A foundational debate on Immigration

[Figleaf]

A long post about detailed immigration policy removed -- too bad MLW admin doesn't care about quality, or treating posters with respect.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[August1991]

We have had numerous threads on this topic. How is this thread different?

What does "foundational" mean?

Many Canadians might also feel that immigration policy should not adversely impact any citizen's employment/financial status.

Do you mean that we should object if immigrants make house prices go up?

[watching&waiting]

Canada has a made in Canada problem that is about to balloon on us, as all of us baby boomers start to retire. You as we went through life, we found that if we wanted all those good things that both spouses had to work, but that was not a big deal or so we thought. Then we had children, but with the lifestyle taking a lot to maintain, most families had one or two children. Which basically was a zero population growth at best and negative growth the more likely event. This was not a big deal until now, where we see that a major part of the population is retiring and expecting the small population to pick up the tab. Since you can not give birth to tax paying aged children, we only have immigration as a tool to use to solve our problem.

The biggest thing about immigration is that we want to control the make up of the types of immigrants we take in. We do not want HIV+ people from Africa, or other countries, but we would welcome english speaking caucasions openly, but along with that we again have this small family thing to worry about. We would like to bring in many nationalities that believe in large scale families and those that will work hard to support that family. We have to be careful of those that just want to come here for the social benefits, but still allow others who will soon be self sufficient. We missed the boat when Hong Kong was being handed over we should have opened the gates wide as many multi millionairs were there for the taking, and these were the ones with the entrepeneurial spirit. The Asain immigrants are also very good for the country, but they need to understand that it is better to come the legal way then illegal and then being underground. Most European countries can get into Canada with not much problems, but it seems that the eastern european ones also bring a lot of lawabiding issues s well. It is a hit or miss type thing. We have in the past had a large Lebanese and Greek immigration but these then all seem to congregate in their own little neighbourhoods, and we need immigrant to spread outside of our major population centers. I have noticed a lot of people from South America in and around Ottawa, but I do not know if that is because it is the capital or if they are just part of an employment exchange etc.

Either way you cut it, we need immigration to the tune of 3-5 million per year for the next decade if we are going to be able to grow enough to support the foundations of our countries lifestyles.

[Charles Anthony]

Either way you cut it, we need immigration to the tune of 3-5 million per year for the next decade if we are going to be able to grow enough to support the foundations of our countries lifestyles.

No problem.

All we have to do is cancel all financial aid to new immigrants and let anybody in to the country.

The only people who will come to Canada will be the people who can be productive.

[Topaz]

True or False....people coming here to live have to have a sponsor, someone to look after them, until they can find a job and look after themselves? I have no problem them coming here as long as they abide by our laws and by doing so, our laws will protect them. We need more professionals here, like doctors and if they can pass all requirements let them in.

[Michael Hardner]

Like Auguste, I wonder about this one:

Many Canadians might also feel that immigration policy should not adversely impact any citizen's employment/financial status.

The economic impact of immigration is complex - some win, some lose. If you set out the restriction as stated, we wouldn't have any immigration would we ?

Another one:

We need more professionals here, like doctors...

Certainly there are many doctors who would come here and probably do a good job for $40,000/yr. The health system would benefit in that there would be more doctors and cheaper. So why doesn't this happen ? The reason is that professions generally are governed by a body that grants licenses and restricts employment so as to protect the wages of its members.

By that definition, a unionized auto worker is more of a professional than a systems analyst. If you have worked in IT, as I have, over the last ten years then you know that wages have fallen, hours have risen due to the increase in supply of labour.

Who benefits from that ? The general public pays less for information services - the costs of which are embedded in the price of many things we buy - and individual IT workers get lower wages.

[Figleaf]

MLW sucks

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

,,

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Renegade]

All we have to do is cancel all financial aid to new immigrants and let anybody in to the country.

The only people who will come to Canada will be the people who can be productive.

That would be a recipie for disaster, unless ALL social programs are also cut so as to not be an incentive for non-productive immigrants to come to Canada. For example if welfare benefits and medicare are more generous in Canada, than the immigrant's home country, it makes economic sensse for them to immigrate especially if they can take advantage of those social programs.

[Michael Hardner]

The part 2 (principle) question that seem important to me is this ... if you acknowledge that immigration will be allowed to harm some citizens to acheive an better outcome for all citizens, can you say that is 'right'? Or do you need to start thinking about identifying who is harmed and redressing that harm perhaps?

Figleaf,

Your idea sounds idealistic to me. In almost every human endeavor certain people lose and certain people win. This is sometimes called 'progress', but tell that to blacksmiths, and typewriter salesmen and see if they like that term. Even finding a cure for cancer would put radiologists out of work.

Obviously, there should be some cost/benefit analysis done, but I'm saying that you can't make the requirement as stringent as you suggest.

The biggest benefit, evidently, is economic. Unfortunately, economics is a dense area rife with subjectivity, misinformation, false statistics and so forth. To the general public, this topic is about as understandable as the practice of voodoo.

So, where are we ? 1. We need our voting public to understand the issues in order to form an opinion. 2. The benefits of immigration appear to be largely economic in nature. 3. The public can't be expected to understand economics. 4. Therefore, the public can't be expected to form a well-based opinion on economics.

If we still believed in experts, we might allow experts from across the political spectrum to come in and present a solution that we can all accept. But eggheads and class president types (eg. Al Gore, Charles Grodin, Pierre Trudeau) fell out of favour long ago in favour of plain-speaking regular guys (eg. George Bush, Mike Harris and The Rock).

