All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
54:02
The Truth About Canada's Election Part 1: Immigration
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- Hello my fellow Canadians, My name is Stefan Molyneux.
I'm the host of Free Domain, the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world with well over 600 million views and downloads.
I hope you will check out the website at freedomain.com.
But right now, of course, my fellow Canadians, it's time for the truth about Canada's 2019 history.
I'm going to do these presentations in a series.
The first is about immigration, which of course is a major concern to millions of Canadians across the country, and which remains, I guess we could say, just a tiny, tiny bit under discussed in the mainstream media.
So let's look at some of the basic questions.
So, Canada, unique in the world in many ways, actually has one of the highest per capita immigration rates in the entire world.
It's actually three times higher the immigration rate than the United States, which of course has its own immigration challenges.
Close to 22% of Canadians are foreign-born.
That's almost twice the American total, even if you include undocumented or illegal aliens.
Ottawa, of course, plans under Trudeau to further increase the number of immigrants.
And this is without a massive amount of public consultation and Q&A, right?
So in the last decade in Canada, 2 million immigrants came across.
And Canada, despite having a very tiny population, takes in 3.1% of the total number of immigrants across the entire world.
And here are some quotes about...
So 68% of Canadian respondents to a survey said minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages.
Moreover, 79% of respondents said Canada's immigration and refugee policies should, quote, give priority to Canada's own economic and workforce needs, end quote, rather than giving, quote, priority to people in crisis abroad.
The difference between the taxes paid and services consumed by the average recent immigrant equals about $6,000 annually.
Given the total number of these immigrants, the annual fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers comes to about $30 billion.
So that is a lot, right?
I mean, there is a massive influx of people from around the world, primarily from China and India.
We'll get to those numbers shortly.
But the costs are absolutely staggering, not just in terms of direct costs for social services versus taxes paid, but in terms of remittances to other countries.
In other words, people who come to Canada and take welfare or work or get some other form of income and then send that money overseas, Canada has the highest per capita remittance rate in the world.
And that money, of course, is being taken out of the Canadian economy and being sent overseas.
So that's kind of important.
It's one of the biggest fiscal drains in Canadian politics, in Canadian society.
It's going to increase if the Liberals get their way, and the Conservatives to some degree as well.
And yet it's not really being discussed.
And I really feel like it should be.
It's kind of important. Now, one of the great challenges of immigration is that the benefits accrue to very particular groups within society.
Obviously, the immigrants themselves who want to come to Canada, the left or the liberals tend to get new immigrant votes.
Something that's kind of under-discussed is the fact that employers tend to benefit enormously from immigration because what happens is the immigrants come into the Canadian economy And they tend to work as employees, and that drives down the wages.
But it raises the profits of employers.
Now, back in the day when I was knee-high to a grasshopper, the left used to be really concerned about workers' wages relative to the profits of big corporations and bosses.
Doesn't seem to be quite as much the case anymore.
I suppose I'll pick up that baton and say that I feel for and care for the Canadian workers who are being swamped by competition from immigrants and having their wages driven down as a result.
Because immigration increases profits to employers at the expense of the workers.
Calculations are, and by the by, I'll put the sources to all of my information below, immigration causes a decrease of the annual income of labor at the tune of about $40 billion a year.
And there's a gain to employers of $43.5 billion.
$3.5 billion a year. Now, of course, you could say, well, that's $3.5 billion more.
Well, not really. Not when you count the $30 billion of social services consumed over and above taxes paid by recent immigrants and you include tens of billions of dollars in remittances.
It's a net loss.
But even if it was a net gain, you know, call me a crazy socialist, but I'm fairly sure that the bosses, the employers, they kind of already have enough money, right?
And I really think that the employees, the workers, should be gaining more, and immigration is kind of in the way of all of that.
And... This question around immigration is very important.
Where it started was in about the 1990s.
It started under the Conservatives, this massive increase in immigration into Canada, in allowable immigration into Canada, because the Conservatives wanted to woo the new immigrant vote and so began cranking up immigration numbers, and it's never really gone down since then, which is a real departure from historical Canadian immigration, what built the country.
So let's look at the data of Canadians' perception regarding immigration.
So in a survey in 2015, it was reported that 41% of Canadians believe that their country lets in too many members of visible minorities.
Now remember, of course, 22% almost of Canadians are foreign-born, so they're probably quite keen on more immigration.
So the actual number of native-born Canadians is probably north of 50% who believe that the country is letting in too many members of visible minorities.
Now, of course, the question is, is this just rank racism or is there some other factors involved in this perception?
And we will be looking at the data regarding that.
In general, Canada is ranked as just about...
The least racist country in the world, like of the top 20 countries with self-professed racism, I think there's only one white country in there, so it's not a big issue in at least white countries, but it's a viable thesis.
We will be looking at it over the course of this presentation.
In Canada, 46% feel that the overall number of immigrants is too large.
The data shows the number of citizens critical of immigration to be on a marked rise since 2005.
Why? Why is this perception occurring?
