Tories seeking balance on immigration

[scribblet]

I agree with this, the family reunification program should be limited to dependant children only. I remember reading some time ago that for every qualified immigrant, there where 15 in the reunification class who would never qualify on their own.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/colu...6c-71030d433c97

Tories seeking balance on immigration

As a class, immigrants currently consume more than they contribute

For the past three decades, Canadian immigration policy has had two main purposes: to admit new voters for the party in power and to reaffirm the Canadian elite's high opinion of itself.

Oh, I know, the stated policy is to bring in people desirous of a new beginning and new opportunities who have skills with which they can, in turn, make a near-immediate contribution to their new country. It is to be a win-win for Canada and the newcomers.

In practice, though, the prime beneficiaries have been new Canadians and the Liberal Party of Canada.

-snip-

In the past, this type of smear campaign has always been enough to cause any Conservative even musing about immigration reform to back off.

If the Harper government permits itself to be cowed by the smears and backs away from its proposals, it certainly will lose votes.

But the bulk of Canadians are way ahead of the chattering classes on immigration. And if the Tories can keep their nerve, their rational changes will be vote-winners.

That still leaves nearly a third of our immigrants, some 80,000 a year, to be non-economic. Most of these are parents, grandparents, siblings and other relatives of existing immigrants.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Charles Anthony
quotation format corrected

[M.Dancer]

Dependants meaning children....okay. Some cultures would consider nieces and nephews depandants too ... if the eldest brother heads the family he might also be supporting his brother's and sister's kids as they go to school....

Than being said, as a believer oin the 5th commandment, I would not want to stand between anyone and their mothers or fathers.

[Argus]

Dependants meaning children....okay. Some cultures would consider nieces and nephews depandants too ... if the eldest brother heads the family he might also be supporting his brother's and sister's kids as they go to school....

Than being said, as a believer oin the 5th commandment, I would not want to stand between anyone and their mothers or fathers.

Nobody's forcing anyone to come here, and no one is forcing them to stay here. Plent of Canadians have immediate relatives living in the UK, and yet they survive.

Even the skills program tends to admit more people without skills than with. The family reunification thing has been a disaster in terms of economics.

And they should raise the number of points needed for admission to the point where we have slightly more openings than applicants. Then we'd know just how demanding we could be.

Oh, and cut the number of immigrants in half.

[margrace]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

[jazzer]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

Dont you know that Argus is the arbiter of all that is right and wrong in Canada? How dare you question him?

[DogOnPorch]

Dont you know that Argus is the arbiter of all that is right and wrong in Canada? How dare you question him?

Argus has an opinion...as a Canadian he's allowed one. I tend to agree that certain aspects of immigration are bad for Canada, as well. Don't be all smug and think Argus is alone in his thinking. I was close enough to certain aspects of government (mother a big-wig in the Conservative party years back) to know that immigration is just another political tool in a toolbox full of tricks...both dirty and clean.

-------------------------------------------------------

We come from the land of the ice and snow, from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.

The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,

To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!

On we sweep with threshing oar, our only goal will be the western shore.

---Led Zeppelin

[August1991]

Before this thread gets sidelined into another generic thread on immigration, it's worth pointing out what these amendments to current legislation accomplish.

There are two main objectives. First, the minister can now establish priorities for different types of immigrants and in effect, control in part whose application gets processed. (At present, it's first come first served with a huge backlog.) Second, it puts into effect the promise to allow temporary workers and students to apply for immigration from within Canada. This latter change is radical and turns the Trudeau 1976 legislation on its head.

Few serious immigrants will now apply abroad. Instead, they'll seek a work permit, come here and then apply for immigration while living and working here. This in part was the system before 1976.

The immigration bureaucracy is giving up and the Tories see this as a way to encourage economic migrants. I suppose it's naive to believe in this modern world that we can truly control who gets into the country.

----

All immigration discussions get spun every which way and the usual suspects choose the usual sides. In this latest skirmish, it's worth noting that Quebec is having its own debate on this the ADQ has called for reducing Quebec immigration from 55,000 to 45,000. I think this policy change has been developed with an eye on winning seats in Quebec.

Edited March 17, 2008 by August1991

[AngusThermopyle]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

A rather simplistic view leading into a specious argument with no relevance at all. A hundred years ago we all rode horses, we crapped down holes in primitive wooden buildings, we lost our teeth by 40 or 50 years old. Do these things apply today? No.

