Toxicity Scores & Embeddings

Folk may think this reduction in immigration is far from any "slash" in numbers. Consider (search the web for "Is Canada's aging population an issue ?"): "Canada's aging population is a significant issue, creating major challenges for the economy, healthcare, and social services, as more seniors require care while fewer younger workers support them, leading to potential labor shortages, strained budgets, and increased demand for healthcare and long-term support. The trend of more seniors than children under 15 puts pressure on economic growth and government finances, requiring substantial funding increases for health and care services. " For every positive to reduced immigration numbers, Canadians are going to discover that there will be negatives. The negatives might very well justify using the word "slash". Time will tell.

I am emigrating to Canada as a permanent resident and I'd like to weigh in. You have to have $12,200 before you can arrive, you don't get government funded healthcare for 3 months or other benefits. I agree with this policy

That’s the harsh reality. During Trudeau’s time, Canada saw a significant influx of newcomers, which put pressure on housing, the labour market, and healthcare. It’s normal for a country to tighten immigration for a few years; lower quotas naturally mean higher requirements. Coming on a study permit or a work permit doesn’t guarantee permanent residency. Once a temporary status expires, and if there’s no other legal pathway to stay, the person must leave Canada.

Canada needs to step back and reassess the plan for immigration and refugees. Housing, jobs, healthcare, education, cost of living, and in general all resources are already strained. We need to prioritize the application for citizenship of trained and educated workers that are needed and will benefit our economy.

Losing millions in immigration will actually help Canada after over-inflating immigration. It will better control the housing crisis, food crisis, healthcare crisis. Pausing immigration so the numbers correct itself will fix a lot of the issues Canadians face.

I am supportive of immigration, but I believe there should be a cap of no more than 1-2.5% annually. A significant number of migrants moving to Canada from the same region or country could cause issues, as this can lead to the formation of "mini-bubble" societies within Canada. These groups may sometimes become the dominant demographic and undermine the existing communities that have contributed to building Canada for decades. We cannot expect new immigrants to seamlessly merge into Canadian society. This is a major oversight by Canada’s Immigration Department. Digital applications from foreign nations may play a role in this phenomenon. There should also be regulations concerning how many new immigrants can be brought in by family members. For instance, one new citizen can legally bring both of their parents and their spouse, which is fair. However, there have been cases where this process is repeated multiple times within ten years, leading to a 1:15 ratio, where one person can bring in six to eight relatives. If there is a labor shortage in essential fields, Canada can offer long-term residency to those who continue to work in those sectors, such as caretakers. However, the pathway to citizenship could be lengthened or require a higher standard. For instance, the requirements could extend from X years of living in Canada to X+5 years, as well as passing a basic Canadian citizenship test, either written or verbal. While an increase of five years may seem unfair or lengthy, it is essential. A newborn child from a Canadian family requires 18 years to gain voting rights in elections, whereas new immigrants—especially those who come for study for four to six years—can potentially gain both citizenship and voting rights sooner if they meet the previous administration's standard. Children under the age of 18 can gain citizenship in as little as X-4 years, regardless of their full integration into Canadian society. This loophole is sometimes abused and provides preferential treatment that favors this process over existing Canadian. In my opinion, it would be fairer to calculate the duration of "living in Canada" based on the number of years they have paid "income taxes" in Canada. This is important because many individuals with multiple passports pay taxes elsewhere while benefiting from Canadian healthcare and other services. The investment in home buying as a pathway to citizenship has contributed to the housing crisis, resulting in numerous empty homes in various regions. While it may offer short-term economic benefits that some politicians favor, it is detrimental to Canada as a whole. If buying a house is the only requirement for citizenship, wouldn't a large portion of the global population be eligible for U.S. citizenship just by investing in U.S. businesses or stocks? This perspective may seem illogical when looking at it from outside the box. Apologies for being a bit wordy; I had much more to say. Nonetheless, I also support temporary residency for up to 6-9 months for those who have been evacuated due to war, natural disasters, or similar circumstances. Special exceptions can be granted for families with members working in critical fields that merit such considerations (high-end industry).