Immigrant's qualities

[cybercoma]

The study by the Fraser Institute makes some serious errors with their assumptions. They look at what immigrants earned and how much taxes they paid versus the benefits they received from a single year, then just multiplied it by the number of years they assume to be the average number of years between arrival and retirement. They've introduced an almost absurd amount of error by doing this. They took an average, then multiplied it by an average number of years. The generalizability of this study is completely undermined by doing this. At that point, they're dealing in hypotheticals that don't exist in reality, instead of calculating and discussing something that is real.

Another serious limitation to the study is that they're using the 2006 Public-Use Census Data. Immigrants are notoriously difficult to gather information on when it comes to the census. As an aside, one of the primary criticisms of scrapping the long-form is that we would no longer reach vulnerable populations who may be less likely to fill them out and often this is immigrant families. The long-form was still around in 2006, but the fact remains that it's still difficult to get information from immigrants. They're often passed over in the census files, so this needs to be accounted for in some way. They don't appear to do that or even make mention of it.

The Fraser report also makes note that they're unable to distinguish between employment income and income from investments. Immigrants who have not spent much time in the country are much less likely to have investment income in Canada. Their earnings are almost entirely from employment. In fact, most Canadians do not receive investment income, except for the most wealthy. The Fraser report makes no attempt to look at what portion of immigrants earnings shortfall is attributable to lack of investment incomes. The report makes a footnote (!) of this in note #4 on page 3 of the report. In fact, they suggest that this "goes a long way" to account for the differences in incomes. For something that goes a long way to account for those difference, they don't further explore that issue. Instead, they drop it in a footnote as an aside and don't discuss it again at all. Isn't this the main purpose of the report? To examine the difference in earnings? Meanwhile, they identify a primary driver of those differences and don't even bother looking at it?

As for averages, Fraser makes note under Table 1: "Total income is provided by the variable totinc in the file, and income tax by the variable inctax, both of which are averaged across individuals to calculate averages." What this means is that they added up everyone's income and divided by the total number of cases. In other words, they created a mean average. This weights the average high based on the skewness of income distribution. This "average" there are actually more than 50% of Canadian making less than what this "average" income figure is. In 2007, the median individual income for all Canadianswas $27,960, while Fraser is reporting the "average" income in 2006 as $35,057. As you can see, calculating the "average" in this way skews the figures higher. Where immigrants are certainly earning less for myriad reasons, this exacerbates the effect as it is significantly more likely that the top 1% of earners are most likely not recent immigrants. Those top 1% pull the average higher. This does not reflect the lived experience of individual Canadians, since the mean average is considerably higher than the 50% cut-off that median average provides.

Anyway, this post is already getting too long, so I'm not going to continue through this report. These are just some of the analytical and methodological errors in the first two pages of the report. I'm sure these assumptions and errors are carried throughout. It should hardly be surprising that the Fraser Institute would simply use numbers to fit the narrative they're trying to peddle. Sadly, most people aren't trained to understand statistics in any meaningful way in order to unpack what it is exactly that they're doing with the numbers. Putting it mildly, that report is extremely misleading and relies on many assumptions that call into question not only the accuracy, but the generalizability of the report and as such its conclusions about immigrants generally and social policy recommendations.

[jacee]

Putting it mildly, that report is extremely misleading and relies on many assumptions that call into question not only the accuracy, but the generalizability of the report and as such its conclusions about immigrants generally and social policy recommendations.

Thanks cybercoma. I didn't want to get into the mean-median issue but you've described it well: They inflated 'average' Canadian incomes by using the (skewed) mean instead of the more accurate median, and vilified 'immigrants' with incomes below the mean. Some of them are actually earning more than 50% of Canadians.

This is a problem?

It's typical distorted Fraser Institute garbage, political propaganda of the nastiest sort, dressed up with bafflegab numbers, posing as 'research'.

