this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
463 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2673 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] figaro@lemdro.id 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah its weird, we are kinda both right. I did some more research, and... its admittedly quite confusing. According to this article 2,198,679 is correct for 2023 as the total number of non-permanent residents in Canada, which is over 1 million more than the year before. But! This 1 million excess isn't all new people. They revised the way they counted people, which resulted in a higher number than before being counted.

The article goes on to say "The large growth from international migration is due to nearly 470,000 new permanent resident landings, and an increase in the number of non-permanent residents by almost 700,000 people."

So the number in my previous comment was only accounting for "NEW and permanent" residents, not the non-permanent residents. The number of "NEW non-permanent" residents is not given, but it is implied that most of their increased number come from the new method of counting them.

As a side note, of the 2.2 million non permanent residents in Canada, 1.4 million of them have work permits, and a lot have student visas (the exact number wasn't shown in the article).

Regardless, it is true that the number of new immigrants is increasing faster than any other G7 country. Is that a bad thing? Find out next time on Dragon Ball Z

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, I don't care about exact numbers. It's a seriously massive amount, much more than any culture this small can absorb, I don't care if it one in 40 or one in 30 really. They've imported more than the population of some provinces in a year.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

According to this: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-levels-plans.html

The idea is to ensure economic prosperity of the future. Extremely low birth rates + an aging population = a need for more immigration. The US, Japan, and Korea will all need to do this soon too - social security is set to run out in 2035 if we don't do anything about it. Immigration is the answer.

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I was perfectly happy with the declining birthrate. Ffs that was the propagandists goal for 40 years, and when it worked, they decided to import what we coulda been breeding. It ain't about security anyways. It's keeping wages low. I own my house. Nobody much 20 today ever will because of this disastrous policy...the market would have corrected left alone.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If I understand you correctly, are you saying that there was some coordinated effort to lower birth rates over the last 40 years? What would the point of this be?

According to most sociologists, the lowering birth rate seems to be an effect of higher incomes and education, and is affecting most first world countries, not just Canada.

I think I agree with you, however, that wages in general should go up at the expense of the super-wealthy elites.