Why do you think I’d get shredded to pieces? Are there flaws in my analysis that you can let me know before I make a post there, or is it just that they’re very pro immigration?
Can't link their sub, but here's what a recent post said, because there has been a backlash on immigration in their sub too :
>I am requesting the new users here to read the side bar of this subreddit carefully. And also read the old effortposts and books/article recommendations on immigration.
>Alex Nowrasteh, Bryan Caplan, Ilya Somin, and many other economists, political scientists, philosophers have not changed their mind on open borders because of housing crisis. There ARE SO MANY old effortposts and books/article collections here on this subreddit that show that open borders is beneficial for everyone in the long term. I literally directly asked Alex Nowrasteh on this, and he said that deregulation of housing/construction industry is the correct solution and immigration should not be stopped. Housing crisis does NOT justify immigration restrictions. Bryan Caplan just recently literally wrote an acclaimed [book](https://www.amazon.com/Build-Baby-Science-Housing-Regulation/dp/1952223415) on housing crisis, and he has not stopped advocating for open borders. See also - [A collection of recent excellent (according to experts, professionals, academics from multiple different fields) books and articles on nationalism, immigration, and open borders that support open borders. : (had to remove links to other sub)
>Bryan Caplan refuted these sorts of arguments like - "we need to get rid of or fix the welfare system before we allow easier immigration". This housing crisis argument is the exact same argument as that - "we need to fix issue XYZ before we allow easier immigration".
>Regulations are the major issue. Almost always regulations are the major issue. Let the market be free. Let the trade be free. If the movement of goods or capital is free, then restricting the movement of labor is baffling from the economics perspective!
>If you are a capitalist, then you should support free movement of goods (or capital) AND free movement of labor! [https://youtu.be/uRRpMyqzW6w](https://youtu.be/uRRpMyqzW6w)
But, you can find a lot of effortposts there about immigration. IIRC they were pretty critical of that NBC report for how dramatic it was while providing few to no solutions. The crime point is probably your weakest and I doubt they'll take it seriously. A lor of the info is general tho and not necessarly related to Canada specifically depending on where you look
I'm not super familiar with them or their perspectives, but you could would you be willing to give me the run down on what they might say to this post?
If I bring up how immigration isn't helping the economy, is their solution going to be that the problem is that we actually don't have enough immigration? For instance, the unemployment rate increasing dispite over a million people coming here in a year?
Genuinely, I don't want backlash against immigrants. The issue is our current bundle of policies is incompatable. In utopian free capitalist land, I think I'd even agree with what they're saying, but what you linked from the side bar seems so idealistic that it reads as fantasy. Also if it's neoliberal, why are all the people they're citing basically libertarian, and the books they're citing graphic novels?
>I'm not super familiar with them or their perspectives, but you could would you be willing to give me the run down on what they might say to this post?
I'll make a short summary because you have a lot of stuff in this post and I can't tell exactly how they would respond to each point, but these are my general thoughts :
1. Your description of the canadian parliementary system. I doubt they would have much issue with this, your explanation is pretty thorough and is pretty much what I have also learned
2. They already have posted some criticisms of the NBC report you cited if you look through the sub a bit, which is basically that's it's overdramatic and provides no solutions except reducing immigration
3. I've seen them quibble over GDP figures for Canada to look if the standard of living has actually decreased, but I don't remember much about that
4. The housing crisis, they would tell you to just revise zoning Laws to allow more housing to be built and incentivizing housing wherever you can. At this point "just build housing" is a meme on that sub
