Canadian Immigration

[TimG]

There's also a well-established body of literature that shows language discrimination is a real thing.

And discrimination against people who dress like a slob or pick their nose in a job interview is a real thing. Discrimination against short people and fact people is a real thing. What is your point? Job interviews are about marketing and creating an image of oneself. Jobs can often go to the less competent person who is simply better at presenting themselves even if language is taken out of the equation. Good interviewers know to look beyond the superficial aspects and focus on determining competency.

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.

Except in major cities a growing number of employers speak with accented English themselves and show preference for people who speak their language. Do you want to do something about that too or is it only a problem when native English speakers do it?

[Big Guy]

My last name is difficult to pronounce for those who understand English only. Even in the 1960's when my peers were preparing for the work force it was common for immigrants to legally change their names - mainly to gain employment. This is nothing new.

Still common to-day. I know a guy whose last name was Drumpf and he changed it to Trump. It appears to have helped him in business but apparently not in politics.

[cybercoma]

Tim, you're talking complete nonsense. I'm not going around in circles with you when you can't see how stupid it is to claim you're criticizing "arbitrary and unreasonable hiring practices," while making completely ridiculous claims about the "statistical validity" of discriminating against people based on their name or how a Southern accent is like picking your nose at a job interview. The things you are posting right now are some of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen you post. These arguments are not even worth humouring anymore.

[-TSS-]

Third world immigration does not solve anything; only adds to the problem.

Besides a lot of jobs, especially those so-called low-skilled ones, will be automated; cars and buses will drive themselves. Robots will clean the offices.

[Vega]

The Liberals are unwilling to face the gigantic elephant in the room, which is the promised benefits to our rapidly aging baby boomers, but they have instead created a pyramid scheme where they will rely on ever increasing levels of immigration to ensure these benefits. They are playing politics with peoples lives, and they know it.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the 500,000 new immigrants per annum translates into most of said immigrants voting Liberal, allowing them to pick up the "Natural Governing Party" mantle. If it weren't so short sighted and dangerous, I might say it's a brilliant scheme.

But hey, no need for the long face, at least we get some good ethnic food while our housing prices rise and our wages fall!

Edited August 20, 2016 by Vega

[Argus]

Also, it's worth pointing out that the 500,000 new immigrants per annum translates into most of said immigrants voting Liberal, allowing them to pick up the "Natural Governing Party" mantle. If it weren't so short sighted and dangerous, I might say it's a brilliant scheme.

That is why we let in so many immigrants. That is why the Tories tripled immigration in the eighties, even though the Economic Council of Canada said it wasn't going to do squat for the economy. Cabinet voted to triple immigration from what was then about 86,000 per year, on the basis of polls showing immigrants tended to vote for the party that was in power once they get citizenship.

The irony is that if you now proposed lowering it back to 85,000 the Liberals and NDP would be horrified and call you a racist and xenophobe.

However, given the ambiguity of the economic arguments, Ms McDougall carried the day by stressing the benefits to the Progressive Conservative Party from increased immigration, especially in urban areas such as Southern Ontario.

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/1990/10/24/mcdougall-wins-battle-to-increase-immigration/

Edited August 21, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

How true is this?

For decades, says Paquet, Canada’s opinion makers have been instrumental in generating a “manufactured consensus” that sustains public support of high immigration levels. Decades of “continuous disinformation about immigration, massive government propaganda in support of the view that diversity is an absolute social good, and that all cultures are equally worthy” have, he says, persuaded Canadians that mass immigration is an unqualified good.

And given this consensus view, those who raise doubts about immigration are effectively silenced by being dismissed as xenophobic and intolerant, if not worse. “Nobody will say we should only take in immigrants according to our absorptive capacity,” Paquet says. “That’s not an unreasonable view, but if you say anything like that you risk being labelled a racist and a bigot.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/how-many-from-where-why-were-not-really-talking-about-immigration-in-this-campaign

Edited August 21, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

I don't know, how true is it? It seems to just confirm your bias.

[dre]

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.

Maybe but if the researcher had targeted large employers he probably would have gotten a different result. HR departments at large employers are obsessed with this stuff. They need to protect the company from legal consequences. One time I asked someone I was interviewing casually if they had kids. My thinking? A guy with a family might be more reliable. I got my ass chewed out by HR, and for about a year after I had to do every interview with an HR rep present.

A bit off topic here... I don't really care much about anything besides technical skills and problem solving abilities. I skim read resumes AT BEST, and don't really care whats on them. Keep in mind a recruiter has already reviewed these resumes against the job description I gave them so I already know they can speak English well, and have a degree in com-sci.

My real decision is based on two things.

1. I ask them to explain in depth some technical challenges and problems they have to solve and how they solved them.

2. I BrainBench them. https://www.brainbench.com/to make sure they are skilled in the specific areas I really need.

But back to the original point. Tim is constructing a hypothetical scenario in an effort to justify his opinions and assumptions post-hoc.

The problem with this, is that you can construct a hypothetical scenario to justify virtually any bad behavior imaginable. His scenario reminds me of the "ticking timebomb" fallacy that was used to justify torture after the US got caught using simulated drowning, jamming stuff up peoples asses, placing growling dogs near their genitals, etc.

There isn't even a real conversation to be had on that basis.

[Argus]

I don't know, how true is it? It seems to just confirm your bias.

Or the reason for yours. My 'bias' at least has lots and lots of supporting documentation. Yours has... well... nothing.

[Argus]

But back to the original point. Tim is constructing a hypothetical scenario in an effort to justify his opinions and assumptions post-hoc.

What hypothetical scenario are you challenging? That statistically, people with very 'foreign' names are more likely to be immigrants? That statistically people with such names are more likely to have lower English language skills? Or that hiring managers are aware of this and might use it as a shorthand to quickly focus in on names which are not likely to have any such problems?

