Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

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, I agree... Although some data was provided, it doesn't indicate how one of the best systems in Canada has generally fared.

[Canuckistani]

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.

I don't really feel like getting into the whole multikulti thing - too subjective. As I said in a previous thread, I'm glad we've got people from all over the world settling here, enriching our culture, but I think we let in too many at once, which can cause some problems aside from economic ones

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.

The studies that looked at economic benefits to Canada found very little benefit, but came out in favor of mass immigration because it's such a benefit for the immigrants themselves. That ignores the cost to the immigrant's home country, as well as the studies didn't look at the social spending or infrastructure costs from immigration. Both of those raise GDP without benefiting Canadians, in fact they are a detriment, as is wage depression. I think allowing mass immigration at this time (ie when we don't have a booming economy) only makes sense if the immigrants were to settle in undeveloped areas. But that does't make economic sense either, since there's nothing for them to do for work up there.

Paul Martin, Steven Harper et al have made a political calculation that toughening up on immigrants will just cost them immigrant votes with no political benefit, because so many Canadians have drunk the Kool-Ade of how wonderful immigration is.

[Michael Hardner]

The studies that looked at economic benefits to Canada found very little benefit, but came out in favor of mass immigration because it's such a benefit for the immigrants themselves.

I'm a proponent of Wikipedia, where you seem to have got this quote, but you should include the full quote:

"The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."[17][18] In 2005 a report by the Royal Bank of Canada called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth.[19]"

Paul Martin, Steven Harper et al have made a political calculation that toughening up on immigrants will just cost them immigrant votes with no political benefit, because so many Canadians have drunk the Kool-Ade of how wonderful immigration is.

Also economists drink kool aid.

[Canuckistani]

I'm a proponent of Wikipedia, where you seem to have got this quote, but you should include the full quote:

"The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."[17][18] In 2005 a report by the Royal Bank of Canada called for boosting Canada's immigration rate by 30% to 400,000 per year to ensure continued economic growth.[19]"

Also economists drink kool aid.

So masss immigration didn't lead to much growth up to now, but should be increased to ensure contiued growth?

Not all economists.

For example, George Borjas (1999), in his most recent book, Heaven’s Door, suggests that this inflow be cut in half. His reasoning is straightforward. Research suggests that the average ―quality‖ of immigrants admitted to the United States over the last three decades is lower than it was for those entering during the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, current immigration levels threaten to lower the pace of economic growth....

One of the most highly publicized goals of immigration policy during the last three decades has been its role in adding to the stock of human capital; that is, augmenting the supply of skills available to employers. One of the main benefits of such a goal was seen as fostering intensive economic growth. Does it work this way? Not really. Over much of the twentieth century Canadian and American growth rates have, in the main, been very similar. In fact, for much of the last century Canadian growth rates have exceeded those of the United States (Green, 2000, p. 196), while the stock of human capital has grown much faster in the latter. Hence, simply expanding the growth of the labour force through immigration, is not a sufficient condition to insure strong economic growth.

http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Fiscal%20costs/what-is-the-role-of-immigration-in-canadas-future-alan-g-green-mcgill-queens-university-press.pdf Edited June 20, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Canuckistani]

Consider the following types of alleged benefits.

First, the economy benefits as immigrants fill jobs that other Canadians do not want or are not trained for. The problem is that these immigrants lower the wages of other Canadians competing with them and cause poverty levels to be higher than they would be otherwise and requiring more spending on anti-poverty programs.

Most fundamentally, in the absence of immigrants, there would be no long-lasting labour or skills shortages because wages on presently undesirable jobs would rise until they are filled by Canadians; higher wages for skilled workers would encourage more Canadians to get the needed education and training; and employers would invest more capital to raise labour productivity, which would allow them to maintain profits while paying workers the higher wages.

Second, many people believe that immigrants provide an easy solution to the looming crisis of unfunded liabilities for public health care and pension programs. Simulations using official estimates of population dynamics show that to maintain the present ratio of retired to working people in Canada in the year 2050 alone would require 7 million immigrants and a population level of 165 million. Canada could not absorb immigrants in such large numbers and might well not be able to recruit them. There are much less costly methods for defusing the pending crisis of unfunded liabilities, such as increasing the age of retirement.