If the Fraser Institute ever submitted their work for peer review by a reputable academic journal, or present at an academic conference, they'd get trounced out. That's why they only self-publish on their website, and they only present to political audiences: They have no credibility with people who actually understand data analysis.

Only political ideologues choose to 'believe' the camouflaged propaganda that the Fraser Institute 'publishes'.

[Argus]

The study by the Fraser Institute makes some serious errors with their assumptions. They look at what immigrants earned and how much taxes they paid versus the benefits they received from a single year, then just multiplied it by the number of years they assume to be the average number of years between arrival and retirement. They've introduced an almost absurd amount of error by doing this.

Depends on how you look at it. You don't need to average it over a long period of time (I assume you're suggestion is they'd do better over time) since we're bringing in a new batch every single year. So barring a change in the economic fortunes of immigrants (or the type of immigrants we bring in) or the number we're bringing in, the original numbers will hold indefinitely.

The Fraser report also makes note that they're unable to distinguish between employment income and income from investments. Immigrants who have not spent much time in the country are much less likely to have investment income in Canada. Their earnings are almost entirely from employment. In fact, most Canadians do not receive investment income, except for the most wealthy.

Well, forgive me, but then what real difference would it make?

And in tandem with the other cite I posted, about the fact that immigrants from certain parts of the world earn far more than immigrants from other parts of the world, I can see how the performance of immigrants could be improved immeasurably by simply only selecting immigrants from the areas of the world known to be performing well.

I really don't get what you liverals have about making judgements based on performance. I sell stocks which are underperforming all the time, and replace them with those doing better. Immigrants from some parts of the world are underperforming. We should stop bringing them in and bring in more from the outperforming groups.

[eyeball]

I really don't get what you liverals have about making judgements based on performance. I sell stocks which are underperforming all the time, and replace them with those doing better. Immigrants from some parts of the world are underperforming. We should stop bringing them in and bring in more from the outperforming groups.

What if they start under performing, then what?

I mean don't get me wrong, it looks like I'll soon be renting my place out to a company that needs to house the FW's they're bringing in to replace...people like me who can't seem to work as hard or as cheaply as we used to. I guess I might as well exploit myself while I can too. It'll probably only be so long before the price of rent is driven down by work camps for FW's.

Speaking of under performers...our dispossession of access to the natural resources that surround us by the governments privatization/quota schemes has driven the cost of quota so high that the big companies that now own everything seemingly need take up the slack by driving the cost of labour down. Hopefully someone will see fit to drive our municipal by-laws down so I can house 5 workers to a room.

The small towns under siege thread comes to mind.

Edited October 5, 2013 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

Depends on how you look at it. You don't need to average it over a long period of time (I assume you're suggestion is they'd do better over time) since we're bringing in a new batch every single year. So barring a change in the economic fortunes of immigrants (or the type of immigrants we bring in) or the number we're bringing in, the original numbers will hold indefinitely.

You do need to look at them over time because their earnings change over time. This study takes aggregate data (average earnings) and multiplies it by individual characteristics (number of years a person is expected to be in the country before retirement). This is an ecological fallacy at best. It's not logically sound. And even if you do accept it as some sort of reflection, it introduces a large amount of error to the actual number in the target population. It's just bad science, which is why it's not in a peer-reviewed journal.

Well, forgive me, but then what real difference would it make?

Argus, with all due respect, I pointed directly to the difference as admitted to by Fraser. It's in footnote 4. It makes up a considerable portion of the difference in incomes between immigrants and citizens. They've admitted as much. Meanwhile, they've multiplied out the difference in income across the number of years, as we're discussing in the point above. It's just lousy stats work. If they're using a mean average (they are) which inflates income due to the highest earners being outliers and those earners make the majority of the investment income, put the two together. The majority of Canadians who do not have investment income are likely in a similar fiscal position as immigrants.