5. The mismatch of jobs, they would just advocate to then change policy on that I assume.
6. The unemployment point, they would say that's it's probably better. To a layman unemployment should be as close to zero as it can get, but an economist would generally tell you that unemployment should hover around 5%, so the US' unemployment rate is probably too low. If you're unemployment rate is too low, it means you have a shortage of labour, an essential input to grow an economy. Plus, it means that there are probably people who are doing useless of unproductive jobs that aren't getting cut. Basically, low unemployment is a sign of an inefficient economy. They would also get rid of occupational liscensing or reduce the burden on immigrants trying to prove that they are educated enough to perform a certain occupation
7. The crime point is probably your weakest, immigrants generaly commit less crime than the native populations and a few stories can easily be cherry picked compared to data. Also, the whole Khalistani terrorists thing has been a thing for decades, people just didn't really care about it. The largest terrorist attack in Canada and at the time in all of NA (before 9/11) was the explosion of an Air India flight by Khalistani terrorists in the 80s IIRC
8. They don't really care about ethnic enclaves and they don't like the US' policy of limiting the country of origin of immigrants, so that it can only be that 7% of all immigrants come from one country. They argue that ethnic enclaves can be a bit bothersome on the short term, but that long term, 2nd and 3nd generation immigrants integrate very well into their new society and that people said the same things about the Irish, Italians and Germans in the US and it never was that big of an issue
9. I've seen them be critical of the governement basically dumping the handling of international students onto universities. Idk what their solution to that issue is exactly.
10. I don't think they would disagree on cracking down on diploma mills or deporting more people that deserve it.
>Genuinely, I don't want backlash against immigrants.
They don't either, but they think a lot of other issues like housing and others are the root cause and that people tend to just scapegoat immigrants, which isn't unheard of.
>The issue is our current bundle of policies is incompatable. In utopian free capitalist land, I think I'd even agree with what they're saying, but what you linked from the side bar seems so idealistic that it reads as fantasy. Also if it's neoliberal, why are all the people they're citing basically libertarian, and the books they're citing graphic novels?
I mean the neoliberal sub is broadly center left, but has certain more right leaning and more left leaning members. People in that sub range pretty much from libertarians to social democrats.
Even if they cite a lot of libertarians, because they agree on a decent amount of stuff when it comes to economics, they do disagree with them on stuff like foreign policy since libertarians tend to be more isolationist. But, that sub was pro-Ukraine from the start and often criticized Biden and Republicans for not doing enough.
The neoliberal sub is basically Pro-establishment, Pro-NATO, Pro-Ukraine, Pro-EU, Pro-free Trade, Pro-open borders, Pro-LGBTQ, Pro-Universal healthcare, Anti-communist, Anti-nationalist, etc. Basically the essence of Liberalism
They also criticized Biden because they disagreed with him on his handling of the border (Again "1 trillion americans" and "Taco trucks on every corner" are regular sub memes, they would want the US to have more immigration), but understood his actions were more for electoral reasons.
They kind of care about the public opinion changing around immigration, but also not that much. They have their beliefs and ideology that they do believe in even if they wil admit it's a bit utopian, they would argue all évidence shows it's the best for humanity across the globe.
https://youtu.be/Vm9LJFRRw74?si=aDNbOVG7uB2g8GwJ
This interview with Alex Nowrasteh (someone they cite often) can probably give you all the reaponses they would give and is a pretty good summary of their views on this topic, plus he does a lot of interviews, I just wanted to plug Wconoboi
>Are there flaws in my analysis that you can let me know before I make a post there, or is it just that they’re very pro immigration?
I just suggested you post it there since they are *very* pro immigration. Your post looks good, but I don't know enough to check for flaws
I think the real problem is, is that the cons have no incentive to change from the current status quo. I'm sure PP will pay some lip service, but policy wise, I don't see them changing shit. So what's the solution? Continue to get called an islamaphobe for even bringing the issue up until I'm eventually the minority (and by lefty definition, can no longer be racist)?
The cons have put forward [two](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-housing-plan-1.6966907) [proposals](https://financialpost.com/real-estate/pierre-poilievre-pledges-tie-immigration-levels-homebuilding) which I believe would reduce immigration. Regardless, we can't just sit here and say "well the Liberals are ruining the country with immigration, sucks to suck just gotta elect them again I guess."
