Is Immigration too High

[Argus]

A recent Angus Reid poll showed 49% of Canadians feel immigration is too high - a record amount. Do you agree that immigration is too high?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/survey-shows-spike-in-opposition-to-higher-immigration-in-canada-but-too-soon-to-call-it-a-trend

 

[scribblet]

I was fine with it at 250,000 per year which to me is enough, as long as we gear the people we accept our economy and skill set needs. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

I was fine with it at 250,000 per year which to me is enough, as long as we gear the people we accept our economy and skill set needs. 

But how did it get to 250,000 in the first place? Because learned men and women decided this was what was needed to help our economy? Or... some other reason?

McDougall wins battle to increase immigration— Minister sees new source of voters for Conservatives

Despite concerns about the social and financial impact of increased immigration and doubts about the country's ability to assimilate new arrivals at the current rate, Ms McDougall will announce tomorrow that Canada will begin accepting up to 250,000 immigrants a year.

This is a substantial increase over the authorized level of 175,000 for the current year (which estimates suggests will be surpassed by about 25,000 people) and a large jump from the levels in place when the Tories took power. (In 1984, immigration had dropped to a decade low of 84,000 landings.)

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

[cannuck]

quantity far too high, quality far too low.

[Centerpiece]

2016 deaths in Canada: 268,932. 2016 births in Canada: 383,102. Net increase with no immigration: 114,170

Given the above - and Canada's aging demographics, that net increase will get smaller if we had no immigration -  and the expense of an aging population will go up along with fewer working people to drive the economy. Even if Father Time eased up and we magically maintained the same net increase, it would take 10 years to add one million to our current population of 36 million.

So it seems clear that we require "needs based" immigration. We could argue about the number but I'm OK with a figure around 300,000, give or take. Where I have a problem is the selection process. We can pick and choose and we should. Here's the current criteria for immigration:

Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/supplementary-immigration-levels-2018.html

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has experienced significant swings in net migration rate, which takes into account emigration from Canada to other nations.    Immigration helps to make up for the large numbers of Canadian emigres/expats, which receives far less media attention.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/topics/Demographics/Population/Net-migration-rate

 

It is estimated that 9% of Canada's population lives in other nations:

Quote

Canadian Diaspora

An impressive 2.8 million Canadian citizens live outside of Canada itself; that's equivalent to 9% of the overall Canadian population. For comparison, only 1.7% of US citizens live abroad but more than 20% of New Zealanders live abroad.

Around 1 million Canadians live in the United States. The next most popular destination is Hong Kong, where approximately 300,000 Canadians are based. Around 4 in 10 Canadians living abroad were born in Canada, but a larger proportion (6 in 10) are naturalized Canadian citizens who have moved back abroad -- most, but not all, to their country of origin.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/canada-population/

 

[turningrite]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

A recent Angus Reid poll showed 49% of Canadians feel immigration is too high - a record amount. Do you agree that immigration is too high?

 

That's an interesting result, isn't it? I wonder if it's a coincidence that the Abacus poll released this weekend on the impact of Bernier's party indicates that 49% of respondents indicate that they will vote for it, are likely to vote for it or will consider voting for it? The elite tri-party consensus in Ottawa appears to be at risk here. Successive federal governments have treated Canadians like lab rats, without much if any consideration of the massive impacts on things like labor markets, housing, health care, transit and commuting times. The approach appears to be to continuously plunk more into the box and see how far resources will stretch before the rats start cannibalizing each other, I guess. Great way to run a country, eh?

