Pros and cons on 'increased' immigration.

[Argus]

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.

Historical behaviour is absolutely no indication of future behaviour given the different makeup of today's immigrants and the ease of communication and travel between here and their homelands.

[Argus]

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.

Isn't use of the term 'cons' prohibited by the rules?

[Argus]

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.

Except that we can see how that's not working out in major cities which are primary destinations of immigrants. Toronto, for example, which used to puff itself up with pride over the description "New York run by the Swiss" is an expensive, overcrowded, dirty city with horrendous transportation problems. NO ONE calls it "New York run by the Swiss" any more. AS for Vancouver, do you really think living in Vancouver today is better (using a reasonably unbiased comparison) to Vancouver in 1970?

-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

Carepov, with all due respect, you cannot argue against statistical data based on your gut and your feelings.

Benefits:

-an extra 1% in GDP growth is huge.

That 1% is speculative based on the fact no one knows how to interpret the statement in the bank report. It could be one quarter of one percent. Regardless, my position on immigration based growth remains unchanged. A bigger pie is no more nourishing when there are more people eating it.

I would think that the main driver of this growth is the extra demand for goods and services, this helps Canadian businesses and employees

Does it? There will be more businesses and employees to compete with. Thus the existing businesses might not get any extra work, and the existing employees might get cheaper wages, and still have to compete with the newcomers for those 'additional' jobs.

-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”

All of this is speculative and arguable, or based on 'feelings' again. I don't see any cultural benefits I want. I don't see increased tourism. I don't see a reduction in labour shortages. And our national debt is only going to be assisted by immigrants who pay taxes. Given the statistical information on declining immigrant economic performance that's fewer and fewer.

[Argus]

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.

If there are more jobs, but more people looking for jobs, is there any real improvement?

If there are more taxes being paid but more people who need more government services is there an improvement?

[-TSS-]

Do you get more points in the immigration-process if you promise to settle and work in Nunavut instead of Toronto?

[Canuckistani]

Do you get more points in the immigration-process if you promise to settle and work in Nunavut instead of Toronto?

No. And what work would the immigrants do there, they already have high unemployment?

[Argus]

No. And what work would the immigrants do there, they already have high unemployment?

Wouldn't really matter anyway. You cannot hold someone to that sort of promise, at least not once they get their citizenship papers. That would be against their Charter rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Historical behaviour is absolutely no indication of future behaviour given the different makeup of today's immigrants and the ease of communication and travel between here and their homelands.

There's no way to prove that today's Immigrant is different. When posters here state that, they never have real evidence.

As for the travel issue, I don't see it.

[Argus]

There's no way to prove that today's Immigrant is different. When posters here state that, they never have real evidence.

As for the travel issue, I don't see it.

There's no way to prove they're the same either. But you have a brain. You can see that an Irishman or Englishman or Italian coming over to early twentieth century Canada is going to have a lot easier time adapting and integrating than an Iranian Muslim coming over today.

We also know that many middle east parents send their kids home for arranged marriages, because their Canadian citizenship is a valuable bargaining chip in third world countries. That didn't used to happen, and now that it does it greatly delays integration, perhaps for generations if it continues. Also, people today are able to view live TV and read newspapers, magazines and books from their homeland on a continuing basis. That also delays integration. In addition, of course, there's the fact they are so much more different, culturally, than previous immigrants. So we know very well that the integration won't be as quick. We just don't know how long delayed it will be.

[Tilter]

Wouldn't really matter anyway. You cannot hold someone to that sort of promise, at least not once they get their citizenship papers. That would be against their Charter rights.

And the United Nations would again condemn Canada for the poor treatment of immigrants (even if the "oppressed" life they lead here is 22.5 times as good as , let's say Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan or Iran)

I vote for quitting the UN as it is dominated by those countries, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan & Iran and most of the other STANs

[carepov]

Except that we can see how that's not working out in major cities which are primary destinations of immigrants. Toronto, for example, which used to puff itself up with pride over the description "New York run by the Swiss" is an expensive, overcrowded, dirty city with horrendous transportation problems. NO ONE calls it "New York run by the Swiss" any more. AS for Vancouver, do you really think living in Vancouver today is better (using a reasonably unbiased comparison) to Vancouver in 1970?

Yes, I would think that living in TO or Van is better today compared to 1970. Check out the various lists of "best places to live in the world".

Carepov, with all due respect, you cannot argue against statistical data based on your gut and your feelings.

The Fraser report assumed that the average immigrant costs the taxpayer as much as the average Canadian - this assumption is the author's "gut" and my "gut" disagrees. I also posted a statistical refutation of the report earlier.