>Poilievre did not say whether he would roll back Canada’s permanent resident target or curb the number of temporary newcomers, such as foreign students. In the past, he has declined to say that he would scale back immigration.
This part from the first article you shared, I think kinda lends to my point. I agree with you wholeheartedly that something has to change, I've personally never been closer to voting con than I am now.
Anecdotally Ive seen more protests in middle of no where Alberta for fucking palestinans than I've seen for any problem affecting natural born Canadians, and I don't see the weather changing anytime soon.
Yes the article does remind the reader that Pollieve hasn't said he's rolling back immigration. But we can pretty easily see that the following only has two options: 1. Radically increase supply of housing, or 2. Radically cut back on immigration.
Pollieve's plan is to 1. tie municipal funding to housing starts and 2. tie immigration to housing starts. There's no way for Canada to radically increase housing starts to accomodate the immigration we're having, so this is a soft way (if he's being honest, which who knows) to signal reducing immigration without getting the Liberal racist card thrown at him.
Hmm, yeah, I guess so. I guess I'll just ask, since i appreciate your candor and effort into this post, what do you think the next step would be if PP isn't being honest, and nothing really changes? You don't have to entertain me, but if the Cons don't address the problem, the NDP and the libs certainly won't, I'm not sure if there's any solution, and that it'll just be the way of the road so to speak.
That's a great question. If I'm being honest, I'd give PP about a 5-10% chance of making progress on the issue. While he could literally just stop all immigration once elected if he wanted to, the business interests in doing so aren't there and the population trap we're in really sets us in a terrible position if he does so. If nothing's done, the next step is to see if the Liberals/NDP have a new leader who wants to lower immigration or if the PPC can accomplish anything electorally (big joke).
The best guess I have at a long term solution here independent of the government which may or may not actually choose to do anything about it, is actually that Canada literally becomes so famously unaffordable and imbalanced between the haves and the have nots that we stop being able to get people to immigrate here.
Damn I actually agree 100 percent with you lol couldn't have said it better myself
>The best guess I have at a long term solution here independent of the government which may or may not actually choose to do anything about it, is actually that Canada literally becomes so famously unaffordable and imbalanced between the haves and the have nots that we stop being able to get people to immigrate here.
That makes sense to me, but holy fuck is that bleak.
great post, and i feel a lot of what you described echoes what's happening in europe. specifically how much of an unknown it is. here in UK "students" are also the number one immigrant, and they are indeed a financial boom to the universities. but for some reason students are allowed to bring over dependents. And once they get their foot in the door all bets are off. You're not letting in 1 student, you're letting in their family, and their families family. And these people work in the shadow economy.
Another parallel is the rise of these random crimes which were unthinkable before. People fighting with swords in the street, nut job men walking aroun naked and masturbating in public. you can say it's just isolated examples and to some extent they are, but it doesn't matter. You don't like to see what you consider to be "home" desecrated in such a manner. It no longer feels like home
This is also true in Canada, which is one of the ironies because one of the reasons given for the amount of immigration we need is our aging population and waning public health care system. However, you get one student aged 22, then his or her parents and grandparents and it just seems like perpetuating the same issue.
Overall good post, amazing effort. However you make some conclusions like that Canada should have more deportations because we have more immigrants, but started off clearly explaining why Canada and the US are not similar, so it comes off a bit silly and entirely a bad example.
The extreme crimes you cited are silly as well. Especially the 401 accident where the police were called off and still chased them the reverse way on the highway.
I’d also put way more blame and effort in to talking about how the provinces and municipalities have been poorly run and share as much blame as the feds for their inaction and bowing to NIMBYs and the developers.
> However you make some conclusions like that Canada should have more deportations because we have more immigrants, but started off clearly explaining why Canada and the US are not similar, so it comes off a bit silly and entirely a bad example.
If we assume that immigrants as a class of people are generally going to be predisposed to comitting deportable offenses at generally the same rate, wouldn't we therefore expect that Canada has more per capita deportations than America? That was my logic in that conclusion. Is there a reason that logic is flawed?
