urbandreamer
recession proof
s-i-p: What to do with over population?
Nuke 'em.
Nuke 'em.
|
|
|
A bigger Canada?
- Thread starter Second_in_pie
- Start date
jade_lee
Active Member
How many reports that our police are racists, that new immigrants can't find work in their fields and are living in poverty do you people need to accept that Canada needs to work on tolerance for new arrivals and our immigration policies are not colour blind? The Tamils arriving shortly are seen as terrorists and not people fleeing from oppression. Enough said.
Dan416
Senior Member
I think that remains to be seen.
doady
Senior Member
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.
Fucking racist douchebag...
cacruden
Senior Member
I know his views are abhorrent to you (at least on this topic), but at least he is being honest about them (at least I am assuming he is). Even if I disagree vehemently, I prefer people be not to be two-faced about it (as long as he does not treat individuals with disrespect). I just hope his views are not too widely held. I like Toronto, Canada (the primary focus of new immigrants) and find it a much more interesting place to live now than 30 years ago. There is only one constant in life and that is change. There will always be people afraid of change, and those that are are usually that loose out. Countries change, borders change, languages change, you either accept it -- or lose.
cacruden
Senior Member
doady
Senior Member
His idea of a certain heirarchy of races in Canada reminds me of Nazis and their Aryan race. Of course, the race at the top in both cases is the same.
P.S. I apologize for swearing and name calling.
P.S. I apologize for swearing and name calling.
Epi
Active Member
Here's the problems with Canada's population growing to 100 million by 2050:
1) Current world-wide trends show that urbanization is on the rise around the entire world. With Canada having one of the highest urban rates in the world, and with 1/2 of our population already concentrated in our 6 largest cities, adding more immigrants will just ensure that this will happen even more. Immigrants move to where they can find people who are similar to them so that they can feel more 'at home'. For this reason, most of the immigrants to Canada settle in the largest 5-6 cities, with a huge proportion in the largest 3. No amount of government program will change where people want to move.
2) Immigrants to Canada will naturally be from places where people can find more opportunity from living here. In the past that meant almost anywhere, but these days it means the developed world. Yes, this means there's going to be VERY VERY FEW anglo-saxon people moving here, which means no matter what people won't want to move to small town Canada, even ignoring economic considerations. Barring the creation of another 'Hong Kong'-style crisis, I highly doubt there's going to be people moving to Canada from a place that's per capita very close if not richer than Canada any longer.
3) Canada's current policies for immigration allow those with money (investor class) and those with education to move here. But an overlooked aspect is that the majority of immigrants come here because they are immediate family of one immigrant who may be educated or bringing in money. These people are not necessarily rich nor have skills because they are usually the children of these people (aka unproven) or the elderly parents of these people (and if they are from a 3rd world country the parents will usually be uneducated and not speak English... because face it. If your parents were part of the elite back home and were well off, why would you leave?).
4) Canada is only just one of many countries around the world 'competing' for highly skilled labour. By virtue of us having more and more competitors, we're slowly losing that game. There's only so many of these people to go around. As more and more developing countries become places where people want to stay (i.e. many Chinese now would probably rather stay home and get rich than do something wacky like move half way around the world), we're going to have a smaller pot to draw from and more competition from other countries. This brings in a bit of a problem. If we 'lower' our standards (considering even now most people are family class immigrants) even more, is that worthwhile? What is the point of accepting people who are less educated and worse off into our country than we have now, thus slowly diluting our country to become worse and worse off? To put it another way, even countries like China see this problem with endless amounts of migrants from the countryside (all the same culture as they are all Chinese) going to the cities. These migrants are uneducated and while they accept many of the worst jobs, they inevitably create less desirable places to live. They also face a huge backlash from the indigenous population (witness the discrimination of 'mainlanders' by Hong Kong Chinese for instance) which only adds to local strife instead of promoting harmony.
