CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:33 am
 


A couple comes to Canada under the points system with at least one spouse able to speak passable English/French and supposedly having some skills in the workforce. They can then sponsor each of their parents, none of whom have to speak English/French and need no skills. The parents are eligible for Medicare after the usual waiting period (I heard 90 days) even tho they've never paid taxes here. IF they're over 65 they're also eligible for GAIN, again never having paid into the pension system here. Those parents can then sponsor all of their other children, ie the sibs of the original husband and wife, none of whom have to speak English/French or have any skills. Each of those sibs would have a spouse who can then sponser his/her parents, none of whom have to speak English/French. Each of those parents can then sponsor all of their other children, none of whom have to speak French/English or have any skills. So from the original one person who did have to have passable English/French and some skills, we get a huge number of people who need no entrance requirements other than being reasonably healthy when they come here. (We don't want to discriminate tho, so I believe we allow in people with aids.)

I have no link for this, it was on a radio show, said by Martin Collacott, former high commissioner to Sri Lanka among other diplomatic postings.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25830
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:50 am
 


What a total joke, and the government keeps saying we need to let more basically useless immigrants in. And we wonder why there's a 20-hour wait in a hospital emergency room with a flood of elderly foreigners sucking up all the resources.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13656
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:52 am
 


Thanos wrote:
What a total joke, and the government keeps saying we need to let more basically useless immigrants in. And we wonder why there's a 20-hour wait in a hospital emergency room with a flood of elderly foreigners sucking up all the resources.

We do? :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42402
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:59 am
 


Quote:
The parents are eligible for Medicare after the usual waiting period (I heard 90 days) even tho they've never paid taxes here.

When we return to Canada we have to wait for six months for provincial health coverage....despite being Canadian citizens who pays tax(income and property&education tax) in Canada. We have a hard enough time ensuring Canadian seniors, who paid taxes into the system, have sufficient funds in their retirement. When I heard Layton hooting about making it easier for immigrants to bring their parents, grandparents and extended families into Canada, so they could use our healthcare and government services, I thought,'you POS!!'

Charity starts at home. I feel sorry for the starving hordes of elsewhere, and such, but I feel that as long as a Canadian child goes hungry or homeless, the rest of the world can wait until we have our own house in order.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25830
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:04 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Thanos wrote:
What a total joke, and the government keeps saying we need to let more basically useless immigrants in. And we wonder why there's a 20-hour wait in a hospital emergency room with a flood of elderly foreigners sucking up all the resources.

We do? :lol:


Well, the one's who haven't been paying attention seem kind of clueless to the problems this type of immigration is causing


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33213

Warnings: (40%)
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:31 am
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
Quote:
The parents are eligible for Medicare after the usual waiting period (I heard 90 days) even tho they've never paid taxes here.

When we return to Canada we have to wait for six months for provincial health coverage....despite being Canadian citizens who pays tax(income and property&education tax) in Canada. We have a hard enough time ensuring Canadian seniors, who paid taxes into the system, have sufficient funds in their retirement. When I heard Layton hooting about making it easier for immigrants to bring their parents, grandparents and extended families into Canada, so they could use our healthcare and government services, I thought,'you POS!!'

Charity starts at home. I feel sorry for the starving hordes of elsewhere, and such, but I feel that as long as a Canadian child goes hungry or homeless, the rest of the world can wait until we have our own house in order.



Family class should be canceled, immigration needs to be restricted for the moment,
and watched very carefully in the future.

It's all BS, and we should start thumping out parties who continue the nonsense.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 956
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:56 am
 


Quote:
The parents are eligible for Medicare after the usual waiting period (I heard 90 days) even tho they've never paid taxes here.


Even though they've also never had the chance to draw from the system previously either, or any government system, for that matter. Considering that any immigrant parents are bringing a lifetime of goods, savings, and such into Canada, and considering that we have not had to pay for their education, or for them under various social programs, and they are going to be consuming goods and potentially working in our workforce, I would not say that this is as bad as it sounds.