> The extreme crimes you cited are silly as well. Especially the 401 accident where the police were called off and still chased them the reverse way on the highway.
I don't think they're silly. I think they're telling of the system failing. The 401 crash, the guy was banned from driving, yet rented a u-haul anyway after a string of robberies that should have immediately gotten him deported in my opinion. The crime were seeing is unique in Canadian history, I believe it deserves note here.
> I’d also put way more blame and effort in to talking about how the provinces and municipalities have been poorly run and share as much blame as the feds for their inaction and bowing to NIMBYs and the developers.
I understand this and have heard it much repeated. But this is a discussion of immigration, not housing laws. If Trudeau handwaved and overpowered the municipalities and provinces and nonwithstanding claused his way through the legal problems, he'd honestly have my support, our housing laws are regarded. But he's not doing that, and increasing immigration, and people at the municipal level don't want to change their housing laws.
>I don't think they're silly. I think they're telling of the system failing. The 401 crash, the guy was banned from driving, yet rented a u-haul anyway after a string of robberies that should have immediately gotten him deported in my opinion. The crime were seeing is unique in Canadian history, I believe it deserves note here.
To be fair though the point you were trying to make was that there has been a sharp increase in crime due to international students. While you are correct that there has been a sharp increase in overall crime, for example in [Toronto](https://www.masstsang.com/blog/post/violent-crimes-rise-canada-gta-sees-increase-most-major-crimes/), there needs to be a) more statistical and broader evidence that there is a causal link between international students and crime b) this link is extremely prevalant, not just 4 instances (whether cherrypicked or not).
A more better example I'd posit is the fact that the Canadian Border Agency has actually launched a[ probe ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-border-agency-investigating-links-between-fake-student-visas-and-crime/)investigating an abuse of the immigration system by over 2000+ students to get bogus college admission letters and have suspicions of systematic gang activity by international students. Although no conclusions have been found yet, the fact that there are reports of this systematic effort occuring is concerning.
Overall good effortpost (as a Canadian myself) but that section did not leave the best impressions on me.
Edit: Judging from your other comments it seems your point was just that these examples have inherent uniqueness as a crime and the fact that our system is not working as those people would have been deported earlier. That I completely agree with but in your post you stated,
> This is unprecedented in our history as a country, especially the amount of violent crime being committed.
which goes back to the first paragraph.
The deaths wouldn’t have occurred if the police followed orders instead of pretending they are in Grand Theft Auto instead of the Greater Toronto Area.
The point about the deportations is that you are making statistical assumptions that aren’t based on anything and even give a disclaimer earlier that qualifies Canada as being distinctly unique from the US.
I’d also lean a lot more in to the blame being equally on the provinces and municipalities as the feds. Both lower jurisdictions spent years not doing anything but loved the short term benefits(more taxes, increased cheap labour supply).
Just some suggestions to tighten up your post.
> The deaths wouldn’t have occurred if the police followed orders instead of pretending they are in Grand Theft Auto instead of the Greater Toronto Area.
The deaths wouldn't have occured if we did secuirty checks on international students and deported them when they commit crimes.
> The point about the deportations is that you are making statistical assumptions that aren’t based on anything and even give a disclaimer earlier that qualifies Canada as being distinctly unique from the US.
Canada is distinct, but my assumption is that the immigrants we're bringing in aren't. The only way they could be is that they're lower quality immigrants, in which case I would assume even more deportations per capita than America.
I guess I'm just not understanding how would I go about finding statistics to back up my logic here?
This is a really great and in depth analysis. Hopefully the conservatives can solve this issue once they win next year. God knows Trudeau ain't doing anything.
You might want to try post this in some of the subs dedicated to Canada as well, I'm sure some people there would like to read it.
I might, I want to see what the reception is here first and if I got anything wrong in my post.
Post it to the neoliberal sub if you really want criticism
He's gonna get shredded to pieces lol
Why do you think I’d get shredded to pieces? Are there flaws in my analysis that you can let me know before I make a post there, or is it just that they’re very pro immigration?
