this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
44 points (95.8% liked)

Canada

11769 readers
749 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
  1. Immigration does not bring wages down. The increase in productivity and consumer demand (ie profit) offset that potential impact and the largest study showed that immigrants have a net neutral or positive effect on locals wages. If wages do go down when immigrants are hired at an organisation, someone is pocketing that difference and they are the source of the problem.

  2. Immigrants do not increase the cost of housing and this can be best conceptualized in the context of local outmigrations. Locals have a tendency to move out of neighbourhoods when immigrants move in, out of a desire to continue living in a homogenous space. There was actually a common phrase for this during less open minded times: "There goes the neighbourhood" implying that property values would drop when people of color or immigrants moved in. Only in the era of housing commodification and artificially perpetuated housing scarcity has this narrative been flipped on its head. Either way, unsurprisingly, the immigrant is the scapegoat.

  3. This is a reiteration from the posted article but immigrants consume healthcare resources at a lower rate for a variety of factors (a major one being age). Despite consuming less, they pay taxes into the system proportional to their income. With that in mind, we are not subsidizing their care. In fact, they are subsidizing our care by paying more into the system than they take out.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"Us versus them" is a concept as old as time, and if you can twist your political rhetoric around to fit it, there's always a segment of the population that will lap it up. That the current generation of politicians is making use of that is disgusting, but not at all surprising.