A bigger Canada?

[Second_in_pie]

So there we have it, you admit the circular logic. So, 100 million is only the beginning, of what might later be 500 million. Slippery slope ya know.

Yeah. In the event that the world has 50 billion, we'd have to all be evil to not let people from around the world in. In case you haven't noticed, a majority of the world has a population crisis now, at 6.5 billion people.

And I like how you're looking at only one argument at a time. "Oh we'll have too many people." "No, we need the density and we could easily support those jobs." "Oh we don't need the density." "Yes we do need the density." "But we'll have too many people!" I guess your big problem is that you have that weird idea that any immigrant from another country is complete scum and not deserving to even look at you on the subway. We've already established that you're a massive bigot, so I guess it's no surprise that you seem to have absolutely idea on how the economy actually works or what non-white people in the third world are actually like.

Brasilia was built pretty much over night. The insanity of it resulted in a military coup, as the freaks that decided to build it made it a continual construction site, whose costs are to this day unknown. It put brazil back, to say the least.

I'd prefer it if you didn't attempt to tarnish Brasilia and Brazi's reputation through your sheer lack of knowledge of any history on the subject. Brasilia was conceived in the exact same way that DC or Ottawa was. It in no way resulted in a military coup, and was not built under an authoritarian regime. Stop pulling stupid excuses out of your ass. And seeing how you advocate for the exact same kind of clamping down and managing growth in essentially every other thread, I'm convinced that you're not only trolling, but incredibly unimaginative in your sad attempt to protect your majority status, when we're in a purely speculative thread in the first place.

At the minimum you would need to have highrises, shitloads of them - and try selling your old wife's tale to someone about how this would not change the urban form.
The slumdwellers that will move to Canada and live in them will not have money to buy condos. So this will have to be public housing. You know what's next - lack of investment, and naturally the morphing into a vertical ghetto.
I mean, where the hell are we gonna get all this money to build these highrises??? The government wants to reduce public housing, not expand it. The private sector will laugh in you face as there is no profit in this for them.

Again, have I not explicitly mentioned that you don't need to bring in any poor uneducated people at all? While it might be a good idea to allow in some, you'd just need to lower the standards a bit so we don't only skim off the world-renowned surgeons and business PHDs into the country. And even if we solely brought in completely uneducated people, we'd still have our very well established current economy, which that with some government work those people could easily be stuck into local jobs and the manufacturing sector, sort of a slums plus deal where you have the same economic base but wealth invested in the area so people actually live well. But still, there are hordes of just average businesspeople and even uneducated people that have ideas and motivation, who could easily prop up the economy.

Oh sorry, would it have been better if I used the word slumdwellers, or dark skinned? The whites from latin america are not gonna come up here - they are the upper class down there. That leaves the indigenous and the afro-colombians to want to move up to Canada - along with the colored asians and blacks from africa....

Again, your knowledge about nothing is astounding. You've obviously never been to anywhere in South America, because there is virtually no discreptency between straight Hispanic and Mestizos anywhere. And you've obviously never seen a Mestizo person because if you did, you'd know that they look almost exactly the same as any other Brazilian or Mexican or Colombian. And additionally, I've already pointed out the falsehood of slumdweller (which is really just a stupid generalization on your part,) and would like to point out that plenty of Asians are whiter than I am. So basically, your willingness to embarrass yourself through bigotry knows no bounds.

...which results in us whites becoming a 25-30% minority perhaps, by the time you get your wish of having 100 million people.
How on earth you plan to sell this plan of the majority becoming a small minority is beyond me.

It's because you've probably already found the group of maybe ten or so Canadians that actually give a damn about maintaining the white majority. Really, if you ask around nobody gives half a damn if Canada becomes a country of minorities. Toronto and Vancouver are already approaching a minority majority (a misnomer because if you were to split up the minority you'd get a bunch of much smaller minorities in there. And from what I gather, Toronto and Vancouver are some of the nicest places in the world to live.

Everyone: This is an interesting topic concerning population growth suggestions in Canada...

After thinking about this a bit I can not get the thought out of my mind that Canada would have to annex a few northern US states to reach this population goal if populated places like southern Ontario can not accomodate major development and expansion...The reason I bring annexing some US states in the northern US up is that I feel that many people in northern states actually have more in common with Canada then those in the US South and West...and that may be one of the only ways to have a large population growth as mentioned...

