New Group wants to talk about immigration reform

[Argus]

So a distinguished group of Canadians, including a former head of immigration, a former chief of staff to a prime minister, a former ambassador, a university professor of law and a former immigration bureacrat have formed a new group called the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. They say no one is talking about this important issue because of fear of being attacked - and are immediately attacked as "unCanadian" by the NDP.

Thomas Mulcair, Quebec NDP MP and deputy leader, says he is “very disturbed” by these arguments. "This country was built by immigrants,” he told reporters, “... that’s what the backbone of this country has always been.

“This whole conservative notion of attacking outsiders, saying that immigration is somehow an outside threat, that’s unCanadian,” he said.

I wonder if somewhere in the bowels of the polituro where the NDP are headquartered there exists a binder with all the forbidden topics which will be declared unCanadian,and banned if the NDP hordes ever got their hands on power.

Globe and Mail

In the meantime, immigrants are becoming poorer and poorer, and only 17% are ever checked for qualifications before coming here.

The two fastest-growing groups in our population are aboriginals and new immigrants. “They’re also the ones with the fewest skills to perform in our economy,” he says.

Margaret Wente

[scribblet]

It's tough to discuss the issues because it usually ends up with name calling, anyone opposed to unfettered immigration is usually labelled a 'racist'.

We have a right to determine who and what is best for Canada so we should be linking immigration to skills needed in Canada. We should also be cutting back on the family class or the family reunification program. An offshoot of this is Ruby Dhalla's bill which would reduce the wait time for senior immigrants to collect OAS. Aging parents are brought in by the children who don't want to be financially responsible for them, they expect us to support them.

Official multi-cult is wrong, we should not be paying for people to be different, we should be helping them to become part of our society.

[GostHacked]

There is a need for reform. There is a need for better screening. Immigration as I see it is a tool to attract talent from other countries in which we as a whole lack or want to keep a status quo of.

Educated people need to be part of the country, people who want a better life and are willing to work at it should be able to come to Canada.

Scribblet

Official multi-cult is wrong, we should not be paying for people to be different, we should be helping them to become part of our society

But it is how this nation got started. Multiculturalism due to immigration is our make up of the country. And how we are as a people overall in Canada is always going to slightly change with new people. They do take on Canadian values and at the same time, we are taking the good points of their culture and making it our own. Damn we sound like the freakin Borg off Star Trek.

[Shwa]

It's tough to discuss the issues because it usually ends up with name calling, anyone opposed to unfettered immigration is usually labelled a 'racist'.

Although I think you'll find that there is no such things as "unfettered" immigration in Canada thus the racist label isn't heard that often. Although, when it is heard with regard to our present policies, we ought to pay attention to those concerns if they are warranted.

We have a right to determine who and what is best for Canada so we should be linking immigration to skills needed in Canada. We should also be cutting back on the family class or the family reunification program. An offshoot of this is Ruby Dhalla's bill which would reduce the wait time for senior immigrants to collect OAS. Aging parents are brought in by the children who don't want to be financially responsible for them, they expect us to support them.

I think a review of our immigration policies should be a regular occurance and those reports published by CIC on their website so people can become better informed. If any other group - such as a conservative think tank - wants to open a Centre of Immigration Policy Review - why not?

Official multi-cult is wrong, we should not be paying for people to be different, we should be helping them to become part of our society.

The problem here is that "our society" is already multi-cultural, unless you would be looking to have that aspect of our society changed. With all the foregoing do you think that is possible?

[Michael Hardner]

Our leaders need to lead, and have this discussion openly. No one should be stifling the debate.

But concerns about immigrants can easily degenerate into scapegoating, and finger pointing. It's been pointed out that immigrants are poorer and poorer, but how many in favour of "reform" are going to call for more services to help them ? Not many.

[guyser]

It's tough to discuss the issues because it usually ends up with name calling, anyone opposed to unfettered immigration is usually labelled a 'racist'.

That comes into play pretty much only when one advocates the borders be opened to anyone and everyone. No one here is advocating that.

