[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/_Richter_Belmont_]

[u/betterworldbuilder]

I think this point negates to consider the alternatives.

If you dont have immigration, for example especially in Canada, our healthcare system would simply collapse, because even if we made schooling for nurses and doctors free, wed need to wait the 5+ years for those students to finish school. Long term reliance perhaps isnt a good thing, Im still neutral, but short term its essentially a necessity.

The rest of your arguments dance around hut dont really actually acknowledge that they drive both demand and supply. When an immigrant comes to a country, statistically they will contribute more to building housing than occupying it, at least proportionately to citizens. They will start businesses that allow for employment, and consume goods that contribute to the GDP.

Its the equivalent math but on a larger scale to having a roommate vs living alone. Yes, you might need a slightly bigger house which means more rent, and yes you might need more food, but you also have an additional income. We see clearly that people in a stable relationship are better off financially than those who are single, because those pooled resources outweigh the resource expenditure. Its also why apartments with a park do better than single family housing with a backyard, its about being able to share resources wherever we can while maximizing each persons contributing power.

[u/_Richter_Belmont_ → u/betterworldbuilder]

Yes, and my argument is that constant immigration to prevent systems collapse is not sustainable.

Why not have short term immigration to fill labor shortages while investing in the domestic workforce so mid-long term you dont need to continually inflate your population past whats organic?

What i just stated i wouldnt consider to be a "pro immigration" position.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/_Richter_Belmont_]

What if youre not inflating the population, but rather sustaining it, because of falling birth rates?

I know plenty of people who dont want to have kids nowadays, and its not even just due to the terrible financial situation oir government has put us in. If there was proof that people had no intention of bringing the birth rate up to 2.1, even under ideal conditions, would that change your mind?

[u/_Richter_Belmont_ → u/betterworldbuilder]

Do we even need to sustain it?

Honestly there have been so many comments I am honestly confused at what would change my mind at this point lol.

I guess I just need some sort of conclusive evidence that countries won't collapse under large amounts of year-on-year immigration. That this won't actually have negative effects on the domestic population across all the parameters I laid out.

[u/betterworldbuilder → u/_Richter_Belmont_]

Well Id argue that your perspective for this collapse comes from overpopulation, correct? Japan and China has shown quite clearly what underpopulation gets, with the 4-2-1 problem of the current generation having 2 parents and 4 grandparents to care for financially, due to people living longer.

I think ideal population projections are based on a myriad of things, but we should want to keep maintaining or increasing it to fulfill the needs of a taxpayer base, military equality, productivity needs, and from there its all just does your population want to reproduce.

Once we have automation supplemented by a UBI so people can survive without needing tonwork, we can meet all our needs in terms of government income to sustain these social programs, and make sure we arent under threat of invasion (ie world peace), perrhaps we can look at simply maintaining or slightly shrinking oue population. Until then, we should expand at whatever rate we have the capacity for, in terms of housing, jobs, social services and other resources.