Time to Speak Up: Concerns About Mass Immigration in Canada from a Hardworking Taxpayer’s View
Hey, I’m Trent from Calgary, just a regular guy trying to get by. I work hard every day, pay my taxes, and watch as more and more of my money goes toward policies I don’t agree with. When my grandparents immigrated here, it was about building a life in a country with room to grow—integrating, working without endless supports, and contributing to a shared future. Today, it feels different. The scale of immigration is massive, and it seems like the decision-makers in Ottawa and global organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF) are pushing an agenda that overlooks the real impacts on everyday Canadians like me. I’m not angry, just worried about where this is heading. And when I look at theories like the Cloward-Piven strategy, it makes me wonder if there’s a bigger plan at play to overwhelm our systems and force big changes. What’s more concerning is that the very population crisis they’re using to justify mass immigration—aging societies and low birth rates—might be partly created by the same groups through things like exposure to harmful chemicals, promotion of gender ideologies that disrupt traditional roles, policies that undermine family structures and faith, and narratives that vilify masculinity, all of which contribute to declining fertility.
Understanding the Demographic Changes and Global Agendas
Reports like the World Bank’s highlight how Western countries, including Canada, are aging fast—19% over 65 now, projected to hit 29% by 2050. Places like Spain and Korea are shrinking even more dramatically. Meanwhile, fertility rates in countries like Mexico have dropped below replacement levels. This creates a need for immigrants, but the pace here feels unsustainable. The WEF’s Agenda 2030 promotes migration as key to “sustainable development,” with paragraph 29 of the UN declaration emphasizing “safe, orderly and regular migration” and recognizing migrants’ contributions. They see it as a “global strategic asset,” predicting over 350 million migrants by 2030, with cities competing for them.
But here’s the part that troubles me: Some argue these low fertility rates aren’t just natural. Organizations like the UN and WEF, while pushing immigration, have been linked to policies and narratives that indirectly suppress population growth in developed nations. For instance, exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in everyday products and environments has been tied to declining sperm counts and fertility issues, with global male fertility dropping over 50% in recent decades. Critics point to how these chemicals, often unregulated in consumer goods, align with broader environmental agendas that prioritize sustainability over population growth. Then there’s the promotion of gender ideologies—things like questioning biological sex and encouraging fluid identities—which some see as indoctrination that confuses traditional family roles and delays or reduces childbearing. The destruction of family values through policies that de-emphasize marriage, promote secularism over faith, and vilify masculinity as “toxic” further erodes the cultural foundations that support larger families. These elements, combined with economic pressures from urbanization and women’s empowerment (which the WEF celebrates as lowering birth rates), create a cycle where native populations decline, justifying more immigration. Conspiracy theories even tie Agenda 2030 to deliberate depopulation efforts, though officially it’s about sustainable goals. Adding to this decline are high abortion rates, with Canada performing around 100,000 abortions annually in recent years, though exact figures are hard to pin down due to underreporting; estimates suggest over 80,000 procedures in 2022 alone, contributing to lost potential population growth. Furthermore, the expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is accelerating population loss by ending lives prematurely. In 2024, 16,499 Canadians died via MAID, accounting for 5.1% of all deaths in the country, a steady increase from previous years. Since its legalization in 2016, MAID has resulted in a cumulative 76,475 deaths, with projections indicating stabilization around 19,000 annual deaths in the early 2030s. Critics argue this program, especially as it expands to include mental illness and vulnerable groups, contributes to depopulation by targeting the elderly and infirm, fitting into broader narratives of controlled population reduction.
This push reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy, outlined in 1966 by sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. They proposed overloading the welfare system by enrolling as many eligible people as possible, creating a crisis that would collapse the system and lead to reforms like a guaranteed minimum income—essentially redistributing wealth through government intervention. In modern takes, this extends to immigration: Flooding borders with people who need housing, healthcare, and support could strain resources to the breaking point, forcing systemic change toward more socialist policies. Is this what’s happening? The WEF’s focus on migration as a tool for equality and development aligns suspiciously well, potentially using overload to reshape societies.
