Immigrant's qualities

[dre]

From Kenney's remarks:

"We're going to toughen policy to "change the impression"....whether the impression is "fair or not."

Speaking of "good sane, sensible reasons."

What Canada actually has a reputation for is having one of the best systems in the world. Our points based system has resulted in a steady flow of highly educated and productive human resources and we have nowhere near the kinds of social issues related to immigration that we see in other western countries.

I know the idea that the Canadian government might do something useful seems odd and counter intuitive and just plain far fetched... but in this case

[Argus]

What Canada actually has a reputation for is having one of the best systems in the world. Our points based system has resulted in a steady flow of highly educated and productive human resources and we have nowhere near the kinds of social issues related to immigration that we see in other western countries.

I know the idea that the Canadian government might do something useful seems odd and counter intuitive and just plain far fetched... but in this case

I knew this would happen. I was searching for a cite I knew I had posted, and mistakenly posted to this thread. And since the stupid software here won't allow you to actually delete a post, it wound up necroing the thread.

However, for you and others who I know won't bother to read back over it, the thread was much as the subtopic in the Kenya mall shooting, ie, should we perhaps find ways to improve on the quality of immigrants as per my earlier cites here, including:

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

[jacee]

I knew this would happen. I was searching for a cite I knew I had posted, and mistakenly posted to this thread. And since the stupid software here won't allow you to actually delete a post, it wound up necroing the thread.

However, for you and others who I know won't bother to read back over it, the thread was much as the subtopic in the Kenya mall shooting, ie, should we perhaps find ways to improve on the quality of immigrants as per my earlier cites here, including:

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

If those are single (breadwinner?) incomes, the household incomes could be adequate, even the lowest ones who may be refugees

All are increasing with more years in the country.

Looks ok to me.

[Argus]

If those are single (breadwinner?) incomes, the household incomes could be adequate, even the lowest ones who may be refugees

All are increasing with more years in the country.

Looks ok to me.

Pehraps it looks good to you because you don't pay taxes? I pay a lot of taxes, and when the avererage income from people who immigrated to Canada from an entire sector of a contintinent is $13,000 that tells me none of these people are paying taxes, nor are they ever likely to. These are people who have been here, in some cases, for over ten years. I don't see much likelihood their economic fortunes are suddenly going to take a huge jump.

So why did we bring them here again? And more to the point, why are we bringing in more? There are a lot of areas like that, notably the Phililipines, which is now our number one source country for immigrants.

[jacee]

Pehraps it looks good to you because you don't pay taxes?

I wish!

I pay a lot of taxes,

Because you make a lot of money.

Lucky you.

and when the avererage income from people who immigrated to Canada from an entire sector of a contintinent is $13,000 that tells me none of these people are paying taxes, nor are they ever likely to. These are people who have been here, in some cases, for over ten years. I don't see much likelihood their economic fortunes are suddenly going to take a huge jump.

Now you're just misrepresenting the data.

Read your link again.

And consider that these are single incomes: There may be 2-3 such incomes per household.

Everybody pays some taxes ...

So why did we bring them here again? And more to the point, why are we bringing in more?

I'm wondering why we brought you here.

There are a lot of areas like that, notably the Phililipines, which is now our number one source country for immigrants.

According to your link, they're doing just fine.

I can only assume, since you are complaining, that your family must have arrived in Canada as wealthy taxpayers?

Edited September 29, 2013 by jacee

[Argus]

I wish!

Because you make a lot of money.

Lucky you.

It's more skill and perseverence.

And consider that these are single incomes: There may be 2-3 such incomes per household.

The same could be said of all the other incomes in the list, many of which are twice as high

Everybody pays some taxes ...

No, in fact, large numbers of people are negatively taxed, which is to say that at the end of the year everything collected from them is refunded, and then some. Like it or not, communities survive on pooled incomes, and these people are not contributing. So again, I ask, what is the logic in bringing in people who will make $13,000 instead of more people who will make $30,000 or 40,000?

I can only assume, since you are complaining, that your family must have arrived in Canada as wealthy taxpayers?

No, my family arrived here when there was no unemployment insurance, no CPP or OAS, no public health insurance, none of that fun stuff. I don't know if there was welfare back then or not but certainly no one in my past ever had any acquaintance with it.

When comparing present immigrants to past immigrants you have to bear in mind that in the past, you succeded or you went back home. An untold story of Canada's immigration past is how many immigrants gave up and went home again every year.

[jacee]

It's more skill and perseverence.

Good for you ... you pay lots of taxes.

Much appreciated.

The same could be said of all the other incomes in the list, many of which are twice as high

Yes. Immigrants appear to be doing well and contributing to the economy.

No, in fact, large numbers of people are negatively taxed, which is to say that at the end of the year everything collected from them is refunded, and then some.

There's more taxes than just income taxes.

Everybody pays some taxes.

Like it or not, communities survive on pooled incomes, and these people are not contributing.

Hunh?

So again, I ask, what is the logic in bringing in people who will make $13,000 instead of more people who will make $30,000 or 40,000?