The problem also arises that the Fraser report did not run any econometric models on immigrant earnings whatsoever. They didn't even bother trying to control and isolate the effect of merely being an immigrant nor look at things like ESL and race discrimination. Both of which have nothing to do with immigrants themselves, but the closed-mindedness of the people they meet here.

[PCHeretic]

I wonder if anyone else has trouble with this family being accepted as immigrants in Canada?

A now murderer, Illiterate immigrant who is broke, can't speak English, with several (6) children, with a wife who had t.b and is an epileptic. (now murdered).

"they arrived in Canada from India, where they had lived after leaving Afghanistan. The couple failed to learn English, despite taking English as a second language classes for a full year, the daughter said.

Her mother suffered from epilepsy, and had tuberculosis. Both she and her husband were on disability benefits and money was running short."

It certainly is NOT the type I'd choose. After all, there are ramifications that cost the taxpayer...and now certainly the costs will multiply.

Oh, he also seems to have depression and mental problems...a real winner for 'immigrants(s) of the month' trophy.

http://news.national...ng-trial-hears/

No, that sounds about right for the multi-cult.

Asian countries for Asians.

African countries for Africans.

White countries for everybody!

It is said that there is this RACE problem. It is said that this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of people from the third world and "assimilating" with them.

It is said that the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem, but rather the final solution to the BLACK problem?

How long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I'm a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist, but they're really anti-white.

Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

[jacee]

Depends on how you look at it. You don't need to average it over a long period of time (I assume you're suggestion is they'd do better over time) since we're bringing in a new batch every single year. So barring a change in the economic fortunes of immigrants (or the type of immigrants we bring in) or the number we're bringing in, the original numbers will hold indefinitely.

Well, forgive me, but then what real difference would it make?

And in tandem with the other cite I posted, about the fact that immigrants from certain parts of the world earn far more than immigrants from other parts of the world, I can see how the performance of immigrants could be improved immeasurably by simply only selecting immigrants from the areas of the world known to be performing well.

I really don't get what you liverals have about making judgements based on performance. I sell stocks which are underperforming all the time, and replace them with those doing better. Immigrants from some parts of the world are underperforming. We should stop bringing them in and bring in more from the outperforming groups.

We're not in the business of buying and selling people like stocks.

You are saying we shouldn't take any refugees?

You are saying that even if people meet our immigration criteria, they should be denied entry based on place of origin?

Or only people of a certain race from a certain place?

EG, The British, French etc colonizers of the Caribbean have many descendants there ...

So what is your system ... race or place?

Gets icky pretty fast when you start stereotyping people, making generalizations ...

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate the merits of each candidate vs a set of criteria ... like these?

http://www.canadianimmigrationservices.com/about_canada.html

/sarcasm

[bjre]

No, that sounds about right for the multi-cult.

Asian countries for Asians.

African countries for Africans.

White countries for everybody!

Who are the people go everywhere arround the world kill peoples and take land and name it as colony?

Who are the people that for money takes many people from Afraca send them to america and ask them work as slaves?

What are the people that take prople from China and ask them to build railway in north america?

Those are the people want others work for them and take others created bring all others here.

All immigrants are require a no criminal record report, if some of them crime here after immigration, it is this country convert them from a good citizen to a criminal. They country doing this by laws that prevent the immigrants doing what they good at, such as become a doctor and many others that need a license. So the professional immigrants has to be a labour and many even can not found a job. Hard life make people easy to do bad things. Same as those people that born here and grow up here and have no job to do and become poor.

[Jimmy Wilson]

We're not in the business of buying and selling people like stocks.

You are saying we shouldn't take any refugees?

You are saying that even if people meet our immigration criteria, they should be denied entry based on place of origin?

Or only people of a certain race from a certain place?

EG, The British, French etc colonizers of the Caribbean have many descendants there ...

So what is your system ... race or place?

Gets icky pretty fast when you start stereotyping people, making generalizations ...