Well, there are, of course, a lot of Canadians who are conservatives.
There are a lot of Canadians who are into the NDP or the Bloc Québécois and so on.
So one reasonable hypothesis goes something like this.
And it's well known within...
Canada, as it is known regarding the Democrat Party in the United States, that new immigrants tend to vote for the liberals in Canada, right?
So if you don't like the liberals, and immigrants vote liberal, then you're going to have a problem with immigrants not because you dislike immigrants or the color of their skin or the smell of Indian cooking or anything like that.
It's because immigrants facilitate...
The election of a political party that you don't like, right?
So this is important.
So let's look at some data around this, right?
So you probably heard this phrase, majority-minority, in which there is no ethnic group that is more than 50%.
That has become the case in Toronto, I think, where shootings are terrible in Toronto at the moment.
The homicide rate in Toronto is actually higher than New York at the moment, whereas Toronto used to be called Toronto the good with almost no crime.
But in the 2015 election, the Liberals in Canada won 29 majority-minority ridings.
The Conservatives won only two.
Residents of the 184 Liberal ridings are more likely to be new Canadians.
About one in four were born outside Canada.
The Canadian average is about 22%.
Remember, these elections can be very, very close.
So a couple of percentage points is an enormous difference.
Of the 10 Canadian writings with the highest percentages of immigrants, 8 of them voted Liberal.
And that's landslide numbers in a democracy where the parties in general are kind of neck and neck, at least the two major ones.
Of the 30 Canadian writings whose populations are more than 50% immigrants, all but 4 out of the 30 voted for Liberals.
So, again, you can dig into the data.
The sources, again, are all below. But it's pretty much without a doubt that new Canadians vote liberal.
And so, again, it's not racism fundamentally.
It's like if you think that the liberals are corrupt or dangerous or against free speech or spendthrift, wasters of taxpayers' money or whatever it is that your perception is that the liberals in Canada, if you don't like the liberals...
And immigrants are voting them in, your problem with the immigrants is not anything to do with color of skin or anything like that.
It has to do with the fact that there's a very identifiable group that's voting for the political party that you don't like, right?
So that is – that's kind of important.
And it's become, I mean, quite extraordinary.
I was actually just in Vancouver recently.
Vancouver is the most Asian city outside of Asia.
43% of Metro Vancouver residents have an Asian heritage.
And that's still on its way up, right?
I mean, whites are going to go below 50% of the population in Vancouver and Toronto just based upon the growth of Asians and so on.
And again... It's not the multiculturalism that's the issue.
It's that you have a very defined voting bloc of new Canadians who are going to vote for liberals as a whole.
So here's some data.
Again, sources below. Immigrants has a percentage of population in each party's writings.
And this, of course, is an average, right?
So the Bloc Québécois, when they have parties' writings, only 4.3%.
5% of those are immigrants.
Conservatives, 12.89%.
Liberals, the very, very highest.
24.81% of the party's writings and NDP, 15.6%.
This is a very strong pattern.
And so again, race is very much a red herring, and it's kind of an insulting red herring, but if you look at voting patterns of new immigrants who are overwhelmingly non-white, or significantly non-white, we'll get into that data later, they're just going to vote for liberals.
And you understand, this is why the liberals want to bring them in.
It's not that complicated. It's why the Democrats want to bring them in, right?
I mean, if Hispanics voted significantly non-white, Republican, then America would already have a wall along its southern border, probably one visible from space, but these are the basic facts of voting patterns that, if you ignore, I guess, well, you just have to call everyone a Nazi, which is, I mean, extraordinarily unfair.
People can count, right? Now, as far as extending the franchise, we'll get into the corruption of the existing...
Federal political party, Justin Trudeau's liberals, in the next part of the presentation or the next presentation.
But there was a law in Canada, right?
This extension of franchise to people who the liberals expect to vote liberal is quite significant.
And I'm not sure entirely honest and fair, right?
So there was a Bill C-76, which changed voting laws for Canadians who lived in another country.
So in the past, if you lived in another country, For more than five years.
If you were more than five years absent from Canada, you couldn't vote.
And now this has been changed.
So even if you've lived in Malaysia for 50 years, you can...
Vote in Canada.
Now, that's not good and that's not democratic, right?
Because people can vote for policies without any personal repercussions to themselves because they assume you've been living in another country for 20 years, you're not that likely to come back.
Now, any of the 2.8 million Canadians living abroad can cast their ballot based upon their last place of residence in Canada.
Now, of course, I was just in Hong Kong covering the protests and gaining the delightful experience of being tear gassed.
Still better than Joker. But in Hong Kong, of course, a lot of the people who are expats from Canada will vote, and a lot of them will vote for liberals, right?
So this isn't one reason why they're kind of reaching overseas for expat votes.
Marianne Monsef, the Minister for Democratic Institutions, has introduced legislation that will allow voters to use the voter information card as valid ID to cast a ballot.
In other words, no photo ID. And...
That just doesn't seem right.
