Isn’t 32 a little old for an allowance?

It’s not so much that ‘The Grown-Up’ has died but that he’s born later and later—if at all

by Mark Steyn on Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:43am - 191 Comments

Isn’t 32 a little old for an allowance?

In creaky melodramas of the old school, there came a moment when the plucky heroine would announce her intention to go ahead with some ill-advised courtship, and her father would threaten to cut her off without a cent.

Easier said than done. In Italy, a court has ordered, upon pain of having his assets seized, Giancarlo Casagrande of Bergamo to pay his daughter an allowance of 350 euros—approximately $525—every month. Signor Casagrande is 60. His daughter Marina is 32. She was supposed to have graduated with a degree in philosophy eight years ago but, though her classes ended way back at the beginning of the century, she’s still working on her thesis. So Signor Casagrande is obliged to pay up, either in perpetuity or until the completion of Marina’s thesis, whichever comes sooner. Her thesis is about the Holy Grail. Which it’s hard to see why Marina would have any use for, given that she’s already found a source of miraculous life-transforming powers in Papa’s chequebook.


Marina is what they call in Italy a “bambocciona,” which translates, roughly, as “big baby”—the term for the ever-growing number of young adults still living at home. Not their home—with a spouse and young kids and putting out the garbage and repainting the stairs and so forth—but at their parents’ home, in the same bedroom they’ve slept in since they were in diapers.

There was, as usual, a momentary spasm of ineffectual outrage over the judge’s decision against Signor Casagrande, whose very name is mocked by this demographic trend: the casa would seem much grande if only Junior would move out. But in Italy they rarely do. Renato Brunetta, the Minister of Public Administration and Innovation, announced his support for a law requiring children to skedaddle out of their parents’ pad when they turned 18. That would certainly be an Innovation but might well put strains on Public Administration: right now, seven out of 10 adults aged 18-39 live with their folks. Indeed, Signor Brunetta blushed to admit that he himself had lived at home until he was 30. “My mother made my bed up until I left and I am ashamed of that,” he confessed. Italy increasingly resembles the old Benny Hill sketch in which he and his dolly bird are bikers who can’t find affordable housing.

“Why don’t you move back in with your parents?” suggests the BBC interviewer.

“We would do,” says Benny, “but they’ve moved back in with theirs.”

Indeed. Sixtysomething Italians ordered to pay “child support” to thirtysomething kids should move back in with their nonagenarian parents and sue for a monthly allowance backdated to the early ’70s.

Italy’s bamboccioni have their equivalents around the developed world. In Japan, they’re called parasaito shinguru—or “parasite singles,” after the horror film Parasite Eve, in which alien spawn grow in human bellies feeding off the host until they’re ready to burst through. In Germany, they’re Nesthockers with no plans to move out of “Hotel Mama.” In Britain, they’re KIPPERS (Kids In Parents’ Pockets Eroding Retirement Savings). In Canada, we have the phenomenon but without any disparaging term: by 2006, 43.5 per cent of adults aged 20-29 lived with their parents. Between 1981 and 2006, the percentage of men in their late twenties living at home doubled, and the percentage of women near tripled. By 2006, 31 per cent of Canadian men aged 25-29 were still sleeping in their childhood bedroom each night.

In 2007, Diana West wrote a book called The Death of the Grown-Up. Complacent types might assume she was speaking metaphorically. But in much of the Western world the condition is very literal—and increasingly, as we see in Italy, de jure. It’s not so much that “The Grown-Up” has died but that he’s born later and later, if at all. A couple of years back, I attended a conference in Queensland in which an Australian demographer explained the differences between life then and life now. In the old days, there were, broadly, two phases of life: you were a child until, say, 13. Then you were a working adult. Then you died. Now there are four phases: you’re a child until, say, 12, 11, 9—or whenever enlightened jurisdictions think you’re entitled to go on the pill without parental notification. Then you’re an “adolescent,” a term of art now stretching well into middle age and of which a 32-year-old taking eight years to complete a thesis on the Holy Grail would appear to be a near parodic example. Then you work, after a fashion. Then you quit at 65, 60, 55, 52, whatever you can get away with, and enjoy a three-decade retirement at public expense. Functioning adulthood is that ever-shrinking space between adolescence and retirement.

