You can't oppose immigration

[Argus]

It's odd how almost everyone agrees that our immigration system is an unmitigated disaster, a complete and utter mess. But you can't oppose immigration without drawing howls and accusations. as Michael Harris points out in today's column, only 23% of immigrants to Canada even go through any kind of skills or educational check> The result being something like 20% were still on welfare 3 years after arrival, and 50% of immigrants arriving in the last 15 years now live in poverty. And yet, the Liberals are set to drastically increase immigration again. Stoffman and other demographers long ago demolished the continuing argument that Canada needs high immgiration because of a low birthrate. In fact, our birth rate is among the highest in the western world, and our population is among the youngest. If Canada had zero immigration from today on, and our birth rate remained unchanged, our population would continue to grow until about 2015, before ever, ever, ever so slowly beginning to decline. And even if we did want to offset aging we wouldn't need more than a third of the present immigration rate to do so.

So why is it we have such an enormous immigration rate, with subsequent loss of cultural traditions? Politics.

Debate sinks as numbers rise

[Riverwind]

The result being something like 20% were still on welfare 3 years after arrival, and 50% of immigrants arriving in the last 15 years  now live in poverty.

Places like India and China have masses of poor people who provide the basic services at near zero cost to the educated elite. This, in turn, allows their educated elites to work for less than what a burger flipper at MacDonalds makes in Canada which, in turn, put professionals in Canada out of work. If Canada wants to compete in the brave new world of global competition it is no longer possible to simply be more smarter and/or productive it is necessary to reduce the costs of basic services by importing an underclass from other countries. The US has an advantage because illegal immigration from Mexico fills this need - Canada has to go further abroad to expand its underclass.

In that respect, expanding immigration should be high on the agenda of any pro-business/pro-free trade advocate.

(aside: I am being partially sacrcastic here).

[Argus]

The result being something like 20% were still on welfare 3 years after arrival, and 50% of immigrants arriving in the last 15 years  now live in poverty.

Places like India and China have masses of poor people who provide the basic services at near zero cost to the educated elite. This, in turn, allows their educated elites to work for less than what a burger flipper at MacDonalds makes in Canada which, in turn, put professionals in Canada out of work. If Canada wants to compete in the brave new world of global competition it is no longer possible to simply be more smarter and/or productive it is necessary to reduce the costs of basic services by importing an underclass from other countries. The US has an advantage because illegal immigration from Mexico fills this need - Canada has to go further abroad to expand its underclass.

In that respect, expanding immigration should be high on the agenda of any pro-business/pro-free trade advocate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's in interesting perspective Sparhawk. Why do you think no one else in the world shares it? Canada takes in more than twice as many immigrants as anyone else. You don't see the Brits or Germans or Swiss or Dutch or Japanese or Americans rushing to vastly increase their immigration.

You're also grossly exaggerating the wage rate differences between educated professionals in third world countries and income in Canada.

And let's presume for the sake of discussion that you're correct. That would mean that in order to compete effectively with places like India and China we'd need to have a vast underclass which lives in utter poverty and misery: I mean, we're talking about unshod peasants, whose children work in match factories, and with hordes sleeping in doorways and alleys. And would that not absolutely require we get rid of all social services? I mean, one of the reasons those people cost so little to the elites is they work or starve. There are no welfare or unemployment or pension benefits to be had for them. Is that really what you want Canada to turn into?

As Stoffman has demonstrated in his book "Who gets in", the only people who benefit economically from immigration to Canada are the immigrants themselves, who are at least better off than they were, and the rich corporate elite, because immigration tends to lower salaries of lower and middle income workers. You are acting like this is a good thing. If so, no one else on the planet sees it.

[fellowtraveller]

Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

Is there more to it than that?

[Riverwind]

I mean, one of the reasons those people cost so little to the elites is they work or starve. There are no welfare or unemployment or pension benefits to be had for them.  Is that really what you want Canada to turn into?

Ever read Johnathan's Swift's 'Modest Proposal'?