Supports for Newcomers—And the Questions They Raise
Canada provides benefits like the Canada Child Benefit (up to $6,997 per child under six), GST/HST credits, and dental programs to help immigrants settle. But with food banks in crisis, seeing reports of exploitation—demand tripling in Toronto, some newcomers in luxury vehicles accessing aid while locals struggle—it’s frustrating as a taxpayer. If Cloward-Piven is in play, this could be intentional: Overloading welfare to create dependency and fiscal chaos, paving the way for broader income guarantees.
The WEF backs this, noting remittances hit $800 billion in 2022 as a “lifeline,” but that money often leaves our economy. Agenda 2030 aims to empower migrants for development, but it might ignore how it burdens host countries.
What’s especially troubling is the disparity in supports. For instance, the government spends $81,760 annually per unauthorized border crosser claiming asylum for housing and food alone, which exceeds the median Canadian family income of around $68,400. In contrast, Veterans Affairs Canada’s budget is about $6-7 billion serving roughly 200,000 clients, translating to an average of around $30,000-35,000 per veteran annually. For seniors, while recent immigrant seniors face higher poverty rates and lower pension access, Canadian-born seniors receive OAS, GIS, and CPP benefits that can total over $2,500 monthly for low-income individuals, but overall spending on seniors through these programs is spread thin across millions. This raises questions about priorities—why such high costs per asylum claimant when veterans and seniors often struggle with wait times and inadequate supports?
Impacts on Jobs and Wages That Hit Home
Increased labor supply from immigration can lower wages, especially in low-skilled areas, with wage gaps for temporary workers widening to -22.6%. As someone paying taxes, I worry about job displacement. Cloward-Piven’s overload extends here—flooding the market with workers could deepen inequality, forcing government intervention. The WEF acknowledges challenges but pushes migration for equality, including more women and city shifts.
This hits young Canadians hard, especially teens and those seeking their first jobs. With youth unemployment reaching 14.1% in October 2025 and climbing to 14.7% by September, up from pre-pandemic levels, the influx of immigrants—boosting the youth population by 9.9% between 2022 and 2024—intensifies competition for entry-level positions in sectors like retail, food service, and administration. Immigrant youth face even higher rates at 22.8%, but the overall surge means Canadian-born teens are sidelined, unable to gain that crucial first work experience. This isn’t just about missing a paycheck—prolonged unemployment scars their futures, leading to lower lifetime earnings through “wage scarring,” weaker workforce attachment, and diminished career prospects. It erodes self-esteem, increases stress and mental health issues like distress and isolation, and leaves them without funds for essentials like school, a car, or even basic independence. As a result, many young people feel pessimistic and disengaged, with an experience gap that makes climbing the career ladder even tougher.
Straining Services We All Rely On
Healthcare and education are under pressure—wait times up, costs rising with only 1.6% annual spending growth against 1.2% population increase. Provinces cite immigration as a key strain. If this is Cloward-Piven at work, overwhelming services could lead to collapse and replacement with universal systems. Agenda 2030 sees migration as a “driver” of sustainable goals, but admits not all impacts are positive.
The Fiscal Toll on Taxpayers Like Me
Recent immigrants can cost $1,879 more in benefits than taxes paid annually, though some groups contribute net positives. Overall, housing and service costs mount. Cloward-Piven aims for fiscal disruption to redistribute wealth—mass immigration fits as a tool to amass debt and crisis.
Growing Social Concerns
Polls show 60% feel immigrants aren’t adopting Canadian values, and views on immigration are turning negative. Tensions rise. Cloward-Piven could exploit divisions for change. The WEF warns of dystopian outcomes without embracing migration, but their policies might fuel backlash.
Safety and Broader Quality-of-Life Issues
Concerns persist about public safety. Over 50 years, 10 million added via immigration drives 80% of housing demand, spiking prices and inequality—Canada’s equality ranking fell sharply. Emissions, congestion, debt—all worsen. Agenda 2030 links migration to climate displacement, potentially overwhelming us further. Cloward-Piven sees this overload as a path to transformation.
Calling for Thoughtful Change
As a taxpayer, I’m concerned these policies, influenced by global agendas and perhaps strategies like Cloward-Piven, prioritize big-picture ideals over our daily realities. We need immigration that matches our capacity, not one that risks overload. Let’s push for decisions that put Canadians first and build sustainably.
