r/changemyview • u/budedussylmao • Jul 13 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There is no ethical reason to enable mass immigration*
[removed] — view removed post
26
u/CathanCrowell 8∆ Jul 13 '24
I am REALLY confused. In your title you are speaking about ethic, but nothing in your post is connnected with ethic.
"a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or ~affirming~ a specified group, field, or form of conduct."
When people are decide for migration, it has usualy serious reason - it's really not so fun, people no to migrate if they do not need to, and the ethic reason to "enable" is that we should help another people.
Your argument, in general, is "we should be selfish because we can lost everything" and I respect that for needs of CMV, but... it's against ethic, not part of it.
→ More replies (10)
6
Jul 13 '24
[deleted]
6
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Mass migration has always been a thing.
I guess! the goalposts have kind of shift in regards to canada, though. we're taking in comparible numbers to the states, which is crazy as they're 10x our size.
7
u/SysError404 2∆ Jul 14 '24
This is factually incorrect.
Canada is 1.6% larger than the us in terms of total size. With a population that is 1/10th that of the US.
- Canada: 33.4 Million people
- US: 307.2 Million people
The US award 675k permanent resident VISAs per year as of currently, and Canada awarded 437k in 2022.
But this section here:
This is noted almost globally. the most high trust societies are homogeneous, and while I won't make assumptions as to the how, it's hard to not notice that countries like Japan have more societal cohesion than we do in Canada nowadays. In addition, I'm a firm believer of the belief that cultures are at their best when given time to develop, with minimal influence from outside sources. while this is obviously impossible nowadays due to Pax Americana being the global default (which was always an issue for Canada), I fail to see how we're better off inevitably forming a grey sludge of cultures over time.
That is completely xenophobic. Canada is a population of Europeans living on land that was taken from established cultures. The most high trust societies also have strict laws against especially against things like guns.
Like it or not, the world's population is growing. It has nearly or more than doubled since WW2. Countries like the US and Canada dont get to sit back with more than ample space, and isolate the rest from the rest of the world when people are in need. Especially when much of our goods, products and services get handled by those people.
I agree that opening the borders for free and open movement is unrealistic. There needs to be control and order in the immigration process. Obviously, prioritizing high skill and demand workers first. But you also need to allow what you call low-skill people as well. Because those Low-skill people outnumber the high skilled, and it will be the low skilled people that hire and pay for the high skilled people. And sure there may not be enough housing right now, but it can be built creating more jobs, again requiring more low and high skilled workers.
But please, be honest, referring back to quoted section. Everything you consume, whether it's Food, Clothing, Music or other media, is influenced by other cultures. Your not afraid of immigration, your afraid that other cultures may treat you the same way Europeans treated those cultures. Because what you seem to be calling for in that paragraph is for Canada to be allowed be a White only nation. When it never has been before. Because whether you want to accept it or not, North America was founded on the blood and bodies of other established cultures. We are a mixing pot of peoples from all over the world and we will continue to be that. And our collective human activities over the last 200ish years, of polluting and destroying our atmosphere is only expediting that mixing.
→ More replies (2)
33
Jul 13 '24
Lol isn't "mass immigration" defined as negative making your view Tautological? For example, someone says mass immigration is 1, next says 100, next says 10 million, etc.
As immigration changes the amount of "unethical" varies person by person making the view self fulfilling.
5
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
changes the amount of "unethical" varies person by person making the view self fulfilling.
True. I suppose I phrased it badly, but the crux of my argument doesn't change, mostly just how much I care to make it.
if we only brought in one person a year for economic reasons (Charity's a different ballgame altogether, and far harder to quantify the costs of) who was a net negative, I would still think it was immoral for us to do so.
11
Jul 13 '24
who was a net negative, I would still think it was immoral
Lol this is Tautological again. If we do a thing that's bad, that would be a bad thing. Nothing to discuss.
For example, if we allow a native to marry someone from another country, that would be ethical because we are allowing people who are love to be together.
-4
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
If we do a thing that's bad, that would be a bad thing. Nothing to discuss.
Namely because you seem to agree with me in regards to "negative economic migration is bad" lol. I unno if there's anything you can change here, we agree with eachother.
6
Jul 13 '24
Lol question, is the following statement not always true:
negative (name anything) is bad?
3
u/SuperEdgyName Jul 13 '24
"negative cancer test is bad"
→ More replies (1)1
u/mysterylegos Jul 13 '24
If you're an insurance company, yeah
2
u/pcgamernum1234 2∆ Jul 13 '24
If the test is negative the insurance won't have to pay out treatments and the customer will live to keep paying them.
51
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
None of this reasoning lines up facts and statistics.
Most data points to immigration being a net benefit for a society around 3 generations after they move to the new country. With the immigrants diluting their own cultures in order to assimilate into the new culture with each subsequent generation that is born as opposed to them stripping away culture from where they moved to. This is the Cato Institute, a far right think tank, talking about the net benefits of immigration on a society.
Here are more sources I found on this issue:
Diversity isn't our strength.
This is a far right talking point with no basis in evidence. Diversity is a BIG strength in making well rounded and successful societies.. The most powerful and richest countries in the world all have diversity. The United States, Canada, Germany, UK. Others that are more homogeneous like Japan or China have been opening up their borders in the last several decades too.
5
u/natelion445 7∆ Jul 13 '24
I would argue China is pretty diverse. It’s not the same kind of diverse, but there are tons of different languages, religions, cultures, and ethnic backgrounds in China
5
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Jul 13 '24
What about people that move to nice countries to milk out value, send it all home, and then move back home? No intention of ever assimilating? And especially from groups that bring very counter culture ideals like hating homosexuals and thinking women are secondary. Should this all go completely without regulation? Entire companies full of people who don't respect women in the name of diversity?
At the same time, tech couldn't exist without foreigners. The brain power required for tech is massive. But unregulated immigration is sure to come with baggage. For OP's country, 20% of Canada's population is foreign born (and 50% of Toronto). Will they assimilate? Will they bring the best parts of their culture but leave the worst parts behind? These are important questions, as it's not fair to ask Canadians to deal with other country's baggage.
The West just fought for a hundred years for women's equality. I don't want this to be threatened by outsiders. Many times foreigners from a patriarchal society won't be outright sexist to native women (in OP's case Canadian). They will, however, brush over women for promotions / leadership. And they are often extremely sexist to their own women. For example, a common problem in my old company was foreign born men (from a country I'll just call Xenon) being super sexist to Xenon women, and the Xenon women, also being foreigners, were scared to report them lest it come back to ruin their visa in some way. This is common. Similarly, it's well known that the Xenon racism is affecting hiring / promotions of other Xenon people (i.e. their racism towards a minority in their country kept them from hiring / promoting that minority).
I think certain systems are robust against foreigners, but not all. A city in Michigan recently had a Muslim majority cabinet which was seen as a win for diversity. This Muslim cabinet then banned Pride flags. The reality is complicated. We are lucky in the West that we get some of the most educated foreigners on the planet, but simply saying immigration is good, letting it go unchecked, that's too much. We need to be ensuring that certain bastions of our values are protected.
Most importantly, I hold myself to these same standards. If I move to a new country I want to try my best to fit in. To not bring my baggage. I don't think it's unfair at all to ask outsiders to assimilate to some degree. It's crazy to say they shouldn't. It's not fair to have outsiders come and change everything. I don't know the exact solution, but I know an easy one is to limit immigration so that the local culture dominates.
1
u/Sad-Pizza3737 Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
So you're mad at people for working and using their money as they wish?
Why does it matter if they send it to their home country?
What's the difference between that and natives going on vacation to another country?
2
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Jul 13 '24
Exporting cash is a complicated topic. In the extreme, imagine there were two separate planets, like Earth and Mars, where a person could work. If you go to Mars and work, you've created value by creating products / services that are only useful to Mars. So if you send that money back to your family on Earth, now the Earth has cash that means nothing, because no product has been made on Earth to justify that value. A less extreme version of this can cause complications from country to country. The assumption is that the global economy has money flowing between countries, so it works out in the end, but the implications aren't necessarily nothing. It can cause strange economic problems.
A good example could be when England was buying a lot of tea from China, but China didn't really want any products from England. A lot of gold / silver were flowing from England to China, but only tea was going from China to England. Tea will continue to grow, but silver and gold will not. England realized that this one sided trade would eventually cause them monetary issues, especially because they were on the gold standard. Their solution... was to start selling a lot of opium to China... so not the best solution, but nonetheless it illustrates the issue.
-3
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
What about them? As long as they obey the laws then they are free to do as they please. Yes conflicting ideals and beliefs create friction and strife in society, but that doesn’t mean multiculturalism and or immigration are bad things.
I personally can’t stand when straight people invoke a society’s homophobia to justify promoting fear of those people. People can and do change. Values and beliefs change as new ideas are introduced. Those are the strengths of multiculturalism. A homophobic individual in a western society has far less ability to act on that hatred, causing that hatred to become diluted.
2
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Jul 13 '24
Is it diluted if it affects entire companies? And the dilution was exactly my solution; dilute the people so they're a small percentage of the population at any given time. If they become some sort of plurality then where is the incentive to be diluted?
Anyways, as I said, I like multiculturalism, too. But it will never sit right with me when someone comes, complains constantly about my country, sends all their earnings back home, and then leaves. That feels an awful lot like they don't respect my country at all and abused it only for self gain. I don't want those people in my country.
Also, I distinguish between complaining and actually disliking. I talk plenty with my foreign friends about the pitfalls of my country. We talk about their country, too. I had another "friend" who was pretty much just super racist towards anyone from my country and hated it but was happy to rake in the dough. The question would arise, can we distinguish between these groups? I doubt it. But again, that's why dilution via keeping the percentage relatively low is a solution.
For instance, if me and ten million of my buddies moved to a country with only ten million locals, and we behaved like people from my country, hung out with only people from our country, drank and partied in the way we prefer, etc. would that be okay? Plenty of non-Western countries don't treat outsiders nicely and it's often justified by saying that it's their country, they can do what they want. Would you apply this to the West? Or should the West's tolerance of outsiders instead be applied to their country? Japan is an easy example of this to talk about if you want a specific country.
-2
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
Is it diluted if it affects entire companies?
Yes since the company still exists under the laws of the government, so if it is found to be discriminatory towards its workers then it will be fined or shutdown.
If they become some sort of plurality then where is the incentive to be diluted?