I mean, you need photo ID to buy a beer, right?
I mean, it just seems odd that voting would bypass all of this kind of stuff.
Now, of course, tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who arrived in Canada in 2015 are now citizens, you know, just in time for the federal election of 2019.
And again, this...
Relatively fast track is facilitated by the fact that it's almost certain that the vast majority of them are going to vote for liberals, right?
So Global News reported on a Syrian voter, and this was a quote from the article, quote,"...as a newcomer, Mana says immigration policy is important to her when deciding who to vote for.
She hopes whoever forms the next government will continue to welcome those seeking." A better life, right?
So what does that mean? Well, she has friends, she has family, she has loved ones overseas in Syria, and she wants the policy of refugee policy and this mass immigration policy.
She wants this to continue because it benefits her, her family, her ethnicity, her culture, her history.
It benefits her, so she wants to vote for that.
And this is the kind of snowball effect that mass immigration has when it comes to informing public policy.
She said in this article, I'm really concerned about the rise of the People's Party of Canada, which is publicly running against immigration.
I don't think it's fair to say that they're running against immigration, but they are attempting to rein back immigration and return immigration to the way that it used to be in Canada, which we'll get into in a little bit, right?
So she comes to Canada...
And she wants to make sure that the floodgates of mass migration, of immigration, are still open and available for her, for her fellow Syrians and so on.
And there are, of course, a fair number of Canadians who look at that, it's an old word, I guess it's a pretty good word, who look at that somewhat askance.
Now, what is the cost?
We touched on this earlier, the net cost of immigration into Canada is As of about 10 years ago, it was about $35 billion per year.
Now, I mean, these sums, these figures are staggering and appalling and frustrating, especially because, I mean, here in Ontario, where I live...
The per capita debt is five times that of economic basket case left-wing California, right?
So Canada is way, way out of money.
Unfunded liabilities are enormous.
We'll talk about the finances of Canada later on in this series.
But, I mean, personal debt is staggering.
People can't make ends meet.
And they're going into debt just to buy groceries.
Grocery price is going through the roof.
If you've got a family, it's like...
You've got to put on a crash helmet just to go and read the price per pound of oranges at the supermarket.
It's terrifying. So it's one thing to squander money on mass immigration if you're swimming in money.
But when Canada's way out of money, That's crazy.
Now the cost is probably at least $40 billion a year, right?
So the argument is, and I've heard the argument, oh, we have an aging population and there's not enough people paying taxes for the Canada pension plan and we need a population growth and so on.
No, that's not...
Well, it's not true, and it's certainly not what I heard when I was growing up.
When I was growing up, people were told, I mean, white Christians in particular were told, hey, don't have any babies because it's bad for the environment, bad for the, you know, zero population growth.
We've got to reduce our population and so on.
And now it's like, psych!
Just kidding. Now we have to import everyone from the third world, and that's not a reasonable affair.
Now, of course, is low population a big problem?
Well, like all things in economics, the answer is yes or no.
I think it was FDR, a famous American president, who said, just once I'd like to meet a one-armed economist.
And people said, why? And he said, so I wouldn't meet an economist who would say, on the other hand, right?
And so when population falls...
It's fantastic for young people, right?
Because the price of real estate collapses, the price of land goes down, and it's just wonderful for opportunities.
And so people say, wow, houses are really cheap, I'm getting a pretty good salary, land is really cheap, and so yay, good, I can have a big family, and then population goes back up again, right?
Or you can have policies.
I think Hungary, if a woman has four children, she never pays income tax again for the rest of her life.
There's lots of ways that you can deal with population issues, even if you consider Lower population to be a bad thing, whereas I think it's actually a fine thing.
Plus, all it does is promote automation, right?
I mean, if you have a shrinking workforce, it's like raising the minimum wage, which effectively shrinks the workforce.
You just invest in automation.
And I guess, but robots don't vote for liberals.
Sorry, I shouldn't laugh, but robots don't vote for liberals.
That's a big problem. So even if we take the lowest figure from about 10 years ago, like please understand, like how much this is, these sums are absolutely staggering.
I'd put this by minute, but you'd get whiplash watching the numbers, right?
You'd reach ludicrous speed very quickly.
So even if we look at the lowest figure about how much immigration costs in Canada, it's $95,890,000 per day.
Per day! Now what are you going to pay in taxes in Canada over the course of your life?
About a million dollars? Maybe less, maybe more.
It really depends. Let's say a million dollars over the course of your entire life in all forms of various taxes.
Well, it's close to a hundred million dollars a day.
Now, it's not just the numbers.
We'll get into more detailed numbers regarding immigration, but let's look at some of the other aspects of it.
So the total foreign nationals remaining in Canada per year Well that's actually over 1.5 million people and remember Canada has a population well under 40 million people so we're talking a massive Amount of the population.
So you've got 340,000 immigrants in the economic and family class, right?
I mean, there's three, so just a big picture, right?
There's three ways in which Canadian immigration works.
There's economic value, there's family reunification, and then there's humanitarian, like, refugees and so on, right?