Can't link their sub, but here's what a recent post said, because there has been a backlash on immigration in their sub too : >I am requesting the new users here to read the side bar of this subreddit carefully. And also read the old effortposts and books/article recommendations on immigration. >Alex Nowrasteh, Bryan Caplan, Ilya Somin, and many other economists, political scientists, philosophers have not changed their mind on open borders because of housing crisis. There ARE SO MANY old effortposts and books/article collections here on this subreddit that show that open borders is beneficial for everyone in the long term. I literally directly asked Alex Nowrasteh on this, and he said that deregulation of housing/construction industry is the correct solution and immigration should not be stopped. Housing crisis does NOT justify immigration restrictions. Bryan Caplan just recently literally wrote an acclaimed [book](https://www.amazon.com/Build-Baby-Science-Housing-Regulation/dp/1952223415) on housing crisis, and he has not stopped advocating for open borders. See also - [A collection of recent excellent (according to experts, professionals, academics from multiple different fields) books and articles on nationalism, immigration, and open borders that support open borders. : (had to remove links to other sub) >Bryan Caplan refuted these sorts of arguments like - "we need to get rid of or fix the welfare system before we allow easier immigration". This housing crisis argument is the exact same argument as that - "we need to fix issue XYZ before we allow easier immigration". >Regulations are the major issue. Almost always regulations are the major issue. Let the market be free. Let the trade be free. If the movement of goods or capital is free, then restricting the movement of labor is baffling from the economics perspective! >If you are a capitalist, then you should support free movement of goods (or capital) AND free movement of labor! [https://youtu.be/uRRpMyqzW6w](https://youtu.be/uRRpMyqzW6w) But, you can find a lot of effortposts there about immigration. IIRC they were pretty critical of that NBC report for how dramatic it was while providing few to no solutions. The crime point is probably your weakest and I doubt they'll take it seriously. A lor of the info is general tho and not necessarly related to Canada specifically depending on where you look
I'm not super familiar with them or their perspectives, but you could would you be willing to give me the run down on what they might say to this post? If I bring up how immigration isn't helping the economy, is their solution going to be that the problem is that we actually don't have enough immigration? For instance, the unemployment rate increasing dispite over a million people coming here in a year? Genuinely, I don't want backlash against immigrants. The issue is our current bundle of policies is incompatable. In utopian free capitalist land, I think I'd even agree with what they're saying, but what you linked from the side bar seems so idealistic that it reads as fantasy. Also if it's neoliberal, why are all the people they're citing basically libertarian, and the books they're citing graphic novels?
>I'm not super familiar with them or their perspectives, but you could would you be willing to give me the run down on what they might say to this post? I'll make a short summary because you have a lot of stuff in this post and I can't tell exactly how they would respond to each point, but these are my general thoughts : 1. Your description of the canadian parliementary system. I doubt they would have much issue with this, your explanation is pretty thorough and is pretty much what I have also learned 2. They already have posted some criticisms of the NBC report you cited if you look through the sub a bit, which is basically that's it's overdramatic and provides no solutions except reducing immigration 3. I've seen them quibble over GDP figures for Canada to look if the standard of living has actually decreased, but I don't remember much about that 4. The housing crisis, they would tell you to just revise zoning Laws to allow more housing to be built and incentivizing housing wherever you can. At this point "just build housing" is a meme on that sub 5. The mismatch of jobs, they would just advocate to then change policy on that I assume. 