Immigration - The Canadian Way

Ok, people on the left and right, hold your horses.

This is an article from this weekends Globe and Mail.

While it certainly is supportive of Canada's current take on immigration and refugees its is not a one-sided love in.

It explores both past and contemporary racism, the implications of different levels of immigration in Canada and other countries, why Canadians 'appear' to be more accepting than some others of high levels of immigration.

I'm posting it here, because in the context of the US debate over immigration and refugees, comparisons to Canada often come up from both sides.

Many positive, some critical.

Here you will find both and lots of explanation on what's different about the Canadian model and what its prospects are the future, for Canada or anywhere else.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...d-to-grow-and/

The thing is that when somebody refers to illegal immigration the automatic canned response is that you are anti immigration.

That is what happens when illegal is referred to as undocumented it removes the illegal aspect out of it.

Just because one is anti illegal immigration it does not mean that they are against legal immigration.

Look back when during the Trump campaign he talked about building a wall on the southern border,it did not evolve into fixing a broken immigration system,it immediately became a racist against Hispanics issue.

If people spent the same amount of time and energy towards fixing a broken system as they do with creating distractions,the problem would not exist.

No point in discussing piling more immigrants on top of what you already have and pump more $ into a broken system,they are not going to save countries if they are not legally a part of the host country.

Thats like lifting a roof up in order to build the foundation.

If the ship is sinking there is no point on adding more weight to it to save you,fix the holes first.

Or accused to be racist, or a Trumpeteer/ Trump cultist! Sigh...

....As I've said on the world stage we must really come off as conflicted, contradictory dolts, picking-our-own-pockets for the sake and behest of politics.

What a time to live in -- but not so distinct from patterns and outcomes of before. But now we have the internet and social media for discussion and some 'compelling' thought does emerge.

Not just the useless nonsense. There's hope in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

The thing is that when somebody refers to illegal immigration the automatic canned response is that you are anti immigration.

---

Interesting article CV, thanks. I found it compelling in many areas. Not sure I agree that so many extant and incoming groups will have fewer children onward. Culturally, for some family lineage remains very important [[indeed an 'asset' despite city living). And for example, viewed as support thru the family thread.

This being something some have lost sight or benefit from of as families are far less cohesive. Reliant on the government? Or enough wealth to compensate?

Elder care comes to mind as no populations remain young permanently.

I've posted a bit from the article here:

....Populations are already in reverse in about two dozen states around the world. Some of the richest places on Earth are shedding people every year, thanks to low fertility rates: Japan, Korea, Spain, Italy, much of Eastern Europe. “We are a dying country,” Italy’s health minister, Beatrice Lorenzin, lamented in 2015.

But the big news is that the largest developing countries are also about to grow smaller, as their own fertility rates come down.....

Why is population growth about to slow down and eventually reverse? In a single word: urbanization. In 2007, for the first time in human history, the majority of the planet’s population lived in cities. Today, it’s 55 per cent.

A lot happens when people move from the countryside to the city. First, a child shifts from being an asset – another pair of shoulders to work in the fields – to a burden; just another mouth to feed.

Even more important, a woman who moves to a city has greater access to media, to schools, to other women. She demands greater autonomy. And women who are able to exercise control over their bodies generally decide to have fewer children.

Religious and familial pressures to settle down and make babies also recede in the city; friends and co-workers, who are largely indifferent to each other’s reproductive choices, become more important.

Even in theocratic Iran, where almost half the population is urban, the fertility rate has dropped to 1.7.

Africa remains the cradle of overpopulation, with birth rates far above replacement....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Ok, people on the left and right, hold your horses.

This is an article from this weekends Globe and Mail.

While it certainly is supportive of Canada's current take on immigration and refugees its is not a one-sided love in.

It explores both past and contemporary racism, the implications of different levels of immigration in Canada and other countries, why Canadians 'appear' to be more accepting than some others of high levels of immigration.

I'm posting it here, because in the context of the US debate over immigration and refugees, comparisons to Canada often come up from both sides.

Many positive, some critical.

Here you will find both and lots of explanation on what's different about the Canadian model and what its prospects are the future, for Canada or anywhere else.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...d-to-grow-and/

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Interesting article CV, thanks. I found it compelling in many areas.

---

You're welcome.

Quote:

---

Not sure I agree that so many extant and incoming groups will have fewer children onward. Culturally, for some family lineage remains very important [[indeed an 'asset' despite city living). And for example, viewed as support thru the family thread.