That 1% is speculative based on the fact no one knows how to interpret the statement in the bank report. It could be one quarter of one percent. Regardless, my position on immigration based growth remains unchanged. A bigger pie is no more nourishing when there are more people eating it.

Does it? There will be more businesses and employees to compete with. Thus the existing businesses might not get any extra work, and the existing employees might get cheaper wages, and still have to compete with the newcomers for those 'additional' jobs.

I can't believe that you and Cannuck are arguing against economic growth.

[Michael Hardner]

There's no way to prove they're the same either.

People are the same as a default. Or if they're different then they're different in the same ways. For somebody to claim that a single group needs special handling is a claim, therefore the onus is on you.

But you have a brain. You can see that an Irishman or Englishman or Italian coming over to early twentieth century Canada is going to have a lot easier time adapting and integrating than an Iranian Muslim coming over today.

When I went to University decades ago there were no Italians in my entire dorm. There were Asians so there you are.

The rest of your post is just justification of your opinion after the fact, not a basis for coming to a conclusion.

[Canuckistani]

I can't believe that you and Cannuck are arguing against economic growth.

Economic growth just for the sake of growth accomplishes nothing. As Argus says, if bringing in immigrants creates some jobs, but less jobs than we let in immigrants, we wind up with more joblessness. We need 300,000 jobs created a year to make a dent in our unemployment figures just within Canada. Since we allow in 250,000 immigrants and 250,000 temp workers, that puts us in a net deficit position right there.

GDP possibly increased 1% from immigration. How much does it cost us to build the extra infrastructure required for those immigrants, the govt services they consume and the environmental degradation they cause? I don't think it adds up.

How could it possibly make sense to let in the same number of immigrants every year, in good times and in bad, low unemployment and high unemployment? Shouldn't the numbers vary according to conditions?

[Canuckistani]

I can't believe that you and Cannuck are arguing against economic growth.

Economic growth just for the sake of growth accomplishes nothing. As Argus says, if bringing in immigrants creates some jobs, but less jobs than we let in immigrants, we wind up with more joblessness. We need 300,000 jobs created a year to make a dent in our unemployment figures just within Canada. Since we allow in 250,000 immigrants and 250,000 temp workers, that puts us in a net deficit position right there.

GDP possibly increased 1% from immigration. How much does it cost us to build the extra infrastructure required for those immigrants, the govt services they consume and the environmental degradation they cause? I don't think it adds up.

How could it possibly make sense to let in the same number of immigrants every year, in good times and in bad, low unemployment and high unemployment? Shouldn't the numbers vary according to conditions?

In Prof. Dungan’s forecasting model, devised with two co-authors, an increase of 100,000 immigrants to Canada (chosen under the current selection model) would result in a 2.3-per-cent increase in real GDP over 10 years. But since the population would increase by 2.6 per cent over that period, GDP per capita could actually decline slightly.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/?service=mobile

Edited June 25, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Canuckistani]

That's fine for them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a bigger economy is better for you and me. Only if the extra people add more to national income than their own share of that income will the average incomes of the rest of us be increased. And that's not to say any gain in material standard of living isn't offset by a decline in our quality of life, which goes unmeasured by gross domestic product.

The most recent study by the Productivity Commission, in 2006, found that even extra skilled migration did little or nothing to raise the average incomes of the existing population, with the migrants themselves the only beneficiaries....

What mass immigration has given Toronto is the worst gridlock in North America and as a consequence adding stress to the daily lives of Torontonians through increased commute times and more polluted air. It has contributed to escalating hydro rates through increased demand, has increased wait times in the city's emergency rooms, and is adding strain to the city's public services. Toronto now has a garbage problem it does not know how to solve. Immigration has created a scarcity of affordable housing and maintains upward pressure on the prices of single family dwellings thus negatively affecting both the poor and young families alike. Since housing in Toronto has become unaffordable to many, immigration is what is fueling urban sprawl threatening some of the most fertile soil in all of Canada while bringing Toronto's urban problems to the suburbs and beyond. The city is being divided up into ethnic ghettoes (including white ones) creating social tensions while becoming a place many a Canadian would find alien (and cause many a tourist to stop and make sure that they are in fact in Canada). And this is saying nothing of the jobs that will be denied to many Canadians in Toronto for the sake of "diversifying the workforce". Toronotonians, possibly all of Ontario, can expect higher taxes just to address the problems mass immigration has brought to the city. Talk of toll roads is just the start. So, if Toronto has become the "most miserable city" in Canada then it should be obvious why. These are things that determine one's quality of life and standard of living and immigration has attack it negatively while contributing to the economic activity of the city. Oh yeah, staged car accidents are on the rise but I'm sure it's unrelated.

http://canadianimmigrationreform.blogspot.ca/2010/12/alleged-economic-benefits-of.html

[wyly]

No. And what work would the immigrants do there, they already have high unemployment?

immigrants go to where the work is the economic engines of the country, where there is a shortage of labour Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary...what the F*** are they going to do in Nunavut other than collect welfare...

