Immigration levels

[Sheba]

I figured we might as well start a new thread for this...

Federal government to further limit number of international students

The federal government will be further limiting the number of international students permitted to enter Canada next year. It’s the government’s latest immigration-related measure to address Canadians’ ongoing housing and affordability concerns.

In 2025, new international student study permits will be reduced by 10 per cent from the 2024 target of 485,000. That will mean 437,000 permits issued next year, with that same target continuing into 2026.

About 20 per cent of international students apply for an extension each year and remain in the country, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. This year’s national cap of 485,000 includes those students, along with additional study permit approvals.

...

Earlier this year, Miller also announced a decrease in the number of temporary residents in Canada to five per cent over the next three years, down from the current 6.2 per cent.

The federal government has also signalled changes could be coming this fall to permanent resident levels.

[BaddieB]

Alcoholic to limit Alcohol consumption by going from drinking 10 cans of beer a night to 9.

[djmk]

I find it interesting how people complain about immigration but the immigration rates really has not changed much over the years. Sure its a little higher now, however COVID saw very little. Also, the current rate is considerably less than what it was after both wars

[whatnext]

Seems to already be having an effect on commercial space. This is Dunsmuir and Seymour with no sign of anyone working on "Alexander College" let alone being ready Summer 2024. The kind of establishments the Minister referred to disparagingly as "puppy mill" colleges seem to occupy a lot of downtown office space.

[IMG]office by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photo

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by djmk

I find it interesting how people complain about immigration but the immigration rates really has not changed much over the years. Sure its a little higher now, however COVID saw very little. Also, the current rate is considerably less than what it was after both wars

What on earth are you talking about?

[djmk]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

What on earth are you talking about?

reread that graph, it's title and its y access. It has nothing to do with "rate". Also, this is a very scary graph for reasons which should be obvious for anyone that passed grade 10 math

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by djmk

I find it interesting how people complain about immigration but the immigration rates really has not changed much over the years. Sure its a little higher now, however COVID saw very little. Also, the current rate is considerably less than what it was after both wars

Originally Posted by djmk

reread that graph, it's title and its y access. It has nothing to do with "rate". Also, this is a very scary graph for reasons which should be obvious for anyone that passed grade 10 math

What exactly are you trying to argue? That immigration rates are lower than post World War levels, therefore it's okay? I'm an immigrant married to an immigrant so I'm not against immigration, but clearly the immigration levels, considering the lack of housing/jobs, are too high.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

What exactly are you trying to argue? That immigration rates are lower than post World War levels, therefore it's okay? I'm an immigrant married to an immigrant so I'm not against immigration, but clearly the immigration levels, considering the lack of housing/jobs, are too high.

I think they're trying to argue that the claim and the graph used to back up that claim, is the result of poor math skills and not an interpretation of that.

There's still some people out there that are willing to point out poorly made arguments on data that doesn't match or support those claims. But hey, when there's an agenda to push, decision based fact making is all the rage right now.

[chowhou]

Do we really need a municipal politics thread to talk about federal policy?

I believe the argument is that we've easily been able to handle our current immigration rate in the past, there's little reason to believe we can't nowadays.



(I couldn't find a graph including 2022-2023, but I believe the immigration rate was about 3% for both if we include both permanent and temporary residents)

I've always maintained that Canada is one of the largest countries in the world with close to unlimited land, and construction labour should be proportional to population, so if we can't provide housing to everyone that arrives in Canada that's a failure in construction policy, not in immigration policy.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I've always maintained that Canada is one of the largest countries in the world with close to unlimited land, and construction labour should be proportional to population, so if we can't provide housing to everyone that arrives in Canada that's a failure in construction policy, not in immigration policy.

And go to any construction site in the lower mainland and you will find plenty of recent immigrants doing said construction.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

What exactly are you trying to argue? That immigration rates are lower than post World War levels, therefore it's okay? I'm an immigrant married to an immigrant so I'm not against immigration, but clearly the immigration levels, considering the lack of housing/jobs, are too high.

You might want to check out the unemployment rates during that span of time. You might be surprised how low it is currently compared to past times. As per housing, that's always been an issue. Nothing new for that.

My point is that there is a lot going on in this country and economy to warrant high immigration. And there is also a lot of people posting data on the internet that either have an agenda or don't know how to interpret it.

For example, that peak in the early 70's is when immigration was almost at it lowest but when Gen X was being born.

[AlessioSBT]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Do we really need a municipal politics thread to talk about federal policy?

I believe the argument is that we've easily been able to handle our current immigration rate in the past, there's little reason to believe we can't nowadays.



(I couldn't find a graph including 2022-2023, but I believe the immigration rate was about 3% for both if we include both permanent and temporary residents)

I've always maintained that Canada is one of the largest countries in the world with close to unlimited land, and construction labour should be proportional to population, so if we can't provide housing to everyone that arrives in Canada that's a failure in construction policy, not in immigration policy.

Ok sorry but this is just a way to rationalize the problem.

"If A would be true, then B would be possible. So the problem is A".

This not how reality works. There are plenty of things in our world that could be possible but they will not be.
If we are clearly failing with the housing policy THEN we clearly can't take more people.

Could we solve the housing problem? I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no, what i know is that it's not happening.
So maybe we should follow the logical path of a problem. If people need a house and we don't have them, then first we fix the housing problem and then we raise the immigration proportionally.