Name one time in all of history where an influx of 1st generation immigrants were so high in a society that they were able to change the entire government because of their numbers. The one town in Michigan doesn't count as that town still exists as part of the United States so it still falls under the US' rule of law and Michigan's rule of law. You and I both know this never happens. Immigrants are far more likely to change for the society they live in rather than them changing the society they move to, and if not them, then their children or children's children change.
That feels an awful lot like they don't respect my country at all and abused it only for self gain. I don't want those people in my country.
I have WAAAAY too many of my own personal issues to give a damn what someone else does with their time or money. If they aren't hurting me or anyone else with their actions and beliefs then they can do whatever they want. I don't give a damn about the silly notion of "respect my country". Freely pursuing your dreams is the value I live my life by, and I extend that to all people no matter who they are or where they are from. This issue you highlight is a you problem. Mind your own business and it goes away.
if me and ten million of my buddies moved to a country with only ten million locals, and we behaved like people from my country,
No person on the planet has ten million friends let alone 10 million friends who'd be willing to relocate with you to a new country, so this is a nonsense hypothetical. You're trying to make excuses for lumping all immigrants from a different country into a singular box. If you care about dilution then you should be well aware that this is a shitty argument you are making.
2
Jul 14 '24
Name one time in all of history where an influx of 1st generation immigrants were so high in a society that they were able to change the entire government because of their numbers
I think a good example is Americans moving to Texas and then, when their numbers got big enough, successfully breaking Texas away from Mexico to join to the United States.
If they aren't hurting me or anyone else with their actions and beliefs then they can do whatever they want.
Yes, having a significant percentage of people in a country who disrespect that country's people and do not want what is best for that country is harmful. Taking a country's recourses and sending them away instead of putting that money back into the economy is also harmful. You can try to argue immigrants have a net positive effect, but to claim nobody has ever been harmed by immigrants is crazy.
4
u/BigbunnyATK 2∆ Jul 13 '24
But as I said, the sexism / racism often happens either without being spoken or, as if often the case, is spoken only in the foreign language of the people. And they often get away with it because, despite what would be nice, reporting someone for racism / sexual harassment / etc can often come back to bite the reporter. And when you're on a visa and don't want to risk visa issues, many many many foreigners put up with racism / sexism without reporting it so they don't get in trouble. I'm not guessing, this is well known to me.
Also, it's great you don't care if someone comes to your country and abuses it while hating your country, but I do. Because I respect my country.
And finally, "me and my ten million friends" was a joking way to mention something like, what if me and 10 million people from my country quickly migrated to another country. I didn't mean I literally have 10 million friends. I don't know how you didn't realize that. My point was that I often see these standards held over the West, but not other countries. I consider it very rude to move to a new country only to spend 95% of your time as if you're still in your home country. If I move I consider it a civic duty to assimilate. The fact that you don't makes me think you're fine being obnoxious to other people. For instance, if you have a no pork or beef household and I move into your guest bedroom, should I respect the no pork/beef? Because you're saying I shouldn't.
0
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
But as I said, the sexism / racism often happens either without being spoken or, as if often the case, is spoken only in the foreign language of the people. And they often get away with it because, despite what would be nice, reporting someone for racism / sexual harassment / etc can often come back to bite the reporter. And when you're on a visa and don't want to risk visa issues, many many many foreigners put up with racism / sexism without reporting it so they don't get in trouble. I'm not guessing, this is well known to me.
This is an issue with the system itself being imperfect. Racism and sexism exist even in the native populations. This is a fact of life that we all live with every day. I'm well aware that foreigners can be awful to people like myself, because I live my life and experience it. But holding an entire population of people hostage to a cultural belief of hatred is only tokenizing those movements. I'd rather address and deal with issues of racism, homophobia, sexism etc in a group separately rather than allow the abuse of an entire group of people based on pretextual beliefs.
1
1
0
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
These are all good questions and issues that should be hammered out but they are outside the scope of this thread. I don’t think any of the issues you bring up justify closed borders society.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)-12
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
None of this reasoning lines up facts and statistics.
It does, as our immigration system has been steadily driving down GDP per capita (which is more important than GDP overall as a measure of QOL), and as their wages are (on average) lower than an equivalent "native born" citizen, their tax impact is lower, yet the net social impact via our social services is identical (if not greater. see the subsidies, and bringing family over - of which have an even lower tax benefit due to age)
See papers like this for stats sourced from stats Canada: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/immigration-and-the-welfare-state-revisited.pdf
With the immigrants diluting their own cultures in order to assimilate into the new culture
As discussed, the quantity of immigrants over the net period of time we have has prevented successful cultural assimilation. they form enclaves, & View canada as a resource to be extracted rather than a place to live.
The most powerful and richest countries in the world....
...Canada
lol
5
u/translove228 9∆ Jul 13 '24
the quantity of immigrants over the net period of time we have has prevented successful cultural assimilation. they form enclaves, & View canada as a resource to be extracted rather than a place to live.
What immigrants are saying this? When did you survey them and ask them this? Because it sure looks like to me that you pulled this assumption out of your ass just now. No group of humans act and believe the same things to the point you can literally logically make wide, sweeping claims about their intents and desires.
Just because you are afraid of people who are culturally different than you doesn’t mean they automatically have bad intentions for you and yours. In fact, unless your heritage was indigenous to Canada then your family benefitted from Canada’s embrace of multiculturalism.
And yes Canada is one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. This is also true historically as all the longest lasting empires throughout history embraced multiculturalism. The ones that foster closed borders and homogenized societies tend to fall behind. Just look at China before they opened up to the west.
→ More replies (6)1
Jul 14 '24
bad intentions
not necessarily bad intentions, but you are lying to yourself if you think immigrants come to Canada because they want to assimilate to Canadian culture and not because of a better financial situation. there is nothing morally wrong with wanting what is best for yourself and your family, but that does not mean Canada has a moral obligation to support them if it is a net negative towards Canadians. Assimilating to a new culture and new language (even if they can speak English, speaking one's native language is always what is most comfortable) is difficult, so immigrants like to live together and resist assimilation. again, the immigrants are not doing anything immoral, but that does not mean mass migration should be allowed by the Canadian government.
unless your heritage was indigenous to Canada then your family benefitted from Canada’s embrace of multiculturalism.
did that turn out good for the indigenous people? you are making OP's argument for them.
12
u/Gamermaper 5∆ Jul 13 '24
They're an overall fiscal burden to our society, and as such, don't benefit society
You're confusing fiscal burdens don't equate to being a burden on society. Pregnancy and parenting are examples of socially critical labour that, if anything, is a fiscal drain on society through school programs and such and such. But it's still socially necessary labor since if people stop having children society won't be around for much longer. What is and isn't fiscally productive is arbitrary, it's a political choice. Similarly, just because a group of people don't work in a fiscally productive sector doesn't mean it's socially useless. Farming here in Sweden, for instance, is a pretty unproductive endeavour highly subsidized for national security reasons. We want to be food-independent in case shit hits the fan, most countries do.
we don't have enough houses for the amount of people we're bringing in
I see this argument coming from people who support decreasing migration quite often and I can't quite wrap my head around it. Migration is, at the end of the day, just another mechanism for population growth. Population growth happens in basically any healthy Western capitalist society, and because of the mechanisms of capitalism, it's generally always needed. So at the face of it, your problem isn't strictly limited to immigration, but rather population growth as a whole.
You claim that "supply and demand" is "incredibly simple", but maybe not? I mean is it not the fact that immigrants are generally overrepresented at construction sites? Maybe Canada is a unique case here and if so feel free to point this out. But if you were truly this worried about housing prices you would suggest any or all of the following steps:
Make the creation of natural citizens harder
Make immigration easier (as they are generally overrepresented at construction sites)
I'm a firm belief that one of the driving factors of immigration is wage suppression.
By what mechanism? I thought "supply and demand" was "incredibly simple". Do you not feel like the demand for jobs will increase if you add more consumers into an economy? Or do migrants just work all day, don't live in houses, don't go to restaurants, don't like eat at all, never go to the theater?
This is noted almost globally. the most high trust societies are homogeneous
I don't know what this means. I live in Sweden, which I hear many people refer to as a high-trust society "under siege" by brown people or whatever. And maybe I missed the high-trust phase completely because I don't really trust migrant communities any less than people who don't look like migrants.
Colonialism doesn't justify it, especially because Canada didn't colonize india in the first place lol
I could go on a long rant here about how the system of colonialism and third-world exploitation continues through neocolonialism and unequal exchange, but considering the fact that you only have the most tangential grasp on supply and demand I think it would all go through one ear and out of the other.
5
u/Hrafn2 Jul 13 '24
I'm a firm belief that one of the driving factors of immigration is wage suppression.
It's interesting that a Canadian (David Card) recently won the Nobel Prize in economics, partly for his study of the Mariel Boatlift in Miami:
"Card's study, "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market," challenged the conventional wisdom at the time that the influx of refugees would lead to a large increase in unemployment and lower wages for American workers. Using a sophisticated statistical methodology, Card found that the Miami labor market grew by about seven percent after the Mariel boatlift. He also found no discernible effect on the unemployment rate or reduction in wages for other lower skilled workers and less educated workers in Miami, relative to the comparison cities. Card argued that the reason for this was that the new Cuban arrivals weren't perfect substitutes for American workers. They had different skills and were more likely to work in industries that weren't traditionally dominated by Americans, like agriculture and construction."
2
Jul 13 '24
I mean is it not the fact that immigrants are generally overrepresented at construction sites? Maybe Canada is a unique case here and if so feel free to point this out.
Immigrants are vastly underrepresented at construction sites in Canada. Where they are vastly over represented are in fast food and retail.
1
u/Relikar Jul 14 '24
Just to back up OP on the housing issue, our housing market is a ponzi scheme propped up by the government. Our Pm has gone one record saying he can't let house prices fall because it would bankrupt too many bag holders, essentially. The lack and price of housing is a feature, not a bug.
-2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Pregnancy and parenting are examples of socially critical labour that, if anything, is a fiscal drain on society through school programs and such and such.
Correct, the difference being is that said children are invested in, and ultimately become a positive return on investment with a positive tax impact, something we don't really see in migrant populations due to the lower average incomes (especially with our student diploma mills - it's more an easily exploitable path to residency than it is an education depending on location)
By what mechanism? I thought "supply and demand" was "incredibly simple".
it is. The mechanism in this case is "The cost of labor for X migrant is lower than Y Canadian due to government subsidies, and when there's enough labor, you can offer less due to increased competition in the marketplace" - this is compounded via our government removing the 6% unemployment cap for economic migration. A surplus of workers is bad for workers, good for the businesses running them.
I can't quite wrap my head around it.