This is very similar for the others as well. Canada benefits from having additional people, especially in the long term. We certainly do pay in the short term to have them, but after they are settled, they quickly become part of the Canadian economy and have played a big role in the improvement of our standards in living. Canada would not have fewer people living better lives if there were less immigrants -- at the very best, we'd have fewer people living the same lives, with reduced economic power, reduced economic opportunity, and reduced political power on an international scale. All assuming that the trillions upon trillions of dollars immigrants and descendants of immigrants that would not have existed wouldn't have destroyed an essential part of what makes Canada such a good place to live in the world.

For all these useless immigrants, it has been shown in figures I've provided time and again that they are doing something for this country, and we've all benefited from it. The links are below.

Quote:
I have no link for this, it was on a radio show, said by Martin Collacott, former high commissioner to Sri Lanka among other diplomatic postings.


Yet I am sure I would have no problems finding you criticizing ideals of other politicians.

This is just a rehash of a previous discussion, except instead of linking us to the Center for Immigration Reform (or the Fraser Institute), you instead used the name of a non-expert who's experience does not make him an authority on the matter from that organization (and the Fraser Institute as well). Considering in the past I have had no problem demonstrating the problem with this authority as an incredibly insufficient source which contradicts viable data, I will not restate the plethora of issues with this source and the data which I have already used and simply link you to the requisite threads. Indeed, as I have already stated, for all those pitfalls which you have brought up, things between immigrants as things settle and native born Canadians is not all that different.

Before you complain about my targeting your source, I will link you to what I have already stated as to that previously if you so wish. If you disagree with either of those posts, feel free to actually respond this time instead of reusing the same tired "CKA SOP" line.

I could easily counter by saying that Stephen Harper has supported the continued influx of immigrants to Canada, and as a university trained economist (yes, somewhere Lemmy just got pissed off and doesn't know why) he would have that on top of holding many senior diplomatic positions to that of Mr. Collacott, including the leader of our entire nation. Wouldn't you disagree with Stephen Harper, even though, on paper, he appears to be a far more respectable name with extensive government, technical, academic and diplomatic experience with exceeds that of Mr. Collacott?

No, I wouldn't agree with Harper as a reliable source either. Mr. Harper is not a practicing economist, nor does the government of Canada necessarily do what is right in reality, but what is right as percieved by the people. Both of these men's qualifications tend towards being an irrelevancy, those of Mr. Collacott's moreso.

Quote:
When we return to Canada we have to wait for six months for provincial health coverage....despite being Canadian citizens who pays tax(income and property&education tax) in Canada. We have a hard enough time ensuring Canadian seniors, who paid taxes into the system, have sufficient funds in their retirement. When I heard Layton hooting about making it easier for immigrants to bring their parents, grandparents and extended families into Canada, so they could use our healthcare and government services, I thought,'you POS!!'


I can't say I blame you. That is ridiculous, since andyt was correct about some medicare waiting periods for provinces -- four have a waiting period of three months. This is something which should be fixed. I have a feeling that if we did reduce the amount of immigrants, this would still be around.

Indeed, I view the entire system as something which needs to be fixed, streamlined, and improved, not something which needs to be slowed or curtailed. If there are real problems, then there are real solutions, and I don't view simply cutting the stream of immigrants as one of them. I owe a lot of what I have in life to immigrants (we all do, in my opinion), and to the fact that some of my grandparents, and one of my parents, are first generation Canadians, and we've contributed a lot more to this nation than we have taken.

Are there those that take advantage of this system? Damn straight, and we should focus more on making sure we don't have so many managing that. We also have our own local slack asses and useless drags on Canadian society, with or without immigrants. I have my own issues with immigration, but I can't deny the massive benefits my nation has derived from immigrants, nor how many immigrants truly want to be here, in Canada. I feel that we see the one or two people who we don't want, and fail to see the silent forest behind them, people who have adapted into life in Canada and are parts of our society.

It bugs me a bit, I guess, that we expect immigrants to work here for years on end, who live here and buy goods here and call this place home, but we deny them what we are all allowed to have -- a family -- because of a few bad eggs. All my opinion, anyways.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:28 am
 


Khar wrote:
Quote:
The parents are eligible for Medicare after the usual waiting period (I heard 90 days) even tho they've never paid taxes here.