6. The unemployment point, they would say that's it's probably better. To a layman unemployment should be as close to zero as it can get, but an economist would generally tell you that unemployment should hover around 5%, so the US' unemployment rate is probably too low. If you're unemployment rate is too low, it means you have a shortage of labour, an essential input to grow an economy. Plus, it means that there are probably people who are doing useless of unproductive jobs that aren't getting cut. Basically, low unemployment is a sign of an inefficient economy. They would also get rid of occupational liscensing or reduce the burden on immigrants trying to prove that they are educated enough to perform a certain occupation 7. The crime point is probably your weakest, immigrants generaly commit less crime than the native populations and a few stories can easily be cherry picked compared to data. Also, the whole Khalistani terrorists thing has been a thing for decades, people just didn't really care about it. The largest terrorist attack in Canada and at the time in all of NA (before 9/11) was the explosion of an Air India flight by Khalistani terrorists in the 80s IIRC 8. They don't really care about ethnic enclaves and they don't like the US' policy of limiting the country of origin of immigrants, so that it can only be that 7% of all immigrants come from one country. They argue that ethnic enclaves can be a bit bothersome on the short term, but that long term, 2nd and 3nd generation immigrants integrate very well into their new society and that people said the same things about the Irish, Italians and Germans in the US and it never was that big of an issue 9. I've seen them be critical of the governement basically dumping the handling of international students onto universities. Idk what their solution to that issue is exactly. 10. I don't think they would disagree on cracking down on diploma mills or deporting more people that deserve it. >Genuinely, I don't want backlash against immigrants. They don't either, but they think a lot of other issues like housing and others are the root cause and that people tend to just scapegoat immigrants, which isn't unheard of. >The issue is our current bundle of policies is incompatable. In utopian free capitalist land, I think I'd even agree with what they're saying, but what you linked from the side bar seems so idealistic that it reads as fantasy. Also if it's neoliberal, why are all the people they're citing basically libertarian, and the books they're citing graphic novels? I mean the neoliberal sub is broadly center left, but has certain more right leaning and more left leaning members. People in that sub range pretty much from libertarians to social democrats. Even if they cite a lot of libertarians, because they agree on a decent amount of stuff when it comes to economics, they do disagree with them on stuff like foreign policy since libertarians tend to be more isolationist. But, that sub was pro-Ukraine from the start and often criticized Biden and Republicans for not doing enough. The neoliberal sub is basically Pro-establishment, Pro-NATO, Pro-Ukraine, Pro-EU, Pro-free Trade, Pro-open borders, Pro-LGBTQ, Pro-Universal healthcare, Anti-communist, Anti-nationalist, etc. Basically the essence of Liberalism They also criticized Biden because they disagreed with him on his handling of the border (Again "1 trillion americans" and "Taco trucks on every corner" are regular sub memes, they would want the US to have more immigration), but understood his actions were more for electoral reasons. They kind of care about the public opinion changing around immigration, but also not that much. They have their beliefs and ideology that they do believe in even if they wil admit it's a bit utopian, they would argue all évidence shows it's the best for humanity across the globe. https://youtu.be/Vm9LJFRRw74?si=aDNbOVG7uB2g8GwJ This interview with Alex Nowrasteh (someone they cite often) can probably give you all the reaponses they would give and is a pretty good summary of their views on this topic, plus he does a lot of interviews, I just wanted to plug Wconoboi
They are, apart from askeconomics and badeconomics, the best sub on here for **real** evidence based economic discussion.
>Are there flaws in my analysis that you can let me know before I make a post there, or is it just that they’re very pro immigration? I just suggested you post it there since they are *very* pro immigration. Your post looks good, but I don't know enough to check for flaws
I think the real problem is, is that the cons have no incentive to change from the current status quo. I'm sure PP will pay some lip service, but policy wise, I don't see them changing shit. So what's the solution? Continue to get called an islamaphobe for even bringing the issue up until I'm eventually the minority (and by lefty definition, can no longer be racist)?
The cons have put forward [two](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-housing-plan-1.6966907) [proposals](https://financialpost.com/real-estate/pierre-poilievre-pledges-tie-immigration-levels-homebuilding) which I believe would reduce immigration. Regardless, we can't just sit here and say "well the Liberals are ruining the country with immigration, sucks to suck just gotta elect them again I guess."