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate the merits of each candidate vs a set of criteria ... like these?

http://www.canadianimmigrationservices.com/about_canada.html

/sarcasm

Edited October 6, 2013 by Jimmy Wilson

[Jimmy Wilson]

No, that sounds about right for the multi-cult.

Asian countries for Asians.

African countries for Africans.

White countries for everybody!

It is said that there is this RACE problem. It is said that this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of people from the third world and "assimilating" with them.

It is said that the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem, but rather the final solution to the BLACK problem?

How long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I'm a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist, but they're really anti-white.

Anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

White trash drivel...

[Argus]

You do need to look at them over time because their earnings change over time.

By how much? And how do you know they'll change over time? Maybe they'll go down? The immigrants we are taking in aren't fresh out of grad school, you know. Some of them are in their middle to late earning years. Further, the educational level of many of them is poor (it is an oddity of the system that immigrants are both more likely to have post secondary education than Canadians, and also more likely to have less than high school, or less than grade eight, than Canadians).

Argus, with all due respect, I pointed directly to the difference as admitted to by Fraser. It's in footnote 4. It makes up a considerable portion of the difference in incomes between immigrants and citizens.

But you immediately pointed out most Canadians don't have investments either. And from what I've seen out on the wet coast an awful lot of immigrants seem to have a lot of investment money back home which never get reported to the Canadian government. There are a lot of hugely expensive homes being bought by Asian newcomers, so they're not all coming to Canada, cap in hand.

The problem also arises that the Fraser report did not run any econometric models on immigrant earnings whatsoever. They didn't even bother trying to control and isolate the effect of merely being an immigrant nor look at things like ESL and race discrimination. Both of which have nothing to do with immigrants themselves, but the closed-mindedness of the people they meet here.

Why would ESL matter in this sort of study? Clearly, lack of communication skills is a major factor in immigrants poor earning, Stats Canada has said so on a number of occasions, as have other agencies. That simply delves into what I've been saying about why we should be taking immigrants who speak English (and I don't mean taxi driver English). And with respect to race discrimination, how would you account for Asians earning so much less than people from anywhere else in the world? Those from Eastern Asia earn half what Jamaicans do, for exmaple.

And in any event it simply make sense that a European immmigrant, already acclimated to western cultures and values, usually speaking much better English, with western recognized education and credentials, would earn considerably more than immigrants from vastly different cultures, a poor grasp of the language, and with often unrecognized educational credentials. If the purpose of immigration is economic then it's only logical to bring in the sort of immigrants who would earn more and pay higher taxes.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

And in any event it simply make sense that a European immmigrant, already acclimated to western cultures and values, usually speaking much better English, with western recognized education and credentials, would earn considerably more than immigrants from vastly different cultures, a poor grasp of the language, and with often unrecognized educational credentials. If the purpose of immigration is economic then it's only logical to bring in the sort of immigrants who would earn more and pay higher taxes.

What changes are you suggesting to current immigration criteria?

[cybercoma]

By how much? And how do you know they'll change over time? Maybe they'll go down?

Maybe they would go down. That would be change. But not considering change over time at all is a flawed approach.

The immigrants we are taking in aren't fresh out of grad school, you know. Some of them are in their middle to late earning years.

You're absolutely right, which is another problem with the Fraser study. They pick an arbitrary number of "earning years." Another reason their numbers are inaccurate and have little generalizability.

Further, the educational level of many of them is poor (it is an oddity of the system that immigrants are both more likely to have post secondary education than Canadians, and also more likely to have less than high school, or less than grade eight, than Canadians).

Depends on what their immigration status is, as you're likely well aware. But a more rigorous investigation would control for education level. The question is how do immigrants with less than post-secondary education do compared to citizens with less than post-secondary education. That would be more meaningful. They didn't even remotely approach such rigour here.

But you immediately pointed out most Canadians don't have investments either. And from what I've seen out on the wet coast an awful lot of immigrants seem to have a lot of investment money back home which never get reported to the Canadian government. There are a lot of hugely expensive homes being bought by Asian newcomers, so they're not all coming to Canada, cap in hand.

