Immigrants costing taxpayers $16 to $23 Billion annually.

[JohnnyB]

It saddens me to read some of these views about immigrants. Canada is not a place that just accepts every loafer that would like to live in a clean country with lots of nature. Canada is not an easy country to immigrate to and once people go through the process, they are Canadians too. No less Canadian than anyone else in the country. That's what Canada is. A country of immigrants. I love that about Canada.

[SeeBass]

A good example of skilled immigrants not being able to do their true occupation...

All of those East Indian vets out there we see now are actually trained human doctors

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I won't presume to speak for Azure, but I agree with the statement.

The national debt was primarily racked up during the Trudeau and Mulroney years (68 thru 93), when the boomers demanded government services but didn't want to pay for them, we just borrowed the money. In 1970, around the start of the Trudeau years, total federal spending was 16 billion dollars per year. By the end of Trudeau's era, in '84 we were spending 22 billion IN INTEREST CHARGES ALONE!! Total government expenditures was now 109 billion. Sixteen billion to 109 billion under one prime minister (well, and Joe Who, but he doesn't count). And it didn't stop there. Mulroney increased spending up to 161 billion in '92. And it took Mulroney's GST and Paul Martin's slashing of transfers to the provinces to get us out of the banana republic state, but we still have a massive federal debt and are paying 31 billion in interest payments every year. It was the boomers that racked up that debt, but it's the Gen X and Gen Y that are trying to pay it off now.

However, it's only going to get worse. The boomers still control the politics of the country. They have the numbers and the votes. They will not be happy with any cuts to OAS, CPP or any other benefits they have coming to them. They will require more and more health care spending as well as social services for the elderly. The government just won't have the money to support the boomers in retirement, in part because of the overspending by the governments voted in by the boomers.

When I talk to or just listen to boomers, they always argue that they pay taxes for these services, the new immigrant that comes here at their 60s does not.

"If you want your parents to come to Canada, you pay for it!" Stuff like that.

[GP_Matt]

I don't think that people coming over under the family reunification act are getting that much for handouts. They may not work, but a lot of them are looking after grand kids while their children both work multiple jobs.
Also brought up has been the crime issue for new immigrants. Gangs provide a sense of family to many people who join. Gang activity will go down in communities with stronger family ties and roots established in the area.
Another issue is that in bringing over only working age people they are then in a position to be sending money back to support their parents but that drain on their income makes it even harder for them to get ahead. Instead of the free babysitting services they now have to find local babysitters and send money back to their family.

I haven't seen the study, but I am sure the social benefits of having their family here far outweighs the costs to the country.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Why even marginally? It depends who or what entity fills their void....could go either way I guess.

"What would be your selection criteria? Language? Education? Skills? What are the priorities.?"

All of the above.....

I can't say exactly how these criminals are getting through due to the fact that I don't work in immigration, but something needs to be changed to improve the standard.

One of my best friends is an immigrant (landed) from Tokyo. He came, got the language, went to school, got a job, payed his taxes. Note - he did not shoot anybody or sell drugs to anybody. There are some great immigrants out there...

NSFW!

[rubecube]

You know as soon as someone tries to pre-qualify their statement with "Look, I have a lot of friends that are [insert minority group]," they're about to say something offensive.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think that people coming over under the family reunification act are getting that much for handouts. They may not work, but a lot of them are looking after grand kids while their children both work multiple jobs.
Also brought up has been the crime issue for new immigrants. Gangs provide a sense of family to many people who join. Gang activity will go down in communities with stronger family ties and roots established in the area.
Another issue is that in bringing over only working age people they are then in a position to be sending money back to support their parents but that drain on their income makes it even harder for them to get ahead. Instead of the free babysitting services they now have to find local babysitters and send money back to their family.

I haven't seen the study, but I am sure the social benefits of having their family here far outweighs the costs to the country.

While this is all true, boomers cannot get their head around the fact that they paid into the system for 40 years and get the same old age security cheque (and maybe less because they don't qualify for the suppliment) than the 65-year old who became a citizen yesterday. I've heard this a million times.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

While this is all true, boomers cannot get their head around the fact that they paid into the system for 40 years and get the same old age security cheque (and maybe less because they don't qualify for the suppliment) than the 65-year old who became a citizen yesterday. I've heard this a million times.

It's funny though, I don't seem to hear a lot of complains about Yanks or Brits immigrating here and collecting old-age security. Do you think not providing these people with minimal means to support themselves actually costs the taxpayer less?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's funny though, I don't seem to hear a lot of complains about Yanks or Brits immigrating here and collecting old-age security. Do you think not providing these people with minimal means to support themselves actually costs the taxpayer less?

"Not allowing them into the country at all would cost taxpayers less"

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

"Not allowing them into the country at all would cost taxpayers less"

Except for the costs of enforcing that policy.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I won't presume to speak for Azure, but I agree with the statement.

The national debt was primarily racked up during the Trudeau and Mulroney years (68 thru 93), when the boomers demanded government services but didn't want to pay for them, we just borrowed the money. In 1970, around the start of the Trudeau years, total federal spending was 16 billion dollars per year. By the end of Trudeau's era, in '84 we were spending 22 billion IN INTEREST CHARGES ALONE!! Total government expenditures was now 109 billion. Sixteen billion to 109 billion under one prime minister (well, and Joe Who, but he doesn't count). And it didn't stop there. Mulroney increased spending up to 161 billion in '92. And it took Mulroney's GST and Paul Martin's slashing of transfers to the provinces to get us out of the banana republic state, but we still have a massive federal debt and are paying 31 billion in interest payments every year. It was the boomers that racked up that debt, but it's the Gen X and Gen Y that are trying to pay it off now.

