Can't compete with immigrants.

[Michael Hardner]

You realize there is a difference to a work permit and citizenship right? As soon as someone gets off the "boat" they are created as equal Canadians.

Are you saying there's no process to becoming a Canadian citizen ? I don't understand.

[Michael Hardner]

If immigration is so good to an eeconomy, then I guess all India has to do open up its borders and let even poorer countries flood in. That will fix all its problems and create the wealth that India needs.

...

That is corruption. This has happened bad the last 15-20 years where things have so quickly went south.

Ok, but what are the limits on this ? There will always be a world market for labour, as there is for goods. Wrapping yourself in the flag is a good emotional stance, but there are also economics behind these decisions. What you're talking about is sometimes called "the race to the bottom" and while I do welcome the idea of challenging that idea, you have to replace it with something reasonable.

[Machjo]

Actually, according to reports on the economic status of immigrants, immigrants decrease government's revenue. Most immigrants over the couple of decades do not earn sufficient salaries to actually pay more in taxes than they consume in services. And the economic performance of immigrants vs Canadian born continues to deteriorate.

You may be right, but this still does not explain the unemployment situation of Canadians. In fact, if what you say is true, then the burden that unemployed immigrants places on the social system would actually create jobs, wouldn't it? Sure it would not create wealth, but it would create jobs, which was the issue brought up in the OP.

That said, I also agree that more importantly than creating jobs, the government must ensure wealth creation. After all, the purpose of work is to generate wealth of some kind.

So if what you say is correct, then the the solution is not to have immigration quotas but rather a minimum standard. For example, we need to scrap the LINC programme (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/welcome/wel-22e.asp) and instead expect all persons entering the country to first pass a language test in the local language where he's planning to go.

While this would likely cause a drop in immigration, at least it would ensure that those coming will contribute more than they take. However, this would have to do not with lower quotas, but rather more stringent standards. Anyone who could meet the minimum standards should still be welcomed, as they would in fact be creating jobs and wealth.

[Machjo]

If immigration is so good to an eeconomy, then I guess all India has to do open up its borders and let even poorer countries flood in. That will fix all its problems and create the wealth that India needs.

The only time it is BENEFICIAL to let people into a country is when you have a functioning immigration policy like the rest of the world has:

1 - You must prove you could not hire a local citizen.

2 - You must prove that person gets paid more than the general population for the work (as in France and most other countries).

In Canada, we just completely exploit foreign labour with no laws on pay. We allow companies to bring in foreign labor without them proving they could not hire Canadian (the fields out east where they bring in Jamaican migrant workers each year.. so here we have 10-15% unemployment rates, yet are allowing companies to hire only migrant worker from Jamaica?)

The stuff that goes in Canada is a crime when it comes to our immigration policies and what we allow to happen to our own labour force.

(I wont even get into healthcare, crime, racism, and all the secondary problems that immigration brings that has already been discussed to the dead horse).

Some of you people just hate your fellow citizens so much. The immigration policy and who we decide to let into OUR country belongs to *US* the people. Remember don't forget the goverment represents us the people. Yet when it comes to immigration, they are NOT acting in our best intrest. They are only acting in their OWN.

That is corruption. This has happened bad the last 15-20 years where things have so quickly went south.

You're confusing immigration with migrant work. They are not the same thing. By the way, I'm a Canadian who'd worked abroad before, and appreciate the fact that I was accepted. If Canada start closing its borders to foreign workers, other countries could retaliate, causing many Canadian ex-pats to lose their jobs and come back to Canada to look for work, thus pushing you into unemployment anyway.

Personally, I think Canada could benefit from some kind of free labour movement agreement with other countries, especially the US. This way, when Canada's economy is doing well and the US has high unemployment, Americans would be free to cross the border to look for work here. And when the opposite is true, then Canadians could cross the border to find work in the US. You know, the scratch-my-back principle.

[Machjo]

Another point. Let's say Canada closed its borders to foreign ex-pats, and their countries reciprocate against Canada. Next thing you know, you could have plenty of Canadian ex-pats coming back to Canada unemployed and going on social assistance until they can re-integrate into the Canadian market, especially if they'd been abroad for awhile. This would also make it harder for Canada to access expertise we might be short of in Canada. In the end, everyone benefits, whether they're aware of it or not, from more open borders.

