Canada To Bring in 1 Million Immigrants In Next Three Years - One Of Most Aggressive Increases Ever

[kingofsurrey]

8 minutes ago, DonLever said:

There is a political aspect no one has touched on yet.   The Liberal Party of Canada for the last 40 years has used increased immigration as a platform to gain votes among ethnic minorities.  It was under Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals that the laws for immigration were relaxed.   Ever since then,  ethnic voters tend to vote for the Liberal Party.

Remember the last election when the Liberals promised increased immigration and easier family reunification.  It worked pretty well as the Liberals swept most urban ridings in Metro Vancouver and Metro Toronto.  The Liberals grabbed all of Surrey with its large South Asian community except for one riding.  In Richmond, where there is a strong Conservative base,  the Conservatives  managed to hold onto only one riding where the incumbent almost lost.

 

 

Many Canadians are economically / fiscally  conservative but MOST canadians are not Socially  Conservative.

This is why the CDN Conservative Party will not likely get re-elected anytime soon. 

[Lancaster]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

Not sure I agree here.  Many of the "better" (bigger, well known, more affluent...???)  Euro countries get good government support for childcare and parental leave, but they also have birth rate issues, even worse than what we deal with in Canada/US, IIRC.

 

IMO, it's more of a social thing.  Consider what millennials spent their teens and twenties doing compared to what people our age did, and then compare that with our parents.  As a society, we have become increasingly self-indulgent, spending more and more on the latest and greatest computer, phone, gadget, car, travel, restaurants, etc.  Raising kids takes a crapload of work, even after some people pawn some of that off on daycare operators, and spending that time (and money) on children gets in the way of having fun people grew up having.

I do agree with the societal aspect, but I might add a bit of cultural influence too.  

 

Daycare and housing is a bit issue... but within my circle (mostly 2nd generation Asian immigrant families), it's almost expected that parents will help out.  Grandparents providing free daycare, providing free room/board, sometimes even a little donation for a down-payment.  

 

Yet other cultural group (European descent) seems to throw their children into the wild at age 18 and with minimal financial/familial support there after.  Thus a lot of people in those demographic require more help in regards to day care, housing, and other social services when compared to the other group above.  

[kingofsurrey]

2 hours ago, Kragar said:

  Raising kids takes a crapload of work, even after some people pawn some of that off on daycare operators, and spending that time (and money) on children gets in the way of having fun people grew up having.

Do not agree with this.

 

Keeping a parent at home ( not working ) for 5 years to look after a toddler is a  luxury that young canadians  can simply not afford to consider.

 

Young families need 2 working parents earning to even make rent.....

[Kragar]

Just now, Lancaster said:

I do agree with the societal aspect, but I might add a bit of cultural influence too.  

 

Daycare and housing is a bit issue... but within my circle (mostly 2nd generation Asian immigrant families), it's almost expected that parents will help out.  Grandparents providing free daycare, providing free room/board, sometimes even a little donation for a down-payment.  

 

Yet other cultural group (European descent) seems to throw their children into the wild at age 18 and with minimal financial/familial support there after.  Thus a lot of people in those demographic require more help in regards to day care, housing, and other social services when compared to the other group above.  

Good point on culture.  I wasn't thinking of how Asian families typically worked, but what you say more or less fits my limited experience on that end.  I'm all for grandparents being involved in daycare... at least it stays in the family, and parent's have more control or insight into what their kids are exposed to and what activities are involved.  

 

Before women were such a big part of the workforce, it wasn't a big deal, but the times have changed.  And, with there being so many wonderful things to spend money on, having a second income makes a huge difference in lifestyle.  Or, at least it gives the impression of it.  Given the costs of day care, it can be pretty close to a wash.  

 

I wonder if that will change quickly with Asian families though.  As women continue to make up a good part of the workforce, and people living and working longer, I wonder if down the line grandparents will have the time or energy to help care for kids.

 

Note: just to be clear, no one should take anything here as me thinking something negative about women working.  Our workforce is better for their participation, and it's up to individuals to decide what is best for their families.

[Kragar]

6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Do not agree with this.

 

Keeping a parent at home ( not working ) for 5 years to look after a toddler is a  luxury that young canadians  can simply not afford to consider.

 

Young families need 2 working parents earning to even make rent.....

Depends where they live, and what family support they get.  Not everyone is trying to live in the Lower Mainland and pay those crazy costs.  Move somewhere else where housing is more realistic, or share housing with family (isn't that part of what makes Surrey wonderful?).  Also, like anything else, if you want something but can't afford it, you should wait until you can, and/or make efforts to change the situation in your favor.  Sure, accidents will happen, but that's not the majority of births.  One person's lack of maturity and inability to plan does not make it an emergency for everyone else to fix.

 

Do you disagree with my comments regarding other countries that provide much more for parents than we do here?  I did a little follow up, and found that birth rates are about the same, and not worse over there as I thought (perhaps my memory was outdated ), so that takes some of my argument away, but they (France, Germany, Sweden were ones I spot-checked) all have strong programs for families, yet have the same birth rate concern. 