In a similar vein one cannot compare past immigration policies to those being practiced today. Could someone show me the benefits to Canada in allowing the third cousin of an uncle from one side or another into the country? Not to mention all their relatives as well.

Immigration is a fact and I believe it can benefit a country. What we do in Canada is just plain and simply stupid. Someone show me the benefits we derive from our current policy, please. So far all I've seen is a huge growth in corner stores and cab drivers. All of whom claim in fact to secretly be Neurosurgeons and Rocket Scientists.

Give us something that works and I'm sure you'll see more across the board support for it. Don't ask people to support idiocy for your own sense of what constitutes a Utopian society. Only a fool would deny that serious flaws exist within our current system.

[Wild Bill]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

100 years ago was a completely different situation! This is the same old tired and feeble argument put forth by those who have no idea of how things are today.

Whenever we criticize the present immigration system we are reminded of how immigrants built this country. That's true, they did! The best example is post WWII, when huge numbers of Europeans came to Canada in search of a new life. My father-in-law was a typical example. He and his wife came to Canada in 1950. He immediately found work in construction and within a surprisingly short time had his own crew and was a contractor who built 100's of houses.

That's "apples and oranges" to what the immigration system has become! Today the majority of immigrants come here under family unification. That means mostly grandmothers and grandfathers! They tend not to go into construction. Their house building years are behind them.

What's more, once the grandfolks get here they can themselves sponsor the uncles and aunts, or even the great-grandfolks if they're still living!

These folks also arrive at a time in their life when they tend to cost the system more, especially in terms of health care. Meanwhile, we have only a much smaller percentage of new immigrants who are younger and get busy "building this country".

The present system is completely different than the "official" presentation. We have a backlog of over 900,000 applications to come to Canada and with the present level of bureaucratic resources most of them will be dead before their paperwork can be processed! Something has to be done to streamline and modernize the system.

Meanwhile, what's wrong with setting standards for new immigrants that are good for Canada? No one appointed the existing taxpayers as the caretakers of the world's grandparents. What's more, the simple math of the situation cannot be denied. If we don't change the ratio of those who will have years of working and contributing taxes to those who are older and consume taxes we'll all go broke, plain and simple!

Math doesn't care how you feel about things. You either have enough money or you don't.

[scribblet]

Specious arguments indeed - yesterday's immigrants didn't get the handouts and help they get now, they came, stood on their own two feet and worked their buns off.

Family re-unification should be for dependant children only, if you don't want to leave everyone else behind, don't come here.

Family-class immigration and the votes it garners for the Liberals has been a core Liberal policy. Never mind that these people (family reunification) are free from official-language requirements and completely outside the points system imposed on economic-class immigrants. The CPC is only wanting to see immigration conform to our labour market needs.

Recent immigrants and low-skilled workers are facing now the toughest wage pressures from this mass immigration. It's one thing to allow in skilled workers who meet our needs and pass the points test, it's another to bring in millions more unskilled and dependent on their relatives.

According to census figures, 1980 Canadian immigrants who had been in the country for 10 years enjoyed full wage parity with the Canadian-born. The same measurement in 1990 showed that they were earning 90% as much as natives. In the year 2000 it was 80%. Do the math, we need to fix the problem, and now.

Then again, there is of course the pressure all of these people put on the environment you know, more people, more pollution etc.

[Borg]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

When they arrived, they supported themselves. There were no safety nets and social engineers that demanded we adapt to your family - they adapted to this land.

Much as I disagree with you and your philosophies, I would also bet that they planned to make themselves hard working Canadians rather than sucking off the government tit.

Got to especially love those Canadians of convenience. I love spending my tax dollars on them - after all they contribute nothing, live elsewhere, carry MY passport, come here to suck up FREE (my tax dollar) medical resources and complain when we rescue them from war torn countries because we do not provide "first class accommodation".

Oh, and I bet your family learned to speak the language.

Far different today.

Borg

Edited March 18, 2008 by Borg

[Sean Hayward]

Canada is a country built by immigrants. That is a fact. No knowledgeable person can dispute it. Almost all Canadians living today are the descendants of immigrants. Immigrants contribute greatly to Canada, both economically and socially. This is true, always has been true, and will forever be true.

