile? Trained professionals or unskilled labourers? Hopefully more information will emerge.
Mr Merklin Muffley wrote "always seem to find nothing but favour with our American neighbours' hard line policies, never mentioning slavery, the inscription at the base of The Statue Of Liberty or how virtually all manual labour from Florida to Maine is done by Mexican day workers"
Who cares about the situation in the United States of America. What does that have to do with our Canadian policies? Supdrfluous crap.
The same for Mr Merklin Muffley's slanders against Ezra Levant. I diagree with Levant's take on the refigees, however, Mr Merklin Muffley's comments about Levant is slanderous fiction, aka, post-nutritive disposal substance from male bovines.
Mr Merklin Muffley's comment is just one big slander fest, contributing nothing to the debate. And guess what, I feel free to make any comment I want without having to reference the Statue of Lib, the St Louis and all the other stuff just to make myself sound credible.
Now, back to my respectful request of the author; Deb O suggested, "For starters, we should be running aggressive programs to ensure they choose smaller centres to go to live,..."
Aggressive in what way? What kind of programs would be appropriately aggressive? What kind of contract must the successful immigrant sign?
trying2makesense's comments overlook the most important resources that immigrants bring to Canada: their minds and their kids.
trying2makesense makes a Malthusian arguement, that there are limits to all and sundry. This is a crock.
There is no limit to the mind, to the ideas it generates, to the bodies that carry out the ideas, to the net benefit of Canada.
Far more immigrants than not, bring a value system that includes hard work, family values, and an ambition to do better for themselves now that they are free from the distresses of their home country's oppressions.
When they get a footing, immigrant entrepreneurs start up businesses, often trade with their old country. They know the market and culture in their own country, and when they open a business in Canada to serve that clientelle, it is a win win situation.
If the lefties want to get all righteous huff and puff about something, St Louis-like, then take a look at the almost double-decade of denying the Romany refugee status in Canada, especially the Romany from Hungary and the Czech Republic. Duh? So tell us Mr Merlin Muffley, in your outrage against the outrages of the past, you didn't include the outrages here and now? Hmmmm? Inquirying minds would like to know.
The pre-Trudeau WASP world is gone -- get over it Mr Merklin Muffley and move on.
A secret government survey reveals the majority of successful Tamil refugees travel back to Sri Lanka.
While government officials refused to release the controversial survey they did confirm the top-line figures to QMI Agency. The survey of Sri Lankan nationals was conducted in early August. A total of 50 people were surveyed, 31 of them had successfully obtained refugee status and 22 had returned to Sri Lanka. The CBSA refuses to release further information and will not say if an expanded study will be conducted to examine the full nature of the problem.
Critical1 wrote, "Well apart from the fact that the Federal govt ... will decide how many immigrants Canada will accept and where they will settle".
That is untrue. The federal government does not decide where immigrants will settle. Immigrants decide where they will settle. For the most disproportionate part, immigrants settle in Vancouver, Montreal & especially Toronto. They bear the burden of federal policy, not some nickel & dime feel good town.
Wally: I don't have an entire program to settle immigrants all figured out but I wanted to tell you what I've been thinking in an attempt to answer your very reasonable question. Your own good ideas will add to my fledgling thoughts.
I was thinking of how immigrants from the UK were given tracts of land to come here to settle our huge country from the early 1800s onwards. They had no choice in where their piece of land was, so no guarantee it was good farmland under the trees and brush that had to be cleared.
The requirements to eventually be given title to it were that a certain amount of acreage be cleared, and a simple cabin built, within a certain time period. I think it was two years.
Now clearly that old kind of incentive can't be offered now on a mass level, but maybe there's enough crown land left for it to be attractive to some potential farmers who would welcome the opportunity.
Incentives can be offered though, and the pay off would depend on promises being kept by both sides.
What we really need is for the federal and provincial governments to work together and co-ordinate settlement. People with families already settled in a location will natually want to go there too, and that's fine, but not all of them would have a ready made community waiting.
