Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.

[Argus]

No you're still dodging what I'm saying which is the fact that we can't trust our corporations to not take advantage of the shitty governments in these jurisdictions.

We have a responsibility to protect human beings not the corporations and governments that abuse them.

Those people took that responsibility out of our hands many years back when they insisted on governing themselves. In many cases they fought a bloody campaign so they could govern themselves. Now we're supposed to step in because their governments are corrupt or screwed up? I don't see that as our problem.

[Argus]

No way. The only person who could know so many people who have suffered such a range of serious crimes is either the person who inflicted them or one of the shitty cops you're accusing.

I've been alive for a while now.

It's a ridiculous argument.

Hey, it's Stats Canada saying it, not me.

[eyeball]

Those people took that responsibility out of our hands many years back when they insisted on governing themselves. In many cases they fought a bloody campaign so they could govern themselves. Now we're supposed to step in because their governments are corrupt or screwed up? I don't see that as our problem.

No, we don't need to go anywhere. We should be able to nip corruption in the bud by holding Canadian based CEO's, boards of directors and shareholders of corporations operating in foreign countries accountable for any foreign government malfeasance that benefits them.

To make the race to the bottom more fair for workers here and much faster for workers elsewhere, we should be insisting that developing countries and economies bring their human rights, environmental standards and labour practices up to our's. Instead of tariffs on goods and services we should be encouraging this with taxes on corporations and shareholders operating in countries that refuse to get with the program and reduce these taxes accordingly once a program of continuous improvement in these countries is achieved.

These taxes should be used to either cushion our fall to the bottom or lift other people up faster. Any Canadian, corporate or human, that tries to flee should expect steep exit taxes including a good slam in the ass from the door back here.

[Argus]

Hi Argus,

First of all, I know that this discussion of crime is off topic since no one has suggested that increased immigration has caused an increase in crime rates. If anything, I would assume that recent immigrants are more law abiding than the average population. One way to measure this would be to ask: are recent immigrants under or over-represented in the prison population? Does anyone have an answer?

My impression is rather the reverse. In particular, whenever I hear about some sort of outrageous violent crime, other than one involving suicidal family members, I pretty much assume the perpetrator is, if not an immigrant, then the son of an immigrant. I'm not always right, but I usually am. We deliberately do not keep race based crime statistics. The liberals are generally outraged at the very idea. And the media generally don't report the race or origin of immigrants. However, the great majority of violent crime (excluding within families) appears to be perpetrated by members of visible minority groups.

Now visible minority does not equal immigrant in all cases. However, Canada had only a tiny number of visible minority members prior 1970 so we can assume the overwhelming number of those here are either immigrations, or their children.

1. Regarding unreported crime, the best source I found was: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

Nothing I found suggests that crimes are being reported less often - especially serious crimes

What you need to do is look at Stats Canada's victims of crime survey. It's a large scale survey so they only do it every five years. It reports, among other things, what percentage of people report the crimes commited against them to police. You'll note that in all other surveys about crime they don't use the term 'crime' but 'police reported crime' as a blunt statement that all those statistics depend entirely on what crimes are actually reported to police.

The last one came out in 2009 and can be found HERE. You'll note that the overall amount of crime reported to police is down from the last survey. If you check the last survey, from 2004, you'll find it was down from the previous survey in 2001.

In each cycle of the GSS, victims are asked whether or not the incident came to the attention of the police. Overall, nearly one-third (31%) of incidents were reported to the police in 2009, down slightly from 2004 (34%) (Table 10). Rates of reporting to the police were highest for incidents of household victimization (36%), followed by incidents of violent victimization (29%) and thefts of personal property (28%).

For both violent and non-violent incidents, rates of reporting to police tend to differ depending on the type of crime (Table 10, Chart 3). Among violent crimes, robberies (including attempted robberies) were most likely to be reported to police (43%), followed by physical assaults (34%). The majority of sexual assaults were not reported to the police (88%) (Table 10). Among household crimes, break-ins (54%) were most often reported followed by motor vehicle/parts theft (50%). Less than one quarter (23%) of household property thefts were reported to the police (Table 10).