 

There's a lot of decadence in Western society.  More government handouts will not change that.

[kingofsurrey]

8 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

There's a lot of decadence in Western society.  More government handouts will not change that.

You call it  government handouts....  others call it government investment in families.  Investment that pays back society later on in reduced social costs. 

An investment that actually says money in the long run.  

 

BC has the most children raised in poverty in all of Canada....  How do you think this is impacting our social costs  - healthcare, education . policing, welfare rates ,  incarceration , court costs.... etc  

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

You call it  government handouts....  others call it government investment in families.  Investment that pays back society later on in reduced social costs. 

An investment that actually says money in the long run.  

 

BC has the most children raised in poverty in all of Canada....  How do you think this is impacting our social costs  - healthcare, education . policing, welfare rates ,  incarceration , court costs.... etc  

You keep pulling this further and further away from the OP by only responding to my last comment.  We can discuss your other points elsewhere if you like.

 

The birth rate required to sustain a population in developed counties is about 2.1 children per woman.  In Canada, the "current" rate is 1.6.  Canada has not been at a 2.1 rate since 1971.  link  This issue goes far beyond today's housing costs, and perhaps it is no surprise that the rate fell below the sustainable level during the Me Generation, and hasn't looked back.  I think I will stick with basing this issue on selfishness and decadence. 

[apollo]

Any details on how these immigrants are coming in? 

 

I know Chinese and Iranians can currently buy in citizenship with ease... they pay agencies back home ~1 mill per family and they take care of it for them. Not sure how much of that money our government gets. 

 

Those who come in like that, come in, buy millions worth of real estate, claim $0 income and them and their entire family get free health care, access to our roads, etc, etc without paying a thing. Whereas a citizen busting their humps making $100,000 annually or whatever the salary may be, is taxed through the nose to pay for these immigrants that claim $0 income. 

 

I really hope we're getting skilled workers and not more free loaders that just make our housing more un-affordable and continue to leach off hard working tax payers. If an immigrant wants an opportunity, let them in and try and get them work. Someone that will actually contribute to our society for years to come along with their family.

 

No more $0 income claiming free loaded immigrants please.

 

I'm an immigrant FYI and I've seen that example hundreds of times.  

 

 

[CBH1926]

1 hour ago, apollo said:

Any details on how these immigrants are coming in? 

 

I know Chinese and Iranians can currently buy in citizenship with ease... they pay agencies back home ~1 mill per family and they take care of it for them. Not sure how much of that money our government gets. 

 

Those who come in like that, come in, buy millions worth of real estate, claim $0 income and them and their entire family get free health care, access to our roads, etc, etc without paying a thing. Whereas a citizen busting their humps making $100,000 annually or whatever the salary may be, is taxed through the nose to pay for these immigrants that claim $0 income. 

 

I really hope we're getting skilled workers and not more free loaders that just make our housing more un-affordable and continue to leach off hard working tax payers. If an immigrant wants an opportunity, let them in and try and get them work. Someone that will actually contribute to our society for years to come along with their family.

 

No more $0 income claiming free loaded immigrants please.

 

I'm an immigrant FYI and I've seen that example hundreds of times.  

 

 

Small price to pay for diversity, and remember you live in the best city in the world, you have to pay the piper.

 

[kurtis]

Just no more rich Chinese!!! I kid.. 

[CBH1926]

3 hours ago, Lancaster said:

I do agree with the societal aspect, but I might add a bit of cultural influence too.  

 

Daycare and housing is a bit issue... but within my circle (mostly 2nd generation Asian immigrant families), it's almost expected that parents will help out.  Grandparents providing free daycare, providing free room/board, sometimes even a little donation for a down-payment.  

 

Yet other cultural group (European descent) seems to throw their children into the wild at age 18 and with minimal financial/familial support there after.  Thus a lot of people in those demographic require more help in regards to day care, housing, and other social services when compared to the other group above.  

Most immigrant groups are like that, most of Eastern Europeans down here have family help at all times.

I moved out of my parents home, when I got married.

 

Once you live here for few generations, it changes.

In Chicago, old timers like Irish and Italians all lived in the same neighborhood, fast forward 100 years later and things have changed"

 

 

 

[Russ]

Oh good because it wasn't hell already for people to buy homes.  I feel bad for any millennial who doesn't own a home already. With the increased mortgage rules and influx of immigrants/refugees, people are screwed for every believing they can own a home.

 

I am all for immigration, but it has to be skilled immigrants who are going to contribute to the economy for 25+ years. There should be zero government assistance to them for a minimum of 5 years, basically you come here with your own money and get nothing from the current tax payers until you have put a bunch into the economy and have become a productive citizen.

[Sean Monahan]

7 hours ago, Kragar said:

Consider what millennials spent their teens and twenties doing compared to what people our age did, and then compare that with our parents.