No. They're not. But we don't know what they do and do not have because those numbers weren't available for use in the public data and they weren't used in the Fraser study, which is what I'm being critical of here. Maybe they have investments in their home countries and maybe they don't. Though, I should point out that Fraser seems to agree and think that the disparity in wealth is "largely explained by lack of investment income." Those are their words.

Why would ESL matter in this sort of study? Clearly, lack of communication skills is a major factor in immigrants poor earning, Stats Canada has said so on a number of occasions, as have other agencies.

That's exactly why it matters. If immigrants, holding all other things equally have lower earning potential then what is it about them? If someone has perfectly capable language skills but an accent, does that make them less employable or does it show some other social bias that we have against immigrants? Are the communication skills actually a problem? You need to look at what they score on language testing. If their language skills are on par with Canadian citizens (and believe me, most Canadians' language skills are pathetic), then they're facing a sort of systemic barrier likely for little other reason than the fact that they don't look or sound the same as the person employing them. This kind of bias has been shown repeatedly in studies that have controlled for education and language skills. So I wouldn't doubt that this kind of unconscious discrimination is a factor here as well. Your point about Asians and Jamaicans is moot. The fact is that they both earn less than the "acclimated White Europeans" you want to see being the only immigrants.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is that the Fraser study is unreliable, inaccurate, and poorly generalizable. Immigrants do earn less than others and it's important that we look into the mechanisms at play that are causing that kind of inequality. I'm suggesting that there's barriers to equality that reach much further than just their capabilities.

Edited October 7, 2013 by cybercoma

[guyser]

Who are the people go everywhere arround the world kill peoples and take land and name it as colony?

The Portuguese , Spaniards, Dutch,French.British,Romans,Turks,Ottomans.....lets see who have I missed....

[Argus]

What changes are you suggesting to current immigration criteria?

I'm not going to formalize all of the criteria, but to start with I would give priority to those with high communication skills, youth, and applicable education and job skills (and I'm not talking about a degree in history, especially since it's not our history). For example, we have been short of tradesmen for quite some time. Tradesmen I know say few of the immigrants we get either have the inclination or the skills/training. I had a taxi driver once who said he was a photoelectronic engineer, whatever that is. His English was subpar, to say the least. A bricklayer or roofer or carpenter or welder with subpar English is one thing, an engineer or doctor with subpar english is, well, a taxi driver. This may help explain why, according to stats Canada, even though our requirement for education went up, and we are taking in more people with university degrees, their employability and economic performance has gone down.

I would also have no quotas in place for visa offices around the world (see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/ips/economic.asp

If there are better applicants from Portugal than Abu Dhabi then we'd take people from the former and not from the latter. If there were better applicants from Italy as opposed to Turkey, then we'd take them instead. And yes, I very well understand this would mean more 'white' immigrants. But that is not the goal, and I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to that assuming it was simply a result of fair criteria designed to maximize the economic benefit to Canada. We don't owe all the world's nations a chance to immigrate, even if they're not as good as others we could bring in.

[Argus]

You're absolutely right, which is another problem with the Fraser study. They pick an arbitrary number of "earning years." Another reason their numbers are inaccurate and have little generalizability.

You can select what is probably an average number of earning years. You have to start somewhere. One thing which is not in doubt is that immigrants earn less than Canadians. Stats Can and various other agencies have been warning of the deteriorating economic performance of immigrants for some years now. And if you earn less you pay less in taxes.

The question is how do immigrants with less than post-secondary education do compared to citizens with less than post-secondary education. That would be more meaningful. They didn't even remotely approach such rigour here.

Again, you can quibble about their math, but we all know how Canadian born people without a high school diploma fare. It doesn't take a genius to figure immigrants without a high school diploma and with poor language skills are going to fare worse.