By the way, the above says reporting was down 'slightly'. I disagree. Given that the overall rate of reporting was 31%, down from 34% the actual rate at which reporting fell was nearly 10%. Ie, 3 is 10% of 30. So a fall from 34% reporting crime to 31% is a huge fall in my opinion.

[carepov]

My impression is rather the reverse. In particular, whenever I hear about some sort of outrageous violent crime, other than one involving suicidal family members, I pretty much assume the perpetrator is, if not an immigrant, then the son of an immigrant. I'm not always right, but I usually am. We deliberately do not keep race based crime statistics. The liberals are generally outraged at the very idea. And the media generally don't report the race or origin of immigrants. However, the great majority of violent crime (excluding within families) appears to be perpetrated by members of visible minority groups.

Now visible minority does not equal immigrant in all cases. However, Canada had only a tiny number of visible minority members prior 1970 so we can assume the overwhelming number of those here are either immigrations, or their children.

What you need to do is look at Stats Canada's victims of crime survey. It's a large scale survey so they only do it every five years. It reports, among other things, what percentage of people report the crimes commited against them to police. You'll note that in all other surveys about crime they don't use the term 'crime' but 'police reported crime' as a blunt statement that all those statistics depend entirely on what crimes are actually reported to police.

The last one came out in 2009 and can be found HERE. You'll note that the overall amount of crime reported to police is down from the last survey. If you check the last survey, from 2004, you'll find it was down from the previous survey in 2001.

...

Hi Argus,

The link you sent me was the exact same one I sent you. The main point I took from it was: People generally do not report small petty crime.

"For household crimes, the greater the value of the stolen or damaged property, the more likely the crime was reported to the police. For close to 7 in 10 household incidents where the value of the stolen or damaged property exceeded $1,000 the incident was reported to the police. In comparison, a much smaller proportion (15%) of incidents was reported to police when the stolen or damaged property was valued at less than $100."

"Victims of violent and household crime also had similar reasons for not reporting the incident to the police. The most common reasons were believing that the incident was not important enough (68%), followed by thinking there was nothing the police could do to help (59%)."

"As in 2004, the majority of Canadians (93%) reported feeling satisfied with their personal safety in 2009."

This is also supported by the fact that crime severity is decreasing as shown in the decline of the CSI (Crime Severity Index).

Regarding your comments about crime and immigrants/visible minorities/their children.... I am dumbfounded on how anyone can think this way and make such comments with no supporting data. Here is my first hit from googling "canada crime visible minority", please check it out and let me know what you think.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r144/r144_e.pdf

"In summary, visible minority offenders seem to be less “entrenched” in a criminal lifestyle than Caucasian offenders. They tend to have less extensive criminal histories, are incarcerated less often for offences against the person, and are lower in risk and need than Caucasian offenders. They also tend to have higher levels of education, less unemployment, and are less often single. These circumstances may help in rehabilitation. Among visible minority offenders, Black offenders tend to exhibit more problem areas than Asian or “other visible minority” offenders."

[guyser]

My impression is rather the reverse. In particular, whenever I hear about some sort of outrageous violent crime, other than one involving suicidal family members, I pretty much assume the perpetrator is, if not an immigrant, then the son of an immigrant. I'm not always right, but I usually am. We deliberately do not keep race based crime statistics.

Caucasions overwhemingly comprise the majority of incacerated people, 71% of the all inmates.

The next highest group, and over represented are the First nations @ about 12%.

Blacks comprise 6 % of all inmates.

and from there it drops down to the 1% 'ers , meaning Asiatics, South East Asians, Chinese, Latinos, Filipinos etc.

Unless that 71% caucasian group is full of recently arrived white immigrants

From there we can look at the numbers ie where they came from historically from 2001 to 2006.

