Canadian Immigration

[cybercoma]

I don't think any sensible reasons that stand the most rudimentary scrutiny have ever been offered on this forum. It's always like "more immigrants are good for the economy!" and when anyone asks how/why the answer is just empty platitudes, never anything based on real numbers or data.

Have you ever thought about looking into it? https://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf

[TimG]

Incorrect. Economic migrants make up just about double the other 3 classes combined.

I said 'highly skilled' and from your data 'skilled workers' are about 30K or 12% of the total which seems to show that I am right. If you read the chart you will see that 'economic migrants' includes the spouses and dependents.

[eyeball]

Our governments seem content with enabling the Chinese ascension at the cost of Canadian economic interests and our future autonomy. That is extremely disconcerting.

I'm pretty sure that ship sailed decades ago along with much of our manufacturing sector.

[Bonam]

Have you ever thought about looking into it? https://www.oecd.org/migration/mig/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf

No, definitely not. I only ever read what is spoon fed me on this forum and have no other knowledge of any kind. With that out of the way, the last paragraph of your link states:

Few empirical studies have tried, however, to estimate the overall impact of net migration on economic growth, in part because of a shortage of harmonised comparative data on international migration by skills levels. One study that looks at the impact of migration on economic growth for 22 OECD countries between 1986 and 2006 demonstrates a positive but fairly small impact of the human capital brought by migrants on economic growth. The contribution of immigrants to human capital accumulation tends to counteract the mechanical dilution effect (i.e. the impact of population increase on capital per worker), but the net effect is fairly small, including in countries which have highly selective migration policies. An increase of 50% in net migration of the foreign-born generates less than one tenth of a percentage-point variation in productivity growth (Boubtane and Dumont, 2013).

So basically your own link admits that the topic is little studied, but to the extent that it has been studied, the overall impact on growth is negligible (only enough to counteract the fact that with more people the products of the economy are split more ways).

Look, I myself have immigrated three times. I am the first to appreciate the freedom and economic opportunity that the ability to immigrate from country to country provides. I also recognize that countries can realize immense benefits from highly skilled immigrants. In fact, back to the thread topic, many of the "best" (most economically productive) immigrants Canada is getting right now are from China. That said, there has been very little justification ever put forth to support the actual magnitude of the immigration that Canada allows.

[Argus]

You have created yet another thread that displays your rants against immigrants. Who on earth do you want allowed into Canada? People like you will soon die off. Thank goodness.

People like me? What kind of people would that be? People intelligent enough to read statements in their own language and understand them? Do you feel you'll be more comfortable when all the smarter people are gone?

Not only did you read your own cite wrong, and not only do you lack the honesty to admit as much, but you don't even understand what this topic is. Not that that's stopped you from going all self-righteous about it, of course.

We need more immigrants period.

You have ZERO evidence to support your view. Not that actual evidence has any place in your worldview.

And this topic is not about immigration! Why don't you at least try to figure out what a topic is before whining about it?

[Argus]

Seriously? This has been debated to death. Nothing new here, just more rants against Asian immigrants.

So that's "no".

[Argus]

To reiterate the topic of this post. China's foreign minister basically ordered Canada to let in more temporary foreign workers a couple of months back and now the Liberals have come up with a new policy 'Hey, let's try to persuade the Chinese to let us bring in more Chinese temporary workers!"

[cybercoma]

I said 'highly skilled' and from your data 'skilled workers' are about 30K or 12% of the total which seems to show that I am right. If you read the chart you will see that 'economic migrants' includes the spouses and dependents.

And yet highly skilled is the highest number of economic migrants who are the highest category of all migrants. You ignore the investment class and start-ups as well because they're not "highly skilled" according to you, when the entire discussion is around their economic benefit to society. Just admit it. The system is designed to primarily accept people who can support themselves and expand the economy.

[cybercoma]

No, definitely not. I only ever read what is spoon fed me on this forum and have no other knowledge of any kind. With that out of the way, the last paragraph of your link states:

Few empirical studies have tried, however, to estimate the overall impact of net migration on economic growth, in part because of a shortage of harmonised comparative data on international migration by skills levels. One study that looks at the impact of migration on economic growth for 22 OECD countries between 1986 and 2006 demonstrates a positive but fairly small impact of the human capital brought by migrants on economic growth. The contribution of immigrants to human capital accumulation tends to counteract the mechanical dilution effect (i.e. the impact of population increase on capital per worker), but the net effect is fairly small, including in countries which have highly selective migration policies. An increase of 50% in net migration of the foreign-born generates less than one tenth of a percentage-point variation in productivity growth (Boubtane and Dumont, 2013).

