Statistics Canada Reports II

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I don't really understand why deporting them is considered cruel when they snuck in illegally? I mean is that what they are supposed to do, just allow the whole world to come in? One world nation with no borders?

This is the crux of the problem with the left wing attitude on migration: they claim to reject open borders but in practice opposite every policy that isn't open borders.

They call people who live here illegally "undocumented" and make them into sympathetic figures who are the victims of some grave injustice because we didn't just automatically grant them residency rights the second they decided they wanted to live here. I'm sorry, but that attitude is the same thing as demanding open borders.

We absolutely should have a process for genuine refugees, but simple economic migrants shouldn't be allowed to claim that they're refugees to skip the line.

There are activists in Kingston that protested the deportation of failed asylum seekers. In other words, these people think that economic migrants who should just showed up, faked a refugee claim, and had that claim rejected with due process, should be allowed to just stay here anyway. That's basically open borders: if everyone can make an asylum claim, and gets to stay regardless of how the claim resolves, you might a well have no border at all.

Any policy towards failed asylum seekers that isn't "immediate and unconditional deportation when your claim is rejected" is actually insane.

All illegals should be deported (by definition, "illegal" means their asylum process has been exhausted, so you can't respond with "but deporting refugees!!!" moral grandstanding). This shouldn't be controversial. Until 10 years ago this was all-party consensus in Canada and had been for decades.

[1overcosc]

More controversial is the stuff Denmark is doing but they're also in a position, thanks to Schengen, where they have to be a lot tougher. We don't have to go that far.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is the crux of the problem with the left wing attitude on migration: they claim to reject open borders but in practice opposite every policy that isn't open borders.

They call people who live here illegally "undocumented" and make them into sympathetic figures who are the victims of some grave injustice because we didn't just automatically grant them residency rights the second they decided they wanted to live here. I'm sorry, but that attitude is the same thing as demanding open borders.

We absolutely should have a process for genuine refugees, but simple economic migrants shouldn't be allowed to claim that they're refugees to skip the line.

There are activists in Kingston that protested the deportation of failed asylum seekers. In other words, these people think that economic migrants who should just showed up, faked a refugee claim, and had that claim rejected with due process, should be allowed to just stay here anyway. That's basically open borders: if everyone can make an asylum claim, and gets to stay regardless of how the claim resolves, you might a well have no border at all.

Any policy towards failed asylum seekers that isn't "immediate and unconditional deportation when your claim is rejected" is actually insane.

All illegals should be deported (by definition, "illegal" means their asylum process has been exhausted, so you can't respond with "but deporting refugees!!!" moral grandstanding). This shouldn't be controversial. Until 10 years ago this was all-party consensus in Canada and had been for decades.

More people than we think actually believe that even the concept of borders is a grave injustice and even racist. So it's not surprising that they would advocate for open borders - even if subtly so.

It's seen as unfair that some countries (and their people) have a high standard of living, and that others are living in misery.

They'd probably like to see things equalized all over the world, in an ideal scenario.

Keep in mind that the average human development index in the world is embodied by countries like Ecuador, Egypt and Vietnam.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This is the crux of the problem with the left wing attitude on migration: they claim to reject open borders but in practice opposite every policy that isn't open borders.

It's kind of like how they are anti-scab, but then proceed to say that (illegal) immigration doesn't suppress wages...how does that work for scabs but not for people willing to work for peanuts?

[Acajack]

Interesting how there is so little talk about bringing the living standards of the developing world closer to those of the developing world.

The main push is to bring both the best and brightest AND also more lower skilled people from developing countries into already developed countries.

The result is that developing countries (with scant few exceptions) remain poor with no way out, and wages get suppressed in developed countries due to a glut of workers who aren't very demanding.

It's an extraordinary coincidence that as a result big business benefits from cheaper labour and costs both in developing countries and at home in the developed world!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

It's kind of like how they are anti-scab, but then proceed to say that (illegal) immigration doesn't suppress wages...how does that work for scabs but not for people willing to work for peanuts?

This is another element of the left being silly on immigration: they will often prioritize favoring looser borders & more migrants so much that they will violate all of their other core beliefs. You just have a classic example. Another is when socialists attack capitalist ideas of growth and favour "degrowth" & say low birth rates are good because of overpopulation.. and then support massive population growth from more immigration!

In American political commentary I've actually heard some people say that border/immigration is the "gun control of the left": in the same way that the American right is so obsessed with the idea of absolute gun rights that they'll oppose even basic common sense gun controls and even oppose their own core beliefs to enable this position (ie. Will reject banning terrorists from buying guns while simultaneously being hardline against terrorism), the American left does the same thing with migration issues.

