Canadian Immigration

[cybercoma]

It does not give you any information about the variance. A flat distribution which mirrors the existing population distribution will do absolutely nothing to help with the demographic issue. A narrow distribution could, in theory, help if you exponentially increased immigrants over time. My argument is the distribution is relatively flat which makes immigration useless as means to address the demographic issue. We need another solution.

Show, don't tell. Post the age distribution. Otherwise, people can just assume you're making assumptions and I'm tired of humouring your assumptions.

[cybercoma]

Why are they different? Both are petty and likely irrelevant to the worth of the applicant. They are just two examples of petty or irrelevant information that go into the process of filtering resumes.One thing you need to keep in mind: statistically speaking a foreign name is more likely to have English communication issues so it is rational to reject resumes on that basis. The danger with statistics is people are individuals - not statistical groups and making decisions based on statistics is unfair to individuals. Of course identifying candidates by their association with statistical groups is the basis for affirmative action so people who support such practices can't really complain when the same approach is used for other statistical groupings.

Prejudiced assumptions. You find out someone's communication skills at an interview. More importantly there's still other research that shows bigoted intolerance for accents even when the speaker has grammatically perfect English.

You're rationalizing away racism and bigotry, which has clearly been shown as the cause of higher unemployment amongst immigrants in Canada. Say whatever the hell you want but that's not a deficiency amongst immigrants. It's a deficiency amongst people like you who wouldn't even interview someone because you make a ridiculous assumption that they can't speak English despite applying for a job in English with an English resume. He study in the article used AN IDENTICAL RESUME wi different names. And you disgustingly call a foreign name a knock against the quality of the candidate like a spelling mistake. If you don't understand how that's bigoted discrimination, then youre being intentionally blind to it.

Which is hilariously hypocritical comi from someone who has defended hiring "the best person for the job." Suddenly having the right name is a qualification for you. How about the right skin colour or the right religion too? What about the right sex? Is a female name like ha I a resume riddled with typos? It defies reason that you don't see how stupid that comparison is.

[Big Guy]

I would probably disqualify a person who submitted a resume printed in pencil or lipstick. But I guess it would depend on the kind of job I was offering.

[TimG]

Prejudiced assumptions. You find out someone's communication skills at an interview.

You have time for 10 interviews. You have 100 resumes. 90 have to be discarded. There will be no interview. The only option available is guessing based on the contents of the resume. Whether you like it or not, it is statistically valid to associate a foreign name with poor English skills when there is no other information available.

How do you propose reducing 100 resumes to 10 based only on the content of the resume?

What criteria would you use to separate otherwise identical resumes?

My guess is you would be just as prejudiced and judgmental but you are simply blind to your prejudices.

More importantly there's still other research that shows bigoted intolerance for accents even when the speaker has grammatically perfect English.

And there is a bigoted intolerance for people who dress poorly or pick their nose during the interview. Presentation matters.

Suddenly having the right name is a qualification for you.

Go back and read my posts. I never said anything close to that. All I am doing is pointing out the nature of resume filtering and how it is a completely arbitrary and unfair process. Getting exercised about one example of an arbitrary and unfair process is silly. Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

You have time for 10 interviews. You have 100 resumes. 90 have to be discarded. There will be no interview. The only option available is guessing based on the contents of the resume. Whether you like it or not, it is statistically valid to associate a foreign name with poor English skills when there is no other information available.How do you propose reducing 100 resumes to 10 based only on the content of the resume?

You are an extremely poor manager if you judge based on a person's name. Yikes. I don't want to work for you. That's a recipe for a failing business.

I go through resumes all the time. English names is not a criteria I use.

[dre]

You are an extremely poor manager if you judge based on a person's name. Yikes. I don't want to work for you. That's a recipe for a failing business.

I go through resumes all the time. English names is not a criteria I use.

First of all, if "Speaks English Well" is a requirement of the job, then that was on the job posting, or in the job description sent to your recruiter.