So basically your own link admits that the topic is little studied, but to the extent that it has been studied, the overall impact on growth is negligible (only enough to counteract the fact that with more people the products of the economy are split more ways).

Look, I myself have immigrated three times. I am the first to appreciate the freedom and economic opportunity that the ability to immigrate from country to country provides. I also recognize that countries can realize immense benefits from highly skilled immigrants. In fact, back to the thread topic, many of the "best" (most economically productive) immigrants Canada is getting right now are from China. That said, there has been very little justification ever put forth to support the actual magnitude of the immigration that Canada allows.

Fairly small is not negligible. And you obviously ignored the rest of the article that highlighted the benefits, as well as their points about the limitations with the data. For all we know better data may show a larger effect. A Canadian only study could as well for all we know. Look into it.

Regardless, they're certainly not the negative effect that people here claim. The article literally shows the opposite.

Edited August 19, 2016 by cybercoma

[WestCoastRunner]

To reiterate the topic of this post. China's foreign minister basically ordered Canada to let in more temporary foreign workers a couple of months back and now the Liberals have come up with a new policy 'Hey, let's try to persuade the Chinese to let us bring in more Chinese temporary workers!"

Based on the posts in this thread I wasn't the only one who couldn't figure out what to debate.

[dre]

No, definitely not. I only ever read what is spoon fed me on this forum and have no other knowledge of any kind. With that out of the way, the last paragraph of your link states:

Few empirical studies have tried, however, to estimate the overall impact of net migration on economic growth, in part because of a shortage of harmonised comparative data on international migration by skills levels. One study that looks at the impact of migration on economic growth for 22 OECD countries between 1986 and 2006 demonstrates a positive but fairly small impact of the human capital brought by migrants on economic growth. The contribution of immigrants to human capital accumulation tends to counteract the mechanical dilution effect (i.e. the impact of population increase on capital per worker), but the net effect is fairly small, including in countries which have highly selective migration policies. An increase of 50% in net migration of the foreign-born generates less than one tenth of a percentage-point variation in productivity growth (Boubtane and Dumont, 2013).

So basically your own link admits that the topic is little studied, but to the extent that it has been studied, the overall impact on growth is negligible (only enough to counteract the fact that with more people the products of the economy are split more ways).

Look, I myself have immigrated three times. I am the first to appreciate the freedom and economic opportunity that the ability to immigrate from country to country provides. I also recognize that countries can realize immense benefits from highly skilled immigrants. In fact, back to the thread topic, many of the "best" (most economically productive) immigrants Canada is getting right now are from China. That said, there has been very little justification ever put forth to support the actual magnitude of the immigration that Canada allows.

There's actually been quite a few studies and there are basic ways to evaluate immigration policy.

The latest study done in Canada found that Immigration increases GDP by 2.3 percent per year. But it also found that in the years study that the population grew by 2.5 percent. Meaning GDP per capita went down slightly. The study also found that if the number economic class immigrants was doubled, GDP per capital would go UP, and there would be a general positive effect for everyone in the entire country.

Another study performed recently showed that Immigrants are more likely to start businesses and create new jobs. They are also more likely to be sole proprietors. They also have more education than Canadians on average.

We also know that Canadas workforce is starting to retire fast. Canads workforce will dramatically shrink just due to demographics. For the first time in our nations history there is more people older than 65 than there is people younger than 15. And not only will the workforce shrink but the pool of seniors the workforce needs to support will grow. Right now there's no conceivable way besides increasing immigration.

[WestCoastRunner]

There's actually been quite a few studies and there are basic ways to evaluate immigration policy.

The latest study done in Canada found that Immigration increases GDP by 2.3 percent per year. But it also found that in the years study that the population grew by 2.5 percent. Meaning GDP per capita went down slightly. The study also found that if the number economic class immigrants was doubled, GDP per capital would go UP, and there would be a general positive effect for everyone in the entire country.

Another study performed recently showed that Immigrants are more likely to start businesses and create new jobs. They are also more likely to be sole proprietors. They also have more education than Canadians on average.

We also know that Canadas workforce is starting to retire fast. Canads workforce will dramatically shrink just due to demographics. For the first time in our nations history there is more people older than 65 than there is people younger than 15. And not only will the workforce shrink but the pool of seniors the workforce needs to support will grow. Right now there's no conceivable way besides increasing immigration.

Add to that. International students upon graduation are more likely to stay in Canada (if allowed) creating startups and jobs.