However, it's only going to get worse. The boomers still control the politics of the country. They have the numbers and the votes. They will not be happy with any cuts to OAS, CPP or any other benefits they have coming to them. They will require more and more health care spending as well as social services for the elderly. The government just won't have the money to support the boomers in retirement, in part because of the overspending by the governments voted in by the boomers.

Surprisingly good post for the most part. My concern is that I do not believe the boomers "demanded" those government programs.

In 1971, Nixon effectively took the world off the gold standard, which up to that time was the mechanism to limit government spending by not allowing them to print money at will.

Once that limitation was removed, politicians were able to promise the world in order to get votes. Not only here but also in the States, governments grew massively since then, all because they could rob from future generations in order to gain power by spending at will. Trudeau's "Just Society" started the ball rolling rapidly down the slippery slope. And as much as Conservative governments said they would curtail spending and shrink governments, they have been just as much at fault since then.

Yes now the boomers are hooked now, but in fairness they have been paying into these programs for decades. One could argue that the blame isn't really with the boomers, but with a system that didn't have the appropriate checks and balances to ensure it was sustainable.

All of this is a central issue with Ron Paul (and has been since the 70s). I am surprised more young people on this particular board haven't figured this out yet. There are a ton of them south of the border that have though, and win or lose this election, Dr Paul's message is getting through. It is a good start.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

"Not allowing them into the country at all would cost taxpayers less"

BS, GP Matt listed a number of the positive economic impacts of allowing them to immigrate.

Honestly, the fact that a lot of baby boomers can't wrap their heads around it is not a sound reason to make any decision. This is not the most prudent group of people.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think the costs come from systamatic abuse of the system and the forced investigation of illegals coming in to the country.

I think we need to encourage immigration, and we need to find a way to transfer certifications and education.

I also think that Canada needs to encourage population growth, so I would like to submit bill 6969 the Captain gets to have sex with as many woman as possible and knock them up.

Oh with no financial hardships to the Captain.

Ladies sorry I'm just doing my duty, I get no snicker pleasure out of this . . . oh and its the law.

[Lt.Spears]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

A good example of skilled immigrants not being able to do their true occupation...

All of those East Indian vets out there we see now are actually trained human doctors

Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us) our government requires a certain level of accreditation to become a doctor here.

I dont know about you, but i would much prefer a doctor from Canada who has gone through our levels of schooling than a doctor from India who may or may not have the same level of education.

[FlamesAddiction]

Maybe the problem isn't immigration, but the inability for deportation when certain immigrants don't work out.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

BS, GP Matt listed a number of the positive economic impacts of allowing them to immigrate.

Honestly, the fact that a lot of baby boomers can't wrap their heads around it is not a sound reason to make any decision. This is not the most prudent group of people.

Yes I agree. And also because it's only bad news in the media.

The news lately has been about fake marriages and people sneaking over here on visitor's visa to have babies.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Surprisingly good post for the most part. My concern is that I do not believe the boomers "demanded" those government programs.

In 1971, Nixon effectively took the world off the gold standard, which up to that time was the mechanism to limit government spending by not allowing them to print money at will.

Once that limitation was removed, politicians were able to promise the world in order to get votes. Not only here but also in the States, governments grew massively since then, all because they could rob from future generations in order to gain power by spending at will. Trudeau's "Just Society" started the ball rolling rapidly down the slippery slope. And as much as Conservative governments said they would curtail spending and shrink governments, they have been just as much at fault since then.

Yes now the boomers are hooked now, but in fairness they have been paying into these programs for decades. One could argue that the blame isn't really with the boomers, but with a system that didn't have the appropriate checks and balances to ensure it was sustainable.

All of this is a central issue with Ron Paul (and has been since the 70s). I am surprised more young people on this particular board haven't figured this out yet. There are a ton of them south of the border that have though, and win or lose this election, Dr Paul's message is getting through. It is a good start.

I guess we should forget that reliance on the gold standard was a major factor in the Great Depression, or that it flies straight in the face of Keynesian economics.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

What a sad, uninformed, hateful rant. If you didn't write this strictly for effect, I don't know what to say to a person like you.

What? Because I disagree with Canada's currrent imigration policy because I don't feel that its working... now I'm a racist?

Where does racism come into this? I'm all for immigration...this country needs immigrants... but we need immigrants who are qualified to do the the jobs that we have a labour shortage in and in places/areas that are desparately crying for help. What we don't need is another cab driver in Toronto.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Rerun

What? Because I disagree with Canada's currrent imigration policy because I don't feel that its working... now I'm a racist?

Where does racism come into this? I'm all for immigration...this country needs immigrants... but we need immigrants who are qualified to do the the jobs that we have a labour shortage in and in places/areas that are desparately crying for help. What we don't need is another cab driver in Toronto.

Actually, yes we do.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

[MarchHare]

or that it flies straight in the face of Keynesian economics.

People who support returning to the gold standard would consider that a beneficial feature!

OT: has anyone else noticed how so many pro-Ron Paul posts all sound the same? I'm not singling out Shawnski here (he's just the most recent example I've noticed), but I started reading his post and by paragraph two I thought, "Heh, this sounds like a Ron Paul post," and then BAM, look who shows up at the end! Is there a Ron Paul website where his supporters copy/paste form letters from? I find it eerie how they're all so similar, right down to referring to him as "Dr. Paul" consistently.