[Michael Hardner]

Another point. Let's say Canada closed its borders to foreign ex-pats, and their countries reciprocate against Canada. Next thing you know, you could have plenty of Canadian ex-pats coming back to Canada unemployed and going on social assistance until they can re-integrate into the Canadian market, especially if they'd been abroad for awhile. This would also make it harder for Canada to access expertise we might be short of in Canada. In the end, everyone benefits, whether they're aware of it or not, from more open borders.

This is the tension that exists between promoting jobs locally and realizing that there are certain things that we're just not good at. I'd prefer to keep the local economy healthy but it's a tough debate to make with the attendant emotionality.

[Machjo]

This is the tension that exists between promoting jobs locally and realizing that there are certain things that we're just not good at. I'd prefer to keep the local economy healthy but it's a tough debate to make with the attendant emotionality.

It's nice to promote the local economy, but not at all costs. A shift to a gas tax from income tax might help a little as products from farther afield become more expensive and local products drop in price, but it's still not a panacea. Providing public education to the unemployed in a trade or profession can also help to upgrade their skills so as to increase their employability in the local economy.

Beyond that though, there really isn't much that can be done to keep jobs local. Certainly it helps, but in the end other backup strategies are needed just in case. I think some kind of international labour-movement agreement, especially between Canada and the US, could be beneficial to both sides. Moving towards a common currency and promoting freer trade can certainly help too.

[mikedavid00]

Again: the immigrants have not driven down wages. The employers have driven down wages.

Ultimately, our own gov't who represents the Canadian people have driven down wages.

[Argus]

You may be right, but this still does not explain the unemployment situation of Canadians. In fact, if what you say is true, then the burden that unemployed immigrants places on the social system would actually create jobs, wouldn't it? Sure it would not create wealth, but it would create jobs, which was the issue brought up in the OP.

Well, in that immigrants will consume social services, health care, education, and yes, welfare, and create a demand for goods and services, I suppose you could technically say that yes, they create jobs.

That said, I also agree that more importantly than creating jobs, the government must ensure wealth creation. After all, the purpose of work is to generate wealth of some kind.

As far as government return-on-investment goes, immigrants have been returning poorer and poorer results as the variance between our educatonal and technical standards and those of most of our immigrants widens. That is, when immigrants and Canadians were all pretty much at the same level then the mere fact that immigrants tended to be people with the drive and motivation for self-improvement -willing to make that long, long trip to Canada, a place at the ass end of nowhere - meant that immigrants were, comparatively speaking, probably better than the average joe here. However, as the gap widened, sometime in the seventies, as we began taking people from more third world countries even as our technological level grew higher, the performance of immigrants began to worsen. The government has attempted to moderate that to some extent by taking in "skilled" immigrants, but have not been terribly succesful in improving the economic performance of immigrants, in part because only a fraction of immigrants actually are "skilled".

So if what you say is correct, then the the solution is not to have immigration quotas but rather a minimum standard. For example, we need to scrap the LINC programme (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/welcome/wel-22e.asp) and instead expect all persons entering the country to first pass a language test in the local language where he's planning to go.

The government has been talking about doing that for decades. The Liberals even had a serious go at it, but backed down under furious pressure from the immigration lobby. The funny thing is that most Canadians - including most immigrants believe that requiring immigrants to learn the language before coming here is a damned good idea.

The problem is the government has never actually stated - ever - an objective for the immigration program. I.E., why do we bring in a quarter million immigrants every year? Based upon what calculations? And how is their performance measured against those expectations?

Edited March 14, 2010 by Argus

[mikedavid00]

the burden that unemployed immigrants places on the social system would actually create jobs, wouldn't it?

Jobs do not come out of the sky

-They are created by necessity from a 'for profit' company in the 'private sector'.

-Most jobs are created from a person who owns the business. (forget about the gov't/acedemia talk... We are talking about the real world now).

-Typically, business owners risk their own capital to start this business.

-The capital they risk is usually inherited wealth (again we're talking about facts of life here).

-This person comprises about 3% or less of the population.

-This person who can afford to hire other people are almost always Canadian citizen. Not duel citizens or immigrants.

When immigrants arrive, they seek employment from the SAME business owners that we do. Whether it be trucking, warehouse work, office work. You name it.

