A Case for Managed Immigration - back with a tangent.

[Pavlos Maros]

(Knee swelling gone down, feeling better, so here we go.)


Immigration is not inherently good or bad, it is the scale and management of it that determines whether it strengthens or strains a society. I support immigration for two clear reasons: our economy needs workers willing to do essential jobs that others won't, and diversity enriches our communities. However, my support comes with an important caveat: we must be realistic about what our infrastructure can sustain.
The current system contains a fundamental flaw in its approach to family reunification. When we admit a skilled worker, say, a doctor, we rightly celebrate the contribution they will make. Yet that single decision can trigger a chain of subsequent arrivals: spouses, children, and extended family members. While the original immigrant may fill a critical shortage, their relatives arrive without the same level of vetting or economic necessity. Some will work and contribute; others may become dependent on public services. This isn't a criticism of these individuals, it's an observation about policy design.
Over seven decades of life, I have never personally encountered immigrants who contributed more in taxes than they consumed in public services. This isn't about hostility; it's about honest observation. The immigrants I've known have typically worked in lower-wage sectors, care work, hospitality, manual labor, where tax contributions are modest while the use of schools, healthcare, and other services is substantial and visible. Meanwhile, claims that immigration is a net fiscal benefit often rely on abstract calculations or long-term projections that don't match the immediate reality experienced in communities.
The argument that infrastructure problems predate immigration misses the point entirely. Of course they do. But that doesn't make the added burden irrelevant. If a hospital is already struggling, adding more patients, regardless of why the hospital was underfunded in the first place, makes the problem worse. If schools are overcrowded, more children intensify the pressure. Infrastructure has finite capacity, and pretending otherwise is simply unrealistic.
This is why we need a tiered system, however uncomfortable that may sound. Not all potential immigrants offer the same economic value, and we cannot ignore this reality without consequences. A country must prioritize those who fill genuine skills gaps and can demonstrably support themselves and their dependents. Family reunification should be limited to immediate family, spouses and minor children, with stricter requirements for extended relatives. This isn't cruelty; it's sustainability.
The goal isn't to stop immigration but to make it work. Uncontrolled immigration that outpaces infrastructure development helps no one, not the existing population struggling with overstretched services, and not the immigrants themselves who arrive to find housing shortages, long NHS waiting lists, and strained community resources. Sustainable immigration, carefully managed and matched to our capacity, benefits everyone.
That is not anti-immigration, it is pro-reality.

What are your thoughts.

 

[Luce NDs]

Reality is painful ... and thus the populace will not accept it and deem it imaginary ... that the label for thought ... abstract?"

It has a counterpart that is absolute pain ... why folks hate to think about such things ... thought is desperately out ... gone down an alien pass age like time ... hidden in a Jaer ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Kahn 'd Elle?

Sometimes well packaged off ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

(Knee swelling gone down, feeling better, so here we go.)


Immigration is not inherently good or bad, it is the scale and management of it that determines whether it strengthens or strains a society. I support immigration for two clear reasons: our economy needs workers willing to do essential jobs that others won't, and diversity enriches our communities. However, my support comes with an important caveat: we must be realistic about what our infrastructure can sustain.
The current system contains a fundamental flaw in its approach to family reunification. When we admit a skilled worker, say, a doctor, we rightly celebrate the contribution they will make. Yet that single decision can trigger a chain of subsequent arrivals: spouses, children, and extended family members. While the original immigrant may fill a critical shortage, their relatives arrive without the same level of vetting or economic necessity. Some will work and contribute; others may become dependent on public services. This isn't a criticism of these individuals, it's an observation about policy design.
Over seven decades of life, I have never personally encountered immigrants who contributed more in taxes than they consumed in public services. This isn't about hostility; it's about honest observation. The immigrants I've known have typically worked in lower-wage sectors, care work, hospitality, manual labor, where tax contributions are modest while the use of schools, healthcare, and other services is substantial and visible. Meanwhile, claims that immigration is a net fiscal benefit often rely on abstract calculations or long-term projections that don't match the immediate reality experienced in communities.
The argument that infrastructure problems predate immigration misses the point entirely. Of course they do. But that doesn't make the added burden irrelevant. If a hospital is already struggling, adding more patients, regardless of why the hospital was underfunded in the first place, makes the problem worse. If schools are overcrowded, more children intensify the pressure. Infrastructure has finite capacity, and pretending otherwise is simply unrealistic.
This is why we need a tiered system, however uncomfortable that may sound. Not all potential immigrants offer the same economic value, and we cannot ignore this reality without consequences. A country must prioritize those who fill genuine skills gaps and can demonstrably support themselves and their dependents. Family reunification should be limited to immediate family, spouses and minor children, with stricter requirements for extended relatives. This isn't cruelty; it's sustainability.
The goal isn't to stop immigration but to make it work. Uncontrolled immigration that outpaces infrastructure development helps no one, not the existing population struggling with overstretched services, and not the immigrants themselves who arrive to find housing shortages, long NHS waiting lists, and strained community resources. Sustainable immigration, carefully managed and matched to our capacity, benefits everyone.
That is not anti-immigration, it is pro-reality.

What are your thoughts.