If we want to establish communities of similar immigrants, that can be done with some advance planning in place, including for the services that would be required to teach Enlgish/French as needed, along with cultural training so people fit in with the larger community, and help to find work for the parents and schools for the kids.
Right now it seems the feds. just wash their hands of people once they're here, and don't do anything to solve the problems their lack of planning create.
All I know is this is a big, largely empty country that needs more people to prosper, and the world has lots of people who would do anything, like cross the Pacific Ocean in broken down old boats with no guarantee of being allowed on land when they arrive, to become Canadians. Let's give them a chance, and give them the tools they need to succeed.
I will stop now before I go on a rant about Christian duty and love. Sometimes I can't help it after all those years of Sunday School while growing up. I just know that Jesus would want us to share our wealth, and we have a great deal of it compared to most people in the world.
The goal, as you stated, is desireable. Although I asked you for an answer to your proposal, I don't have any resettlement ideas of my own.
The hostility to immigrants, as demonstrated in Cobourg, is not uncommon to many communities outside the metropolises. What is asked for here, is an attitude change on the part of the locals.
I find it distressing to read a recent poll exposing Canada as a majority of knee-jerk reactionaries aginst the recent arrival of Tamil refugees. So far the feds don't appear to be abrogating their responsibilities towards the refugee process. There's unsettling comments by some politicians, and often enough they get a few votes for their comments with no need to apply their bigotry further. Let's hope that is all it will amount to.
For Allah's sake, Rob Ford is in the lead, in spite of all the sludge-slinging. Ipsos Reid pol has Smitheram at 21% and Ford at 32%
Wow! One third of the population of Toronto are "rednecks" aka "white males". How can that be possible?
A tad less than 50% of the population of Toronto are white skinned. Half of the half are male. Roughly 25% of the electorate would consist of "white guys" but 32% support Ford. Where did that extra 7% come from?
I wonder if our pundit of "white males" can explain this anomoly?
A poll of 400 people conducted by Ipsos-Reid a neo-con company commissioned by the National Post and CFRB1010 radio would be a bit stinky in my mind
Oh I get it. Because two news organizations are alleged to be politically new conservative then it follows that a reputable polling business will follow in lock-step to their request to fix a pol to indicate one candidate over another. Being unable to make a clear allegation of fraud against the polsters, I guess we have to settle for the allegation that it is "stinky". Wow! Very astute political observation and well articulated.
Say Ben, do you also want to allege that those organizations consist largely of "white males." According to your reasoning, any politician with a supporting constituency of "white males" is to be discredited.
How about producing your pol that supports your ludicrous allegation that "White males love this guy." or is that how retro-lefties continue to conduct stinky politics?
You would do very well to cease making such race-based remarks as that. Would you discredit a politician by falsely asserting that "Black females love this guy?" Keep that kind of stinky political smearing in the ground.
I just read the results of the Ipsos poll in this morning's Globe (Tue.) I agree with Ben: Consider the source.
CFRB1010 (All Demogoguery! All The Time!) is the WWF of AM Talk Radio. Everybody's mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. Almost every caller to whatever host and whatever they happen to be railing at or whatever the outrage-du-jour (always a leftie plot) happens to be, that caller prefaces their remarks with "I don't know John, but...."
Well, if you don't know -why are you phoning a radio program to tell the world you don't know?
The answer to that is simple -almost as simple as the callers to CFRB1010: They're simpletons.
And simpletons are who Rob Ford, The National Post and CFRB1010 depend on for they're success in business and in life. (It's probably also why The Globe permits little or no criticism of Rob Ford's pimp -Christie Blatchford.)
Wearing proper protective gear and using the Buddy System, spend a half hour at any time of the day listening to CFRB1010. Take note of the American contributors and the Brooklyn accents of the so-called experts weighing in on, well, a whjole lot of subject matter that has precious little to do with Canada. I mean, really, Sarah Palin? Obama a Muslim? Tea Partiers as True Patriots? Does anybody north of the 49th other than Charles Adler, Christie Blatchford or David Frum actually care? I sure don't. CFRB1010 should be seen for what it is; unintentional slapstick comedy by and for wannabe Republicans.
