Million Immigrants in 2022 - Thanks Fidel
- Thread starter Rose11
- Start date
You have proved jackshit. I asked you SPECIFIC data. What specific positions? Project Manager? Software Engineer? Restaurant manager? Bus boy? Chef? Sous Chef? I asked you how many immigrants currently have those skills that are not employed in those areas? I really want to understand the actual difference in numbers.
With the data you provide, I want to be able to make a statement such as the one below:
"100 restaurant manager jobs available off which only 60 are filled, and we have a shortage for 40 positions. Off the 1M immigrants 500 have these skills and prior work experience, but they are all employed as ubereats drivers."
It is NOT enough to say 53% of small and medium businesses have shortages. Because what sector/industry? What positions in these sectors/industries? Etc etc., DETAILS. You made a specific statement that "in demand" positions are not filled. So prove what these "in demand" positions are and that they are not being filled by incoming immigrants and that we dont need MORE immigration to fill the shortages.
I also asked you what about immigrants who wanted to switch jobs or careers when they get here?
You have no answers and no data.
Unless you bring the data, you have no argument and it simply amounts to you talking outta your ass with ulterior and malicious motives.
In you go along with simp:
Last edited:
Canada has no extra money. It borrows money just to pay for the services to Canadians that we have now. That debt is being passed on to our children or grandchildren, who will either have to pay it off, suffer a perpetual decline in their standard of living, or face the consequences of national bankruptcy. As a country, we are in not currently in a position to be charitable to strangers, no matter what their predicament. If anyone feels, personally, that they want to help Syrians or Guatamalans or Nigerian gay buddhists, that's fine by me, but don't confuse your personal finances with our national or provincial government finances, or anyone else's personal finances.
Saying that asylum seekers will eventually contribute to the economy is like saying a Division IV wide receiver who is 5'0" and runs a 6.2 second 40 will eventually catch some passes in the NFL if you draft them to your NFL team. That's no way to build a winner. If we need people, surely the best way to get who we need is to be discriminating, not based on how much they want to come to Canada/leave their homeland, but based on what, specifically, they have to contribute to meeting our needs.
No country really "pays their debt". All nations have public and external debt. Just like debt was passed on from our parents and grandparents to us, we will pass on debt to our children and grandchildren.
We regulate how many asylum seekers we bring in. Also more the people, more the GDP because more the consumption in one way or another, so refugees are always a net positive. Secondly, we dont have to wait too long for those refugees to start contributing. Many of them start working or doing whatever jobs such as ubereats driving etc as soon as they can so they do contribute.
You are just making a very theoretical argument which does not warrant stopping refugee resettlement programs.
If anything we need to stop spending $19B on F35s we are never going to use. Or the billions we are sending Ukraine. I mean accept Ukrainian refugees instead of spending on weapons for a country we have nothing to do with.
That is fantasy land. Eventually those who lend the government money, including its own citizens, expect that money to be repaid. Would you buy a government bond on any other basis? The concept of nations "running a perpetual tab" is a relatively new one in world history, but thus far the thinking you offer has usually led to the economic collapse of the nations which, like Justin Trudeau, think that the budget looks after itself.
I think you are wrong about "regulation of the numbers". The usual position I read from people on the left is that our refugee commitments are mandated by treaty and are not subject to an ability to pay. If you're right, why don't we regulate the number to 0, since we don't have any spare cash lying around?
Starting work is only the BEGINNING of contributing to society. It takes a long period of paying taxes before a new Canadian even comes close to paying for the cost of education and health care they begin to receive IMMEDIATELY. That's why we are looking for immigrants who can contribute in a way that leverages their contributions to our society far beyond their individual tax payments.
There is nothing theoretical about Canada's deficit, debt, or the difference in productivity and economic contribution outcomes between selecting immigrants vs. allowing immigrants to self-select. If you don't understand that, I doubt anyone could help you grasp it.
National defence is the cost of doing business if you want the national sovereignty to control your own economy or determine your own national immigration/asylum policy. The whole idea of having national defence assets is that you hope you have enough of them that you will never need to use them. As to fighting or supporting foreign wars, it depends on whether Canada has a national interest in the conflict. I think Canada did have a national interest in WW2. In a perpetual border skirmish in the Ukraine? Not so much.