How is this a millennial thing? Even the oldest millennials having kids at a very young age would only have kids as old as maybe 14-15 right now. That wouldn’t fix the issue at all.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, Russ said:

Oh good because it wasn't hell already for people to buy homes.  I feel bad for any millennial who doesn't own a home already. With the increased mortgage rules and influx of immigrants/refugees, people are screwed for every believing they can own a home.

 

I am all for immigration, but it has to be skilled immigrants who are going to contribute to the economy for 25+ years. There should be zero government assistance to them for a minimum of 5 years, basically you come here with your own money and get nothing from the current tax payers until you have put a bunch into the economy and have become a productive citizen.

Something about those two statements doesn't quite jibe...

[Rob_Zepp]

Everyone, including the "first nations", are immigrants to North America so why this is so polarizing is confusing.   I think Canada has established a range of norms for what civil society means in the country and perhaps that is what some, and perhaps legitimately so, feel is at risk.  Couldn't that simply be solved by asking any/all immigrants to agree to set of civil standards as a condition of residence?   

[riffraff]

5 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Small price to pay for diversity, and remember you live in the best city in the world, you have to pay the piper.

 

Why?

[lucky_nucker]

18 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Young Canadians are no longer having children.

You wonder why ?   It is because of the low wages offered  (  too often no benefits )    in Canada combined with expensive housing and childcare  .  Young Canadians can not afford to have kids.  Sad but true.    

Well, we are being told that we need immigration to to grow the country because our existing population is not having enough children to sustain the government services that are currently in place.

I agree low wages are a part of that. But there are other reasons for this. Others have mentioned cultural reasons, that too is true. But this is a complicated issue, that is my point. Another point could be that Canadians are not having children so that they can reduce their carbon footprint. Canadians are not having children because more and more marriages are ending in divorce and the men are then on the hook for paying for the children (I am all for men paying for their kids, but the current legal system is way in the favour of women on this issue). There are many issues here and they are all complicated. The Government simply thinking they can solve this problem with bringing in more immigrants will most certainly not fix our underlying issues and will only exasperate these problems more.

You pulled out the low wages point, okay, but why are wages low? If we could fix that, would that encourage Canadians to have more children and then Canada would not need to be so reliant on immigration?

Why are wages low?
- Government meddling in markets (how are private companies supposed to compete with tax payer backed public companies, and various draconian regulations/taxes?)
- Immigration (more workers = lower wages)
- More workers overall (Men and Women have both been caught up with needing to work, instead of being good parents in the home)
- Inflation (Government printing money uncontrollably and devaluing our $)

This is a complicated issue, yes low wages play a part but simply focusing on one issue and then only taking a look at the surface of the problem is not how we fix things here.  

[Kragar]

13 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

How is this a millennial thing? Even the oldest millennials having kids at a very young age would only have kids as old as maybe 14-15 right now. That wouldn’t fix the issue at all.

My point was the decline in birth rates, and how that has to do with self-indulgence.  I'm not expecting millennials having children to fix this, or have that negate the need for immigrants.

 

If Canada, and other Western countries, were raising enough children on their own, the need for immigrants would be far less.  Since the birth rate hasn't been sustainable since the early 70s in Canada (and other Western countries are in a similar boat), and shows no sign of rising, I'm claiming that our desire to have more fun is outweighing the desire to raise a family.  KOS was claiming that it's just too damn expensive, but IMO is a more recent issue, and doesn't explain the whole thing.

 

The blame doesn't lie with millennials at all.  It was a problem before them.  They just grew up while the decline was in full swing, and don't know anything better.

[HerrDrFunk]

20 minutes ago, Kragar said:

My point was the decline in birth rates, and how that has to do with self-indulgence.  I'm not expecting millennials having children to fix this, or have that negate the need for immigrants.

 

If Canada, and other Western countries, were raising enough children on their own, the need for immigrants would be far less.  Since the birth rate hasn't been sustainable since the early 70s in Canada (and other Western countries are in a similar boat), and shows no sign of rising, I'm claiming that our desire to have more fun is outweighing the desire to raise a family.  KOS was claiming that it's just too damn expensive, but IMO is a more recent issue, and doesn't explain the whole thing.

 

The blame doesn't lie with millennials at all.  It was a problem before them.  They just grew up while the decline was in full swing, and don't know anything better.

Or it could have something to do with the fact that the days of being able to get a job right out of high school, work it for forty years, buy a house and support a family of four on that single income are long gone but sure, it's our desire to have fun which is causing the low birthrate. 

[riffraff]

29 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Or it could have something to do with the fact that the days of being able to get a job right out of high school, work it for forty years, buy a house and support a family of four on that single income are long gone but sure, it's our desire to have fun which is causing the low birthrate. 

He @Kragar has a point.  It may or may not be "fun" but it's also monetary.

 

people consume and waste way too much.  "The jones" are not worth keeping up with.