Immigration would have a POSITIVE effect, if we let in people who would fit in that 3% to provide US CANADIANS jobs. Get it? This is the 'investor class' immigrant. Every country has one. Except who? Except Canada who basically will give immigration automatically to anyone who says they have $150k in assets with no proof of employing Canadians or opening a business.

When is the last time you've seen immigrants come with real start-up capital and open a NON TAX EVADING business? 1 in a million maybe? I've never seen a 3rd world immigrant run business that hires Canadians and not evading taxes.

As a Canadian, I went to school, got experience, did all the right things. I do not have inherited start-up capital to do my own thing. I cannot risk my own personal little capital. I am just a worker. Just a small guy in this world. I accept that.

I admit, I have my hound out. I have my cap in hand. I have a lot to offer any company that will take me. This is natural and normal. This is the 'class' of person I am in this society. I am not of that elite 3%.

The immigrants who arrive, ALSO have their hand out, cap in hand, and are even more determined and aggressive than I am to make it because they have more at stake. They will even work for less, lie on their resume.. you name it.

The question is, when you take a city like Winnipeg:

-The workforce is 400,000 people with a participation rate of 65%.

-There are +19,000 unemployed looking for work collecting IE.

-There is an unknown amount simply not employed. (probably another 40k people).

AND WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE STRUGGLING PEOPLE OF WINNIPEG NEEDS THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS TO COME WITH THEIR HAND OUT AND CAP IN HAND ALSO? TO COMPETE WITH THE 19,000???????????????

I MEAN WHY DON'T YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND SOMETHING SO SIMPLE???????? GOD IT'S SO FRUSTRATING!!! IT'S THE LAWS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND!!

WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT DOES THIS. THE ONLY SUCKERS IN THE WORLD WHO JUST LET PEOPLE WANDER IN TO COMPETE WITH OUR LIVES. OUR LIVELY-HOODS. THIS IS NOT LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE. THE BORDERS BELONG TO US, THE COUNTRY BELONGS TO US. THE IMMIGRATION POLICY BELONGS TO US THE PEOPLE!!

[Machjo]

The government has been talking about doing that for decades. The Liberals even had a serious go at it, but backed down under furious pressure from the immigration lobby. The funny thing is that most Canadians - including most immigrants believe that requiring immigrants to learn the language before coming here is a damned good idea.

If the opposition stems from compassionate grounds (i.e. not separating family members), then may I propose a very simple solution to this:

We include a clause in the new legislation that the new language and other skill requirements would apply to all who are born, let's say, on the second First of January from the day the bill is passed and who have reached at least the age of fifteen. Bingo. Now we'd have ensured that no current immigrant will be separated from any family member since the new law would apply only to those who are not born yet. And then there'd be no excuse for those to whom the new law applies to not have known, since the law would have been passed more than a year before they were born and at least fifteen years earlier, giving them plenty of time to adapt to the new law if their intent was to come to Canada.

The problem is the government has never actually stated - ever - an objective for the immigration program. I.E., why do we bring in a quarter million immigrants every year? Based upon what calculations? And how is their performance measured against those expectations?

I would say a simple argument is the same as why people are free to cross provincial boundaries: freedom , access to markets, and braking the barriers that divide people from one another.

[mikedavid00]

braking the barriers that divide people from one another.

They just... don't.. 'get it'..

It turly is brainwashing.. it's like.. wow..

[Argus]

If the opposition stems from compassionate grounds (i.e. not separating family members), then

No, I believe the opposition was that it was racist and culturally ethnocentric of us to force people to learn our languages.

I would say a simple argument is the same as why people are free to cross provincial boundaries: freedom , access to markets, and braking the barriers that divide people from one another.

That's not an answer, though. Why does the government of Canada determine that we need X number of immigrants each year? What calculations lay behind it? What are the expectations of the immigratioin program and how is its success calculated? Social egalitarian notions about breaking barriers and freedoms are not the basis for a multi-billion dollar immigration program.

[Machjo]

No, I believe the opposition was that it was racist and culturally ethnocentric of us to force people to learn our languages.

They may be well intentioned, but if they stopped to think for a moment, a common language is fundamental to any community or organization, as it is the foundation of communication.

That's not an answer, though. Why does the government of Canada determine that we need X number of immigrants each year? What calculations lay behind it? What are the expectations of the immigratioin program and how is its success calculated? Social egalitarian notions about breaking barriers and freedoms are not the basis for a multi-billion dollar immigration program.