Bookmark and Share
  • May

    The main reason why people in Italy and the rest of Europe live @ home longer is to save money, so that when they marry or finaly have enough will be able to buy and actually own their own home. Also, while living @ home after you start working one helps the family financialy. The 32 year Italian woman is more of the exception than the rule. Also, in Europe just because you live @ home does not mean you are treated like a child, on the contrary there is more pressure on you to do well in school, work, in all aspects of you ;ife realy, because you become an extension of your family…what you do reflects on them as well.

  • Danpat Ram

    I take it Steyn is running down the royal Family again?

  • Thomas_L……

    Well, who's fault is it? NDP parents? I tell you what. My kids aren't still living at home. They had paper routes as soon as the bag didn't drag on the ground. They got educations that they mostly paid for themselves and they are doing fine. Stop feeding them cheese!

  • Carlassare

    Family values and family responsibity vs government social entitlements

  • Stan

    I guess that is why we expect more and more from government. "Why should we be expected to all of a sudden, when Mama & Papa die, to look after ourselves," they say. Not only as parents, but government as well, we might well learn from some bird species, who at the appropriate time, nudge their offspring out of the nest, so they learn to fly.

  • Ramesh Ram

    It is always easy to run down people with less money.

    In any case, kids staying longer with parents only seems crazy from an unthinking atomised Western perspective. As a Canadian well acquainted with several thirty to forty year olds who are still living with parents, I am impressed by the good company and fun they bring to the parents, rather than seeing them perfunctorily once a year at Christmas.

    If Steyn dislikes his kids' company that is not the world's fault.

  • Danpat Ram

    It is always easy for third-rate minds to run down poorer people.

    Kids staying longer with parents only seems crazy from an atomised social viewpoint. As a Canadian well acquanited with quite a few thirty to forty year olds still with their parents, I am impressed by the companionship and fun they bring to their parents. It is way better than seeing them perfunctorily for an hour at Christmas.

    Steyn disliking his kids' comapny is not the world's problem.

  • Danpat Ram

    It is always easy for the third-rate to mock those with less money.

    As a Canadian, I know several guys between thirty and forty who live with their parents.

    Far from being childish or irresponsible, they impress me by the sheer care, companionship and fun they bring to their parents' lives.

    It's vastly better than the common custom of spending a couple of bored hours with parents at Christmas, the "Hi Mom, Bye Mom" crowd.
    Whatmakes Steyn assume kids who like to be with their parents are unnatural?

  • Danpat Ram

    In the end, though, one can't blame Steyn.

    He is a journo. Has to do a piece a day. For that he needs a story line. Has to pick one and stick to it. Has plumped for the "Kids-these-days-are-no-good" and "The-poor-have-it-coming-to-them" viewpoint.

    It pays the bills.

    We don't need to assume even HE actually swallows all he writers.

  • Meany

    Indeed.

    Every day, I have to suffer through a fellow coworker burn up the phone lines, call up university registrars, ask all sorts of questions, figure out the best place where her dear 22 year old daughter can get in, discuss what courses are what, etc.

    Everytime I hear this, I feel sorry for both of them. Sorry for the poor misguided mother, who thinks she is actually helping by doing all the basic legwork that a 22 year old should know how to do. And sorry for the poor misguided 22 year old daughter, who, with a mother like that, will never grow up. Helicopter parents are still around at 25, sometimes 30, so why not 35? 40? Is it any less ridiculous? Once you pass 30, whatever, sky is the limit! She'll live at home till she's 40, of that I'm sure.

    • Danpat Ram

      What's the great tragedy if she is there at home at 40? At least her mother will have a companion.

    • RunningGag

      You have no idea. These are the same parents that call up the professors to discuss their childrens' grades (and get upset when they are told about privacy laws). Its unbelievable.

      • Argyle

        I have no information about this, but I'm curious as to why you think that this is a new phenomenon? Other than perhaps your own experience, are you absolutely certain that parents in the past did not take this type of hands on approach to their children's education?

  • Danpat Ram

    On second thoughts, we CAN assume Steyn swallows all he writes – in the sense of the money it brings him.

  • Bhola Nath

    Steyn DOES swallow all he writes – the income from it, that is.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    If people are willing to sacrifice independence to government for personal comfort, why would they object to doing the same with their parents?