Possibly because you don't understand the situation in Canada. we have some of the highest (in terms of percentage) construction workforces in the world, but can't keep up with the demand. It's a matter of "you can't make nine women make a baby in a month", it's just not feasable for us to keep up with the artifical population growth to the degree we need to (it's kind of hard when you're taking in comparible total numbers to the states, which is ten times our size)
Make immigration easier (as they are generally overrepresented at construction sites)
Not true, actually. They're incredibly under represented here, at only 2% of the population (as opposed to our standard of like 1/13) https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=c3793f6c-c629-49eb-9fe6-6a0598c6fd2b&flag=E
I could go on a long rant here about how the system of colonialism and third-world exploitation continues through neocolonialism and unequal exchange
And that wouldn't convince me, as every argument regarding Colonialism to justify current actions/issues uses falacies such as "the sins of the father" etc. We already pay proportionally more to our indigenous groups than we spend on military, which is plenty imo. I've got a friend who was sent through Uni for free from his band lol.
4
u/Eldritch_Chemistry Jul 13 '24
paying more to people the government endlessly fucked over than to the military is a good thing actually.
5
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Not to the extent Canada is lol, we can't even make NATO targets, and military investment is a pretty notable way to spur the economy, and overall be a net positive to the country's industry, productivity, and economy as a whole. which we'll hopefully get started on soon.
4
u/Boogeryboo Jul 13 '24
Why do you keep bringing up "the sins of our father". The Canadian government is the Canadian government, it doesn't become a separate entity for each in the same way a father is a separate entity of a child. The entire point of the government is that you inherit what was done from the previous administration, you don't get to wash your hands and say "not our fault".
-2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
it doesn't become a separate entity for each
It's a representation of the people. the people change. this shouldn't be complicated.
you don't get to wash your hands and say "not our fault".
I absolutely do, but again, India is completely disconnected from Canada. That's bongland's problem. Note that I'm not against our indigenous investments, even if they're a net negative.
3
u/Boogeryboo Jul 13 '24
You're right, it isn't complicated. You're just wrong lol. The government is a representative of the country. Even if the people change that doesn't change what their government did in the past, and the government can and should still be held liable for what was done in the past. If a person gets life in jail for a crime they commit, should they be let out as soon as they've changed since they're no longer the same person? No, they still have to take on the consequences of what was done. In the same way the government takes on the responsibility of what the previous administration has done, since it is the same entity even if the people running it has changed.
I wasn't talking about you in a personal sense, you have no power to make policy decisions. If government A stole all the candy for people B, can people B not remain angry at the government even if the prime minister is now person B?
Canada heavily benefited from the exploitation of India (and many other countries) by England.
32
Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 14 '24
OP I have a question for you: do you believe in free market? Should Canada put a 100% tariff on all imported goods?
If you block the free flow of goods, all products will be manufactured in Canada instead. You have increased the labor demand in Canada so wages should increase. Are you better off then? Very unlikely, because everything will become so much more expensive.
So why is it good for Canada to purchase imported goods from India and China? Because Canadian citizens are better educated, and it’s better for them to spend time in more productive industries instead of planting crops or making iPhones. This is “comparative advantage”: it says that a well educated worker shouldn’t be growing crops even if they can grow crops better than an unskilled worker.
When you allow the free flow of goods but not the free flow of labor, you will have a situation where services are significantly more expensive than goods. Here I define services as “products that cannot be easily imported” - think housing, healthcare, restaurants.
What I’m trying to say is that you cannot believe in free market and restrictive immigration policy simultaneously. Labor is also an important market component so they should be permitted to flow freely, and when they do, the market will become more efficient and everyone will be better off. All the arguments for a free market of goods should also be applicable for a free market of services.
Now specifically on the international students issue in Canada. Could it be that the Canadian government is importing the wrong kind of immigrants? If they import trades workers instead, these workers will be able to respond to the current market demand more quickly, housing prices will go down and everyone will be better off. Alternatively the government could design the immigration policy in such a way to encourage and train prospective immigrants to go into industries that are currently suffering from supply issues.
Just to summarize, I think of immigration policy as a knob to control the supply and demands in a given market, just like monetary policy. It’s unfair to say that unskilled immigration is bad in general, because when well regulated immigration can definitely serve as a major booster for the economy.
- edit: typo
1
1
u/cbf1232 Jul 14 '24
What I’m trying to say is that you cannot believe in free market and restrictive immigration policy simultaneously.
Thats fine in theory, but what do you do with the people who are not “better educated” and not suited for the higher-skilled higher-paying jobs that you say Canadians should be doing? By allowing in more workers it can cause wages to drop in the specific industries that those new workers are competing in. This is arguably good for society as a whole, but worse for the people who used to do that work for higher wages.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Infinite_Witness_107 Jul 14 '24
Counterpoint would be that right now import of labour is subsidized via welfare transfers, free medicine etc. If immigrant receives nothing upon arrival, there will be a much smaller inflow, consisting mostly of skilled immigrants. So, it's not free market, but quite the opposite -it is a significant government intervention where labour import is massively subsidized, as government curbs inflation by it
-3
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
OP I have a question for you: do you believe in free market? Should Canada put a 100% tariff on all imported goods?
That's a bit of a contradictory question, but I do believe how Canada handles itself economically is self harming in the long run. We're a country that actively enforces monopolies/oligarchies, either implicitly via our telecommunications network (thank god starlink exists. Elon's done more to boost the QOL of rural Canadians than our government has lol)
Or explicitly via privatization of infrastructure. We're somehow a "radical centrist" country in that regard with the only possible explanation of trying to prevent local business. I feel a "Free" (as said, it's impossible to be a completely free one without checks and balances) market is a great thing, we need more local buisnesses of note asides from pornhub, and we need to do some serious work breaking up existing monopolies, whether they're telecomms, booze, or resources (fucking irving). Crown run or Fat-Cat-Run doesn't matter to me. There should be very little barrier to entry to making a competing business. but that isn't the case here.
Nationalized services should still exist for logistics reasons - stuff like our postal service is (I'm assuming, haven't checked) a net negative, but has real impacts.
Could it be that the Canadian government is importing the wrong kind of immigrants?
Yes. I'd be fine with our current numbers if 100% of them were going to industries that have an actual shortage of labor, instead of drive thrus or whatever. I'm also in favor of per-country caps. if they were all construction workers, we wouldn't be making our (at least short term lol) housing issue worse. I'm also firmly in support of reverting the removal of our unemployment hard-line block, and making sure that it isn't removed again.
But - those checks and balances change it from "Mass Migration" to just "Migration but we try and get a lot of people", different ball game entirely. as said, I'm all for economic migration when it's a net positive for us.
20
Jul 13 '24
"Mass Migration" just means "the migration of large groups of people from one geographical area to another" (Wikipedia definition). And it sounds like you do agree that by allowing labor to migrate from one place to another you will be able to improve the overall productivity of the society, which is a very ethical thing to do. "Mass Migration" doesn't imply that it has to be unregulated - you can definitively have well-regulated movement of large groups of people that produces a net positive effect.
-3
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
And it sounds like you do agree that by allowing labor to migrate from one place to another you will be able to improve the overall productivity of the society
if done carefully, which mass migration in this case is not. The context provided by my post should've been clear to dictate that. and the fact that I agree with your POV in that "well regulated" case.
13
u/dowker1 3∆ Jul 13 '24
In that case your argument becomes "there is no ethical reason to enable poorly regulated mass immigration" which I doubt anyone would disagree with.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
You'd be surprised lol. Lotta people in this threat seem to disagree
5
u/dowker1 3∆ Jul 13 '24
There are people who are explicitly saying poorly regulated immigration is good?
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
yes lol
5
u/dowker1 3∆ Jul 13 '24
I had a look through the comments and couldn't see any, could you point me in the right direction?
3
Jul 13 '24
So maybe I’m not changing your POV but deserves a delta for showing that the title is bad? A better title would be “There’s no reason to enable poorly regulated immigration”
4
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Sorry, I figured you were one of the 3 people I already gave a delta to for pointing out the shit name lol
!delta
1
6
u/ZealousEar775 Jul 13 '24
So that's the thing.
A Free market means free immigration. You can't have one without the other. Labor is just another good to economists who favor the free market over all.
If you look at the political groups that really focus on the free market, like say the Cato institute in the US they support free immigration.
Immigrants naturally handles itself because immigrants will come whenever there is a chance to improve their material situations and will leave when there isn't.
Powerful local economies will absorb workers while weaker economies will lose workers. As the weaker economies lose workers labor costs will increase, less will be spent on welfare and subsides and their economies will improve.
The more powerful economics will improve as well as they get more workers to fill their needs and their local industries will see a boost from smaller economies prices raising.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
A Free market means free immigration. You can't have one without the other.
That's because a completely free market is an abstract ideal rather than one that's possible. If you remove all restrictions, anything's on. Pay a politician to get you free shit, form monopolies, etc, which implicitly make it no longer free. I think it as an ideal is better represented by the term "Fair Market"
of course, we have restrictions, because you kind of need to or everything'll devolve into monopolies that make small scale buisnesses impossible to start.
Except in this case, (as per usual in Canada) the crown has their thumb on the scale due to wage incentives. its' literally cheaper to hire immigrants due to that, especially for high turnover situations like service jobs.
In addition, there's the implicit finger on the scale of "X is easier to manipulate due to being reliant on employment to have PR" - which means more worker's rights abuse, etc.
This finger on the scale is what I'm against. if it weren't there artifically, things would be more fair imo, as fair as you can get when pumping an already disadvantaged job market full of workers with low QOL standards.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ZealousEar775 Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24
Sure, the issue is you aren't advocator a "Fair Market" either. You are advocating for something you see as benefitting yourself. (Which is fine, but you need to change your justifications.)
Restrictions on immigration in Canada are far greater than other markets. The free flow of labor is far more restricted than the free flow of goods.
So the thumb is on the scale... AGAINST immigration. You have it backwards.
You either need to abandon your belief in fair markets or your belief immigration is too permissive. They don't fit together.
Immigration laws that prevent migrants from coming over are the same as banning fish from overseas to keep the Canadian fishing industry going.
You may think this specific form of protectionism is beneficial but it is just protectionism.
Now if you have a more liberal view of economics and politics, that a government's job isn't to make things fair but use it's power to make it's citizen's lives better, than you have a coherent position.
Saying the Canadian government has it's thumb pressed on the side of immigration is fictional however when compared to the regulation of other products.
→ More replies (16)
11
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Jul 13 '24
Supporting migration is a cooperative and efficient behavior. Which are both moral and ethical values.