And, oh yeah, there used to be actually a one-to-one interview.
You used to go and have an interview, and that's been thrown aside because you can't process that many immigrants.
In any reasonable way.
You just don't have the manpower, right?
So 340,000 immigrants in economic and family class, 500,000 to 700,000 international students who pay, of course, exorbitant prices to go to Canadian universities, 150,000 to 200,000 temporary foreign workers, 50,000 to 60,000 illegal border crossers, and 250,000 to 60,000 illegal border crossers, and 250,000 international mobility workers.
So that's, I mean, there's a staggering amounts, right?
And it's a lot more than the 300,000 plus that gets talked about, right?
According to our Canada Border Services Agency, a total of 100,000 illegals entered Canada in 2017 to 2018.
According to projections, another 50,000 will enter in 2019.
Staggering numbers. I mean, it's a totally rough rule of thumb, but, you know, if you want to get this from an American perspective, I mean, multiply by 10 and you're in a ballpark.
So that's like half a million people illegally pouring into America.
I mean, it's absolutely staggering.
Now, the 2018 target of 310,000 immigrants, half of Canadians say that it's too high.
It's too high. Now, again, A lot of these Canadians aren't counted in this because they're new Canadians who want more immigration, we assume, again, in general, right?
As the woman said in the Global News article.
So, yeah, that's significant.
And whether the liberals have bought the silence of the media by dangling this $600 million in bailout money to them or if there's some other reason, political correctness, who knows?
But it is really quite a...
Quite a stunning number.
Quite a stunning number.
And again, if you want to think about this in American terms, about 3 million people pouring into America a year.
So 30% see that number is about right, while the rest say it is either too low or are unsure.
14%. So 6% of Canadians think that 2018 targets of 310,000 immigrants is too low.
So, of course, only 6% of Canadians want to raise it, and Trudeau wants to raise it.
I mean, it's completely crazy.
I mean, there are some people who say that Canada should have a population of 100 million because there's lots of space.
And it's like, no, there's not.
Most of Canada is huddled down at the 48th parallel on the largest undefended border in the world between Canada and America.
I mean, I've worked up north in some pretty remote locations.
It's pretty empty.
And there's some not bad reasons why it's pretty empty.
There's crazy bugs. It's really, really cold.
And you're kind of pretty far from everywhere.
So the fact that the ruling class wants to increase immigration and half of Canadians say it's too high, well, it shows you just how non-responsive to Canadians the ruling class is.
And there's reasons for that over and above what I've talked about in New Immigrants Voting Liberal, which we'll get into later.
And this is one of the reasons why it was Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau's father, who first began this radical demographic reshaping of Canada in the 1970s.
It happened in the 1960s in America with the Hart-Celler Act, partly sponsored by feminist Ted Kennedy.
And Justin Trudeau has said Canada is like a post-national country.
It has no core identity and so on.
And he's also posted, you know, hey, come to Canada.
We'll welcome you with open arms, which is kind of unusual for the head of the government to be promoting the illegality of Canada.
undocumented border crossings but nonetheless this idea that Canada has no core identity no core values that it's just geography and that the only thing that defines a Canadian is pieces of paper from the government well that's kind of new right it's kind of new it's a big experiment and well the data is bad on multiculturalism
The data is bad. And Angela Merkel, I think it was in 2010, said basically the whole multicultural experiment has been a completely disastrous failure.
And we'll get into that in a little bit.
But... It's a significant issue.
We need to talk about this stuff. So past liberal and NDP voters are far more inclined to say that levels are about right, 41% and 35% respectively, than 2015 conservative voters, two-thirds of whom say immigration should be reduced, right?
So this is... The big question for Andrew Scheer who narrowly beat out Maxime Bernier to be head of the Conservatives.
Andrew Scheer appears to be fine with mass immigration and that is not responsive to what his constituents want.
Now whether his constituents will hammer and nag him or whether they will vote for the People's Party of Canada as a Hail Mary to control mass immigration into Canada remains to be seen I guess in well under two weeks.
So at least four in 10 who voted for each of the three main parties in 2015 say immigration levels should be reduced.
Educational attainment appears to be a factor in views about immigration levels.
Those with a high school education or less are nearly twice as likely as university educated Canadians to say that levels should be reduced, right?
So almost 60% of high school education versus 32% of university education.
Now, of course, the temptation here, and I understand it.
I mean, this is the first thought that struck me as well is like, oh, okay, so the more educated you are, the more you are open and welcoming of foreigners and so on of immigration.
But I think there's two other factors that are involved in this.
So first of all, if you have less education, it's certainly conceivable that you're going to be more hammered by immigration.
And you can go to McDonald's, you can go to Tim Hortons, you can go to Subway, you can go to a wide variety of places and see how many visible minorities are working there.
Now, great, they have jobs, it's all fantastic, but that is driving down the wages, of course, of people who are having a tough time getting started in life, right?
Because inflation is still pretty high, food prices in particular, real estate is through the roof, and so on.