---

I think the evidence suggests that if those immigrant groups are assimilated into their new context, and their children raised in it, they tend to adopt the processes/ways of the majority. This may occur as soon as the second generation, but rarely later than the third.

Quote:

---

This being something some have lost sight or benefit from of as families are far less cohesive. Reliant on the government? Or enough wealth to compensate?

Elder care comes to mind as no populations remain young permanently.

---

There's no question that there can be a benefit to a large or extended family, at least when relations are good, loyalty strong, and resources shared.

However, the push/pull of daily life in an urbanized environment, with two-income households being the norm, the exorbitant cost of childcare, amongst other things....

Its very difficult to afford or simply organize a life around a large family.

Granted there are many cities cheaper than Toronto, though an increasing proportion of people live in booming super-cities with inordinate costs.

But think here about the difference between a one-bedroom apartment or condo......

Say $1,400USD per month or about $500,000USD respectively.

Vs a 3-bedroom apartment or small home.

$2,300USD or $800,000USD respectively.

That's just 'family size' not 'large family size.

That cost structure is not conducive to 4 kids.

But beyond that there is the time involved if 2 parents work outside the home.

One could reasonably debate what measures might slightly prop up birth rate or might make it slightly more affordable for families etc.

As well one could debate government-based measures, vs encouragement towards certain personal choices.

That said, I think the days of large families, as a commonplace thing, are coming to an end, barring radical social reorganization.

I read your pro-Canadian immigration opinion piece and wondered in an equally opinionated anti-Canadian immigration piece would be published by the Globe and Mail.

The article covers a lot of ground. It says that 21% of Canadians are foreign born. That compares with 13.7% of U.S. residents who are foreign born; the highest percentage in over 100 years.

Canada's population density is 10.53/square mile. U.S. population density is 35.72/square mile. Part of that difference has to due with much of Canada having severe winters. However, there is still more of a frontier in Canada, relative to the U.S., allowing for population expansion. The article didn't mention this. Current U.S. population is about that of China's in about 1800. Population growth in both the U.S. and Canada is now almost exclusively due to immigration. There is an unaddressed question about growth rates and being green. Do Canada and the U.S. really want to build the highways, parking lots, rail lines, housing complexes, etc. and put pressure on agricultural production to accommodate the tens of millions of people? That's a more sanitary question than say, 'Do Canadians really want their grandchildren to marry Muslims?'

The article did mention that because of urbanization, families are smaller and that a growing population was necessary to fund pensions. I'll take that a step further. It is my opinion that the social welfare state, whether in Canada, the U.S., Asia, or Europe replaces some functions of family resulting in less dependency on or interest in larger families. Feminism is related. I'm not exactly criticizing any of this but there are factors not often mentioned. Since Social Security and some other government social welfare programs have a Ponzi scheme aspect, populations need to increase to fund them. The article basically said as much.

The article also mentioned the difference between Sweden and Canada's immigration. Sweden takes in a higher percentage of refugees. Canada is more selective. Even back in the late sixties, Canada had a 100 point system for allowing in immigrants having to do with age, education, and knowledge of French and English [[up to 20 points each). Trump wanted to do something like that with U.S. legal immigration that but Democrats hated that idea and took a position more like Sweden's policy. Kudos to Canada though for looking out for its own interests with regard to that aspect of its immigration policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

I read your pro-Canadian immigration opinion piece and wondered in an equally opinionated anti-Canadian immigration piece would be published by the Globe and Mail.

---

I don't know there is a general view that could be called anti immigration in the Canadian mainstream.

That said, there certainly are points of debate on what form the system should take............and how to deal w/illegal border crossers.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...eeds-a-secure/

****

Quote:

---

Canada's population density is 10.53/square mile. U.S. population density is 35.72/square mile. Part of that difference has to due with much of Canada having severe winters. However, there is still more of a frontier in Canada, relative to the U.S., allowing for population expansion.

---

This statistic is a tad deceptive.

Canada's population near the US border or in our south is much more dense that that, and that is where population expansion is occurring.

The vast majority of Canada is much further north and rather sparsely inhabited.

Canada is roughly 37M people, of those 10M are in the Greater Toronto area all within 50miles or so of the western shores of Lake Ontario.

Throw in a few other large centres like Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary and so on and that's most of country's population.

That's also where immigrants are settling in large numbers.