Third, immigrants are believed to generate economies of scale that lower the average cost of infrastructure like roads and municipal services for all Canadians. This benefit from immigration existed in the past. In recent years and in the future, immigrants add significantly to congestion, pollution and the prices of scarce land and housing.

The magnitude of these problems is not widely recognized but may be gleaned from the fact that currently immigrant families arriving in the BC Lower Mainland every week of the year need 200 new housing units that require electricity, water and sewers. These families send children to school, put cars on the road and use public transit. It is ironic that meeting these needs of immigrants results in labour shortages that in turn are used to justify further immigration.

http://hgrubel.blogspot.ca/2010/04/reducing-canadas-deficits-by-reducing.html

[bleeding heart]

I don't really feel like getting into the whole multikulti thing - too subjective.

You mean aside from the lengthy quote culminating in the pretty large-scale assertion that multicult is a betrayal of "Enlightenment values"?

[Michael Hardner]

So masss immigration didn't lead to much growth up to now, but should be increased to ensure contiued growth?

What is "much growth" ? Even 1% should be considered to be significant.

Not all economists.

It seems like a lot of them though.

[dre]

What is "much growth" ? Even 1% should be considered to be significant.

It seems like a lot of them though.

1% is essentially negative growth.

[Michael Hardner]

1% is essentially negative growth.

So 0% is even worse ?

[-TSS-]

There was an interesting article in the recent copy of The Economist-magazine how Canada is much more friendly and welcoming towards foreign entrepreneurs than the USA. Very surprising really. The process of getting a permanent residence-status is so much more complicated in the USA than in Canada that many people with skills and ideas take those skills and ideas elsewhere as they lose patience.

[dre]

So 0% is even worse ?

Yes. Anywhere under 2% for extended periods of time will cause huge problems. 0% is worse than 1% yes

[Canuckistani]

Yes. Anywhere under 2% for extended periods of time will cause huge problems. 0% is worse than 1% yes

a bit off the rails here. It's 1% growth in GDP that's attributable to immigration, not 1% growth over all. But you have to offset that growth with all the costs associated with immigration, including huge stress on infrastructure, wage depression, immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes, etc. Remember that Hurricane Katrina or any other natural disaster will cause a bump in GDP - GDP just measures economic activity. Nobody suggests that natural disasters are a good thing. Same with immigration - at the levels we've been taking in, it's way over stressing our ability to handle it, with no big benefit for Canadians themselves, especially working Canadians vs business owners who get cheap labor. There just doesn't seem to be one good reason for taking in so many people, but many good reasons for not doing it. But, as I paper I read said, confronting this myth directly is a wasted effort, it's so ingrained in our Canadian psyche. They recommended working around the edges to slowly, it is hoped, have the coin drop. I think Harper may be doing some of that himself, I hope. Or, if the shoe drops, and we do have a crash, and think the Kumbaya attitude towards immigration will disappear rather quickly, including among recent immigrants themselves. (Many of whom, in conversation, tell me they think Canada is nuts to let in so many people.)

[carepov]

It's 1% growth in GDP that's attributable to immigration... But you have to offset that growth with all the costs associated with immigration, including huge stress on infrastructure, wage depression, immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes, etc.

Same with immigration - at the levels we've been taking in, it's way over stressing our ability to handle it, with no big benefit for Canadians themselves. There just doesn't seem to be one good reason for taking in so many people, but many good reasons for not doing it.

Hi Canuckistani,

IMO, you are overstating the costs and understating the benefits:

Costs:

-"huge stress on infrastructure" - The way I see it is that new immigrants make our infrastructure more efficient, mainly because they tend to increase population density therefore existing infrastructure is used by more people. I am thinking water, sewer, roads public transit, utilities... Also, building/renewing infrastructure is a benefit to all Canadians.

-wage depression: my feeling is that immigration is a minor/negligible factor amongst all the factors that affect wages.

-immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes: The Fraser report really surprised me - but I do not agree with its findings. There is no doubt that new immigrants are a net cost, however, my gut tells me that over the lifetime of the average immigrant he/she will no more of a burden than the average Canadian. I would live to see study on this issue.