So 100% of those resumes are from people that speak English, and if they are not you're an IDIOT and you've already failed.

The last few people I've hired had the last names Cabaang, Beltran, Ocampo, Andrata and Valeza. They don't sound like very "english speaking" names, but it doesn't matter because I know everyone I reviewed spoke english in the first place, even though I hired them in Manila.

His whole hypothetical situation is so silly that it should just be summarily dismissed. Tim has obviously never hired ANYONE and he probably never will.

Edited August 20, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

You are an extremely poor manager if you judge based on a person's name.

I never said I did. I said that it is statistically valid to filter for English skills based on person's name and/or educational background. I was only explaining the stats quoted and pointing out it likely had nothing to with a dislike of foreigners.

I go through resumes all the time. English names is not a criteria I use.

Neither do I.

The resume process sucks. AIs are being developed that try to take the arbitrariness out of the equation by matching resumes based on job criteria without requiring someone to scan a resume and be influenced by irrelevant details. This should eventually be a standard in all businesses.

One thing that the UK has woken up to is the prejudice towards the school someone attends. In the UK 1% of the schools count for 40%+ of the MPs. Similar stats exist for other senior positions in industry and government. Part of this can be explained by self selection - the top schools have a better student pool so it follows they will be more successful. But it is also prejudice where people are denied opportunities because they did not go to the right school. If people want to do something about inequality we have to move to assessments based on competence rather than credentials. People attending second tier schools can be just as capable but only lacked the money to attend the top schools.

Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Tim has obviously never hired ANYONE and he probably never will.

More self-righteous people jumping to incorrect and irrelevant conclusions instead of reading carefully and understanding the nuance of the argument being made. Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[G Huxley]

And which is why they are allowing immigrants/refugees. They need them.

Did the Ancient Germans need the Romans?

[BC_chick]

What criteria would you use to separate otherwise identical resumes?My guess is you would be just as prejudiced and judgmental but you are simply blind to your prejudices.

Oh I don't know. Perhaps a 5 minute preliminary telephone interview??

Honestly TimG, you really are letting go of a lot of talent basing things on names alone. I remember working in an accounting firm years ago when a couple of the managers were throwing out resumes with 'Paki' or 'Chinese' names and I was aghast. I asked how I ever made it through the door and they openly said someone else was in charge of hiring when my resume came in.

Meanwhile I grew up right here in Canada and I am great at what I do.

With post like yours, it's no wonder I get all my business from referrals. You're really losing out with your prejudices.

[Big Guy]

A resume is an application for an interview. People take courses on how to create a resume and how to adapt it to the particular job and/or company doing the hiring.

Once you receive the resumes, the first thing you do is separate out those who have the basic qualifications. That is often done by the office manager or whoever does the "filtering". That process will often pare down the number greatly since many will apply only to have the company keep their resumes on file if/when a job opens up with examples of thousands of these - none having anything to do with race, religion, politics or assumed ability with the English Language.

Once the interviews take place, then a whole number of different criteria kick in. I agree with BC_chick on this one. To make assumptions based on name would wrongly disqualify potentially excellent candidates and your company would suffer for it.

[TimG]

With post like yours, it's no wonder I get all my business from referrals. You're really losing out with your prejudices.

Why is no one on this forum is able to understand a nuanced argument? I never said I engaged in such practices or even care personally about English language skills for the jobs I am involved with hiring. I am criticizing the entire process of filtering resumes which I see as an arbitrary process filled with unreasonable snap judgements and assumptions.

Why won't anyone address that part of my argument?

Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

His whole hypothetical situation is so silly that it should just be summarily dismissed. Tim has obviously never hired ANYONE and he probably never will.

Here's the problem though. A researcher sent out identical resumes with different names on it. The names that were not anglo got half as many calls for interview. So Tim's thinking is a precise demonstration of the uphill battle that immigrants face if they don't have an English-sounding name. You and Squid may be part of the 50% that do call back but when you're that individual applying, that doesn't matter.