[turningrite]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada has experienced significant swings in net migration rate, which takes into account emigration from Canada to other nations.    Immigration helps to make up for the large numbers of Canadian emigres/expats, which receives far less media attention.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/topics/Demographics/Population/Net-migration-rate

 

It is estimated that 9% of Canada's population lives in other nations:

 

The "citizenship of convenience" issue heavily impacts the number of Canadian citizens living abroad. Canadian citizenship is far easier to obtain than is U.S. citizenship, something our government seems to think a good thing but which irks many ordinary Canadians. The real downside of migration loss is where we lose tens of thousands of educated young Canadians each year who perceive that opportunities abroad, mainly in countries like the U.S., Australia and Britain, exceed those available to them in their home country. The tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of highly educated Canadian emigres who reside in places like Silicon Valley will in most cases likely never return. Our government has for a decade or more sponsored an unfair competition scheme against its own workers, rendering it likely this unfortunate situation will persist. I was talking to a relative a couple weeks ago who said her young son, who will soon graduate with an education in a STEM field, is so discouraged by the options available to him here that he's considering alternatives, including emigration. The way Canada is being run is no way to run a successful country. We're content to be a 'farm team' rather than play in the big leagues.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

Given the above - and Canada's aging demographics, that net increase will get smaller if we had no immigration -

No one is suggesting NO immigration. However, even with the current immigration levels, the impact on an aging population will be minimal. Demographics experts (none of whom were consulted by the politicians) say immigration can have only minimal impact unless you really go overboard and increase it to something like a million or two a year.

14 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

and the expense of an aging population will go up along with fewer working people to drive the economy. Even if Father Time eased up and we magically maintained the same net increase, it would take 10 years to add one million to our current population of 36 million.

When I was growing up our population was a little over 20 million. Can you demonstrate how a population of 36 million is any happier or better off than the population was when it was 20 million?

14 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

So it seems clear that we require "needs based" immigration. We could argue about the number but I'm OK with a figure around 300,000, give or take. Where I have a problem is the selection process. We can pick and choose and we should. Here's the current criteria for immigration:

The quality of immigrant we get is, it would seem to me, directly related to how many we want. It's really easy to be choosy about who you let in with a smaller number. If you're bringing in 300,000 a year there's just not a lot of room to be very picky. It's such a mass of people we don't even interview them, for the most part. All the immigration department has time for is frantically shifting paperwork and forms and applications to process them.

[Machjo]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

A recent Angus Reid poll showed 49% of Canadians feel immigration is too high - a record amount. Do you agree that immigration is too high?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/survey-shows-spike-in-opposition-to-higher-immigration-in-canada-but-too-soon-to-call-it-a-trend

 

I can't vote in that poll but I don't think of it in terms of numbers. If one billion people come to Canada and find work, that's just fine. If one comes to collect social assistance, that's one too many. We should shift from a quantitative policy to a qualitative one. Let people come to Canada to visit, study, work, or do business visa-free but don't give them any social assistance other than a one-way ticket home and let the market take care of the rest... if you believe in free markets that is.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

I can't vote in that poll but I don't think of it in terms of numbers. If one billion people come to Canada and find work, that's just fine.

In what way will the life of current Canadians benefit from mass immigration? Despite all he drivel about us living in a huge empty country the great majority of us actually live in a country which is about 100 miles wide. And that is also where almost all immigrants settle. So we're getting more and more crowded with bigger cities. In what way are we better off with 36 million than we were with 26 million? In what way will we be better off with 46 million? 

[Machjo]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

In what way will the life of current Canadians benefit from mass immigration? Despite all he drivel about us living in a huge empty country the great majority of us actually live in a country which is about 100 miles wide. And that is also where almost all immigrants settle. So we're getting more and more crowded with bigger cities. In what way are we better off with 36 million than we were with 26 million? In what way will we be better off with 46 million? 

If you deny social assistance, then suddenly Canada is not so attractive to many people anymore. And the more people come, the more real estate prices rise until the construction market can catch up. The market will naturally moderate itself. Why do you think not all Quebecers are moving to Alberta for example?

 

As for population growth, it means a larger tax base and more efficient urban infrastructure. Trust the market.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

If you deny social assistance, then suddenly Canada is not so attractive to many people anymore. And the more people come, the more real estate prices rise until the construction market can catch up. The market will naturally moderate itself. Why do you think not all Quebecers are moving to Alberta for example?

 

As for population growth, it means a larger tax base and more efficient urban infrastructure. Trust the market.