It is an answer. The government should not determine how many can enter. Instead, it should place minimum standards and anyone who can meet the standard can enter.

[wyly]

It is an answer. The government should not determine how many can enter. Instead, it should place minimum standards and anyone who can meet the standard can enter.

isn't that what we have except for refugees... and an unlimited amount won't work, we'd be swamped...

[Machjo]

isn't that what we have except for refugees... and an unlimited amount won't work, we'd be swamped...

Just the language requirements alone would likely block out at least 80% of the world's population that speaks neither French nor English. Then if you pile on other requirements on top of that, the field would narrow very quickly.

[Battletoads]

Maybe they get the jobs because they are more qualified and harder workers than you?

[wyly]

Just the language requirements alone would likely block out at least 80% of the world's population that speaks neither French nor English. Then if you pile on other requirements on top of that, the field would narrow very quickly.

the waiting list is years long now of qualified immigrants so we could easily triple the amount we let in every year... there about a 1 1/2 billion speakers of either french or english as 1st or 2nd language...

[Argus]

Just the language requirements alone would likely block out at least 80% of the world's population that speaks neither French nor English. Then if you pile on other requirements on top of that, the field would narrow very quickly.

To what? Only a few hundred million?

[wyly]

I thinks it's likely we could equal the US immigration number per year(2 mill?) if we opened the doors to all french and english speakers as they will likely be skilled as well if they speak a 2nd language...we'd be absolutely swamped, a country of 34 million can't absorb 2 million immigants per year...with the number awaiting processing right now that number could easily be 600,000 and that's too many too fast IMO...

[Machjo]

I thinks it's likely we could equal the US immigration number per year(2 mill?) if we opened the doors to all french and english speakers as they will likely be skilled as well if they speak a 2nd language...we'd be absolutely swamped, a country of 34 million can't absorb 2 million immigants per year...with the number awaiting processing right now that number could easily be 600,000 and that's too many too fast IMO...

So add a requirment for some qualification, or a minimum of post-secondary instruction, or some other requirement such as wealth, etc.

I don't agree with quotas simply because they're too arbitrary. If you raise the standards high enough, then you won't need to worry about quotas since too few will be able to meet the requirement anyway, whatever requirement it may be.

[wyly]

So add a requirment for some qualification, or a minimum of post-secondary instruction, or some other requirement such as wealth, etc.

I don't agree with quotas simply because they're too arbitrary. If you raise the standards high enough, then you won't need to worry about quotas since too few will be able to meet the requirement anyway, whatever requirement it may be.

a lot of that is already included in the points system, education, wealth, language, investment, work skills...if raise the requirements to high you eliminate people who needed skilled tradesmen and entry level labour

[Machjo]

a lot of that is already included in the points system, education, wealth, language, investment, work skills...if raise the requirements to high you eliminate people who needed skilled tradesmen and entry level labour

Then a simple solution. Before you can become an immigrant, unless you're rich, you have to get a work visa and work for a year. If it's found that you've proven to be successful according to measurable criteria, you gat to stay. Again, no immigration quotas, but just built in standards. If you meet the standard, you get to stay.

[Bonam]

I don't agree with quotas simply because they're too arbitrary.

Quotas are not (or at least don't have to be) arbitrary. A quota should take into account factors like how many immigrants a country can assimilate annually, what is a sustainable rate of population growth, what are the economic conditions and whether more immigrants are needed due to workforce shortage or less due to recession, etc. These are important, non-arbitrary, factors which can be evaluated and used to determine a reasonable number for caps on immigration.

I agree that standards are also important. We should determine who gets to immigrate based on a rigorous set of standards, and additionally we should still impose a maximum quota.

[Machjo]

Quotas are not (or at least don't have to be) arbitrary. A quota should take into account factors like how many immigrants a country can assimilate annually, what is a sustainable rate of population growth, what are the economic conditions and whether more immigrants are needed due to workforce shortage or less due to recession, etc. These are important, non-arbitrary, factors which can be evaluated and used to determine a reasonable number for caps on immigration.

I agree that standards are also important. We should determine who gets to immigrate based on a rigorous set of standards, and additionally we should still impose a maximum quota.

If you raise the standards high enough,you won't need to worry about quotas. That's the whole point. If we need quotas, it's because the standards aren't high enough.