[dre]

Add to that. International students upon graduation are more likely to stay in Canada (if allowed) creating startups and jobs.

In any case we have the information to guide immigration policy.

We know we are going to need MORE immigrants in the near future, and we know that we can increase the benefits of immigration to ALL Canadians by increasing the amount of Economic and Business Class immigrants.

[Argus]

Based on the posts in this thread I wasn't the only one who couldn't figure out what to debate.

No, it was just you.

[Argus]

The latest study done in Canada found that Immigration increases GDP by 2.3 percent per year. But it also found that in the years study that the population grew by 2.5 percent. Meaning GDP per capita went down slightly. The study also found that if the number economic class immigrants was doubled, GDP per capital would go UP, and there would be a general positive effect for everyone in the entire country.

I'm sure you're wrong, because the Liberals are the 'evidence' party, and they have actually lowered the number of economic class immigrants in favour of family class.

Another study performed recently showed that Immigrants are more likely to start businesses and create new jobs. They are also more likely to be sole proprietors. They also have more education than Canadians on average.

Which is often irrelevant given their poor linguistic skills and the fact many of the universities they come from are not accredited - often for good reasons.

We also know that Canadas workforce is starting to retire fast. Canads workforce will dramatically shrink just due to demographics.

Good thing, then, that the Liberals have decided to prioritize allowing immigration from seniors, eh? That'll definitely help lower the overall age!

For the first time in our nations history there is more people older than 65 than there is people younger than 15. And not only will the workforce shrink but the pool of seniors the workforce needs to support will grow. Right now there's no conceivable way besides increasing immigration.

Well, people could start having babies. The government could find out why they're not and do the best they can to make it easier for couples to have kids.

In all seriousness, the government has never made bringing in younger people to help remedy an aging population any part of its immigration system. If they did, you would get more points for being younger, for example, or having kids. But you don't. The system doesn't care if you're a 56 year old immigrant with no kids or a 26 year old immigrant with five kids and it never has. As a result, the average age of immigrants is only slightly lower than the average age of Canadian born people.

[Argus]

In any case we have the information to guide immigration policy.

The Liberal government's decisions on immigration policy are not predicated on any information other than voting patterns and promises to ethnic groups. The Conservatives were only slightly better.

and we know that we can increase the benefits of immigration to ALL Canadians by increasing the amount of Economic and Business Class immigrants.

But we're not doing that. Instead we're going to bring in hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Argus

[dre]

I'm sure you're wrong, because the Liberals are the 'evidence' party, and they have actually lowered the number of economic class immigrants in favour of family class.

Which is often irrelevant given their poor linguistic skills and the fact many of the universities they come from are not accredited - often for good reasons.

Good thing, then, that the Liberals have decided to prioritize allowing immigration from seniors, eh? That'll definitely help lower the overall age!

Well, people could start having babies. The government could find out why they're not and do the best they can to make it easier for couples to have kids.

In all seriousness, the government has never made bringing in younger people to help remedy an aging population any part of its immigration system. If they did, you would get more points for being younger, for example, or having kids. But you don't. The system doesn't care if you're a 56 year old immigrant with no kids or a 26 year old immigrant with five kids and it never has. As a result, the average age of immigrants is only slightly lower than the average age of Canadian born people.

I wasn't trying to defend Liberal Government policy, so your reply is a bit confusing.

Well, people could start having babies. The government could find out why they're not and do the best they can to make it easier for couples to have kids.

Yup but the government already spends a lot on this, and success is limited. This is a trend throughout the whole western world not a Canada thing.

Edited August 19, 2016 by dre

[Bonam]

There's actually been quite a few studies and there are basic ways to evaluate immigration policy.

The latest study done in Canada found that Immigration increases GDP by 2.3 percent per year. But it also found that in the years study that the population grew by 2.5 percent. Meaning GDP per capita went down slightly. The study also found that if the number economic class immigrants was doubled, GDP per capital would go UP, and there would be a general positive effect for everyone in the entire country.

So it found that current immigration policy was reducing GDP per capita. You know, based on real data that they had. Then they made some rosy extrapolations and said that things would be different and better with more immigrants. Guess which of the two results sounds more convincing?

We also know that Canadas workforce is starting to retire fast. Canads workforce will dramatically shrink just due to demographics. For the first time in our nations history there is more people older than 65 than there is people younger than 15. And not only will the workforce shrink but the pool of seniors the workforce needs to support will grow. Right now there's no conceivable way besides increasing immigration.