I'm not an expert in any way on the politics of the US, but I have to be honest that I'm really getting a vibe that the US is in major troubles that could seriously put it's unity in jeopardy. That said, I'm not sure how much of it would actually join Canada and not make a separate country. I think the likeliest states would be the Pacific Northwest, with an independent California being as a very friendly and well connected partner to the south. I'd call that the most likely thing to happen (which in itself probably isn't very likely at all.)
Otherwise, if the "Northern" US states were to separate, the rejigging of boundaries might make room for Canada to get a bit of northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, where there's sizable French populations and much closer proximity to Canadian population centres. But other than that, I think that it'd be much more logical for the Northeastern US states to just form their own country rather than be sucked up by Canada in the event of separation.

Though on your main-er point I'd like to reiterate that I'm quite sure that it'd be easy for Canada to just double it's immigration rates and let in a more colourful range of people. Not just the university top graduates, but more regular businesspeople, less educated people with life plans and bright ideas, and less educated people that could work on infrastructure building/improvement and manufacturing. If not the large and to do mass production that I so despise, then smaller and much more local workshopping or small-scale manufacturing which the economy could really easy stretch to fit around naturally.

 

[Rowe]

To be honest if the US broke up they would be better off becoming more like the EU. There are too many places and people with different ideals and values. Would I want all of New England joining Canada because we share some of the same values? No, there are more people in New England than in Canada..hence giving the Americans more political power over Canada if they joined. I do agree with areas in the US becoming their own countries because of their values, but I do not think Canadians would like to have huge chunks of the US part of Canada.

A quote I've heard is "There are more people in California who think like Canadians than there are Canadians."

I also think we do not have to worry about Canada's federation breaking up (just Quebec) since Canada is one of the world's best brands. The provinces are too small to really benefit from leaving the federation.

That's just my personal opinion.

 

[Polkaroo]

I think the US and Canada should make it easier for people to exchange their citizenship in one country for the other. If I as a Canadian want to become an American citizen, it shouldn't be as difficult for me as it is for someone from a completely different part of the world, since as a Canadian I am already more similar to Americans than someone from any other country. Although I am reasonably happy in Canada, if the process of becoming American was simpler I would probably do it. Basically what I'm suggesting is that Canadians should be allowed to cut ahead in line when it comes to getting American citizenship simply because we are more similar to Americans than anyone else. Likewise for Americans who want Canadian citizenship.

 

[LAz]

You've obviously never been to anywhere in South America, because there is virtually no discreptency between straight Hispanic and Mestizos anywhere.

The whites are alwasy the upper class, in most places in latin america.

And additionally, I've already pointed out the falsehood of slumdweller (which is really just a stupid generalization on your part,)

The fact is that if millions of people were to come here, it would in effect be slum dwellers flooding over.

Again, have I not explicitly mentioned that you don't need to bring in any poor uneducated people at all? While it might be a good idea to allow in some, you'd just need to lower the standards a bit so we don't only skim off the world-renowned surgeons and business PHDs into the country.

There are not that many educated people that can come over here. Even if they did some how you have no way to provide jobs for all of them. But, you are basically saying lets do a braindrain to these countries. Nah, not gonna happen. They won't let it.

And even if we solely brought in completely uneducated people, we'd still have our very well established current economy, which that with some government work those people could easily be stuck into local jobs and the manufacturing sector, sort of a slums plus deal where you have the same economic base but wealth invested in the area so people actually live well.

Say what????
You are stuck in the same mind-frame that many westerns are stuck in - expecting high growth that we had in the post ww2 years. That time is over. Resources are no longer cheap. Growth is gonna be very slow. Per capita it will decrease if you add in all these slumdwellers.
Local jobs and manufacturing? Jee man, manufacturing jobs are not really on the rise. We gotta compete with pennies per hour labor costs abroad. Companies won't pay higher salaries here, because you know, free market drives the price down, and increases the profits of the rich, which these slumdwellers are not.
I do not see any way in which these slumdwellers will live well. They will have to rammed into highrises which will rapidly turn into ghettos as there is no money to maintain the highrises. On top of that they will have extremely hard times adjusting, and not to mention not being able to find work.

Brasilia was conceived in the exact same way that DC or Ottawa was. It in no way resulted in a military coup, and was not built under an authoritarian regime. Stop pulling stupid excuses out of your ass.

No, Brasilia was a planned city that did not exist prior to world war two. DC and Ottawa have some history, whereas Brasilia had nothing. The sheer spending deficits of the country are what resulted in the coup - and a huge part of that deficit spending was thanks to countless dollars going into the building of this new capital.

And seeing how you advocate for the exact same kind of clamping down and managing growth in essentially every other thread, I'm convinced that you're not only trolling, but incredibly unimaginative in your sad attempt to protect your majority status, when we're in a purely speculative thread in the first place.