We accept a variety of immigrants of high, moderate and low means. From your data, they're all contributing and progressing quite well.

If we changed the rules, would we have to retroactively throw your family out?

Why should we deny new immigrants the opportunities our families had, to work hard and make a good life in a relatively safe place?

'We' can do it, but 'they' can't?

Who are 'they'?

Do you mean non-white people Argus?

Who doesn't deserve the same opportunities that your family had?

[Bonam]

There's more taxes than just income taxes.

Everybody pays some taxes.

Low income people get their GST/HST back too.

We accept a variety of immigrants of high, moderate and low means. From your data, they're all contributing and progressing quite well.

Cool. Now if we accepted just the high and moderate means variety, that would be better for Canada.

Why should we deny new immigrants the opportunities our families had, to work hard and make a good life in a relatively safe place?

Because it's the year 2013 and not 1800. Why should we deny people the opportunity to claim new lands that were previously unclaimed? Why should we deny people the opportunity to own slaves? Times change, and so do the available opportunities. Canada is no longer a wild frontier where people can just go and settle. Canada has an extensive existing population and an integrated economy, and immigration policy must be tailored to benefit Canadians, as the first responsibility of government is to ensure the security and prosperity of its people.

[bleeding heart]

Low income people get their GST/HST back too.

A small portion of it.

This is not a complaint, but a clarification.

Meaning only that Jacee's point was precisely correct.

Edited September 29, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Just because they make low incomes, it doesn't mean their net economic benefit is low.

What if their employment is generating thousands for their employer ?

You can bet that our PM is interested in net economic benefits.

[jacee]

Low income people get their GST/HST back too.

Some.

Cool. Now if we accepted just the high and moderate means variety, that would be better for Canada.

Really?

We've always been people who came here with hope for freedom and motivation to make better lives.

Why would people already of high and moderate means leave their country?

Do we really want rich people who are fleeing to Canada because they got rich through corruption and criminality in a despotic regime that's being overthrown ... just for an example?

I'd prefer refugees with nothing but hope and determination, running to freedom from despotic regimes.

That's who most Canadians are.

Edited September 29, 2013 by jacee

[bleeding heart]

Just because they make low incomes, it doesn't mean their net economic benefit is low.

What if their employment is generating thousands for their employer ?

Good point. Percentage-wise, low-income employees can net their employers more money than high-income employees in some cases...an often overlooked fact.

[Argus]

Just because they make low incomes, it doesn't mean their net economic benefit is low.

What if their employment is generating thousands for their employer ?

You can bet that our PM is interested in net economic benefits.

What if they're not?

You people forget that if the "average" income is about $13k that means a large number of the people in that particular group are not earning anything at all. These are the groups which fill public housing and welfare rolls. Why not avoid that by only selecting people from areas where we know, statistically, they will be much more likely to earn more and thus pay more taxes?

[Argus]

Good point. Percentage-wise, low-income employees can net their employers more money than high-income employees in some cases...an often overlooked fact.

They can? You have some sort of statistics or citation to back that up?

And I don't care about employers (as you might have noticed). I recognize that employers are one of the groups most enthusiastic about importing people from other countries who will work for very little. That's obviously profitable from their perspective but it's not good for society as a whole.

[Argus]

Why would people already of high and moderate means leave their country?

Do we really want rich people who are fleeing to Canada because they got rich through corruption and criminality in a despotic regime that's being overthrown ... just for an example?

I'd prefer refugees with nothing but hope and determination, running to freedom from despotic regimes.

That's who most Canadians are.

I think your definition of who Canadians are varies widely from mine. But then, I'm not as filled with the schmaltzy American mythos as you appear to be.

The people who are in the higher earning brackets came here for a better life, just like everyone else. That's especially so from places like Europe which are in the midst of multi year economic problems. In some parts of Europe the unemployment rate for young people is over 40% and people see no hope for their futures there.

I think Europe right now is a fantastic recruiting ground. You have all these young, well-educated westernized people, whose credentials and education is and will be accepted as on par with our own, many of whom speak English, and who can fit seamlessly into our culture. Why on Earth would we instead bring over tens of thousands of people with few, if any prospects for a succesful economic life here? Do we really need that many more taxi drivers and cleaners?

[Argus]

A small portion of it.

This is not a complaint, but a clarification.

Meaning only that Jacee's point was precisely correct.

The point is that they cost us far more than we get back from them. That was also the point of the Frasier Institute report pegging that cost at something like $27 billion dollars a year to the taxpayer, I believe.

[jacee]

What if they're not?

What if you're not?

You people forget that if the "average" income is about $13k that means a large number of the people in that particular group are not earning anything at all. These are the groups which fill public housing and welfare rolls.

That's a very small group of refugees.

Why not avoid that by only selecting people from areas where we know, statistically, they will be much more likely to earn more and thus pay more taxes?

Why not take some of both?

ARE YOU SUGGESTING CANADA NOT TAKE ANY REFUGEES?