I disagree. Well, Canada is a huge country. We have enough space. If our services and housing are lacking it’s because not enough money was invested in them to begin with - and I think we have a human duty to accept refugees from conflict zones before we accept wealthy foreign businesspeople just because they’re wealthy. Especially when wealthier countries create so much conflict over resource extraction etc - and dividing and conquering - even at the least we can do, which is to extend them a safe place to stay and some kind of work (so many work so bloody hard to be here) isn’t justice for the hell they’ve been through. And they do the jobs nobody else will do. And they are entitled to have dreams and opportunities to fulfill them in a better place. Work to survive is work. It’s not all about economic value and taxation. That’s where the world has gone wrong. I think we’re in the process of a reckoning and in 20 years, after the dust settles, whoever’s here will be able to usher in something better.

I have met immigrants from all walks of life, from every background and at every income level, my whole life.

And we are actually a country of immigrants anyway. And we have, actually, slowed immigration a bit by popular demand. Not sure it’s fair or about racism of constituents pressuring government.

As for the UK…If you’re not “blue-blood” English doesn’t that mean at some point your family were immigrants?

I think we should aim for a more inclusive, less prejudiced, world - but it’s not happening in my lifetime. It’s going backwards.

You’re pretty lucky there are no immigrants on WC2 or you might get an angrier earful.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Ukraine and Gaza have been decimated. We have to let them in somewhere. Same with all the conflict zones. People hold others in such contempt for wanting better lives for themselves and their loved ones - especially when the others are not white.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I’ve lived in cities - not small towns, my whole life. I’m shaking my head at the “never met an immigrant who paid higher taxes” comment. That is totally foreign - pardon the pun - to my experience, so it’s hard to even discuss the rest of it. In my experience, the smaller the town the more xenophobic it is.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I disagree. Well, Canada is a huge country. We have enough space. If our services and housing are lacking it’s because not enough money was invested in them to begin with - and I think we have a human duty to accept refugees from conflict zones before we accept wealthy foreign businesspeople just because they’re wealthy. Especially when wealthier countries create so much conflict over resource extraction etc - and dividing and conquering - even at the least we can do, which is to extend them a safe place to stay and some kind of work (so many work so bloody hard to be here) isn’t justice for the hell they’ve been through. And they do the jobs nobody else will do. And they are entitled to have dreams and opportunities to fulfill them in a better place. Work to survive is work. It’s not all about economic value and taxation. That’s where the world has gone wrong. I think we’re in the process of a reckoning and in 20 years, after the dust settles, whoever’s here will be able to usher in something better.

I have met immigrants from all walks of life, from every background and at every income level, my whole life.

And we are actually a country of immigrants anyway. And we have, actually, slowed immigration a bit by popular demand. Not sure it’s fair or about racism of constituents pressuring government.

As for the UK…If you’re not “blue-blood” English doesn’t that mean at some point your family were immigrants?

I think we should aim for a more inclusive, less prejudiced, world - but it’s not happening in my lifetime. It’s going backwards.

You’re pretty lucky there are no immigrants on WC2 or you might get an angrier earful.

Ukraine and Gaza have been decimated. We have to let them in somewhere. Same with all the conflict zones. People hold others in such contempt for wanting better lives for themselves and their loved ones - especially when the others are not white.

I’ve lived in cities - not small towns, my whole life. I’m shaking my head at the “never met an immigrant who paid higher taxes” comment. That is totally foreign - pardon the pun - to my experience, so it’s hard to even discuss the rest of it. In my experience, the smaller the town the more xenophobic it is.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond thoughtfully. We clearly have different experiences and perspectives, and that's valuable to hear.
You're right that Canada and the UK face different circumstances, Canada's vast geography does create different possibilities. And I absolutely agree that refugees fleeing conflict deserve compassion and sanctuary. My post wasn't arguing against helping people in desperate situations; it was about the structure of immigration policy more broadly.

However, I think we're talking past each other on a crucial point. You say services are lacking because money wasn't invested to begin with, I completely agree. But that's exactly why we need to be realistic about numbers. Yes, infrastructure was underfunded before. But if we acknowledge it's already inadequate, how does adding more demand without simultaneously expanding capacity help anyone? Both things can be true: infrastructure was neglected and rapid population growth strains it further.

On the taxation point: my observation wasn't meant as contempt, and it certainly wasn't about race. I've genuinely not encountered immigrants in high-earning brackets in my daily life, that's simply my lived experience in my community, just as yours differs in your urban environment. Neither negates the other; they reflect different realities in different places.
And here's an irony worth noting: the high earners, immigrant or native-born, often pay accountants and tax advisors to minimize their tax burden through legal loopholes and offshore arrangements. So the "net contributors" we're told to prioritize may actually contribute less proportionally than working-class people who can't afford sophisticated tax avoidance. This makes the entire "economic value" argument even more complicated than either of us presented it.
And you're right that work has value beyond taxation, but public services do require funding, and that's a practical reality governments must manage.

As for "blue blood" ancestry: of course nearly everyone has immigration somewhere in their family tree. But acknowledging that doesn't mean unlimited, under-managed immigration is sustainable now. Historical immigration happened at different scales and under different economic conditions.

I'm not arguing against diversity or against helping refugees. I'm arguing for immigration policy that matches our actual capacity to integrate people successfully, so neither existing residents nor newcomers are set up to fail.
That's not xenophobia; it's pragmatism.