Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers

[DogOnPorch]

Don't you think that Canadian support of immigration is indicative of a system that works well ?

Seems to work well here. Never had Israeli Apartied Week celebrations before until this year. Now my little corner of Canada hates Jews, too. That's on par with other university towns...finally.

[Scotty]

Don't you think that Canadian support of immigration is indicative of a system that works well ?

I don't think Canadians have been provided with the information on which to intelligently evaluate the integration of immigrants.

[kimmy]

Don't you think that Canadian support of immigration is indicative of a system that works well ?

I'm not sure that our government's generosity to immigrants is representative of public mood on the matter.

In any case, Scotty has it nailed: the opening post claims this study shows that Canada is 3rd best in the world at integrating newcomers.

But that claim-- and the corresponding headline in the Star-- aren't actually reflected by what this study is really measuring.

Porchdawg raises an excellent point as well: if Sweden is #1 on this index, then maybe having a high ranking on this index isn't really that great.

And, by the way, who are the "Migration Policy Group" anyway? They're an advocate group dedicated to encouraging immigration and diversity.

So let's not assume that their study doesn't have an agenda attached.

-k

[Shwa]

I am pointing out that the report, which you claim shows immigrants are integrating well, shows nothing of the sort.

Where do I "claim: that the reports hows immigrants are integrating well?

It is evidence of nothing other than how friendly to immigrants government programs are.

Well the corollary here is that government programs unfriendly to immigrants would be less effective in integrating immigrants dontchya think?

In response to which you demand proof, as in a cite, that immigrants are not integrating? What kind of a cite do you imagine I would produce other than one from the Fraser Institute which you and others would refuse to read anyway because it's from the Fraser Institute.

I'll see your Fraser Institute report and raise you one federal government department and some history books.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see. I'd like to see crime statistics on immigrants, not just immigrants in their first 3 years, but permanently. I'd like to see statistics on how many immigrants, in particular Muslims, send their children 'home' to find a mate. I'd like to see surveys from second generation immigrants, particularly Muslims, which says they have little interest in the old quarrels of their homeland, don't really speak the language much, and are more interested in Canada - and are becoming more secularized.

I'll tell you what I would like to see, is more people become aware of the history of immigration in Canada and see how well it has worked for us all these years despite the Germans, Irish, Japanese, Scots, Ukrainians, Chinese, Americans and all these other angry foreigners coming here with their issues. Especially those Irish Catholics - they shot D'Arcy McGee dammit, the bastards? Or... did they? Hmmmm...

No, it does not say any such thing. It says that government programs are immigrant friendly.

Corollary, implication. Etc.

And your opinion as to how well integrate immigrants are is open to debate.

Then have at 'er. What is the employment rate for immigrants? If they are not integrating, it should be like what 25% employment rate? 49%?

[Shwa]

I'm not sure that our government's generosity to immigrants is representative of public mood on the matter

.

Based on what?

In any case, Scotty has it nailed: the opening post claims this study shows that Canada is 3rd best in the world at integrating newcomers.

But that claim-- and the corresponding headline in the Star-- aren't actually reflected by what this study is really measuring.

The opening post "claims" no such thing. That is the Star headline.

Porchdawg raises an excellent point as well: if Sweden is #1 on this index, then maybe having a high ranking on this index isn't really that great.

Based on what?

And, by the way, who are the "Migration Policy Group" anyway? They're an advocate group dedicated to encouraging immigration and diversity.

So let's not assume that their study doesn't have an agenda attached.

Yeah, what could their agenda possibly be?

It’s a paradox: high unemployment with serious labour shortages

A study by the Marshall School of Business projects that the United States, despite its paltry welfare programs, will still be short 35 million workers by 2030; Europe, despite its generous decent minimum wages, will need 80 million. The most direct and politically feasible solution, the one most governments will continue to use to square the circle and fill the hole, will remain immigration.

[Hydraboss]

I don't think Canadians have been provided with the information on which to intelligently evaluate the integration of immigrants.

The report, as written, shows how much Canada has bent over to accommodate immigrants. Guess we get a good mark. Yay. Woo hoo.

However, to try to use the data supplied to state that immigrants "integrate" is purely junk science. As Scotty has pointed out MULTIPLE times in this thread, there is no data/statistics supplied that show integration levels for any aspect of life. Where are the numbers on the percentage of immigrants that have mastered the English language? What about (as Scotty stated) the second and third generation people? Where are their stats?

Michael asked if how Canada goes out of it's way to offer everything under the sun to immigrants, does that not show that the system is working. I say a resounding "No". It shows only that Canada knows very little in the way of limits in what concessions they will give foreigners, even if at the expense of Canadians.

The onus should be on immigrants to prove that they deserve to stay here, not for a nation to continually try to "bribe" them.

[kimmy]

Based on what?

They may be policies that were once popular and no longer are. They may be policies that were designed to appeal to some segment of the electorate, while the bulk of the electorate made their voting decisions based on other policy questions. They may be policies that have never even been up for discussion in an election campaign. They may be policies that are unpopular, yet the political optics make attempting to reverse them untenable.

The idea that if a democratic government has a policy it must reflect the public mood is pretty inane. Didn't we do this in a different thread last month? Do we need to do this again? Come on, it's silly.

I don't have any information one way or the other on the subject. However, Michael Hardner's supposition, which I was responding to, is pretty silly. It's rare that Michael has a "duuurp" moment, but that was one.

The opening post "claims" no such thing. That is the Star headline.

Well, you copied it faithfully.

Based on what?

The immigrant-related troubles in Sweden show that the policies this group advocates are no guarantee of success.

-k

[Shwa]

The report, as written, shows how much Canada has bent over to accommodate immigrants. Guess we get a good mark. Yay. Woo hoo.

However, to try to use the data supplied to state that immigrants "integrate" is purely junk science. As Scotty has pointed out MULTIPLE times in this thread, there is no data/statistics supplied that show integration levels for any aspect of life. Where are the numbers on the percentage of immigrants that have mastered the English language? What about (as Scotty stated) the second and third generation people? Where are their stats?

Michael asked if how Canada goes out of it's way to offer everything under the sun to immigrants, does that not show that the system is working. I say a resounding "No". It shows only that Canada knows very little in the way of limits in what concessions they will give foreigners, even if at the expense of Canadians.

The onus should be on immigrants to prove that they deserve to stay here, not for a nation to continually try to "bribe" them.

That's a fair point. How could it be indicated that immigrants are integrating? Well, how about for starters we ask about the immigrant unemployment rate? Or better yet, their employment rate? Isn't working in a country, gaining citizenship and paying taxes an indication of a measure of integration?

So if they weren't integrating then the immigrant unemployment rate must be in the - what? 30%? 40% 51% unemployment?

[Shwa]

They may be policies that were once popular and no longer are. They may be policies that were designed to appeal to some segment of the electorate, while the bulk of the electorate made their voting decisions based on other policy questions. They may be policies that have never even been up for discussion in an election campaign. They may be policies that are unpopular, yet the political optics make attempting to reverse them untenable.

The idea that if a democratic government has a policy it must reflect the public mood is pretty inane. Didn't we do this in a different thread last month? Do we need to do this again? Come on, it's silly.

I don't have any information one way or the other on the subject. However, Michael Hardner's supposition, which I was responding to, is pretty silly. It's rare that Michael has a "duuurp" moment, but that was one.

I see. So in other words, you really don't have any measure to offer for "public mood on the matter" you're just saying. That sounds like derp-for-derp to me.

Well, you copied it faithfully.

Yes, cut and paste has that faithful effect. I think it is a software problem.

The immigrant-related troubles in Sweden show that the policies this group advocates are no guarantee of success.

There are "troubles" that show immigration policy in Sweden isn't working? Did they recently kick out a pile of Finns and Norwegians or something? I don't blame them, those sardine eating Norwegians refuse to eat meatballs.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think Canadians have been provided with the information on which to intelligently evaluate the integration of immigrants.

Really ? Such as what - the unsupported and inflammatory anti-Muslim blogs you've been posting here ?

If the rest of Canada was as gullible as you, would they be intelligent enough to make that evaluation ?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not sure that our government's generosity to immigrants is representative of public mood on the matter.

Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, US

So...

1. People want to come here.

2. Our country is highly ranked for services available to immigrants and rights accorded to them.

3. The people of Canada have a better outlook towards immigrants than Americans and Europeans.

If it doesn't sound like there's a problem here, then maybe there isn't one ?

Or you could just keep looking...

[wyly]

Really ? Such as what - the unsupported and inflammatory anti-Muslim blogs you've been posting here ?

If the rest of Canada was as gullible as you, would they be intelligent enough to make that evaluation ?

mmm..once again I sense racism bubbling under the surface throughout this thread, oh the xenophobes will protest they're not racist because this an honest discussion but they're not fooling anyone...

immigrants work, they pay taxes, they become citizens, take part in our political system, join in community activities, their kids go to school and make friends with other non-immigrants...what more do they expect immigrants to do? join the local bowling league, hangout with the boys at the legion? join the shriners?...the truth is the xenophobic banjo pickers aren't satisfied because there is nothing that will satisfy them other than elimination of immigrants who are different from themselves...

Edited March 2, 2011 by wyly

[kimmy]

I see. So in other words, you really don't have any measure to offer for "public mood on the matter" you're just saying. That sounds like derp-for-derp to me.

I didn't offer an opinion either way. I pointed out that Michael's logic was ridiculous.

Yes, cut and paste has that faithful effect. I think it is a software problem.

I recall your enthusiasm for semantics, so I'll just point out that it's entirely accurate to say that the opening post of this thread claims "Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers".

If you don't wish to associate yourself with that claim, maybe choosing a sharper title for your thread might have been a good idea.

There are "troubles" that show immigration policy in Sweden isn't working? Did they recently kick out a pile of Finns and Norwegians or something? I don't blame them, those sardine eating Norwegians refuse to eat meatballs.

Google's your friend. It's already been mentioned. I won't go into details.

Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, US

So...

1. People want to come here.

2. Our country is highly ranked for services available to immigrants and rights accorded to them.

3. The people of Canada have a better outlook towards immigrants than Americans and Europeans.

If it doesn't sound like there's a problem here, then maybe there isn't one ?

Or you could just keep looking...

Maybe there really isn't a problem. Maybe there isn't a problem yet. Maybe within a few years and a few more freighters full of Tamil Tigers we'll be as negative as the Americans and Europeans.

I don't really know. All I know for sure is that your previous comment was inane.

-k

[Bonam]

Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, US

So...

1. People want to come here.

Of course they do. That reflects Canada's standard of living and economic prosperity which makes it a very attractive place to live, not our ability to integrate immigrants.

2. Our country is highly ranked for services available to immigrants and rights accorded to them.

Any correlation between the availability of services and rights and the extent of integration is merely speculative.

3. The people of Canada have a better outlook towards immigrants than Americans and Europeans.

The outlook of a population can have little basis in reality, and can easily be influenced by media, propaganda, etc.

If it doesn't sound like there's a problem here, then maybe there isn't one ?

There may or may not be a problem, but the study does not come anywhere close to measuring what it claims to measure. The extent to which immigrants are granted rights and services: sure. The extent to which they actually integrate? That remains completely unclear from the study.

[Shwa]

I didn't offer an opinion either way. I pointed out that Michael's logic was ridiculous.

That's fair, and I accept my assertion that it can't be anything more than a derp-for-derp exchange.

I recall your enthusiasm for semantics, so I'll just point out that it's entirely accurate to say that the opening post of this thread claims "Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers".

If you don't wish to associate yourself with that claim, maybe choosing a sharper title for your thread might have been a good idea.

Well, semantics aside, I don't see any evidence from you or anyone else disputing the opinion of the cut 'n paste headline. So I'll assume that some information is more accurate than no information. Again, you can play games, but what is the employment rate of immigrants and can that be used as an indicator of immigrant integration? I noticed that you neatly avoided this question, even though I posed it several times already. I am betting you are afraid to accurately answer because it will force you to change sides. Unless you agree that Canada does a good job at integrating immigrants.

Google's your friend. It's already been mentioned. I won't go into details.

Well when I Googled all those troubles, by far the most information was from right-wing bloggers and more blather about Muslims. But when I look at the demographics it appears that the foreigners in Sweden are overwhelmingly European and most f them Finns. So, other that the so-called 'Muslim Problem' are there other problems, especially with the overwhelming number of European immigrants in Sweden. And yet, despite these troubles, the damned Swedes keep their doors open. What the hell is wrong with them, eh?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't really know. All I know for sure is that your previous comment was inane.

Really ? Which one ?

[Michael Hardner]

The outlook of a population can have little basis in reality, and can easily be influenced by media, propaganda, etc.

That's a strange position to take in a democracy. The people appear to be happy, but they're really not. Ok. My question to you is: if we don't listen to the people, then who should we listen to ? The experts ? Does that principle translate into every aspect of a democracy ? Think about democratic reform, healthcare, the environment. Would you want experts to simply dictate what is to be done ? IF not the people then who ?

All I see from the anti-immigration folks here is fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated rumours. I hate to paint the other side's position so plainly, but that's been it so far. Although there are good points to be made from the anti-immigration side, they're really having trouble making them.

[wyly]

All I see from the anti-immigration folks here is fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated rumours. I hate to paint the other side's position so plainly, but that's been it so far. Although there are good points to be made from the anti-immigration side, they're really having trouble making them.

show me the good points the xenophobes have made I must've missed them...was is it ...immigrants live "homogeneous ghettos" ... muslims are "rapists"...they're all members of criminal gangs...they don't speak english as good as us...they're all terrorists...

[guyser]

Jane/Finch in Toronto.

Heatherington Avenue housing projects, home of the infamous Heatherington Crips, in Ottawa.

Thanks

Still waiting for one ghetto.....and those aint ghettos

[Saipan]

"Canada ranked 3rd in integrating newcomers"

...and 2nd in number of illegals.

[xul]

With all the complaints about immigrants not integrating into our society by members here, you'd think we would be way down the list.

Maybe some complainers are super-billionaires who used to spend the first hour of each day on these:

1. reading quarter statements from the CEOs who run their business and the bankers who manage their money;

2. talking to the conservative MPs whom they funded to represent their interests and questioning them why their boss hasn't introduced some brain-washing machines into Canada to flash every Canadian's mind into the same like the BIOSs in computers;

3. painfully signing the checks to pay the income tax which was allegedly cooked up by liberal politicians for funding immigrants;

then, they spending the rest hours of the day before their computers complaining to release their pain, so their posts outnumbered those working people's---who are supposed to have little time to blah, blah, blah.....

Edited March 2, 2011 by xul

[Shwa]

Maybe some complainers are super-billionaires who used to spend the first hour of each day on these:

1. reading quarter statements from the CEOs who run their business and the bankers who manage their money;

2. talking to the conservative MPs whom they funded to represent their interests and questioning them why their boss hasn't introduced some brain-washing machines into Canada to flash every Canadian's mind into the same like the BIOSs in computers;

3. painfully signing the checks to pay the income tax which was allegedly cooked up by liberal politicians for funding immigrants;

then, they spending the rest hours of the day before their computers complaining to release their pain, so their posts outnumbered those working people's---who are supposed to have little time to blah, blah, blah.....

Oooo, flashing their brains... I LIKE that!

It would solve all of our problems?

Don't like the price of gas?? FLASH! Gas has always been this price.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Shwa

[Pogo]

Thanks

Still waiting for one ghetto.....and those aint ghettos

Based on semantics, Jane & Finch probably does not qualify as a ghetto. However, this area is notorious in the GTA for being one of the worst places to live with high levels of crime.

[Bonam]

That's a strange position to take in a democracy. The people appear to be happy, but they're really not. Ok. My question to you is: if we don't listen to the people, then who should we listen to ? The experts ? Does that principle translate into every aspect of a democracy ? Think about democratic reform, healthcare, the environment. Would you want experts to simply dictate what is to be done ? IF not the people then who ?

It's not a matter of democracy. When someone tries to carry out a survey or a study, its validity is a matter of science, not a matter of popular agreement. If the study wants to claim that popular support for immigration is proof of good integration of immigrants, it first needs to clearly establish a causal relationship. The present study does not even attempt to do so.

When it comes to policy choices, I agree, we need to go through our democratic process, that is the foundation of our society. But when it comes to the results of studies, we need to follow the scientific process, and this study is extremely sub-par by that standard.

All I see from the anti-immigration folks here is fear-mongering, and unsubstantiated rumours. I hate to paint the other side's position so plainly, but that's been it so far. Although there are good points to be made from the anti-immigration side, they're really having trouble making them.

Like in the other thread, where someone posted a study regarding the high costs of immigration in Canada and it was summarily dismissed by "pro-immigration folks" who didn't even bother to look at it because they claimed it came from a biased source? It's kind of a lose-lose proposition to criticize immigration to a pro-immigration crowd: if you don't present any data/studies, they say that you must do so to make a valid point, and if you do present data/studies, they claim that any study whose conclusions shed a negative light on immigration must come from an inherently biased and untrustworthy source.

The real problem is the ideological polarization of this issue. There are almost no unbiased players studying this, there are pro-immigration groups that carry out studies that inevitably say immigration is great, and anti-immigration groups that come out with studies that show the opposite, and both are considered to be biased to the point of uselessness by those who hold the opposite position. What we need is an impartial organization that will study the issue. In Canada, we would generally look to Statscan or other government branches for such a thing, but of course, much of the relevant data is prohibited from being collected by the government, since, according to pro-immigration folks, the mere act of collecting or reporting such data would be discriminatory.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

It's not a matter of democracy. When someone tries to carry out a survey or a study, its validity is a matter of science, not a matter of popular agreement. If the study wants to claim that popular support for immigration is proof of good integration of immigrants, it first needs to clearly establish a causal relationship. The present study does not even attempt to do so.

I'm the one making that claim, not the survey.

I'm saying if that Canadians are happy with it, and the immigrants want to come here, and are relatively well supported - it seems like a good system.

if you don't present any data/studies, they say that you must do so to make a valid point, and if you do present data/studies, they claim that any study whose conclusions shed a negative light on immigration must come from an inherently biased and untrustworthy source.

The problem is that they usually are from an untrustworthy source. But not always. I have seen studies that show negative effects of immigration too, good studies. I'm not going to provide them here.