Until now attempts to ascertain what Canadians want have usually been dominated by interest groups bent on preserving the benefits they get from continued high levels of immigration. Unless members of the public are prepared to step forward and tell politicians what they want when it comes to good immigration policy, they can expect to get more of what they are getting now.
Bruce_the_vii
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2962
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 1:22 am
The politician will basically just spend any opportunity they get - and immigration is spending. Never mind by rights you have to have good jobs to spend on immigration and in Vancouver it'd make the housing market worse that it is already. I've read five book on Canadian immigration and they don't properly address the ABC's of mass movement - are of no help. However the people have pretty much got it figured out.
Khar
Forum Junkie
Posts: 729
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 2:27 am
"Members of the public," mostly including members of the Fraser Institute (and their child organization, the Howe Institute), a handful of disgruntled anti-immigration representatives in a sea of experts and everyone who believes that this is a pseudo-Harperite CKA-Illumanti "group-mind" plot meant to be a harbinger of the abyss brought on Canadians.
But of course, this is entirely new evid -- oh wait, no, it's just more parroting of the same "research" (I have criticized this, you have failed more than once to reply) coming out of the same institution, under a new newspaper article name in the hopes that Canadians won't notice that, once again, it's the same insular group of self-adjudicated protectors of Canada roaring to our "rescue" once again.
Hell, they couldn't even get any of the normal journalists at the Sun to write this, and had to wrangle one of their own friends in the journalist community to write it for them (he IS part of the Fraser Institute). Wow! I'm impressed! That's some real unbiased reporting there!
Of course, this will send off a multitude of wails, as if this changes anything since the last seven or eight times that this exact same article has been posted under a new assumed name, with Collacott reporting the evidence of Grubel.
But don't worry, at least they are bringing up -- oh no wait, it's the same guy from the Howe Institute. Well at least the man didn't stoop to attempting to bring in US and UK figures even though the ones who produce those figures don't -- no, wait, they tried to do that TOO, eh? Good show! Don't worry, I'm sure Borjas -- oh wait, I'm still waiting for a reply to my remarks on that too. I believe your response was "Lemmy and Khar don't have the last word on economics matters" in yet another thread. Which I never claimed to have -- only that I felt the academic caliber of my sources well outstripped your own on this topic, as well as the analysis of those topics, which you rarely respond to.
What's the point of this thread, andyt? In most other cases I confront you on this, you run away and simply make another thread, or wail about the CKA group mind (it's all a plot, you know) and unfairness about not accepting stuff that smells questionable (but the Fraser Institute is a wonderful source -- well, unless you are talking about Minimum Wage, then they are entirely wrong, right? Well, and trade too. And welfare programs. But other than that, totally awesome. Oh, except for those bits where they supported Conservative Party policy. Completely good to go otherwise.).
Are you finally going to confront my posts on the topic, or is this going to be another thread you let die in the hopes that the CKA populace won't notice the incredibly obvious pattern here? Are you actually going to enter into a discussion, or is this yet another comment made only to cause anger from another party and drag in a negative response?
I mean, what's the point of even posting these threads again and again with the same topic if you never discuss it, troll (whether intentionally or not), and run away for a few days until your next attempt to anger a member into saying something stupid so you can claim the moral high ground?
I'm personally betting this is how it'll play out. You'll come back and pronounce that my criticisms are irrational. "He is only going after the source," you will say, preaching about Khar's evil ways. After all, clearly he is a deranged right-wing red-meat eating conservative, they can't understand this, they are too set in their ways and so forth. He's hiding that C next to his name! That's the only reason he disagrees, and isn't an absolute which insults dozens of members in the same move.
"He is not actually arguing anything I posted! It's CKA SOP! I'm being repressed!"
After which, I will have to one again reiterate the same tired posts (with links!) everyone on this board got sick of reading in September, you'll complain about the lack of evidence or how I am wrongfully saying I have academic credence on my side, I'll respond confronting your accusations once again spilling out the same criticisms you have failed to respond to time and again, and before you know it, this thread will die the same horrible death the others have. Or it'll limp along if a secondary topic erupts, or if someone is feeling particularly randy that night. So for the love of god, no one let SheperdsDog or Gunnair near any sheep.