    Aristotle called it "the slave mentality".

  • Scaftisson

    What makes Danpat Ram assume that adult kids who don't live with Mommy and Daddy are the "Hi Mom, Bye Mom" crowd? I'm also a Canadian, but who says you can't be a responsible, self-reliant adult as well as someone whose good to their parents?

  • leslie

    How about granting the allowance, but charging her rent? That should balance out things a bit.

  • Marc J

    Sorry for being unclear, I am functionally independent. My parents both live in Toronto, I'm currently residing in Ottawa, and paying for all of my expenses myself – not past commitment or supplement was afforded by my parents.

  • ROB-RAGE

    Nature takes care of criitters that refuse to become self reliant…they Die…! In the animal kingdom you learn the tricks to survival from the Adults…then your on your own….Real men and women don't leach off their parents …they become independent and strong….Wimps will end up were they deserve…in half way houses for Morons and slackers !

  • Dreamfilm

    Are you an adult living with your parents? Are your adult children living with you? We'd love to hear your story. Send us an email to info@dreamfilm.ca

  • CAA

    Secondly, your solution to people living with their parents is to move to the country: but what kind of jobs are there to do in the country? Are you proposing we all go back to farming because someone in Italy sewed their parents for child support?
    Also, childbirth has historically been the leading cause of death for women, "back in the good old days", and even today in many countries. The fact that people have fewer children today means that more children live past 5 years, are better cared for and end up being more stable, better parents themselves. Having hordes of children is in no way a solution to the problem you have identified.
    The problem you have identified is more likely the result of an individualist, litigious culture developed in the West that is based in a firm belief in our rights but none of our responsibilities. One of those responsibilities we ignore is to care for the elderly, and to care for the environment. Your proposal that we should spread out more and decentralize our society will only make us more car and fuel dependant and only exacerbate climate change and environmental degradation.
    Overall, this is one of the most ill informed and near sighted articles I have ever read.

  • Calculus

    If the current trend of more adult children moving in/living with their parents represents a reversion to historical trends, I would argue that may be a superficial interpretation.

    If one is living with one's parents, who is taking care of who? From what I have seen in Canada, when the adult children live with their parents, they are being cared for by their parents, and not the other way around. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that historically when the adult children are living with their parents, they are caring for their parents.

    It is possible that my own observations do not reflect the norm, and my impressions on historical trends may be incorrect. My views are subject to pending data.

  • Fred

    Some good points, except that as usual the US is given weird sentimental exclusion rights from the argument. France's fertility rate is now rising – and no, it's not immigrants, it's 95 per cent indigenous – while white America's is well below replacement. It's not suburbanites having children here, it's Mexican immigrants. Who, by and large, have no four bedroom houses out in the burbs. And Americans, I would say, have far and away the most adolescent culture in the western world, in all departments. Mark doesn't really know anything about Europe, so it's best to take some of that with a pinch of salt, and his American exceptionalism is pure ideology with little these days to back it up – but his overview is still correct. The west is infantile and spoiled, and no western society is as economically bankrupt and dysfunctional as the US. Italy and Germany have at least controlled their debt relative to the current crisis, created entirely by Americans gorging like kids at the trough of cheap credit.

  • Casa

    I agree with Calculus's comments. One of the reasons the statistics may be getting hire for Canadian adults living at home is immigration. My parents are immigrants from India and in our culture adult children do not move away from their parents house until they are married (and even then the oldest son may still live at home). If my job was in the same city as my parents house it would be insulting to them if I did not live with them. However in this arrangement my parents would not be paying for my life nor would they be cooking and cleaning for me. I would be expected to contribute to the household. Yes some Indian parents do not take money from their children for household expenses and some parents (especially mothers) do still cook and clean for their adult children, but the expectation is when our parents our older we are their retirement plan. So I don't think there is necessarily something wrong with living with your parents when you are older, it all depends on the context.

  • Ben

    Great Article!!! 100% agree. I have beeb noticing this for years among my sons friends. I know of many who are still in their 30 and 40's still at home ,and this was still back when the econom,y was good and easy to find a job. Most of these other comments basically make one excuse, 'But It's Hard"
    Big Babys, god Help Us!