Ah, narrow thinking strikes again. "I can only see this one way or the other" thinks you.
Managing growth is one thing. It does not mean lets authoritarianly decide that this will be built here, and that will be built there. For example, an urban growth boundary is a way to manage growth. In no way does this force people to build certain things, like highrises to accomodate millions of slumdwellers.

Yeah. In the event that the world has 50 billion, we'd have to all be evil to not let people from around the world in. In case you haven't noticed, a majority of the world has a population crisis now, at 6.5 billion people.

Canada and many other countries have their own identities. Because of that they have no obligation to let in others. No moral obligation and or any sort of obligation. It seems to me that you do not like the fact that national boundaries exist. You probably do not even identify with what it means to be canadian and instead view yourself as a citizen of the world.

We've already established that you're a massive bigot

I'm not a bigot. But I do get a kick out of giving you a hard time on the forum.

I also think we do not have to worry about Canada's federation breaking up (just Quebec) since Canada is one of the world's best brands.

Some radical albertans want alberta to break off too...

I think the US and Canada should make it easier for people to exchange their citizenship in one country for the other.

If it would be so easy what would limit someone from changing their citizenship oh say seven times?

If I as a Canadian want to become an American citizen, it shouldn't be as difficult for me as it is for someone from a completely different part of the world, since as a Canadian I am already more similar to Americans than someone from any other country.

Well canadians have the benefit of having a special visa that people of other countries do not have. And then it's so much easier for us to cross the border than it is for those from other countries.

 

[toraerach]

I think the US and Canada should make it easier for people to exchange their citizenship in one country for the other. If I as a Canadian want to become an American citizen, it shouldn't be as difficult for me as it is for someone from a completely different part of the world, since as a Canadian I am already more similar to Americans than someone from any other country. Although I am reasonably happy in Canada, if the process of becoming American was simpler I would probably do it. Basically what I'm suggesting is that Canadians should be allowed to cut ahead in line when it comes to getting American citizenship simply because we are more similar to Americans than anyone else. Likewise for Americans who want Canadian citizenship.

We've tackled this issue in another thread a while ago so I won't get into a huge amount of detail about all of the many reasons why I'd be opposed to this. However, I will reiterate my main concern - that by setting the bar lower for potential immigrants from the US, we would be practising a form of discrimination based on country of origin. All potential immigrants from all countries should be subject to the same standards and expectations thus ensuring that all potential immigrants are equally eligible for migration. Just because Americans are more similar to us culturally does not mean that immigrants from the US would be better fit for this country than immigrants from anywhere else - "cutting in line" should not be tolerated. And besides, residents of the UK, Australia, and New Zealand are all just as similar to us as Americans, why not let them cut in line to? Can you see the problem with preferencing people coming from primarily white, primarily anglo nations? Doesn't that look like more of a step back than a step forward for Canadian immigration?

 

[gristle]

We' easily got enough arable land to feed a ton of people. Even energy is not that big of a concern. We don't do small hydro. That alone, combined with small wind, more rooftop solar, etc. would meet a lot of our needs. We're just lazy. That's the problem. Most Canadians would never want to do the work involved in building a more efficient society that could take in more people.

Big generalizations and nothing more here - which appear to be driven on opinions and not much else. That you would suggest anyone not agreeing with massive changes to immigration policies as being lazy is rather silly.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I think that keithz was referencing Canadians just working towards sustainability for the country now, which would subsequently provide room for many more immigrants.

 

[Second_in_pie]

The whites are alwasy the upper class, in most places in latin america.

Sorry, but you're wrong. While many more Latin Americans are Mestizo than we have Canadian Metis, they're as equally distributed throughout the economic spectrum as any "regular" latino. And justly, the "regular" latino is just as evenly distributed throughout the economic spectrum as Mestizos. But again, this is all your argument that Canada should maintain itself as land of the white and free, right? Really, what exactly do you have against black people or indians or arabs coming here? I assume that you have problems with the current immigration policy, bringing all the filthy nonhumans into this majestic country, so why exactly would that be?

The fact is that if millions of people were to come here, it would in effect be slum dwellers flooding over.

And if you'd like to give any rational explanation for this, I'd be all ears. I've pointed out that you could bring a healthy balance of highly educated people, middle educated people and poor people, which would represent a similar balance and be able to replicate the economy that Canada's currently running, whereas under current immigration, you're just adding more highly educated specialists.

Say what????
You are stuck in the same mind-frame that many westerns are stuck in - expecting high growth that we had in the post ww2 years. That time is over. Resources are no longer cheap. Growth is gonna be very slow. Per capita it will decrease if you add in all these slumdwellers.
Local jobs and manufacturing? Jee man, manufacturing jobs are not really on the rise. We gotta compete with pennies per hour labor costs abroad. Companies won't pay higher salaries here, because you know, free market drives the price down, and increases the profits of the rich, which these slumdwellers are not.
I do not see any way in which these slumdwellers will live well. They will have to rammed into highrises which will rapidly turn into ghettos as there is no money to maintain the highrises. On top of that they will have extremely hard times adjusting, and not to mention not being able to find work.