China

India

Phillippines

Pakistan

USA

S Korea

Romania

Iran

UK

Columbia

So we know from above that 70% incarcerated are caucasians, yet those coming here are definitely not caucasian (US UK +Romania notwithstanding) then we can pretty much discount the notion that our jails are full of imigrants.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/immigration/patterns.html among others

Edited June 19, 2012 by guyser

[Argus]

Hi Argus,

The link you sent me was the exact same one I sent you. The main point I took from it was: People generally do not report small petty crime.

I'm sure that's true, carepv, but the point overall is that only 31% of all crimes were reported. And much of that which was not reported was not petty. Including 88% of all sexual offenses.

Regarding your comments about crime and immigrants/visible minorities/their children.... I am dumbfounded on how anyone can think this way and make such comments with no supporting data.

There's never been much data on it that I could find. So I base my beliefs on simple daily news gathering, along with bits and pieces which float to the surface (the media are loath to speak about race in crimes). Examples would be things like an member of the Toronto Asian gang squad getting into trouble for identifying Vietnamese as responsible for most of the crime in his division, a macleans article which featured an interview on the then gun problems in Toronto which identifed most of the problem as originating with the Jamaican community, an article in the Citizen which stated that over half the youths in detention in the regional detention centre were Somalians, a Gazette article on a visit to the major crimes room whose walls were lined with mug shots of mostly black and arab offenders, etc. etc.

Here is my first hit from googling "canada crime visible minority", please check it out and let me know what you think.

I congratulate you on finding it. I've always wanted some reasonably accurate data on the subject, and read this with interest.

It says a considerable amount about many types of visible minorities. Some of which was good. In keeping with the topic of this this thread, which is not crime, it did mention that

Approximately 3 out of 10 individuals who reported being from a visible minority group were born in Canada., which certainly supports the topic being related to immigration.

It was noteworthy (to me) that most types of immigrants tend to not have high incarceration rates. I was not surprised to find that blacks were an exception, however. I was surprised that the visible minority numbers were so low (though if you add aborigines that would rise dramatically, but that isn't a subject of this topic). However, I live in Ontario. Most of my crime news comes from Ontario. The situation in Ontario is quite different from the situation nationwide. You will note that in Ontario, 47% of those incarcerated are from the visible minority community. According to STats Canada, 19% of Ontario residents are visible minority members, so my impression of immigrants, ie, visible minorities being disproportionately involved in crime seems to be correct, but more localized than I had suspected.

This is excellent data and I will examine it further when I have more time. Thanks for supplying it. It's always best in discussions to have a source of accurate data.

[cybercoma]

How many times a day do you think someone runs a traffic light without being reported, Argus?

[Guest Manny]

When I read this it made me think about the problems with multiculturalism in big cities.

"We found that one in four people are finding it difficult to make friends in Vancouver and one in three people are lonely," Vancouver Foundation chief executive Faye Wightman told CBC News.

The study, done in April and May, also found that despite Metro Vancouver's celebrated ethnic diversity, almost two-thirds of those interviewed did not have any close friends from another ethnic group. And 65 per cent said they preferred to spend their time with people who are like them.

Link

Multiculturalism seems like a good idea, but it is a failed idea. Rather, it did not fail us but we failed it. Because in order for this to work there has to be an active campaign to educate, inform the newcomers about this modern idea. People from far away lands where alienation and oppression is the norm are not able to grasp it. They will naturally gravitate towards those of their own culture in order to get established in Canada. There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's normal and in fact multiculturalism is what's not normal. To make it work, requires work. There should be a ministry of multiculturalism with the agenda to actively promote this in our society, rather than being solely concerned with the protection of Canadian products.

[Michael Hardner]

Multiculturalism seems like a good idea, but it is a failed idea. Rather, it did not fail us but we failed it. Because in order for this to work there has to be an active campaign to educate, inform the newcomers about this modern idea.

By what parameter is it failed ? Where on earth does this kind of mixing happen, and what government programs are responsible for that ?

All we have is hearsay about the failures of immigration, from what I can see. Meanwhile, no political party is advocating stopping it - why do we think that that is so ?

