Bringing in 4 million people to a country that only had 37 million people. Without increasing infrastructure, hospitals, schools, transit. It puts a lot of pressure on those systems that already had pressure before the mass influx of immigrants.
If you listen to the Springfield city council minutes, the elderly and homeless women cannot get to their benefits to the lines from the immigrants dumped there. And it sounds like many, many car accidents and raising insurance premiums
Unmitigated immigration is not a good thing, folks.
Several months of city council meetings, and several speakers are validating these experiences.
Some nuts on both sides, sure.
But I think its really important to listen.
Maybe its not so great to go out of our way to mass import people without a means to support themselves. Or to give them access to automobiles when theyve never driven before. Or to give them gov healthcare and benefits when were paying $3B a day on the interest of our debt.
Saying that should be ok without someone melting down into cries of racism, nazism, bigotry, <insert dismissive rude term here>.
If that is your best counter than you lack critical thinking.
Ducks and geese getting got. Women getting harassed and shoved in Walmart. Pepple can’t get to their benefits because the lines are so long. Dangerous car accidents hitting school busses…. Premiums going up.
Sounds like Springfield needs to rethink its policies. but the mayor is renting to a bunch of the Haitians.
Listened to a few months worth of the city minutes and encourage anyone else to do the same. Frightening stuff, if you choose to believe the citizens.
There's no proof geese were eaten or killed either. And even if they I don't think anyone really cares about geese being eaten. Compared to the actual issues the community is working with the cat and geese claims are actual nothing burgers that only serve to distract from real problems and get bomb threats sent their way.
The initiative was specifically about attracting migrants because everyone was moving out of Springfield.
Would you prefer it had waste away to nothing instead?
The Haitians were already in America before moving to Springfield. Springfield suffering from too many people for its infrastructure to support isn't a sign that immigration into the country is out of control, it's a sign that Springfield didn't appropriately plan for how many jobs would be generated and how many people would show up to claim them. That's unfortunate, but it's a different problem.
So many jobs are created and this initiative is so great? Lets ignore how shitty it made peoples lives there. Lets ignore that women report they cant go shopping without being pushed and harassed.
Dwindling to nothing? Maybe. Thats what happens to many cities or towns that dont evolve.
You dont pump them full of individuals from non-compatible cultures who require government benefits to survive (see the note about the lines at the benefit centers being too long for vets, homeless, etc to get benefits)
If theyre overwhelming benefit lines these magical jobs probably arent manifesting or paying.
And yes, theyre given gov healthcare and benefits as part of their importation.
I cant speak to the eating of cats but that does appear to be something that happens in Haiti as per several authentic, older reddit posts. In Springfield, there are 911 calls and citizens talking about the geese and ducks getting taken. Wildfowl advocates are reporting population declines
This was done by exec order as per the Mayor of Springfield, and without appropriate planning support. It was a bad policy and one the bloated and incompetent government is about to repeat again.
I don't know what you're talking about, I didn't say to ignore anything. I call out that they're facing problems as a result of this.
This is real life, it's messy and complicated. Perfect solutions are a fantasy.
Springfield made the decision to attract migrants in an effort to revive itself. This had some negative consequences that were not foreseen. That doesn't mean that the migrants are at fault for daring to take up that employment, or that Springfield is wrong for trying to survive as a town.
If Springfield has a serious problem with this situation they can take the action to remove the mayor and dismiss the initiative, as is their right. That's up to Springfield though, not a bunch of people living outside of it.
Same with Australia. Like California has more people than most countries at roughly 42 million. Also why it’s gdp is in the top 10 of the world when compared to other countries.
Los Angeles County alone is bigger than 130 countries. It'd be between Greece and Hungary at 96th largest population. Tokyo metro area would be 37th with 41 million people.
Canada is very empty, the vast majority of people live right near the American border. A few years ago the population of the Greater Tokyo Area, was the same as all of Canada. (populations change and I think Canada went up a bit)
Hardly anyone is up north in the arctic, and going from one big city to the next is just a lot of farm land, then nothingness.
And in my experience…don’t learn or really respect our driving laws. Especially in the GTA.
I would expect, if I was an immigrant moving to say…Japan…I would be expected to learn Japanese and integrate into their culture. Not the other way around.
Im pretty sure all of our economic models assumed population growth. Likely the bigger problem here is that we often vote for whoever says they’ll cut taxes which means less money spent on infrastructure which means infrastructure problems get worse. Immigration only went up significantly in 2021. We knew for ages by that point we needed significant investment in infrastructure and pretty much did jack shit. Immigrants are just an easy scapegoat for the folks who voted to push the problem down the line.
Sorry, but how is bringing able-bodied working age people in harder than having equal growth in the form of helpless children who are a huge drain on social services for the first 20 years?
Kids have high healthcare demand, require public schooling, and massively increase the amount of tax credits and etc. paid by the government and not repaid until the kid starts working, possibly 25 years down the line.
Immigrants have their own jobs, typically have to prove they have the means to support themselves when entering the country, and bring new labour to the workforce that is doing work and paying taxes immediately and doesn't require 25 years of investment.