You obviously have no idea how an economy functions. How do you think immigrants settle and whatnot today? Oh wait, they settle into nice average lives in well-paying jobs and turn into good model citizens. It's not that hard to continue replicating that. I'm not going to argue on this point, because you'll just end up pulling baseless arguments from your ass like "oh they're filthy immigrants, how do you expect them to actually work?"

No, Brasilia was a planned city that did not exist prior to world war two. DC and Ottawa have some history, whereas Brasilia had nothing. The sheer spending deficits of the country are what resulted in the coup - and a huge part of that deficit spending was thanks to countless dollars going into the building of this new capital.

And DC existed prior to it's construction? I think you have your facts mixed up. Ok, Ottawa wasn't a planned capital, but then I'll just point out Versailles instead. And anyways, you're advocating in every other thread that we should be controlling how people develop. Why the sudden change of heart? I assume that it has to do with the racial equation.

Ah, narrow thinking strikes again. "I can only see this one way or the other" thinks you.
Managing growth is one thing. It does not mean lets authoritarianly decide that this will be built here, and that will be built there. For example, an urban growth boundary is a way to manage growth. In no way does this force people to build certain things, like highrises to accomodate millions of slumdwellers.

While reiterating that slumdwellers is a huge misnomer, wouldn't the exact same thing happen if you clamped down on urban growth boundaries? It would seem that we can't keep making suburbs, so we'll have to instead build up!!! The horror!!! What would you propose other than putting people into higher density?

Canada and many other countries have their own identities. Because of that they have no obligation to let in others. No moral obligation and or any sort of obligation. It seems to me that you do not like the fact that national boundaries exist. You probably do not even identify with what it means to be canadian and instead view yourself as a citizen of the world.

I identify with both. Am I a disgusting disgrace to this country who should be deported immediately? And I guess you're a stranger to the notion of refugees, of whom Canada already has some of the highest per capita levels in the world, while somehow maintaining itself as one of the greatest countries to live in and creating great lives for said refugees and all immigrants. Really, just letting in twice as many is not going to be doing that much damage to our economy. Heck, letting in three times as many could probably be managed. But what letting in twice as many people does allow us to do is make Canada an even better country to live in, aforementioned density factors and opportunities to create a more casual lifestyle.

So again, this is a topic for DISCUSSION. I really personally doubt that it would happen and will subsequently be going to some nice non-North American country in the future, but I think that it could happen and would be great for everyone if it did.

 

[Second_in_pie]

To be honest if the US broke up they would be better off becoming more like the EU. There are too many places and people with different ideals and values. Would I want all of New England joining Canada because we share some of the same values? No, there are more people in New England than in Canada..hence giving the Americans more political power over Canada if they joined. I do agree with areas in the US becoming their own countries because of their values, but I do not think Canadians would like to have huge chunks of the US part of Canada.

A quote I've heard is "There are more people in California who think like Canadians than there are Canadians."

I also think we do not have to worry about Canada's federation breaking up (just Quebec) since Canada is one of the world's best brands. The provinces are too small to really benefit from leaving the federation.

The two places that I think could make sense are the pacific northwest, with it's huge similarities and economic ties with BC, and northern New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, which have a lot of french roots. Apart from that though, I agree that it'd be best for the US to separate into smaller states, not a merger with Canada. But I do believe that that will come someday soon. The political disparity within the country is just staggering, and I think it offers a much better option for most Americans than the giant political union that is the USA. Though that's for a different thread.

 

[LAz]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

No, you are wrong. I have taken many classes during my undergrad studies, on latin america.
Shit man, in Bolivia the indigenous did not even have the right to vote until recent decades! Whites totally dominated that country in absolutely every form possible. In other places it was not that bad, but the whole colonial system put the whites at the top via mass pluder and rape... the effect was them having pretty much all of the land and wealth. They maintained that disparity to this day.
It was literally a cast system. And despite there being no official caste, the differences will take ages to even out.

Really, what exactly do you have against black people or indians or arabs coming here?

Oh man, I am really tempted to drive you up the wall with a nasty comment. But I'll restrain myself as I won't be able to see that priceless entertainment.
Anyways, all things aside, the problem is not a black or an asian comming to Canada. The problem is when 95% of the migrants coming to canada are such. Canada should take in people at roughly the same racial composition that it is. Meaning that if whites represent 85% of canada's population, they should not represent only 5% of the immigrants comming here. This is what your plan calls for, 5 percent, probably less, mainly from eastern europe.