Letting million of people coming here to become homeless because "we could have houses tho" is nonsense.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by AlessioSBT

Ok sorry but this is just a way to rationalize the problem.

Likewise, this is just a way to rationalize why your solution is better than anyone else's. You're a victim of the same mentality you're criticising. You're saying, "A is a problem that the government is not fixing. B is a problem that the government is not fixing. I don't feel like the government will change A, so they must change B!". This is the same argument that rent control advocates make, "We're not going to help reduce rents otherwise, so we might as well have rent control. Who cares if it disincentives construction of new rentals, they're illegal to build anyway!"

Sure, we could have the government enact your policy and reduce immigration levels (and the Canadian economy), or we could have the government enact policy to handle the housing crisis by deregulating the over regulated housing and construction sector.

I, for one, will continue to push for policy that helps all Canadians regardless of immigration rates.

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by AlessioSBT

Ok sorry but this is just a way to rationalize the problem.

"If A would be true, then B would be possible. So the problem is A".

This not how reality works. There are plenty of things in our world that could be possible but they will not be.
If we are clearly failing with the housing policy THEN we clearly can't take more people.

Could we solve the housing problem? I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no, what i know is that it's not happening.
So maybe we should follow the logical path of a problem. If people need a house and we don't have them, then first we fix the housing problem and then we raise the immigration proportionally.

Letting million of people coming here to become homeless because "we could have houses tho" is nonsense.

Exactly this.

I think the problem they are having, and I mean this with utmost respect, is a lack of logic. I did not have the highest score in my Law School Admission Test, so I cannot purport to be the most logical person in the world, but I can smell bad logic when I see it.

You summarized it well.

The idea that because in the 1910s or in the 1960s we brought in X number, then we can do it today as well, in the face of modern realities (i.e. we are CLEARLY incapable of building the same number of homes as back then with current policies) is not logical.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

The idea that because in the 1910s or in the 1960s we brought in X number, then we can do it today as well, in the face of modern realities (i.e. we are CLEARLY incapable of building the same number of homes as back then with current policies) is not logical.

The illogical part is not taking a moment to be curious and wonder why we could do it back then and cannot today, and instead going, "Well we CLEARLY can't!"

[Burquitlaman]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The illogical part is not taking a moment to be curious and wonder why we could do it back then and cannot today, and instead going, "Well we CLEARLY can't!"

Again, you are confusing things. What makes you think I, or anyone else, is not curious? Or are you saying we don't want it to increase? Whatever it is that you are trying to say, it is not relevant. Entirely irrelevant. The fact is we are not doing it and ever since measures were introduced by the NDP in BC to increase supply, housing starts have actually fallen off a cliff:

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-newsroom/news-releases/2024/housing-starts-august-2024

Check the numbers above.

The reasons do not matter in this discussion. We are not doing it. Pure and simple. And efforts are not providing results. That is all that matters if we both agree that new immigrants need housing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Devil's advocate: the housing boom was in a time when a crew could set up a prefab bungalow frame in a week or less; even modern duplexes and quadplexes require a slightly longer timeframe, let alone midrises. Last year was already the all-time record for housing starts and construction in BC as it is.

Devil's advocate II: a reduction in immigration (I can't believe I'm saying this) to Harper-era levels, even temporarily, would surely lower the demand and help supply to catch up. It's not an either-or dilemma.

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

Again, you are confusing things. What makes you think I, or anyone else, is not curious? Or are you saying we don't want it to increase? Whatever it is that you are trying to say, it is not relevant. Entirely irrelevant. The fact is we are not doing it and ever since measures were introduced by the NDP in BC to increase supply, housing starts have actually fallen off a cliff:

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-newsroom/news-releases/2024/housing-starts-august-2024

Speaking of confusing things, that link is "Canada over a half-year period," not "BC within the last month or so." That doesn't suggest that Eby's rezoning has lowered housing starts, it suggests that certain other provinces aren't pulling their weight - MB, ON and QC, for example, have been slowing down since the pandemic. Somebody plant a boot up Quebec's ass, please and thank you.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Burquitlaman

Again, you are confusing things. What makes you think I, or anyone else, is not curious? Or are you saying we don't want it to increase? Whatever it is that you are trying to say, it is not relevant. Entirely irrelevant. The fact is we are not doing it and ever since measures were introduced by the NDP in BC to increase supply, housing starts have actually fallen off a cliff.

I'm sure you're not aware, but the BCNDP housing policies are only just now being brought into force by the municipalities, with many kicking and screaming. I understand now that you're the type to go looking for facts to match the narrative, but when housing takes years to get through the design and permitting stage, are you really going to try to make the argument that legislation executed this year has already failed because housing starts were down a month ago...?

I get that we're passionate about this topic, but why not focus our efforts on solutions that help everyone instead of cutting off our noses to spite our face?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

As it turns out, it's not even a report about BC - see above.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: the housing boom was in a time when a crew could set up a prefab bungalow frame in a week or less; even modern duplexes and quadplexes require a slightly longer timeframe, let alone midrises.

That's because for some reason everything we build nowadays is custom designed and built. The federal government is trying to fix that, but guess what? Regulations and development charges have put a damper on it.

Devil's advocate II: a reduction in immigration (I can't believe I'm saying this) to Harper-era levels, even temporarily, would surely lower the demand and help supply to catch up. It's not an either-or dilemma.

I'll never say this isn't true, and extermination camps would probably lower demand even faster, but I personally prefer good economic and social policies.