Slam The Doors On Immigration

[Martin Chriton]

Two things:

1. High skill jobs are not the only important labour market sector. Canada is a service economy and, indeed, it makes up a large part of the american system, too. Some lower skill jobs (like the agribusiness sector) use migrant worker programs for their labour, but the local restaurant isn't going to do this to find their next dishwasher.

2. More importantly, immigration isn't just about filling immediate holes in the job market. It's also a critical pillar in the building of society. Besides, why would you trust politicians and bureaucrats to accurately predict the needs of the job market over a 20+ yr period? Bringing an immigrant in isn't like importing a temporary worker; you can't send them away when labour priorities shift.

1. Sure, letting some under-skilled folks in seems like it might not be a bad. However, the original topic is about letting in folks that have education and they end up getting *no* job. The intention of letting them is because their university degree is supposedly worth something. If they can't pass an interview then letting them in was a bad idea. Unless of course they fully planned on driving a taxi but that should've been clear to everyone at the start. It would good to break out immigration into at least three categories:

<a> skilled

<b> low skill / taxi drivers

<c> charity cases

2. "Besides, why would you trust politicians and bureaucrats to accurately predict the needs of the job market over a 20+ yr period?"

I don't trust them. Obviously the current system doesn't work where they look at the points on paper and decide whether they'll make it. Let the market decide and force them to get a job upfront.

"Bringing an immigrant in isn't like importing a temporary worker; you can't send them away when labour priorities shift."

For sure, that's why it's all the more important the people that are brought in are employable. Being able to get a job is huge test of that. It doesn't mean that they might never be unemployed but they stand a much better chance than someone who doesn't have a job / never had a job in that country.

"More importantly, immigration isn't just about filling immediate holes in the job market. It's also a critical pillar in the building of society. "

If it's not for short and long term jobs what pillar are you taking about? If you're talkign about charity lets be careful to clearly label how many folks we are bringing in for charity and clearly understand the cost.

[a10khan]

A lot is being thrown around on this forum. I'm no big supporter of mass immigration, but I reckon steady immigration is the only way Canada will 'sustain' itself. Canada's economic clout has been achieved on the back of immigration. Amazing how some amongst us quickly discredit immigration and its role in Canada's economic and thus, political advancements.

Most People don't come here to do security or warehouse jobs here. Thats a real slap on the face statement to make. Let them come here, put six-figure amounts in the bank, buy a house, enroll their kids in universities - all with a hand-to-mouth job that degrades and derides what they've done and achieved for all their lives.

We suffer from a classic hypocrisy by big and medium sized corporations as well as the three levels of government who have failed to integrate qualifications and experience of thousands of immigrants. Additionally, the uncompetitive pay scales mean a lot of Canadian immigrants move down south as soon as an opportunity arrives. They are better paid and valued in the American system and a decent amount of them go onto settle there for good.

Also, can someone tell how many recent immigrants are on welfare as opposed to people living here for a considerable period or born-and-raised individuals?

Lastly, this can't-speak-English excuse is preposterous. Most of the skilled and semi-skilled immigrants are quite capable in English, although they could perhaps be lacking in confidence which could and generally is easily addressed by LINC classes, etc. The point is we have double-standards here by the concerned authorities which is why we see better utilization of immigration by the US, a country that utilizes its highly-educated and skilled immigrants much better than we do.

[Argus]

1. by how much are we financially burdened by older immigrants? Does this number consider their soft participation in the economy (e.g. providing daycare for their grandkids so that their children can work)?

2. What is the net cost of immigration to canada? How much money are we losing to lazy, underperforming immigrants who can't speak english or french and jump into the dole lines as soon as they jump off the boat?

A study done by the Fraser Institute estimated the cost at about $18 billion per year.

I couldn't say how much we are burdened by older immigrants. Nor is that relevent. The point is that those who say we need to bring over immigrants because of an aging populatioin seem blithely ignorant of the fact immigrants are pretty much the same age as us.

[Argus]

Feel free to disprove the data I've provided with facts or to provide some evidence of your own.

Wander through just about any housing project and you'll see how many immigrants don't wind up being productive members of society.

[Argus]

A lot is being thrown around on this forum. I'm no big supporter of mass immigration, but I reckon steady immigration is the only way Canada will 'sustain' itself.

Our birth rate is not that low. A little economic encouragment for families, particularly for day care, would go a long way to encouraging home-grown growth.

Canada's economic clout has been achieved on the back of immigration.

Economic clout? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Our population is nearing 40 million. can you demonstrate in any way, shape or form how the people of Canada are any better off now than when our population was 20 million? All immigration does is give us a bigger population base, which does not seem to have made us, as individuals, one single whit richer than we used to be.

We suffer from a classic hypocrisy by big and medium sized corporations as well as the three levels of government who have failed to integrate qualifications and experience of thousands of immigrants.