The remaining years left to me on this planet do not permit a similar examination of my views on The National Post. Suffice to say as a newspaper, The National Post is a pretty good advertising media -provided the only thing you have to sell is self-discrediting surveys from The Fraser Institute or, as in this case, CFRB1010 and itself.
Here is the actual question asked by Ipsos-Reid. http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/poll.jpg
Note how distorted is the question. It was fashioned by "white males" drenched in neo-con ideology. Lefties like Ben Burd can smell it. What ludicrous political acumen the left has. No wonder incompetents such as Ford get elected.
Merklin Muffley, please wipe the foam from your mouth and tell us just how all the spittle you splattered on this blog relates to the Ipsos-Reid question:
"IF THE THE ELECTION FOR TORONTO'S MAYOR WAS BEING HELD TOMORROW, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES WOULD YOU MOST LIKELY VOTE FOR?
ROB FORD 32%
GEORGE SMITHERMAN 21%
SARAH THOMSON 10%
JOE PANTALONE 9%
ROCCO ROSSI 7%
OTHER 4%
UNDECIDED 25%"
Tell how the above question / poll should have been worded, to eliminate the neo-con influence. C'mon Merk, show us your political acumen. You too, Ben, c,mon, show how the "white males" influenced the outcome of the poll.
In case someone thinks I support Ford take note that I would not vote for such a politician. My interest is in clearing out the political bullshit from a pack of wild lefties who leftie their brains in Chomsky's back pocket.
so you can label people with - "pack of wild lefties who leftie their brains in Chomsky's back pocket."
and get upset about "white-males" be objective
I label groups of people based on their political perceptions.
You label groups of people based on their race and gender.
I make a political comment. You make a racist comment.
"White males love this guy." I keep asking Ben -- what is the basis for that racial profiling?
Merkley M wrote "..CFRB1010 depend on for they're success.." instead of '..CFRB1010 depend on for their success.." Odd mistake from this veteran scribe. Could be the care and tending of the home-chilled brew has been neglected a bit and something's not as it should be, ...or not
there is an ever present danger that if someone repeats an idea, word or phrase often enough, that idea, word or phrase can begin to take on a semblance of fact or truth, both for the author and for the audience, even though it may never have had nor now has such attributes.
A lot of that seems to happen on some blogs...just musing out loud
Manfred Schumann assumes the role of my worst elementary English teacher; a grammarian scold and spelling tyrant.
..one single comment, a role does not make
...from a single seed grows a tree.
1. One comment
2. Single comment
3. One single comment.
Your prose is bloated with a run-on redundancy. A remedial English course may be helpful for you; otherwise, you may have to live your life as an old prose-bag.
.. or two single comments, or three, and on.
one comment about one word in one post - not the stuff that can be declared a "role" my friend.
Now, let's take a look at the 'role' you have assumed here, shall we.. on second thought, let's not bother - I'll just leave it at that my friend.
Years ago there was this economic/extortionist terrorist guy in Germany called "The Saw". What "The Saw" did was send letters demanding huge sums of money to Germany's high-speed rail operators saying that if his demands weren't met he was going to use his carbide-disc saw to cut foot-long chunks of rail out of the track and derail high-speed trains ("The Saw" was an ex-employee and knew how to 'bridge' the 1/4 volt current that ran up one rail and down the other, same as here, so as to ensure the train still had a Clear Signal).
Anyway, why am I bringing this up?
Well, Wally, dear, loveable old Wally, has, in my opinion, become The Burd Report's equivalent of "The Saw". I mean take a look of the heading of this thread: "Rob Ford vs. Immigration Facts" and consider how far, thanks to dear, loveable old Wally (hereinafter known as "The Saw") we've strayed from anything to do with the original idea.