[niwell]

While there isn't really a "left" consensus on the issue, one of the more persuasive arguments surrounding the concept of open borders focuses on the economic end. And is really more of a thought exercise. Specifically, we (in the broader, Western sense) have been traditionally able to outsource a lot of the negative externalities that allow for our economic prosperity. Cheap labour doesn't have to be here, it can be in a factory out of sight, out of mind - we get to benefit from cheap consumer goods. Immigration for immigration's sake isn't a positive or negative thing, and the need for it drops as conditions become more equalized across states. Because really, *most* people don't want to move if they don't have to. At the same time the dependence on cheap manufactured goods lessens as developed nations build up their own capacity.

On the refugee front it's less about accepting refugees sake because that's a good thing to do, but attempting to address the issues that cause refugees in the first place.

Again, this is a thought exercise and doesn't really represent actual policy anywhere, really. Nor is it realistic at the current time. But it's an interesting concept for some future state. Of course also worth mentioning that we're no longer outsourcing all negative impacts - things have slid backwards on this front.

Also - what I consider "leftist" tends to deviate from what that term means to most! And I specifically didn't say socialist because while Marx has some prescient things to say about Capital we shouldn't have to tie ourselves to 150 year old ideas.

[MolsonExport]

What's with all the strawman arguments about the "left" wanting open borders? Somebody suggested deporting 750,000 immigrants, just because...oh, reasons. At best, this is not a reasonable suggestion.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What's with all the strawman arguments about the "left" wanting open borders? Somebody suggested deporting 750,000 immigrants, just because...oh, reasons. At best, this is not a reasonable suggestion.

We have approximately 500,000 illegals who should all be deported. Plus at least a million temporary residents who will become illegals if they try to overstay. (It's perfectly conceivable that 250,000 of them would).

750,000 deportations seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What you're calling "strawman" arguments are very much relevant to this discussion, and you would understand that if you've actually read this page of the thread.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We have approximately 500,000 illegals who should all be deported. Plus at least a million temporary residents who will become illegals if they try to overstay. (It's perfectly conceivable that 250,000 of them would).

750,000 deportations seems perfectly reasonable to me.

What you're calling "strawman" arguments are very much relevant to this discussion, and you would understand that if you've actually read this page of the thread.

I've already gone on the record that I don't think mass deportations from Canada will happen.

That said, the discussion WILL happen, no matter how hard people try to keep it under the carpet.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've already gone on the record that I don't think mass deportations from Canada will happen.

That said, the discussion WILL happen, no matter how hard people try to keep it under the carpet.

We already deport about 15,000 people per year. The main blocker to more is a shortage of judicial resources. Contrary to what a lot of people think, Canada is actually pretty good about deportation. It's not nearly as common here, as it is in the US or the EU, for judges to reject deportation orders for illegals out of sympathy. In particular, we stand out among Western countries for being pretty aggressive about deporting illegals who have Canadian born children (something the Americans basically never do).

Deporting 750,000 people in short order is not realistic, I agree, but I think that scaling the annual rate of deportations up to 50,000 per year should be perfectly realistic with investments in more court resources. Combine 50,000 ordered deportations per year with much stricter rules for admission of temporary residents, stricter rules against border jumpers (like what the Biden administration is doing), and carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage voluntary emigration of illegals, and it's totally conceivable that we could get rid of most of the illegal population by 2030, without having to go nearly as far as a militarized mass roundup/detention/deportation solution like what Trump is proposing (which I would agree is a non-starter in Canada).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by niwell

While there isn't really a "left" consensus on the issue, one of the more persuasive arguments surrounding the concept of open borders focuses on the economic end. And is really more of a thought exercise. Specifically, we (in the broader, Western sense) have been traditionally able to outsource a lot of the negative externalities that allow for our economic prosperity. Cheap labour doesn't have to be here, it can be in a factory out of sight, out of mind - we get to benefit from cheap consumer goods. Immigration for immigration's sake isn't a positive or negative thing, and the need for it drops as conditions become more equalized across states. Because really, *most* people don't want to move if they don't have to. At the same time the dependence on cheap manufactured goods lessens as developed nations build up their own capacity.

On the refugee front it's less about accepting refugees sake because that's a good thing to do, but attempting to address the issues that cause refugees in the first place.