A larger population growth? When I look at the world's larger population countries I see poverty. Nor do I see efficient urban infrastructure. We HAD efficient urban infrastructure at one point in time, but we no longer do. They used to call Toronto "New York, run by the Swiss". NO ONE calls it that any more unless it's the punchline of a joke. Our cities are crowded and have many problems with traffic and infrastructure. 

It is not just social assistance anyway. If your flood of immigrants aren't highly skilled they'll wind up in low paying jobs which, due to our enlightened taxation system, results in them being a net drain on the tax base. We have to supply their kids with education they will not pay for after all, and their families with health care they cannot afford. Not to mention they aren't contributing to roads and infrastructure. Already, most of our taxes are paid by a small percentage of the citizenry. Unrestrained immigration of unskilled workers, however enthusiastic those workers are, would make that much worse.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Argus

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

A larger population growth? When I look at the world's larger population countries I see poverty. Nor do I see efficient urban infrastructure. We HAD efficient urban infrastructure at one point in time, but we no longer do. They used to call Toronto "New York, run by the Swiss". NO ONE calls it that any more unless it's the punchline of a joke. Our cities are crowded and have many problems with traffic and infrastructure. 

It is not just social assistance anyway. If your flood of immigrants aren't highly skilled they'll wind up in low paying jobs which, due to our enlightened taxation system, results in them being a net drain on the tax base. We have to supply their kids with education they will not pay for after all, and their families with health care they cannot afford. Not to mention they aren't contributing to roads and infrastructure. Already, most of our taxes are paid by a small percentage of the citizenry. Unrestrained immigration of unskilled workers, however enthusiastic those workers are, would make that much worse.

Just establish a strict minimum wage for foreign workers. In other words, you can work in Canada visa-free but on the condition that you can earn a certain minimum of income.

 

As for cities, I've visited Hong Kong a few times and have read about Singapore. I love Hong Kong, much more efficiently run than Toronto. I can say with certainty that Toronto is not run by Hong Kong... unfortunately. They know how to plan a city!

[turningrite]

44 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Just establish a strict minimum wage for foreign workers. In other words, you can work in Canada visa-free but on the condition that you can earn a certain minimum of income.

 

Actually, I think a fairer system would be to permit foreign workers only from countries that offer reciprocal consideration and we might consider applying similar logic to citizenship eligibility. If Canadians aren't permitted access to another country's labor market then citizens of that country shouldn't be able to compete for jobs in Canada. This logic should apply to all foreign workers, including skilled temp foreign workers, and in order to prevent corporate wage arbitrage of the kind that's currently taking place employers shouldn't be permitted to deduct the wages of skilled foreign workers as a business expense. Why is Canada graduating tens of thousands of skilled workers a year who can't find decent employment here, often prompting them to leave the country, and then permitting corporations to fill positions with foreign workers? The whole system needs a rethink.

[Centerpiece]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

No one is suggesting NO immigration. However, even with the current immigration levels, the impact on an aging population will be minimal. Demographics experts (none of whom were consulted by the politicians) say immigration can have only minimal impact unless you really go overboard and increase it to something like a million or two a year.

So do you have a number in mind?

When I was growing up our population was a little over 20 million. Can you demonstrate how a population of 36 million is any happier or better off than the population was when it was 20 million?

Well, for one - if we left it alone - most of those 20 million would be dead or have one foot in the grave. "Demonstrate" sounds like a classroom term. I grew up in the 50's and 60's - a lot more poor people - and I mean really poor because there was very little government support. Lots of poor old people - if you didn't have a pension, you were hanging by a thread. Happier? Times were different - you can't live in yesteryear. My family is better off than my parents - and they were better off than my grandparents.

The quality of immigrant we get is, it would seem to me, directly related to how many we want. It's really easy to be choosy about who you let in with a smaller number. If you're bringing in 300,000 a year there's just not a lot of room to be very picky. It's such a mass of people we don't even interview them, for the most part. All the immigration department has time for is frantically shifting paperwork and forms and applications to process them.