Even though they've also never had the chance to draw from the system previously either, or any government system, for that matter. Considering that any immigrant parents are bringing a lifetime of goods, savings, and such into Canada, and considering that we have not had to pay for their education, or for them under various social programs, and they are going to be consuming goods and potentially working in our workforce, I would not say that this is as bad as it sounds.

This is very similar for the others as well. Canada benefits from having additional people, especially in the long term. I don't see how we benefit importing a bunch of old people who don't speak English who can then sponsor more people who don't speak English? We certainly do pay in the short term to have them, but after they are settled, they quickly become part of the Canadian economy and have played a big role in the improvement of our standards in living. Canada would not have fewer people living better lives if there were less immigrants -- at the very best, we'd have fewer people living the same lives, with reduced economic power, reduced economic opportunity, and reduced political power on an international scale. All assuming that the trillions upon trillions of dollars immigrants and descendants of immigrants that would not have existed wouldn't have destroyed an essential part of what makes Canada such a good place to live in the world.

For all these useless immigrants, it has been shown in figures I've provided time and again that they are doing something for this country, and we've all benefited from it. The links are below.

Quote:
I have no link for this, it was on a radio show, said by Martin Collacott, former high commissioner to Sri Lanka among other diplomatic postings.


Yet I am sure I would have no problems finding you criticizing ideals of other politicians. Huh?

This is just a rehash of a previous discussion, except instead of linking us to the Center for Immigration Reform (or the Fraser Institute), you instead used the name of a non-expert who's experience does not make him an authority on the matter from that organization (and the Fraser Institute as well). So you're claiming what he said is false? Can you back that up? Considering in the past I have had no problem demonstrating the problem with this authority as an incredibly insufficient source which contradicts viable data, I will not restate the plethora of issues with this source and the data which I have already used and simply link you to the requisite threads. Indeed, as I have already stated, for all those pitfalls which you have brought up, things between immigrants as things settle and native born Canadians is not all that different.

Before you complain about my targeting your source, I will link you to what I have already stated as to that previously if you so wish. If you disagree with either of those posts, feel free to actually respond this time instead of reusing the same tired "CKA SOP" line.

I could easily counter by saying that Stephen Harper has supported the continued influx of immigrants to Canada, and as a university trained economist (yes, somewhere Lemmy just got pissed off and doesn't know why) he would have that on top of holding many senior diplomatic positions to that of Mr. Collacott, including the leader of our entire nation. Wouldn't you disagree with Stephen Harper, even though, on paper, he appears to be a far more respectable name with extensive government, technical, academic and diplomatic experience with exceeds that of Mr. Collacott?

No, I wouldn't agree with Harper as a reliable source either. Mr. Harper is not a practicing economist, nor does the government of Canada necessarily do what is right in reality, but what is right as percieved by the people. Both of these men's qualifications tend towards being an irrelevancy, those of Mr. Collacott's moreso.

Quote:
When we return to Canada we have to wait for six months for provincial health coverage....despite being Canadian citizens who pays tax(income and property&education tax) in Canada. We have a hard enough time ensuring Canadian seniors, who paid taxes into the system, have sufficient funds in their retirement. When I heard Layton hooting about making it easier for immigrants to bring their parents, grandparents and extended families into Canada, so they could use our healthcare and government services, I thought,'you POS!!'


I can't say I blame you. That is ridiculous, since andyt was correct about some medicare waiting periods for provinces -- four have a waiting period of three months. This is something which should be fixed. I have a feeling that if we did reduce the amount of immigrants, this would still be around.

Indeed, I view the entire system as something which needs to be fixed, streamlined, and improved, not something which needs to be slowed or curtailed. If there are real problems, then there are real solutions, and I don't view simply cutting the stream of immigrants as one of them. I owe a lot of what I have in life to immigrants (we all do, in my opinion), and to the fact that some of my grandparents, and one of my parents, are first generation Canadians, and we've contributed a lot more to this nation than we have taken.