And it's really...
So you get all these people coming in who work relatively low-skilled jobs...
And then you've got to push up the minimum wage and then more people end up unemployed as a result of that and you end up with these giant touchscreens in McDonald's.
So those with a high school education may be the ones being most hammered by these endless waves of immigration.
And the other thing too is that this...
How do I put this? This diversity is a strength mantra has just become a foundational religiosity cult-like statement of the modern world.
It's presented really without a scintilla of evidence.
It's presented as an axiomatic moral virtue and...
That's really hammered into people in university.
And so it could be, of course, that university-educated Canadians have been hammered so hard with this diversity is always a strength, although the data definitely goes against that in the real world.
And also anybody who criticizes mass immigration is a racist, white supremacist, Nazi, blah, blah, blah, right?
So it could be that the university-educated Canadians are not facing as much Competition for mass immigration and also that they've been pretty heavily propagandized into this diversity mantra.
Now in 1970, when the immigration gates were open to everyone around the world, the population of Canada was 97% European.
The rest included the Amerindians, of course, and the few non-white immigrants.
Immigrants, and I mean, this is back in the time I came to Canada in 1977, and, you know, for the first, I think it was 10, 15 years of my life, and this was also the case when I was growing up in England, though my best friend was a fine young Indian boy, but,
you know, for those who are younger, you don't really remember these halcyon days where you could have a discussion about About things like immigration, you could have a discussion about resource allocation in society without constant screams of racism and fascist and Nazi and so on rolling around the place.
It really has become very hard to have, if not downright impossible, to have rational discussions about data, particularly when ethnic groups act differently without endless screams of racism, and that really has coarsened and cheapened and virtually eliminated the So,
what's changed? Well, a lot, frankly.
So, before 1990, and this is true for America as well, Canada had never had a period of prolonged high immigration.
Since 1990, it's been like tap maximum on.
Who cares if the tub overfills?
Just crank it on, right?
Before that, you would have what was called tap on and tap off.
So since 1990, Canada has had an average yearly intake of close to 250,000 immigrants.
Now, it's placing a huge burden on the infrastructure.
It's placing a huge burden on real estate prices, which is kind of the point as well.
And schools are being flooded and inundated.
And it's rough because, of course, the immigrants, they don't go to Sault Ste.
Marie. They don't go to Nikina.
They don't go to Thunder Bay. They go to Montreal and they go to Toronto and they go to Vancouver.
Piling people on. It's very hard on the environment.
It's very hard on the infrastructure.
The infrastructure is not being remotely built to handle this.
And when you have an organic population growth, in other words, when people come and settle a country and have kids, you know, it's kind of plannable, right?
The kids get born.
Moms stay at home with them for a couple of years.
You've got time to build schools and so on.
But just this flood, flood, flood.
There's... It's a one-way eating binge without, I guess, anything on the other side.
So this tap-on, tap-off policy was really, really important.
The phrase meant, so when Canada had labor shortages, it turned the immigration tap-on to satisfy the needs of employers.
I don't particularly agree with that either.
I mean, what's wrong with just bidding up the price of workers?
I mean, shouldn't workers do well in an economy as well?
But... That's kind of what happened.
So this was after the Second World War.
There were labor shortages, of course, and immigration cranked up.
Now, when Canada had an excess of labor, in other words, too many workers vying for too few jobs, such as, of course, in the Great Depression, it turned the immigration tap down or all the way off to protect its unemployed.
This happened, of course, in the 1930s.
Now... When you have mostly white immigration, you can have discussions about the costs and benefits of immigration without everyone screaming racist at you because they're all whites, right?
When you have multiracial immigration, and particularly when you have significant proportions or the majority of immigrants being non-white, then anyone who says, hey, let's have a rational discussion about the costs and benefits of immigration, maybe we should turn it down for a while because we've got hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Canada...
Then because most of the immigrants are non-whites, you can just scream racism at that person and the entire discussion gets shut down.
It's really, really tragic.
It's harmful for the workers in the West and it's...
Harmful for rational public policy discussions.
And it's actually really harmful to those who have struggled and given up their home countries to come to Canada for reasons we'll get into later.
But this is one of the geniuses of the left, right?
Of the NDP, of the liberals, in particular of the Democrats in America, of the Labour Party in the UK and other places.
Because they've turned immigration to non-whites, anybody who criticizes immigration, which you can do for purely economic and political reasons, of course, immediately gets branded a racist and is shut out of public discussion.
So you can't talk about this stuff.
It's absolutely terrible and very much a violation of participation in the democratic process.
So after 1990, this tap-on-tap-off policy was abandoned.
And as a result, Canada's immigration levels became...
An abnormality in Canada's immigration history.
And just by the by, just by the by, this idea of Canada as a nation of immigrants, no, no, no, no, come on.
Absolutely unfair. Absolutely unfair.
Modern Canada, modern America, not a nation of immigrants, because there was no existing modern society when people came.
It was a nation of settlers.
People who literally carved out I mean, none of that existed when Canada was built up by Europeans in the past.