Personally, I think my description is an accurate vision of the future: all rich countries will become like China and India with large underclasses because that is the way unfettered free markets work. The macro economists will wring their hands and tell us about statistics that show that everyone is 'on average' more wealthy, however, that won't mean much to a poor person with no access to healthcare, education or the other services that we take for granted. Countries that do not allow immigration will still end up with an underclass except it will consist mainly of their own citizens that were not able to 'compete' without drastically reducing their wage expectations to levels typical of third world countries.

Of course the free market is inevitable so we just need to be smart and make sure that we are ones that stay on top. Allowing mass immigration from poor countries will make it more likely that current Canadians will end up being winners in the global rat race. We may have to live in gated communities with bars on the windows but we would be weathier than we are now so that must be good right?

[Argus]

Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

Is there more to it than that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I suspect there isn't.

So why, other than stupidity or lying pollsters, do most polls continue to show a majority of Canadians approves of mass immigration?

[August1991]

Michael Harris points out in today's column, only 23% of immigrants to Canada even go through any kind of skills or educational check

That many? Most immigrants arrive as dependants so education and skill sets are irrelevant.

The result being something like 20% were still on welfare 3 years after arrival, and 50% of immigrants arriving in the last 15 years now live in poverty.

I question those statistics and add that native-born Canadians arrive in Canada with absolutely nothing, and they're welfare cases for their first 20 years or so here.

So why is it we have such an enormous immigration rate, with subsequent loss of cultural traditions? Politics.

Argus, this is the key question. Why do we have such a "high" immigration rate? You suggest politics.

Places like India and China have masses of poor people who provide the basic services at near zero cost to the educated elite. This, in turn, allows their educated elites to work for less than what a burger flipper at MacDonalds makes in Canada which, in turn, put professionals in Canada out of work.

That is the weirdest, and dumbest, argument I have ever read about globalization, out-sourcing, race-to-the-bottom and all that.

By your logic, Sparhawk, all new technology makes us poor. Who can compete with a robot willing to work 24/7 for pennies of kilowatts? Robots, like low-wage Indians, will impoverish us. Sparhawk, do computers make us poor?

If Canada wants to compete in the brave new world of global competition it is no longer possible to simply be more smarter and/or productive it is necessary to reduce the costs of basic services by importing an underclass from other countries.

OMG!!!! Zero-sum thinking run amok. Let's spread the poverty around.

Good dog walkers are hard to find in Delhi, and I'll bet the amahs in Bangalore are uppity.

Immigrants overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

If it were only so simple.... Support for the Liberal Party goes well beyond immigrants, and immigrants are simply not that numerous, don't vote as much as native born and tend to be concentrated in urban ridings where their votes count for less.

But true, in English Canada, "Immigration" belongs to the Politically Correct Pantheon. Why?

[i suspect that in the mind of many English-Canadians, immigration is untouchable because it involves Trudeau's ideal Canada (Quebec is another culture) and a multicultural ideal (not the US melting pot).]

Ever read Johnathan's Swift's 'Modest Proposal'?

Ever read Thomas Malthus? Daniel Dafoe's Robinson Crusoe? How about Moliere's Le Malade Imaginaire? They are great works of literature with great insights into the human condition. But they must be understood in their time.

[iMV, in the past, we understood well the situation of one person. What we understand better now is the situation of one person in society.]

Of course the free market is inevitable so we just need to be smart and make sure that we are ones that stay on top.

It is unfortunate that the free market is often referred to or viewed as market competition, rather than as a very sophisticated form of co-operation.

----

I have mixed feelings about immigration. Iceland and Finland, for example, are among the richest societies in the world and yet immigration to both is negligible. To be rich and civilized, Canada does not need immigrants. But Canada, without immigrants, would be horribly boring. There is something wonderful in the exchanges between people. It is life itself.

----

We discussed this issue at length in this thread here.

From that thread, I will quote myself at length:

In general, we take in around 200,000 immigrants per year. Of these, about half (100,000) are admitted in the category of skilled workers, about a third (70,000) as family class and the rest (30,000) as refugees. Be cautious however. The 100,000 in the skilled worker categaory include dependants (children, spouse) so in fact, we only accept about 30,000 skilled workers.

