300,000 new immigants a year

[the truth]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#179681 one question were are all the jobs going to come from,

[MAPearce]

And where's all the housing gonna come from ?

[LiamHaddock]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-179681-4-.htm#179681 one question were are all the jobs going to come from,

Ontario is going to be experimenting with basic minimum income model next year.... Just send all 300,000 there and if they don't find work/jobs they will still be taken care of!

[LiamHaddock]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html?_r=0
When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather — my dad’s stepdad — struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”

Of course, that 18 percent can make a lot of noise. But for everyone else, immigration seems to be going the way of same-sex marriage, marijuana and the mohawk — it’s something that a handful of people freak out about but that the rest of us have long since come to accept.

Scratch the surface, though, and you’ll pretty quickly find that many Americans are closer to my grandfather’s way of seeing things than they might find comfortable acknowledging. I am referring not to the racial animus but to the faulty economic logic.

And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ­most ­settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition. (There is one notable economist who wasn’t polled: George Borjas of Harvard, who believes that his fellow economists underestimate the cost of immigration for low-­skilled natives. Borjas’s work is often misused by anti-immigration activists, in much the same way a complicated climate-­science result is often invoked as “proof” that global warming is a myth.) Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.

Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified. But it feels so correct, so logical. And it’s not just people like my grandfather making that argument. Our government policy is rooted in it.

The single greatest bit of evidence disproving the Lump of Labor idea comes from research about the Mariel boatlift, a mass migration in 1980 that brought more than 125,000 Cubans to the United States. According to David Card, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, roughly 45,000 of them were of working age and moved to Miami; in four months, the city’s labor supply increased by 7 percent. Card found that for people already working in Miami, this sudden influx had no measurable impact on wages or employment. His paper was the most important of a series of revolutionary studies that transformed how economists think about immigration. Before, standard economic models held that immigrants cause long-term benefits, but at the cost of short-term pain in the form of lower wages and greater unemployment for natives. But most economists now believe that Card’s findings were correct: Immigrants bring long-term benefits at no measurable short-term cost. (Borjas, that lone dissenting voice, agrees about the long-term benefits, but he argues that other economists fail to see painful short-term costs, especially for the poor.)

This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left.

[goatboy]

You realize that we have been taking in 250,000+ every year for the last 10 years at least. Canada is a country of immigrants, without them we would not be the successful country we are today.

[the truth]

well that would explain the current hi unemployment

[Snarf]

That's a lot of people...

[LiamHaddock]

well that would explain the current hi unemployment

Don't think it does... every study I see on the issue does not line up with your hypothesis that immigrants are effecting unemployment rate and taking jobs from locals..

Take your pick but there is several studies showing that your wrong.... immigrants are good for our country... and unless your native, you and your family are immigrants to Canada as well....

https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-rogers-ca&q=immigrants+not+raising+unemployment&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF_qiDiobQAhUEzmMKHYYuCSYQvwUIFygA&biw=412&bih=652

[MAPearce]

You realize that we have been taking in 250,000+ every year for the last 10 years at least. Canada is a country of immigrants, without them we would not be the successful country we are today.

And that might explain the housing shortages and high rents..

It might be time to slow it down and not expand beyond the ability to employ , house and feed new people .. That being said , IF new Canadians are ones that can afford to move here and fill the void in highly skilled professions that we currently lack ( doctors , nurses etc. ) I'm all for immigration , however that doesn't seem to be the direction our new gov't is taking.

[the truth]

correct, that was the point i was trying to make,thank you

[GordonH]

Lets see currently Canada allows 250,000 immigrants per/year, so new number is 50,000 more.

[goatboy]

That's a lot of people...

269,000 estimated deaths in Canada in 2015
392,000 births

Canada population 35,000,000

Growth rate of 423,000 people or 1.2%, which is probably a healthy rate.

[Glacier]

The problem with a large welfare state is that it requires an ever increasing population to sustain itself. Without immigration, the government will not be able to continue to expand and grow.

[MAPearce]

Lets see currently Canada allows 250,000 immigrants per/year, so new number is 50,000 more.

That's a lot really ... 50 ,000 MORE people than the 250 , 000 new citizens looking for jobs in a slumping economy , tight housing market with average people NOT being able to afford a home AND heat the damned thing at the same time AND looking for a family doctor...

I'm not against immigration but there's no humanity in letting people in to our country if we can't provide for them...

Think about it .

[Ka-El]

well that would explain the current hi unemployment

uh, no it wouldn't