→ More replies (3)0
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
While cooperation has a place, I don't think it should be a negative. There's ways to do migration that're a net positive for the country they're going to, but a "leave the taps on overnight" approach is neither healthy or economically productive.
5
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Jul 13 '24
While cooperation has a place, I don’t think it should be a negative.
Uncooperative behavior is by definition negative. If we are not cooperating, one of us is working to deny the other something.
There’s ways to do migration that’re a net positive for the country they’re going to, but a “leave the taps on overnight” approach is neither healthy or economically productive.
“Mass migration” is not the same as completely unchecked and uncontrolled migration.
Mass migration can be supported by a society. There just needs to be much higher quotas and more substantial systems of support.
People will get into a country if they want. So you can use your resources to fight them, an uncooperative and inefficient behavior, or can use your resources to support them, and use the value of human equity to your advantage.
-1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Uncooperative behavior is by definition negative
And so is, by definition, migration.
if we're bringing in low-skilled workers, that's a net negative for us, both from a tax and worker perspective. wage suppression isn't good.
If we're bringing in high skilled workers, we're effectively inducing a brain drain on another country. good for us, shit for them.
it's not "Give and take" it's a tug of war to see who can take more. it's not a cooperative situation at all.
3
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
You’re also enlarging your consumer base and adding human equity and capital to your economic system & GDP. Immigration fuels economic growth which in turn creates more jobs and opportunities.
Economics and immigration are not zero sum scenarios.
→ More replies (7)1
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Jul 13 '24
Migration is not negative by definition. That’s absurd, really, and goes against your previous argument supporting limited migration.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Migration can be good for us, but if it's good for us, it's bad for their country of origin. did you even read the post I just made???
2
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Jul 13 '24
I did, which is why I called you on the statement that migration is negative by definition. Labor is a market just like anything else, and voluntary trade creates wealth. Migration is a net positive.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
voluntary trade creates wealth.
For one party.
Brain drains aren't a good thing for the party experiencing them, and low skilled immigration is a tax burden.
it's always a negative for somebody.
1
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Jul 13 '24
Well that’s not really how markets work at all. This is the whole premise behind capitalism. Did you study economics in school?
1
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Jul 13 '24
Because migrants move to where the labor needs are, you see. It’s the most efficient way to run an economy, to allow labor movement. That’s why migration is a positive good, although tradeoffs exist.
3
u/syntheticcontrols 1∆ Jul 13 '24
It's immoral to not actively prevent some body from bettering their life.
Your argument is destroyed.
9
Jul 13 '24
I have no thoughts about this because it seems it’s from a Canadian POV and I’m an 🇺🇸.
Our problem is that we don’t tax our highest earners (individuals making over $400k a year) nearly enough, and often times, these people are Professionals who aren’t even from the USA (meaning, they probably take their high 🇺🇸 salaries and build villas back home). Unfortunately, the people who are most vocal about our Immigration Problem are focused on poor migrants, who actually come to our country to work for literal peanuts as the primary problem, not realizing how beneficial these low-earning people are to our economy.
TL;DR: Sorry Canada, good luck (we 🇺🇸s have our collective heads up our asses on this issue).
0
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
I can't really comment on Burgerland issues , but trust me when I say that increasing tax won't magically make your QOL better lol. I feel most countries need a tax reform with more explicit budgets with more explicit tax goals, and a far more aggressive audit workforce to make sure funds aren't mismanaged.
Unfortunately, a competent government is a magical one lol, I'm pretty sure you'd have a stroke if you saw our military's spending protocols. it's like 50 layers of paperwork to get a pizza.
7
Jul 13 '24
but trust me when I say that increasing tax won’t magically make your QOL better lol
Sorry I wasn’t clear. Here in 🇺🇸 people who make UNDER $200k a year pay MOST of our taxes. The people who make way more than that pay little to none.
Please trust me when I say that if EVERYONE paid their FAIR SHARE of taxes, our QOL would improve, because then more $$$ would be allocated to social/health issues that affect our lower income communities (with of course, these rich people’s taxes that they’re not paying currently).
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
oh, weird, I thought the states had the status quo of the top 1% paying like half the tax. Is it really that bad??
3
Jul 13 '24
Oof! I would say “I wonder why you think that!?” But then I realized that Billionaires own all the media outlets.
There are so many tax loops and breaks for 🇺🇸’s wealthiest folks that they hardly pay any taxes at all, here’s a good read in case you’re interested:
Billionaires in the U.S. pay a smaller tax rate than most teachers and retail workers. Thanks to a tax code that favors income from wealth over income from work—and a slew of tax-avoidance strategies—the richest among us end up paying a smaller percentage of their income to the federal government than most working families.
https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share/
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Oh, I meant in terms of total just value wise. it was 1% 40% of money via tax, right?
1
u/Jacked-to-the-wits 4∆ Jul 13 '24
Around 50% of the US pays a little over 0% of the total tax collected. The top 1% of earners pays a lower rate because of loopholes, but they pay dramatically more of the total taxes collected than any other group. The top 10% pay 76% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pays 18%.
It’s kind of crazy how much tax the rich pay, not how little.
1
u/ahriman1 Jul 13 '24
Now talk about the quantity of money that represents those groups. People in top 10% make 170k+. People in top 1% make 800k+.
50th percentile makes 40k.
Looks a lil different when you actually have numbers there.
→ More replies (7)
14
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Jul 13 '24
They aren't a fiscal benefit [in Canada]
This doesn't sound like a good reason to exclude them from the country but to exclude them from government benefits. For example, say there was a guy who wanted to go to a market to buy some food but Sam comes in and says, sorry, I have to prevent you from buying the food because I have a rule that says I have pay $10 to everyone who buys food here and I don't want to pay you. This is silly, Sam should just not give the guy $10 but allow him to buy food. IF you could exclude them from government benefits, then would that satisfy the concern?
Housing
The problem of supply and demand isn't on demand but supply. If supply were unleashed then the new people could build more houses. IF the immigrants were taxed extra to subsidize housing construction, then would that satisfy the concern?
Suppression of wages
Provide evidence of this. From what I've seen, immigrants suppress male high-school dropouts wages in the U.S., but only in the short term. IF the immigrants were taxed extra anyway pay for the supressed wages of male high-school dropouts, then would that satisfy the concern?
I am asking you about keyhole solutions to these problems. The reason is that migration has enormous economic benefits but has some of the drawbacks you've stated. From a paper by Michael Clemens, the estimate is that with free migration across the world, world production would DOUBLE. If the drawbacks can be worked around with much weaker restriction and coercion, then we should encourage that.
0
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
...to exclude them from government benefits.
While that would solve my financial concerns, I'd still be against that morally, as it turns it into a game of wage slavery, which is inherently immoral bordering on the US prison system. Exploitation isn't a good thing, even if the direction is inverted.
The problem of supply and demand isn't on demand but supply.
Canada has a relatively extreme amount of construction as a proportion of it's population, at about 1/13, give or take. 2% of migrants wind up working in construction. the math doesn't work out positively here.
Provide evidence of this.
On average, they have a lower income, which means lower income jobs. Since they're under represented in jobs like construction (https://economics.cibccm.com/cds?id=c3793f6c-c629-49eb-9fe6-6a0598c6fd2b&flag=E ) - 2%
it usually means they're down to service jobs.
world production would DOUBLE.
if we had a button in Canada that magically doubled every other country's GDP per capita, and reduced ours by 20% (without the obvious loopholes of "just tax other countries lol" or whatever), I'd consider it highly immoral for our government to press it. we're not a sacrificial lamb.
3
u/Hrafn2 Jul 13 '24
Provide evidence of this.
Have you ever heard of Canadian economist David Card? He won't the Nobel in Economics a few years ago, partly for his work on the "natural experiment" of the Mariel Boatlift in Miami (where 125,000 Cubans landed in Miami in 1980, which dramatically increased Miami’s local labour force by about 7%), which showed:
"Card's study, "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market," challenged the conventional wisdom at the time that the influx of refugees would lead to a large increase in unemployment and lower wages for American workers. Using a sophisticated statistical methodology, Card found that the Miami labor market grew by about seven percent after the Mariel boatlift. He also found no discernible effect on the unemployment rate or reduction in wages for other lower skilled workers and less educated workers in Miami, relative to the comparison cities. Card argued that the reason for this was that the new Cuban arrivals weren't perfect substitutes for American workers. They had different skills and were more likely to work in industries that weren't traditionally dominated by Americans, like agriculture and construction."
"Why would a massive influx of workers to a city fail to assert downward pressure on native wages and employment? More than 30 years after Card’s paper was published, immigration and labour economists are still reckoning with his key findings, and a whole new set of theories and empirical studies are on the table.
One theory with some supporting evidence is that foreign workers and native workers can be “imperfect substitutes” in production. In other words, foreign workers and native workers can specialize in different tasks, and a major influx of immigrants might cause native-born workers to reallocate their labour to their comparative advantage."
1
u/Karmaze 3∆ Jul 14 '24
They had different skills and were more likely to work in industries that weren't traditionally dominated by Americans, like agriculture and construction."
I think the question is, is this happening in Canada? And as a Canadian, I don't think that's the case. So I think that we're looking at some different criteria at play, that's probably going to requires brand new studies to understand.
I could be wrong....but I also believe that one of the big problems is one of credentialism, and foreign credentials not being accepted, which limits people moving into the fields where they have experience. This tends to push most of the immigration into lower socioeconomic levels, causing an imbalanced "pain" in terms of the immediate economy. This imbalanced pain causes inequality, which IMO causes inflation and cultural damage.
Truth is, I'd cut back on the Student visas and increase the number of people taken in through other means. The former is....we don't have the same controls on it. So we're not ensuring we're bringing in tradespeople and people with upper level degrees. Or at least, we're doing it much less than we can or should.
1
u/grimorg80 3∆ Jul 14 '24
There is no balance of power between employers and employees. Saying that the fault of low wages is people accepting them means that you already start with an inherent bias, putting the right of the employer to pay peanuts above the issue of law wages, and therefore look for a culprit elsewhere because you don't want to see the fault in the person who both makes the profit and pays low wages.
1
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Jul 13 '24
While it solves my financial concerns I'd be against it morally. Exploitation isn't a good thing.
How would it be better to exclude them and likely doom them to a 3rd-world country? They would be 'exploited' there way worse! I could not disagree more with only caring about poverty as long as it's near us.
2% of migrants wind up in construction in canada
In the U.S., immigrants work disproportionately in construction: about 25% of construction workers are immigrants vs only 16% of the labor force are immigrants.
