Title: Increased immigration urged to support economic growth amid aging population
Category: Misc CDN
Posted By: martin14
Date: 2016-10-08 14:05:56
Canadian

   

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigratio ... ation.html

   

Ready for immigration to go over 400,000 per year ?

It's coming....

   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -2030.html


Researchers map areas of the world that can sustain an additional 1 billion people as the world's population is expected to grow from 7.4billion to 8.5billion by 2030

Notice as you go through the video, they mention:

Well, we could do middle Africa, but it wont work because the governments are bad.

Well, we could do South America, but it wont really work because we have to
protect the rain forest.

Well, we could build bigger cities in Asia and West Africa, but that won't
really work long term.


And then, before they say anything about how it won't work in Canada, the video ends.

   

If they really did stuff a bunch of people into the sparsely settled parts of Canada, that might actually be a good thing. But, as long as immigrants continue to mostly settle in the Vancouver and Toronto regions, way overstressing their infrastructure and driving housing prices thru the roof, it's not such a good idea. There are regions of Canada that would love to have more people come to live, but nobody's going there.

The other question is how are we going to deal with the ecological problems of having more and more people sucking up resources and spewing the results into the air, land, and water.

   

Justin is ready for 400,000 new Liberal voters per year.

   

Well, that's the good thing about this, keep those stinkin Conservatives out.

   

Who and what does increased immigration benefit?

The title says it all... the "what" is economic growth... and the "who" is big business. So increased immigration is just the cost of doing business.

   

What the fuck is in eastern Saskatchewan that makes it unsuitable?


Personally, I'm cool with upping immigration. I don't think we'd be feeling too crowded with 100 million people. Might be hard to believe if you are already living in a city, but there is a stupid amount of open land in this country, even without including the Tundra. But we need to find a way to make it mandatory that they settle in sparsely populated areas of the country, particularly north of 55* latitude in the 4 western provinces. We also need to find a way to encourage them to stay once they settled there. This means the virgin areas must be developed economically.

Emphasis should also be put on cities already in existence, but whom are well under the 2.5 million population mark. Not just places like Winnipeg, Regina, and Saskatoon, but smaller centres can be significantly developed to a much greater degree than they are now. Thinking places like Brandon, Thompson, Portage la Prairie, Selkirk, Churchill(not kidding, we should develop the port), Estevan, Weyburn, Yorkton, Prince Albert, Moose Jaw, The Battlefords, Swift Current, Lloydminster, Fort Mac, Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Grande Prairie, Camrose, Brooks, and Hinton. That's just the prairies. Plenty of places elsewhere in Canada in the 10 000 to 100 000 catagory that could be bumped up into the 100 000 to 250 000 or 250 000 to 500 000 range.

   

Constitutionally enshrined freedom of association and freedom of movement guarantees that you can't force any immigrant to stay in a designated area after they become citizens. You really can't even do it with refugees, a temporary foreign worker that can find a different employment sponsor, or anyone with landed status if they prove themselves to be self-reliant and are willing to relocate for employment. As such this kind of conversation is a non-starter.

   

I understand that. I think that's why the governments need to take a good hard look at targeting specific areas for economic stimulus and population growth. Selective tax cuts, infrastructure spending, etc. build it and they will come, especially if it is cheaper.

   

The TFW has to apply to CIC to change the details of their work permit, it's not a constitutional right or entitlement.

   

If an alternate employer is available and willing to sponsor it's just a paperwork formality though. They've already been vetted (presumably) prior to arrival for the first job so it's not like they'll have to go through it again.