However, the primary factor in the immigration debate should be "What is best for the future of Canada?". If it is not in the best interests of Canada, they should not be allowed in. Translated into the specific debate here, that means we should not allow these "family reunification" immigrants in unless they are directly and immediately related to a qualified immigrant. It also means that all immigrants, including family immigrants, should be required to have a sufficient knowledge of either English or French BEFORE immigrating to Canada. In addition to these requirements, all adult immigrants should be required to pass a test on Canada before their application is accepted. This test would ensure that immigrants possess a sufficient knowledge of the country they are about to join. This is similar to programs in other countries such as the US and the UK.

On the issue of these "Canadians of convenience", I suggest we amend the Citizenship Act to provide for any citizen who fails to meet reasonable residency requirements to have their Canadian citizenship removed. This requirement would be something along the lines of: maintaining residence in Canada for at least 270 days per year for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years. If any citizen fails to meet that requirement, they would receive notice that their citizenship would be terminated within 6 months. This would ensure that a situation such as the Lebanese-Canadian evacuation problem never occurs again because people who do not live in Canada for many years would no longer be citizens of Canada.

[Oleg Bach]

Canada is a country built by immigrants. That is a fact. No knowledgeable person can dispute it. Almost all Canadians living today are the descendants of immigrants. Immigrants contribute greatly to Canada, both economically and socially. This is true, always has been true, and will forever be true.

However, the primary factor in the immigration debate should be "What is best for the future of Canada?". If it is not in the best interests of Canada, they should not be allowed in. Translated into the specific debate here, that means we should not allow these "family reunification" immigrants in unless they are directly and immediately related to a qualified immigrant. It also means that all immigrants, including family immigrants, should be required to have a sufficient knowledge of either English or French BEFORE immigrating to Canada. In addition to these requirements, all adult immigrants should be required to pass a test on Canada before their application is accepted. This test would ensure that immigrants possess a sufficient knowledge of the country they are about to join. This is similar to programs in other countries such as the US and the UK.

On the issue of these "Canadians of convenience", I suggest we amend the Citizenship Act to provide for any citizen who fails to meet reasonable residency requirements to have their Canadian citizenship removed. This requirement would be something along the lines of: maintaining residence in Canada for at least 270 days per year for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years. If any citizen fails to meet that requirement, they would receive notice that their citizenship would be terminated within 6 months. This would ensure that a situation such as the Lebanese-Canadian evacuation problem never occurs again because people who do not live in Canada for many years would no longer be citizens of Canada.

Yes Canada is a nation built on immigration - every nation on earth is based on people coming to land and occupying it...there is a down side to our immigration policy that was much like the British policy...based on greed and cheap labour...as we know - Britian now suffers for the deeds of a few elite that were not happy with a few billion bucks but wanted a trillion - ONCE a land is fully operational and healthy and prosperous via immigration - YOU do not over load the system till the land is no longer operational...we peaked in about 1968 - and further immigration at that time weakened and socially and monetarily impoverished what was the perfect nation with the perfect balance..I firmly believe if I wanted some extra cash in my mature years - I should be able to walk up to any establishment and apply for work..with out one of those stupid resume` things - as a fifteen year old boy I could take a job for 15 dollars an hour and put in a good day..

Not now - every tiny little immigrant is working for 7 fifty an hour...which means that it took two of them to make one of me....I dispise immigration- thank our white eilte who flooded our land and infrastructure with people we did not need..damn pricks sold me out!

[Sean Hayward]

I never said that there isn't a need for balance in the immigration system. However, I believe that, all things considered, immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically. Of course we should not "overload the system", but I see no real evidence that the system is being overloaded. Don't try to say that "immigrants stole your job" as evidence of a crisis. Immigrants are generally hard-working and honest. That is why they came to this country, to make a better life for themselves. I have a problem with those who first criticise immigrants for being lazy and for being a burden to society, and then accuse them of stealing jobs. Which one is it? Are they too lazy to get a job or too inconsiderate to remain unemployed?

[AngusThermopyle]

immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically.

I hear this a lot. One thing the people who say this have in common is that they never show how we benefit. All I ever hear is this phrase with nothing to back it up. As for socially, thats questionable. Because a person has an infatuation with some other culture does not mean everyone shares that infatuation. Mostly what I see from open immigration proponents is a whole lot of generalizations without much substance to back them up.

Now my personal take is that immigration can be a good thing, if done right. What we are currently doing in this country is not what I would personally call a good thing or doing it right.

[Leafless]

Oh, and cut the number of immigrants in half.