But what's the point? The point is that Argus wants to say immigrants are a problem because they have a hard time finding jobs in their first 5 years in Canada and they earn less. First of all, anyone in their first five years at a job is going to earn less compared to the entire labour force, so that's an absurd comparison to begin with. The point, however, is that the reason they don't do as well is through no fault of their own​. It's because they face discrimination from people like TimG who think a name that's not anglicized represents a language deficiency on the part of the applicant. He probably also thinks that someone who speaks perfect English but has an accent also has a language deficiency which is simply not true. The problem is discrimination in hiring practices. In other words, the data doesn't point to the problem that Argus thinks it does but as usual he wants to point the finger at immigrants and foreigners as being somehow defective without actually considering the reason those numbers look the way they do.

[cybercoma]

Oh I don't know. Perhaps a 5 minute preliminary telephone interview??

Honestly TimG, you really are letting go of a lot of talent basing things on names alone. I remember working in an accounting firm years ago when a couple of the managers were throwing out resumes with 'Paki' or 'Chinese' names and I was aghast. I asked how I ever made it through the door and they openly said someone else was in charge of hiring when my resume came in.

Meanwhile I grew up right here in Canada and I am great at what I do.

With post like yours, it's no wonder I get all my business from referrals. You're really losing out with your prejudices.

So much for the tired conservative line of "people just hire the best for the job​." They forgot the fine print, "as long as their name sounds white."

[TimG]

It's because they face discrimination from people like TimG who think a name that's not anglicized represents a language deficiency on the part of the applicant.

I never said such a thing. Why is it that you people can't understand a nuanced argument? It is rather pathetic that your are so desperate to support your 'everyone is prejudice' narrative that you put words into other people's mouths.

To remind you: I said it is statistically valid to associate a non-english name with language skills. I did not say it was a smart thing to and also said I thought it was unfair like other criteria people use to justify resume filtering. The only thing I said it was no worse that rejecting someone because of a spelling error which is a lot different from saying it should be a criteria.

I should have known better than to start a discussion with people who are incapable of comprehending arguments that don't conform their their predetermined views.

Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Nuance? Your argument has no nuance. You're saying now that you're criticizing hiring practices as being "arbitrary" and "filled with unreasonable snap judgments." That's not at all what you were arguing earlier.

I presented an article that showed changing the name on a resume reduces the number of calls a person gets by 50%. Your so-called "nuanced" argument was that their name is a good proxy for their language skills. If you were actually arguing that hiring practices are "unreasonable," you would have been criticizing that practice, but you weren't. You were literally justifying it.

So you can whine and cry about people being stupid, desperate, and pathetic all you want, but you're just backpedalling now.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Nuance? Your argument has no nuance. You're saying now that you're criticizing hiring practices as being "arbitrary" and "filled with unreasonable snap judgments." That's not at all what you were arguing earlier.

My first comment on the topic:

Why is this different from rejecting a resume because of a spelling error? Filtering resumes, by the nature of the process, is an arbitrary exercise. Many applicants look identical on paper and you cannot possibility interview everyone. So people make snap decisions for any number of reasons.

From the beginning I was talking about the arbitrary and petty nature of the filtering process. But you did not want to read that because why bother addressing the arguments made when you can make arguments that were not made and get all self righteous.

I went on to talk about AIs:

They are working to replace human filters with AIs which will help with some of these but no AI will help if the candidate does not demonstrate adequate English skills in a interview.

Why would I suggest AIs if I did not think there was a problem with "human filters"?

Your so-called "nuanced" argument was that their name is a good proxy for their language skills.

I said it was statistically valid. Meaning that a choosing resumes with 'english' names would produce a larger set of people with good English skills 19 times out 20. I did not say it was a good proxy or even recommend it as a filtering technique. I just said it that it was rational and you have not provided any argument to suggest that I am wrong on that point.

you're just backpedalling now.