That's exactly why it matters. If immigrants, holding all other things equally have lower earning potential then what is it about them? If someone has perfectly capable language skills but an accent, does that make them less employable or does it show some other social bias that we have against immigrants? Are the communication skills actually a problem?

I know I've posted a variety of cites in the past from stats can and other agencies saying it most certainly is a problem, and that it lies at the heart of the worsening economic performance of immigrants. The more the government focuses on bringing over people with degrees, the more important language skills are. The higher your job level the more expert your linguistic and writing skills are required to be. I'm not saying there might not be some social bias as well, but let's also not forget that immigrants might also lack the social skills Canadians expect (the social skills of those who grew up as part of THIS society).

You need to look at what they score on language testing.

We don't test their language. Most of them get it tested by a variety of agencies in their home countries which are approved by Canada Immigration. There have been suggestions, given the nature of life in many of these countries, that purchasing pass marks is not unduly difficult. There have also been suggestions that the testing is not really adequate. I can't speak to that, but I do know many of us have pondered the "bilingual" ratings of any number of our colleagues who passed the French/English testing program the government runs with flying colours, yet can barely communicate in their "second language".

If their language skills are on par with Canadian citizens (and believe me, most Canadians' language skills are pathetic)

No, Canadians don't have 'pathetic' language skills, unless your measure is that of a cantankarous English professor. Even a person with a grade eight education is perfectly capable of communicating with me or anyone else who speaks English. You don't have to be either smart or educated when you grow up with the language. Now they might not be very good at expressing themselves in writing, I'll give you that.

So I wouldn't doubt that this kind of unconscious discrimination is a factor here as well. Your point about Asians and Jamaicans is moot. The fact is that they both earn less than the "acclimated White Europeans" you want to see being the only immigrants.

It's not my fault most of the people in the world who have the same sort of education, social skills, and educational abilities as us are from Europe. I'd be just as happy to take in a ton of Japananese, but I doubt they'd be much interested in immigrating here. And realistically, who is likely to be able to do well here economically, Jamaicans or Irish?

Look, the point I'm trying to make is that the Fraser study is unreliable, inaccurate, and poorly generalizable. Immigrants do earn less than others and it's important that we look into the mechanisms at play that are causing that kind of inequality. I'm suggesting that there's barriers to equality that reach much further than just their capabilities.

I don't buy that that plays that much of a factor. When I used to hire people the basic criteria I looked for was whether they were going to get along with everyone and do the job well. Added points if they weren't too educated, because then they were more likely to stick around longer. But I have to say that while there were not a lot of immigrants working for our department, at least at places I've been, most of them had some degree of difficult in expressing themselves verbally in comparison to the rest of the staff.

[jacee]

latter. If there were better applicants from Italy as opposed to Turkey, then we'd take them instead. And yes, I very well understand this would mean more 'white' immigrants. But that is not the goal, and I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to that assuming it was simply a result of fair criteria designed to maximize the economic benefit to Canada. We don't owe all the world's nations a chance to immigrate, even if they're not as good as others we could bring in.

Ya I get that.

But my question is what "fair criteria" are you talking about? How is it different than the "fair criteria" we currently have in place?

I'm trying to figure out whether you have a legitimate concern with our immigration criteria and speecific suggestions for improvement, or you're just blathering on about 'immigrants' when what you mean is ... non-white people.

You haven't provided any valid evidence of a problem:

Your data on income is flawed, inflates the Canadian average and still shows only that immigrants of the last few decades have a range of incomes, some above and some below average, just like the rest of us.

A few anecdotes proves nothing.

You haven't identified a problem nor proposed a solution, and so I'm inclined to think you're just blathering.

[Argus]

You haven't identified a problem nor proposed a solution, and so I'm inclined to think you're just blathering.

