Immigration Levels

August1991 · July 4, 2005

So you think "dynamic" means "people with funny sounding names.
Can you expand upon why you think a society is more dynamic with more people with funny sounding names in it?

Argus, my point was that Hollywood producers clearly choose their talent from around the whole world. Do you not think that having a wider pool to choose from increases the chance of getting the right person? There's another way of looking at this: if you want to work in cinema, there is only one place in the world to test the limits. The US government makes it relatively easy for people to immigrate.

Self interest is not the same as greed. Arguing that they are is dishonest.

What's the difference? Greed is usually connected to money whereas self-interest has a broader meaning. I think Adam Smith used the term "self-love" which is more poetic:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

And where did defending our own interests become a crime? If it is in the interests of present Canadians to restrict immigration we have a perfect right to do so. If it is in the interests of our children then we have an obligation to do so. No one can present a logical argument for how uncontrolled immigration will make us better off, and I don't really care if it will make third world people better off.

Argus, I think it is in the interest of people already in Canada to have immigration. The more we trade, the better off we are. If it is difficult to trade because of natural and artifical barriers, then we should let people come to Canada so that we can trade with them here. I am not in favour of unrestricted immigration but I think we should open the door as wide as possible. (At present, Canada's population increases by about 150,000 every year: half by natural means and half by net migration.)

So you're in favour of flooding Quebec with English immigrants and eliminating all protection of and promotion of the French language?

Immigration and protection of French are connected insofar that choosing immigrants who speak French are easier to integrate. Ultimately, the survival of French depends on the ability of people in Quebec to adapt to circumstances.

Since it would not be possible to restrict access to social programs based on origin it would likely be necessary to eliminate most of them to make it possible to manage the government budgets.

In fact, we do restrict access to certain programs. Immigranst are not eligible for pensions unless they have worked at least 10 years in Canada. But I agree with you in general, Sparhawk.

-----

I am not a libertarian like Hugo but I would like to see the fewest barriers to trade and to movements of people. In the movie Titanic, Leonardo di Caprio's character was able to board with only a ticket: no need for a passport nor a visa. That was the world in 1912.

Riverwind · July 4, 2005

I am not a libertarian like Hugo but I would like to see the fewest barriers to trade and to movements of people. In the movie Titanic, Leonardo di Caprio's character was able to board with only a ticket: no need for a passport nor a visa. That was the world in 1912.

1) The story was completely different if you were anything but a white European. Ask any third generation Chinese Canadian. I would argue our immigration system is more welcoming now to a larger variety of people than it ever has been in the past.

2) I certainly do not want to close Canada off to the world. Immigration is good public policy, however, I do not want to uncontrolled immigration anymore than I would want to see uncontrolled rezoning and development in cities. Like any other field good public policy requires a balance between freedom and control.

Argus · July 4, 2005

So you think "dynamic" means "people with funny sounding names.
Can you expand upon why you think a society is more dynamic with more people with funny sounding names in it?

Argus, my point was that Hollywood producers clearly choose their talent from around the whole world.

I have some familiarity with Hollywood and my information seems contrary to yours. The US has many funny sounding names, especially in Southern California, but the people in Hollywood films are locals, not, by and large, imports. If you don't go to their parties they're not interested in hearing from you.

There's another way of looking at this: if you want to work in cinema, there is only one place in the world to test the limits. The US government makes it relatively easy for people to immigrate.

By not properly policing their southern border, you mean? Because it is not "relatively" easy to immigrate to the US, unless by "relatively" you mean in comparison to countries which don't allow immigration, or allow little of it. Japan springs to mind.

Self interest is not the same as greed. Arguing that they are is dishonest.
What's the difference? Greed is usually connected to money whereas self-interest has a broader meaning. I think Adam Smith used the term "self-love" which is more poetic: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Quoting Adam Smith doesn't help clear up why you are equating greed to self-interest. If the butcher gives away his food he will soon be out of business, be out begging for work himself, and his family will be starving. That is self interest, not greed. Nor even love.

And where did defending our own interests become a crime? If it is in the interests of present Canadians to restrict immigration we have a perfect right to do so. If it is in the interests of our children then we have an obligation to do so. No one can present a logical argument for how uncontrolled immigration will make us better off, and I don't really care if it will make third world people better off.
Argus, I think it is in the interest of people already in Canada to have immigration.

You've made that clear. You just haven't given a logical, coherent reason why.

The more we trade, the better off we are. If it is difficult to trade because of natural and artifical barriers, then we should let people come to Canada so that we can trade with them here.