[Smallc]

Or the reason for yours. My 'bias' at least has lots and lots of supporting documentation. Yours has... well... nothing.

Not really. It's well established that immigration grows the economy. It's also well established that we have a medium to long term labour shortage that can only be solved through immigration. The stats you've put forward are also very cherry picked. The first 5 years of immigrant experience is irrelevant to the long term.

[Argus]

Not really. It's well established that immigration grows the economy. It's also well established that we have a medium to long term labour shortage that can only be solved through immigration. The stats you've put forward are also very cherry picked. The first 5 years of immigrant experience is irrelevant to the long term.

Here's something that may surprise you. When you say "It's well established" all you are doing is confirming the cite you replied to. Because that really HASN'T been well-established and there's damned all actual evidence in support of any of it. There are also no real labour shortages. I've posted repeated cites from studies to that effect. You've simply been brainwashed and accepted the crap you've been fed without any critical investigation.

For decades, says Paquet, Canada’s opinion makers have been instrumental in generating a “manufactured consensus” that sustains public support of high immigration levels. Decades of “continuous disinformation about immigration, massive government propaganda in support of the view that diversity is an absolute social good, and that all cultures are equally worthy” have, he says, persuaded Canadians that mass immigration is an unqualified good.

[Smallc]

There's no labour shortage right now - I didn't in fact claim that there was. In ten years, there will be.

Both points are covered here, using evidence that you say doesn't exist:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-immigration-boosts-economic-growth-2015-11

[CITIZEN_2015]

The economy has been slow past few years in creating new jobs. The question is whether Canada should accept large number of immigrant numbering in total more that the number of jobs that it creates annually (I believe between 100,000 to 150,000 past year) and my immediate answer without considering population growth is like "No'. We should limit the number to 150,000. Also the cultural backlash may be another issue if immigration departments are relaxed about who they are admitting in. We don't wish to see it here what is happening in Europe where over decades immigrants of totally different cultural values from North Africa and Middle East are causing significant issues. Though I am NOT calling for a ban based on regions I do call for cultural selectivity based on ideology of respect for human rights, belief for equality of gender and women's rights and respect for other religions and cultures.

[square]

Does anyone have a guess how many immigrants Canada will let in this year?

[G Huxley]

If anyone cared one iota about the planet we lived in, we'd be reducing the population.

[Guest]

If anyone cared one iota about the planet we lived in, we'd be reducing the population.

Everyone cares to some extent, but nobody cares enough to be the one that is reduced.

[G Huxley]

One doesn't have to be reduced to lower the population. One must simply have a rate no higher than 2 people per family and defend one's territory.

[Guest]

One doesn't have to be reduced to lower the population. One must simply have a rate no higher than 2 people per family and defend one's territory.

Yes, but how do you enforce that?

If I were in charge, everyone would be sterilised at birth, in a reversible operation. Then, when they want to have kids, they can apply, and show why they should be allowed to. Then, if they can afford the operation, and the one to re-sterilise them, it should be considered.

[Bonam]

Yes, but how do you enforce that?

If I were in charge, everyone would be sterilised at birth, in a reversible operation. Then, when they want to have kids, they can apply, and show why they should be allowed to. Then, if they can afford the operation, and the one to re-sterilise them, it should be considered.

Some great utopia that would be.

[Guest]

Some great utopia that would be.

I know, right? I wouldn't even want to stay in charge forever. Someone else could take over when I got tired.

[Argus]

There's no labour shortage right now - I didn't in fact claim that there was. In ten years, there will be.

Both points are covered here, using evidence that you say doesn't exist:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbc-immigration-boosts-economic-growth-2015-11

You post a superficial news column from the US saying bringing in immigrants will alleviate a purported labour shortage due to an aging population. But why not something specific to Canada?

Here, first, as to the idea of bringing in immigrants to address our aging population:

Although higher immigration can mitigate the imminent slowing down and reversal in labour-force growth, and can certainly meet specific labour-market shortages, no conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working-age Canadians

https://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

Here, secondly, to deal with this alleged upcoming labour shortage:

But the notion that Canada is facing large labour shortages in coming years “is very misleading,” said Mr. Halliwell, an economist who has studied labour market trends for 36 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/no-labour-shortage-on-horizon-study-says/article15324642/

A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html

Edited August 22, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Does anyone have a guess how many immigrants Canada will let in this year?

More than 300,000, with increases in refugees, family class, grandparents, at the expense of skilled immigrants.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberal-government-is-planning-to-bring-in-a-record-of-more-than-305000-new-permanent-residents-in-2016

[CITIZEN_2015]

They have been saying that about impending labor shortage for as long as I remember and yet we have hundreds of thousands unemployed and many more under-employed. Many with Ph.D.'s are among the under-employed (driving taxis for one thing). They claimed in the 80's that there will be a shortage of faculty members in the 90's. I applied for positions in the 90's right to the end of the decade. For every vacant position there were between 50 (for remote smaller universities) to 100 (for major popular universities) qualified applicants in Canada having Ph.D's and most with teaching research experience and tens of publications. The figure was in excess of 200 for US universities for every vacant position. They said there will be shortage of skill workers in Canada and they have been saying this for decades too. Never happened. Many skilled workers have hard time finding jobs never mind recent graduates who find it even harder.

Maybe best to re-train our own citizens for those vacant skills (if certain skills are really short) instead of importing the skillful who most will have language and cultural problems. And by doing so the existing unfilled jobs will go to those who are born here or already admitted as immigrants/citizens rather than keeping our own out of work or under-employed forever. Some leftist may see my post as too far to the right and it may be. But I think that I speak what many citizens think but don't say.

Edited August 22, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015