Are there those that take advantage of this system? Damn straight, and we should focus more on making sure we don't have so many managing that. We also have our own local slack asses and useless drags on Canadian society, with or without immigrants. I have my own issues with immigration, but I can't deny the massive benefits my nation has derived from immigrants, nor how many immigrants truly want to be here, in Canada. I feel that we see the one or two people who we don't want, and fail to see the silent forest behind them, people who have adapted into life in Canada and are parts of our society.

It bugs me a bit, I guess, that we expect immigrants to work here for years on end, who live here and buy goods here and call this place home, but we deny them what we are all allowed to have -- a family -- because of a few bad eggs. All my opinion, anyways.


I thought previously we'd agreed that immigrants are neutral as far as impact on GDP is concerned, that even the most pro-immigrant sources say immigration mostly benefits immigrants?

Quote:
CANADIANS SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT RECORD HIGH IMMIGRATION LEVELS

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform is deeply concerned about record high immigration levels.

On February 13 Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced that Canada received more than 280,000 permanent residents last year - a level not seen for more than 50 years and reached only once in the past century. In addition, in 2010 we accepted more than 182,000 temporary foreign workers and 96,000 foreign students, a majority of whom are expected to try to stay here permanently. Yet out of the total 558,000 newcomers, only 48,815 qualified as skilled immigrants.

This is no doubt a major reason why the economic performance of recent immigrants has fallen far below that of earlier immigrants or Canadian-born. A study to be published soon by two members of CIPR's Advisory Board, Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady, will show that the cost to Canadian taxpayers because of lower earnings, higher unemployment and higher poverty rates for recent arrivals is well over $15 billion a year.

It is clear that mass immigration increases the overall size of the population but does not improve the living standards of Canadians in general. The negative effects of mass immigration on the quality of life of those living in large cities are particularly onerous because of pressures on health care services, educational facilities, the environment and increased congestion. One of Canada's leading experts on immigration and labour markets, Professor Emeritus Alan G. Green of Queen's University, has pointed out that the current policy of using immigrants to solve economic problems is no longer valid, that we now have the educational facilities to meet Canada's needs for skilled workers and that the import of such individuals constitutes a substitute for the education of domestic workers.

Despite all of this, Canada continues to maintain the highest per capita intake of immigrants in the world - but without any real justification for doing so. Jason Kenney has shown leadership in attempting to deal with some of the problems in human smuggling and the program under which parents and grandparents can be brought to Canada. It is now time for him to address the excessively high levels of immigration and temporary foreign worker intake.



Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, February 2, 2011

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS OF THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FEB 3 AND FEB 10, 2011


Quote:
Salim Mansur, a member of the CIPR/CRPI Advisory Board, teaches in the department of political science at the University of Western Ontario. He also writes columns for the Toronto Sun and Sun newspapers across Canada and publishes widely in academic journals. Born in Calcutta, India, Dr. Mansur, now a Canadian, completed his studies with a doctorate at the University of Toronto, and is active in public affairs through his writings and on radio and television.

“This understanding of why a liberal democracy cannot be improved on by the flawed logic of multiculturalism needs to be re-discovered, restated and reaffirmed without apology or equivocation if freedom and democracy are to remain secure ...”



Quote:
Immigration and the Solidarity-Diversity-Security Nexus by Gilles Paquet

Gilles Paquet is a distinguished Canadian academic - an economist, journalist and TV commentator, university administrator, author and ironist. He is a member of the Order of Canada and is a past president of the Royal Society of Canada. His Deep Cultural Diversity: A Governance Challenge was published in 2008. He is a member of CIPR's Advisory Board and one of three official spokesmen.

This profound paper examines the challenges posed by immigration to solidarity,
diversity and security in Canadian society, with the stated objective of questioning the presumed consensus on current immigration policies and their innocuous effects on this social nexus. Issues discussed include the too elusive notion of citizenship, a blind faith in massive, indiscriminate immigration, the costs of inaction, and possible repairs both uncontroversial and otherwise.