If Canada's standard of living were diluted by more and more poor, and if the least educated and least able of native-born Canadians faced an ever increasing pressure by poor and poorly educated immigrants to battle for low end jobs, you better believe that this would most certainly disrupt the excellent social fabric that we have in this country currently, rather than add to it.
5) When we have vastly more people in the few big cities we have, and these people are on average less and less comparable to average Canadians in terms of wealth/education it is natural that a lot of strife will appear in the cities, crime will skyrocket (as there's only so many 'bad' jobs to go around) and 'no-go' zones in our big cities will increase.
6) More social strife and more growth, will lead our governments into endless quagmires addressing endless problems with integration of immigrants, NIMBY oppositions, and so on, rather than directing our governments to make our country into a better place. Even if there were NO problems (highly unlikely), government energy would still be sapped because of the endless amount of work needed to ensure that all these newcomers smoothly integrate into the country and ensuring that growth was sustainable and so on rather than actually ensuring that the country was well run. A fire department too caught up with putting out fires with what little resources it has, has very little left for fire prevention.
Rebuttals to some points raised:
1) If government were somehow trying to create 'jobs programs' to lure immigrants into the lesser populated areas, then why haven't they done already? Via provincial transfers, we've transferred billions to poorer areas and provinces, yet people are still moving to the big wealthy cities in droves. Government shouldn't be in the business of dictating what areas should prosper and what kind of industries should be developed. People should be deciding that, and that's how countries become successful (i.e. Second in Pie clearly states over and over again that the reason why the USA is successful is because they have less government intervention). And when people decide, the large cities explode in population like in virtually every other country on the planet.
2) If Canada had 100 million people in 2050, the USA will still have around 400-500 million. Why would they treat us any better? We're still vastly smaller.
3) While the USA did grow quite a bit in similar timeframes, no rich and arge country in the world has ever had it's population diluted by so much immigration before. Even US growth was in many ways dependent on local growth as well as immigration, instead of just immigration.
4) Cities focused on growth end up as giant suburbs. Look at Vaughan or Mississauga. In a Canada which vastly increases it's population, suburbs would naturally exponentially increase, thus development would definitely NOT be sustainable. Thinking another way, there's only so many condos you can build before you have endless NIMBY backlash, and so cities have to expand outwards by definition, especially in a country with so much land. Too bad the best places to live are also the best places to farm... not very sustainable if you ask me.
5) Just because more people need more local services (i.e. grocery stores, dry cleaners), this does not mean that the economy is actually growing per capita or improving at all. If that were true, China would have the most advanced economy bar none due to it's population alone. To raise our standard of living, we need to create things that no one else in the world has, and thus demands from us. This ability is definitely not directly dependent on population growth, but rather on being able to change the way our country works so that local companies are given more ability to grow and have more protection from being bought out by foreign multinationals and sidelined globally.
6) More people does not guarantee more high-end economic growth. Switzerland has some of the world's best known and powerful companies with only a few million people. Compare that with so many other places. And remember, a Canada that's growing so much simply due to immigration of increasingly lower quality applicants isn't exactly a winning strategy in getting the world's future Steve Jobs to move here.
7) More density would inevitable support better coordinate infrastructure... right? No. Why does Toronto with 5.6 million people have vastly worse transportation infrastructure than say... Frankfurt? More people doesn't guarantee anything, only good decision making does. Good decision making and massive population growth are two different things. If we could make good decisions we wouldn't need population growth. If we had massive population growth, it would hinder our ability to make good decisions as growth above all else would be the #1 priority (see my point about Vaughan and Mississauga)
8) The reason why Canada is so big but doesn't have that many people is simple... 90% of the country is completely undesirable to live in. This is similar to Australia for instance which is 1/2 desert. Compare that with the USA which has relatively very little area that isn't good for living.
So in summary, a 100 million population in Canada by 2050 basically guarantees a country with less social cohesion, massively overly populated cities, more endless sprawl, and doesn't in any way contribute to better government or better decision-making.