  • Flippy the Bear

    That's because if it's the adult children and parents live together and the children take care of the adults, it's not called "children living with parents". It's called "grandparents moved in". Happens rather often.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jake20 Jake20

    Sounds like a lot of lame excuses, Jason.
    University tuition may be higher today but that's largely due to inflation. Anyway if you think you can't afford it do something else until you can.
    A $500,000 house in Vancouver? Such expensive taste. At this instant there are more than 500 properties listed in Vancouver at under $200,000. And Vancouver has the most expensive property values in Canada. Why not try a less expensive location.
    No, you don't "have to" live at home. You choose to and, sadly, your parents allow if not encourage you to do so.

  • Lawrence

    This is a confused and simplistic article that ignores numerous complex factors. Yes it's not good that men and women in their thirties are still living at home and schmoozing off their parents. Steyn doesn't address the whys of it though. Does he really think most men want to live at home forever, their mom doing their laundry and telling girls they meet they live with mum?

    In western cities property, even tiny one bedroom apartments are exorbitantly expensive to buy and rent, I am a single thirty-nine year old man living in a broom closet, no I'm not living with mom and dad, but I live like a poor student and I have a uni degree, so what. Not all of us have high-income jobs. In fact many people don't have jobs at all, in case Steyn forgot there is widespread unemployment, we are going through the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.

    Why don't people move out of the cities to the country where the property is less expensive and affordable? Other commentators have already pointed out why, there are no jobs in rural Canada and rural Europe, UK and rural Australia etc.

  • Revnant Dream

    Maybe its time the adults start booting the bambino's out. Of course they probably are trying to pass as youth as well.
    As Ezra Levant says's. To reverse a perverse trend you first have De-normalization of this inverted way to view as abnormal Which it is.
    Make it a point of shameful hilarity, if not a slur on manhood to stay at home.
    Pretty grim but good article summing this problem up. I just wish Mr Steyn didn't keep getting it right.
    Where heading for a World of strife none of us want to see. Whats worse, it was our own stupidity or greed.
    Helped along by mad politicians driven by social doctrines that are no more than a blue print for suicide. Breed young man, breed.
    JMO

  • Josie

    I am a 28 year old woman, and I find it hard to sympathize with all the "kids" who can gripe about how "hard" it is to justify remaining at home with mom and dad. I went to work immediately after high school and I now own a car (completely paid off) and a home, with an affordable mortgage, in the city and close to work. I am also pursuing part time education to improve my job prospects. With a little good sense and some compromise, it can be done!

  • Sam

    The stats for countries like Canada depends on a huge factor that is not known to western culture. Almost all Asian families have adult children living with them. It is strongly against cultural norm and a huge selfish slap in the faces of your parents if you move out as soon as you legally can. Because when you are an adult you start taking more and more care of your parents as they grow old, pay more and more of the bills until one day the parents technically become the children and you become the care taking parent figure to them. There is no OLD AGE HOME in Asian societies. Even having your own wife and kids don't matter if you are the oldest son of your parents. You are going to live with them or they are going to live with you. But in the grossly generalized statistical figures you end up looking like a bum living above your parents garage.

  • Joy

    While I agree with you urbanization is not directly the cause of people living with their parents – I don't think this was the point Steyn was trying to make. (and he did not say the solution was to move to the country, rather he compared Canada's urban trend with the suburban trend in the US) The thing is, your argument rests on an erroneous assumption – that having fewer kids means they will be better cared for – which is certainly not true in NA and western europe (and those are the regions being discussed) and is generally only put forward by people who equate having loads of toys and clothes with being well cared for. Similarily, senoirs in nursing homes sometimes have the "best" care (ie: the most expensive care), but I wouldn't wish that life on anyone.
    The point is – adults need to grow up at a reasonable age and take part in the chain of life and death that is the traditional family. Being in the workforce is not the same as being mature.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Trying to picture what "sewing one's parents for child support" entails. Maybe whipping up an adult papoose outfit so they can carry their Baby Huey offspring around on their backs?