And if you'd like to give any rational explanation for this, I'd be all ears.

I already did that. You are calling for a brain-drain of the third world. Ain't gonna happen. Hence the people will be of the lower social orders.

Oh wait, they settle into nice average lives in well-paying jobs and turn into good model citizens. It's not that hard to continue replicating that.

Nah. Immigrants come here and struggle to work and to fit in. It's a literal battle for them to make it.
I suppose that even a two dollar an hour job is well paying compared to some hellholes that your slumdwellers will be from. But that is not a good wage here.
Starting wages that these slumdwellers will have - those lucky enough to have work - will not be enough to become affluent in a short period of time.

I think you have your facts mixed up.

Washington DC was not built in less than a decade like Brasil's capital, was it?

And anyways, you're advocating in every other thread that we should be controlling how people develop. Why the sudden change of heart? I assume that it has to do with the racial equation.

I thought I already explained this. One thing is to have some regulation. Another thing is to be an authoritarian mad-man. That is what your plans here in this topic of mass migrant arival calls for.
Your plans will without doubt call for massive high-rise development. Who the hell is gonna pay for this? Our bankrupt government? No. The private sector? Ha, that would be the day that hell freezes over. I guess you plan to go into debt by having the government built public highrise towers? Man, they do not have the money to maintain these towers. It will result in vertical ghettos in a very short period of time, as has proven the case again and again. But then what - perhaps you suggest that the immigrants will pay for this stuff themsevles? They don't have the money to buy property when they come here! They may as well live on the street, as the government is most surely interested in decreasing the stock of public housing, not increasing it.
There's another thing on top of all of this. That is participatory planning. The public has to be involved - and not via token participation such as informing. They have to seriously be involved. Goodluck convincing folks that public housing towers will not diminish their property value. But oh wait, a dictator does what he/she wants. Hm, I wouldn't risk revolution if I were you.

It would seem that we can't keep making suburbs, so we'll have to instead build up!!! The horror!!! What would you propose other than putting people into higher density?

You don't just move people as if they are cattle. If society does not want something then heck, we may just stfu with desires of more dense communities.
I don't see our population booming, so I do not see the need for more suburbs.

At any rate, you gotta be aware that when developers go about development that they need/want profit. Your plans do not have that for them, unless if you plan for these immigrants to be the richest percentages of the top of the third world, and thus their movement would result in major capital flight as their banks get depleted.

And I guess you're a stranger to the notion of refugees

For your info, I was a refugee.

So again, this is a topic for DISCUSSION.

I bring up good points man.

For crying out loud, planning massive migration in a time when economic growth is not going to be high, is insane. That is bad policy. If our economy were booming as in the first post war decades, when resources were cheap and abundant and whatnot, then they that might be okay. But we have entered a new era which you and many others are not aware of. We are never again going to see that huge rapid growth. No. Our economic condition will not make it possible for this stuff that you ask for. And I tell you that in utmost honesty. I might be a half b.s.er who is entertained by you, but I tell you this thing in all honesty, the economy of western countries in a deep problem and a wrong mindset that is that of the early post world war II decades.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Anyways, all things aside, the problem is not a black or an asian comming to Canada. The problem is when 95% of the migrants coming to canada are such. Canada should take in people at roughly the same racial composition that it is. Meaning that if whites represent 85% of canada's population, they should not represent only 5% of the immigrants comming here. This is what your plan calls for, 5 percent, probably less, mainly from eastern europe.

No, that brings up the same problem. Why does the current racial formula need to be maintained? Really, it still shows that you have something against non-whites.

I already did that. You are calling for a brain-drain of the third world. Ain't gonna happen. Hence the people will be of the lower social orders.

If we're not doing a brain drain on the third world, then we definitely wouldn't by doubling immigration rates. Right now, we're taking all of the most specialized people from developing countries for ourselves (well actually, with current qualification systems, most of them are driving taxis but that can be worked out.) If we were to double immigration rates, we'd have to take from a bit lower in the pile.

And also, I'd like to note current immigration rates. Canada currently lets in about 250 thousand people a year, with an informal cap being at about 1% of the current population per year.
The US, consequently, takes in about 2 million people of similar quality that we do (about 0.6% of their total population per year,) and also gets a lot of illegal immigration as well. It kind of shows the big picture.

Washington DC was not built in less than a decade like Brasil's capital, was it?

Actually, it was. The reason Brazil was put into a dictatorship was in fact due to the fact that the country was prospering so much, not because it was broke because of building it's capital.