This harkens back to my question of just how we are better off with a population of 30 million than we were when I was younger and it was 20 million. How are we richer for having less forests and farms and more paved land and pollution? Also, why do the Nordic countries, among the smallest, population wise, have such excellent standards of living, while most of the really big nations (China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc) have widespread poverty? Clearly there is more at play than absolute numbers. So there is absolutely no guarantee that increasing Canada's population from 30 to 50 million will enhance our lives any more than increasing it from 30 to 40 million. Likewise, if we cut our population in half, we'd still have three times more people than Denmark. So why would we be impoverished?

So you're in favour of flooding Quebec with English immigrants and eliminating all protection of and promotion of the French language?
Immigration and protection of French are connected insofar that choosing immigrants who speak French are easier to integrate. Ultimately, the survival of French depends on the ability of people in Quebec to adapt to circumstances.

You didn't entirely answer the question. You merely suggested ensuring immigrants speak French. The suggestion all immigrants learn English before coming to the other parts of Canada has been repeatedly shouted down as racist, and we do not, at this time do this. Nor have you suggested it. So if you have no problem with swamping Canada's culture with many millions of Chinese or Arabic speaking people then surely you would welcome the same for Quebec - with no guarantees or legal efforts to protect the French language, and no requirements that they send their kids to French school, etc.

Melanie_ · July 4, 2005

Since it would not be possible to restrict access to social programs based on origin it would likely be necessary to eliminate most of them to make it possible to manage the government budgets.
In fact, we do restrict access to certain programs. Immigranst are not eligible for pensions unless they have worked at least 10 years in Canada. But I agree with you in general, Sparhawk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Immigrants are also not eligible for social assistance, unless things have changed since I got married 20 years ago. At the time my husband was a university visa student, and when we got married he became a landed immigrant. I had to guarantee that he wouldn't receive any social assistance for 10 years (I was a starving university student myself at the time, but starry eyed blind faith won out!) We were also able to sponsor his parents to come over as well, some years later, and again agreed to guarantee they would not receive social assistance. They are all visible minorities from a third world country, but my husband is a graduate of a Canadian university and English is his first language (with a moderate accent). If our sole criteria of accepting immigrants is employability, he's the poster child.

But there is also the argument about people coming from other countries and setting up their own community here, without ever learning much about mainstream Canadian society. I honestly don't have a problem with this. Coming to Canada shouldn't mean abandoning all of your native culture, traditions and language. If those communities can function well enough to meet the needs of the people living in them, why shouldn't they? Canada doesn't have to look and feel and sound the same from one person to the next, on the same timetable for everyone. Assimilation happens over time - kids here in Winnipeg learn Ukranian from their parents, but it isn't their first language anymore; for their Canadian born parents it was.

Riverwind · July 4, 2005

Immigrants are also not eligible for social assistance, unless things have changed since I got married 20 years ago. At the time my husband was a university visa student, and when we got married he became a landed immigrant.

This restriction only applies to family class immigrants and it applies for a period of time (10 years I think). After that there is no distinction between family class and others.

Argus · July 4, 2005

Since it would not be possible to restrict access to social programs based on origin it would likely be necessary to eliminate most of them to make it possible to manage the government budgets.
In fact, we do restrict access to certain programs. Immigranst are not eligible for pensions unless they have worked at least 10 years in Canada. But I agree with you in general, Sparhawk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Immigrants are also not eligible for social assistance, unless things have changed since I got married 20 years ago. At the time my husband was a university visa student, and when we got married he became a landed immigrant. I had to guarantee that he wouldn't receive any social assistance for 10 years

Unfortunately, the enforcement mechanism leaves something to be desired - like an enforcement mechanism. When he was premier of Ontairo Bob Rae, that noted immigrant hater, complained vociferously at the immense cost to the province's welfare system of immigrants and refugees, including those who had been sponsored over, but who almost as soon as they got off the plane showed up at the welfare offices.

And there's this - from an email which made the rounds of the office not very long ago, quoting a Toronto Star piece of last year.

the Toronto Star,

>April 18,2004.

>

> I found it interesting that the federal government provides a single

>refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an

>additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00.

> This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to

>the growth and development of Canada for 40 to 50 years can only receive a

>monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income

>Supplement.

>Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!

> Lets send this to all Canadians, so we can spread the message and maybe

>we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 00 and the pensioners up to

>$2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the

>Government over the last 40 or 50 years.**

But there is also the argument about people coming from other countries and setting up their own community here, without ever learning much about mainstream Canadian society. I honestly don't have a problem with this.