[carepov]

Economic growth just for the sake of growth accomplishes nothing. As Argus says, if bringing in immigrants creates some jobs, but less jobs than we let in immigrants, we wind up with more joblessness. We need 300,000 jobs created a year to make a dent in our unemployment figures just within Canada. Since we allow in 250,000 immigrants and 250,000 temp workers, that puts us in a net deficit position right there.

GDP possibly increased 1% from immigration. How much does it cost us to build the extra infrastructure required for those immigrants, the govt services they consume and the environmental degradation they cause? I don't think it adds up.

How could it possibly make sense to let in the same number of immigrants every year, in good times and in bad, low unemployment and high unemployment? Shouldn't the numbers vary according to conditions?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-immigrants-affect-the-economy-weighing-the-benefits-and-costs/article4106049/?service=mobile

Your economic arguments fall apart with one graph: GDP per capita over time adjusted for inflation, see: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-per-capita

Immigration increases the efficiency of existing infrastructure. Also, infrastructure renewal benefits all Canadians.

The Globe and Mail article is a very good, brief summary of both sides the argument - thank you.

Maybe we should be bringing in more immigrants during recessions? By the time we realize we are in a recession (6 month lag) and the immigrant settles in, the recession could be over. Immigration today is an investment for Canada of 2032 and beyond.

[Argus]

I can't believe that you and Cannuck are arguing against economic growth.

Then ask yourself why economic growth is a good thing.

Economic growth to a country which isn't substantively growing its population might well be a good thing, but economic growth as a result of immigration isn't. As I said, you have a bigger pie now, which is good, but you have more people eating it, thus negating the advantage.

If we double our GDP but double our population how exactly has the life of the people living here prior to the increased population improved?

[Canuckistani]

Your economic arguments fall apart with one graph: GDP per capita over time adjusted for inflation, see: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-per-capita

Nope, I think your argument falls apart. Note the reduction in GDP per capita in 2010. We didn't take in less immigrants that year. Shows that GDP per capita is not tied to immigration, but other factors. But quality of life issues, which are not reflected by GDP are impacted by immigration, ie over crowding. Nor does GDP per capita show the extent of govt spending on social programs vs tax revenue. If immigrants are getting so much more in govt services than they pay in taxes, that's not sustainable, yet it doesn't affect GDP per capita one bit.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Canuckistani

[carepov]

http://canadianimmigrationreform.blogspot.ca/2010/12/alleged-economic-benefits-of.html

Toronto and Vancouver consistently rank highly in the best places to live in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities

Edited June 25, 2012 by carepov

[Michael Hardner]

As I said, you have a bigger pie now, which is good, but you have more people eating it, thus negating the advantage.

If we double our GDP but double our population how exactly has the life of the people living here prior to the increased population improved?

#1 is EXACTLY the lump of labour fallacy, referred to by August1991 as the 'zero sum game' fallacy.

#2 Look at the graph again - it's GDP per capita.

[Canuckistani]

If 100,000 workers moving to Canada are responsible for the creating of 50,000 jobs, how is it a fallacy to say we would be further behind in that situation. Not counting immigration, Canada needs to create 300,000 jobs a year to make a big dent in our current unemployment numbers. If we let in 500,000 immigrants and temp workers, say 400,000 of those are actually workers, how are we ahead with immigration vis employment figures?

[carepov]

Nope, I think your argument falls apart. Note the reduction in GDP per capita in 2010. We didn't take in less immigrants that year. Shows that GDP per capita is not tied to immigration, but other factors.

It is pointless to look at changes in any single year. Look at the trend from circa 1970 to today. Canada has been growing, our standard of living has been increasing - in part due to our immigration policy.

Edited June 25, 2012 by carepov

[carepov]

If 100,000 workers moving to Canada are responsible for the creating of 50,000 jobs, how is it a fallacy to say we would be further behind in that situation. Not counting immigration, Canada needs to create 300,000 jobs a year to make a big dent in our current unemployment numbers. If we let in 500,000 immigrants and temp workers, say 400,000 of those are actually workers, how are we ahead with immigration vis employment figures?

Here is our national unemployment rate since 1976:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=16#M_1

Our economy has performed better than almost any OECD country by any measure.

[Canuckistani]

Here is our national unemployment rate since 1976:

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=16#M_1

Our economy has performed better than almost any OECD country by any measure.

Are you talking unemployment since 1976? Have you got a link for that?