I'll have wasted another few hours of my life pointlessly repeating the same information from the last half dozen times in the vain hope that this, yes this, will be the time he responds! This time he'll be able to explain why he only believes the Fraser Institute half the time! This time he'll be able to defend them! This time he'll be able to answer where are this plethora of experts, when time and again, it is the same members of the Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute which appear time again. This time it will be different! We will discuss it! I will learn something (that's why I am here, to learn), maybe andyt will learn something, and for the first time in a long time, I won't come away from one of these threads having had my optimism crushed once again.
Yes, this post is pissy, because I'm at the end of my line. It takes me a while to get here. Several hundred thousand words later, I am tired of you and your mantra. I am tired of every shortcoming being presented being turned upon the other party, as if it is the shortcomings of others which don't bring us to understanding. Tired of having words twisted, meanings shifted, personal attacks thrown out and then the scampering of your feet at the end of every one of these discussions. Tired of having a singular member claim the moral high ground, calling any dissent to his position "group-mind" tactics.
I apologize to the other poor netizens who have had to deal with this aggressively and sarcastically worded post. It was uncalled for, and you shouldn't have had to read it. I accept full responsibility for this outburst. No doubt I will regret it later in the morning, given it's 3:30 in the morning now. We'll see if I delete this one before then, as I did my far more sarcastic (yet much shorter, and FAR more amusing) response earlier. However, being trolled for the better part of the last year has frayed my tolerance remarkably.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14678
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 8:58 am
The argument in the article is that Vancouver is a relatively low income region with insanely high housing prices. You have figures that dispute that, do you>
Quote:
One of the factors he cites as the cause for this poor showing is our high immigration intake combined with the low median incomes of new Canadians. Finlayson points out that although immigration will increase the population of Metro Vancouver by more than a million people by 2030, the regional growth strategy will be of little use in terms of providing housing and finding jobs for the newcomers.
You have figures that dispute that, do you?
It looks like Gruebel has futher worked on his study:
Quote:
The study concludes that in the fiscal year 2005/06 the immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid. Depending on assumptions about the number of recent immigrants in Canada, the fiscal burden in that year is estimated to be between $23.6 billion and $16.3 billion. These estimates are not changed by the consideration of other alleged benefits brought by immigrants.
You have figures that dispute that, do you? (And not something only tangentially related to the question, as you have posted in the past)
Quote:
The fact is that, while high levels of immigration played an important role in Canada's economic development at various times in the past, it can no longer be justified on either economic or demographic grounds -a point made by one of Canada's most respected specialists in the relationship between immigration and labour markets, the late professor Alan G. Green of Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.
He says immigration should be limited so that it does not lower the following ratio:
per family income of the lowest decile of native families per family income of median of family income
And so on. What Collacott is saying is that we need a discussion around immigration that takes these factors into account, doesn't just repeat the mantras of yesterday.
And Collacott is no journalist, nor does he use aliases (paranoid much?) Here's part of his bio:
Quote:
In 1966 he joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and was posted to Vietnam, Hong Kong, China, Nigeria and Japan. He also served as the Chinese-speaking member of the Canadian side in the negotiations that led to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and the People's Republic of China. In the latter part of his diplomatic career he was High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Maldives and Ambassador to Syria, Lebanon and Cambodia. As Director General for Security Services at headquarters in Ottawa he coordinated counterterrorism policy and represented Canada at international meetings on this subject as well as chaired the Economic Summit Counterterrorism Meeting and the Canada-USA Bilateral Consultative Group on Counterterrorism.
After retiring from government service he was involved in projects in Asia in the fields of human rights, governance and conflict resolution.
This is somebody who has some insight into the question.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44534
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 9:02 am
Quote:
The study concludes that in the fiscal year 2005/06 the immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid.
Maybe my tax-guy is a moron, but I didn't get any. Just sayin. At least not for "being an immigrant".
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14678
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 9:11 am
I hope you're joking. You don't think these are cash in hand benefits, for the most part, do you? The govt is paying out more in services to you, than you contribute in taxes. But if you need an accountant you must be earning more than you have indicated on this forum. Low income people usually don't go to accountants would be my guess, since their return would be simple and they don't have the money to pay the accountant.
You do actually fit the profile that he's talking about (low income immigrant), but if your husband is making good bucks then as a family you would have paid more in taxes, so you would not have an excess in benefits over taxes. As Canadians we all receive benefits from the state. The whiners on here like to go on about how they don't and only those welfare bums do, but it's not true. It's been shown that the middle class is the prime beneficiary of the state. But poor people also get benefits, but pay very little taxes, so the value of the benefits they get exceeds the amount they pay in taxes. The rich, on the other hand, pay more in taxes than they get in benefits (as it should be).
Low income Canadians also bet this excess of $6,000 over what they pay in taxes. The point of the argument is that why are we importing almost 300,000 people every year to also pay those benefits too, when there is no economic argument for immigration? And as he points out, and my talking with immigrants also shows, many immigrants are also pissed at the govt policy of bringing in such huge numbers, because the recognize that is exactly what keeps the pay for their jobs so low, and advancement difficult.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44534
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 9:50 am
I don't think I used the word "accountant", do you?
Other than that, you cannot get more back than you paid in taxes. I made very little, and as a result, did not pay much in taxes. I did not make enough to get anything back. So where is my "immigrant" tax money? Or his, for that matter? I didn't see a box saying "if you are an immigrant, x here" on my tax papers.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14678
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 9:56 am
Brenda wrote:
I don't think I used the word "accountant", do you?
Other than that, you cannot get more back than you paid in taxes. I made very little, and as a result, did not pay much in taxes. I did not make enough to get anything back. So where is my "immigrant" tax money?
Brenda, quite puffing on that reefer. I said, it's not about cash benefits. Think about all the government services that you get - those cost tax money. Education, health care, the military, airports, roads, police, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Poor people get more in services than they pay in taxes, very simple. Why import a bunch of immigrants, who since the 1980's have done less well than native Canadians (a reversal of what used to be when immigrants were primarily from Europe), who are only going to cost the govt money? Let's say instead of them all going to Vancouver, a bunch decided to settle in your little burg. Would you like that? What would it do for your job and housing prospects?
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44534
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:06 am
andyt wrote:
Brenda wrote:
I don't think I used the word "accountant", do you?
Other than that, you cannot get more back than you paid in taxes. I made very little, and as a result, did not pay much in taxes. I did not make enough to get anything back. So where is my "immigrant" tax money?
Brenda, quite puffing on that reefer. I said, it's not about cash benefits. Think about all the government services that you get - those cost tax money. Education, health care, the military, airports, roads, police, etc etc etc etc etc etc. Poor people get more in services than they pay in taxes, very simple. Why import a bunch of immigrants, who since the 1980's have done less well than native Canadians (a reversal of what used to be when immigrants were primarily from Europe), who are only going to cost the govt money? Let's say instead of them all going to Vancouver, a bunch decided to settle in your little burg. Would you like that? What would it do for your job and housing prospects?
What the hell does that all have to do with immigrants? Fuck all. I am so sick of that blame game.
"OHHHH, the immigrants cost SO MUCH money!!" Shouldn't the police force be there anyway? The roads? Health care?? No, they are ONLY there because of "the immigrants". Don't forget that immigrants are paying for their visa ($1000 each), and have to bring a certain amount of cash into the country when they land. Most bring more. We brought over $100k. Where do you think that went to? Or do you think YOU bought my house? Do you think YOU paid for my car? Do you think YOU paid for private health care insurance for the first 3 months, and we have not seen a doctor other than my yearly check-ups?
Actually, we could use a bunch of people here, maybe business would flourish because they get actual customers, and houses will be sold instead of being on the market for over a year.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14678
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:21 am
Not every immigrant is you, Brenda. If you're able to buy a house, then obviously your husband earns very well, since you've complained repeatedly on this forum how poorly you are paid.
Those figures are across all immigrants. And they're yearly costs, so your visa payment and whatever gets eaten up real fast. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have any immigrants, but to bring in huge numbers when there isn't any benefit for Canadians is just crazy.
Maybe you could use people in your town, but where are the jobs for them? The housing? If the jobs are there, that's even worse. That means immigrants prefer to cluster together in Vancouver, even at an economic disadvantage, than go where the jobs are. But from what I've heard, most of rural BC is suffering, not doing well at all unless they've got gas to extract or something.
Bruce_the_vii
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2962
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:23 am
Where they going to work, at "Al's Your Pal Fruit and Vegtable".
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44534
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:29 am
andyt wrote:
Not every immigrant is you, Brenda. If you're able to buy a house, then obviously your husband earns very well, since you've complained repeatedly on this forum how poorly you are paid.
Did I mention we brought $100k? And LOTS of skilled workers do? Btw, as an immigrant, you are required to down pay 35%.
Quote:
Those figures are across all immigrants. And they're yearly costs, so your visa payment and whatever gets eaten up real fast. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have any immigrants, but to bring in huge numbers when there isn't any benefit for Canadians is just crazy.
What you should do, is not take in so many "family class"- "immigrants".
Quote:
Maybe you could use people in your town, but where are the jobs for them? The housing? If the jobs are there, that's even worse. That means immigrants prefer to cluster together in Vancouver, even at an economic disadvantage, than go where the jobs are. But from what I've heard, most of rural BC is suffering, not doing well at all unless they've got gas to extract or something.
Of course they cluster together in big cities. Doesn't everybody stay close to what they know?
I would really like to see the difference being made between refugees, family class immigrants (who are sponsored) and skilled workers, who bring cash and skills.
Last edited by Brenda on Fri May 27, 2011 10:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 14678
Posted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:34 am
Refugees aren't immigrants.
Quote:
It uses a 2006 Census database to estimate the average incomes and taxes paid on these by immigrants who arrived in Canada over the period from 1987 to 2004. It also estimates other taxes they paid and the value of government services they absorbed. The study concludes that in the fiscal year 2005/06 the immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid. Depending on assumptions about the number of recent immigrants in Canada, the fiscal burden in that year is estimated to be between $23.6 billion and $16.3 billion. These estimates are not changed by the consideration of other alleged benefits brought by immigrants....
In the year 20051 the immigrants in the Census database, who arrived in Canada over the period of 18 years from 1987 to 2004, had an average income of $25,396, on which they paid an average of $3,438 in income taxes. The comparable figures for all Canadians were $35,057 for income and $5,995 for taxes, based on the entire sample of individuals. The data thus implies that, on average, immigrants’ incomes were only 72.4% of income earned by all Canadians and that they paid only 57.3% of taxes.
It uses a 2006 Census database to estimate the average incomes and taxes paid on these by immigrants who arrived in Canada over the period from 1987 to 2004. It also estimates other taxes they paid and the value of government services they absorbed. The study concludes that in the fiscal year 2005/06 the immigrants on average received an excess of $6,051 in benefits over taxes paid. Depending on assumptions about the number of recent immigrants in Canada, the fiscal burden in that year is estimated to be between $23.6 billion and $16.3 billion. These estimates are not changed by the consideration of other alleged benefits brought by immigrants.
Neither are temporary workers. You should stop letting those in. They have a job offer or they can't come at all. Taking the jobs of Canadians, and immigrants who paid for their visa. AND getting all tax benefits.
Oh wait, you are assuming all immigrants are low income people, on welfare (not until you are here 3 years, sweety), and yet get paid $6k in back taxes and services that they didn't pay (for) in the first place.
Forum Junkie 