As someone who values Canada's culture and it's values I have a major problem with this. Hell, even Pierre Trudeau had problems with this. There was an item in today's Citizen talking about how multiculturalism had turned out, quoting some senior Liberals as saying it had run its course, and that it was time now for ethnic communities to begin to integrate. In the article it spoke of a select group of reporters given permission to meet Trudeau about ten years back and ask one question apiece. One asked him if the multiculturalism policy had worked out the way he had intended, if he had really mean to establish large, ethnic ghettos which were apart from the Canadian mainstream, and he shook his head and said no, sounding, in the reporter's terms, disappointed, no, that was not what he had hoped for or intended.

Assimilation happens over time - kids here in Winnipeg learn Ukranian from their parents, but it isn't their first language anymore; for their Canadian born parents it was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps, but we have a different kind of immigrant now. There are no studies I'm aware of, but in Denmark a study of 3rd generation Turkish men found over 90% still returned home to Turkey for their wives. And Pakistani girls are nicnamed "tickets" because they are the ticket to Denmark for their future husbands.

How do you assimilate, when you live in an ethnic ghetto and send your kids home for their spouses, and then they raise their children in the old ways - until it's time for them to go "home" for a mate?

Let me tell you a story from today, from this very afternoon. A woman I work with had just gotten off the phone with her teenage daughter, who was enraged. It seemed her best friend's parents had taken her for a visit "home" to Lebanon. And returned without her. They thought it was time for her to be married, and had arranged for a marriage over the internet with a proper Lebanese man, well over twice her sixteen years - but hadn't told her until she was already there. They told her se was far too wild and "disrespectful", and she will stay in Lebanon with her new husband for a year or two (to no doubt be beaten into submission) before she sponsors her new husband to Canada. Presumably in the interim she will learn to be a proper Lebanese wife and stop acting like a Canadian. Her children, then, will technically be second generation born in Canada - and be raised as proper Lebanese children should be - until they too, go "home" for their spouses.

Melanie_ · July 4, 2005

Most of us who are born and raised in Canada have no idea how much adaptation and assimilation an immigrant does when they come here. We accept and encourage behaviour that would be unheard of in their homelands, and we disrespect their traditions and values as being old fashioned, something that they should have left behind. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else - my father-in-law and I are polar opposites on many issues, and he will never understand my point of view, just as I will never accept his. Same sex marriage is a good example. And I wouldn't dream of bringing up the topic of abortion.

Is it any wonder, then, that immigrants feel more comfortable in communities where people understand their language, values, and traditions? Or that they look for spouses for their children among people whom they know will share those standards? If they can be productive, have a good life and not be a drain on the rest of us, and do this in an active Chinese community, where is the harm? They will eventually assimilate, just as the mainstream culture will adapt to encorporate what they bring. That's the beauty of Canadian culture - it is elastic enough to welcome change.

As for the girl being forced into marriage in Lebanon, of course I don't condone it. Young girls are not commodities, "tickets" as you put it, Argus, to be bought and sold on the marriage market. But I don't condemn arranged marriages outright, either; they are not part of our culture, so we don't understand that for many it is simply the way it is done. I had a student once, an older East Indian woman, who talked about her arranged marriage. She seemed quite happy, just as happy as many women I know who chose their own mate. Several of the other women in the class said, "I wish someone would arrange one for me!"

Clopin · July 5, 2005

Everyone is making good points... it's not an easy thing to find the right balance between protecting Canadian culture and promoting multi-culturalism... and I'm not sure I buy into the idea that Canadian culture IS about multi-culturalism (with respect).

I've been quite vocal about this since my first year at university.

I've lived all over the world (partly because of my father's vocational obligations) and I've spent years growing up/studying in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Japan (only vacationed in rest of Asia).

I hold much respect for different cultures even if I disagree with their practices. But it was always like a hot coal in my pants whenever I heard Canadians boast their conceptual superiority to Americans because we don't adopt the 'melting pot' ideology... and instead let everyone be to create a 'mosaic'.

We as Canadians have a lot of things right... but this isn't one of them.

Our fabric is weakened when we have communities ghettoized. Our sense of unity as a nation is diminished when language and cultural barriers are set up.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect new immigrants to be able to communicate with one of the official languages comfortably before giving them citizenship.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect new immigrants to know what Canadian values are in general and be prepared to assimilate themselves into the mainstream.

I sometimes get the feeling Canada is being treated like some pit stop - a huge resort to live in comfort without obligation, without allegiance.

I wonder how many immigrants hold their highest allegiance to this country. I wonder how many Canadian citizens would put their previous home country's interests above Canada's,

I hope they're not many... but the flip side is that those who do are usually the older generations… and as slow as the process might be, it will change with subsequent ones, even if they are sent back home to get hitched

One qualm: I do wonder what constitutes a funny last name.... I wonder if your real name sounds funny to me Argus... lol

Can white people have funny names?

