Some folks on here have been repeating this garbage as well

  • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean they aren’t wrong (assuming the link is working)? Immigration should be slowed down drastically not sped up to record levels so we can at the very minimum ensure these people have an actual place to live? Hell I would argue THAT is the pro-immigration take. It’s not fair to these people to move there without an actual place to live. There’s plenty of recent immigrants on YouTube voicing their frustration of being sold a false promise when coming here. Seriously, just look at the average rents vs incomes. I have no idea how these people are getting by at all.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t disagree that high immigration introduces more demand pressure, but you do need some mental gymnastics to argue that decreasing immigration is the pro-immigration take. People are generally not allowed residence in Canada if they don’t some means anyway. Instead of YouTubers, do have any trustworthy statistics on number of immigrants that end up becoming homeless? I never heard of this being a problem, it sounds a bit farfetched.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t end up homeless, they end up packed into houses at densities that Canadian-born people are unwilling to accept. I used to do service/maintenance work as an electrician and you would walk into a 2 bedroom apartment to see 10-15 people from 3 generations living there.

        They say we need to increase density but this is actually just decreasing the standard of living. The way economics works, if people are willing to live like sardines to pay the rent, soon people will be required to live like sardines to pay the rent.

        I’m not anti-immigration myself and where I live (SK) actually does need more population, but the immigration rate has to be decreased as Canada’s public services and housing stock are being pushed to the limits. And something needs to be done about all immigrants ending up in the big 3 cities. Back when Canada was built, they mandated that people move out to the Prairies or other underpopulated areas if they wanted to come at all. That’s why we have such a volume of German, Ukrainian, Scandinavian people here in SK - they were sent here and they stayed here, and built our rural communities.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They say we need to increase density but this is actually just decreasing the standard of living.

          The most enjoyable places I’ve ever lived and visited were by far the densest ones. To each their own, I guess. And Vancouver which is supposedly the densest city is still at 1/3 of the density of a city like Barcelona (which is an amazing place). That’s why I love downtown Vancouver, because it’s the densest region of the densest city.

          • evranch@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry maybe I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean that increasing density decreases standard of living, I meant over-occupying spaces that aren’t built for the purpose decreases standard of living. In many parts of the world a family lives in a single room, but that doesn’t mean Canada has to do it too.

            High density requires planned infrastructure to support it, and suddenly having houses in the suburbs with 20 people living in them is not a healthy form of density.

            • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah sorry, the “this” in “this is just decreasing standard of living” was meant to refer to people cramming up, not to “increase density”. Thanks for clarifying.

              Well, we agree on that. Cheers to planned infrastructure instead of rooming in the suburbs.

      • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh given the high-ish standards we place on immigrant I doubt they are the ones becoming homeless. It’s more likely to be the displaced Canadians who can no longer afford rent.

        And I think the mental gymnastics required to think bringing record levels of people into a country who can’t house those already here is insane. You want to breed actual anti-immigration sentiment? That’s a great way to do it. I don’t think ensuring the people entering Canada have an even somewhat affordable place to live is “anti-immigration”. Again, just look at average incomes vs rents. I think a lot (most) of people with your view simply aren’t aware of the current rental (let alone sale) market situation.

        • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          a lot (most) of people with your view simply aren’t aware of the current rental (let alone sale) market situation

          What is my view, again? I think I am pretty aware of the rental market situation as I’m a renter myself, with a very recent contract.

          I don’t think ensuring the people entering Canada have an even somewhat affordable place to live is “anti-immigration”.

          If the path to ensure that is not allowing them to immigrate, it really is impossible to spin this as anything else than anti-immigration…

            • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              By which logic? What specific sentence gave you the impression that I think we should increase immigration targets?

              • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If the path to ensure that is not allowing them to immigrate, it really is impossible to spin this as anything else than anti-immigration…

                If you’re not allowing everyone who wants to immigrate here the opportunity - isn’t that anti-immigration?

                • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It depends on which kind of debate you’re having and which definitions you’re starting from.

                  I’d say that most people who would call themselves pro-immigration don’t go as far as saying that absolutely anyone should be allowed immigrant status, so I wouldn’t call being against that position anti-immigration.

                  I do think that most people who would call themselves pro-immigration would agree that it’s understandable that provinces can dial up or down on immigration programs of skilled labor depending on economic circumstances. So I wouldn’t say that reducing immigration numbers in any form is an inherently anti-immigration stance either.

                  I do think, however, that saying that we should reduce immigration because immigrants are making housing unaffordable is solidly on the anti-immigration side. There’s a pretty intuitive divide here.