-Housing shortage is at least as much a benefit as it is a cost (similar to infrastructure)

Benefits:

-an extra 1% in GDP growth is huge. I would think that the main driver of this growth is the extra demand for goods and services, this helps Canadian businesses and employees

-business class immigrants create jobs directly

-Canada’s ethnic diversity is a huge global advantage for driving exports thereby creating jobs for Canadians

-Each Canadian’s share of our national debt is reduced with every new immigrant

-Reduce labour shortages

-Other economic benefits, (perhaps increased tourism)

-Cultural benefits for all Canadians (food, entertainment, etc…)

-Other fluffy benefits such as knowing that we are “making the world a better place”

[Michael Hardner]

a bit off the rails here. It's 1% growth in GDP that's attributable to immigration, not 1% growth over all. But you have to offset that growth with all the costs associated with immigration, including huge stress on infrastructure, wage depression, immigrants taking more in govt services than they pay in taxes, etc.

Some of these things are already factored into that 1%, though. There is very little opposition to population growth via immigration to ensure economic growth.

Same with immigration - at the levels we've been taking in, it's way over stressing our ability to handle it, with no big benefit for Canadians themselves, especially working Canadians vs business owners who get cheap labor.

Business owners are Canadian too ! As are people who buy goods and use services provided by these businesses.

There just doesn't seem to be one good reason for taking in so many people, but many good reasons for not doing it. But, as I paper I read said, confronting this myth directly is a wasted effort, it's so ingrained in our Canadian psyche.

Harper is an economist, not someone who is spellbound by myths. Do you really think he would be pursuing immigration if it weren't good for growth, given the unpopularity of multiculturalism with some in his own party ?

[Michael Hardner]

Benefits:

-an extra 1% in GDP growth is huge. I would think that the main driver of this growth is the extra demand for goods and services, this helps Canadian businesses and employees

-business class immigrants create jobs directly

-Canada’s ethnic diversity is a huge global advantage for driving exports thereby creating jobs for Canadians

-Each Canadian’s share of our national debt is reduced with every new immigrant

-Reduce labour shortages

-Other economic benefits, (perhaps increased tourism)

-Cultural benefits for all Canadians (food, entertainment, etc…)

-Other fluffy benefits such as knowing that we are “making the world a better place”

That's a good summary. I would also add the entrepreneurial nature of the immigrant has always been a driving force for American nations. The giants of Wall Street were created by immigrants, as well as manufacturing, and technology - all created by those who came to our shores to build something.

[Canuckistani]

Some of these things are already factored into that 1%, though. There is very little opposition to population growth via immigration to ensure economic growth.

50% of Canadians think immigration is too high. What's the point of economic growth when that growth just gets diluted among more people and isn't actually a benefit to anybody? Growth has associated problems - if the benefits of growth aren't much, but the costs are, what's the point. If you live in a single family residential neighborhood, and it gets turned into high rises, with little economic benefit for you, would you support that deterioration in your style of life?

Business owners are Canadian too ! As are people who buy goods and use services provided by these businesses.

We've seen nothing but business friendly policies that harm working people. Wage depression and less union membership for instance. From one pov that's just wonderful, but not from mine.

Harper is an economist, not someone who is spellbound by myths. Do you really think he would be pursuing immigration if it weren't good for growth, given the unpopularity of multiculturalism with some in his own party ?

Ha ha ha.

[Michael Hardner]

50% of Canadians think immigration is too high. What's the point of economic growth when that growth just gets diluted among more people and isn't actually a benefit to anybody?

You've already agreed that it increases GDP, so how is it hot a benefit ?

Growth has associated problems - if the benefits of growth aren't much, but the costs are, what's the point. If you live in a single family residential neighborhood, and it gets turned into high rises, with little economic benefit for you, would you support that deterioration in your style of life?

Of course growth has problems. Should we avoid growth then ? If not, then what ?

We've seen nothing but business friendly policies that harm working people. Wage depression and less union membership for instance. From one pov that's just wonderful, but not from mine.

You're forcing me to argue economic orthodoxy. There are benefits across the board as well as to individual groups, and also groups that lose out.