  • rob

    you live at home I am betting

  • Al Fields

    Man, you really didn't get, did you. What Steyn is referring to is the fact that people in "developed" societies are not stepping up to their obligations and assuming adulthood with all the burdens and responsibilities this entails. And this is not only a problem for themselves but also for society, as no society is really capable of sustaining for long such lazy living and the fact that people fail to reproduce in numbers enough to sustain society itself. So go on on man, leave your mama's lap and find some fruitful hard work, get married and have some kids. You'll do yourself and your country a lot of good. And if you don't find a job, why don't you think of actually creating some…

  • blaine

    I wonder if the reason so many young men in the western world fail to grow up is because society gives them disincentives to grow up. for instance, look at how fatherhood is derided in our culture; any young man would be foolish to get married in this society and have kids if he sees the way in which fathers are pilloried by the legal system and by the popular culture. Beyond that, we stack the deck against our young men: their educational and psychological needs are dismissed as unimportant even when they are children (instead, we deride little boys for being "too aggressive"); they are constantly told by society from the time they are knee-high that they are stupid and indolent; and they must operate in an employment culture that treats them as sexual predators and within which they can expect to be passed over for promotions because of their gender. Frankly, by demonizing and diminishing men, we have created a culture that de-motivates them, too. Hence, they never grow up; it's literally too painful to grow up.

  • Jason

    University tuition is not due to inflation genius. Its because of government policies, student loans, etc. We have no free market to choose from.

  • ice ko

    Too right.

  • Josie

    Agreed.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Western society overshot when correcting for patriarchy and has now been feminized to the point that masculine qualities are abhorred (lively boys Ritalinized) and men denigrated when they act like men instead of the prescribed metrosexuals.

    There's little sign of the pendulum swinging back to the center and we are in danger in a world where a very primitive patriarchal system is ascendant (Islam). Progressives' functionally unarmed (military underfunded or made impotent by red tape) societies are like those little toy "Smart" cars – not so smart in a world of SUV's which would squash them flat in a collision, only tolerable in a world where everyone else drives a toy car too.

  • Jean

    I think I remember that France has lots of supports & incentives for families. Everyone gets a 1 month paid vacation every summer plus the other holidays.. Most companies have daycare inside the same building ( government subsidized so that the working parent can have lunch with their child) for a cost of less than $5 U.S. a day. Unemployment is also really, really good there and maternity leave is probably a lot longer than the 6 weeks we get in the US.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    "And Americans, I would say, have far and away the most adolescent culture in the western world, in all departments".

    Since the talk here is of young people standing on their own two feet, the consensus appears to be that it is dependence that keeps one juvenile. In that sense, Europe and all the other Welfare states have the most childish populations, dependent on cradle to grave handouts and admonitions from the Nanny State. At one point, Europe had rules and regulations on how crooked cucumbers for sale could be, making themselves a laughing stock.

    On the one hand they depend on the USA to clean up their huge messes, (WWII and now Kosovo in their own back yard) while shirking their own defense to buy candy in the form of entitlement programs. On the other hand, they then childishly bite the hand that defends them, criticizing Americans for their less luxurious Welfare hammock.

    The USA may well be the only grown up in the world room today, but if Obama and the Dems have their way, it will join the rolls of terminally stunted socialist backwaters. Then where will we all be? Everyone can't bolt for the washroom when the defense bill comes due.

  • Jimmy Carter

    On two fronts:

    First, the break down of the family. Odds are that these adults are living with their Mother and a "step" Father. These "step" Fathers are not likely raising these children with the direction and discipline that their paternal Father would.

    Second, the break down of manhood. Men have been so emasculated that they no longer have the balls to raise their children with the direction and discipline needed without suffering the wrath from Mother.

  • Sam

    Better count yourself as one of the few lucky ones who sailed through the bottle neck. Because, without a doubt, there are people out there more qualified than you in their field but without a job. Its not their fault they don't have money to live on their own.

  • Sam

    I meant herding old people into old age homes are not a part of any or most Asian societies. It is an invention of the western world.

  • Sam

    And no, sponsored parents don't go to live in homes. They live with their children who sponsored them. They bring them to live with them and be cared for properly in old age, not to send them to live in old folks homes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    Perhaps Asians are assimilating but there are definitely Old Age Homes for people of Asian cultural backgrounds in Canada's largest cities. There are also Asian parents who were sponsored by children who renege and the parents become the taxpayers' burden.

  • Canadian Immigrant

    Of course we don`t have free market: the socialist model supported by students does not allow the market to interfer with the education, remember?