In addition, Canada loses about 70,000 every year through emigration (primarily to the US). Statcan data

As a percentage of the population, we accepted more immigrants in the early 1900s than we do now. Australia accepts more net migrants than we do.

Canada's immigration law changed significantly in 1976. Since then, IMV, Canadian immigration has ressembled the kind of immigrants going to the US. North America is a dynamic society because of it.

Incidentally, the US has a lottery system now which I think is better than our system.

[Riverwind]

Places like India and China have masses of poor people who provide the basic services at near zero cost to the educated elite. This, in turn, allows their educated elites to work for less than what a burger flipper at MacDonalds makes in Canada which, in turn, put professionals in Canada out of work.

That is the weirdest, and dumbest, argument I have ever read about globalization, out-sourcing, race-to-the-bottom and all that.

Not at all, it is the logical outcome of free trade thinking: why should free trade be limited to jobs that can be physically done in the other countries? If an Indian or Chinese wants to move to Canada and pick up our trash 50 cents/hour then free trade theory says we should let them. We all end up winners right?

By your logic, Sparhawk, all new technology makes us poor.  Who can compete with a robot willing to work 24/7 for pennies of kilowatts?  Robots, like low-wage Indians, will impoverish us.  Sparhawk, do computers make us poor?

Hardly, robots are only capable of doing a very small ranges of tasks cheaper so there are lots of alternative jobs for displaced workers to move into (i.e. fixing the robots when they break down). In addition, robots increase the productivity per person of a society so there is more wealth to go around. Moving production to a foreign country will increase the aggregate wealth of both societies, however, it is naive to believe that the wealth of everyone will increase.

In rich countries, free trade will benefit people with capital which includes a large segment of our population today (boomers with real estate, savings, pension plans etc.), however, people without capital will be forced to lower their wage expectations in order to be competitive with offshore labour. Allowing immigrants from poor countries brings in a lot of people with no capital and few skills. This will put downward pressure on wages and benefit the people with capital. It also benefits the immigrants because their standard of living will likely go up too (some will become entrepreneurs and be able to acquire the capital they need to become part of the elite). The only losers are people in our society today that don't have capital. But we don't need to worry about them because it is all for the greater good.

OMG!!!! Zero-sum thinking run amok.  Let's spread the poverty around.

When Japan industrialized it had a population that was less than one fifth of the rich world at the time. This meant that it was possible to raise the average income of all Japanese to the level of the other rich countries without decreasing the income of the lower class in the rich countries. It is impossible to bring all of Indians and Chinese up to the level of rich countries without dramically reducing the income of teh poor in rich countries. There are just too many Indians and Chinese. I agree that free trade allows the pie to grow bigger: I just believe that there is no way the pie can grow fast enough to prevent a drop in standard of living in Canada. So if you can't beat them join them: bring in the immigrants: I am tired of over paying for my latte because Starbucks has to pay minimum wage to their clerks.

BTW: Swift's Modest Proposal is a satire.

[August1991]

Hardly, robots are only capable of doing a very small ranges of tasks cheaper so there are lots of alternative jobs for displaced workers to move into (i.e. fixing the robots when they break down).

I'm serious. Robots replace your job, completely.

I think that's a good thing. You can now sit on a beach while a robot does your job.

Is "work" the purpose of life? Is "job creation" the purpose of government?

[Riverwind]

Hardly, robots are only capable of doing a very small ranges of tasks cheaper so there are lots of alternative jobs for displaced workers to move into (i.e. fixing the robots when they break down).

I'm serious. Robots replace your job, completely. I think that's a good thing. You can now sit on a beach while a robot does your job.

That would only happen if I had capital. If all I have are skills and labour then how would I feed myself? Government assistance paid for by taxing people with capital?