Quote:
THE CENTRE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM GIVES PRIORITY TO MADE-IN-CANADA WORKFORCE

The Centre for Immigration Policy reform stated today that the Government of Canada’s announcement that it will maintain current immigration levels in 2011 – among the highest per capita levels in the world – is cause for concern, particularly when it is far from clear that the economic crisis affecting many countries is over. Under the Government’s plan, we may have to absorb as many as half a million immigrants and temporary foreign workers a year at a time when many Canadians as well as recent arrivals are looking for jobs and the costs of social services are escalating.

The Government claims that high immigration intake is necessary to keep our work force growing as our population ages and the relative size of the work force shrinks. Immigration minister Jason Kenney expressed concern that, given Canada’s low fertility rates, immigration will be needed to offset the costs of social services.

“None of these premises is correct,” said Martin Collacott, Chair of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. While it is true that in coming years the proportion of Canadians under 65 will decline in relation to those who are older, it has been definitively shown that immigration is not a realistic way of offsetting the effects of an aging population. Immigrants themselves grow old and on average have families as small as those of other Canadians. Often they sponsor their own elderly relatives, thus adding to Canada’s aging demographic.

It is also no longer true that immigrants are paying their own way and contributing enough in taxes to pay for the social infrastructure they access. Studies show that recent immigrants cost Canadian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year in terms of the value of the benefits they receive in excess of what they pay in taxes.

Indeed, in the UK a House of Lords’ study concluded that, contrary to the claims of the British Government, there was no evidence of significant benefits to the resident population of the country from immigration. There were, in fact, indications of possible negative effects such as driving down the wages of some resident workers, including immigrants who came earlier, as well as driving up the cost of housing.

Canada’s prosperity actually depends on sound economic policies, increases in productivity, and the upgrading and best use of our existing work force. Instead of continuing the failed policy of mass immigration year in and year out, the Government, in collaboration with the provinces and municipalities, should greatly strengthen policies and plans based on educational and training programs that will ensure that Canada’s existing work force is well-qualified to compete in today’s rapidly changing global economy.

The status quo is not the answer to an immigration program that Canadians increasingly recognize is broken.

-30-


All quotes from http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml


Last edited by andyt on Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:35 am
 


I have never read how family unification works for refugees either. Presumably refugees tend to be desperate people and will come alone but once in can sponsor their wife and minor children.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:40 am
 


Bruce_the_vii wrote:
I have never read how family unification works for refugees either. Presumably refugees tend to be desperate people and will come alone but once in can sponsor their wife and minor children.


If they don't have them with them, then sure, once they're awarded pr status here they can sponsor their wife/husband and children. I have no problem with that, but I don't want them sponsoring their parents and grandparents and those sponsoring their children ad infinitum.

You certainly shouldn't be able to sponsor anybody except spouse and dependent children until you've become a citizen. And that should take at last 5 years.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 956
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:47 pm
 


Quote:
I thought previously we'd agreed that immigrants are neutral as far as impact on GDP is concerned, that even the most pro-immigrant sources say immigration mostly benefits immigrants?


No, we had not, and going back to one of the sources I have already showed has questionable practices does not help, nor does pointing out that what I said was correct -- in the entire list of people who contribute to these bodies, you could only find one economist aside from Grubel, in a sea of unqualified people in a body with skewed practices and bias.

Indeed, one of the links listed demonstrated the problems with how you are trying to view this, as you once again fall back on Grubel (even though we spent threads discussing his work, which does not even back up claims made here). In the short term, immigrants cost us some money, but in the long term, further immigration benefits all Canadians.

(the forum needs some controversy :D)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 am
 


Khar wrote:
Quote:
I thought previously we'd agreed that immigrants are neutral as far as impact on GDP is concerned, that even the most pro-immigrant sources say immigration mostly benefits immigrants?


No, we had not, and going back to one of the sources I have already showed has questionable practices does not help, nor does pointing out that what I said was correct -- in the entire list of people who contribute to these bodies, you could only find one economist aside from Grubel, in a sea of unqualified people in a body with skewed practices and bias. For a person who is quite quick to call others "red meat" conservatives, you have a penchant for using sources which are heavily leaning in that direction.

Indeed, one of the links listed demonstrated the problems with how you are trying to view this, as you once again fall back on Grubel (even though we spent threads discussing his work, which does not even back up claims made here). In the short term, immigrants cost us some money, but in the long term, further immigration benefits all Canadians.