A I would say PROVE we need any immigrants period.

IMO Canada is empire building, feeding corporate greed, again, at tax payers expense.

I would be in basic agreement with this article:

Why are today’s highly qualified immigrants doing so poorly? The answer is obvious: We simply don’t need the services of many of the skilled people coming to Canada. The jobs they hoped to find here do not exist.

According to the latest data presented by Statistics Canada, during their first year here, newcomers are, on average, 3.5 times more likely than native-born Canadians to fall into the low-income category. While their situation improves somewhat after the first year in Canada, a disproportionate share (2.5 times the share for those born in Canada) remain in a “chronic” state of low income.

Canadians may find this hard to understand given all we hear about the “shortage” of skilled labour in Canada. Yet immigration is an effective means of dealing with labour shortages only in rare cases.

http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2007/0...ers-not-needed/

[Sean Hayward]

Immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically. I will attempt to explain what I mean by that and address some of your other concerns.

Socially:

Along time ago in Canada, we came up with an idea called "multiculturalism". This means that we accept that different cultures exist within Canada. We also value diversity, and that our society remains open and dynamic. You shouldn't view immigrants as people that are fundamentally un-Canadian. They are no less Canadian than the immigrants of previous generations, first the French and British, next the Germans, Poles, Ukrainians and Italians, and then others. These new immigrants will eventually become an integral part of Canada, just as previous generations of immigrants did. We should welcome these people, and offer them a part in the future of Canada.

Economically:

Canada needs immigration to provide skilled workers and to meet the labour demands in our economy. Canada's greatest economic growth has always occurred at times of the greatest levels of immigration. Our economy thrives when we bring in the people needed to help it grow. That is the reason for my support of the Conservative proposal on immigration. I agree that we should give priority to immigrants who have the skills needed in Canada's economy. We also need to do a better job with getting immigrants accredited so they don't end up driving cabs or in other jobs well below their education.

Also, I am not an "open immigration" proponent as you characterize it. I believe in immigration for the good of Canada. I do not have an infatuation with another culture. I value multiculturalism and a diversity of cultures. As a final note, remember that immigration is now far more regulated and at a much lower level than it was in the past. It is not as if we have let down our guard, lowered our standards, or anything like that.

[Argus]

Boy I am glad you weren't running things when my Mother and her parents came. Then there was my great great grandfather who came 100 years before them and My great gandfather who came 50 years later. Of course none of these people were related but I am descended from them all.

What gives you the right to judge who will come and who won't.

I live here. That's what gives me the right. Your mother and parents had absolutely no right to come here unless we decided to take her. And no one out there has any right to come here now. The only reason we should be taking anyone - except on humanitarian grounds - is if they will be net contributors to Canada.

[Leafless]

Immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically. I will attempt to explain what I mean by that and address some of your other concerns.

Socially:

Along time ago in Canada, we came up with an idea called "multiculturalism". This means that we accept that different cultures exist within Canada.

No it does not.

It means we recognize different cultures in Canada and has nothing to do with immigration.

In an officially multicultural country, this is hypocritical since it places official importance on English and French cultures while ignoring non-official cultures.

Official multiculturalism is a farce.

This as been proven by the federal governments own hiring practices relating to public service employment and visible minorities.

Economically:

Canada needs immigration to provide skilled workers and to meet the labour demands in our economy.

I just posted an article that says otherwise, unless you can prove with your statements are true.

Even employment statistics are flawed relating to the TRUE number of unemployed in Canada, since the only number that is representative of the unemployed, are those who are currently receiving EI benefits.

Discouraged workers or any one unemployed and not receiving EI benefits are NOT included in the official number of unemployed in Canada.

[guyser]

Discouraged workers or any one unemployed and not receiving EI benefits are NOT included in the official number of unemployed in Canada.

Which is the way they have always counted unemployed people. Has nothing to do with immigrants.

[Sean Hayward]

First of all, I agree with Argus that Canadians are the ones to decide who is allowed into Canada, and that the sole factor in considering immigration issues should be what is best for Canada.

I mention multiculturalism because those who are against immigration seem to think that allowing immigrants with a foreign culture into Canada is a threat. I aim to show that it is not a threat by pointing to multiculturalism as an publicly accepted and desirable policy. I assume your reference to federal government public service policies is a reference to affirmative action. I personally am strongly against affirmative action programs and so I guess I would agree with you in that regard. Discrimination should not be allowed in Canada, whether called "affirmative action" or any other name.