[Canuckistani]

You've already agreed that it increases GDP, so how is it hot a benefit ?

How many times do I have to say it, and how many examples do I have to give? GDP isn't some holy grail. You have to look at what that increase in GDP is all about. As I said, a good Hurricane increases GDP, but nobody thinks that's a good thing. An increase in GDP but a decrease in GDP per capita is not a good thing. A very small increase in GDP per capita, but with many problems resulting from that increased economic activity is not a good thing. Despoiling a National Park may increase GDP but won't be seen as a good thing by most. etc. That's why economists say GNP is a better measure.

Of course growth has problems. Should we avoid growth then ? If not, then what ?

By some of your posts I gathered the impression you're an intelligent person who makes insightful comments. This post isn't one of them.

You're forcing me to argue economic orthodoxy. There are benefits across the board as well as to individual groups, and also groups that lose out.

I'm not forcing you, you're choosing to. As we've seen one person's economic orthodoxy is then next person's heresy. And we've seen the failures of following any particular orthodoxy.

We need a much more sophisticated immigration system. One that truly puts the benefits of all Canadians at the fore, not just the politicians and bosses. One that is responsive to changing conditions. How can it make sense to import the same number of people in good times and bad? How does it make sense to import so many people who come her expecting to use their skills and then are denied that opportunity? How does it make sense to drive down wages in Canada. (I guess economic orthodoxy says it does, and we should be moving to a Chinese style economy)

[Michael Hardner]

How many times do I have to say it, and how many examples do I have to give? GDP isn't some holy grail. You have to look at what that increase in GDP is all about. As I said, a good Hurricane increases GDP, but nobody thinks that's a good thing. An increase in GDP but a decrease in GDP per capita is not a good thing. A very small increase in GDP per capita, but with many problems resulting from that increased economic activity is not a good thing. Despoiling a National Park may increase GDP but won't be seen as a good thing by most. etc. That's why economists say GNP is a better measure.

GDP is a measure of economic activity, i.e. work, i.e. goods and service being made.

Of course, not all work arrives out of beneficial circumstances, disaster and disease being the biggest examples. However, what good does it do to denigrate GDP based on that ? There are other stats that could be better, but they still measure economic activity.

By some of your posts I gathered the impression you're an intelligent person who makes insightful comments. This post isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but you're the one saying, basically: "immigration contributes to GDP growth, but growth isn't necessarily a good thing". What am I to take from your approach to this. The other poster on here posted some other benefits to immigration, why don't you respond to those with something more specific than "not all growth is good".

I'm not forcing you, you're choosing to. As we've seen one person's economic orthodoxy is then next person's heresy. And we've seen the failures of following any particular orthodoxy.

Not all orthodoxy is good, either.

I've seen this argument from Climate Science deniers too. "Galileo was considered wrong." That alone isn't enough to counter orthodoxy.

We need a much more sophisticated immigration system. One that truly puts the benefits of all Canadians at the fore, not just the politicians and bosses. One that is responsive to changing conditions. How can it make sense to import the same number of people in good times and bad?

I don't know that we don't change our immigration levels in this way. But do you think we should bring in more immigrants when times are good, and less when times are bad or vice-versa ?

How does it make sense to import so many people who come her expecting to use their skills and then are denied that opportunity? How does it make sense to drive down wages in Canada. (I guess economic orthodoxy says it does, and we should be moving to a Chinese style economy)

Driving down wages in Canada is also known as increasing productivity in some circles. We shouldn't move to a Chinese style economy because China is creating a middle class where there was none before, and our middle class is eroding.

We need to find new ways to create high salary jobs. Pining for the past and erecting trade barriers, even in our minds, isn't going to do that.

[Canuckistani]

GDP is a measure of economic activity, i.e. work, i.e. goods and service being made.

Of course, not all work arrives out of beneficial circumstances, disaster and disease being the biggest examples. However, what good does it do to denigrate GDP based on that ? There are other stats that could be better, but they still measure economic activity.

I'm sorry, but you're the one saying, basically: "immigration contributes to GDP growth, but growth isn't necessarily a good thing". What am I to take from your approach to this. The other poster on here posted some other benefits to immigration, why don't you respond to those with something more specific than "not all growth is good".