Please give me a paper that shows that immigrants increase the wealth of the residents of the country the move to? All the articles I've read say that in Canada, the US and Britain, immigration mostly enriches the immigrants (in comparison to their home country, but not the citizens of country they immigrate to.) The consensus of the most pro immigration people seems to be that it might raise GDP by 1% (ie effectively neutral) but they don't take into account that the GDP is now being divided into more people, ie average income in the country declines.

Also in my other posts I have these links: http://jonjayray.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/canada-the-truth-about-immigration-is-that-costs-exceed-benefits/

http://global-economics.ca/immigrationsurplus.htm


From the first link:
Quote:
There are few economists today who argue that immigration helps the economy in any significant way. Studies in Canada since the mid-1980s have pointed out that immigration has little impact on the economic welfare of the receiving country and similar studies in the United States and Britain have reached the same conclusion. Comprehensive studies by George Borjas, the world’s most renowned immigration economist at Harvard University have shown that immigration’s only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers.


The second link is a much more detailed explanation of Borjas' model. Here is what it says:
Quote:
Based on these parameters, the immigration surplus for Canada, which represents an estimate of the cumulative economic benefits of immigration, can be calculated to have been 0.33 per cent of GDP in 2001 or $3,594 million (Table 1). The most striking thing about this estimate is that it is not very large in macroeconomic terms, especially when contrasted with the large redistribution of income that results from immigration. The decrease in the income of native workers resulting from the impact of immigration on wages was much larger at $31,915 million.
So the negative impact on native workers is 10 times the benefit of an increase in GDP.

And lots of papers are referencing Grubel, because he's one of the few (only?) people to have done the analysis. They say his estimate is crude but conservative. If you have someone else doing the analysis of what immigrants pay in taxes vs what they receive in benefits, I would love to see it. Otherwise you're just doing a CKA where you impugn my source but offer nothing else in rebuttal.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 956
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:13 am
 


I have just posted about Borjas in the other thread (who, I remind you, does not write on Canadian immigration). A reminder that the person who wrote that page (yet another person supporting the Fraser Institute, if you look at the links) assumes several things which are massive failures for the article as a whole:

1. That immigration between Canada and the States is the same (it's not).
2. That Canada is a market economy (we are a mixed economy, although I am sure the relevancy of this can be argued).
3. That Borjas's expertise and articles about American immigration can be effectively moved to Canadian terms (it can't, as I have shown in sources before).
4. That our economy is based on the same things (they aren't).

Also, in my post previous I have shown why your sources have failed, and have shown sources which directly contradict what you have shown here. You failed to reply to much of my posts, especially where they contradict your sources, which are often populated by people with no expertise.

It feels like arguing with someone who promotes "Of Pandas and People" right now. :lol: It's entirely new content! Just with the same words, the same authors, the same organization and the same "research" behind it, financed by the same bodies and so forth. Indeed, did you even read the posts I just linked you too, the ones which states exactly what I have written here, ones which state academic conclusions? Your sources are but a click away!

Here you go, my sources once again. Here is why your sources are questionable, and where I also defended by sources -- which is entirely acceptable. It's not a CKA classic for sources to be questioned, it should be the same for all sources, everywhere! That shows that there is not only a relationship between an increase in real wages, but that immigration works to reduce the potential of long term wage stagnation or economic deficiencies, which would directly negatively impact Canada and Canadians as a whole.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 5:16 am
 


Quote:
I have no link for this

This is who they say it works:
Quote:
If you are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada, you can sponsor your spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner, dependent child (including adopted child) or other eligible relative (such as a parent or grandparent) to become a permanent resident.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ ... /index.asp

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ ... ly-who.asp

Edit: The part where he says that an adult can sponsor their adult independent children is, according to the cic website, not true.





PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:32 pm
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
Charity starts at home. I feel sorry for the starving hordes of elsewhere, and such, but I feel that as long as a Canadian child goes hungry or homeless, the rest of the world can wait until we have our own house in order.


Unless the hungry homeless child is on a reserve right?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.