If you multiply 300,000 per year to ten, that's about 3 million people in a decade.

With our declining fertility rate, that's a lot of people, and that's a low estimate.

Framing the policy as 300,000 per year sounds small to the average person, but people forget that immigrants stay here, forever, therefore the focus should be on the aggregate number, not the annual.

Therefore, any immigration hawk in Canada should start framing immigration as 21% foreign born population growing at a rate of 0.8% per year.

If you multiply 300,000 per year to ten, that's about 3 million people in a decade.

With our declining fertility rate, that's a lot of people, and that's a low estimate.

Framing the policy as 300,000 per year sounds small to the average person, but people forget that immigrants stay here, forever, therefore the focus should be on the aggregate number, not the annual.

If you multiply 300,000 per year to ten, that's about 3 million people in a decade.

With our declining fertility rate, that's a lot of people, and that's a low estimate.

People only look at the annual numbers, they don't look into the future projections. If the immigration policy was framed as, we're going to allow 3 million people in Canada in ten years, it sounds more truthful and alarming.

In contrast, framing the policy as 300,000 per year sounds small to the average person, but people forget that immigrants stay here, forever, therefore the focus should be on the aggregate number, not the annual.

If you multiply 300,000 per year to ten, that's about 3 million people in a decade.

With our declining fertility rate, that's a lot of people, and that's a low estimate.

People only look at the annual numbers, they don't look into the future projections. If the immigration policy was framed as, we're going to allow 3 million people in Canada in ten years, it sounds more truthful and alarming.