I am not backpedalling one bit. You simply did not read my arguments and choose to insert your own arguments because it is easier to beat up on strawmen. Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I said it was statistically valid. Meaning that a choosing resumes with 'english' names would produce a larger set of people with good English skills 19 times out 20. I did not say it was a good proxy or even recommend it as a filtering technique. I just said it that it was rational and you have not provided any argument to suggest that I am wrong on that point.

I am not backpedalling one bit. You simply did not read my arguments and choose to insert your own arguments because it is easier to beat up on strawmen.

It absolutely is not statistically valid because it doesn't account for all the information that you need to make a statistical argument about it. Your 19 times out of 20 grab out of thin air is preposterous. You're literally just making things up now.

If you actually care why it's not a statistically supported argument, feel free to read this guide on Bayesian Statistics.

You're arguing that there's a high probability that a person with a foreign name isn't going to speak English very well, given that they have an identical resume to someone with an anglo name. That means their education and work experience are from identical places. The assumption that they don't speak English very well in that context should be dismissed outright from there. You can't even argue that there's a higher probability that they don't speak English because you've not accounted for things like 1) their English education, 2) their English work experience, 3) their English resume, 4) their very application to a English place of employment, etc.

You say you're criticizing the hiring practice but still you're holding onto this argument that the practice of rejecting based on people's names is valid. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you that this is literally the exact opposite of criticizing hiring practices.

[cybercoma]

You're criticizing unreasonable hiring practices and snap judgments by calling them statistically valid. Tell me you don't see how hilarious it is that you're arguing that they're unreasonable while saying they're statistically valid. Does that make any damn sense?

[Argus]

To remind you: I said it is statistically valid to associate a non-english name with language skills.

Poor language skills have become associated with immigrants for a reason; most of them have poor language skills. In our high tech environment, communication skills are prized, and immigrants don't have them because we aren't bringing the right immigrants over.

Stats Canada says immigrant literacy levels are well below that of the Canadian born population, and that literacy is a key determinant of economic success. In other words, it doesn't matter if you have a masters degree in geophysics if you can't communicate with your colleagues. Nobody will hire you and you'll wind up pushing a broom or waiting on tables, if you're lucky.

Immigrants arriving in Canada in recent years are more educated than were immigrants who arrived in the past and are twice as likely as the Canadian-born population to have a university education. However, the evidence shows that despite having high levels of education, the economic performance of immigrants relative to the Canadian-born population has deteriorated. Many immigrants find it difficult to secure well-paying jobs and their earnings tend to be well below those of the Canadian-born population.

Immigrants aged 16 to 65 performed significantly below the average for the Canadian- born population in all four domains. The average prose literacy score for the Canadian-born population corresponded to Level 3 proficiency, while for recent immigrants the average score was at Level 2. Differences in performance between Canadian-born and recent as well as established immigrants were largest for prose literacy and smallest for numeracy.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2005005/9112-eng.htm

Edited August 20, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Poor language skills have become associated with immigrants for a reason; most of them have poor language skills. In our high tech environment, communication skills are prized, and immigrants don't have them because we aren't bringing the right immigrants over.

Stats Canada says immigrant literacy levels are well below that of the Canadian born population, and that literacy is a key determinant of economic success. In other words, it doesn't matter if you have a masters degree in geophysics if you can't communicate with your colleagues. Nobody will hire you and you'll wind up pushing a broom or waiting on tables, if you're lucky.

Immigrants arriving in Canada in recent years are more educated than were immigrants who arrived in the past and are twice as likely as the Canadian-born population to have a university education. However, the evidence shows that despite having high levels of education, the economic performance of immigrants relative to the Canadian-born population has deteriorated. Many immigrants find it difficult to secure well-paying jobs and their earnings tend to be well below those of the Canadian-born population.