[Argus]

Michael Harris points out in today's column, only 23% of immigrants to Canada even go through any kind of skills or educational check

That many? Most immigrants arrive as dependants so education and skill sets are irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Are they not here? Do you think the cost of teaching them English, or French is negliglble? Do you presume none of the dependants will work, or all of them are babes in arms? Have you considered the additional cost of tens of thousands of older children, adolescents and teens under eighteen, who speak no English or French and whose education is virtually non-existent? What happens to a fifteen year old who can't cope with being five or six or seven years behind his Canadian peers and without the language skills to catch up? Look at the street gangs in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver for your answers.

The result being something like 20% were still on welfare 3 years after arrival, and 50% of immigrants arriving in the last 15 years now live in poverty.

I question those statistics

You do? Why? Because of what? You question them? Whole industries like taxis and cleaners and security guards are now staffed virtually entirely by immigrants. The lowest of the lowest jobs which are dead ends to begin with. Every government statistical study has shown that immigrants are far less successful now than they used to be - because our society requires high tech skills and increasingly, high communication skills - which you don't get if you don't speak English or French.

and add that native-born Canadians arrive in Canada with absolutely nothing, and they're welfare cases for their first 20 years or so here.

Sorry, but that is, to quote you, one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.

No one is suggesting four year old dependants be tested for job skills, but most dependants are far older than that. You are not only ignoring older children and spouses but siblings and parents.

[but true, in English Canada, "Immigration" belongs to the Politically Correct Pantheon.  Why?

I'm not at all sure. In the US, for example, unions oppose immigration, knowing that it depresses wages. In Canada, all unions are fiercely supportive of large scale immigration, betraying their workers. Who can explain that but the bizarre mindset of political correctness.

[i suspect that in the mind of many English-Canadians, immigration is untouchable because it involves Trudeau's ideal Canada (Quebec is another culture) and a multicultural ideal (not the US melting pot).)

I doubt many would think of it that way. But it is true that in weaker minds, the decades long propaganda of "Multicultural Canada" as the world's great example of cultural diversity has caught hold, and they don't even stop to think about it.

I have mixed feelings about immigration.  Iceland and Finland, for example, are among the richest societies in the world and yet immigration to both is negligible.  To be rich and civilized, Canada does not need immigrants.  But Canada, without immigrants, would be horribly boring.

Do you think Finland and Iceland are horribly boring? And remember, you're choosing nations with very low immigration. France and the UK have a lot of immigration, and their streets have many different cultures and skin tones. But we have two or three times as high a rate. Do we need that just so we're not "Boring"?

You mention, as becomes inevitable in these things, that at one point our immigratoin rate was higher. But that was to serve a purpose; populating the prairies. We no longer have any such purpose. So why are we continuing to engage in a very expensive, complex and in some measures dangerously high rate of immigration when there is no discernable benefit to us?

[Leafless]

This whole immigration issue needs to be seriously questioned.

Has anyone ever seen the official fiqures province to province demandind the requirement for immigrants for specific or specialized jobs or even to justify population requirements from province to province.

Look at Toronto one of the most messed up cities in Canada due to innigration.

I am begining to think Canadians trust the feds a little to much.

Would it be totally inconceivable to suggest the Liberals have a hidden agenda concerning immigration.

[cybercoma]

Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak french or english.

[RB]

Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak french or english.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe we need the population to compete successfully in the global marketplace. It is competition that drives our capitalistic steaks.

I didn't think language and communication problem is highlighted European immigrants so much as the Asian and other regions (even the Caribbean)

Europeans seem to fit into the Canadian mainstream easily and tend to do well economically as far as I see

I mean even after greater than four generations in Canada, you can still see colored immigrants struggling

Having said that, if the immigrated numbers are set to increase, I hope there are more social programs in place to civilize these folks into the workplace environment and to accommodate them learning.

I can't tell you from experience that wherever the good folks are arriving from they are scare of basic office equipment such as the photocopying machines, printers is shocking and a real FED-UP situation.

[Argus]

Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak french or english.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe we need the population to compete successfully in the global marketplace

Why do you believe that? The world's biggest countries are, for the most part, unsuccessful. While some of the world's smallest countries are extremely wealthy.

