U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Toronto
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2018, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,065 posts, read 10,994,539 times
Reputation: 7170

Advertisements

I was reading about the concentrations of asylum seekers in the UK and found that once someone is "being processed" they are settled anywhere except in SE England because of "housing costs." But that basically means that the immigrants will not be settled in London. Cities like Liverpool and Manchester thus get a lot of the immigrants. In fact, Scotland got more immigrants than SE England.

I was thinking that perhaps Canada could do the same thing. Force the immigrants to live in cities besides Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Maybe even exclude Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg from settlement. It just makes sound financial sense. What are Canadians opinions on this? In the USA it's not practical because there are too many cities but it might just work in Canada. Heck, offer free housing if they settle in the Maritimes or rural Saskatchewan or Sept-Iles or some other city that needs some workers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43826163
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2018, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
14,970 posts, read 10,525,449 times
Reputation: 9109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
I was reading about the concentrations of asylum seekers in the UK and found that once someone is "being processed" they are settled anywhere except in SE England because of "housing costs." But that basically means that the immigrants will not be settled in London. Cities like Liverpool and Manchester thus get a lot of the immigrants. In fact, Scotland got more immigrants than SE England.

I was thinking that perhaps Canada could do the same thing. Force the immigrants to live in cities besides Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Maybe even exclude Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg from settlement. It just makes sound financial sense. What are Canadians opinions on this? In the USA it's not practical because there are too many cities but it might just work in Canada. Heck, offer free housing if they settle in the Maritimes or rural Saskatchewan or Sept-Iles or some other city that needs some workers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43826163
Except many immigrants are granted immigration points because of their education and career. They are going to settle where the jobs are.

EDIT: Your post says immigrants, but I think you mean refugees?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2018, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Kalamalka Lake, B.C.
3,190 posts, read 4,433,828 times
Reputation: 4179
Default After WW1 AND WW2, DP"s arrived

Displace Persons arrived in Canada in droves after both world wars. The idea with professionals: doctors, dentists, etc. was that they had to serve in work camps, rural areas, and areas needing service for two years before they could get back into the "big city".

Today, absorbing tech people doesn't work well that way. They need to be in the "big cities" as that's where they have the best chance to link to their community, get education and the credentials they need in Canada, and move on from there.

It's an intriguing idea for parolees, however: you can do parole in any town EXCEPT YOUR OLD "HOOD". Now that would be an interesting experiment.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2018, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,065 posts, read 10,994,539 times
Reputation: 7170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
Except many immigrants are granted immigration points because of their education and career. They are going to settle where the jobs are.

EDIT: Your post says immigrants, but I think you mean refugees?
I mean refugees. I'm mainly thinking about the "irregular" refugees coming into Canada via Roxham Rd. They are all being assigned to Montreal and Toronto and I don't think that is a very smart idea. Why assign refugees where housing costs are high? Put them in cheap small towns.

The reason why Manchester and Liverpool have so many refugees is because the UK government doesn't permit them to live in London.

Just imagine if all refugees were assigned spots in the Maritimes, Sept-Iles, the Prairies (no cities in the prairies though) or the Territories.

The way they could assign refugees would be to determine if a region had extra unfilled jobs and then the refugees would be forced to live in those cities that had the lowest unemployment rates outside of the big cities.

No refugee would be permitted to live in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, or Vancouver. Every other place would be fair game though.

This could help repopulate the Maritime Provinces and would prevent overcrowding in the big cities.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2018, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
14,970 posts, read 10,525,449 times
Reputation: 9109
In regards to refugees, this kind of already happens to a degree. Canada has a system in place where groups or individuals can sponsor refugees, and therefor the refugees live in that part of the country.

I'm unaware of other countries that have such a program. Someone may enlighten me.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...-refugees.html

Here is one example of a refugee in a very small northern BC town.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-art-1.4471768
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2018, 12:49 PM
 
402 posts, read 345,663 times
Reputation: 503
Yes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2018, 12:16 PM
 
781 posts, read 720,853 times
Reputation: 2728
The problem with the idea of putting refugees in small town Canada is...