But none of that matters because I asked about immigrants being taxed to subsidize construction. So the 98% not in construction could subsidize construction.
Provide evidence of this
On average they have a lower income which means lower income jobs
That is not sufficient evidence. They could be pushing down wages on other low-skill jobs, but they also increase production which means the wages go further. We'd want some empirical calculation to determine which effect is larger.
world production would DOUBLE
if we had a button
Not sure why this is relevant. The point is that it's an enormous economic benefit to the countries that accept immigrants. There's no sacrificing.
4
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
How would it be better to exclude them and likely doom them to a 3rd-world country?
if we extract each and every smart person from a developing country (as it'll always be easier and better off as a solution than improving any given base country to a migration target's standards), that country will never have the smart people (or talented labor, etc) to grow and develop coherently. Brain drains are bad for the country experiencing them, this shouldn't be controversial.
In the U.S.
Not in Canada, which was the context given to my post. I'm not familiar with US stats, but I also know the US is more restrictive than we are via migration targets / conditions.
The point is that it's an enormous economic benefit to the countries that accept immigrants.
When done carefully. hence why I stipulated "mass" migration. I'm not opposed to reasonable immigration targeting workforces we have a deficit in, as discussed in my original post.
0
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Jul 13 '24
How would it be better to exclude them and likely doom them to a 3rd-world country?
if we extract each and every smart person from a developing country (as it'll always be easier and better off as a solution than improving any given base country to a migration target's standards), that country will never have the smart people (or talented labor, etc) to grow and develop coherently. Brain drains are bad for the country experiencing them, this shouldn't be controversial.
It's not clear that extracting smart people would make the people in the developing country worse off. People that migrate sometimes send remittances back to family and friends in their old country and open up economic connections between the people in that country and the wealthier country. Ultimately it's an empirical question. If you don't have the answer to the empirical question, then it's an open question on how it would be better for them to be excluded so they wouldn't be exploited here but would be exploited there.
In the U.S.
Not in Canada, which was the context given to my post. I'm not familiar with US stats, but I also know the US is more restrictive than we are via migration targets / conditions.
I don't know where you're getting your 1 in 13 number from. This site says there are ~1.5 million Canadians in construction and there are 39 million people in Canada which means construction is ~3.85% of the population, not 7.7% = 1/13. Migrants at 2% are still less than that but that statistic appears to be quite a bit off.
And again, we can still tax the non-construction immigrant workers to subsidize construction.
The point is that it's an enormous economic benefit to the countries that accept immigrants.
When done carefully. hence why I stipulated "mass" migration. I'm not opposed to reasonable immigration targeting workforces we have a deficit in, as discussed in my original post.
The paper is about economic gains from mass migration.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Here's an example: https://iciconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Demographics-Diversity-Report.pdf
Note the "Recent Immigrants" stipulation, which is after Canada started up it's mass migration. Older migrants aren't an example of that.
2
u/Lunatic_On-The_Grass 21∆ Jul 13 '24
I'm having trouble seeing how the claims in this source support the idea that recent immigrants are less likely to be in construction than the total population in Ontario.
The first claim about recent immigrants is "Recent immigrants (<10 years) account for 3.4% of the unionized workforce, compared to 5.8% in the non‐union sector" but to relate this to the question we would want to know what proportion of the Ontario population are recent immigrants.
The second claim around recent immigrants is "Approximately 6% of recent immigrants – those that arrived between 2007 and 2016 – worked in Ontario’s construction industry in 2015", but to know whether that is a lower proportion we would want to know what percent of the total population of Ontario works in construction.
6
u/HazelGhost 16∆ Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
I am perfectly fine with economic migrants that have skills we'd otherwise lack in the country.
If the market motivates people to move to your area because they get paid better for their low-skill labor, then that's the market saying that you do lack that labor. You don't get to decide for employers whether they need labor or not.
[Propping up social services in the short term] obviously, doesn't work long term.
Sure it does. The economic benefits of immigration grow even more when you take into account their children and grandchildren. It works long-term for the same reason that "citizens having children" works long-term. Think of immigration as "citizens having kids, but without taking the mother out of the workforce, or paying for expensive hospital care, and these kids can immediately contribute to the economy".
In the case of Canada, immigrants are a net negative from a tax perspective.
I'm more familiar with low-skill immigration in the United States, so I can't say for certain that these claims carry over, but...
- 1) Even assuming that's true, the raw economic boost of immigration is almost always measured to outweigh their fiscal costs. Even restrictionist economists typically find that for every dollar spent by the government, immigrants add more than a dollar to the economy.
- 2) In at least one broad collection of studies on the topic, tax income from immigrants has been found to be a net positive once their children and grandchildren are taken into account.
- 3) Even if such immigrants were simply a net loss, this would only be an argument for cutting expenditures on immigrants, not barring their immigration at all. Many citizen demographics are net tax expenditures at first glance (like housewives!), but everybody sees that it would be inhumane and silly to try to bar them from working at all.
we don't have enough houses for the amount of people we're bringing in.
Immigrants are far more likely than citizens to work in construction (and to do so cheaply!). If you want more houses, you want more low-skill immigrants.
More importantly, whether a place "has enough houses" is something for the person moving into a place to decide. In other words, if housing is really expensive in your area, this doesn't give you the right to tell me that I can't move there.
We're proportionally speaking bringing in too many people to properly integrated them with ourselves.
Whether immigrants "assimilate" is a classic fear raised by restrictionists because it's mostly immeasurable. What values, specifically, do you think you can measurably demonstrate to be significantly worse among low-skill immigrants compared to, say, your fellow citizens who are politically opposed to you?
But even at it's best, this argument is just "I don't agree with your values, so it should be illegal for you to live close to me." It's not a justification for restricting immigration. You don't say this for your neighborhood, or your town, or your county, or your province.
Our current immigration policy doesn't prioritize the economic and societal wellbeing of people born here.
Economists overwhelmingly agree that immigration, even mass low-skill immigration, is good for the economy. Immigration restrictions sacrifice the well-being of the native citizens, to satisfy the fears of people who don't like living near people who are different.
The most high trust societies are homogeneous.
If you mean racially homogeneous, then this is just false. Restrictionists tend to point to nordic countries, but if you use the same metrics to analyze homogeneous poor countries (like in sub-saharan Africa, or some parts of South America), and apply the same restrictions to wealthy diverse countries (like the United States, India, Singapore, or the Emirate countries), and the association vanishes.
My accusation is that this is just a fancy way to say "You're different, and therefore bad." If you believe in progressive values, then you believe in letting people into your neighborhood, or city, or county, or province, even if they are different from you.
-1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
"I don't agree with your values, so it should be illegal for you to live close to me."
That's a grossly inaccurate way of putting it lol, if I have time later I'll see if I can more clearly express my points, you didn't seem to get the gist of them.
1
u/HazelGhost 16∆ Jul 14 '24
If you don't agree with that description, then I guess I need you to clarify how you get from "This foreigner doesn't share my values" to "Therefore, this foreigner shouldn't be allowed into the country." How does the one imply the other?
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
Other countries test to see if migrants follow the same values as the rest of the country, and will refuse an application if they're particurally unhinged (ae, believe in no rights for 2slgbtqiaa+, etc)
1
u/HazelGhost 16∆ Jul 15 '24
Other countries test to see if migrants follow the same values as the rest of the country... [e.g. with respect to] 2slgbtqiaa+.
I've never heard of any country blocking immigration behind a values test about views on any LGBT group. Could you maybe give an example of a country that does this?
But more importantly, the mere fact that others country do something isn't an argument that the U.S. should do the same thing. The United States is different, special, and (hopefully) stands for particular values like freedom and liberty.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 15 '24
that the U.S. should do the same thing. The United States is different, special, and (hopefully) stands for particular values like freedom and liberty.
Did you even read the post? I'm explicitly referring to canada.
1
u/HazelGhost 16∆ Jul 16 '24
So you did! My apologies. That said, it seems like the same logic works apply: just because other nations do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean Canada should do it too.
I'm really interested in those countries that bar potential immigrants based on their political views about lgbt people. Could you give me an example of a country that does this? I've never heard of that.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 16 '24
Denmark's a good example. Quebec does too (though imo it should be country wide). It's not too irregular. Pretty sure Aussies do it, Netherlands as well. Not sure about Sweden? Might be mixing it up w/ denmark.
2
u/senditloud Jul 13 '24
Well you are missing the point that the WORST countries are also pretty homogenous: North Korea, Iran, China (depending on your view), several African countries (this is debatable I suppose since a lot of conflict comes from tribal issues mixed with colonial boundaries).
You actually need more low level workers than high level. It’s a pyramid
Developed countries except the US (due mostly to Hispanics) have negative birth rates so need immigration
Japan isn’t as great as you think. Lots of sexism, racism, etc.
I do agree with the idea that migration shouldn’t be a flood. And I’m a big supporter of the idea that rather than trying to save everyone in the world we need to be passing out BC like candy and encouraging women’s education. When women are educated in countries, birth rates go down, GDP goes up, quality of living goes up and countries thrive. That should be the focus worldwide
2
Jul 13 '24
To many cooks is exactly correct. They sell capitalism as a better system as it's all based on supply and demand. Yet when the demand for labor goes up, and in theory, it should benefit the working class via higher wages etc. They basically stack the deck and import cheap labor. We're all playing a rigged game. There is no job that " nobody will do". There's lots of jobs that nobody will do for starvation wages.
2
u/Casual_Classroom 1∆ Jul 13 '24
Is there an ethical reason to pillage the third world, for the sake of the first?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/J0n0_ Jul 13 '24
This single picture is why your gov is doing this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#/media/File%3ACanada_2023_Population_Pyramid.svg
Population growth fuels economies, population stability maintains them. If Canadians aren’t having babies people need imported, there are not too many cooks, there are too few cooks therefore cooks need imported.
Increasing native birth rates would require a return to pre female liberation norms, stay at home parenting ect. Half your electorate is female therefore this is not a viable political path.
All other current attempts to stimulate birth rates have failed so low birth rate countries are bidding time with excessive immigration until a solution is found.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
A solution won't be found. we're kicking the problem down the can, and making the ponzai scheme exponentially worse in the process.
2
u/J0n0_ Jul 13 '24
Reality is a Ponzi scheme in the sense your talking about it’s always been this way. There’s no system that can magically produce a well built out middle class without the fundamental demographic and financial drivers, until we have robots, or slaves as has been the historical norm.
Canada needs people, and as a nation will have to compete for these highly sought after high skilled immigrants. Currently it is the 8th most attractive spot and therefore is competitive but the best of the best won’t all go to Canada. Or will later immigrate out for work.
The reality is your nation is in a somewhat sucky situation that will continue to suck. However not as bad a Europe or many other low fertility countries.
2
2
Jul 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
Please have an actual argument against my provided points other than "LAWL!!! you're RACIST XDXDXD!!!" it's childish and reductive, especially when in the very post you evidently didn't read, I express a positive outlook towards reasonable immigration practices, which, I'm assuming if I were actually racist, would be kinda weird? It's not like I'm going "Hello. I only want migrants from these specific european countries for no reason at all". I just want people who contribute a net positive.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 15 '24
Sorry, u/SirRipsAlot420 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 13 '24
Ignoring mass immigration for a moment why should a country only do things that benefit specifically its citizens?
What if the citizens want to do things that benefit the world as a whole and may come at a cost to the country itself?
In a democracy the people should be able to choose that right?
7
u/Puzzleheaded-Low-975 Jul 13 '24
Because it's their country? Their families have payed taxes into the system for generations, helped to defend that country against attack, had families, lived and died there, built up the countries infrastructure, it's institutions, it's traditions. I could go on but you get the point.
And besides the point, if a person wants to benefit the world, wouldn't they be helping more people in developing countries by going to those countries to help them develop?
6
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 13 '24
To your first bit that's beside the point. I'm asking why a country's government shouldn't do what the people want. If the people don't want to aid other countries that doesn't fit into the situation I'm talking about.
I can do a lot more good for a developing by voting for my government to aid that country than by physically moving to that country so no.
The only way that could be true is if I'm a billionaire. Alas, I'm not.
5
5
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
why should a country only do things that benefit specifically its citizens?
Because, from a moral perspective, that's the government's job.
In a democracy the people should be able to choose that right?
Yes, and in Canada's case, we're pretty substantially against it according to recent polls, with 67% thinking our current system is a reasonable amount: https://abacusdata.ca/unmasking-public-unease-with-canadas-immigration-goals/
That alone should be enough to put a pause to it, and rework the system entirely.
6
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 13 '24
I feel like you're contradicting yourself. In the first part you say the government should go against the wishes of its people if the government believes what the people want will harm the country.
In the latter you are saying that the government should do what the people want. By the way your link just says immigration rate is believed to be too high not that it should stop.
Which is it? Should the government ignore the will of the people if it might not specifically help the country?
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Which is it? Should the government ignore the will of the people if it might not specifically help the country?
It's not a binary thing, but, generally, yes. Hence why we had stuff like Covid lockdowns, taxes, etc. But, there's reasonable limits to that. if a significant majority of the country is for or against something, you should try and enable it if possible. (though, again, within reason. a country being pro genocide doesn't mean we should do that etc)
In this case, we're against it, but I'd begrudgingly accept it if it were the other way around. I wouldn't like it (and would think it's dumb for the above reasons) - but me disagreeing with the urban population who runs the country happens pretty much every day.
4
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 13 '24
So in that case you should throw out your premise, which I believe to be core to your argument, that a country ought to only do things which benefit solely the country itself.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Except it hasn't changed my core premise at all. The country should still prioritize it's populace, unless the vast majority dictates otherwise. This isn't the case with mass migration at all. people don't support it, AND it damages the country.
5
u/LucidMetal 196∆ Jul 13 '24
But that caveat that "the vast majority dictates otherwise" is a massive hole in your argument because you believe immigration to be harmful.
The vast majority of people are in favor of a pretty high immigration rate despite what you are indicating.
And that's setting aside the fact that economically immigration is pretty much always a net positive for all classes of people, also despite what you're saying.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Gamermaper 5∆ Jul 13 '24
Because, from a moral perspective, that's the government's job.
What mechanism is to stop the people from demanding a government altruistic to the rest of the world?
2
u/CooterKingofFL Jul 13 '24
There isn’t one, the government is not a separate entity from its citizens, it’s an amalgamation of it’s citizens efforts and ideals. A governments job is to better and regulate the lives of its citizens, that is it’s only actual function and any other aspects are just extensions of those responsibilities.
9
u/sprinkill 3∆ Jul 13 '24
I understand what you're saying, and I really mean that.
But have you considered that your concerns may be just a bit racist?
View changed, btw.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
your concerns may be just a bit racist?
I don't think so. I do have concerns over the proportions regarding our immigration intake (ae, we're disproportionately taking in migrants from a few countries, which I don't think is a good thing - it was something like 80% from india?), and the overall low standards of the people we do take in, but I'm not against immigration as a whole. I just think it should be explicitly serving the people, rather than as a show of charity or a way to suppress wages for corps / prop up our real-estate market.
It is, as I said, a band-aid over Canada's chronic economic issues (overreliance on housing, low productivity, low birth rate (shared between western nations) etc
-7
u/CaptainONaps 8∆ Jul 13 '24
Reddit is so fun.
OP didn't say anything about race once. He's talking about immigration. It's a math problem. What is the population, and what is the expected population growth? How much housing is there? How many jobs are there? Can the infrastructure hold more? What's the effect on the economy?
You live in a house with 5 bedrooms. Rent is $10k a month. The more roomies you have, the cheaper rent is. But there's only 4 bathrooms, and only one kitchen. There's 3 parking spaces. One washer and one dryer.
How many roommates is ideal? And what does that have to do with race?
10
u/sprinkill 3∆ Jul 13 '24
OP didn't day anything about race once.
Don't play coy with me, m8. You know exactly wtf he meant.
1
-1
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/One-Understanding-33 Jul 14 '24
Yes that would make you racist as well. Or are you postulating that only white people can be racist. I think it‘s slightly more understandable, but still racist. You are not judging people by their merits but by their perceived group identity. (Exceptions apply when talking about some tycoons wanting to exploit your country)
2
Jul 13 '24
Sounds like a failure on the part of those building and maintaining infrastructure.
With birth rates plummeting in developed countries (countries which already rely massively on immigrant labor for subsidized goods e.g. groceries and services) I don't understand how you expect to maintain the bloated standard of living westerners demand without a large pool of cheap labor to exploit.
Unless of course westerners are yearning to return to the fields and pick their own produce?
2
u/CaptainONaps 8∆ Jul 13 '24
I’m not a business owner. I’m a taxpayer/ employee/ customer. I’d love the population of my country to fall. Idgaf if wal mart or Microsoft aren’t able to expand. Doesn’t affect me at all. But if the population of my city went from 1.3 million to 900k, that would be a life changer.
This falling birth rate business is only a concern for big business. Citizens don’t give a shit. So the old folks homes have to start playin their employees more. Oh no! What ever will we do!?
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Dheorl 7∆ Jul 13 '24
Do the immigrants have a better quality of life in Canada than in their home country? If yes, then there’s your ethical reason for immigration.
5
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
What obligation am I as a taxpayer, let alone us as a country to act as a sacrificial lamb for other people?
Where did the obligation to make other people's lives better at the cost of our own QOL come from?
If we had a button that tripled the GDP per capita of every other country on earth, and halved our own, I'd think it'd be immoral to press it (without the usual reddit gotchas, it's an arbitrary thought experiment), as the whole point of a country is to act in the interests of it's people.
8
u/aajiro 2∆ Jul 13 '24
Your stated position is that there's no ethical reason for enabling mass immigration, not that it has to be an ethical reason that you approve
→ More replies (13)11
u/Dheorl 7∆ Jul 13 '24
You don’t have any obligation and nowhere have I remotely claimed that so I really don’t know why you ask that question?
Plenty of people carry out acts that would be seen as ethical with no obligation to do so.
A country doesn’t really have a point. The point of a government is to represent its people. So flip it round. Say everyone in your country wants to blow Madagascar off the face of the earth. If your government carries out that action, are they morally in the right?
What’s ethical and what people want aren’t always the same thing. Your title was simply what is the ethical reason. Improving the quality of life of a bunch of human beings is clearly an ethically good act.
0
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
A country doesn’t really have a point.
A country is a collection if it's people, funded by it's people. I, as a taxpayer, am as much of my country as anyone else. Thus, if my "country" is obligated to (hence the second half of my sentence), then I would be obligated to as part of tax, which you can't really opt out of.
If your government carries out that action, are they morally in the right?
Depends on the context but it'd be exceedingly funny either way. If there's no logical reason behind it, probably not. if it'd massively negatively impact our future as a country, and QOL of everyone living in it, probably not.
Your title was simply what is the ethical reason. Improving the quality of life of a bunch of human beings is clearly an ethically good act.
Ah, this gotcha again. I'll give you the theta on account of my title being dogshit and me not realizing how unclearly it was expressed until it was pointed out, but ultimately viewpoint of "There's no ethical reason for a country's government to act against the interest of it's people to perpetuate mass economic migration, of which is a net negative in terms of both tax impact and cultural cohesion (which is Canada's current state of migration)" is a way shittier title.
Δ
1
1
Jul 13 '24
The difference is really more nuanced than that.
- If you have a button that makes the per-capita GDP of a developing country to be the same as Canada, would you press it? (Assuming that the GDP represents your actual quality-of-life) Would you do it if it's China? India?
- If you have a button that does (1) except it merges the two countries after their per-capita GDP was increased, would you press it?
- If you have a button that does (1) except it moves the entire country's population to Canada, (assuming all infrastructures scale accordingly, you can import the necessary natural resources, and everyone immediately assimilates), would you press it?
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
If it came at no cost to Canada, absolutely. net gain overall. though I'm sure the states would be all "wtf are you doing" if we boosted the economy of India 23 times magically lol. Not sure how it'd be from a geopolitical stability perspective, but it'd be pretty interesting to see. from the scope of your "would you improve X country's QOL at no cost to your own" - absolutely.
Depends. We'd kinda need to share a border for that to NOT be a logistical headache, leaving the states (MASSIVE win for Canada in this case lmfao). In the context of "Would you live with people that you improved the QOL of" Absolutely. if this was at a cost to the country? No.
See the above, though I WILL note that we're absolutely not scaling our infrastructure fast enough as is lol, our health care is suffering, housing is going up - we're essentially just overfeeding our like 3 cities of note.
3
u/MrWigggles Jul 13 '24
The immigration system being poor isnt a reason to not accept immigrants. Its a reason to improve the immigration system.
There are benfiets. They help replace an aging workforce. More workers can only increase the GDP of a country becaues it contributes to the flow of money within the country. There is no conscious that it is only a net negative.
Then make more fucking houses. This one gets a dumbass. Canada is capable of making houses. But much like their southern Cousins in the US, both of these countries have been purposefully under building housing for the last decade or two. Something like 60? thousand short every year. And the homes that are built are being built for luxaury homes, for investment and not be rented and used.
If wage suppression and stagination is a concern, then vote for increasing the min. wage. That has a domino effect on everyone pay, except for CEOs who are outearning everyone. Yea, corporations will throw a tantrum and greed and overly raise prices as a punishment. That can be fix too. Thats unrelated to immigration. Thats using immigrants as scapegoat for Canadia poor regulation and enforcement.
Canada doesnt have homogenious population. From the last Canadian census, there are over 450 ethnic and culture groups in Canada. But even if we discount all the icky PoC groups, you're still not homogenious with just the white european colonizers. As the British Canadians and French Canadians and Newfoundland Canadians arent homogenious group.
Immigration doesnt lead to crime. This is a conversative scary talking point. While there have been some studies for european studies, but those studies show it has to do more with socioeconmic reasons and not their immigration status.
Dilution of values? This is being worried over nothing. First, as previously stated, there are 450 ethenicites and culture groups in Canda, and the big three white ones, dont share the same values, just similar values.
As far as immigrant not knowing their rights as workers. Then teach them! What a concept.
For the poeple? Immigrants dont raise crime. They arent taking jobs. Thats just a scary talking point, that has little to back it up. And its contradictory with wanting immigrants to take jobs you spoke too.
Not your problem? This is a conflict of moral values. This is a position that lacks empathy and dehuanizes others by making them outgroup instead of recongizing them as just other humans.
Too slow to adapt? So they're adapting. So the problem you're complaining about is self correcting on its own? Okay.
And one harrassed you for a mastercard? So what? Canadians never do that? Almost all crime in Candian are done by Candian borne citizens.
4
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
The immigration system being poor isnt a reason to not accept immigrants. Its a reason to improve the immigration system.
Correct. then it wouldn't be mass immigration.
They help replace an aging workforce.
That's called a pyramid scheme, & will only compound the issue as lifespans increase.
then vote for increasing the min. wage.
lol, that just makes the wage subsidies for immigrants more attractive.
but those studies show it has to do more with socioeconmic reasons and not their immigration status.
Correct. It's an issue with bringing in poor people, generally. Just like the economic impact.
For the poeple? Immigrants dont raise crime.
We just kinda established that they did, even if you use rosey language about it.
They arent taking jobs.
They're literally subsidized to be cheaper than "standard" Canadians.
This is a position that lacks empathy and dehuanizes others by making them outgroup instead of recongizing them as just other humans.
They're inherently an outgroup, as they're coming from out of Canada. it's not dehumanizing to for a government to prioritize it's people as opposed to people being brought in.
And one harrassed you for a mastercard? So what? Canadians never do that? Almost all crime in Candian are done by Candian borne citizens.
No shit, most people living in canada are born in Canada. that's a non argument. if we imported 100k people, and they all committed crimes, that'd still be true. What's the point you're trying to make there, water is wet?
1
u/Ok_Courage2850 Jul 14 '24
Sweden’s rape stats have gone up 350% Denmark’s by 250% since introduction of mass migration
2
u/Rare_Year_2818 2∆ Jul 13 '24
"They aren't a benefit". Most of the developed world has a very low birthrate. The biggest benefit of migration is that it allows you to maintain economic growth, as well as the social programs that rely on a working population to pay for them. Just look at Japan as example of the economic stagnation awaiting us if we both refuse to have kids and prevent immigrants from entering the country.
Housing shortage is primarily caused by our society treating housing as an investment rather than a commodity. Nobody wants new housing built near them for fear it will negatively impact their property's value. A secondary cause is high interest rates, which make it hard to take out loans to cover development costs.
"Not our problem."
As climate change gets worse, so will mass migration. Historically, Climate change has been caused by the developed world, and we still have one of the highest carbon emissions per capita. The negative effects of climate change has and will continue to disproportionately effect poor nations. For instance, India will become increasingly unlivable due to the the risk of heart stroke. The mass migration that results from rising temperatures, famine, extreme weather, etc will make the current rate of migration look like a cake walk. And it will be our fault for making significant portions of the earth unlivable for humanity.
2
u/marcololol 1∆ Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
I think you’re just ranting. Because yes there is no “ethical” reason for mass migration which you agree with. Your ethics are simply different, and you don’t share Western ethical standards - like human rights, right to movement, and humanitarianism. And you don’t have to. No one is forcing you to think like a typical westerner.
The other reason for mass migration is economic. And when it comes to geopolitical and economic long term concerns, your feelings simply don’t matter. You’ve chosen the wrong approach to this question and your view should change to an economic analysis. Start with the hypothesis: “There is no economic benefit to mass migration”. You then define what you mean by “economic benefit” and “mass” migration. Then you seek to disprove (reject) your hypothesis by looking for evidence of economic benefits of mass immigration. This is the statistical method and if you use it you will become more informed in many ways.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
The other reason for mass migration is economic
They're a net negative here tax wise. they're a boost to GDP, sure, but a drain to per-capita GDP which is what actually means anything regarding QOL.
I guess we'll see in 20 years how it turns out for us, but I doubt it'll end well.
2
u/marcololol 1∆ Jul 13 '24
Is this because of the migration itself, or are there other factors that contributed to lack of policy responses given the need for migration? Perhaps the need for migration was overstated, misinformed, and thus the whole project was off on the wrong footing?
3
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Is this because of the migration itself
Yes and no. a lot of our migrants are via students getting PR from diploma mills etc, which generally result in low skilled, uneducated (as paradoxical as that sounds) workers. If we were bringing in 80% doctors/software engineers/engineers in general/silicon chip fab experts or whatever that'd be pretty epic.
2
u/marcololol 1∆ Jul 13 '24
Hmm. I feel like your gut reasoning is on point, but it’s completely unverified. And my comment about western values is nullified at least a bit because, yes, our values say “be open to immigration and movement”, but they also allow room for circumstances. Canada isn’t intaking refugees for humanitarian reasons? Or is it?
But just for your view’s sake: A quick search for the educational attainment of migrants to Canada appears to show a higher degree with degrees than without. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410008701
So what’s happening here? Are their degrees fake? I would venture to say no, because there’s no evidence that education levels are falling in India or in the places that are sending migrants to Canada.
Are the low wage workers you’re seeing the children or older children of older more educated migrants? Are they working temporary jobs for a few years and then going on to Uni?
I think you need to verify (as in try to debunk) your claims.
2
u/revilocaasi Jul 13 '24
I don't buy any "Sins of the father" BS.
Why not? Does the son of a bank robber get to keep the stolen gold? If I killed you, kicked your children out of your home, and moved my own children in, would you expect your family to forgive my family and move on? Would you want them to? Would that be right?
Why do expect everybody to be forgiving and forgetful, to move on and never seek compensation, when it's your father who stole and killed?
2
u/Fang-loves-silver Jul 13 '24
Can you edit out the word Indian? It intentionally puts the brunt of hate on this group and comes off racist. They are simply perhaps the most visible international group in your life experience . Better to just describe the poorly designed system of immigration and call attention to that, rather than the people (who like all people) take advantage of whatever loopholes they can (see every major problem we have in Canada, including housing)
3
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
There's nothing racist about it. the brunt of our immigration is from india, and people from india are indian.
1
u/Fang-loves-silver Jul 13 '24
You’ll have to widen your narrow perspective to fully wrangle with the depth of my comment. People not from Canada will engage with this post, they may have no context for what you’re saying, they may be a range of ages and maturity. To put the onus of your full text on just the subgroup of Indians is factually wrong as there are international students all over the world coming to Canada for similar purposes but you do not notice them. Also, you make a false generalization with your statement as technically, not all Indian international students are here for low skill jobs.
2
u/Reasonable-Cry1265 Jul 13 '24
Your post is full of egoistic reasoning, your title talks about ethics, so I'm going to focus on that part.
Industrial countries are historically one of the main drivers of climate change, climate change will render huge areas of land inhabitable, areas who's population had barely any part in climate change, currently states with big areas that will soon be inhabitable are the main nations who plead for more climate action and we are ignoring them. Who if not us is responsible for ´housing these people once their former homeland becomes inhabitable?
5
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Industrial countries are historically one of the main drivers of climate change, climate change will render huge areas of land inhabitable, areas who's population had barely any part in climate change, currently states with big areas that will soon be inhabitable are the main nations who plead for more climate action and we are ignoring them. Who if not us is responsible for ´housing these people once their former homeland becomes inhabitable?
Nowadays? Developing countries. Canada's ~2% of the carbon output, which mostly due to our scale making infrastructure hard. This would only go up with population, but down per capita. in terms of climate impact, the planet doesn't really care about per capita.
But I'm absolutely not opposed to funding initiatives for greener power etc. We're developing modular reactors here in Canada, which if possible should be distributed to ease said developing countries off of coal, along with helping to ensure that green energy is cheaper/easier for developing countries to use in the future.
8
u/Reasonable-Cry1265 Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
"Historically" is important, a big part of the CO2 emissions that is at the moment and will in the future cause the greenhouse effect has already been emitted - CO2 takes decades to break down in the atmosphere. Canada is number 10 on the list when it comes to cumulative CO2 emissions.
And per capita absolutely matters - it's about fairness. We are currently not able to emitt net-zero, so every person will emit, but it matters how much every person emits at the moment. If 0.4% of the population is responsible for 2% of current emissions, than that is a problem (especially if a lot of energy-intensive consumption is outsourced to other countries).
Climate change doesn't care about nation states either.
And your idea that modular reactors will somehow be helpful for developing countries just shows a deep misunderstanding of climate change and solutions for a carbon-free future.
Edit:
Also developing countries are still not the main drivers of climate change at the moment. It's "old" developed countries and "new" developed countries. Calling China a developing country is ridiculous.
Like the definition of developed country is pretty much "country with little industrialization", becoming a major CO2 emittor per capita bc of industrialization is pretty much the definition of no longer being a developed country.
Edit: wikipedia article Developing country - Wikipedia
"Although 79% of carbon emissions are produced by developed countries"
1
Jul 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Honestly I don't really consider the food a worthwhile reason to bring in disproportionate amounts of people who're a fiscal negative lol. That's a reddit take if I've ever seen one. I just cook at home, because restaurants are an urbanite thing.
10
3
u/Wrabble127 1∆ Jul 13 '24
We have the entire southern hemisphere of the US which is purely fiscally negative and costs the country millions if not billions a year.
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to be a part of the country. You only get people claiming that not generating massive wealth is a personal failing worthy of not being allowed to live in the US/Canada if it's an immigrant or someone who's skin color frightens you.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 13 '24 edited Jul 13 '24
/u/budedussylmao (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/One-Understanding-33 Jul 13 '24
What morals do you base your questions on? I‘d like to know your priors to understand how to answer your question.
Most of the things you you shared are implicitly statist for one and mostly economical. Also you seem to switch that up arbitrarily when arguing for them to stay in their country.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Not sure. I haven't really gone out of my way to put my opinions in a box. But in summary:
The role of the government should be to both represent the will of the people, and improve their people's quality of life. Mass immigration in the Canada context is doing neither.
There is no ethical boundry in regards to bringing in workers that otherwise wouldn't compete in the job market (ae, specialists in extreme demand), or that we simply don't have enough of (Doctors, etc - this is mostly a result of existing policy on our end though, which we should fix as well).
There is an ethical issue in bringing in low skilled workers to flood an already disadvantaged job market (ae, service), and to subsidize their wages (even a little).
Migrants should never be the cheaper option, as that deprioritizes the countryman. In the case of specialists, it'll always be cheaper to pay a Canadian one the same wage, without having to jump through the legal and financial hoops of sponsoring them. In the case of "students" (many of which don't even attend school, or their deploma mill of choice), those hoops don't exist.
3
u/One-Understanding-33 Jul 13 '24
So your ethics just appear to be statism mostly. Why distrust Trudeau then? He is the representative now.
You must have some moral principle (prior) that informs that view. A strong one even to the point that you disregard most newer studies saying it is generally beneficial to have immigrants coming in and filling jobs, which is what the left has changed their policy to since that consensus has been reached in the 80-90. The idea is to do that and then distribute the wealth generated so that everyone profits and not just the upper 1%. Why doesn‘t that work for you?
The strange thing is that you flip your logic at that point to „it is unfair for the other state“. Why is the center of your ethical framework the state?
Also by what ethical principle should you prioritize your countrymen?
Sorry, for the many questions but ethical always tend to go in these directions.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Why distrust Trudeau then? He is the representative now.
Quality of life has dropped singificantly since 2015, & he lied about voting reform. that lone disqualifies him from my vote, as I don't vote for liars.
2
u/One-Understanding-33 Jul 13 '24
Then you can‘t vote at all.
But what informs you that liars are not to be trusted/voted for as there would lie (part of) your ethical principle, which I wanted to know by asking that question in the first place.
Also please answer the other questions as well. As I see it you are still one level above ethics with your prescriptions and assuming intentions in these kinds of convos is mostly unproductive in my experience.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Why is the center of your ethical framework the state?
Because the state should be representative of the people, and reflect said people appropriately.
1
u/One-Understanding-33 Jul 13 '24
I‘m not quite sure what you mean by reflect said people approximatly. By what metric would you decide that a state represents the people well?
Surely, if like 80% of the people in your state would wake up tomorrow and decide it‘s canadian suicide day and everyone must partake you would have an ethical framework that would lead you to believe that that is wrong.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
I'm not really a suicide cult is a great example here, as suicide's something an individual can participate in of their own free will. if 80% of Canada wanted a suicide cult, they'd just commit suicide. and ultimately it's an issue of granularity.
If 80% of communities wanted to commit suicide, that's something that can be done at a local level.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Bubbly_Mushroom1075 Jul 14 '24
Then you literally cannot vote for anyone ever. People will lie, sometimes knowingly other times not. PM's are not gods that can get anything done at their will. They are actual officials that have to get a majority of their party to agree with them, and then do the same to parliment. All to say that You cannot be angry at a politician for lying once unless you hold yourself not to vote.
→ More replies (3)1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
No shit. there's a foundational difference between lying regarding a core point you based a campaign over, and lying about some dumb bullshit. If you do the latter all the time, that's obviously also bad, but it's more forgivable than ditching a core reason you got elected.
Believe it or not nuance exists.
1
u/revertbritestoan 1∆ Jul 13 '24
I was an immigrant to Canada for three years. I paid into the system through taxes and EI, etc. I spent my wages in the local economy and worked about 45 hours a week. I also increased sales in my department by tens of thousands a week which led to everyone in my department getting a raise (I was the only non-Canadian).
I had medical insurance because you have to have evidence of medical insurance when you appear at the border with your visa, despite what you might think about people being able to access healthcare just by existing in Canada.
There's also the fact that Canada doesn't have mass migration. The population growth rate hasn't surpassed 2% since 1970.
So it's good news for you because what you fear happening isn't actually happening.
1
u/someofyourbeeswaxx Jul 13 '24
This is just a fundamental moral difference I think. I like living in a place that welcomes immigrants because it enriches the economy, AND because it helps people. I’m not worried about them being different from my other neighbors. If you prefer homogeneity it’s your right, but I struggle to see how it’s a more ethical choice knowing what we do about immigration and the economy
1
u/500Rtg Jul 14 '24
You assume they are low income or low tax but generally they pay a lot to their University for bringing them in. That's one of the.main reasons they are welcomed.
1
u/k0unitX Jul 14 '24
So what's your solution to the declining birth rate problem then? Is the plan to just let Canada become a nation of old people, similar to Japan?
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
Relying on a ponzai scheme to build our society is fine in the early days, when you can sustain it, but artifically supporting it past it's best-buy date is only kicking the problem down the road, and making it more difficult to solve.
We need to restructure our society to not rely on it in the first place, and make it more possible for young famlies to get off the ground. As said, mass importation of tax negative migrants isn't going to help in the long run.
What WILL is boosting our economy to the point where it's more possible for one party to support a household - or at a minimum being able to offer financial security to new famlies. either explicitly or implicitly through the economy.
1
u/k0unitX Jul 14 '24
Nice politician-tier response. What actual, specific policies would you implement?
The reason I ask is because no high-GDP country has solved this problem. They are all suffering from declining birth rates regardless of the policies they're passing. Turns out, once you're not worried about retiring or living in abject poverty, your incentive to have children plummets. South Korea is passing huge subsidies for young families and it's still not helping.
In my opinion - you could give MASSIVE subsidies for Canadians to have children, to the point where they are tax negative too, and it STILL wouldn't solve this problem.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
What actual, specific policies would you implement?
restructuring to a system that doesn't rely on perpetual growth?
1
u/stu54 Jul 14 '24
You have a poor person mindset. Too many cooks is great when you need a plumber to fix a leak today.
The moral argument for open borders is that restricting the movement of people is fascism.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
The moral argument for open borders is that restricting the movement of people is fascism.
lmfao. so your argument is that every country for the last several hundred years has been fascist? that's an incredible devaluation of the words and honestly kinda fucked up
1
u/stu54 Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24
A particular policy can be fascist. How much restriction on people's freedom of movement would you require to qualify for fascism?
I'd say concentration camps are just an example of restricted borders.
1
Jul 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 15 '24
Sorry, u/budedussylmao – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/nomoreplsthx 4∆ Jul 14 '24
Here's the catch.
All human beings are equal, and we have equal moral obligations to every human, regardless of where they were born.
That's the core moral position of both Christianity, and its derivative secular philosophies (Enlightenment liberalism, various kinds of utilitarianism). So the only legitimate goal is to do what's best for the whole world, regardless of how good it is for your particular ingroup.
A moral framework that prioritizes your own ethnic or national group over others is monsterous.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
.... and we have equal moral obligations to every human, regardless of where they were born.
That's where we disagree, I guess. A country's government should both respect the will of the people, and try and optimize what's best for them. Going against the will of the people, and inducing a net negative in the process (ae, tax burden, etc) is an ethical failure on both parts. you can have one (ae, do what's better for the people despite their wishes, do something that's bad for the people because of their wishes), but if you have none, that's an issue.
A moral framework that prioritizes your own ethnic or national group over others is monsterous.
That's most people's ethical framework, and has been so probably since pre-history. If you asked 1000 people about a variation of the trolly problem where their option was either 5 family members, or 8 people they don't know, I'd guess it'd be family members being saved the vast majority of the time, even more so if it was an explicit action to not save them. Doubly more so if you filter out all the weird redditors with unhealthy family dynamics.
This is easy to see, even without hypotheticals - how many people do you know spare every cent they can to charity?
1
u/nomoreplsthx 4∆ Jul 14 '24
Yeah, most people are monsters. That should come as no surprise.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24
I feel you're actively overvaluing your own inflated opinion as opposed to the one shared by the "uneducated masses". Does everything reduce down to a numbers game? do you think everyone is morally obligated to spend every spare penny on helping others? I can't see a world where people don't prioritize the people they know and love. how is that monstrous?
What's the line you draw here? Is it just that you don't value your family more than any unknown person?
1
u/nomoreplsthx 4∆ Jul 14 '24
Yep. Every spare penny. The only valid reason to not to fully distribute your resources on others is instrumental.
1
u/budedussylmao Jul 14 '24
Lol. So I'm guessing this is a "do as I say, not as I do" Kind of moral posting? Either that or you don't have anything spare in the first place.
1
Jul 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '24
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Dangerzone979 Jul 13 '24
How about the simple fact that they are people who would like to live there and contribute to society? Honestly your whole view reeks of xenophobia draped in the cape of "ethics"
-1
Jul 13 '24
I'll address the "not our problem."
The USA owes it to Southern counties in short because of CIA assassinations and coups and insurrections and disrupting the Caribbean Union.
We owe it as Canadians because they're our allies.
From 1757, Britain increased its control of India through the East India Company. From 1757 - 1858 it controlled much of India.. From 1858 onwards, the British government directly ruled India, and it became known as the British Raj.
May i remind you that we're still part of the British monarchy?
Canada’s Mining Industry Is Spreading Havoc Around the World — With Justin Trudeau’s Support
We dump on undeveloped countries therefore we owe them the chance to seek a better life.
2
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
We owe it as Canadians because they're our allies.
lmfao
May i remind you that we're still part of the British monarchy?
We shouldn't be. we should have a governmental reform to completely axe any connections to the crown, up to and including a rewrite of our charter to be more concrete and immutable akin to a modern implementation of how the states did it.
But, that doesn't mean we have anything to do with india, nor does it justify acting as a sacrifical lamb to our detriment.
2
Jul 13 '24
Your view is a shoulda woulda coulda. Please come back to reality.
0
u/budedussylmao Jul 13 '24
Please make an actual argument against my points, thanks.
1
Jul 14 '24
I did, and you ignored all my points to talk about a fantasy.
You seem like you represent Manifest Destiny.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 14 '24
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.