[RB]

Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak french or english.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe we need the population to compete successfully in the global marketplace

Why do you believe that? The world's biggest countries are, for the most part, unsuccessful. While some of the world's smallest countries are extremely wealthy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This current population is not reproducing, at some point we will reach dire straits when the death rate > than birth rate and what then

I think the government can create smart economies with a big, skilled population only the govenment is so big itself, that it has become infantile and needs baby-sit itself.

[Leafless]

cybercoma

Concerning-"Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak French or English."

Let's call a spade a spade.

You are probably aware or know Quebec has it's OWN immigration policy and it's immigrants can speak French for certain.

So why is this important to the other provinces if they can't speak French as Canada is not an officially bilingual country and the majority language outside of Quebec is English?

[Argus]

cybercoma

Concerning-"Immigration wouldn't be half as bad as it is if the immigrants could speak French or English."

Let's call a spade a spade.

You are probably aware or know Quebec has it's OWN immigration policy and it's immigrants can speak French for certain.

I always found that interesting. Any efforts at ensuring immigrants to Canada speak English is met by cries of racism, but no one seems to have a problem with Quebec demanding all immigrants to that province speak French.

[Argus]

I believe we need the population to compete successfully in the global marketplace

Why do you believe that? The world's biggest countries are, for the most part, unsuccessful. While some of the world's smallest countries are extremely wealthy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This current population is not reproducing, at some point we will reach dire straits when the death rate > than birth rate and what then

Demographers have shown that the population will continue to increase, even with zero immgration, for at least another ten years. It would then begin to decline, but not noticeably for at least a century. Immigration at a level of about 75k per year would be sufficient to stop the population from getting smaller. Our present immigration is over 200,000, and Martin plans to increase this to over 300,000

So... would you care to try again?

[RB]

Argus,Oct 16 2005, 11:04 AM]

RB,Oct 16 2005, 12:24 AM]

Argus,Oct 15 2005, 10:33 PM]

I believe we need the population to compete successfully in the global marketplace

Why do you believe that? The world's biggest countries are, for the most part, unsuccessful. While some of the world's smallest countries are extremely wealthy.

This current population is not reproducing, at some point we will reach dire straits when the death rate > than birth rate and what then

Demographers have shown that the population will continue to increase, even with zero immgration, for at least another ten years. It would then begin to decline, but not noticeably for at least a century. Immigration at a level of about 75k per year would be sufficient to stop the population from getting smaller. Our present immigration is over 200,000, and Martin plans to increase this to over 300,000

So... would you care to try again?

Yes - we are a country built on immigration - I mean what is your major trouble with increase of immigration levels?

If new Canadians access jobs they

-will contribute to the Canadian economy

-will pay taxes

-will buy goods and services

-will join your security and protect the country

-will use your schools, and medical services

-will vote

-will help you access different market hopefully

-will help you multiply

you get the picture

I see the general negative perception of immigrants accessing the social safety net, and unemployment are the usual threats

Likely also, even though the new Canadians are much more skilled than previously the truth is they are not doing very well.

Businesses should really be involved in this recruit of immigration - I mean the Liberals are saying there are skilled jobs that are currently unfilled hence the outreach to imports of labor. I would like to see these businesses come forward and stake their claims on these new workers if it were this easy.

Look, if there are contingencies in place to welcome the new wave they will contribute quicker to production and add value to the Canadian economy, otherwise it is stalemate.

I see the folks arrive in Canada with perhaps 15k and after 9months of no integration and false hopes of finding work similar to their previous job in their homeland, they start accepting menial opportunity and falls into the system. We have the most highly educated taxi drivers around town.

Next, I wonder why government has not focus internally, like put in place some policies.....attractive parental rewards to appeal to current Canadian women to increase birth rates.

I'll buy into any sexy parental packages otherwise women just keep putting off having kids.

[Argus]

Demographers have shown that the population will continue to increase, even with zero immgration, for at least another ten years. It would then begin to decline, but not noticeably for at least a century. Immigration at a level of about 75k per year would be sufficient to stop the population from getting smaller. Our present immigration is over 200,000, and Martin plans to increase this to over 300,000

So... would you care to try again?

Yes - we are a country built on immigration - I mean what is your major trouble with increase of immigration levels?