That's what it looks like to me.

What a silly and stupid old argument.

[jacee]

The point is that they cost us far more than we get back from them. That was also the point of the Frasier Institute report pegging that cost at something like $27 billion dollars a year to the taxpayer, I believe.

Link?

I call BS.

[Argus]

What if you're not?

Your attempt to turn this into a personal slagging match will not disguise your complete lack of facts, knowledge or even care about the situation involved.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING CANADA NOT TAKE ANY REFUGEES?

That's what it looks like to me.

What a silly and stupid old argument.

Do you really think this is clever or new? You dishonestly suggest I made a statement, then get self-righteous about it.

Nobody is going to be impressed, I assure you.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Link?

I call BS.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/

Edited September 30, 2013 by Argus

[jacee]

I think your definition of who Canadians are varies widely from mine. But then, I'm not as filled with the schmaltzy American mythos as you appear to be.

Just stating the truth: Most Canadians' families arrived here with very little, and likely survived for a generation and raised the next generation on very little.

Should we vilify our ancestors for being a drain on the Canadian economy for a generation?

The people who are in the higher earning brackets came here for a better life, just like everyone else. That's especially so from places like Europe which are in the midst of multi year economic problems. In some parts of Europe the unemployment rate for young people is over 40% and people see no hope for their futures there.

I think Europe right now is a fantastic recruiting ground. You have all these young, well-educated westernized people, whose credentials and education is and will be accepted as on par with our own, many of whom speak English, and who can fit seamlessly into our culture. Why on Earth would we instead bring over tens of thousands of people with few, if any prospects for a succesful economic life here? Do we really need that many more taxi drivers and cleaners?

"Recruit" how? By offering them free land?

By telling them there's lots of jobs?

... as cleaners and taxi drivers?

I assume that if employers need skilled workers, they are recruiting them from wherever they exist. I also assume that Europeans with skills will be applying for jobs in Canada where they exist.

I don't see a role for government recruiting here.

[jacee]

Do you really think this is clever or new? You dishonestly suggest I made a statement, then get self-righteous about it.

You haven't answered my question:

You've disparaged the one small group of Asian immigrants (in your data link) with the lowest incomes, who are likely refugees - I would guess perhaps persecuted Tamils from Sri Lanka, people of East Timor, etc.

So I'm asking, since you appear to disparage refugees,

ARE YOU SUGGESTING CANADA NOT TAKE ANY REFUGEES?

[jacee]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/17/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report/

This is an interesting report, all tarted up like a bombshell but in truth, "sound and fury signifying nothing"!

The premise is that all first generation immigrants who arrived in Canada from 1987 to 2004, paid less in taxes than the average Canadian in 2005. (They also received fewer benefits than the average Canadian.)

What the authors conveniently don't even mention is that about 50% of all Canadians pay less taxes than the average Canadian.

In other words, these recent immigrants are being vilified for not earning above average income ... ie, vilified for not earning more than 50% of Canadians.

Also noted: The data tracks the income of 'immigrants' from 1987-2004, not their children, many of whom are now adults and possibly earning more than their parents. The contribution of children of these immigrants receives only brief mention and no consideration in calculations.

Also pertinent:

An 'average' is not a fixed point. It moves higher as Canadians' incomes increase.

If all immigrants (and other Canadians) earned income above the current 'average', the average itself would increase.

There will always be about 50% of Canadians, recent immigrants or otherwise, whose incomes fall below the 'average'. That's a statistical reality. Using a statistical 'average' to vilify people is self-defeating.

You could use the 'below average' cutoff to say all such Canadians should be euthanized as 'useless eaters' but guess what ... Once they're all gone, the new 'average' is much higher and half of the (formerly) 'above average' are then below the new average:

The euthanizers become the euthanized.

That's a ridiculous scenario, of course, created to illustrate the inaccuracy and obscenity of using an 'average' as a selection/rejection cutoff: It's a moving target and the 'average and above average' who advocate its use will eventually become the rejected ones.

In the case of the Fraser Institute ... that wouldn't be a bad thing, imo.

They're notorious for faulty data, inappropriate assumptions and biased interpretations.

[cybercoma]

Just because they make low incomes, it doesn't mean their net economic benefit is low.

What if their employment is generating thousands for their employer ?

You can bet that our PM is interested in net economic benefits.

You've been able to explain more clearly what I've been trying to say repeatedly, but getting nowhere with it.

[cybercoma]

An 'average' is not a fixed point. It moves higher as Canadians' incomes increase.

I haven't looked, but what kind of average are they using? If they're using the mean average this is even worse, as it's skewed higher by the highest income earners. The income curve is a skewed one with the bulk of incomes on the low end with a long tail towards the high end. Median average is a far better metric when discussing income to account for this skewness. The median income is the point at which 50% of people earn more and 50% of people earn less. It's not weighted down by the incomes highest earners. It's more geared towards understanding where the individual earners themselves are. It's more appropriate to this discussion since we're talking about the people (immigrants here) anyway.