Immigrants aged 16 to 65 performed significantly below the average for the Canadian- born population in all four domains. The average prose literacy score for the Canadian-born population corresponded to Level 3 proficiency, while for recent immigrants the average score was at Level 2. Differences in performance between Canadian-born and recent as well as established immigrants were largest for prose literacy and smallest for numeracy.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2005005/9112-eng.htm

Almost 50 per cent of Canadians score lower than Level 3, and 17 per cent function at Level 1 or below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/29/oecd-canada-literacy_n_5233220.html

Discussions about adult literacy in Canada have often included the claim that Level Three on the IALS/ALL/PIAAC is the “minimum level required by an individual to function in a modern society and economy”, but Thorn considers this claim to be “manifestly false”. For example, he pointed out that previous surveys found that over 60% of Italians scored at under Level Three, “yet they’re managing…they’re an advanced country”.

http://www.centreforliteracy.qc.ca/node/1903

You're arguing that people born in another country who use English as a second language should have higher English literacy than 50% of Canadians born into a society with English uses nearly everywhere.

It's pretty inconvenient for your argument that you don't contextualize the data that you grab to back up your biases.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

There's also a well-established body of literature that shows language discrimination is a real thing. Actual literacy doesn't matter. In the United States, there's documented research describing the discrimination of those with "Southern" accents. The perception is that they're not as educated as someone with a midwestern accent and as a result even someone perfectly literate is discriminated against based on the way they talk and not their ability. It's not hard to see how this also applies to someone from another country interviewing for a job here. Someone who speaks accented English, despite having perfect literacy, is still going to face barriers that someone with a more "Canadian" accent isn't going to face.

[TimG]

It absolutely is not statistically valid because it doesn't account for all the information that you need to make a statistical argument about it.

I defined the scope of the point I was making. i.e. sort a group of resumes based on name and the group with 'English' names would have a higher proportion of people with adequate English skills. That is a true statement. Bringing other factors into the decision making process is reasonable but does not make the statement less true.

You're arguing that there's a high probability that a person with a foreign name isn't going to speak English very well

I made no argument about probability. I was simply comparing two groups and if someone was going to 'play the odds' one group is going to produce a greater number of people without English skills. You should not be lecturing me on stats if you can't even get the argument I presented correct.

That means their education and work experience are from identical places.

I made no statement by what I meant by identical. When I am thinking identical I am thinking experience relevant to the job. i.e. they have the same degree and the same number of years experience. Edited August 20, 2016 by TimG

[Machjo]

Part of this new policy is to increase the number of international students and tourists. On average Chinese tourists spend 750 a day. Why would you have a problem with this?

I know one Canadian who's met a person who was visiting Canada as a tourist. They eventually married.

Though she was university educated, her education definitely did not fit the Canadian context and si could never come under that programme. She wasn't even planning to move to Canada, let alone end up marrying a Canadian.

Just to say that to increase tourism will inevitably increase family class immigration or emigration.

You can't separate immigrants from the general population except in North Korea where you must stick with the tour guide.

[taxme]

If Canada's current immigration rate stays the same, our natural population growth would become negative by 2020. Increased global competition for high skilled workers requires Canada to address this issue so we can fill our labour market needs.

If Canada doesn't change our immigration policy with other countries we will be left behind in innovation and entrepreneurship.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/research/global-trends.asp

Hey, didn't we just get 25,000 and maybe up to 50,000 refugees from Syria and other countries? That alone should ensure us that we will get our population numbers up as these refugees do like to have lots of children. Probably up by 100,000 in a couple of years.

We really don't need any new immigrants until we can get the 2,000,000 unemployed Canadians back to work and get people off of welfare. And we need to stop bringing in refugees who are more of a burden to the Canadian taxpayer. The only immigrants that should be allowed into Canada are the ones who have a trade or profession and have a job waiting for them. We don't need new immigrants who have nothing to offer except offer Canadians more people to be put on the welfare rolls. When it comes to our immigration policy most Canadians just don't get it nor care to even get it. Pathetic indeed.