So no, it's not that Canada is a nation of immigrants.
Settlers who had babies are not the same as immigrants who come to the society built by the settlers and their descendants.
It's not the same at all.
So in the fall of 1990, Canada's immigration minister Barbara McDougall and her progressive conservative colleagues decided to increase immigration levels to 250,000.
It's a big jump. They hoped to woo recent immigrants.
By increasing immigration, they hoped to compete with the Liberal Party for the immigrant vote.
And you see here is fundamentally the problem, which is, look, it's wrong.
it's wrong to judge groups differently if they act the same.
Right?
I mean, that's wrong.
Right?
So just think of, I don't know, brown-eyed, blue-eyed, green-eyed people among the white population or whatever, right?
You don't judge those people differently or people who are blonde or brunette.
Okay, maybe blondes.
Well, no, I was a blonde back in the day, although quite back in the day now.
But it's wrong to judge groups differently if those groups act the same.
But if those groups act differently, it is perfectly permissible to judge those groups differently.
I don't mean morally or anything, but, you know, if immigrants vote for liberals, you can say that and you can act accordingly and you can be against immigration if you're against the liberals.
Perfectly rational, perfectly sensible.
So here, they're saying, oh, the immigrant vote needs to be appeased by cranking up immigration levels.
Okay, so people who don't want all of that immigration are going to have a problem with immigration because it leads to just this kind of stuff.
So, Canada needs workers.
No, bosses need extra labor so they can drive down the price of their workers.
But does Canada have a widespread worker shortage?
No. Canada continues to have almost 2 million people unemployed.
2 million people unemployed.
Now, of course, many of the unemployed, actual unemployed, are not even counted employees.
In the figure that StatScan publishes, and that's just unemployed.
The number of underemployed, in other words, people who are working part-time when they want to work full-time, people who are working at Starbucks when they have a university degree, people who are underemployed, is probably much higher than that number, which, you know, is staggering.
Let's say it's equal. There's four million people, unemployed, Or underemployed.
And the idea then, but we've got to import workers because we don't have enough.
It's absolutely not true.
It's not true, and it's harmful to the workers.
The fact that it benefits the bosses?
Sorry. That's not a justification.
It's not an excuse. So in the last recession in Canada, close to half a million Canadians lost good-paying jobs.
Yet Canada continued to import 250,000 immigrants annually.
Come on. Come on.
That is terrible public policy.
It's unfair. It's unjust.
It's disastrous for Canadians.
And in the long run, it's going to be disastrous to the immigrants as we'll get into it.
Now, here's perhaps the most fundamental issue, which is this.
The Canadian government, Ottawa, has never once asked Canadians if they want 250,000 or more immigrants pouring into the country every single year, or if white Canadians are enthusiastic about becoming a minority in the country that they and their ancestors built.
And... That seems like an important question.
It really, really does seem like an important question.
When whites or Christians become minorities in other cultures and countries, they tend not to do very well.
I mean, you look at what's happening in South Africa.
You've got massive amounts of farm murders and murders of whites.
Whites are being forced into Ghettos and shanty towns because they're unable to get jobs.
There are more racial laws now under the South African government than there ever was under apartheid, and things are very bad.
Christians are the most persecuted minority in many of the countries in the Middle East and other places, and it's...
It's pretty rough. White countries kind of have a history in the modern world at least of being sort of very sensitive and having set aside programs and diversity programs and being inclusive and so on.
I don't really see evidence of that elsewhere in the world.
And that is a very, very big question.
Now, of course, the response to that could be, well, people keep voting in.
Politicians who want the same or more immigration.
Well, that's tough though.
That's a tough case to make.
Because, and I'm sure it will happen as a result of this presentation as well, but anyone who raises empirical, economic, rational...
Well, of course, you get called a racist and a white nationalist and a Nazi and so on and all of these false lies that go up.
So it's not really a discussion.
It's not really a debate. And so the information gets shielded and people whisper like Solzhenitsyn's husband and wife, you know, under the covers at home and make sure that nobody ever finds out that they may be skeptical of mass immigration because the media as a whole and academia will just call in the airstrike of trying to destroy people's lives who bring these kinds of questions up.
So... They're not talked about.
That's why I'm doing what I'm doing.
It's really, really important to talk about this stuff.
Ottawa really only consults with the immigration industry, the people whom it calls Canada's immigration stakeholders.
So that, of course, is existing immigrants who want family and friends to get in, leftists, employers who like immigration, driving down wages, socialists, Marxists.
The churches, in particular, get a huge amount of money helping to settle migrants.
So... It's really not a very diverse discussion, I guess you could say.
So what's the unemployment for immigrants?
Well, we've got Canadian, as of October 2019, Canadian unemployment is 5.5%.
So those immigrants who are here five years or less have a 9.4%.
Unemployment rates. So that's not good.
At 6 to 10 years, 6.4%.
And landed more than 10 years, 5.3%.
So it takes some time.
And that's why these initial costs tend to be very, very high.