If employers won't hire an immigrant it's because the immigrant has no sellable skills. period. You can make all the mouth noises you want about failing to recognize a degree from some obscure university held by someone whose English isn't even up to driving taxis, but the reality is somewhat different.

someone tell how many recent immigrants are on welfare as opposed to people living here for a considerable period or born-and-raised individuals?

We don't keep such statistics as that might not be inclusive enough.

Lastly, this can't-speak-English excuse is preposterous. Most of the skilled and semi-skilled immigrants are quite capable in English,

Statistics Canada disagrees. Illiteracy is a huge problem among immigrants here. As for me, I am always surprised on the rare occasion I meet an immigrant with excellent English.

[dizzy]

1. Sure, letting some under-skilled folks in seems like it might not be a bad. However, the original topic is about letting in folks that have education and they end up getting *no* job. The intention of letting them is because their university degree is supposedly worth something. If they can't pass an interview then letting them in was a bad idea. Unless of course they fully planned on driving a taxi but that should've been clear to everyone at the start. It would good to break out immigration into at least three categories:

<a> skilled

<b> low skill / taxi drivers

<c> charity cases

It's hard to say what this thread is about, but it seems mostly a place for xenophobic ranting (and no, I'm not referring to you. I respect others' opinions when an effort at thought is placed behind them, which you have clearly done).

In terms of the article quoted in the OP, it is built on the false notion that corporations drive immigration in the US. Look at the immigration data their and you'll find most people come from Latin America and are not coming in to fulfill specific jobs offered by specific employers. I don't have a problem with this, I just think it's different than the article suggests.

When you talk about self-employment, which is a huge and growing part of the economy, there is no employer to offer a job. Doctors would fall into this category.

FTR, there are different classes of immigration that pretty much mirror your suggestions. Here are our current demands and criteria for skilled class:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp

Of course moving to a new country will be difficult, especially if there are language and culture adjustment issues. Anyone who thinks they can transport their lives to a completely different part of the world and not suffer some short-term disadvantages is naive. But most immigrants come for a better quality of life for them and their families and work their asses of to make it so:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=960c9aed-8eff-48c7-8adc-39f2604381f0&k=99437

2. "Besides, why would you trust politicians and bureaucrats to accurately predict the needs of the job market over a 20+ yr period?"

I don't trust them. Obviously the current system doesn't work where they look at the points on paper and decide whether they'll make it. Let the market decide and force them to get a job upfront.

"Bringing an immigrant in isn't like importing a temporary worker; you can't send them away when labour priorities shift."

For sure, that's why it's all the more important the people that are brought in are employable. Being able to get a job is huge test of that. It doesn't mean that they might never be unemployed but they stand a much better chance than someone who doesn't have a job / never had a job in that country.

Looking at three key economic indicators - unemployment, GDP and inflation, we're maintaining a high pace amongst OECD countries. So, looking at other countries' immigration policies relative to their economic performance, which one presents the best model of immigration to you?

"More importantly, immigration isn't just about filling immediate holes in the job market. It's also a critical pillar in the building of society. "

If it's not for short and long term jobs what pillar are you taking about? If you're talkign about charity lets be careful to clearly label how many folks we are bringing in for charity and clearly understand the cost.

Well, I believe in maintaining a refugee system. Yes it can be tightened and I support the conservatives planned changes.

WRT family class sponsorship, I'm not a fan of returning to the limits placed on the chinese migrant workers who helped built the railroad. Family is the core element of society and allowing them entry is an incentive to attract the best and brightest immigrants. Given how relatively few of these family class immigrants are too old to work, I don't the see the problem that some others here see.

[Pogo]

I may not be getting your point but I'm not confused about mine.

An H1-B is not immigration. There are student and work visa and foreign migrant worker programs here, as well. We are talking immigration in this thread.

Over half of canada's immigrants come in through one of the economic classes. They largely enter with in-demand skills. That some are not able to practice is not a function of their degrees being worthless but with provincial regulating bodies who want to limit competition by excluding foreign-earned credentials. This is why the federal government is working with the provinces to address this issue.

Where the US is clearly succeeding is on the front of recognizing these credentials. Their free market spirit wins over oligarchical approach practiced by some professional bodies here. But if you think this or your silicon valley experience represents the whole story on US immigration, well this line in particular...

"The way the US system works is you need a *job* acceptance and a sponsoring employer to let you in the country."

... suggests that you are basing your whole understanding of US immigration on your personal experience.

Keeping in mind Canada's continuing high-ranking economic performance, I think what needs to happen here is a matter of fine tuning, not radical change.

The validity of an immigrant's degree becomes rather unimportant when that immigrant cannot fluently speak english, and therefore,fail to competently perform in a job suitable for that degree.