On the economic issues, I don't think anyone would dispute that there is a shortage of skilled workers in certain professions in Canada. I would put forward the medical profession as an example. There may not be shortages in other areas and so there is no purpose to bring in workers in those professions. Isn't that the purpose of the Conservative proposal?

[DogOnPorch]

There's so many reports of scams re: various immigration programs and degrees etc that I wouldn't trust any diploma from outside the Western world. Not one. Nada. Nil. "Factories" in China, India, Pakistan (et al) apparently churn them out...for a price. So who can we trust? Same with dubious bits of kit like the 'live-in caregiver program'. I read somewhere about how there are something like 70 'nanny schools' in one Pakistani city popping out thousands of 'nannies' who oddly enough are mostly male. When investigated, few of these 'nanny schools' actually existed yet were pumping out the grads at an impressive rate.

We're so dumb as a country...give us a beer and we'll be in the backseat before you can say Hockey Night in Canada.

My opinion only, folks.

--------------------------------------

That's a pie-crust promise. Easily made, easily broken.

---Mary Poppins

Edited March 19, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

First of all, I agree with Argus that Canadians are the ones to decide who is allowed into Canada, and that the sole factor in considering immigration issues should be what is best for Canada.

I mention multiculturalism because those who are against immigration seem to think that allowing immigrants with a foreign culture into Canada is a threat. I aim to show that it is not a threat by pointing to multiculturalism as an publicly accepted and desirable policy.

But you haven't given us any reason why it is desirable? I can see how it's nice from THEIR side, but not ours. I prefer to be able to converse with people in my language, after all. And frankly, given a choice between importing Europeans who would think and act pretty much like me, and third worlders who often have beliefs extremely hostile to my own (I think I mentioned freedom of speech earlier as one example) - I'll take the Europeans.

On the economic issues, I don't think anyone would dispute that there is a shortage of skilled workers in certain professions in Canada. I would put forward the medical profession as an example. There may not be shortages in other areas and so there is no purpose to bring in workers in those professions. Isn't that the purpose of the Conservative proposal?

There are two problems with this. First, the federal government is notoriously lousy at figuring out just what skills we need. Second, they're even lousier at understanding that high skilled jobs almost always require the ability to communicate well - and that immigrants who cannot communicate well are going to be underemployed or unemployed regardless of how many degrees they have. Third, bringing in immigrants to fill skill shortages on a long term basis is simply a cop-out and extremely poor planning. Don't tell me we don't have lots of bright people in this country who are already underemployed. I've met some. But again, governments at all levels seem to be incredibly bad at retraining programs and plans. They're also lousy at guiding young people into the kinds of courses which would fill skills shortages. How about we give larger grants to those who are taking computer engineering and medicine and lower - or no grants to people taking, oh, say, sociology or psychology?

[guyser]

They're also lousy at guiding young people into the kinds of courses which would fill skills shortages. How about we give larger grants to those who are taking computer engineering and medicine and lower - or no grants to people taking, oh, say, sociology or psychology?

They may be lousy at guiding them Argus, I cant argue that.

But as far as getting better , or rather giving larger grants to people to study to be Drs, the problem stems from the CMA and the UNiversities themselves who have purposelyand arificially limited the enrollment for CDNS with the surplus spots kept open for non-Canucks to use.

The reason? The Univ's can charge huge dollars to out of country students. So it is all bottom line. But along your lines , perhaps the Govt can grant the Univ's a tax break, but the students , regardless of nationality have to practice in Canada for the next 10 years....ok maybe 5.

[Argus]

They may be lousy at guiding them Argus, I cant argue that.

But as far as getting better , or rather giving larger grants to people to study to be Drs, the problem stems from the CMA and the UNiversities themselves who have purposelyand arificially limited the enrollment for CDNS with the surplus spots kept open for non-Canucks to use.

The reason? The Univ's can charge huge dollars to out of country students. So it is all bottom line. But along your lines , perhaps the Govt can grant the Univ's a tax break, but the students , regardless of nationality have to practice in Canada for the next 10 years....ok maybe 5.

Regardless of which aspects of our screwed up policies are responsible, we ought to simply fix them rather than bringing in foreigners to fill the holes. In terms of doctors, I would think people would realize that we would be more responsible world citizens to train our own doctors and nurses rather than poaching the medical care workers so desperately needed in third world countries.