So firstly, Canada has never had open border policy. The UK is just adopting what we currently have
Secondly, the only politician who was advocating for open borders was Pierre Poilievre and he lost his seat
Which means this article is misplaced
In one of the most consequential political shifts in recent memory, Starmer has charted a new and unapologetically realist course on immigration. It is a striking departure not only from his party’s past rhetoric, but from the dominant dogma that has guided western policy-making for the better part of three decades: that mass immigration is always an economic benefit, a social good, and a moral imperative.
This isn’t journalism; it’s covering your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting “lalala”
Firstly, it ignores that right wingers are the ones pushing for higher immigration not for moral superiority but for the economic benefit of it keep costs down
Secondly, the societal good it does is that lower wages meaning billionaires will be more likely to bring business to a place where they can make more money for themselves.
Thirdly, also for the betterment of society is that it helps boomers because more people paying taxes means they are able to retire, able to receive healthcare, and because they were terrible at saving it allows them to sell their 100k houses for 1m+ so they can afford retirement
It is common sense, but in Canada, it still isn’t common currency.
It is just a rehash of “it’s happening in the UK” until this point but I wanted to pay mention to the term “common sense”
This is a term politicians and now apparently media use when they can’t justify a position
What is common sense? Being able to speak English in UK.
Well obviously it is common currency in Canada because part of getting a work permit is proving that you can speak English or French. To get a study permit you need to show an even higher level of proficiency
Even as we face the unmistakable consequences of population-driven pressure on housing, health care, and wages, immigration remains a third rail in Canadian politics. Raising concerns, no matter how grounded in data or lived experience, is still treated as impolite at best and inflammatory at worst.
As I pointed out in the opening, the only politician to make these big scary claims you say are normal lost his seat
Now you could focus on Singh being our most anti-immigration leader losing his seat to back up this claim but the author doesn’t mention him
Instead the author makes claim after claim with nothing to back it up
As recently as 2022, Canada was adding more than a million people per year through a combination of permanent immigration, international student intake, temporary worker programs, and asylum claims. This is not coordinated nation-building, it is unmanaged growth.
Well based on your endorsement of the UK adopting our system you seem to be okay with this and as pointed out we already have language requirements but
Raising concerns, no matter how grounded in data or lived experience
You started with this and still didn’t provide anything
Where are the stats or experiences that tie 1 million immigrants to unmanaged growth?
But the effects are not merely economic. They are social, cultural, and civil as well. On the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, diaspora groups now square off over foreign conflicts with disturbing frequency. Protests turn into brawls. Schools become battlegrounds. Religious institutions face threats and vandalism not for what they preach here in Canada, but for the politics of distant homelands.
I imagine this is about Israel/Palestine but where is the proof that you heralded as having? Where are the references?
I can reference Canada’s role in WW1, 2, and Vietnam as historical references to show this isn’t caused by immigration and existed beforehand. Canada’s peacekeeping reputation (although fraudulent) rests on us being involved in conflicts we aren’t part of
Despite a decade of record population growth, Canada’s real GDP per capita has stagnated. Productivity is declining. Infrastructure lags far behind need. The promise of a growing economy has not translated into growing prosperity for the average Canadian.
This is a good thing, we added more people and our per capita gdp didn’t go down. That means we grew enough to accommodate these people that the author claims are unmanaged, not just contradicting themselves but still lacking the evidence and facts they claim they have to back up this claim
The New Democratic Party offers no meaningful dissent, still clinging to the romanticism of borderless globalism. And the Conservative party, though beginning to voice legitimate concerns about housing supply and integration, has yet to present a coherent and politically confident plan to reform the immigration system.
Straight up false. The NDP plan was to tie a payment to immigration so if any future government wanted to bring in an immigrant they would have to pay the province that settles them. This vastly reduces the ability of the Federal government to bring immigrants in
The Cons plan was to remove funding for roads unless the municipality increased it’s population by 5% every year
If even Britain’s Labour government, long a standard-bearer of liberal cosmopolitanism, can shift course, what’s stopping Canada’s political class?
Idiots like you that pretend the UK isn’t just adopting our system
The reckoning is coming. If Britain can face it head-on, surely we can too. Better to shape the future on our own terms than to be overwhelmed by its arrival.
What does this even mean
Your title is correct not the post you linked