Wally, dear, loveable old Wally, has derailed another train of thought.
Thank goodness nobody got killed.
Merklin Muffley types; "Wally, dear, loveable old Wally, has derailed another train of thought.
It was derailed by Manfred S when he gave you a grammar lesson. Obviously you can't read signals from your train of naught.
off on a spur line, what's really going wrong here is that the rest of the participants here seem so easily led off the mainline by wk. If we weren't so eager to chase his smoke we wouldn't have to worry about getting off track. So, ya see, it's our own damn fault for playin' by his rules, and not his at all. Every day I see and hear kids yellin' "mommy mommy mommy - mommmmy pay attention mommy I'm over here look look mommmmy MOMMMMY ..." and mommy just goes on ignoring little spoiled imp, so why is it we don't do likewise? Is it because you see him just as "dear, loveable old Wally"?
The solution that works best for me is simply ignoring any comment that starts with "Wally Keeler said..." badda-bu badda-bing!
trying2makesense wrote, "No matter how many people you transplant, it will take yet more to support them and more to support the supporters, and so on, as before, until you no longer have the means to support the system loading and it all has to crumble, and start fresh, with minimal resources to boot. That's not an anti-immigration view, but a pragmatic one.
For the past 143 years, Canada has been taking in immgrants and refugees pretty well willy and nilly. Yet spread over that 143 years, Canada has prospered in all spheres to a degree unprecedented in human history.
This will continue, regardless of how pseudo-pragmatic the doomster gloomster tombsters put it.
The Saturn rocket is machinery. Immigrants and refugees are human beings that commit a wide assortment of creative acts, just like the locals.
trying2makesense and others all diminish the human capacity for creativity, perhaps because they are so lacking in the attriubute themselves.
two simple questions for WK - why do we import people while we ignore some of the ones we already have, and have had, for most of those 143 years? Where is the creativity in that?
trying2makesense keyed, "some of the ones we already have, and have had, for most of those 143 years?
It would be helpful to name the "ones", for clarity sake. I am not going to guess or assume anything from such an ambiguity.
"to name the "ones", for clarity sake"
let's start with some of the infirm, the mentally ill, the addicts, the homeless, the orphans, the aboriginals, the aged, the earlier immigrants, the unemployed.. there are people in these groups that would not be such if they had comparable access to the resources we make available to those that we import. Before you ask, I am not going to give specific examples because we have been given many through anecdotal and documented examples in various media reports on these situations.
One of the answers, I suspect, is that it is simply easier (and maybe cheaper) to start with fresh recruits than fix the broken ones. But then, I was posing the question to you ..
”let's start with some of
the infirm,
the mentally ill,
the addicts,
the homeless,
the orphans,
the aboriginals,
the aged,
the earlier immigrants,
the unemployed..
there are people in these groups that would not be such if they had comparable access to the resources we make available to those that we import.
Whatever inequities you imagine, there are more resources available to your list of unfortunates, than for the immigrants and refugees to Canada.
Immigration has always been a net benefit to Canada. It continues today. We import minds. We import future minds because we get the kids of immigrants and refugees. These minds are resources that produce, and by so doing, they financially contribute to the resources that are made available to your list of unfortunates. They are a NET BENEFIT to Canada.
It's worth noting that Canadians who live in and around small towns largely get a free ride insofar as refugee settlement is concerned. Refugees go to Canada's 3 biggest cities. It is municipal taxes that provide housing and other 'welfare' costs for refugees, so trying2makesense don't got no call to whine about his pocket being picked on that score -- enjoy your free ride, and for the savings you enjoy, you might want to contribute that saving directly to one or all of the list of unfortunates.
There must be a blue moon tonight because I agree with Mr. Keeler completely in his response to Trying down there at the 38th post.
The stories Trying hears about the life of luxury our immigrants and refugees enjoy are myths, encouraged and spread by the mainstream media, who have their own agenda.
It's just a pack of lies, as some of our newcomers are unduly restricted from the most basic of activities, including working for a living. We actually refuse to let some of them do that!