This is again a theoretical argument. Yes, you are "technically" correct, in arguing that debt needs to be repaid at some point. But in practice it doesn't work that way. Which is why you see public and external debt keep rising, along with foreign reserves and investments. It is acceptable therefore to have a "perpetual tab" as you put it.
Whether mandated by treaty or regulated via some other metric, refugee resettlement is a humanitarian effort. It is also not true that it takes a "long time" for refugees to repay what they are paid. In reality it takes them more or less the same amount of time it takes a Canadian citizen to repay those costs. The major immediate costs are the one time allowances for furniture, linen etc to get them started and the monthly allowances are minimal amounts determined by the provinces social assistance rates that cover the most basic food and shelter needs. Healthcare most people dont use it that often unless the refugees have kids. Same with education. But those kids take the same amount of time to contribute back to Canada that a Canadian citizen who is a kid does. Given these people are now going to live in Canada for the rest of their lives there is no rush in how fast they need to repay what is spent on them. It works out in the long run and that is all that is important.
National defence is necessary yes. But it is not necessary to spend 19B on jets we dont need. We could have refurbished our F18s and we would have been golden. We live in a very peaceful part of the world anyway,
I'm not sure you understand what theoretical means. When you go to bed at night, theoretically you might not wake up in the morning. But you do. Over and over again. Until you don't. Does that make dying theoretical? No. It is a certainty that one morning you won't be waking up. Therefore, planning for that certainty (estate planning, not leaving your home in a mess for your children to have to clear out) is not planning around a theory. Same thing goes for planning for the certain day that your debtors will call your national debt in.
I've addressed this argument comprehensively. You are ignoring the points being made to you. If you don't understand what 80% of the provincial budget translates to in cost, and how you need a large part of the population paying into that without utlizing the services for a long time in order to finance such expenditures, I don't think I can explain it to you any better. You seem to be missing the mathematical analysis that applies to all of these issues.
a) How big a stick do you need to prevent someone from attacking you? Answer - it's got to be at least so big that your attacker can easily see it, and it's got to be bigger than the stick they are weilding.
b) "Jets we don't need"? Unless you've done a pretty intensive analysis of the missions run by our air force, I think your statement comes out of thin air (pun intended). We've got an awfully large country and an awfully small population. Air defence seems like a pretty vital part of a national defence plan for Canada.
c) Don't you know that that the Russians are already flying in Canadian air space over the Arctic? There are a lot of resources up there to fight over. Sound peaceful to you? Maybe the Russians will claim that the Innuit are ethnically Russian and are being abused by Canada? Seems like that has worked before!
Last edited:
news flash for you ignorant fool
you do not get to define evidence as what you specifically ask for
this is self evident on face value
if you want to understand more i suggest you do some independent research
if you want to understand more i suggest you do some independent research
are so stunned that you do not understand what 53% of small to medium business represents?
it will cover all sectors, as this will represent suppliers of products/ services to large corps /govt
small to medium business represents the lions share of job creation in Canada
it is also the canary in the coal mine for our productivity gap
your off hand dismissal of such an alarming high value shows a complete lack of economic understanding
And i responded that is their choice
wtf, can you not read ?
if they decline the job offer prior to acceptance then their application is worth 550 points less and they go to the back of the line to have their application reprocessed
every action has a reaction
this is self evident on face value
learn some economics
the facts just keep mounting up against your ideologically driven position
again try applying logic /facts/ sound judgement before allowing your ideology to
Last edited:
- out of the 1MM immigrants how many are working?
- And how many of the 1MM immigrants are making more / less than the national average salary ?
- And how many are of the 1MM immigrants paying more / less than the national average in taxes?
news flash for you ignorant fool
you do not get to define evidence as what you specifically ask for
if you want specifics, go get them yourself
this is self evident on face value
And the 1 MM immigrants have not addressed our skilled labor shortage
Call it whatever you want. Fact is that countries incur public and external debt. It is debt that pays for our standard of living. So I dont see an issue with a "perpetual tab" as you put it. That is likely to continue regardless of refugees.
I understand that 80% of our budget goes towards health and education. My point is the amount of money paid to refugees is minuscule compared to things we spend on that we dont need. Now the jets were just an example. I am of the opinion that F18s are enough to defend our airspace especially because we have NORAD taking care of most of that. But yes I am not a military expert, so whatever.