I thought I already explained this. One thing is to have some regulation. Another thing is to be an authoritarian mad-man. That is what your plans here in this topic of mass migrant arival calls for.
Your plans will without doubt call for massive high-rise development. Who the hell is gonna pay for this? Our bankrupt government? No. The private sector? Ha, that would be the day that hell freezes over. I guess you plan to go into debt by having the government built public highrise towers? Man, they do not have the money to maintain these towers. It will result in vertical ghettos in a very short period of time, as has proven the case again and again. But then what - perhaps you suggest that the immigrants will pay for this stuff themsevles? They don't have the money to buy property when they come here! They may as well live on the street, as the government is most surely interested in decreasing the stock of public housing, not increasing it.
There's another thing on top of all of this. That is participatory planning. The public has to be involved - and not via token participation such as informing. They have to seriously be involved. Goodluck convincing folks that public housing towers will not diminish their property value. But oh wait, a dictator does what he/she wants. Hm, I wouldn't risk revolution if I were you.

You don't just move people as if they are cattle. If society does not want something then heck, we may just stfu with desires of more dense communities.
I don't see our population booming, so I do not see the need for more suburbs.

It's cute how you think that having millions of new customers will not make the private sector act. If you regulate growth boundaries and add more people to the population, the private sector will undoubtedly find the economic opportunity there.

Nah. Immigrants come here and struggle to work and to fit in. It's a literal battle for them to make it.
I suppose that even a two dollar an hour job is well paying compared to some hellholes that your slumdwellers will be from. But that is not a good wage here.
Starting wages that these slumdwellers will have - those lucky enough to have work - will not be enough to become affluent in a short period of time.

I saved this point for last because it's the only one that actually has a good point. But I still have a solution for it.

You see, Canada's economy is currently geared around a very formal system, and the social structure is a very rigid thing. Basically, one of the only ways that you can actually make money is working a tie and suit job in a large corporation or public works. The blunt truth is that this system is actually visibly disadvantuous to people living in such a system. While we hoard all the world's wealth to ourselves, by doing so we desensitize ourselves and in the end, leading boring lives bleached in their true meaning. But that's for another thread.

The point is that there's a lot we can do with our economic system to make it better, and in turn make it more flexible towards immigrants. By making the economy less formal (by no means make it informal, but take away the super-strict portions that make up so much of Canadians' day to day lives,) and in turn it will be easier for immigrants to settle comfortably. For instance, try to pump up small business. A small, local business is a very easy for an option for an immigrant, assuming there's someone to lend money. And maybe the banks aren't willing to give thousands of dollars to an fob, and so the government needs to be able to do so. Which isn't a really bad thing, mind you, when it comes with the ability for governments to better regulate businesses and be able to provide more at the level support for small business owners.

Alternatively, a majority of immigrants today still settle into your ordinary suburban lives due to social pressure. While it's important for people to integrate into Canadian lifestyles, having a distinct ethnic community to provide support for newcomers and as a cultural sink for certain backgrounds would be a huge boon. While some of these communities formally or informally exist, many have low visibility and are less cultural centres and more education centres. Some aren't, and you can see the positive effects they can have on newcomers. But they're far and few and still not as well equipped to deal properly with newcomers as they could be with government funding or simply the amount of higher traffic they might get with more immigrants.

There are plenty of opportunities for the government to make current immigration much better, and if they were to make big steps in improving the lives of current immigrants which is already under a lot of pressure from the immigrants currently coming into the country, we'd be able to allow even more people in and give them even better lives.

 

[LAz]

No, that brings up the same problem. Why does the current racial formula need to be maintained? Really, it still shows that you have something against non-whites.

Things are a certain way. I grew up with them being that way. I do not want to see them totally change in 10 years, which is what you are advocating. Rapid change of anything is bad. In fact, it is fair to say that your goals here are anti-white, as you want to displace whites with millions of blacks and colored folk. Naturally that whites should be worried about this. But you do not seem to be worried, perhaps because you are not white.
It's like when one guy proposed at a conference that denmark's population issues could be solved by just importing blacks from kenya. A country with little history - er perhaps no history whatsoever - of blacks being there - a nation state for the most part, being turned into a totally different society. The guy could not see what the problem was with that, yet people there were disgusted because the side effect was that denmark would no longer be denmark.

If we're not doing a brain drain on the third world, then we definitely wouldn't by doubling immigration rates. Right now, we're taking all of the most specialized people from developing countries for ourselves (well actually, with current qualification systems, most of them are driving taxis but that can be worked out.) If we were to double immigration rates, we'd have to take from a bit lower in the pile.

So you are admitting that we will have to lower our standards for these many millions - and hence why I say masses of slumdwellers.