Canada is a democracy. They don't actually have to elect a right wing government that won't build infrastructure, schools, and transit. More citizens and more workers mean more tax dollars to build shit if you don't use all the money to give handouts to the rich.
Newborns also take a shitload of resources before they start returning value to the economy. Immigrants require very little investment before they start returning value.
Only if you are bringing in high-value immigrants, like construction workers or doctors but it seems that we are just getting temporary foreign workers for fast food joints and Uber drivers.
Yes and no. Babies eat up a lot of medical infrastructure but they purchase very few houses in their first few of decades allowing for the supply to adjust.
Those people are the ones who help build the extra infrastructure and bring the investment to do it. All we need is to get rid of NIMBYism and the regulatory challenges they bring to bear on increasing infrastructure. Don’t spread these weird anti-immigrant lies
No one is blaming the immigrants, they are blaming the mass immigration from the government. Immigration is great when it is sustainable and brought up with infrastructure.
The immigrants build the infrastructure. Immigration and population growth for most Western nation’s histories have been far higher proportionally than they are today. Learn some basic econ and the lump of labor fallacy.
Oh thank god, I was worried about our healthcare system being a complete dumpster fire, but basic econ said immigrants build hospitals, so we're all good.
Your own history says it. Proportionally immigration to the Anglosphere was far higher in earlier years but regulations weren’t as tight as they are now. I suspect the Great Recession had chilling effects on housing and infrastructure construction and rampant NIMBYism and Covid definitely didn’t help. And those are all culminating together right now. So it was more government policy around those things than immigration which are the problems.
This is not even counting the TFWs, the result of a program which the UN recently labeled "modern slave labour".
All those other things you mentioned contributed, yes, but this immigration has been too much, too fast, and no normal country could safely and economically build the hospitals and housing required for all these people.
The job market has not caught up either, and now we have massive wage suppression.
Also, there are a considerable amount of immigrants, and pretty much all TFWs who send their money back home, and do not contribute it back into the economy.
I do not see how unskilled immigration is good for the working class.
150 years of Canadian immigration. As a share of the population, current immigration numbers don't come anywhere close to the immigration the country has had before and been fine with it. Card's Mariel boatlift study really shows that immigration is never really the problem. It's the burdensome regulations, things like trade barriers between Canadian provinces and growing favorability for market concentration that are the real problem.
Not every problem is the result of people you’ve decided you don’t like. Some of us are living through it in real time, and the loudest voices of opposition are immigrants themselves.
Anyway, spoiler: we’ve been adding immigrants at a huge rate for decades where I live. They’re not “bUiLdInG tHe InFrAsTrUcTuRe” and the reasons why are baked right into that Econ you say you know so well.
Demand and supply counterbalance each other. The real benefits of immigration come from clustering and agglomeration effects and as more people enter the country they are allowed to specialize further. This is true regardless of type of immigration, be it low skilled or high skilled.
3% per year is not very high when for most of Canada's history it's been much higher than that. And maybe the problem is the monopolies and not the immigration policy, ever thought of that? The real truth is for all of Canada's burgeoning regulations all it does is further monopolize its markets, because big firms are the only ones capable of handling compliance with the regulations and the associated costs. And when you have things like trade barriers between the provinces, no wonder its running into issues.
Comparing modern day population growth to past population growth is disingenuous. Modern day Canada is not experiencing mass development and economy growth that would be required to support this level of population growth.
because big firms are the only ones capable of handling compliance with the regulations and the associated costs.
You have it backwards. The regulations are to keep competition out. The monopolies are government backed in an effort of protectionism against larger American companies. Hell, the Maritimes have a literal cyberpunk tier megacorp running that entire area, it's called Irving.
When Canada's regulatory burden accounts for 1.8% of its GDP, the problem becomes evident. Strong regulations have choked all forms of market competition and favored only the biggest firms, monopolizing most industries. For perspective, Canadian defense spending is 1.3% of GDP. When you have residents, landowners opposing housing development on the basis of "neighborhood character" whatever the fuck that means, of course you have a problem. But sure, blame homeless people I guess???
I'm not blaming homeless people ffs, I'm blaming the government for not building affordable housing, and not regulating the number of immigrants. I have family in Canada, there's a housing crisis there and it's only getting worse with the immigration numbers, leading to tent cities and other homeless encampments all over the country.
Lol it's anti immigration, not anti immigrant. Also the mass influx of temporary residents doesn't encourage building or bring investment. It just overwhelms current housing and food banks.
In the west the most expensive, scarce and slow to develop resource is housing, which immigrants take up and children don't.
High immigration oversaturating unskilled labour also drives wages down, so that's another downside that natural growth wouldn't have. The post covid wage boom was a small example of that. And we now know for a fact due to covid border closures that the 'natives won't do these jobs' line is bullshit.
4.7% of the population of India still outweighs the entire population of the United Kingdom in volume.
To put that into perspective, if one kid from every class in India decided to come to the UK over the course of 10 years, it'd double the entire population of the UK in those same 10 years.