There's nothing wrong with doing that, it's normal and in fact multiculturalism is what's not normal. To make it work, requires work. There should be a ministry of multiculturalism with the agenda to actively promote this in our society, rather than being solely concerned with the protection of Canadian products.

We had that, until recently. I don't think anybody has mentioned a noticeable change. Melting pot is the de facto model at play here, and Multiculturalism policies have succeeded in making acceptance of outsiders polite and acceptable behavior.

[Argus]

How many times a day do you think someone runs a traffic light without being reported, Argus?

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. According to the data more than half of robberies weren't reported to police. Robbery requires the use of a weapon and/or violence, and yet less than half were reported to police. Are you equating that with running a traffic light?

[Guest Manny]

By what parameter is it failed ? Where on earth does this kind of mixing happen, and what government programs are responsible for that ?

Well as it states in the news article, in the section I quoted, people are living in isolated communities and not interacting with those of other cultures. The promise of increased tolerance between cultures has not been realized. As I already explained, it takes work to make this happen, and we have not given it enough attention to be successful.

All we have is hearsay about the failures of immigration, from what I can see. Meanwhile, no political party is advocating stopping it - why do we think that that is so

When Merkel made the bold statement that "multiculturalism has failed" it echoed around the world. It resonates with those who are against it and against immigration, here in our society.

[Canuckistani]

All we have is hearsay about the failures of immigration, from what I can see. Meanwhile, no political party is advocating stopping it - why do we think that that is so ?

Votes. And because any stand on tightening immigration is deemed racist.

It's more than hearsay. Studies have shown that GDP per capita gain is about neutral (+/- 1%) from immigration. Meanwhile we have huge stresses on our infrastructure, unaffordablity of housing, increased social spending on people who have never paid into the system, immigrants themselves who once in are dissatisfied with the system because they realize it's a con job, wage depression, etc etc.

I'm glad we've taken in immigrants from outside of Europe, it's enriched our culture. But we've done it way too fast, and at too great a cost for little benefit.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. According to the data more than half of robberies weren't reported to police. Robbery requires the use of a weapon and/or violence, and yet less than half were reported to police. Are you equating that with running a traffic light?

You easily float between the general and the particular.

[Canuckistani]

The notion of citizenship is what brings people together in a liberal democracy and binds them in a

relationship of mutual obligations. The sense of belonging as a result of membership in a modern

19

state is qualitatively different than one in a tribe, a family, or a club, since the obligations that come

with membership, are to strangers with whom an individual shares in common the association of

belonging to that state. Citizenship is the identity by which an individual claims he has a country to

call his own and shares in its sovereignty (Dunn: 117). A citizen, as one writer on the subject has

noted, is “someone who possesses rights which are denied in a legally stratified or segmented

society to non-citizens and in all societies to resident aliens and foreigners” (Heater: 247). In his

judgment in Perez v. Brownell (1958), US chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “Citizenship is man’s

basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and

there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen” (quoted in

ibid; italics in original).

But this idea of citizenship is modern and secular. It is the fruit of the Western civic culture, and

while other cultures have borrowed this idea, it is only in the West that citizenship is vested in a free

individual with rights and responsibilities. The animating spirit of a free individual as citizen is the

loyalties he shares in common with others to the territorially demarcated state to which he belongs,

to the liberal democratic or republican constitution of that state which he is sworn to uphold and

defend, and to the laws of the state in whose sovereignty he has a share. And the identity provided

by citizenship in a modern liberal democratic state takes precedence over all other identities, those

of the political left and right or of overlapping ethnic, religious, cultural, and professional identities

that proliferate in an open society.

Multiculturalism, however, works to weaken or dissolve citizenship identity by suggesting that the

cultural identities which immigrants bring with them deserve to be recognized and treated with

equal respect. As I have indicated, tolerance is the virtue esteemed in liberal democracy and its

inherent characteristic is acceptance of other cultures. But this acceptance cannot mean a denial of

its own historically evolved civic culture represented by the modern and secular idea of citizenship.