Again, this is a thought exercise and doesn't really represent actual policy anywhere, really. Nor is it realistic at the current time. But it's an interesting concept for some future state. Of course also worth mentioning that we're no longer outsourcing all negative impacts - things have slid backwards on this front.

Also - what I consider "leftist" tends to deviate from what that term means to most! And I specifically didn't say socialist because while Marx has some prescient things to say about Capital we shouldn't have to tie ourselves to 150 year old ideas.

These are fair points. When I said "left" I was basically referring to the loudest, societally dominant faction of the "left". (In much the same way as, in the US for example, the MAGA faction is the analogous group among the "right" despite the fact that the right of course contains far more types of people in it).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We already deport about 15,000 people per year. The main blocker to more is a shortage of judicial resources. Contrary to what a lot of people think, Canada is actually pretty good about deportation. It's not nearly as common here, as it is in the US or the EU, for judges to reject deportation orders for illegals out of sympathy. In particular, we stand out among Western countries for being pretty aggressive about deporting illegals who have Canadian born children (something the Americans basically never do).

Deporting 750,000 people in short order is not realistic, I agree, but I think that scaling the annual rate of deportations up to 50,000 per year should be perfectly realistic with investments in more court resources. Combine 50,000 ordered deportations per year with much stricter rules for admission of temporary residents, stricter rules against border jumpers (like what the Biden administration is doing), and carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage voluntary emigration of illegals, and it's totally conceivable that we could get rid of most of the illegal population by 2030, without having to go nearly as far as a militarized mass roundup/detention/deportation solution like what Trump is proposing (which I would agree is a non-starter in Canada).

I'm pretty fatalistic about this and actually expect the vast majority of the couple million people we've let into the country in the past few years to be here for good. Granted some people may decide Canada doesn't meet their expectations and go back home, but life is still a whole lot better here than where most of them came from. Most will stay. Bet on it.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've already gone on the record that I don't think mass deportations from Canada will happen.

That said, the discussion WILL happen, no matter how hard people try to keep it under the carpet.

Hopefully, the discussion will include the Constitution, due process, and the practicalities of finding and detaining people, determining where they are from, getting their home countries to accept them, etc, etc. Might be cheaper and more effective to offer six-figure cheques to those volunteering to leave.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Hopefully, the discussion will include the Constitution, due process, and the practicalities of finding and detaining people, determining where they are from, getting their home countries to accept them, etc, etc. Might be cheaper and more effective to offer six-figure cheques to those volunteering to leave.

Well, Sweden has begun doing that, though the amount isn't in the six figures. More like 25k.

[1overcosc]

In Sweden the illegal population is now falling quite considerably. They're actually having net negative migration now, because of the combination of deterring/preventing new arrivals (lower immigration), and getting those already arrived to leave (higher emigration). They demonstrate that this is in fact possible.

[1overcosc]

I don't like the idea of paying people as an alternative to enforced deportation. I'd be ok with some limited cheques to a limited number of people (say those whose countries of origin won't take them back otherwise), as long as at least a hundred thousand actually get deported. Otherwise, we're not creating adequate moral hazard for future would-be illegals. If people who came here illegally end up getting to either stay here anyway or get a nice fat cheque to leave, we're just asking millions more to rush over here. Some degree of harshness is necessary to create deterrence value.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

We already deport about 15,000 people per year. The main blocker to more is a shortage of judicial resources. Contrary to what a lot of people think, Canada is actually pretty good about deportation. It's not nearly as common here, as it is in the US or the EU, for judges to reject deportation orders for illegals out of sympathy. In particular, we stand out among Western countries for being pretty aggressive about deporting illegals who have Canadian born children (something the Americans basically never do).

Deporting 750,000 people in short order is not realistic, I agree, but I think that scaling the annual rate of deportations up to 50,000 per year should be perfectly realistic with investments in more court resources. Combine 50,000 ordered deportations per year with much stricter rules for admission of temporary residents, stricter rules against border jumpers (like what the Biden administration is doing), and carrot-and-stick approaches to encourage voluntary emigration of illegals, and it's totally conceivable that we could get rid of most of the illegal population by 2030, without having to go nearly as far as a militarized mass roundup/detention/deportation solution like what Trump is proposing (which I would agree is a non-starter in Canada).

We could streamline along with adding judicial resources though self deportation is the most effective method and compared to the US we do a good job of making it hard to live illegally in Canada. Healthcare is one of the weakest links especially for older illegal residents who in Canada are actually a big part of the problem. Our ERs are asbolutely clogged with illegal often eldelrly people brought here illegally to live with their legal parents. Cracking down on medical services would help a lot on that front.