I am really tired of people using that tired old refrain. We are a country build on horses, too, but no one suggests we need more of them. We are a country built by importing raw, unskilled workers and having them till our fields and cut our trees. But that doesn't work any more.

Present immigration numbers are completely unjustifable by any logical or economic basis. There is no policy, stated or otherwise, of government, which is being fulfilled by ever increasing numbers of immigrants.

Let me ask you this. Do you hate this country? Do you want it to disappear? Do you not think that by importing millions and millions and millions of others that is exactly what will happen, all vestiges of our history, culture and traditions washed away by "others"? Most of the newcomers share nothing of our cultural traits or traditions, and care little for them. Already the majority of the people in Toronto were born elsewhere. Increasing the immigration rate to 1% of our population means 25% of our population will be made up of foreign born within twenty five years - except, of course, that close to a third of our population is already made up of foreign born people.

Now you can draw immigrants into your own culture, enriching it as you absorb them and as they absorb your traditions and cultural values and pass them on to their children. But there comes a point, when the numbers are so high, that absorbtion simply stops, and what you get are foreign communities living within your borders who don't acclimate because there's no need for them to. With ethnic communities numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and living close together, with a steady infusion of newcomers, you are simply growing mini foreign countries on your soil.

That's to say nothing of the fact more people brings more pollution and more urban sprawl. And you can add that vast numbers of the newcomers are uneducated and illiterate, becoming little more than a drain on resources (take a look at any urban slum why don't you).

And you have still given no coherent reason why high levels of immigration are good for us.

(bold in place of quotes because of ten quote limit)

If new Canadians access jobs they

What does that mean? If they access jobs? Does that mean if they become employed? What if they DON'T access jobs?

-will contribute to the Canadian economy

Debatable. It costs us a lot to bring newcomers over and settle them and pay to get them adjusted to us, inc ESL classes. Since vast numbers of them are below the poverty line they are likely not making much contribution.

-will pay taxes

And if half of newcomers are living below the poverty line they are consuming more in tax resources than they are contributing.

-will buy goods and services

With welfare money? How does that help me?

-will join your security and protect the country

Realistically, immigrants are the greatest threat to our security. Many of them retain their old prejudices and hatreds.

-will use your schools, and medical services

And more overcrowding is good?

-will vote

Liberal. Yeah, I like that.

-will help you access different market hopefully

The Japanese are the world's greatest traders, and they do not believe in immigration - none.

-will help you multiply

Meaning we're supposed to get bigger. That's the original excuse you used, but you weren't able to demonstrate why you think this is going to be good.

you get the picture

Pretty murky picture, really.

I see the folks arrive in Canada with perhaps 15k and after 9months of no integration and false hopes of finding work similar to their previous job in their homeland, they start accepting menial opportunity and falls into the system.  We have the most highly educated taxi drivers around town.

Then why do we need more?

[Yodeler]

I always found that interesting. Any efforts at ensuring immigrants to Canada speak English is met by cries of racism, but no one seems to have a problem with Quebec demanding all immigrants to that province speak French.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell us more about this phenomena, Argus.

Thanks in advance!

ROTFPIMPALMFAO

[Riverwind]

ROTFPIMPALMFAO

Curious, the only hits on Google for this acronymn were posts on MLW by the banned members 'Galahad' and 'shoe-in'. I guess we have another returned poster. I hope you can avoid the fate of your previous incarnations.

[Argus]

I always found that interesting. Any efforts at ensuring immigrants to Canada speak English is met by cries of racism, but no one seems to have a problem with Quebec demanding all immigrants to that province speak French.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell us more about this phenomena, Argus.

Thanks in advance!

ROTFPIMPALMFAO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have something to say I suggest you try and develop sufficient maturity to put it in writing rather than acting like a smarmy idiot.

[Yodeler]

BTW: Swift's Modest Proposal is a satire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, YOUR proposal of bringing in immigrants to replace you in doing all the scut work sure doesn't sound like satire.

Tsk tsk tsk!

Oscar Wilde said it best:

"Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends."