[Bruce_the_vii]

I have letter campaigns going to promote immigration reform. The point of this is there is jobs angst across Canada and widespread quiet but illegal protesting of political immigration. I tend to report this as things I hear. The Toronto Star is showing some interest. In fact owner and pro-immigration stalwart John Honderich writes me the idea of dropping Harper because of his outright predatory immigration and the stonewalling the protest is “intriguing”. It’s a good response because the Star depends on low wage delivery persons and tightening immigration and minimum wage would be a direct cost increase for the Star. He’s passed my letter to his Publisher where the idea will probably die. Some strategic promotion, encouragement by the Liberals, would be timely and could change history.

[kenmore]

The star also depends on the thousands of ethnics who are readers and who allow the star to be sold in their business. I have told the tory candidate in my riding that I would possibly vote for them if they went even further with tightening the immigration process. Québec is, I am afraid on the cusp of some serious ethnic violence.. it is smoldering and we have had a few incidents last summer and just recently. The issue of bill 104 is causing problems and the government is promising a washed down ammendment. This is not going to be enough for ethnics living in the provence.. The other issue is the vast difference in the fundamental differences between religions and culture.. The issue of immigration will play a role in the next election for sure.. I support your effort, and let me know if you want something written to the star.

[CommanderSock]

It won't happen.

Immigrants are entrenched and no simple vote could change that.

No party will risk losing Canada's 3 major cities to the opposition indefinitely due to anti immigrant rhetoric.

Without the big 3 any federal party can kiss its majority parliament prospects goodbye.

[kenmore]

Thats true, we have waited too long to close the door. However we can still lobby for change to the immigration act. I for one would like to see a ban on immigration from the middle east.. it is these immigrants who are causing the most problems for us and the world.. why? because they want all people to convert to Islam.. end of story.

[Bruce_the_vii]

CommanderSock wrote:

It won't happen.

Immigrants are entrenched and no simple vote could change that.

No party will risk losing Canada's 3 major cities to the opposition indefinitely due to anti immigrant rhetoric.

Without the big 3 any federal party can kiss its majority parliament prospects goodbye.

Not at all. I'm known in Toronto here as an immigration reform activist and a supporter of present immigrants. I get support from immigrants, not suspicion. I have never had an immigrant bad mouth me or anything. Tightening immigration would improve the labour markets and in particular this is good for recents immigrants who are vulnerable to problems in the economy because they are not established. In addition most immigration is economic class, and has nothing to do with the vote. The family class is limited in size and limited in scope. Immigration reform would not affect bringing in minors and spouces. So, no, immigration reform is for present immigrants for one and the Star has figured it out.

[CommanderSock]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

CommanderSock wrote:

It won't happen.

Immigrants are entrenched and no simple vote could change that.

No party will risk losing Canada's 3 major cities to the opposition indefinitely due to anti immigrant rhetoric.

Without the big 3 any federal party can kiss its majority parliament prospects goodbye.

Not at all. I'm known in Toronto here as an immigration reform activist and a supporter of present immigrants. I get support from immigrants, not suspicion. I have never had an immigrant bad mouth me or anything. Tightening immigration would improve the labour markets and in particular this is good for recents immigrants who are vulnerable to problems in the economy because they are not established. In addition most immigration is economic class, and has nothing to do with the vote. The family class is limited in size and limited in scope. Immigration reform would not affect bringing in minors and spouces. So, no, immigration reform is for present immigrants for one and the Star has figured it out.

We don't need anymore grannies here. No party that wants to win will trump that it will exclude economic class immigrants for grannies and 2nd and 3rd wives.

I can guarantee you the big 3 will be automatically lost. That party will never see a chance of holding power again.

The debate will turn ugly. Canada is NOT Australia. Canada is far more diverse already, the 2011 census will be a shocker for those who still think Canada is 93% European heritage.

This debate will turn hideously ugly. The racist will jump in bed with the reformers and 6-7 million non white Canadians will see it as a direct attack on them. Add another 3 million or so white immigrant Canadians who are pro immigration and the voting pool they represent. I bet both parties have weighed the pros and cons.

[ASLplease]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

I have letter campaigns going to promote immigration reform. The point of this is there is jobs angst across Canada and widespread quiet but illegal protesting of political immigration. I tend to report this as things I hear. The Toronto Star is showing some interest. In fact owner and pro-immigration stalwart John Honderich writes me the idea of dropping Harper because of his outright predatory immigration and the stonewalling the protest is “intriguing”. It’s a good response because the Star depends on low wage delivery persons and tightening immigration and minimum wage would be a direct cost increase for the Star. He’s passed my letter to his Publisher where the idea will probably die. Some strategic promotion, encouragement by the Liberals, would be timely and could change history.

Finally, a topic that has sparked my interest and I'd like to learn more about.

Bruce(or anyone else), do you mind summarizing a few of your POVs?

ie
- In general, what type of reform is required in imigration?
- How will we benefit from this reform?
- What is the Liberal's and the CPC stance on this matter?
- And, if you are judging Harper negatively, is it for something that his government has proactively done, or is it for passively allowing a flawed Liberal system to exist without reform?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Nooooo, nooo, no. No, CommanderSock. As an activist I've talked to 1000s of people on this issue here in Toronto. And this would mean to immigrants, given the Toronto demographics. There is no support in the immigrant community for unbridled immigration in Toronto. Their concern is a good job, university for their children and being cared for in old age. They are just like you and me when you talk to them. (The grannies we'll overlook.)

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Nooooo, nooo, no. No, CommanderSock. As an activist I've talked to 1000s of people on this issue here in Toronto. And this would mean to immigrants, given the Toronto demographics. There is no support in the immigrant community for unbridled immigration in Toronto. Their concern is a good job, university for their children and being cared for in old age. They are just like you and me when you talk to them. (The grannies we'll overlook.)

I also think that unbridled immigration is bad, and we need to diversify our sources. Many immigrants you may have talked to also have prejudices.

The Indians dislike the Chinese, and vice versa. Neither of them wants immigration from that region any longer. They both dislike the blacks. The European immigrants are usually shocked upon arrival at Pearson's to find Canada is not Scandinavia but far more colourful and eventually usually retrench themselves (Armenians, Russians, Estonians and so on). The Muslims have trouble integrating due to religion so even they are looked down upon from others in their region, and so on.

Of course most immigrants would be anti-immigrant.

The Irish didn't want the Italians here to take away all they had gained the past. The English didn't want the Germans here.
North Africans don't want Sub Saharan Africans and so on.

[Bruce_the_vii]

ASLplease I've posted some of the ideas that are going forward in Parliament, at least in the backbench. I recall you weren't that interested.

In particular the idea of hidden unemployment is surfacing. There is hidden unemployment in most of Canada, and you can see this by looking at Alberta. Alberta is ahead. There is about 8% more points to unemployment than is officially recognized. If you get more people working you boost family income and you boost government revenues. Labour income is 50% of the GDP so if you get that 8% working there's 4% more of GDP as income for families, $29 billion. Taxes are 40% of GDP and so about 40% of the eight percent is additional government revenues BUT without additional government costs. So get immigration smartened up and there's a pay off for everyone in the nation.

There's family class, refugees and corparate experts that Canada will always let in. So cutting the quota from 250,000 to 125,000 maybe all thay you can do.

[ASLplease]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

ASLplease I've posted some of the ideas that are going forward in Parliament, at least in the backbench. I recall you weren't that interested.

Yes, I believe that is a reasonably accurate account of how I've reacted in the past. But I would like to clarify. I don't mean to be insensitive or uncaring about people that are unemployed. If that is the attitude that I am projecting please accept my apologies. It has never been my intent.

Rather, I am an optimist in a sense that I beleive the the largest determining factor towards my employment status is how eager I am to work. This country is full of opportunity for those that want to work. If you remember, I have wrote many times " 90% of Canadians have jobs, those are good odds." Now, I remember that every time I write this, I get corrected on my 90% figure, often by you. Yet, I still feel like my general claim remains intact.

Quote:

In particular the idea of hidden unemployment is surfacing. There is hidden unemployment in most of Canada, and you can see this by looking at Alberta. Alberta is ahead. There is about 8% more points to unemployment than is officially recognized. If you get more people working you boost family income and you boost government revenues. Labour income is 50% of the GDP so if you get that 8% working there's 4% more of GDP as income for families, $29 billion. Taxes are 40% of GDP and so about 40% of the eight percent is additional government revenues BUT without additional government costs. So get immigration smartened up and there's a pay off for everyone in the nation.

[/quote]

this is the part that i will need to learn more about. what you are saying makes sense but i am not confident enough to support or disagree with it at this time.

[andyt]

I've had recent conversations with two immigrants. One a Bangladeshi Muslim, one an Indian Hindu. (Both have been here some time) Both asked me why Canada lets in so many immigrants during times of high unemployment. The Muslim wants to ban any further Muslim immigration, because they are giving him a bad name. The Hindu wants our immigration tightened up to be far more selective in who gets in. I've heard similar sentiments from other immigrants. What goes against that is the immigration industry - ethnic lobbyists and immigration consultants and lawyers who make big bucks off it. But it's true - read an article by Doug Saunders in the Globe and Mail how no democracy has been able to reduce family reunification type of immigration. Any govt can't afford to lose the votes, and native born Canadians are too passive on the issue. I do fear it's too late, and soon we will look like Asia - crawling with people, a few rich and many poor. It's the way of the world, I guess.

[ASLplease]

Japan is quite successful at keeping their imigration down to a point where it is almost non existant.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Hi Andyt:

You know people blame the lobby groups and the immigration vote for excesses in immigration but the situation may not be that politically complicated. Back in 2002 or so Chretien dropped the General Occupation List for selecting immigrants and skewed the stream to immigrants with university degrees. Some 55% of adult immigrants in the last 8 years or so have university degrees. Now we have lots of people with university degrees, there are only limited shortages and the immigrants that come here don't have their credentials accepted. The whole shift in immmigration was done without any analysis. Politicians piss poor planning, to use a phrase I learned on this site. So that's the target, fat politicians.

[CommanderSock]

Quote:

Japan is quite successful at keeping their imigration down to a point where it is almost non existant.

Japan is not Canada.

The Japanese today are poorer than they wore in the mid 70s. If Japan had its way things would be different.

Japan is also short of living space. I can't even be bothered to point out the massive differences between immigration to the Americas, and Japan's situation.