Well, first, current immigration policy is not well optimized to reduce the average age of the population. So it makes little sense when many on the left (not talking about you) attack any critic of current immigration policy as "racist", when there are plenty of legitimate problems like... why aren't we bringing in more younger immigrants and more economic immigrants?

Secondly... many jobs are increasingly being automated, while many low skilled jobs that can't yet be automated have permanently moved to other countries, and further some of the major employers in Canada which are resource related will experience only reductions not growth as the world transitions to renewables over the coming decades. So why do we need to bring in more workers when there is no reason to expect that our economy will necessarily need more workers? Maybe having a relative scarcity of workers will instead allow the workers that are already here to experience higher wages and better standards of living?

[dre]

So it found that current immigration policy was reducing GDP per capita. You know, based on real data that they had. Then they made some rosy extrapolations and said that things would be different and better with more immigrants. Guess which of the two results sounds more convincing?

Not rosey assumptions. The have statistics on how each immigrant class effects GDP, and per capita GPD. Doubling the number of Business and Economic class immigrants would raise immigrant wages 5% which be enough to cause both GDP and per capita GDP to grow.

Both of the results are credible and convincing.

Well, first, current immigration policy is not well optimized to reduce the average age of the population. So it makes little sense when many on the left (not talking about you) attack any critic of current immigration policy as "racist", when there are plenty of legitimate problems like... why aren't we bringing in more younger immigrants and more economic immigrants?

I know... I can only offer my own opinion based on my own observations and research. I cant speak for "many on the left". Or the "current government". I realize you don't expect me to thanks to your "(not talking about you)" caveat.

Secondly... many jobs are increasingly being automated, while many low skilled jobs that can't yet be automated have permanently moved to other countries, and further some of the major employers in Canada which are resource related will experience only reductions not growth as the world transitions to renewables over the coming decades. So why do we need to bring in more workers when there is no reason to expect that our economy will necessarily need more workers?

We NEED to grow the economy and the workforce in order not only finance our stand of life, but to pay for the huge glut of retirees that we are going to have. And we already have a labor shortage which is being addressed by things like immigration and guest worker programs.

We are going to need more workers. We either have to better utilize the nation's sperm, uteruses and vaginas to produce more workers, or we need to find them elsewhere.

[dre]

Maybe having a relative scarcity of workers will instead allow the workers that are already here to experience higher wages and better standards of living?

The problem is our economy and monetary systems are kinda like a ponzi scheme. If the population stops growing you really run into trouble because you run out of people to borrow money into the economy. And most of that borrowing is done to create new homes and businesses to server an increasing population. Without population increase, the money supply would shrink fast as existing loans were paid off, and less new loans and mortgages were taken out. This is what causes rampant deflation and that's what made the great depression "great".

Also we have made all kinds of promises and obligations and borrowed money and created entitles all based on projects that both the population and the economy would grow. We CANT tax the current work force enough to fund all these entitlements over the next few decades.

Is it possible to have a high standard of life and a vibrant economy without population growth? Probably... But that's not how our economic system is designed. We would need a whole new system for that.

Edited August 19, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

We NEED to grow the economy and the workforce in order not only finance our stand of life, but to pay for the huge glut of retirees that we are going to have.

Immigrants don;t help with retirees because they often bring their parents and don't have children in excess of what Canadians have. All we need are enough immigrants to make sure the population does not shrink.

The idea that we need to perpetually grow population is a 19th century thinking that cannot continue forever. We need to embrace the future where automation greatly reduces the need for workers.

FYI: If present trends continue Canada will have a population greater that Japan today in 50 years.

The US will have a population greater than China today.

We don't need all those people and the sooner we switch to a zero population growth model the better.

Edited August 19, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

We NEED to grow the economy and the workforce

Classical erroneous thinking.

Why can't we grow the economy through exports, why do we have to become a nation of consumers?

[dre]

Why can't we grow the economy through exports, why do we have to become a nation of consumers?

We tried to do that with free trade. Problem is we don't have any competitive advantage in most industries, so the effort made us even MORE dependent on domestic consumption of services.

Classical erroneous thinking.

Call it what you want but this is the same approach used by every modern economy on earth for a century... whether it has conservatives or liberals in charge.

[?Impact]

We tried to do that with free trade. Problem is we don't have any competitive advantage in most industries, so the effort made us even MORE dependent on domestic consumption of services.

No, free trade is just a gift to the multi-national corporations to allow them to circumvent anything that would better the world for the average Joe. What advantage do you want us to have? Exploitation of workers, poor safety standards, compromise the environment?

[dre]

What advantage do you want us to have?

Well you said you wanted us to have an export based economy.... So something we can make and export might be useful. LOL.