The bottom line is that the money that we spend on resettling refugees is
a) "paid back" by positive contributions by refugees over a period of time in the form of taxes, consumption etc.,
b) There is no rush for them to start contributing IMMEDIATELY because they are going to be here for a lifetime
c) We will take care of the interim via debt
d) We cannot afford to stop humanitarian assistance for both moral reasons as well as reasons that are bound by treaties and what not.
And most of all there is no reason to disproportionately focus on refugees as if they are the biggest problem. They are not.
Of course I get to define what acceptable evidence is you nincompoop blowing hot air. I get to decide what acceptable evidence is because you are making a specific claim to me. Go ahead present the specific evidence requested to back up your claim.
Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass based on a stupid conclusion that -"We have 1M immigrants but still have a shortage for skilled positions, therefore those immigrants are not skilled or are not working". Which is a dumbass statement to make.
Since we have a shortage despite 1M immigrants, we need MORE IMMIGRATION. Perhaps 2M immigrants per year. How about that?
Those are for you to provide. You made the specific claim that it was a problem that 1M immigrants were coming in because they are either not skilled or are not working. So you go ahead provide numbers for those questions to make your case.
I have repeatedly said that :
a) A job offer should never be a pre-requisite for immigration
b) An immigrant after coming here can choose how much they earn. It is called a free country. If all they want to do is drive Uber, then that is their choice. If they want to switch careers that is their choice.
Since you have a problem with it, go ahead provide specifics. Otherwise you are just talking outta your ass with no data, no evidence to back up the ridiculous claims you are making.
In you go:
Last edited:
you are delusional
you get to make logical counter arguments , but instead you have just whined like a little girl that the evidence is not what you asked for
the facts of the matter are
the volume has increased & we still have a shortage for skilled labor
obviously the increased immigration is not addressing the issue
the volume has increased & we still have a shortage for skilled labor
obviously the increased immigration is not addressing the issue
in addition another incremental million would just exacerbate the housing shortage and add more strain to an already strained health care system
so your request is denied
no no
I asked you for specifics
- out of the 1MM immigrants how many are working?
- And how many of the 1MM immigrants are making more / less than the national average salary ?
- And how many are of the 1MM immigrants paying more / less than the national average in taxes
You have no answers and no data.
Answer the damn questions or admit what foolish horses ass you have been
repeating a foolish ideological driven position does not change the fact it is foolish
besides the criteria is only to prioritize applications with job offers
deprioritizing this criteria from 600 points to 50 is the real issue
given the skilled labor shortage, the points should be increased , say to 1000 for having a job offer in hand
it is a free country.... for Canadian citizens
immigrants are NOT Canadian citizens until their application is accepted and they then apply for citizenship
this is a fact you ignore
you do not seem to understand the offer of Canadian Citizenship is the opportunity of a lifetime
if this opportunity has gone sour for you, perhaps you may wish to consider your off putting, uncompromising and repulsive nature as the root problem
drilling deeper may even explain why you allow your ideology to
in addition no rational person marketable in-demand skills is going to settle for serving double doubles @ tim hortons
finally do not lose sight of the fact the the purpose of any immigration is economic growth via a more productive workforce
serving double doubles @ tim hortons or driving uber will not generate enough tax revenue to cover their health care costs
it is not sustainable to bring in more coffee servers and uber drivers
Again you need to drill down deeper in your thinking
no no
I asked you for specifics
- out of the 1MM immigrants how many are working?
- And how many of the 1MM immigrants are making more / less than the national average salary ?
- And how many are of the 1MM immigrants paying more / less than the national average in taxes
You have no answers and no data.
Answer the damn questions or admit what foolish horses ass you have been
learn some economics
the facts just keep mounting up against your ideologically driven position
again try applying logic /facts/ sound judgement before allowing your ideology to
Okay got it, so you have no answers and no data to support any of your ludicrous claims. Come back to me after you have specific data for the specific claim that you made.
You were the one that made the claim, so you get to present data to support yours. I have not made any claims so I dont have anything to justify here to you.
And no, Immigrants whether or not they are citizens are subject to the same rights of personal freedoms and due process. The only things they cannot do is vote or run for office.