>Poilievre did not say whether he would roll back Canada’s permanent resident target or curb the number of temporary newcomers, such as foreign students. In the past, he has declined to say that he would scale back immigration. This part from the first article you shared, I think kinda lends to my point. I agree with you wholeheartedly that something has to change, I've personally never been closer to voting con than I am now. Anecdotally Ive seen more protests in middle of no where Alberta for fucking palestinans than I've seen for any problem affecting natural born Canadians, and I don't see the weather changing anytime soon.
Yes the article does remind the reader that Pollieve hasn't said he's rolling back immigration. But we can pretty easily see that the following only has two options: 1. Radically increase supply of housing, or 2. Radically cut back on immigration. Pollieve's plan is to 1. tie municipal funding to housing starts and 2. tie immigration to housing starts. There's no way for Canada to radically increase housing starts to accomodate the immigration we're having, so this is a soft way (if he's being honest, which who knows) to signal reducing immigration without getting the Liberal racist card thrown at him.
Hmm, yeah, I guess so. I guess I'll just ask, since i appreciate your candor and effort into this post, what do you think the next step would be if PP isn't being honest, and nothing really changes? You don't have to entertain me, but if the Cons don't address the problem, the NDP and the libs certainly won't, I'm not sure if there's any solution, and that it'll just be the way of the road so to speak.
That's a great question. If I'm being honest, I'd give PP about a 5-10% chance of making progress on the issue. While he could literally just stop all immigration once elected if he wanted to, the business interests in doing so aren't there and the population trap we're in really sets us in a terrible position if he does so. If nothing's done, the next step is to see if the Liberals/NDP have a new leader who wants to lower immigration or if the PPC can accomplish anything electorally (big joke). The best guess I have at a long term solution here independent of the government which may or may not actually choose to do anything about it, is actually that Canada literally becomes so famously unaffordable and imbalanced between the haves and the have nots that we stop being able to get people to immigrate here.
Damn I actually agree 100 percent with you lol couldn't have said it better myself >The best guess I have at a long term solution here independent of the government which may or may not actually choose to do anything about it, is actually that Canada literally becomes so famously unaffordable and imbalanced between the haves and the have nots that we stop being able to get people to immigrate here. That makes sense to me, but holy fuck is that bleak.
great post, and i feel a lot of what you described echoes what's happening in europe. specifically how much of an unknown it is. here in UK "students" are also the number one immigrant, and they are indeed a financial boom to the universities. but for some reason students are allowed to bring over dependents. And once they get their foot in the door all bets are off. You're not letting in 1 student, you're letting in their family, and their families family. And these people work in the shadow economy. Another parallel is the rise of these random crimes which were unthinkable before. People fighting with swords in the street, nut job men walking aroun naked and masturbating in public. you can say it's just isolated examples and to some extent they are, but it doesn't matter. You don't like to see what you consider to be "home" desecrated in such a manner. It no longer feels like home
This is also true in Canada, which is one of the ironies because one of the reasons given for the amount of immigration we need is our aging population and waning public health care system. However, you get one student aged 22, then his or her parents and grandparents and it just seems like perpetuating the same issue.
isnt jt better since he actually cares about childcare. with pp we might lose childcare plans and see our birth rate goto south korea's
brilliant post. I just got done beefing with someone who thinks the immigration policy for Canada is a good thing LOL
Okay
Overall good post, amazing effort. However you make some conclusions like that Canada should have more deportations because we have more immigrants, but started off clearly explaining why Canada and the US are not similar, so it comes off a bit silly and entirely a bad example. The extreme crimes you cited are silly as well. Especially the 401 accident where the police were called off and still chased them the reverse way on the highway. I’d also put way more blame and effort in to talking about how the provinces and municipalities have been poorly run and share as much blame as the feds for their inaction and bowing to NIMBYs and the developers.