Exactly. Just bowing down at the altar of growth, for growth's sake is stupid. The benefits of growth have to be balanced against the downsides. The growth from mindless immigration doesn't, in my view, balance the downsides. It's actualy a calculation that is made all the time. Why isn't it applied to immigration?

I don't know that we don't change our immigration levels in this way. But do you think we should bring in more immigrants when times are good, and less when times are bad or vice-versa ?

You're not seriously arguing we are currently changing immigration numbers according to perceived need, are you? Better go back and do some reading if you are. We should bring in immigrants when our best efforts to fill the jobs we have with Canadians aren't enough to fill those jobs. We've never given that our best effort. Obviously in a booming economy, there are more jobs created and we may need to open our doors. During downtimes, such as now, we should be closing those doors to allow in fewer people.

Driving down wages in Canada is also known as increasing productivity in some circles. We shouldn't move to a Chinese style economy because China is creating a middle class where there was none before, and our middle class is eroding.

We need to find new ways to create high salary jobs. Pining for the past and erecting trade barriers, even in our minds, isn't going to do that.

Why bring in trade barriers, did I mention those? Pie in the sky views about creating high salary jobs isn't going to cut it either - I don't see it happening. And we'll always have need for low skill workers - they should get a decent buck too. If we don't flood that market with immigrants, they would.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Just bowing down at the altar of growth, for growth's sake is stupid. The benefits of growth have to be balanced against the downsides. The growth from mindless immigration doesn't, in my view, balance the downsides. It's actualy a calculation that is made all the time. Why isn't it applied to immigration?

Which calculation is made all the time ?

Shrinking markets for products and services, less demand seems like a plan for recession.

You're not seriously arguing we are currently changing immigration numbers according to perceived need, are you? Better go back and do some reading if you are.

We should bring in immigrants when our best efforts to fill the jobs we have with Canadians aren't enough to fill those jobs. We've never given that our best effort. Obviously in a booming economy, there are more jobs created and we may need to open our doors. During downtimes, such as now, we should be closing those doors to allow in fewer people.

Uh, I don't think I'm suggesting anything that you yourself didn't suggest in this same paragraph.

You seem to subscribe to an economic fallacy known as the 'lump of labour' fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that we all compete with. The number increases with more economic activity, which is helped by more people.

Why bring in trade barriers, did I mention those? Pie in the sky views about creating high salary jobs isn't going to cut it either - I don't see it happening. And we'll always have need for low skill workers - they should get a decent buck too. If we don't flood that market with immigrants, they would.

No, you didn't mention those. So far, you're only talking about reducing our population, and making our economy smaller I suppose.

[Canuckistani]

Which calculation is made all the time ?

Shrinking markets for products and services, less demand seems like a plan for recession.

Uh, I don't think I'm suggesting anything that you yourself didn't suggest in this same paragraph.

You seem to subscribe to an economic fallacy known as the 'lump of labour' fallacy. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that we all compete with. The number increases with more economic activity, which is helped by more people.

No, you didn't mention those. So far, you're only talking about reducing our population, and making our economy smaller I suppose.

Balancing growth vs other considerations is made all the time. In Vancouver we have an agricultural land reserve even tho eliminating it would lower house prices and cause a construction boom. We balance the impact of a mine on the environment vs the economic activity it will bring. large in migration to Vancouver has caused all sorts of stressors, it needs to be balanced against any increase in economic growth that immigration might bring.

More people might create some more jobs, but it's not nearly as straight forward as you are making out here - that more people always create enough jobs to give jobs to all those new people. Not at all.

I'm certainly talking about holding our population growth down - so far it's gone nothing but up. From a global perspective, it's long past due that we decrease population - there's too many of us for the planet to bear. I'd rather do it in a thought out manner than having it done for us. As for Canada, we're an empty country - except for the places that people actually want to live. Those places are full. We need to find an economic model that isn't based on continual growth - there are limits. Either we impose them ourselves, or as I say, nature (including human nature) will do it for us.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

More people might create some more jobs, but it's not nearly as straight forward as you are making out here - that more people always create enough jobs to give jobs to all those new people. Not at all.