Just blowing hot air without any substance isn't a "lOgIcAl CoUnTeR ArGuMeNt".
Right, the volume has increased and we still have a shortage for skilled labour. So the increased immigration is not addressing the issue. So the logical conclusion is that the increase is not enough. So the logical next step is to increase immigration, and double it so all shortages can be addressed.
In you go you hot air blowing nincompoop:
Last edited:
given our governments have not run a surplus in years and wont for years, your statement is false
in addition given the reliance on debt financing the pay back period is pushed way out due to the compounding of higher interest rates, again your statement is false
an immigrant working @ tim hortons or driving uber will never generate the taxes to offset their heath care costs , subsidized infrastructure use or cover the cost of their kids public education
again your statement is false
it will likely be several years before their taxes have covered the administrative costs of their immigration
again your statement is false
do not ignore the efforts of the Trudeau govt to off load the tax burden of low income onto the middle class and wealthier Canadians
an immigrant working @ tim hortons or driving uber will never generate the taxes to offset the cost to the public purse he/ she will incur
A immigrant with a high skilled job offer in hand will make a positive contribution
no
we have a productivity issue driven by a shortage of skilled labor
we want new Canadians to contribute immediately and to improve our productivity
again your statement is false
that is as stupid as it gets
All levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal are swimming in debt, Canadian corporations are also load up on debt
the consumer is also dangerously debt ridden
in a rising interest rate environment !!!
you have no idea how devastating the credit crunch is going to be
& you want borrow more to support immigrants who will take their time before any contribution
again your statement is false , stupid and irresponsible
learn some economics
we can not afford to sustain universal health care right now
your priorities are ideological
learn some economics
the facts just keep mounting up against your ideologically driven position
again try applying logic /facts/ sound judgement before allowing your ideology to
What the immigrant works as is the immigrants choice. The same way what a Canadian citizen works as is the citizens choice.
You can make the same statement about Canadians who drive Uber and work at Tim Hortons, who must then cost Canada more than immigrants do because they have spent their entire lives in Canada as opposed to the immigrant who immigrated as an adult.
So that would mean anyone working in low paying jobs, immigrant or not are not worth it because they are not paying enough taxes.
So to ensure that everybody is worth it, EVERYBODY should work in high paying jobs. Right? Oh wait....
In you go:
apparently logic is not your strength
immigration has been increased dramatically by Abmen Hussein from 280-290 k per year to what looks like close to 500 k / year
lets call it an increase of 60 to 75%
if you increase an input by 60 to 75% and 5 years later you have a skilled labor shortage , further increases will not address the problem
no you would just exacerbate the housing shortage and add more strain to an already strained health care system
your solution is comical, sort of on the same level of applied logic as witch dunking
if she floats, she must be a witch
if she drowns , she must be innocent
Right, so after increasing input by 60 to 75%, you still have a shortage of people. Which means you need MORE people because the increase was just not sufficient.
So bring on the immigrants and triple their numbers.
In you go:
only if granted Canadian citizenship
it makes zero economic sense to import someone to work minimum wage
Ah so you finally clue in that we do not need any more unproductive citizens
the thing is the less productive Canadian lay about was granted citizenship @ birth
we have the option to accept productive immigrants -job offer in hand
or
we can accept unproductive immigrants and increase the burden on housing and health care and observe the continued productivity gap widen, the inflation of public debt & eventual loss of public services
it should be the goal to increase the overall productivity of the country , which naturally increases the wealth of the country 7 all of the citizens
adding high skilled immigrants is aligned with that goal
adding immigrants without in-demand skills is not aligned with that goal
your priorities are ideological
learn some economics
the facts just keep mounting up against your ideologically driven position
again try applying logic /facts/ sound judgement before allowing your ideology to
If the immigrant or a citizen is working in any job, then they are productive regardless of their pay scales. How much one wants to earn is the individuals right to decide, citizen or not.
Anything else is unadulterated bullshit
In you go where you belong:
you really can not be serious
witch dunking logic is not appropriate for modern day economic issues
well you can at least claim you stuck by your failed ideology , even at the price of your integrity
your priorities are ideological
learn some economics
the facts just keep mounting up against your ideologically driven position
again try applying logic /facts/ sound judgement before allowing your ideology to