And also, I'd like to note current immigration rates. Canada currently lets in about 250 thousand people a year, with an informal cap being at about 1% of the current population per year.

I'd like to see figures in the last 10 years for year by year. I am pretty sure that migration rates have gone down significantly. The point is that you want to have like a million a year for a very long time.
High immigration was economically feasable when the economy was booming. But that is no longer the case.

Actually, it was. The reason Brazil was put into a dictatorship was in fact due to the fact that the country was prospering so much, not because it was broke because of building it's capital.

The economic situation was rapidly deteriorating in brazil when the coup happened. Coups do not happen because things are going well, they happen because things are not going well. Man, just look up stuff on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'état , ktanxbi

It's cute how you think that having millions of new customers will not make the private sector act. If you regulate growth boundaries and add more people to the population, the private sector will undoubtedly find the economic opportunity there.

Where on earth will they get the money to spend man?? Welfare checks? We are not in a position where our economy is booming. If it were booming then maybe. But no, we are in a situation that is not too great.

A small, local business is a very easy for an option for an immigrant, assuming there's someone to lend money. And maybe the banks aren't willing to give thousands of dollars to an fob, and so the government needs to be able to do so.

Local businesses are struggling. In the 1950s maybe this might not be bad. But the fact is that it's increasingly difficult to compete against big companies. Why would I buy something for more from a ma and pa store when I can pay much less at the best buy or something like that? Mass produced things have driven many ma and pa stores out of business.
And plus there is no the money to start paying them to start up businesses. Starting a business is the last thing that the slumdweller aspires to when they come here. Their goal is to survive. It;s a big enough problem building housing, which we currently do not have, paying for that housing, and paying for them via welfare or what you have in mind I don't know. If you do not want to put them on the streets you are going to require loads of money.

Alternatively, a majority of immigrants today still settle into your ordinary suburban lives due to social pressure.

I am not sure if that is so. there are many highrise appartment complexes around some subway stations, or within a 10 minute walk of them. I would see them going there, as they do not have the money to buy a car and go off to the suburbs. At any rate, there is no public housing in the suburbs, so where do you see them getting the mortgages from?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Things are a certain way. I grew up with them being that way. I do not want to see them totally change in 10 years, which is what you are advocating. Rapid change of anything is bad. In fact, it is fair to say that your goals here are anti-white, as you want to displace whites with millions of blacks and colored folk. Naturally that whites should be worried about this. But you do not seem to be worried, perhaps because you are not white.
It's like when one guy proposed at a conference that denmark's population issues could be solved by just importing blacks from kenya. A country with little history - er perhaps no history whatsoever - of blacks being there - a nation state for the most part, being turned into a totally different society. The guy could not see what the problem was with that, yet people there were disgusted because the side effect was that denmark would no longer be denmark.

Alright, alright, fair that you've admitted it, but there's still a big problem. Denmark is the homeland of danish people. They've lived there for thousands of years. How long have most Canadians been in the Country? A vast majority of them have come since the turn of the century, or the 1860s at the least. And since then, we've allowed in huge numbers of ethnic minorities, and have some of the highest immigration rates in the world. And on top of that, we've maintained ourselves as some of the most well of countries in the world, as well as one of the greatest places to live and raise a family, for anyone of any race. Would this have been allowed if the majority of Canadians were afraid of being drowned out by minority groups? No. The vast majority of Canada realizes that singling someone out based on race is just as immature and unfounded as judging them by their eye colour. Unlike the US or Europe, we as a nation have matured enough that we don't really care if the face we see on the subway is black, white or somewhere in between (as is most cases.)

So you are admitting that we will have to lower our standards for these many millions - and hence why I say masses of slumdwellers.

Depends on your definition of slums. If you count slums as the towns and cities that Canadians inhabit today, then alright. Because those are the exact same type of people I'm advocating to be let into the country. You don't seem to realize that many Canadians wouldn't be allowed into their own country with the education and workplace skills that they have. You have to be the best of the best to get into this country, and a lot of things could happen if we let in people similar to the average Canadian.

I'd like to see figures in the last 10 years for year by year. I am pretty sure that migration rates have gone down significantly. The point is that you want to have like a million a year for a very long time.
High immigration was economically feasable when the economy was booming. But that is no longer the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_population_of_Canada_by_years
I can't find actual immigration statistics, but the immigration rate's well over 0.5% per year. To get 100 million by 2050 is probably a rather extreme estimate at an immigration rate closer to 3% per year, but a rate of 1.5% or so would be excellent.

