Its a subject I think deserves to be in the forefront and imo is important and interesting, but I'll leave it at that so as to not stray further.
If, and only if, it can be discussed without strong emotions like anger and passion, it is indeed a subject that should be discussed. But perhaps this forum is not the place for that. Food for more thought I guess. If it gets out of hand, I'll have unpopular moderation work to do.
As I understand it, Canada has net negative population growth, an aging population, and a stable economy. To the extent that immigration focusses on stabilizing ALL of these factors, it is probably a good thing. Let us never forget that the vast majority of us are either the product of previous immigration policies or are ourselves immigrants.
Good intentions alone are not sufficient. Immigration policies that simply increase immigration without a view toward ensuring that new immigration addresses the weaknesses we want them to address (aging population, negative population growth, and a stable economy) is likely to result in bigger problems instead of solving the problems we have. Therein lies my primary concerns about the subject of immigration policy.
To a great extent the environment is a huge factor in the world today. It is simply illogical to think we can improve the environment at the same time as increasing the population and/or having economic growth. Very few would argue against the fact that the fastest way to improve the environment is negative growth. Some environmental extremists even believe we should enforce lower birth rates. I'm certainly not on that page, but I could support stabilization as a reasonable goal. That said, from a global perspective its an impossible goal and the net global environment is going to suffer. Nobody will agree to global policies that maintain the status quo for developing nations (keep them poor) and nobody will openly say that developed nations must give up their wealth to compensate. I only say openly because it is well known that this must happen if we really want to make a difference.
At the same time I know that there are things that can make a difference without compromising individual or collective wealth. The simple problem is that none of them are even remotely enough even when they are all added together. So we all argue amongst ourselves over things that might make a small difference, while we ignore the monster in the closet - economic and population growth. Essentially we are penny rich, pound foolish, and simply propagate the big lies so we can pat ourselves on the back and feel good about it.
I'm done.
A good insight into all of this can be gained by reading "Risk - the science and politics of fear." by Dan Gardner. The focus is health & safety risks, but the political and media mechanisms are the same.