That may be true but it doesn't have to be haphazard. Many of those 300,000 would be family units so for sake of argument and ease of calculating, there would be 120,000 cases a year - or 10,000 every month. Immigration is important enough to develop a working ratio that can keep up - after all it's only money. 500 case workers - 20 cases a month - one case a day? How about 1000 case workers? And yes, I know there's more than just "case workers". Point is - there's a process and it should be able to reasonably handle a defined number assuming you can keep the union under control......and you can include random or "prioritized" Skype interviews It's never that simple - but we can't afford to fail on something so vital. Just get it done - and get it done right. 

 

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

So do you have a number in mind?

I am NOT a demographics expert. But if you start out with the understanding immigration is going to do almost nothing to address an aging population and remove that from the reasons why we have immigration, it seems to me that you should then limit yourself to the number of top quality immigrants you can draw each year. 

49 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Well, for one - if we left it alone - most of those 20 million would be dead or have one foot in the grave. 

Immigration is not going to address this. If we're worried about a declining birth rate it seems to me the sensible thing to do is to find out what prevents people from having more kids and then try to persuade them to change their minds. The government and media set up a non-stop propaganda effort to convince Canadians to respect homosexuality, and that worked quite well. In the space of less than two decades we've gone from being a society where the Liberal caucus rebelled against passing a marriage bill because it didn't openly say marriage only applied to men and women, to one where all parties agree on same sex marriage and all aspects of gay rights.

Maybe they could apply that effort to making couples with three or more kids seem really desirable.

49 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

That may be true but it doesn't have to be haphazard. Many of those 300,000 would be family units so for sake of argument and ease of calculating, there would be 120,000 cases a year - or 10,000 every month. Immigration is important enough to develop a working ratio that can keep up - after all it's only money. 

According to the Fraser Institute our current immigration system costs the taxpayers about $23 billion per year. Yes, it's only money, but that's a LOT of money.

Now let's look at this important program of yours. It has no stated goals and no guideposts to measure success. Why, if it's so important? Why aren't we looking at what succeeds and what doesn't, and giving preference to what succeeds, be it the types of skills that work here, or superior language skills (which we don't test for ourselves, btw) or people from certain countries. We do none of that. We do nothing to measure immigrant success or the success of the program itself. Before we move to speed up processing maybe we should consider how best to change the process to ensure we only get the best available.

 

[Centerpiece]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

I am NOT a demographics expert. But if you start out with the understanding immigration is going to do almost nothing to address an aging population and remove that from the reasons why we have immigration, it seems to me that you should then limit yourself to the number of top quality immigrants you can draw each year. 

Immigration is not going to address this. If we're worried about a declining birth rate it seems to me the sensible thing to do is to find out what prevents people from having more kids and then try to persuade them to change their minds. The government and media set up a non-stop propaganda effort to convince Canadians to respect homosexuality, and that worked quite well. In the space of less than two decades we've gone from being a society where the Liberal caucus rebelled against passing a marriage bill because it didn't openly say marriage only applied to men and women, to one where all parties agree on same sex marriage and all aspects of gay rights.

Maybe they could apply that effort to making couples with three or more kids seem really desirable.

According to the Fraser Institute our current immigration system costs the taxpayers about $23 billion per year. Yes, it's only money, but that's a LOT of money.

Now let's look at this important program of yours. It has no stated goals and no guideposts to measure success. Why, if it's so important? Why aren't we looking at what succeeds and what doesn't, and giving preference to what succeeds, be it the types of skills that work here, or superior language skills (which we don't test for ourselves, btw) or people from certain countries. We do none of that. We do nothing to measure immigrant success or the success of the program itself. Before we move to speed up processing maybe we should consider how best to change the process to ensure we only get the best available.

 

Argus - you're talking like a business person - problem definition, goals and objectives, analysis, development, project management. implementation......and if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.......all that stuff. There's nothing like a wooly-headed, hand wringing issue with no goalposts for a government to woo voters - or try to prevent losing them. I have absolutely no idea how to "force" government to do things properly - their pace and transparency is directly related to the polls - and of course the media and opposition parties can so easily put a negative spin on just about anything. As an example - and you know quite well - the "best available" will be spun as discrimination, if not racism. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out.