The Charter guarantees " freedom of movement " to ALL of us, including refugees. So putting a bus load of people in Timmins or Red Lake doesn't mean they are going to be happy to stay there.


Some of the contributors here seem to think that the refugees are all university educated professionals,, they may be, but many are poorly educated and lack employment skills. Now imagine the reaction of the unemployed Canadians in Glace Bay who are now competing for the few jobs with people who are dumped in their town ? Not going to be a very warm or enthusiastic reception I suspect.


Many Canadians are now reconsidering their opinions about refugees and the policies of the Justin Liberals. Happy days seem to be melting into a puddle around the PM's feet. Telling Canadians what we should think is a good way to be voted out of office, Justin.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2018, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,065 posts, read 10,994,539 times
Reputation: 7170
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleguy View Post
The problem with the idea of putting refugees in small town Canada is...


The Charter guarantees " freedom of movement " to ALL of us, including refugees. So putting a bus load of people in Timmins or Red Lake doesn't mean they are going to be happy to stay there.


Some of the contributors here seem to think that the refugees are all university educated professionals,, they may be, but many are poorly educated and lack employment skills. Now imagine the reaction of the unemployed Canadians in Glace Bay who are now competing for the few jobs with people who are dumped in their town ? Not going to be a very warm or enthusiastic reception I suspect.


Many Canadians are now reconsidering their opinions about refugees and the policies of the Justin Liberals. Happy days seem to be melting into a puddle around the PM's feet. Telling Canadians what we should think is a good way to be voted out of office, Justin.
This is how you "keep" them there.

If they stay in the small towns, they still receive subsidies. If they move to the big cities, all subsidies stop.

This would do it!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2018, 09:43 AM
 
47 posts, read 28,373 times
Reputation: 30
UK net immigration is at 450k per year, it’s insanity.
Large parts of UK cities are minorities living in their own communities, they don’t interstate at all, some never learn English. Reasonable immigration is fine and I hope Canada doesn’t or isn’t going berserk like the UK. These people visit doctors far more and add to already long waiting time for free health care. They also manipulate the power of the pound and send their government money back abroad, it doesn’t get circulated in the UK economy and the exchange rate gives them huge bang for buck back home for their 87 children.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2018, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Toronto
665 posts, read 205,744 times
Reputation: 789
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapleguy View Post
The problem with the idea of putting refugees in small town Canada is...


The Charter guarantees " freedom of movement " to ALL of us, including refugees. So putting a bus load of people in Timmins or Red Lake doesn't mean they are going to be happy to stay there.


Some of the contributors here seem to think that the refugees are all university educated professionals,, they may be, but many are poorly educated and lack employment skills. Now imagine the reaction of the unemployed Canadians in Glace Bay who are now competing for the few jobs with people who are dumped in their town ? Not going to be a very warm or enthusiastic reception I suspect.


Many Canadians are now reconsidering their opinions about refugees and the policies of the Justin Liberals. Happy days seem to be melting into a puddle around the PM's feet. Telling Canadians what we should think is a good way to be voted out of office, Justin.
Yup.. I stayed out of Federal elections all my life pretty much but plan on voting against the Liberals. Their smugness, and holier than thou attitude is annoying. They played too much on NAFTA only to cave because they're scared for their lives, while beating their chest otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
This is how you "keep" them there.

If they stay in the small towns, they still receive subsidies. If they move to the big cities, all subsidies stop.

This would do it!
I would agree that putting a condition on settling refugees in a specific place for a period is not violating the Charter. First, they're not even Citizens so beggers can't be choosers. If anything, they need to settle the refugees in the WASPy and do-gooder Liberal neighbourhoods. I'll pay extra taxes for that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada > Toronto

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top