ElvisRamaj said:
That 100 million target has been suggested by ex-prime minister Brian Mulroney.
Reaching that goal by 2100, you would basically have more than 50% immigrants in the country. In what world do they think that is a good idea first and secondly, who would allow such a thing to happen.
GandiBaat said:
May I know what is fundamentally wrong with it? If a country is incapable of producing enough children to support its society then it has two options:
1. Die off
2. Allow others in
Also given the size of Canada, it only makes sense to attract more people otherwise it will remain a small and prosper country population and economy wise. Such countries eventually loose their sovereignty. If you are juicy, grow some spikes or you will get eaten.
Sure, I will just be very brief.
National identity for starters. At 50% immigrants you basically have no identity and that matters a lot in almost every aspect of life inside the country and outside of it. No amount of laws and order can help you in this case. you just lost the battle here. Quebec will be seperated from the rest of Canada as soon as you reach 30-35% total immigrants. Last time they went for a referendum, only 50,000 votes were in favor to stay united.
I am not going to details how immigrants bring their mentality and way of life with them, the further from 30 they are the more unchangeable they become. It will take a very long time for them to get used to the new way of life they find themselves in. No amount of sisters or brothers can help you in this regard, its something that you have to figure out for yourself. Even if you came from USA to Canada it will take a bit to get used, let alone if you come from a different continent.
ElvisRamaj said:
Even if both Liberals and Conservatives would agree on it, a third party will show up in the political scene and take charge. It will be inevitable.
GandiBaat said:
TILL DATE with 400K immigration, Canadians do not seem to mind. Infact support for higher level of immigration only seems to go up and up. There is a small vocal minority against more immigration but they are not large enough. EVEN alberta has 60% people supporting more immigration.
My question is besides your gut feeling, where is the concrete data to support hat such a party will find ANY takers. We already have one such party. Its called Progressives Party of Canada. It has no such takers.
What you mean by data, you want me to reference you to countries already experiencing this anti-immigration feeling. Sure.
France, Sweeden and the latest Italy. Waiting for Germany to get in the train and you will see Europe changing 180 degrees. UK already toughing their borders month by month.
Immigration should be used to solve a problem, in our case job shortage, not create other nations within a nation because you have land to support it. The current immigration system is absolutely worthless. They have 1 million vacancies as of now, they have awarded 200k places for FHS+PNP for 2023. Out of those, almost half are family members accompagnying the primary applicant, and on top of that the primary applicant is most of the times someone with a different background/profession which is in desperate need Canada.
So, the job problem is not solved and you brought a lot of people who will certainly change professions/careers because there is no other way to support themselves of family.
ElvisRamaj said:
If Canada is really concerned about the birth rates, why not offer incentives for every child being born.
GandiBaat said:
It seems weird but there are enough incentives already. The issue is this: Most of educated people delay the child till their 30s. And then it gets harder. High cost of living further pushes children back. Put it simple, a lot of people in Canada can not be bothered with children. Its not money, its effort too. My wife who used to be totally mushy mushy about kid before pregnancy now is absolutely against another one
Sad but true, we are become more self centered in that way.
I am glad you arrived in this conclusion, which is the more developped/educated a nation is/becomes the less babies it will have. Its not that we become more self-centered, its because we will think more about it and every stage aswell and come to the conclusion that sometimes we can't handle it financially/sometimes emotionally.
ElvisRamaj said:
My third world country offers $1,200 as a bonus for the first child and it increases for every child you will have.
GandiBaat said:
BC recently offered $10 daycare. For something that used to cost a LOT. Take a look at denmark. They offer almost free childcare. their female fertility rate is 1.67. Below replacement.
Its a problem you can not fix by throwing money on it.
You want to fix it? You will have to dilute women's right. That, if it happens, will turn me in to a real hardcore extremist against oppression of women. And I am not alone.
The above argument still stands here as well.
If you can't fix it with money, then you are not spending enough or where it is needed.
ElvisRamaj said:
I bet if they offer like $10k-$20k per child they would bring a lot of LOVE into the air instantly.
GandiBaat said:
Oh they do. They offer a lot of incentives. LONG fully paid maternity/paternity leaves, free care during maternity phase... you name it. Recently they are even offering very economical daycare too at provincial level People are JUST not that much into it. Again, refer to my example of Denmark.
If a couple makes $200k+ NET a year combined, I would think $20k doesn't make a difference.
A family between $80k - $130k NET a year it matters, and those below those levels its almost a necessity.
ElvisRamaj said:
Those who are on the verge of thinking to be parents or have a second baby will jump ship in a heart beat.
GandiBaat said:
HAHA!
Tell it to my wife. Its a NYAT. She hates her first and second and third trimester. There are women who get addicted to having babies but they are in minority. Put it simply, pregnancy is PAINFUL!
Again, refer to Denmark and nordic countries as "ideal". Their fertility rates are all below replacement rate.
From this answer alone, I can guess that you guys fall in the $130k+ NET a year salary combined, probably $200k+, so I guess I answered this already.
ElvisRamaj said:
They keep complaining that there is a huge lack of doctors/nurses/plumbers/carpenter/etc, then for GOD's sake invite them as an absolute freaking priority. Leave the grandpas and grandmas aside for a while, they don't need the freaking PR, they can get along fine with a supervisa. Ridirecting those 28,000 reserved for them to doctors/nurses, you would solve an actual immidiate national emergency. But no, they wont do that.
GandiBaat said:
Here is the deal. People have family. And if you do not allow family migration, people tend to make money and leave your country. Family is the anchor that keeps you attached to the country. If they could, they would have removed it completely. BTW, 28K is drop in the bucket.
Sure, that why you have a Super Visa and they can stay up to 5 years with you uninterrupted. They need to have PR as well ?
They are retired, what do they contribute to Canada, except emotionally/mentally helping their immidiate family members ? They are actually a cost.
If you were to bring your both parents and you already have a wife and two kids, according to IRCC if you have a GROSS income of $60,228 you are eligible to do that.
Tell me one place in Canada were 6 people can live off with that income. Remember that is GROSS, not NET.
ElvisRamaj said:
I have friends in Canada who work in professional trades and they are making a killing. $400 days are almost the norm and $1000 ones are not that uncommon too. They way I see things, I will get into trades too and setup my own company in the long run, and leave my career behind. I am not passing on $200k yearly just for the sake of working in an office or whatnot. If Canada is needing a painter/plumber/electrician, I am becoming one. Adapt and Overcome.
GandiBaat said:
Actually its pretty common in many punjabi families. People come to canada, they do one of those lambda univ courses and then they become PR and move to trades. Then they help their cousins and brothers and friends to come here. They at times buy large houses and live in multiple family setup. This lowers their cost of living and solves high real estate price to an extent. Two-three brothers living in same house and working in trades can easily rake up 300K or more.
That being said, trades jobs are messy. Some people do not want to do it. But they are very legit and very nice way of climbing the financial ladder, especially if you have a joint family setup.
Yup, as you said, in a lot of punjabi families, a.k.a immigrants, not Canadians. Not continent Europe as well.
As for trades, I will be doing them to climb the financial ladder. In trades, you can either be a tradesman or a contractor, I would be leaning to become a contractor ASAP using my background/education. No time to waste.
I would like to reference a quote from a movie here about Harvard, not related, but still :
"We don't prepare people here to go out and secure a job, we prepare them to go there and create them".
Lol, thats my motto, somehow.