[Michael Hardner]

Who is going to tell those GTA homeowners the value of their assets won't be increasing at the rate they would like.

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Argus - you're talking like a business person - problem definition, goals and objectives, analysis, development, project management. implementation......and if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.......all that stuff.

Is that not how we SHOULD be thinking about such things?

Quote

There's nothing like a wooly-headed, hand wringing issue with no goalposts for a government to woo voters - or try to prevent losing them.

Yes. That's the problem. Immigration has been used as a vote getting tool for the last fifty years instead of being designed for Canada's interests.

Quote

I have absolutely no idea how to "force" government to do things properly - their pace and transparency is directly related to the polls - and of course the media and opposition parties can so easily put a negative spin on just about anything. As an example - and you know quite well - the "best available" will be spun as discrimination, if not racism. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out.

And that is the problem of the huge disconnect between Canadians and the elites of the national media and politics. The people want things, and the elites do not, and as far as the elites are concerned, their wants are Canada's wants and anyone who disagrees is unCanadian. On a CBC panel tonight they talked about the Conservative party membership voting to get rid of birthright citizenship. The 'conservative' representative said that this probably wasn't helpful, even though it made sense, because it's not a big problem and the other parties will immediately use it to insinuate intolerance. The 'ndp and liberal' representatives then immediately used it to insinuate intolerance on the part of Conservatives. yet if you asked Canadians "If some woman flies to Canada to give birth just so her kid can have Canadian citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go with it, and then flies home again, should that kid get citizenship?" I doubt you'd find a lot who said yes. And I bet the ones most opposed to that happening would be legal immigrants. But to the left, anything and everything which even slightly suggests any kind of tightening up of immigration rules is an indication you're a Nazi.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who is going to tell those GTA homeowners the value of their assets won't be increasing at the rate they would like.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/housing-costs-vancouver-toronto-angus-reid-poll-1.4798828

[Centerpiece]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Is that not how we SHOULD be thinking about such things?

Yes. That's the problem. Immigration has been used as a vote getting tool for the last fifty years instead of being designed for Canada's interests.

And that is the problem of the huge disconnect between Canadians and the elites of the national media and politics. The people want things, and the elites do not, and as far as the elites are concerned, their wants are Canada's wants and anyone who disagrees is unCanadian. On a CBC panel tonight they talked about the Conservative party membership voting to get rid of birthright citizenship. The 'conservative' representative said that this probably wasn't helpful, even though it made sense, because it's not a big problem and the other parties will immediately use it to insinuate intolerance. The 'ndp and liberal' representatives then immediately used it to insinuate intolerance on the part of Conservatives. yet if you asked Canadians "If some woman flies to Canada to give birth just so her kid can have Canadian citizenship and all the rights and privileges that go with it, and then flies home again, should that kid get citizenship?" I doubt you'd find a lot who said yes. And I bet the ones most opposed to that happening would be legal immigrants. But to the left, anything and everything which even slightly suggests any kind of tightening up of immigration rules is an indication you're a Nazi.

I watch Power and politics all the time - call me a masochist. Saw the program. It's not about the small numbers of these occurrences - it's about Canada standing on principles that make sense to Canadians. Perhaps a "small" thing - but how many insignificants make a significant? If you can't do what's right with the small things - how do you get the big things right? It ALL has to make sense - from top to bottom. Like I said - it makes you want to pull your hair out.

[Machjo]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who is going to tell those GTA homeowners the value of their assets won't be increasing at the rate they would like.

Tough. You don't buy a house like you do stocks. You buy a house to live in it.

[Bonam]

52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who is going to tell those GTA homeowners the value of their assets won't be increasing at the rate they would like.

Too bad so sad? The last thing Canada's major cities need is further increases in housing costs. 

[Michael Hardner]

I hear "too bad" and "tough" and a poll saying that people want home prices to fall.  I don't see it... people want their homes to increase in value.