As for Hollywood and immigrant workers: I've worked at DreamWorks studios in Burbank for two years... and I was amazed at how far they went in scouting for talent. People were being flown in from as far away as the Philippines.

August1991 · July 5, 2005

A post of other threads.

1) The story was completely different if you were anything but a white European. Ask any third generation Chinese Canadian. I would argue our immigration system is more welcoming now to a larger variety of people than it ever has been in the past.

Sparhawk, Chinese may have had to pay a head-tax to immigrate in the 1800s, but I think immigration was forbidden in the 1920s and 1930s. Sparhawk, you raise a broader issue.

In Russia, the late 1800s/early 1900s are called the Silver Age, with good reason. It was an era of freedom in the world that has slowly been reconstructed in the past few decades. World trade, as a percentage of world GDP, was higher in 1910 than in 1990. Only in the past few years have we surpassed it. The Silver Age gave the world so many innovations: air flight, telephones, radio, electric light - and it gave us the theoretical groundwork for discoveries of our own century, relativity and genetics. What has the past century accomplished for the future?

Quoting Adam Smith doesn't help clear up why you are equating greed to self-interest. If the butcher gives away his food he will soon be out of business, be out begging for work himself, and his family will be starving. That is self interest, not greed. Nor even love.

Argus, this question deserves another thread that I may create. Profit (greed, self-interest) seems to be a "dirty" word and that bothers me.

Argus, I think it is in the interest of people already in Canada to have immigration.
You've made that clear. You just haven't given a logical, coherent reason why.

It is to your benefit to be able to deal easily with others. Judging by Melanie's posts, it was clearly to her benefit to be able to meet others. And the world is a better place for it.

I have some familiarity with Hollywood and my information seems contrary to yours. The US has many funny sounding names, especially in Southern California, but the people in Hollywood films are locals, not, by and large, imports. If you don't go to their parties they're not interested in hearing from you.

I have never been to California, let alone a Hollywood Party. (I once saw Bo Derek at an airport in Asia, does that count?) My point had to do with the many people involved in any American business. Hollywood happens to list every name publicly. The world benefits because America puts the world's talent to good use.

This harkens back to my question of just how we are better off with a population of 30 million than we were when I was younger and it was 20 million. How are we richer for having less forests and farms and more paved land and pollution? Also, why do the Nordic countries, among the smallest, population wise, have such excellent standards of living, while most of the really big nations (China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc) have widespread poverty? Clearly there is more at play than absolute numbers. So there is absolutely no guarantee that increasing Canada's population from 30 to 50 million will enhance our lives any more than increasing it from 30 to 40 million. Likewise, if we cut our population in half, we'd still have three times more people than Denmark. So why would we be impoverished?

Why are many people in some countries rich, and other people in other countries poor? Good question.

I am not one of those who believes that Canada must be a big country, a player. I would just as soon that Canada quit the G-8. Politicians have egos, and their political crew love to feel important, but who else really cares if our guy only speaks for a population of a couple of million people or so, or a GDP of a couple of billion bucks or so?

----

I happen to think that ordinary Canadians are better off if they can deal freely with foreigners. If ordinary Canadians are better off, Canada is better off.

Since the thread is about immigration levels, here's an idea. Our refugee system appears to be seriously out of whack. Is it? We accept almost any refugee claimant of anyone who makes it to Canadian soil while refusing apparently legitimate refugees abroad. That's Hugo's homesteading idea in the modern world.

Riverwind · July 5, 2005

The Silver Age gave the world so many innovations: air flight, telephones, radio, electric light - and it gave us the theoretical groundwork for discoveries of our own century, relativity and genetics. What has the past century accomplished for the future?

Maybe this deserves another thread: computers, the internet, wireless communication, advances in materials science that most people don't know about because it is not flashy. The new Boing aircraft will have very little metal in it most of the structure will be this carbon composite. The last century has had its share of distruptive inventions.

I read an interesting theory about how come the European societies leaped ahead of the rest of the world starting around the 1600s. Theory suggests that the primary reason was the discovery of the Americas which provided resources and food technology that, in turn, created the wealth necessary to feed a technological and social boom. The conquest of the Americas was unique in human history since disease wiped out 90% of the inhabitants leaving the conquerers with a huge amount of unexploited empty territory to expand into. Furthermore, the most efficient food crops we have (potatos and corn) were first developed by central/south american peoples.

Cartman · July 5, 2005

I agree that immigrants do contribute to Canadian society. I don't think that is the issue. The question is how many should be accepted? How does 50,000 per year sound?

I often hear the argument that we need more people for our economy to prosper. But population growth cannot occur forever. What is China gonna do? As they have been effective at reducing their population growth, there is likely to be a serious imbalance. Are they gonna have to seek out immigrants some day? :blink: