[Polkaroo]

No consequence. It would just show officials that people are learning the language or not.

Seems pointless, why waste resources on setting up these tests and make people go through the trouble of taking them then? If the only purpose is to determine how many people are learning the language, that can be done much easier and cheaper by hiring a market research company to do some phone interviews.

 

[Rowe]

Seems pointless, why waste resources on setting up these tests and make people go through the trouble of taking them then? If the only purpose is to determine how many people are learning the language, that can be done much easier and cheaper by hiring a market research company to do some phone interviews.

My idea wasn't to build a "Ministry of Language Proficiency in Canada" and have government employees go door to door of every immigrant and grill them. Examination doesn't mean a testing centre in every city to just see if people are learning our languages.

My proposal was simple to test people on their language skills. That can be done with a survey, a phone interview like you said and many other simple ways. At my job I work with new immigrants all the time, some have been here for many years but still find it difficult to communicate. Some do not know what they need to make themselves better communicators in our society.

 

[LAz]

The lingering issues that are there, can be compared to the impact of segregation in the US. It caused poverty and social stratification, which will take some time to erase. But to suggest that Indians practice the caste system like they did even prior to independence is absolutely ludicrous and ignorant.

Would you at least agree that major inequalities are there and are not going away anytime soon? Would you agree that the cities get the overwhelming bulk of development funds, while peasants in the countryside are screwed? In most peril the indigenous, who barely manage to make a meal living off of the land. They are treated like they don't exist.
Hell, my indian professor told me the other day that there is literally a civil war going on. Can't say too much on it, but here's a link that I found - http://www.passtheroti.com/posts/2205 - not that I bothered to look hard, just a few seconds.

Even beyond that though, you have to yet to show anything backing up your thesis that we'd see race riots if non-white immigration increases.

I feel that we will see race riots if ANY group starts increasing extremely rapidly, regardless of where they are from - and it will probably only be worse if they are not whites, as the differences then are even more pronounced.

Really? Do you even have close Muslim friends? You'd be surprised at how they assimilate. Most Muslims I know for example will drink. They just don't do it to excess and do it in public. Just because you don't know too many Muslims or understand their cultural dynamics when they migrate does not mean that what you assume to be true automatically is. That's the height of both your arrogance and ignorance.

I am talking about their religion. I did not talk about certain numbers of them.
We will always be returning to the problem of their religion. Their religion is a repressive anti-democratic authoritarian dictatorship system.
Do you really think that I beleive that they all pray five times a day? No, I do not think that they all do. I think that the fanaticism is too strict for even themselves. I think that this thing is insane.
And most importantly, I think that islam is about expanding and taking over, as has been seen in various places around the world.
Because I did not include criticism about other religions, it does not mean that it is not there. Puritan sects that settled in new england were just as bad bastards, if not worse. Even many groups today are no good scum that just want to use people, to make a quick profit. Islam though is a bigger project.

How many Bar/Bat Mitzvahs you been to where they read the good book in English?

That is not the ponit. The point is that their religious books can be read in english, they are written in english. With islam their stuff has to be in arabic - very downright wrong, in my opinion. I have a problem with the jewish religion too, because it is an ethnic religion - who is of jewish religion must be ethnically jewish. If you are not ethnically jewish you can not be jewish. Rather discriminatory if you ask me. Kinda like a cult, ya know? But, like I said, at the very least they are more open to the english language in their religion and do not restrict their holy text to being only in hebrew.

More ignorant crap. So now we should exclude people solely because they practice their religion? Are you going to send out the stazi next time my mom says the rosary on the subway ride to work?

Sure. If we get those who adher only to satan and feel that hitler is god, I would ban them too. Remember those backward african groups that do female circumcision, only because it is their dumb tradition? I would ban those primitive guys as well.

It's virtually the entire Serbian community in the GTA.

That really is B.S. The older serbian folk are together - the old generation naturally clings together. But most of the young serbs have lost their language and even bigger numbers do not only hang out with their own kin. I know that for a fact.
I in fact, as a serb, do not even hang out with serbs whatsoever.

I can pull some number out of my ass that says the majority of them do. But hey, you barely even visit the GTA annually, so you must know more than me.

When I was young I knew many many of them. The bulk of the serbian kids came here in the early 1990s, or mid 1990s, when they were young. And they lost their language very very fast. I even spoke english more at at time - we moved though, and that kinda reduced that english intake - changing environment, you know? But the point is that few of the people I knew when I was young still speak serbian. Some understand a fair deal of it, but few speak it. For crying out loud, even at folklore - both in the us and canada, the serbain youth speaks english almost entirely. If that does not say something, I do not know what does.

The same thing that happened when you got a million chinese into Scarborough, Richmond Hill and Markham. Nothing. The rest of us got better Chinese food. And Chinese people started getting authentic pizza from the family owned Italian pizza joints.

One fifth of the GTA is not chinese, is it? Check your numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto
At any rate, what this guy who opened the topic is calling for is far more than just one million, and far faster too.

You don't need to know Mandarin or Cantonese to get a job. Might not hurt to know another language. But it's definitely not required.

If we did get so many people, then we will be required to know other languages in order to get service jobs.

You do know that Spanish has always been spoken in the Southwestern US right? They were after all part of Mexico until a century and a half ago.

Don't worry amigo, I know very well that the US stole much land from Mexico. They even had a plan to buy baja california.
At any rate, back in the 1840s there were very few hispanic people in those places. The main people there were native americans... mexicans had not migrated that far north yet - kinda like nunavut and canada - there are not many people there.
Opperatino gate keeper is a book that might interest you.
At any rate, the US has long treated latin america as its toilet, occupying countries down there for long periods of time, organizing coups, even sterilizing much of some populations. Not saying it's right, but is the relationship that we are dealing with. As you see with that recent immigration law thing going on arizona... not saying it's right, but the overwhelming majority of whites down there support that. Guess why. Because people do not harmoneously come to together and love one another, especially if it involves rapid change in ethnic composition.

just like how they get to pick their own immigrants (which is what made the assertion that they lost because of immigrants particularly ridiculous).

To my knowledge they do not pick, canada picks, and gives priority to immigrants who want to move to the western provinces or to quebec.
It is a fact that the referendum failed due to minorities. Didn't the separtist leader even say that, and was forced to resign because he stated the truth? Feel free to read that article anyway, the new york times is not too bad.

Trudeau opened up to non-white immigration (it was a trickle prior to that) expanding on Pearson's policies on immigration (who had already shown an intention to open up to non-whites).

It's relatively little in my opinion, quite insignificant compared to this multi million person a year immigration that is being called for in this topic.

Given that Canada does not have the same history of acrimonious race relations, I fail to see what the American experience applies here.

The only reason why is because there were fewer other groups than in the US. If millions of blacks had gone to the US cities like they did in the US, then the same thing would have happened. People like to be with their own kind, and as a result segregation to some extent will happen. This was especially obvious in US cities where whites were and still are hostile to blacks moving into their neighborhoods. This is what people fail to realize, that difference exists, that we are not all the same. Ignoring these considerations has brought about serious problems, in which all sides suffered.

Our Muslims haven't turned Toronto into Londonistan

Sure they haven't. But follow up on the plan to import 5 million of them or more to the GTA, and I'll ask you what will happen then.
What you are comparing, what we have now, is a very small muslim community. People can not comprehend what it would be like to have a major one. Or perhaps they do and want that, because they themselves are muslim.











At any rate, I think it would be fair to say that the opinions here vary differently regarding to various ethnic groups. Like in the US, the hispanics are very enthusiastic to immigration, while most whites are not.
The opinions and views here do not reflect those of the people of canada as a whole. Perhaps those of minorities.

The bottom line is that nobody is insane enough to want such rapid population growth via getting migrants to come o'er.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I am talking about their religion. I did not talk about certain numbers of them.
We will always be returning to the problem of their religion. Their religion is a repressive anti-democratic authoritarian dictatorship system.
Do you really think that I beleive that they all pray five times a day? No, I do not think that they all do. I think that the fanaticism is too strict for even themselves. I think that this thing is insane.
And most importantly, I think that islam is about expanding and taking over, as has been seen in various places around the world.
Because I did not include criticism about other religions, it does not mean that it is not there. Puritan sects that settled in new england were just as bad bastards, if not worse. Even many groups today are no good scum that just want to use people, to make a quick profit. Islam though is a bigger project.

That is not the ponit. The point is that their religious books can be read in english, they are written in english. With islam their stuff has to be in arabic - very downright wrong, in my opinion. I have a problem with the jewish religion too, because it is an ethnic religion - who is of jewish religion must be ethnically jewish. If you are not ethnically jewish you can not be jewish. Rather discriminatory if you ask me. Kinda like a cult, ya know? But, like I said, at the very least they are more open to the english language in their religion and do not restrict their holy text to being only in hebrew.

LAz, you really don't have any problem with being as ignorant and inflammatory as you want, do you? I'm actually disgusted by your gross bigotry.

Islam is a repressive anti-democratic dictatorship? How about christianity and catholicism? The only difference between the two is that because of a simple geographical quirk (read Guns, Germs and Steel,) the West has been able to shit on Islam's head for the past 500 years. And so, the Arab world is vastly underprivileged when compared to the west and east, and needs it's religion to double as a political system as well. It's no different than the role Christianity played in Europe up till the 18th century, and take note that Christianity was responsible for things like the Inquisition and numerous church-endorsed crusades which murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Back then, the Arabs had vastly higher morals than Europeans. Islam was a hugely progressive religion, while Christianity was forbidding education.

What about Catholicism telling people in sub-Saharan africa that if they wear a condom to prevent their explosive population growth and stop themselves from getting AIDS, they'll go to hell? Even today, Christianity is still doing a lot of damage despite being firmly rooted in the Western world.

It kind of prove that you know absolutely nothing about this issue when you come to the Qur'an. I've seen a number of copies of English (and a Spanish,) Qur'an, and I know plenty of people that have them. The problem is that many Muslim scholars don't want meaning to be lost in translation, as happened when the Bible was translated from Greek to Latin (and English and such.) They have absolutely no problem with it though, it's just been tough because people have been bickering over the best way to translate it (hey, hey,) just like the Bible in Christianity. If you want to pull excuses out of your bigot ass, at least try to be as unignorant as possible.

Sure. If we get those who adher only to satan and feel that hitler is god, I would ban them too. Remember those backward african groups that do female circumcision, only because it is their dumb tradition? I would ban those primitive guys as well.

I guess that we should be kicking out all of the people that practice circumcision in this country then. (That's a lot of people, mind you.)

When I was young I knew many many of them. The bulk of the serbian kids came here in the early 1990s, or mid 1990s, when they were young. And they lost their language very very fast. I even spoke english more at at time - we moved though, and that kinda reduced that english intake - changing environment, you know? But the point is that few of the people I knew when I was young still speak serbian. Some understand a fair deal of it, but few speak it. For crying out loud, even at folklore - both in the us and canada, the serbain youth speaks english almost entirely. If that does not say something, I do not know what does.

I know plenty of Serbians, and a lot of them speak Serbian. But, oddly enough, I also know a lot of Indian people. There might be two of them that know Hindi or Punjab or some other language. But why does it even matter? Should everyone become your good ol' average Canadian?

It's relatively little in my opinion, quite insignificant compared to this multi million person a year immigration that is being called for in this topic.

What I'm asking for now is about 600,000 people per year. As the population grows, the immigration rate would eventually go up to maybe 1.5 million, but that's when there's 80 million other Canadians in the country.

The only reason why is because there were fewer other groups than in the US. If millions of blacks had gone to the US cities like they did in the US, then the same thing would have happened. People like to be with their own kind, and as a result segregation to some extent will happen. This was especially obvious in US cities where whites were and still are hostile to blacks moving into their neighborhoods. This is what people fail to realize, that difference exists, that we are not all the same. Ignoring these considerations has brought about serious problems, in which all sides suffered.

So I guess that in no way explains how Toronto and Vancouver have been able to cope so far, with almost 50% visible minority populations (growth from about 18% 30 years ago,) and almost no anger at all from anyone over these people. Once again, Canada and visible minorities is in no way the same as the US. Canada's almost totally unique in the world with our tolerance towards others. Please don't confuse your severe minority views with those of the entire country.

Sure they haven't. But follow up on the plan to import 5 million of them or more to the GTA, and I'll ask you what will happen then.
What you are comparing, what we have now, is a very small muslim community. People can not comprehend what it would be like to have a major one. Or perhaps they do and want that, because they themselves are muslim.

Yeah, because it'd just be terrible if Muslims were to get what they wanted!

EDIT: So please, please please, can we get away from the bigot remarks and into actual ways that this could occur. Economic, social and infrastructure opportunities to make this happen and make the country a better place is what I'd like to get a discussion on, not another thread on how Islam is an evil religion and black people and mexicans shouldn't spoil our pristine cities.

 

[LAz]

Economic, social and infrastructure opportunities to make this happen and make the country a better place is what I'd like to get a discussion on, not another thread on how Islam is an evil religion and black people and mexicans shouldn't spoil our pristine cities.

Like stuffing them all into corbusian highrise towers?

LAz, you really don't have any problem with being as ignorant and inflammatory as you want, do you? I'm actually disgusted by your gross bigotry.

Actually I find this all quite entertaining.

Islam is a repressive anti-democratic dictatorship? How about christianity and catholicism? The only difference between the two is that because of a simple geographical quirk (read Guns, Germs and Steel,) the West has been able to shit on Islam's head for the past 500 years.

Islam today is a repressive anti-demogratic dictatorship, that's more like it.
Guns, Germs and Steel is a bullshit bigotry book that aims to justify the western pillaging of faraway places. Are you really aware of what diamond's book is saying? The whole point of the book is to say how environmental determinism is the whole deal, that climate explains why the poor countries are poor. That is the lowest scumdog approach that I know. Something so backward and primitive. Please, just burn your copy of that book if you have it.

Back then, the Arabs had vastly higher morals than Europeans. Islam was a hugely progressive religion, while Christianity was forbidding education.

Christianity in dark ages... hm, interesting time frame that you want to look at.
But, you are pidgeonholing christianity into one thing. You ignore that the orthodox christians were doing great. The orthodox church has always been morally and spiritually superior to the vatican, or the whore as I call it.

What about Catholicism telling people in sub-Saharan africa that if they wear a condom to prevent their explosive population growth and stop themselves from getting AIDS, they'll go to hell? Even today, Christianity is still doing a lot of damage despite being firmly rooted in the Western world.

Fuck yeah. Protestizing bastards aim to "convert the barbarians". I hate that stuff. Now, not all christians do that, more like the assshit sects. Heck, greece banned prostelitism and these guys were so pissed off that they could not go to greece to convert the greeks... er, the heathens/barbarians, whatever they call the non-believers.
I do not believe in the western notion of human rights. But I accept it, support it, and do not counter it because I live here.

Qur'an. I've seen a number of copies of English

But it's banned in the religion. That's the point, that it's banned.

I guess that we should be kicking out all of the people that practice circumcision in this country then. (That's a lot of people, mind you.)

Hell yeah, violation of childrens rights.

I know plenty of Serbians, and a lot of them speak Serbian.

Do you know the youth?

What I'm asking for now is about 600,000 people per year. As the population grows, the immigration rate would eventually go up to maybe 1.5 million, but that's when there's 80 million other Canadians in the country.

That's still quite large, some 6 million a decade. It would take a long time to reach your 100 million mark.
There's no way that there can be successful integration if there are so many comming o'er 'er.

Once again, Canada and visible minorities is in no way the same as the US.

Yeah, there're more blacks, who are unofficial second class citizens.
At any rate, I almost always associate minorities with lower socioeconomic conditions, anywhere in the world.

One factor why there are not race riots in toronto is because change has gone about slower. The minorities are spreading at a much slower rate than the blacks spread in the US in the 1940s and 1950s when millions were moving northwards.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Islam today is a repressive anti-demogratic dictatorship, that's more like it.
Guns, Germs and Steel is a bullshit bigotry book that aims to justify the western pillaging of faraway places. Are you really aware of what diamond's book is saying? The whole point of the book is to say how environmental determinism is the whole deal, that climate explains why the poor countries are poor. That is the lowest scumdog approach that I know. Something so backward and primitive. Please, just burn your copy of that book if you have it.

Actually, no. It says that it's because of random geographic quirks, the West ended up conquering almost all the world. It's written as an argument against the idea that the West conquered because of biological traits that endowed them with better intellect or strength or whatever.

Christianity in dark ages... hm, interesting time frame that you want to look at.
But, you are pidgeonholing christianity into one thing. You ignore that the orthodox christians were doing great. The orthodox church has always been morally and spiritually superior to the vatican, or the whore as I call it.

It's showing that it's not the religion but political status that's determining how Islam is apparently such a dirty religion today.

But it's banned in the religion. That's the point, that it's banned.

But it's not. That's the point, that it's not.

Do you know the youth?

Yes I do. I'd say that at the very least, 1/4 know Serbian.

1. At any rate, I almost always associate minorities with lower socioeconomic conditions, anywhere in the world.

2. One factor why there are not race riots in toronto is because change has gone about slower. The minorities are spreading at a much slower rate than the blacks spread in the US in the 1940s and 1950s when millions were moving northwards.

1. How bout white people in Apartheid-era Africa or British India?

2. Again, Toronto's population of minorities has increased by over 30% of the city's population in the past 30 years. i.e. that's only 2% lower than the proportion of all the Black people living in Chicago.

That's still quite large, some 6 million a decade. It would take a long time to reach your 100 million mark.
There's no way that there can be successful integration if there are so many comming o'er 'er.

Only 60 years, going at a 10% growth rate per 5 years. That's just the growth rate of Alberta there.

 

[GenerationW]

The only difference between the two is that because of a simple geographical quirk (read Guns, Germs and Steel,) the West has been able to shit on Islam's head for the past 500 years.

That would have been difficult since Islam shit on my parents' part of the "West" for 400 of those last 500 years. And outside of the Russian Tsars, the West had minimal interest in Islam until the last century or two.

It's no different than the role Christianity played in Europe up till the 18th century, and take note that Christianity was responsible for things like the Inquisition and numerous church-endorsed crusades which murdered hundreds of thousands of people. Back then, the Arabs had vastly higher morals than Europeans. Islam was a hugely progressive religion, while Christianity was forbidding education.

Most modern historians estimate 5,000 people died during the Inquisition (many of whom were Christians), and, in fact, the success of Protestant propaganda (i.e. anti-Catholic) has far more to do with the Inquisition's long lasting fame than the Inquisition itself.

The death toll for the Crusades is a generally accepted to be 1.5 million, which also includes thousands of Christians who died en route of disease and starvation in addition to military casualties. By contrast the Mongol invasions of the 13th century (30 to 60 million deaths) killed substantially more Muslims, and did far more permanent damage to Islam. The Crusades had more long-lasting effects on the Christian world (Eastern Christianity to be precise) than Islam.

Laz is right about the Dark Ages. That term applies to Western Christianity, not the East. The Orthodox world did not truly decline until after the Fourth Crusade (1204), and was plunged into a dark age following the Ottoman conquests (14th & 15th centuries). The Ottomans also greatly altered the ethnic and religious balance in their empire by drafting tens of thousands of Christian children to staff their Janissary troops. Hardly hugely progressive or vastly/highly moral.

Most scholars of that era, whether Muslim or Christian, either were sponsored by religious officials or were themselves officially part of the religious hierarchy. People in the countryside had more important things to worry about than any kind of a formal education, like surviving day to day and year to year.

What I'm asking for now is about 600,000 people per year. As the population grows, the immigration rate would eventually go up to maybe 1.5 million, but that's when there's 80 million other Canadians in the country.

EDIT: So please, please please, can we get away from the bigot remarks and into actual ways that this could occur.

Only if you get elected PM. Otherwise hardly anyone has any interest in vastly increasing immigration.

 

[LAz]

Your obscenity with promoting the views of an eurocentric bigot have gone too far.
http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...YtBqQYY!-289140146!122306455?docId=5001894820
But why bother with just a preview...
...here, I got the whole thing for ya. Cheers, happy reading. Perhaps afterwards you will realize the need to flush that book down the toilet - heck, burn it in winter to keep warm. Or use it as toilet paper.
https://www.yousendit.com/dl?phi_ac..._download%26batch_id%3DK0JRT2pCbEExUUR2Wmc9PQ

But it's not. That's the point, that it's not.

Those who translate it and read the translated one are not real muslims, but quazi muslims. Islam's really strict.

Yes I do. I'd say that at the very least, 1/4 know Serbian.

What does one mean when one says know? If it is "understand", then perhaps it's more than 50%. Understand a bit - that would be most. But actually speak it? I would say 10%. Or less.

1. How bout white people in Apartheid-era Africa or British India?

Oh I know how to b.s. my way around this one. You see, their population was actually much higher, but thanks to increasing black population they are an every smaller minority.
But I guess that whites tend to be the upper class in africa and in latin america. So lets rephrase the statement to non-white minorities, and non-masonic ones too.

2. Again, Toronto's population of minorities has increased by over 30% of the city's population in the past 30 years. i.e. that's only 2% lower than the proportion of all the Black people living in Chicago.

In Chicago the blacks were concentrated, where 95% lived in areas where there were 95% or more blacks. The riots happened in areas adjacent to black expansion. As suburbs started booming whites went to go there. There was a housing shortage afterall, in the immediate post-war era. So, if you take that their population increased extremely fast, and that it was far more concentrated - then it produces a different picture. At any rate, as we can see the blacks are at the bottom of the barrel pretty much anywhere... no doubt it would be so here too. I mean hey, doesn't one notice how almost always their neighborhoods are the bad ones, how wherever they go home values fall - they make areas unattractive for money because of the white racism which is persisting - despite continual denial and people continually pretending that the blacks are treated equal. If they are treated equal around the world and if the world is such a utopia as the multiculturalists say it is, then we would never have any wars or conflicts.
And imagine how much money industry and business would lose if there was no war???

Lets face it, we need bad things to happen, as that contributes to a rise in GDP, and our system of progress is based on a rise in gdp. Hence we need to all adopt the american method of treating rather than curing - much more money can be accumulated by treating people with expensive drugs.
Basically the world should just tear down borders and let the corporations run things. That will bring success for our market - aka god/life - and will result in more efficiency. We ought'a privatize elections, everything, even immigration.

^Some people think like that. Basically the problem is in ourselves and how we want to define ourselves. It should mean something to be a canadian, and that will erode if such high immigration happens. Nobody has seriously proposed such a thing, that if someone even dares to it would be disregarded in a heartbeat. We should not become a transient society.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Those who translate it and read the translated one are not real muslims, but quazi muslims. Islam's really strict.

Again, you're really proving your ignorance here. You're not a fake muslim if you read a translation of the Qur'an. It's just that many Muslim scholars agree that translations of the Qur'an are not the holy words of Muhammad, and that by translating, much of the meaning is lost or muddled. Muslims have nothing against translations of the Qur'an; they just believe that only the original Arabic can be taken as the holy word, something that Christian scholars dispute as well with the church interpreting the translated bible.

What does one mean when one says know? If it is "understand", then perhaps it's more than 50%. Understand a bit - that would be most. But actually speak it? I would say 10%. Or less.

When I say know it, I mean understand and speak it.

As for your last point, in case you haven't noticed, that kind of proves my point. Populations increased similarly (assuming every black person came to Chicago in the past 30 years,) yet Black people in Chicago went to segregated areas, while immigrants to Toronto didn't. Hmm...

And as for the last point, I'm saying that this higher immigration could be used as a catalyst for change. Because so many people are entering the country, things have to change on a large scale to be able to accommodate all those people. And it won't be that huge an influx to just double the immigration rate, I don't think even if every single one of those people went to Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, which we'd try to ensure they wouldn't.
For example, having a lot more people going into cities raises the problem of suburbanization into much higher light. Because of this pressure, people start wanting the government to enforce sprawl more heavily, so there ends up being a lot less suburban sprawl. And then all those new people going into the already built up areas allow those areas to densify a lot more quickly, increasing the amount of people exposed to high density living in some way, whether it's a nice avenue at the end of their street rather than a demi-highway, or local markets they can go to rather than starting up the car to go to the grocery store.
Another point is that a lot of immigrants we'd be letting in are living basically the way we (at least a vast majority of the people on this forum,) want to be living; high density, low carbon footprint, biking or taking mass transit to work. By infusing these people into the country, it makes it a lot easier for the cities and such to grow in these sustainable ways.

 

[Polkaroo]

Relax guys... there is no need for the rudeness, we all have different viewpoints and we can debate them without getting riled up.

 

[LAz]

I think that he looks at the situation as in more density = more subway growth.

Yet in reality Toronto is a region in which we should not want to have 10 million people. The strain on resources would be quite significant.
And worse yet, the toll that so many new people would take on the economy would be devastating.


A key to sustainable growth is low population growth. Want high density - look at china, india, no thanks.




And just for a moment consider the fact that some people prefer to live in the suburbs where they have more privacy and fresh air.




Another way to look at it is like this... more people as in more rats. We do not want more. Instead we need to deconstruct.
We are animals you know. We are a disaster for this planet. Cancer, to be precise.

Relax guys... there is no need for the rudeness, we all have different viewpoints and we can debate them without getting riled up.

What's wrong with entertainment? One of the best ways to deal with something stupid is to throw some stupid stuff back.


So, would you agree with deep ecology?, that the deer, the dog, grass, a chicken, and so forth have have the same value to the world as we do, as they are living?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yet in reality Toronto is a region in which we should not want to have 10 million people. The strain on resources would be quite significant.
And worse yet, the toll that so many new people would take on the economy would be devastating.

But, that's already the global standard. The big global cities like London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, they all have tonnes and tonnes of people. Their economies aren't taking. They don't seem to have a huge resource strain. And those cities will be popping up everywhere in the next century.

How would it be devastating to the economy to have more people come into the country? Was it devastating when the US and Canada's population doubled in 50 years after WWII? The point is that the economy grows to accommodate more people. One of the reasons that I'm advocating for small business with such growth, other than the fact that I think small business is a very good thing, is that it allows the economy to micromanage itself while still growing phenomenally.
But if 3 million people from China came to the GTA overnight, do you not think that some big a supermarket like Loblaws wouldn't capitalize on that? It's not like we're asking for more food to be introduced into a system here; we'd probably just take some grain from the prairies that'd be going to those people anyways and redirecting it to people in Canada. These people would still need to be fed if they're living in Canada, or China, or France.

A key to sustainable growth is low population growth. Want high density - look at china, india, no thanks.

But sustainability needs to take in the context that we're all part of one Earth. Places like Asia and Africa will keep growing and keep demanding land space and resources, and that's quickly going to be space and resources they don't have. If you have a country that can accept those new people, give them better livelihoods, and possibly put them on a path to better future sustainability, that's way more sustainable than not letting them do it. You need to realize that things are moving so quickly, and everything's connected. The idea that change needs to be gradual is true in sustainability, but the truth is that everything today is moving so quickly, we need to act quickly.

EDIT: And you don't seem to be understanding just what I'm proposing. If Southern Ontario was to grow to something like 30 million people (that's my estimate for some planned growth,) it'd have a similar density to France. That's the most densely populated place in the country, barely tipping the scales towards "very dense" in a global context. And if 20 million people would move to the Prairies, the population density would end up being similar to that of Spain. That's nowhere near a population density like India.

And just for a moment consider the fact that some people prefer to live in the suburbs where they have more privacy and fresh air.

I've considered that. But, just wondering, aren't you the person who said that the suburbs are stupid and people should suffer for choosing to live there? Regardless, I have two solutions: The first being that many suburban areas would still exist in Toronto, Montreal, etc, but they'd just be in close proximity to higher density areas that'd have all those downtown living amenities and good public transit. The second is that if you want fresh air and peace and quiet, move out to some small town in the country.
And the secretive third is that not everyone who lives in the suburbs would refuse to live in higher density environments, like a cheap but spacious apartment, a European-like condo unit, or even specially designed high density living like in Hong Kong.