The other points about growth are important, but for something like mining there are costs that aren't usually factored in. Population growth generally is good for demand, and again you have to suggest an alternative with some specifics, unless you're giving general complaints.

I'm certainly talking about holding our population growth down - so far it's gone nothing but up. From a global perspective, it's long past due that we decrease population - there's too many of us for the planet to bear. I'd rather do it in a thought out manner than having it done for us. As for Canada, we're an empty country - except for the places that people actually want to live. Those places are full. We need to find an economic model that isn't based on continual growth - there are limits. Either we impose them ourselves, or as I say, nature (including human nature) will do it for us.

How do you propose this new process to engage in this kind of planning and this new economic model ?

I would say we extend our current model, and add some transparency via technology. I would also suggest putting high wages and high earners on the table generally. Maybe it makes more sense to use updated metrics that take hidden costs into effect better.

In any case, it will still be a growth model.

[-TSS-]

But surely immigration into Canada is far from being evenly distributed. Aren't the majority of the people of the city of Toronto people who were born overseas? Simultaneously there must be areas in Canada where a dark-skinned face is still a rarity.

[Argus]

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?

Yes. Although to clarify, I think crime would be higher with or without immigration. But I think the immigration has contributed to a worsening of what we would have, and that's particularly true of street crime, which, after all, is what people really worry about.

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

And my position is that while police-reported crime is declining actual crime is not, or at least, is not declining nearly so much. The amount of crime actually reported to police has declined by 10% from the 2007 Juristat study over the 2002 study. The percentage of crime reported declined 10% from that study to the 1997 study. If people report crime to police 20% less often it stands to reason police-reported crime would 'fall'.

I will grant you that from the available statistics overall visible minority representation in prisons appear to be lower than their percentage in the general population - for Canada. Unfortunately, my perceptions are based on living in Ontario, and my perceptions appear to be true insofar as visible minority representation in crime in Ontario goes (41%). Perhaps what we need to examine is why visible minority members are so overrepresented in prisons in Ontario compared to other areas. Does Ontario have a different ethnic/racial/national makeup of immigrants/visible minorities from other sections of the country, for example?

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

The issue I have with homicide statistics (this is not new. I have mentioned it on numerous occasions in previous posts) is how the laws are written in Canada. For example, are homocides declining because people are not attempting to kill each other as often, or are they declining because medical science is able to save far more people who would otherwise have died? Well, we ought to be able to know by examining the attempted murder charges and adding them to the homicide charges. Unfortunately, since the Charter, it is almost impossible to prove attempted murder in Canada. A suspect has to virtually admit that he was intending to kill someone before he can be charged with it. Merely shooting someone several times or stabbing them in the chest is insufficient evidence of intent. So instead people are charged with aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm or something else.

Aside: This is getting rather off topic, so I apologize with respect to that.

-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 agree. On the other hand (other than rape, which is still largely unreported). But I'm not worried about domestic violence (most people aren't). I'm worried about getting hit on the head with a pipe when walking down a dark street, or having some junkie break into my house late one night. These are the sorts of things people worry about when we talk about 'fear of crime'.

-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.

I think we heard about the serious crimes. I think that if someone got mugged on a nearby street it got played up more in the local media than it does now. I think most of what passes for 'news' today is pap which is not about news but about 'infotainment'.

-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.

No, I disagree here. I think that even minor crimes such as burglary were punished more severely in the 60s than they are now. I don't think we just gave people a slap on the wrist and sent them back out to do it again. I think overall, we have a lot of crime in our society which rarely even gets investigated, never mind punished, such as fraud, which is endemic (I don't know if it was endemic when I was young). So it's quite difficult to measure our perceptions against realities.

Again, all this is somewhat peripheral to the immigration question. But I will say this with regard to immigrants and crime: My perception is that they are involved in a disproportionate amount of crime. Which they are in Ontario. That is one of the reasons why I am not a supporter of immigration as it currently stands. But it's only one of the reasons. Economics is a larger reason. As is the crowding in our cities and the increase in pollution. I also don't like many of the cultural aspects many of today's immigrants bring in with them.