1) Current world-wide trends show that urbanization is on the rise around the entire world. With Canada having one of the highest urban rates in the world, and with 1/2 of our population already concentrated in our 6 largest cities, adding more immigrants will just ensure that this will happen even more. Immigrants move to where they can find people who are similar to them so that they can feel more 'at home'. For this reason, most of the immigrants to Canada settle in the largest 5-6 cities, with a huge proportion in the largest 3. No amount of government program will change where people want to move.
2) Immigrants to Canada will naturally be from places where people can find more opportunity from living here. In the past that meant almost anywhere, but these days it means the developed world. Yes, this means there's going to be VERY VERY FEW anglo-saxon people moving here, which means no matter what people won't want to move to small town Canada, even ignoring economic considerations. Barring the creation of another 'Hong Kong'-style crisis, I highly doubt there's going to be people moving to Canada from a place that's per capita very close if not richer than Canada any longer.
3) Canada's current policies for immigration allow those with money (investor class) and those with education to move here. But an overlooked aspect is that the majority of immigrants come here because they are immediate family of one immigrant who may be educated or bringing in money. These people are not necessarily rich nor have skills because they are usually the children of these people (aka unproven) or the elderly parents of these people (and if they are from a 3rd world country the parents will usually be uneducated and not speak English... because face it. If your parents were part of the elite back home and were well off, why would you leave?).
4) Canada is only just one of many countries around the world 'competing' for highly skilled labour. By virtue of us having more and more competitors, we're slowly losing that game. There's only so many of these people to go around. As more and more developing countries become places where people want to stay (i.e. many Chinese now would probably rather stay home and get rich than do something wacky like move half way around the world), we're going to have a smaller pot to draw from and more competition from other countries. This brings in a bit of a problem. If we 'lower' our standards (considering even now most people are family class immigrants) even more, is that worthwhile? What is the point of accepting people who are less educated and worse off into our country than we have now, thus slowly diluting our country to become worse and worse off? To put it another way, even countries like China see this problem with endless amounts of migrants from the countryside (all the same culture as they are all Chinese) going to the cities. These migrants are uneducated and while they accept many of the worst jobs, they inevitably create less desirable places to live. They also face a huge backlash from the indigenous population (witness the discrimination of 'mainlanders' by Hong Kong Chinese for instance) which only adds to local strife instead of promoting harmony.
If Canada's standard of living were diluted by more and more poor, and if the least educated and least able of native-born Canadians faced an ever increasing pressure by poor and poorly educated immigrants to battle for low end jobs, you better believe that this would most certainly disrupt the excellent social fabric that we have in this country currently, rather than add to it.
5) When we have vastly more people in the few big cities we have, and these people are on average less and less comparable to average Canadians in terms of wealth/education it is natural that a lot of strife will appear in the cities, crime will skyrocket (as there's only so many 'bad' jobs to go around) and 'no-go' zones in our big cities will increase.
6) More social strife and more growth, will lead our governments into endless quagmires addressing endless problems with integration of immigrants, NIMBY oppositions, and so on, rather than directing our governments to make our country into a better place. Even if there were NO problems (highly unlikely), government energy would still be sapped because of the endless amount of work needed to ensure that all these newcomers smoothly integrate into the country and ensuring that growth was sustainable and so on rather than actually ensuring that the country was well run. A fire department too caught up with putting out fires with what little resources it has, has very little left for fire prevention.
Rebuttals to some points raised:
1) If government were somehow trying to create 'jobs programs' to lure immigrants into the lesser populated areas, then why haven't they done already? Via provincial transfers, we've transferred billions to poorer areas and provinces, yet people are still moving to the big wealthy cities in droves. Government shouldn't be in the business of dictating what areas should prosper and what kind of industries should be developed. People should be deciding that, and that's how countries become successful (i.e. Second in Pie clearly states over and over again that the reason why the USA is successful is because they have less government intervention). And when people decide, the large cities explode in population like in virtually every other country on the planet.
2) If Canada had 100 million people in 2050, the USA will still have around 400-500 million. Why would they treat us any better? We're still vastly smaller.