 

[LAz]

I'm really contemplating if I should make a ridiculous post or a more normal post...

But sustainability needs to take in the context that we're all part of one Earth.

Screw that idea. Really, screw that idea.

Places like Asia and Africa will keep growing and keep demanding land space and resources, and that's quickly going to be space and resources they don't have.

Why the hell should we sacrifice ourselves for the problems of others on the other side of the world??? Places where half the population lives on a dollar or less a day... why on earth would we want to compare ourselves with them and spend our time and resources to accommodate them? Countries exist dude. There's a reason for that.

If you have a country that can accept those new people, give them better livelihoods, and possibly put them on a path to better future sustainability, that's way more sustainable than not letting them do it.

I am not willing to give them a bailout for their own mistakes. No sir. Nor are most people.
If you want better livelihoods start off with fair trade rather than free trade.

And clearly you say this as if you assume that they are all canadians. Guess what, they are not. the overwhelming majority of this potential migratory mass are uneducated slum dwellers, or peasants.

You need to realize that things are moving so quickly, and everything's connected.

OH shit, are you one of those guys who is gonna say "lets give them our industry" and repeat that b.s. about how the "world is flat" and how we should compete with everyone... that our wages here should compete with those hat pay pennies per hour? No thanks, we lost far too many jobs already.

If Southern Ontario was to grow to something like 30 million people (that's my estimate for some planned growth,) it'd have a similar density to France. That's the most densely populated place in the country, barely tipping the scales towards "very dense" in a global context. And if 20 million people would move to the Prairies, the population density would end up being similar to that of Spain.

But guess what. This is Canada, not Europe.

I've considered that. But, just wondering, aren't you the person who said that the suburbs are stupid and people should suffer for choosing to live there?

Not all suburbs are the same. Take for example the suburbs in stockholm. That's a totally different thing compared to the auto dependent suburb.

The first being that many suburban areas would still exist in Toronto, Montreal, etc, but they'd just be in close proximity to higher density areas that'd have all those downtown living amenities and good public transit. The second is that if you want fresh air and peace and quiet, move out to some small town in the country.

For crying out loud, are you aware of how much resources this would require? How much building, how many new roads, how many new buildings, new infrastructure, new subways, new you name it. It 's a lot.
In case you have not noticed, in parts of the western US - by no means the most populated place of the US - they have drained out a few rivers. So water supply is something else.

Have you for a moment considered what will happen with sewers or with runoff water?
Where will all that waste go that people produce? Where will all that crap go man? Where? On the front lawns?

And the secretive third is that not everyone who lives in the suburbs would refuse to live in higher density environments, like a cheap but spacious apartment, a European-like condo unit, or even specially designed high density living like in Hong Kong.

Man, all this stuff that you are proposing is along the lines of those authoritarian bastards who want to tell people what to do, how to do, and where to do what. It basically eliminates freedom.

You forgot that this is a democracy. The fact that your vote is not worth more than an old granny is what will stop this insanity before it even has a chance to be considered to be implemented.




But anyways, just for a minute as yourself "where will all that crap go", and realize that sewers cost on par with subways. And what happens when there's heavy rainfall... where would the runoff water go when the combined sewer can not hold no more? In most cities of the world they release that shit into the environment.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Okay, so does anyone have anything discussable on this topic? It doesn't have to be instant turning it into public policy. Just thoughts on how it could work, how to make immigration better, and how to make the country's growth and future better.

Otherwise, best not to feed the troll...
EDIT: And a failtroll at that

 

[Polkaroo]

Okay, so does anyone have anything discussable on this topic? It doesn't have to be instant turning it into public policy. Just thoughts on how it could work, how to make immigration better, and how to make the country's growth and future better.

I simply fail to see why we as Canadians should want to boost immigration? In what way will Canada be a better place for those of us already here if our population were to double or triple? I don't think it would.

I understand some of the points mentioned earlier, but I don't see why they are important. For example, increased political clout on the world stage. I for one don't want Canada to be an "important international player" who bosses other countries around. Look at what that's done for the US, it's made them the most hated country on earth.