[Argus]

The validity of an immigrant's degree becomes rather unimportant when that immigrant cannot fluently speak english, and therefore,fail to competently perform in a job suitable for that degree.

About six in 10 newcomers have less than the desired level of literacy, the study says, and the employment rate for those with poor literacy skills is almost 20 percentage points lower than for those with the desired level.

Immigrant Illiteracy Costing Canada Billions

Of course, young, urban Europeans are far more familiar with English than rural Asians. And far more suited to our industrial and technical needs as workers.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Argus

[jbg]

The validity of an immigrant's degree becomes rather unimportant when that immigrant cannot fluently speak english, and therefore,fail to competently perform in a job suitable for that degree.

Was that a problem for Chretien's performance in his job? Or Dion's?

[Natchuck]

only on your third post here welcome ...racism is rampant on this forum as you'll soon find out, it's pointless to argue with them...

Yes, I am new here and I do not consider myself a racist. (I would, however, like to hear, or read, your arguments against what that person said.

[dizzy]

The validity of an immigrant's degree becomes rather unimportant when that immigrant cannot fluently speak english, and therefore,fail to competently perform in a job suitable for that degree.

Are language barriers the reason why foreign-trained doctors can't practice in a province like Ontario? Can you show me some data to support this?

[Argus]

Was that a problem for Chretien's performance in his job? Or Dion's?

Unquestionably.

Dion failed in large part because of his poor language skills in English. There were doubts from day one, and they grew as he continued to make fumbling remarks that people snickered over. The only reason Chretien suffered less from this was that he benefited from having no viable opposition. The moment he DID have a viable opposition he was gone.

As for doctors - perhaps you'd like this guy coming to treat you?

Patient killed "unlawfully" by foreign doctor

[Smallc]

Unquestionably.

Dion failed in large part because of his poor language skills in English. There were doubts from day one, and they grew as he continued to make fumbling remarks that people snickered over. The only reason Chretien suffered less from this was that he benefited from having no viable opposition.

Oh please. He did well because he was good at politicking, his English aside. He was well liked by the electorate, and, despite the spectre of the sponsorship scandal, could probably get elected today.

[Argus]

Are language barriers the reason why foreign-trained doctors can't practice in a province like Ontario? Can you show me some data to support this?

Maybe, maybe not. I still clearly recall the documentary on sixty minutes showing the Russian health care system. Outside Moscow it was a mess, and throughout the country the standard of care was atrocious, and the level of training of medical staff was such that your average Russian doctor would not have qualified as a nurse in America, and the average Russian nurse wouldn't have been qualified to do more than clean the floors in an American hospital.

So I wonder just how underqualified the doctors in third world countries are by comparison.

[Argus]

Oh please. He did well because he was good at politicking, his English aside. He was well liked by the electorate, and, despite the spectre of the sponsorship scandal, could probably get elected today.

Chretien was ridiculed and jeered throughout Quebec for his low standard of French, and made no inroads in the West - far from it, in large measure because of his lousy English. That might not have been quite so noticeable in Toronto, where the majority of Liberal voters don't speak English very well themselves, but it certainly was noticed among Anglophones. If you think that didn't hinder his voter appeal you really are dreaming.

[Smallc]

But he won...a majority....a few times. Aside from that, the Queen seemed to like him.

[Argus]

But he won...a majority....a few times. Aside from that, the Queen seemed to like him.

The Queen pretends to like a lot of people. And Chretien won a majority because there was no opposition, and because there are ridings in Canada where you could gun a fire hydrant and still get it elected as long as it was painted Liberal red. He'd not win a majority in today's landscape, though.

[Smallc]

The Queen pretends to like a lot of people.

She doesn't give them all the Order of Merit.

[dizzy]

Maybe, maybe not. I still clearly recall the documentary on sixty minutes showing the Russian health care system. Outside Moscow it was a mess, and throughout the country the standard of care was atrocious, and the level of training of medical staff was such that your average Russian doctor would not have qualified as a nurse in America, and the average Russian nurse wouldn't have been qualified to do more than clean the floors in an American hospital.

So I wonder just how underqualified the doctors in third world countries are by comparison.

http://healthzone.ca/health/article/733058--physicians-groups-accused-of-delaying-foreign-doctors

[jbg]

The only reason Chretien suffered less from this was that he benefited from having no viable opposition.

Actually Chretien had something else going for him; good English skills that he deliberately disguised.

I have a friend who lives in Hamilton ON who in turn had a friend who had dinner witht eh Chretiens in San Fransisco. The word was that his English was quite good and that he disguised it to maintain his "poor peasant from Shawinigan" image.

[Guest icbones]

As long as immigrants are allowed to sponsor their parents and grandparents for immigration this is a failed strategy. Hard hearted maybe but simple arithmetic.

I agree. Those parents and grandparents are heavy users of our over stretched medical resources.

[Argus]

del

Edited November 12, 2011 by Argus