The problem arises and persists when multiculturalism demands that liberal democracy recognize in

law cultural practices that are not merely different, but contrary and oppositional to its core values

of citizenship rights and responsibilities, individual freedom, and democracy. Any concession to

group-based identity ─ for instance, recognizing in law the status of women in accordance with

Islamic practice based on shari’ah ─ would undermine the principle of gender equality in a liberal

democracy.

Increasingly multiculturalism, in espousing acceptance of other cultures, irrespective of how such

acceptance diminishes liberal democracy’s unique set of values ― most importantly the place of the

individual citizen as a minority of one protected by the full panoply of the state’s power based on

the rule of law ― has turned out to be an insidious assault on freedom in the West. This espousal by

proponents of multiculturalism is motivated in part from a sense of both generosity given the

immensity of capitalist wealth, and guilt of the West’s history of colonialism and imperialism; it is

also motivated by a loss of faith in the legacy of the Enlightenment and opposition to the idea of the

nation-state as it originated and evolved in the West.

http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Social%20cohesion/Multicullturalism.pdf

[Michael Hardner]

Well as it states in the news article, in the section I quoted, people are living in isolated communities and not interacting with those of other cultures. The promise of increased tolerance between cultures has not been realized. As I already explained, it takes work to make this happen, and we have not given it enough attention to be successful.

In the grand scale of things, I would prioritize this as part of "Next Generation" government efforts. I think it would be a great thing to have happen, but using volunteers or semi-volunteers and not paid staff.

When Merkel made the bold statement that "multiculturalism has failed" it echoed around the world. It resonates with those who are against it and against immigration, here in our society.

And it seems to have made as little impact here as our Canadian pronouncements on MLW make on US policy, or even the attitudes of Americans here.

[Guest Manny]

And it seems to have made as little impact here as our Canadian pronouncements on MLW make on US policy, or even the attitudes of Americans here.

It was still a significant statement made by the leader of the most powerful country in Europe, and will have an effect on attitudes among right wing conservative leaders elsewhere, those who identify with Merkel's political leanings. It adds fuel to the anti-immigration argument, and gives substantiation to those who create threads like this one here.

When I walked through the streets of Toronto several months ago, I was surprised by how much it had changed, compared to a time when I lived there. It appears to me that people tend to associate in separate closed communities, much more so than in the past. Like a cultural wasteland, or garbage dump filled with disparate refuse. Disconnected. Most of it, useless. Imagine 2 million people living together and not knowing each other. The article on Vancouver reinforces this observation.

[carepov]

Hi Argus,

Thank you for following up on the source I provided regarding visible minorities and crime and for continuing this discussion in such a respectable manner.

I'm sure that's true, carepv, but the point overall is that only 31% of all crimes were reported. And much of that which was not reported was not petty. Including 88% of all sexual offenses.

Just to re-cap, the way I remember it, the reason crime came up is that you were saying that the crime rate in Canada was lower "back in the good ole days" and one of the causes is the recent wave of immigration from Asia and Africa. Is this in fact your position?

My position is that the crime rate is declining and that increased immigration does not increase crime.

- Police reported crime rates are declining and are at ~40 year low, this supports my position

- Overall, visible minorities are under-represented in our prisons, this supports my position

I agree that most crime is not reported and that it is correct to keep this in mind when using the police reported crime statistics. However, I still would say that the actual crime rate has been dropping even when considering unreported crime. Please consider these points:

-Assuming that all homicides are reported, the homicide rate is at ~40 year low

-I would argue that serious crimes such as: domestic violence, rape, and child abuse went unreported more often in the "good ole days" compared to today. Would you agree with this?

-I would also say that since the days of 24/7 news and the internet, we have access to more news of crime and it would be quite normal to think that crime is alarmingly high now. Perhaps crime was worse in the "good ole days" but we did not hear about it.

-Finally, I would argue that our society's tolerance for violence and crime has declined dramatically with every passing decade since WWII. What used to be acceptable/ignored/tolerated is now a crime, for example: a "pat on the but" versus sexual offence. A major influence on this idea came from an essay by Steven Pinker - "A History of Violence” - a very interesting read.