We can all agree we need to have some immigration, and we all agree we need to do a better job.

So the issue is how can we screen better and attract the best and the brightest?

[Argus]

Our leaders need to lead, and have this discussion openly. No one should be stifling the debate.

But concerns about immigrants can easily degenerate into scapegoating, and finger pointing. It's been pointed out that immigrants are poorer and poorer, but how many in favour of "reform" are going to call for more services to help them ? Not many.

But why are they becoming poorer and poorer? Could it be because the gap between the skill-set of mostly third world residents and our own high-tech industrial society continues to grow wider and wider?

Most of these people could have come to Canada fifty or sixty years ago - and definitely a century ago - and been immediately productive. But they can't now. On top of the gap between education and skills is the language and cultural gaps, which are far wider than in the past and exacerbated by the lack of decent jobs for those without strong communications skills.

What would be the lot of a boat load of nineteenth century Polish immigrants landing in Vancouver today? You think they'd be getting productive jobs any time soon? Not bloody likely. But they had no difficulty a century ago. And this lot would be able to get out into the farms and forests pretty easily too - if we were still in the nineteenth century.

Today, we need highly skilled workers, and workers with strong communications skills. If a potential immigrant hasn't got that, we shouldn't be bringing them in. We don't need to bring in a quarter million people "who need more services" every year. We need to bring in people who can start working and supporting themselves and paying taxes. If that means bringing in half as many we'd still be twice as far ahead.

[Michael Hardner]

But why are they becoming poorer and poorer? Could it be because the gap between the skill-set of mostly third world residents and our own high-tech industrial society continues to grow wider and wider?

We need to ask why. I would guess that they are poorer because the "good jobs" are locked out from people who are beyond university years.

Also, to point out:

High-tech = immigrant.

Industrial = unemployed.

Most of these people could have come to Canada fifty or sixty years ago - and definitely a century ago - and been immediately productive. But they can't now. On top of the gap between education and skills is the language and cultural gaps, which are far wider than in the past and exacerbated by the lack of decent jobs for those without strong communications skills.

What would be the lot of a boat load of nineteenth century Polish immigrants landing in Vancouver today? You think they'd be getting productive jobs any time soon? Not bloody likely. But they had no difficulty a century ago. And this lot would be able to get out into the farms and forests pretty easily too - if we were still in the nineteenth century.

Today, we need highly skilled workers, and workers with strong communications skills. If a potential immigrant hasn't got that, we shouldn't be bringing them in. We don't need to bring in a quarter million people "who need more services" every year. We need to bring in people who can start working and supporting themselves and paying taxes. If that means bringing in half as many we'd still be twice as far ahead.

We actually just need to grow the population. If they have less valuable skills, then the entrepreneurs that employ them will make the money on their backs. My guess is that there's no demand for immigrants who make a lot of money.

[Evening Star]

Actually, I'm not sure I follow that last bit, Michael. Surely one issue is that less-skilled manufacturing jobs are migrating (and perhaps should migrate) from Canada. It does seem reasonable for us to focus on developing a more educated, skilled, knowledge-oriented population base for the workforce. Why should we not want to attract "immigrants who make a lot of money"?

[Moonlight Graham]

So a distinguished group of Canadians, including a former head of immigration, a former chief of staff to a prime minister, a former ambassador, a university professor of law and a former immigration bureacrat have formed a new group called the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. They say no one is talking about this important issue because of fear of being attacked - and are immediately attacked as "unCanadian" by the NDP.

Thomas Mulcair, Quebec NDP MP and deputy leader, says he is “very disturbed” by these arguments. "This country was built by immigrants,” he told reporters, “... that’s what the backbone of this country has always been.

“This whole conservative notion of attacking outsiders, saying that immigration is somehow an outside threat, that’s unCanadian,” he said.

Sometimes the NDP just need to shut their lips.

This country needs immigration reform. Immigration can certainly be an outside threat. If you bring in criminals, people with communicable diseases, people with health problems that will cost taxpayers money & clog the healthcare system. or people will poor skills/education who are just going to suck the system and cost taxpayers more money than the value they add to our country, then that is a threat. It is a threat to, among other things, the health, economy, and overall quality of this country.

[Argus]

We actually just need to grow the population.

For what purpose?

[Smallc]

For what purpose?

Economic growth.

[capricorn]

Economic growth.

You think? More immigrants means more cars on the road especially in large cities like Toronto where most new immigrants settle. Hence, our green house gases would increase, something which no doubt would worry those Canadians who are panicking over global warming/climate change. How can you address one without hindering the other? So much to fret about and so few solutions.

[Smallc]

Yes, I think...in fact I know. If we want to continue to grow our economy, we have to replace our population.

[Keepitsimple]

A rationale approach to examining immigration would be to actually collect data and evaluate it - but of course it would be seen to be politically incorrect, probably shouted down as racist....but really, wouldn't it be nice to have data for each country, showing their average incomes for years 1 through 5 (for example) and the average number of criminal convictions. I've used those two data points because they are the most readily apparent to how well people integrate. That type of information would go a long way to pinpointing potential problems. Whether we develop quotas or simply do a better job of screening....or maybe even provide a more focused "orientation" program...are things that can be discussed. But trying to make evaluations, decisions and policies in the absence of hard data is counter-productive.

[scribblet]

The attacks are coming allready as in, a group of old men fostering intolerance yadda yadda

[waldo]

A rationale approach to examining immigration would be to actually collect data and evaluate it

But trying to make evaluations, decisions and policies in the absence of hard data is counter-productive.

about that long-form census thingee Harper Conservatives want to scrap...

[Argus]

Economic growth.

What evidence, if any, do you have which suggests a larger population means economic growth?

[Argus]

Yes, I think...in fact I know. If we want to continue to grow our economy, we have to replace our population.

Replacing taxpayers with taxreceivers is not going to grow our economy.

[Smallc]

What evidence, if any, do you have which suggests a larger population means economic growth?

The history of the world.

[Bonam]

The history of the world.

The history of the world shows that population growth via natural reproduction is correlated with economic growth. Since the world as a whole has never had a single immigrant, you can't draw any conclusions about immigration from it

[Argus]

The history of the world.

Let's leave aside your probable lack of knowledge regarding history and focus instead on the correlation between wealth and size of population. Guess what? The most populous nations in the world are almost all also among the poorest nations in the world. Nations like Bangladesh, India and Nigeria are messes, while small nations like Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, and Finland are far, far better places to live.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Argus

[dre]

What evidence, if any, do you have which suggests a larger population means economic growth?

Theres definately a strong correlation between population and GDP. A country with a million inhabitants is probably going to have a larger economy than one with 50. People consume things... even poor people. And most people contribute labor to the economy in one way or another.

So yeah... theres definately a strong relationship between GDP and population.

[dre]

Replacing taxpayers with taxreceivers is not going to grow our economy.

Replacing taxpayers with taxreceivers is not going to grow our economy.

Whether they pay taxes or not insnt the important factor. Theres lots of way you can contribute the economy without paying taxes. Whats more important in terms of judging the effect of immigrants on the economy is whether or not they consume, and whether or not they add value through labor. Most immigrants do both.

[Mr.Canada]

They do take on Canadian values and at the same time, we are taking the good points of their culture and making it our own. Damn we sound like the freakin Borg off Star Trek.

Will we be required to accept honor killings as part of Canadian heritage because a growing number of immigrants support it and kill relatives in the name of honor?

Who decides what is a good culture point to import and what is not? How to do screen immigrants for these qualities to keep the "bad" cultural practices out of Canada?

While everyone on the left wants unscreened immigration, Canadians are being killed or assaulted by immigrants almost everyday somewhere across this country.

Something needs to be done to protect Canadians. The courts wont allow us to protect ourselves, it's obvious that the government is in cahoots with the immigration industry. The fate of Canadians is in the hands of some foreigner and whether or not he will kill us or assault us or not.