While the long list of Canadian "unfortunates" listed above may get better care in some areas, that care is still very deficient and costs us a great deal more in the long run than giving people what they need to reach their potential.
Trying's statement that it may be cheaper to bring in new people than "fix" the broken ones already here is rather frightening. What do we do with the broken ones now, shoot them? Or just abandon them to die as soon as possible. His statement needs a little clarification, or maybe a little more thought.
I get the feeling that trying2makesense wants Canada to provide sufficient resources to his list of unfortunates. The resources can be found in several foreign aid projects. Let's use that money which is sent abroad to help their unfortunates, rather than our unfortunate.
Why would we send aid to regimes that cause refugees? Let's divert that money to help OUR unfortunates first, including refugees to Canada.
But let us take a look at the behaviour of Canada, which has connived with several East European governments to reject Romany (Gypsies) refugees. I was active with this group of people when I lived in Toronto.
=========================
Aug 27, 1997 A large anti-Romany rally engineered by skinheads took place in front of the Lido Motel in Toronto, Canada where Czech Romanies awaiting the outcome of their applications for political asylum have been staying. (Source: CTK National News Wire, 8/27/97)
Sep 3, 1997 George Kubes, the Czech-Canadian lawyer representing several dozen Czech Romanies applying for asylum in Canada, claims that Czech immigration authorities are trying to hinder his clients' chances of gaining refugee status there, by falsifying documents to show that the refugees have criminal records. (Source: The Prague Post, 9/3/97)
Oct 8, 1997 Canada reintroduced visas for Czechs after a wave of Romanies from the Czech Republic flooded Canadian shores seeking asylum status in August and September. (Source: The Prague Post, 10/28/97)
==========================
If you want to know what the Romany faced when they were returned to their home country, take a look at this pathetic chronology of one of earth's most pathetic unfortunates.
"What do we do with the broken ones now, shoot them? Or just abandon them to die as soon as possible."
ask the social workers, the Salvation Army, the John Howard Society, the doctors, the half-way houses, the police, the Scott Mission, the Children's Aid, parole officers, safe injection clinics, and so on. They all have stories and concerns that make one shake their head in disgust.
that's the last of what I have to say on this. We simply disagree on some major points.
I am aware of all you list, but that is all you seem to do, list things. My social involvement has been with assisting refugees and immigrants. Your social involvement has been with the unfortunates that you list. You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive -- I don't. Pity that you cannot articulate this, but feel the need to exclude.
da svidanya tvaravitch.
Trying2makesense keyed, ”why do we import people while we ignore some of the ones we already have, and have had, for most of those 143 years? Where is the creativity in that?”
From Wikipedia: “Immigrants on average contribute more to government revenues than the Canadian average. A 1990 study found that an average immigrant household paid $22,528 in all forms of taxes and on average each household directly consumed $10,558 in government services. By contrast an average native Canadian household paid $20,259 in tax and consumed $10,102 dollars in services. Across the country this means that immigrant households contributed $2.6 billion more than their share to the public purse.[60] A 1996 study found that over a lifetime a typical immigrant family will pay some forty thousand dollars more to the treasury than they will consume in services.[61] Explanations for this include that immigrant households tend to be larger, and have more wage earners, increasing taxes. Newcomers are also less likely to make use of many social services. Immigrants are less likely than native Canadians to receive employment insurance, social assistance, and subsidized housing.[62] Immigrants are also much less likely to become homeless or suffer from mental illness.[63] Recent immigrants are also less likely to make use of subsidized housing than native Canadians of the same income level. In 2004 22.5% of low-income native Canadians lived in subsidized housing, but only 20.4% of low income recent immigrants did so, though this number was considerably higher among more established immigrants.[64] “
is this discussion about immigrants or about refugees, or both. Immigrants come here on a different premise and have followed the required procedures, not so the refugees. Maybe that's a part of the problem being discussed.
Post a Comment