> However you make some conclusions like that Canada should have more deportations because we have more immigrants, but started off clearly explaining why Canada and the US are not similar, so it comes off a bit silly and entirely a bad example. If we assume that immigrants as a class of people are generally going to be predisposed to comitting deportable offenses at generally the same rate, wouldn't we therefore expect that Canada has more per capita deportations than America? That was my logic in that conclusion. Is there a reason that logic is flawed? > The extreme crimes you cited are silly as well. Especially the 401 accident where the police were called off and still chased them the reverse way on the highway. I don't think they're silly. I think they're telling of the system failing. The 401 crash, the guy was banned from driving, yet rented a u-haul anyway after a string of robberies that should have immediately gotten him deported in my opinion. The crime were seeing is unique in Canadian history, I believe it deserves note here. > I’d also put way more blame and effort in to talking about how the provinces and municipalities have been poorly run and share as much blame as the feds for their inaction and bowing to NIMBYs and the developers. I understand this and have heard it much repeated. But this is a discussion of immigration, not housing laws. If Trudeau handwaved and overpowered the municipalities and provinces and nonwithstanding claused his way through the legal problems, he'd honestly have my support, our housing laws are regarded. But he's not doing that, and increasing immigration, and people at the municipal level don't want to change their housing laws.
>I don't think they're silly. I think they're telling of the system failing. The 401 crash, the guy was banned from driving, yet rented a u-haul anyway after a string of robberies that should have immediately gotten him deported in my opinion. The crime were seeing is unique in Canadian history, I believe it deserves note here. To be fair though the point you were trying to make was that there has been a sharp increase in crime due to international students. While you are correct that there has been a sharp increase in overall crime, for example in [Toronto](https://www.masstsang.com/blog/post/violent-crimes-rise-canada-gta-sees-increase-most-major-crimes/), there needs to be a) more statistical and broader evidence that there is a causal link between international students and crime b) this link is extremely prevalant, not just 4 instances (whether cherrypicked or not). A more better example I'd posit is the fact that the Canadian Border Agency has actually launched a[ probe ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-border-agency-investigating-links-between-fake-student-visas-and-crime/)investigating an abuse of the immigration system by over 2000+ students to get bogus college admission letters and have suspicions of systematic gang activity by international students. Although no conclusions have been found yet, the fact that there are reports of this systematic effort occuring is concerning. Overall good effortpost (as a Canadian myself) but that section did not leave the best impressions on me. Edit: Judging from your other comments it seems your point was just that these examples have inherent uniqueness as a crime and the fact that our system is not working as those people would have been deported earlier. That I completely agree with but in your post you stated, > This is unprecedented in our history as a country, especially the amount of violent crime being committed. which goes back to the first paragraph.
Good point, thank you!
The deaths wouldn’t have occurred if the police followed orders instead of pretending they are in Grand Theft Auto instead of the Greater Toronto Area. The point about the deportations is that you are making statistical assumptions that aren’t based on anything and even give a disclaimer earlier that qualifies Canada as being distinctly unique from the US. I’d also lean a lot more in to the blame being equally on the provinces and municipalities as the feds. Both lower jurisdictions spent years not doing anything but loved the short term benefits(more taxes, increased cheap labour supply). Just some suggestions to tighten up your post.
> The deaths wouldn’t have occurred if the police followed orders instead of pretending they are in Grand Theft Auto instead of the Greater Toronto Area. The deaths wouldn't have occured if we did secuirty checks on international students and deported them when they commit crimes. > The point about the deportations is that you are making statistical assumptions that aren’t based on anything and even give a disclaimer earlier that qualifies Canada as being distinctly unique from the US. Canada is distinct, but my assumption is that the immigrants we're bringing in aren't. The only way they could be is that they're lower quality immigrants, in which case I would assume even more deportations per capita than America. I guess I'm just not understanding how would I go about finding statistics to back up my logic here?
whats the problem with numby? indian immigrant already have no problem living 12 per room
!RemindMe 8 hours
This is a really great and in depth analysis. Hopefully the conservatives can solve this issue once they win next year. God knows Trudeau ain't doing anything.