Top 10 countries of origin of International Mobility Program permit holders.
This is as of 2017.
This is where this particular group is coming from.
India, over 54,000.
China, over 41,000.
The US, over 31,000.
France, just under 30,000.
Australia, 17,000 and change.
UK, 15,500.
Korea, 13.6.
Ireland, 9,917.
Japan, 8,600 and change.
And Germany, 8,000.
So that's...
Again, this is one of the challenges.
If you say, well, I want to reduce this, people say, aha, you're racist against Indian people and Chinese people and so on.
And... Where are the white South African refugees?
They're being persecuted.
They're really desperate to get out.
I've helped some South Africans get out.
And where are they coming?
Well, you can't talk about that, right?
Can't talk about it. Top 10 origin countries of international students at year's end 2017.
International students, I think it's still the case now, that international students pay quite a bit more than Canadians to go to university, right?
So if you look at it, almost 166,000 Chinese, over 145,000 Indians.
31,000 and change Korea, 29,000 and change from France, 17,782 US, Brazil just over 16,000, Vietnam just over 15,000, Nigeria just over 13,000, Japan just under 13,000, and Saudi Arabia 11,466.
So, looking at the, I mean, outside of the ideological reasons, pure fiscal reasons, as to why universities love to talk about diversity and inclusiveness and so on, because ka-ching, ka-ching, cash and a half, they get a lot of money from these international students.
Canada accepts over 1 million foreign nationals per year.
Almost all of them have the potential to become Canadian citizens, and this is far above the 320,000 number that Trudeau pretends to talk about.
The International Mobility Program is another version of Canada's temporary foreign worker program, but it has less stringent requirements, making it easier for foreigners, particularly young foreigners, to get into Canada.
According to Vancouver Sun columnist Douglas Todd, the number of temporary foreign workers arriving each year has doubled in the past 10 years, increasing particularly after the federal Liberal government was elected in 2015.
Now here's another issue regarding immigration.
According to the World Bank, remittances sent back home by temporary foreign workers and immigrants in Canada Total $40 billion a year.
Again, it's a staggering amount of money being sent out of the Canadian economy.
Due to these massive immigration numbers, Canada had the highest per capita remittance rate in the entire world as of 2013.
It may not be the same, but it's probably not far off, maybe worse.
So, let's look at Canada's visible minority population in terms of percent.
Now, again, people are tempted to just say, well, it's skin color and it's racism and so on, but it's not because...
Immigrants act in a different manner than natural-born or historical or whatever you want, indigenous, whatever you want to call it, the non-immigrant population in Canada.
They act in a different manner and therefore immigration changes enormously the face of Canadian politics and Canadian resource consumption.
It changes the price of real estate enormously.
It changes workers' wages, putting a downward pressure on them.
It changes... It increases policy discussions.
It increases healthcare costs.
It increases welfare costs.
And, of course, it increases school costs because you need more languages, more diversity, and so on.
So this is not about skin color.
This is why it's so annoying when you try to have discussions about complex issues like this and people just start screaming racism, la, la, la, la.
It's like, well, maybe we can change it, maybe we can't, but I'll be damned if I don't give it a try.
So let's look at Canada's visible minority population percentage.
And this is... Well, it's one of the most radical transformations of any country in human history.
And it's happening in such an enormously short period of time.
And again, nobody's being consulted.
And anybody who raises questions about it or provides countervailing evidence is screamed down as a racist and a Nazi and so on.
But nonetheless, you know, I was raised to not bear false witness, and these are important issues.
So here, visible minority population fundamentally reshaping Canadian values, Canadian politics, Canadian economics.
So in 1981...
4.7%, 86, 6.3%, 91, 9.4%, 96, 11.2%, 2001, 13.4%, 2006, 16.2%, 2011, 19.1%, 2016, 22.3%, 2021, 25.4%, 2026, 28.4%, 2031, 31.4%, and 2036, 34.4%.
This is a massive, massive piece of social engineering that is occurring here, and Canada will be unrecognizable at the end of this process, if this process indeed has any end.
And a country was built with particular values, particular politics, and in particular a dedication to the free market, which appears to be mostly a European phenomenon.
I mean, you could look at Hong Kong, but that was found by the British, of course, right?
or controlled by the British.
So this is a massive radical reshaping, and it's important to talk about it.
So think about the immigrants who came in 1981.
They came to live in Canada as Canada stood at the time.
People who came in 2006 came to live in Canada as it stood at the time, with a significant free market, with relatively low taxes.
In many ways, taxes are lower in Canada than the United States, with free speech, with all of these wonderful attributes.
Of Canadian society, individualism and robust debate and discussion and so on, and no hate speech laws and...
So the people who came to Canada worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to come to Canada.
And if Canada doesn't stay Canada, it was all for nothing.
Right? If you want to go eat in a French restaurant, You don't want it to be converted into a Moroccan restaurant.
Well, I guess that's similar now.
If you want to go eat in a French restaurant, you don't want it converted into a Korean restaurant just before you order, right?