Not in our arctic regions.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...ee65a5d65baa58

Source is Quora

Quote:

---

There is an unaddressed question about growth rates and being green. Do Canada and the U.S. really want to build the highways, parking lots, rail lines, housing complexes, etc. and put pressure on agricultural production to accommodate the tens of millions of people? That's a more sanitary question than say, 'Do Canadians really want their grandchildren to marry Muslims?'

---

Given that there are many regions of the world that seriously over crowded, shifting some of that population to Canada is not necessarily a net environmental hit on a global scale. Though it may be one in Canada.

I don't think that consideration has wide spread traction at the moment, however.

Quote:

---

The article did mention that because of urbanization, families are smaller and that a growing population was necessary to fund pensions. I'll take that a step further. It is my opinion that the social welfare state, whether in Canada, the U.S., Asia, or Europe replaces some functions of family resulting in less dependency on or interest in larger families. Feminism is related. I'm not exactly criticizing any of this but there are factors not often mentioned. Since Social Security and some other government social welfare programs have a Ponzi scheme aspect, populations need to increase to fund them. The article basically said as much.

---

I'd have to go back and reread the article, but my recollection is that the pension system [[both public and private) is generally predicated on maintaining the worker to retiree ratio.

The baby boom, along w/a move to later-starting work life w/greater uptake of college does have the effect of creating a fiscal pressure point where the ratio of workers to retirees is in decline. That is a problem, if left unchecked.

Though, it should be said, a good chunk of it is resolved as the boomers die off. [[that is not said callously, but as a math discussion point).

That will start in earnest in 10 years and largely be over in 20.

But there is near-term pressure.

The other move that needs to be made is a rise in retirement age.

Given current life expectancies....something in the range of 69 would be more reasonable that the current 65 most expect.

I'm not aware of any other program in Canada where this is an issue in that way.

Although there is an indirect issue from aging boomers on healthcare in that the oldest cohort always consumes the most resource and for a time, that cohort will be the largest in the population.

Makes for a good case study in avoiding baby booms or busts...[[or smoothing them out w/immigration policy)

Quote:

---

The article also mentioned the difference between Sweden and Canada's immigration. Sweden takes in a higher percentage of refugees. Canada is more selective. Even back in the late sixties, Canada had a 100 point system for allowing in immigrants having to do with age, education, and knowledge of French and English [[up to 20 points each). Trump wanted to do something like that with U.S. legal immigration that but Democrats hated that idea and took a position more like Sweden's policy. Kudos to Canada though for looking out for its own interests with regard to that aspect of its immigration policy.

---

Important to note Canada does have a large refugee system.

The distinction w/Sweden is that we ALSO have a selective immigrant system on top of that.

We have layers.

They really only have refugees, very few 'immigrants' in the conventional sense.

It does say that Sweden takes on a high percentage of refugees,but why does it not cover the current upheaval in Sweden because of it?

They seem to always like to gloss over the cause and effect aspect.

Officials say the country 'simply cannot accept them' in reference to deportation of 80,000

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/northameri...ees/vi-BBoOG68

Do a search on Sweden refugee upheaval.

Its proably not a good comparison example,they are actually taking a Trump approach,as have many other countries.

CV, There may not be as much anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada for a variety of reasons including Canada's vast unpopulated northern frontier as shown on your map. Extractive lumber and mineral centers seem logical. Early in the article, Aramaic voices mentioned in the oil shale area are an example. Summer ports out of Hudson Bay could facilitate cheaper shipment of Canadian resources to Europe making extraction of those resources more profitable. If global warming continues, such a port might be year round. Global warming could also increase Canadian agricultural production.

I also suspect that anything that could remotely be considered "hate speech" like expressing opposition to massive Muslim immigration is less tolerated in Canada than in the U.S.. We have some discouragement of free speech in the U.S. too coming from the left and the corporatist right. Discouragement of expressed thoughts leads to different main steam opinions sort of like 90% anti-Trump press coverage in the U.S. may have contributed to House gains for Democrats. Such things are more logical than provable.

While I'm fully aware that so many Canadians live near the U.S. border, I did come up with different numbers for the population of metropolitan Toronto. I came up with 6M for metro Toronto and 4M for metro Montreal. I'm surprised there isn't a high speed train connecting Hamilton, ON with Montreal. It would make so much sense for Ontario and Quebec to fund such a project. Is there anything in the wind regarding such a rail line?

"Given that there are many regions of the world that seriously over crowded, shifting some of that population to Canada is not necessarily a net environmental hit on a global scale."