I think I've identified the problem pretty clearly. You don't care about the issue because to you, economics has little role in the importance you place on immigration. You support it, like many lefties, because it makes you feel good about yourself. If we weren't taking as many third world types, you wouldn't feel that sense of noblesse oblige is being met, which helps you offset your white liberal guilt.

You donl't think it's an issue that people coming here from certain parts of the world earn, on average, less than minimum wage because economics is just not something you care much about. It's the old right-left discourse. The right cares about logic and the left only cares about emotions.

[cybercoma]

I think I've identified the problem pretty clearly.

You've identified a communication problem and your only solution is to stop taking people from certain geographical regions, instead of looking at individual's ability to communicate or even remotely considering the idea of language training.

[carepov]

I think I've identified the problem pretty clearly. ...

You donl't think it's an issue that people coming here from certain parts of the world earn, on average, less than minimum wage...

Here are the 2011 source countries for our immigration (cut off at 1%). IYO, what are the "problem countries" and in what countries should we increase quotas?

2011 immigration statistics

Number of immigrants granted permanent residence in Canada in 2011 by source country^[17]

Rank

Country

Number of immigrants admitted

Proportion of total

Notes

1

Philippines

34,991

14.1%

2

China

28,696

11.5%

Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan included separately.

3

India

24,965

10%

4

United States

8,829

3.5%

5

Iran

6,840

2.7%

6

United Kingdom

6,550

2.6%

7

Haiti

6,208

2.5%

8

Pakistan

6,073

2.4%

9

France

5,867

2.4%

10

United Arab Emirates

5,223

2.1%

11

Iraq

4,698

1.9%

12

South Korea

4,573

1.8%

13

Colombia

4,317

1.7%

14

Morocco

4,155

1.7%

15

Algeria

3,800

1.5%

16

Mexico

3,642

1.5%

17

Egypt

3,403

1.4%

18

Sri Lanka

3,104

1.2%

19

Nigeria

2,768

1.1%

20

Ukraine

2,455

1%

21

Bangladesh

2,449

1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

[Argus]

You've identified a communication problem and your only solution is to stop taking people from certain geographical regions, instead of looking at individual's ability to communicate or even remotely considering the idea of language training.

We do offer language training, free language training, as a matter of fact. We don't offer that to Canadian born people by the way.

Communications is an issue, but it's not the only issue. The fact is that a lot of our immigrants, particularly those coming in under family reunification programs, don't have the necessary education or skills training to work in our society. The communication problem just stacks up on top of that. On top of that individuals and organizations sponsor people and then renege on their promises, leaving the provinces to pick up the tab for welfare, health care, etc. We don't send these people home if their sponsors renege, even if they renege almost immediately.

[cybercoma]

We don't offer that to Canadian born people by the way.

Every Canadian or resident that is enrolled in elementary school or secondary school takes both English and French classes. So yeah. We do offer that.

[Argus]

Here are the 2011 source countries for our immigration (cut off at 1%). IYO, what are the "problem countries" and in what countries should we increase quotas?

I would encourage more immigration from the top five areas and discourage immigration from the bottom five.

http://global-economics.ca/empin_immigrant_region.htm

[Argus]

Every Canadian or resident that is enrolled in elementary school or secondary school takes both English and French classes. So yeah. We do offer that.

It's not offered to people who didn't get it in school when younger. And how many of those people who do take it in school get enough second language training to be fluently bilingual? The government says that about 17.5% of Canadians are bilingual. But that number is simply those who self-declare to the census. Most of those people know some of the other language, but can't really function in it, and certainly could not work in it at a job with any real complexity. I doubt more than 4-5% of Canadians are truly fluent in the second language.

[cybercoma]

It's not offered to people who didn't get it in school when younger. And how many of those people who do take it in school get enough second language training to be fluently bilingual?

Now you want people to be bilingual? I thought you just wanted immigrants to speak English or French. Fact of the matter is everyone that went to school in Canada had comprehensive courses in one of those two languages, regardless of their ages. Anyone in their mid 30s and younger had both.