Because you want to eat French, right?
So it is a huge disservice to the people who've come to Canada because it's Canada to transform it into something that's not Canada.
I mean, that's very unfair.
These people worked very hard and sacrificed a lot to come and adapted a lot to Canadian values.
So immigration, should immigration levels increase or decrease by year?
And you can pause up this, of course, and look at the source, which is below.
But as you can see, particularly since 2014 and so on, things have really changed.
So should immigration levels decrease?
Well, it went from 36% saying it should decrease to 49%.
And that's at a time when you have massive numbers of people pouring into Canada.
Okay. It's a huge shift.
It's a huge shift. And, you know, people are kind of desperate about this because, well, the liberals want to crank it up.
The conservatives, I don't know if they're afraid of being called racist, just having rational discussions.
I mean, where are the debates about this?
This is a fundamental transformation of Canada.
Where are the debates about it?
Where can people talk about this in a rational manner?
We're here on this channel, and I hope elsewhere as well, because this is important.
So, you're smart enough to get the basics, and I hope that this is the beginning of an important discussion.
Now, we discuss this with friends, share this presentation, subscribe to what it is that I'm doing, because I'm going to put out a whole series of these, I think one every day.
But there is a couple of takeaways that are really, really important.
We've got to have sympathy for the immigrants who came to Canada because it's Canada and not change Canada into something else because they're part of this country and they've helped build this country now as well.
Groups that act differently, yeah, you can judge them differently.
And that's important.
The foundation of reason why the liberals want immigrants is because the immigrants vote liberal.
It's not because they're tolerant.
They're certainly not tolerant and try disagreeing with them and see what happens, right?
Small government advocates, people who want smaller government, who want limited government, who don't just want another society like everywhere else in the world where the government dominates just about everything, you're going to have to question mass immigration because people pouring in want bigger government as a whole.
Now, I'd love to never do this presentation.
I'd love to care absolutely nothing about immigration.
But the fact is that it is fundamentally reshaping the politics and the culture of the country.
And it does have a massive environmental impact and it does have a huge impact on whether people can afford to have kids and whether they can afford to have decent housing and so on.
It's really, really important.
And one of the reasons why mass immigration is occurring as well is to prop up the value of real estate.
With the result of the post-war baby boom, they themselves have fewer kids.
Millennials have fewer kids as well.
So what normally happens is when you have a population trough following a population boom, is you build all these houses for this giant population, and then this population retires, they go to smaller houses, and the price of real estate will come down.
Now, if you remember from 2007 to 2008 what happened, When the value of real estate in America ticked down just a little bit, I mean, it almost brought the whole house of cards of the central banking fiat currency system down.
And so the government can't really, at the moment, or the economic system that we have, which is debt-based, can't really handle a drop in the value of real estate.
And so this is another reason why the boomers don't want the value of their house to go down.
I understand that. I mean, whatever I want, I don't want the value of it to go down either, but in a free market it would.
And that would encourage people to have more kids, to be part of a larger cycle.
But this desperate need, the governments want to prop it up to keep the boomers happy, who vote a lot, but also to keep property taxes high.
If the value of real estate goes down, people are going to say, hey, I don't want to pay as much in property taxes.
So even if the numbers don't change from sort of 1% or 2%, we're still going to end up with less money.
People will ask for reassessments.
So the government has to keep the value of real estate high, and mass immigration serves that.
It just doesn't serve the population as a whole.
And... Here's another fundamental issue, and I'll sort of close on this.
We won't really know, unfortunately, whether or not different ethnicities and different races...
I think in a free society, everyone can get along, because we're not all sort of preying on each other and voting for various policies that disagree with each other.
In a truly free society, I think we'd all get along at least a heck of a lot better.
But we're not really going to know about that, because here's the problem.
When... Non-whites move to Canada or to America or to the UK or to France or wherever, right?
Then what happens is, unfortunately, this is really tragic and really horrible and the most dangerous aspect of what's going on right now is that the immigrants come and, you know, they go to university or they absorb the general culture and so on.
And what do they hear? Oh, whites are privileged.
Whites are racist. There's institutional racism.
White people hate you. The level of ethnic hatred, particularly against whites, that is being generated by largely leftists and Marxists in the universities and in the mainstream media and in culture and so on is absolutely staggering.
We'll never know if everyone can get along because people who come to Western countries are being taught that whites are privileged and racist and hateful and so on.
My gosh. I mean, until this anti-white racism stops, and I don't really see much evidence that it's going to stop anytime soon.
In fact, it seems to be escalating.
Until that does stop.
Mass migration, mass immigration.
It's not just, well, it's a bit of a problem in terms of workers' wages and so on.
These are all very real. Oh, the real estate is high.
These are all very real issues.
But, of course, we can see America being turned into a potentially volatile mix of ethnic conflicts, which is a situation every sane person wishes to avoid.
And it's not impossible that it could happen elsewhere as well.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
So thank you so much for your support, my friends.
▲
Export Selection