  • Andy

    Why is Canadian tuition lower than in US then and higher than in Europe? Because we're less socialist than US and more socialist than Europe, if I get your point right?

  • Marushka

    I gather you don't believe in divorce and are not a feminist. Sorry you lost your balls.

  • Avid Reader

    http://www.yeehong.com/
    yes, they all live with their children at home.
    (btw, I have nothing against ethnic senior care homes, but I do have something against blatent over generalizations)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/minaka minaka

    I'm sorry, but the families importing their senior citizens parents are not covering all their expenses. They are making Canadian taxpayers help "care properly" for their elderly parents who have made not one penny of contributions to the health care and pensions they consume. This is a factor in the long line ups for medical care for people who HAVE paid into the system all their lives. They are not getting what they paid for because many people are getting what they haven't paid for.

    Say a couple brings over both sets of parents. Those two in their entire lifetimes will not pay through their taxes and sponsorship the amount that the four (plus themselves) consume. This is why immigration shows no net economic benefit to Canada. The expenses equal or exceed the income.

  • Marushka

    Not one of the lucky ones, but rather one of the dedicated to working/making her own way on her own. Bet she's not a narcissistic show shopper!

  • Sam

    Nope. no over generalization. I see your link. And that centre for Geriatric Care is in Canada. I was saying these don't exist in Asian countries. And where they do exist in Asian countries it is only the last resort for seniors who have no close family that they could live with.

    Also it is true some Asian people adopt to the ways of the western culture and start treating their parents like people do here. So those people send their old parents to live at homes (but be sure they get frowned upon from all their relatives!). But thats a very tiny percentage. Majority of the Asian seniors living at old homes in Canada just don't have an adult child living nearby or the child can't afford to keep them because of lack of room, money or if there is a frequent need of professional nursing care. So there are a whole lot of factors at work here.

    I am Asian so I would know how it works. I live with my parents and always will one way or other, because I am the oldest son. I do pay for half of the bills but since the house is in my parents name and all the services we subscribe to are also under my father's name, you wouldn't realise that I pay more than my share just by looking at things. This is where someone like me end up looking like a bum living with your parents. And that is why the stats are probably way off in Canadian big cities where a lot of Asian people live.

    Comprende? :)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sprite1949 sprite1949

    News flash…stop making comparisons that put down the younger generation of today's society. It is fruitless to pass judgement. They, in truth, are not solely responsible for the state of the situation today. Because the complexity of the changes since the sixties is so extreme, Mark Steyn's article can easily be invalidated. No matter what generation we speak about there is good and bad to be found within each cohort. I am a senior with four successful children who are in their thirties. However, I am not so naive to expect that all others not in such circumstances have done something wrong. The world has so changed that to try to explain it in an article such as this is really quite ridiculous.

  • Flippy the Bear

    I actually disagree that it's much better in the country. Yes, rent may be cheap, houses may be affordable, but arable land and milk/egg quotas are outrageously priced, especially considering local wages.

  • Sam

    Well. That is why the immigration process involves a medical exam. Canada doesn't deliberately bring sick people into the country. They get sick after getting here. I know it doesn't seem fair that a life long tax payer gets the same priority as a new comer, but it is also the purpose of the taxing system, to share wealth. And Canada believes in everyone having equal access to health care. It is not a perfect system but who is to decide who suffers and who gets treated faster and better? That kind of system is for oppressive societies.

    Its kind of silly to say immigration show no net economic benefit to Canada. Without people coming in from outside, Canada just doesn't have enough population and enough wealth to continue as a developed nation. And certainly can't utilize the country's resources on an optimum level. More than half the work force in major cities are immigrants. Imagine the boost to the amount of taxes being gathered! Moreover, very few immigrants succeed in bringing old parents over. Its not that easy to sponsor people, Canada has a very limited quota for sponsored immigrants. It is much easier in the USA.

    You could say all the immigrant tax payers are probably paying enough for health care for all the immigrants. After all, don't forget that unless you are a native north American, you are also an immigrant, you probably got here before civilized societies decided to treat everyone equally when they need help,

    In my view, everyone in the world should have an equal chance to live in north America as a "Canadian" or "American" does, because they are also immigrants. If someone can work and contribute, they can come if there is space.

From Macleans