[Michael Hardner]

It appears to me that people tend to associate in separate closed communities, much more so than in the past.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and anyway it won't last much beyond a generation or so, although it will also persist at a certain level for a long time. See other ethnic groups for reference.

Like a cultural wasteland, or garbage dump filled with disparate refuse. Disconnected. Most of it, useless. Imagine 2 million people living together and not knowing each other. The article on Vancouver reinforces this observation.

Imagine 2 million immigrants, each from a different country not knowing each other...

So, a system that is (easily) arguably among the best of the world isn't perfect. How can we change it without spending too much money ?

[carepov]

To everyone that in claiming that "multiculturalism has failed" or similar: please present some data to support this claim.

I say our immigration and multiculturalism policies are a big part of what have made Canada the great place it is today.

-Canada ranks #5 in the world in Life Satisfaction as measured by the UN

I would also say that new immigrants overall are as good citizens or better than the average Canadian.

-One measurement of this would be knowledge of Canadian history and Canadian government. The average Canadian fails the citizenship test miserably.

-Another measurement would be voter turn out, I would bet that it is higher with recent immigrants - does anyone have this data?

-Visible minorities are under-represented in the prison population

I would also argue that our policies have benefitted the Canadian economy.

-The Canadian economy has outperformed almost all OECD countries in the last 40 years in many measurements

[Michael Hardner]

To everyone that in claiming that "multiculturalism has failed" or similar: please present some data to support this claim.

Manny did so on this thread.

I would also say that new immigrants overall are as good citizens or better than the average Canadian.

-One measurement of this would be knowledge of Canadian history and Canadian government. The average Canadian fails the citizenship test miserably.

-Another measurement would be voter turn out, I would bet that it is higher with recent immigrants - does anyone have this data?

-Visible minorities are under-represented in the prison population

I would also argue that our policies have benefitted the Canadian economy.

-The Canadian economy has outperformed almost all OECD countries in the last 40 years in many measurements

You yourself have failed your own test of providing data for these claims.

Let's try again !

[Canuckistani]

So, a system that is (easily) arguably among the best of the world isn't perfect. How can we change it without spending too much money ?

Some of it the govt is already doing - taking more immigrants in under provincial or corporate sponsorship. Unfortunately many of the provincially sponsored immigrants can't speak English/French adequately - don't know what the provinces are thinking sponsoring people like that.

Do a much better job of matching immigrants to jobs before they ever get here. Make sure that their credentials are recognized by all relevant bodies in Canada.

Greatly reduce the family reunification class so we're not importing people who use our social systems (especially medicare) towards which they have never contributed taxes.

Match the number of skilled immigrants to what's actually needed in Canada, don't just keep bringing in the same number no matter what. The best way to do this would be to have prospective immigrants come in under temporary work visas, only if no Canadian can be found for the job. (At market wage rates) Then, if their temporary employment works out for say 4 years, accept them as permanent residents on a fast track.

Greatly improve Canada's job training systems so that were'e not always taking away skilled people from 3rd world countries that trained them, but instead are giving Canadians already here the best shot at good jobs

Stricter controls on refugees that just show up at our doors, send the fake ones home faster. That includes refugees that once they have been accepted here seem to have no problem going back to their homeland for visits.

Get over the idea that Canada owes the world an open immigration system, rather than that Canada should be looking out for it's own interests. (And that's the majority, not the business people only). Get over the idea that immigration is a form of foreign aid. If we really want to help other countries we would leave their best and brightest to stay there and build a better country, and we could provide support to help them accomplish that.

[carepov]

Manny did so on this thread.

You yourself have failed your own test of providing data for these claims.

Let's try again !

OK, let's try again.

You are right I failed the "test". What I should have said was: please provide data or a reference to objective evidence that supports the position that "multiculturalism has failed" or that similar like "Canada's immigration policy has made life worse for the average Canadian". Did I pas the new "test"? What do you think about the claims that I made?

Manny's "data" was:

***

"We found that one in four people are finding it difficult to make friends in Vancouver and one in three people are lonely," Vancouver Foundation chief executive Faye Wightman told CBC News.

The study, done in April and May, also found that despite Metro Vancouver's celebrated ethnic diversity, almost two-thirds of those interviewed did not have any close friends from another ethnic group. And 65 per cent said they preferred to spend their time with people who are like them.

***

Maybe it's me and I just don't get, if so someone please educate me: how does the above support the claim that "multiculturalism has failed"? Was it easier to make friends and was the average Canadian less lonely before multiculturalism? Is the goal of multiculturalism to ensure that everyone has at least one close friend from another ethnic group?

[carepov]

Some of it the govt is already doing - taking more immigrants in under provincial or corporate sponsorship. Unfortunately many of the provincially sponsored immigrants can't speak English/French adequately - don't know what the provinces are thinking sponsoring people like that.

Do a much better job of matching immigrants to jobs before they ever get here. Make sure that their credentials are recognized by all relevant bodies in Canada.

Greatly reduce the family reunification class so we're not importing people who use our social systems (especially medicare) towards which they have never contributed taxes.

Match the number of skilled immigrants to what's actually needed in Canada, don't just keep bringing in the same number no matter what. The best way to do this would be to have prospective immigrants come in under temporary work visas, only if no Canadian can be found for the job. (At market wage rates) Then, if their temporary employment works out for say 4 years, accept them as permanent residents on a fast track.

Greatly improve Canada's job training systems so that were'e not always taking away skilled people from 3rd world countries that trained them, but instead are giving Canadians already here the best shot at good jobs

Stricter controls on refugees that just show up at our doors, send the fake ones home faster. That includes refugees that once they have been accepted here seem to have no problem going back to their homeland for visits.

Get over the idea that Canada owes the world an open immigration system, rather than that Canada should be looking out for it's own interests. (And that's the majority, not the business people only). Get over the idea that immigration is a form of foreign aid. If we really want to help other countries we would leave their best and brightest to stay there and build a better country, and we could provide support to help them accomplish that.

A good question by Michael and a very good answer that I generally agree with. You are right, the Government is addressing most of these issues and in fact, Changes in Immigration Policy is one of the few initiatives that I agree with.

If it were up to you, what quota (or range) would you set for 2013?

[Michael Hardner]

Some of it the govt is already doing - taking more immigrants in under provincial or corporate sponsorship. Unfortunately many of the provincially sponsored immigrants can't speak English/French adequately - don't know what the provinces are thinking sponsoring people like that.

Which problem is THAT solving ? I thought the question of 'cons' was revolving around isolation now on this thread - so this idea seems counter-intuitive.

Do a much better job of matching immigrants to jobs before they ever get here. Make sure that their credentials are recognized by all relevant bodies in Canada.

Greatly reduce the family reunification class so we're not importing people who use our social systems (especially medicare) towards which they have never contributed taxes.

Match the number of skilled immigrants to what's actually needed in Canada, don't just keep bringing in the same number no matter what. The best way to do this would be to have prospective immigrants come in under temporary work visas, only if no Canadian can be found for the job. (At market wage rates) Then, if their temporary employment works out for say 4 years, accept them as permanent residents on a fast track.

Greatly improve Canada's job training systems so that were'e not always taking away skilled people from 3rd world countries that trained them, but instead are giving Canadians already here the best shot at good jobs

Stricter controls on refugees that just show up at our doors, send the fake ones home faster. That includes refugees that once they have been accepted here seem to have no problem going back to their homeland for visits.

Get over the idea that Canada owes the world an open immigration system, rather than that Canada should be looking out for it's own interests. (And that's the majority, not the business people only). Get over the idea that immigration is a form of foreign aid. If we really want to help other countries we would leave their best and brightest to stay there and build a better country, and we could provide support to help them accomplish that.

So, these ideas centre on reducing immigration and/or paying more for the immigrants we do get.

I think we need to 'get over' the idea that immigration is some kind of charity - if it were true then Stephen Harper and Paul Martin would be thought of as kind and generous men.