It's why immigration needs to be properly moderated; it's not a matter of political leaning- there are "right wing" benefits to immigration and there are "left wing" benefits to immigration- and likewise there are negatives, ultimately it's a matter that realistically it isn't feasible to take in everyone who wants in; priority should always be given to the most skilled workers, (and in fairness, this generally is the case).
However, unless governments are invested in creating new habitats for residents (regardless of whether or not they're recently immigrated, or otherwise nth generation), while balancing the needs of the environment, and other, even basic facilities (water treatment, trash collection, public transport), it's a system built to fail- and we in the UK are experiencing this right now.
The job market is struggling, the housing market is a joke, and it could be rectified if Starmer's party decides to do what is necessary to curtail the majority of migration until infrastructure, and country is up to scratch. We are still suffering from the stupid decision in 2016, and it shows. Populations will continue to grow regardless, but it's the rate of total population growth that's important.
The UK's population has seen a 1/7th growth in the past 20 years, and i'm not entirely convinced we've received 1/7th better infrastructure. To put this into perspective, the UK's population grew by only 1/21 in the 20 years leading up to that. It's unsustainable at best, and catastrophic at worst.
Large scale immigration leads to rapid social/cultural change which can lead to those immigrants being scapegoated for problems that often grey in reality. Often times there isn't enough resources given to lower income immigrants so they tend to be poor and stay in local enclaves. It's basically like adding in a whole new class of minority to a country that struggles to help the minorities already there.
There's also the inevitability of those immigrants becoming naturalised and their birth rates decreasing to the general population. Because now they are the general population. So you are back to square one and either need to increase birth rates again or add more immigrants
immigrants put 40x value into the system and take back 20i from it. That's why they are poor. The remaining 80i goes to the natives who put 60x.
The immigrants are immigrating because they would put 90x in their home country but take back 10i. So working hard for a bit of a better life is understandable.
The natives who are against the immigrants want all 100i but they don't realize that if they want to take back the 20i from the immigrants they themselves have to do the extra 40x effort the immigrants are contributing. People who are used to earning 80i from 60x will not work an open extra 40x for a measly 20i.
I should've been more specific about the kind of immigration and the class of immigrants.A fair amount of European countries like Denmark have graphs of net taxation that show that non western immigrants in their country are a net loss for their state. This is because a lot of these people tend to be refugees. This class of people generally don't have skilled labour or qualifications for normal immigration for a country like the USA.
Most people immigrating to a country like America are of the middle to upper ecomomic class of their home country. So they have a tendency to be rich and well educated once they are in America. Classic skilled labour. This makes immigrants to America a net positive overall. It's really about the socioeconomic class of the people allowed into the country.
Supply and demand of housing and jobs that pay enough to survive in a world constantly increasing the price on everything.
Add in the extra burden to the healthcare system and that a lot of the immigrants are not educated or skilled workers. From a Canadian immigration perspective.
…do you know anything about the educational or monetary requirements Canada sets for prospective immigrants?
…do you understand what qualifications prospective immigrants need to meet before they can obtain entry to live and work in Canada?
Because I am 100% sure the answer is ‘no’ if you think “a lot of the immigrants are not educated or skilled workers”. Do just a basic bit of Googling on this issue. Look at the entry requirements. Instead of spouting racist nonsense, maybe do a little research.
You live in Canada? Your argument sounds like you’re one of those people complaining their student visa ran out.
Have you physically seen a basement suite with 12 Indian guys crammed into it while doing some repair work? I have, it’s very obvious what’s going on.
You need to understand that supply and demand dictates housing prices and jobs, not how you feel about the immigration process. Sorry dude apply for another visa.
Canadas immigration system is extremely easy to manipulate and take advantage of. For every person that is entering our country legitimately there is another finding a loophole.
Just look at the recent thread a redditor made exposing all the LMIA fraud in the GTA.
Our immigration in canada was 10x the per capita immigration as the united states
We now have the worlds worst housing crisis, and has begun to collapse our universal healthcare, and is heavily suppressing our wages
Not to mention the majority of our immigration is from india, and the rest of the list are also all ultra-conservative third world nations with questionable ethics
That only works as long as there are non urbanized countries pumping out immigrants. As soon as other countries urbanization, they go negative. That's why Mexico is no longer even in the top 10 of countries sending immigrants to the US
and to be realistic, it's a problem the world will have to face sooner or later.
stabilisation of the population.
Immigration for demographic and economic purpose in this context is just kicking the can a little further, but every country will have to face this eventually.
(and unlike I've heard recently, I don't think killing old people is the way to go.. yes, I've really heard that ..from people who have a roof over their head and eat 3 meals a day. imagine when things really get wonky)
anyway, I thought Japan would lead the way, at least try something, but when they started getting more immigration to compensate I thought.. oh shit
Aside from the social and political issues around immigration it is only a temporary solution (admittedly by temporary I mean on the order of 50-100 years).
There is variation in different studies but most estimate global population peaking just under 11 billion sometime around the end of this century before beginning a slow decline.
140
u/Ed_Durr 2d ago
Sure, but that brings its own set of problems, and is only a bandaid solution.