3) While the USA did grow quite a bit in similar timeframes, no rich and arge country in the world has ever had it's population diluted by so much immigration before. Even US growth was in many ways dependent on local growth as well as immigration, instead of just immigration.
4) Cities focused on growth end up as giant suburbs. Look at Vaughan or Mississauga. In a Canada which vastly increases it's population, suburbs would naturally exponentially increase, thus development would definitely NOT be sustainable. Thinking another way, there's only so many condos you can build before you have endless NIMBY backlash, and so cities have to expand outwards by definition, especially in a country with so much land. Too bad the best places to live are also the best places to farm... not very sustainable if you ask me.
5) Just because more people need more local services (i.e. grocery stores, dry cleaners), this does not mean that the economy is actually growing per capita or improving at all. If that were true, China would have the most advanced economy bar none due to it's population alone. To raise our standard of living, we need to create things that no one else in the world has, and thus demands from us. This ability is definitely not directly dependent on population growth, but rather on being able to change the way our country works so that local companies are given more ability to grow and have more protection from being bought out by foreign multinationals and sidelined globally.
6) More people does not guarantee more high-end economic growth. Switzerland has some of the world's best known and powerful companies with only a few million people. Compare that with so many other places. And remember, a Canada that's growing so much simply due to immigration of increasingly lower quality applicants isn't exactly a winning strategy in getting the world's future Steve Jobs to move here.
7) More density would inevitable support better coordinate infrastructure... right? No. Why does Toronto with 5.6 million people have vastly worse transportation infrastructure than say... Frankfurt? More people doesn't guarantee anything, only good decision making does. Good decision making and massive population growth are two different things. If we could make good decisions we wouldn't need population growth. If we had massive population growth, it would hinder our ability to make good decisions as growth above all else would be the #1 priority (see my point about Vaughan and Mississauga)
8) The reason why Canada is so big but doesn't have that many people is simple... 90% of the country is completely undesirable to live in. This is similar to Australia for instance which is 1/2 desert. Compare that with the USA which has relatively very little area that isn't good for living.
So in summary, a 100 million population in Canada by 2050 basically guarantees a country with less social cohesion, massively overly populated cities, more endless sprawl, and doesn't in any way contribute to better government or better decision-making.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
If Canada made it easier for them to immigrate, with a (unilateral, if necessary) EU/Schengen-style arrangement with a potential for citizenship, we could have literally millions of well-educated and successful Americans up here.
Polkaroo
New Member
Excellent points Epi.
jenny_zhang
Active Member
When LAz is prepared to back his bags and leave Canada to the First Nations, then I'll start to take seriously his claims about preserving historical nations and their people.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Actually, for the most part, everything's being preserved. Iirc, only about 10% of Canadians intermarry. Some cultures, such as Chinese, have some of the lowest rates of intermarriage, while others, like Japanese, have the highest.
LAz is Serbian I believe. Those first generation girls are hard to date because they're always going on about the "homeland is better, the muslims are terrible people, Canadians are boring, etc." Gets rather tiresome. Many older generation English Canadians wouldn't even consider 90% of Serbian Canadians to be real Canadians--they'd want LAz booted out of the country.
LAz is Serbian I believe. Those first generation girls are hard to date because they're always going on about the "homeland is better, the muslims are terrible people, Canadians are boring, etc." Gets rather tiresome. Many older generation English Canadians wouldn't even consider 90% of Serbian Canadians to be real Canadians--they'd want LAz booted out of the country.
jenny_zhang
Active Member
urbandreamer said:
I'm surprised he isn't back in Serbia preserving the Serbian homeland and all that jazz.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
"cultures, such as Chinese, have some of the lowest rates of intermarriage"
In Toronto I doubt that is the case. I don't think I've ever seen a white guy in Toronto not with a chinese woman!
In Toronto I doubt that is the case. I don't think I've ever seen a white guy in Toronto not with a chinese woman!
doady
Senior Member
Yeah but a Chinese guy with a white woman is rare. Similar problem that black women have, as they can never get with a white guy.