The economic situation was rapidly deteriorating in brazil when the coup happened. Coups do not happen because things are going well, they happen because things are not going well. Man, just look up stuff on wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'état , ktanxbi

Right... It's funny how I saw nothing in that that even suggested that government deficits were to do with the coup. In fact, it's explicitly stated right there that the main reason is that people were afraid of communism, nothing to do with your complicated theory that building Brasilia bankrupted the country. But still, if you want a planned capital (I don't even know how you got so wound up in this point,) you could still just take a look at DC or Versailles (a stretch perhaps,) or districts of Beijing.

Local businesses are struggling. In the 1950s maybe this might not be bad. But the fact is that it's increasingly difficult to compete against big companies. Why would I buy something for more from a ma and pa store when I can pay much less at the best buy or something like that? Mass produced things have driven many ma and pa stores out of business.
And plus there is no the money to start paying them to start up businesses. Starting a business is the last thing that the slumdweller aspires to when they come here. Their goal is to survive. It;s a big enough problem building housing, which we currently do not have, paying for that housing, and paying for them via welfare or what you have in mind I don't know. If you do not want to put them on the streets you are going to require loads of money.

Yes, I realize local businesses are struggling. That's why I advocate, separate from this, for better government support for local businesses.
And frankly, I'm disgusted by your lack of respect for immigrants. Calling them slumdwellers when they're clearly not, and if born again you probably would have been in the same situation. Calling them uninspired people with no ambition or aspirations to do something once they get in the country. Why don't I start beating on you for being a piece of human trash with no reason in this country, arrogant non-Canadian? I mean, you say that you're in fact a refugee which, by your qualifications, would mean that you probably bathe in the Don River and subside off of garbage from the back of Queen St. restaurants. Or am I off the mark?

I am not sure if that is so. there are many highrise appartment complexes around some subway stations, or within a 10 minute walk of them. I would see them going there, as they do not have the money to buy a car and go off to the suburbs. At any rate, there is no public housing in the suburbs, so where do you see them getting the mortgages from?

Really, I was almost off my chair laughing. You're basing your argument on "I think that this happens" which comes from your already conceived bias? There are two problems with this.

Yes, immigrants live in apartments. But when a sizeable part of your population lives in apartments or otherwise high density housing, and when quite a sizeable part of your population are also first gen immigrants, it's kind of hard to have no overlap. And does that mean that you don't think that there are many immigrants living in the suburbs? In that case, you obviously have never been to Markham or Richmond Hill or Mississauga.
Another thing is that this is probably a good thing. Immigrants are more okay with living in high density situations rather than your average sprawley suburban household because that's how many of them lived before they moved to Canada. I read an article in the globe or something documenting how immigrant communities were much more sustainable because they brought old life living when they moved to Canada. Is that a bad thing? If we got more immigrants, maybe it'd turn the tide in social norms so that people are more likely to live more efficient lives due to social pressure, induced demand, etc. I think that it'd be great.

 

[kEiThZ]

Big generalizations and nothing more here - which appear to be driven on opinions and not much else. That you would suggest anyone not agreeing with massive changes to immigration policies as being lazy is rather silly.

Read back in the thread. I never endorsed "massive changes" to immigration policies. But I am critical of the fact that we aren't building a more efficient society which allows us many future options (including being able to take in more people if we wanted to).

 

[kEiThZ]

LAz: Canada should take in people at roughly the same racial composition that it is.

We don't do this now. Canada has a colour and religion blind immigration system. That's exactly what makes it one of the best in the world. You qualify based on merits not where you are from or who you worship.

LAz: Meaning that if whites represent 85% of canada's population, they should not represent only 5% of the immigrants comming here. This is what your plan calls for, 5 percent, probably less, mainly from eastern europe.
That'd be impossible to pull off. The world does not match Canada's demographics. Also, how do you define ethnicity? Is it just by skin colour? So what do Poles and Scots have in common other than the colour of their skin? I'd like to know. Why not actually do it by ethnicity? If we did that, we can just stick to residents of France and the British Isles and call it a day.

Moreover, your suggestion is based on the fact that there are substantial amounts of migrants that can be sourced from different parts of the world to match those proportions. Given that we have a blind system now where any immigrant who meets the standard can get in, can you tell me why our current immigration mix is not matching our demographics? If anything, immigrants from the whiter societies of more developed Europe should be more favoured under our system. Yet they aren't coming in droves. Could it be that Europeans don't care to move here as much?

Canada can't be picky. Immigrants have to be sourced from where we get them. Because we need them. I'll be impressed if we can simply get an ethnic and religious mix that more closely approximates the rest of the world.

Any other policy amounts to actual, active racial discrimination. You are suggesting that Canada should drop its current colour blind policy and start insisting on evaluating applications based on discriminators like skin colour.