Agreed, moving the excess populations of some countries to Canada is a nice thing to do for anyone who moves but won't do much good for world population if the donor country doesn't change its ways. Once moved to Canada, fortunate immigrants will use more of the world's resources, per capita, than they did in the poverty stricken places they came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

CV, There may not be as much anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada for a variety of reasons including Canada's vast unpopulated northern frontier as shown on your map. Extractive lumber and mineral centers seem logical. Early in the article, Aramaic voices mentioned in the oil shale area are an example. Summer ports out of Hudson Bay could facilitate cheaper shipment of Canadian resources to Europe making extraction of those resources more profitable. If global warming continues, such a port might be year round. Global warming could also increase Canadian agricultural production.

---

I don't think this has any effect on contemporary opinion here. I do think it may well in the future.

***

Quote:

---

While I'm fully aware that so many Canadians live near the U.S. border, I did come up with different numbers for the population of metropolitan Toronto. I came up with 6M for metro Toronto and 4M for metro Montreal. I'm surprised there isn't a high speed train connecting Hamilton, ON with Montreal. It would make so much sense for Ontario and Quebec to fund such a project. Is there anything in the wind regarding such a rail line?

---

Population numbers are always about where you wish to draw the line. As in Detroit or throughout the US, you have the numbers for a proper city [[municipal boundary), you then might have some sort of 'metro area' encompassing immediate suburbs and then a broader area, sometimes associated as CMA in the U.S. but for practical purposes its just where people choose to draw a line.

So the City of Toronto, is 2,900,000 [[roughly)

The next level up would be the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area [[GTHA)

That's about 7,000,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate..._Hamilton_Area

But if you were to look at the commuter-shed, the geographic land mass is similar in size to Chicagoland.

Running from roughly Niagara Falls in the south-west, to Kitchener in the west, to Barrie in the north, to Port Hope in the East.

This area would be called the Greater Golden Horseshoe. or GGH.

Its roughly 9.25M

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe

That's roughly the outer points of commuter train service.

***

Highspeed has from Windsor to Quebec City has been 'under study' off and on for 30 years.

The full distance is a project approaching 40B USD.

Governments always end up deferring serious investment.

At the moment, I expect what may happen is funding for the Toronto to Montreal segment at a level called HFR [[high frequency rail)

At speeds in the 125mph range.

There is a proposal on the table, and the national carrier VIA just got the greenlight for new rolling stock.

But the track investments are still pending.

Right now, the trip times are about 4.5-5.5 hours Toronto- Montreal and there's around 7 trips on a typical day.

I expect that to grow to hourly within 5 years.

The main carrier [[VIA) doesn't actually stop in Hamilton at all right now.

So that's unlikely to be a part of a Toronto-Montreal run.

However, Commuter service [[currently rush hour only) is likely go to Hamilton all-day by fall of this year.

Quote:

---

Agreed, moving the excess populations of some countries to Canada is a nice thing to do for anyone who moves but won't do much good for world population if the donor country doesn't change its ways. Once moved to Canada, fortunate immigrants will use more of the world's resources, per capita, than they did in the poverty stricken places they came from.

---

True. I think evidence is that rates in China and India have already fallen off and its really largely Africa that needs to see lower fertility rates.

I would expect rising education, women's rights, and access to birth control to adjust this......but only time will tell.

No disagreement about population being grouped different ways. I used this rounding it off to 6M:
"Toronto, which is located on Lake Ontario, is the most populous city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario. Toronto has an estimated population of 2.81 million in 2016. The greater census metropolitan area [[CMA) has a much larger population of 5.9 million."Dec 27, 2018 Toronto Population 2019 [[Demographics, Maps, Graphs)worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/toronto-population/

A little item in the Toronto Star about Mexican immigrants getting a nice working deal in and around Barrie, Ontario. The news item is not available without the paywall hurdle.


I caught the story in La Presse, a French Montreal paper, the other Newspapers, Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun didn't carry the story. Plenty of steam on SNC Lavalin, a Quebec Company involved in a number of paypola scandals worldwide implicitly whitewashed by Trudeau. That gets a lot of press in English Canada. For those who enjoy reading French; 43 Mexicans saved from Slavery.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...oe-county.html

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/n...lesclavage.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

. For those who enjoy reading French; 43 Mexicans saved from Slavery.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...oe-county.html

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/n...lesclavage.php

---

Important story.

For those who wish to read the story but can't handle French, google translate does do a passable job and translating the linked article.

Or here's an English language article on it from CBC:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-opp-1.5014269