So where are we ?

[Figleaf]

..

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting it ... more like exploring it. But it brings us to a larger issue: What obligation does government have to redress persons harmed by policies it implements for the (presumed) greater good?

The answer is: whatever politics demands.

Therefore 5. the public can't be expected to make intelligent choices on economic issues. And economics are centrally important issues in virtually every question, therefore the public can't be expected to have well-based opinions on anything at all, really.

Sort of...

But then again, the public is smarter than most people realize.

Which is better:

1) Tell the public to stay out of it and trust the experts.

2) Have experts from both sides bafflegab the public with their arguments, stressing that they're right.

3) Expect every single citizen to get an MA in Economics.

4) Have each side put their most attactive economic expert with the deepest voice on television to plead their case.

5) Have a journalist give a 10 second sound byte on each side, leaving out key issues and misexplaining it.

6) Have actual economic experts who are objective and are trusted by the public explain the benefits and costs reasonably completely, in plain language.

We use a mix of all of these methods to convey information to the public. Obviously, 6) is the Holy Grail.

[Fortunata]

Immigrants should only be allowed to come here if they will fit in to our society, not make it over to be a different but same culture as the one they left. If they want to have the same culture as their homeland then I suggest they stay in their homeland.

I'm going to use Muslims as an example, not because I don't believe they can fit into our society, but they are the most visible group not to seem to want to: Our society supports equality between the sexes - no covering headdress, no burkas, no wives being the property of their husbands. The immigrants that come here should understand that it is our rules that take precedent and if they don't like it, well they should stay in a place where it is acceptable to expect all of the above.

Our culture should be our number one concern, all other prosperity will stem from keeping it strong. I cannot believe that we have let in large groups that would undermine it - we watch it happen and let those groups keep coming. The case of some Sihk populations in BC still living their old homeland grudges and their refusal to change to a Canadian culture is another good example of what not to do. I mean, why come to Canada at all?

OK, so this probably sounds more racist than I really am, but I'm concerned that our equality and human rights will get lost along the way, as we seem to let it now, from Bountiful child brides to wife owners to selling daughters to the highest bidder.

[Michael Hardner]

Fortunata,

Immigrants should only be allowed to come here if they will fit in to our society, not make it over to be a different but same culture as the one they left. If they want to have the same culture as their homeland then I suggest they stay in their homeland.

I'm going to use Muslims as an example, not because I don't believe they can fit into our society, but they are the most visible group not to seem to want to: Our society supports equality between the sexes - no covering headdress, no burkas, no wives being the property of their husbands. The immigrants that come here should understand that it is our rules that take precedent and if they don't like it, well they should stay in a place where it is acceptable to expect all of the above.

Our culture should be our number one concern, all other prosperity will stem from keeping it strong. I cannot believe that we have let in large groups that would undermine it - we watch it happen and let those groups keep coming. The case of some Sihk populations in BC still living their old homeland grudges and their refusal to change to a Canadian culture is another good example of what not to do. I mean, why come to Canada at all?

OK, so this probably sounds more racist than I really am, but I'm concerned that our equality and human rights will get lost along the way, as we seem to let it now, from Bountiful child brides to wife owners to selling daughters to the highest bidder.

The same sentiment has been expressed over and over again on this forum, but there hasn't been a practical idea to how this could be implemented.

You could have a box on a forum that immigrants have to check: 'Do you agree with Canadian values yes/no ?'. How effective would that be ?

The other extreme is to restrict certain types of people based on religion or where they're from. That would be a political non-starter - it couldn't even be suggested. Anyone who tried to do this would have impossible legal hurdles to get it through.

[Argus]

Either way you cut it, we need immigration to the tune of 3-5 million per year for the next decade if we are going to be able to grow enough to support the foundations of our countries lifestyles.

This is COMPLETELY unsupported by any statistical or demographic data, you know. From which rectal orifice did that number emerge?

Let me give you a hint. I have posted this several times already. If we completely end immigration, I mean nothing, zip, not a single person. Our population will drop by about a quarter million people - in THIRTY YEARS.

If we slash current immigration by more than 50%, down to say 100k per year, our population will still continue to grow.

[Argus]

True or False....people coming here to live have to have a sponsor, someone to look after them, until they can find a job and look after themselves?

False.

[Argus]

True or False....people coming here to live have to have a sponsor, someone to look after them, until they can find a job and look after themselves?

Definitely not all immigrants are sponsored. Typically sponsored immigrants are those who would not be accepted on suitability/economic criteria.

And the sponsorship is not enforced. If the sponsor doesn't come through on behalf of the sponsored immigrant the government shrugs and does nothing.

[Argus]

Obviously, there should be some cost/benefit analysis done, but I'm saying that you can't make the requirement as stringent as you suggest.

The biggest benefit, evidently, is economic.

The latest information I have seen strongly suggests immigration produces no net economic benefit today. If anyone disputes that I will dig up the study.

[Argus]

Principle (2): What/how much impact from a certain immigration policy are we seeking/willing to tolerate?

(Bearing in mind that an immigration policy should be considered in its total integrated sense, from selection thru settlement to citizenship, if applicable.)

I propose to discuss (2) briefly ...

I think the majority of Canadians would at minimum believe that immigration policy must not be allowed to detract from core liberal democratic principles. Many Canadians might also feel that immigration policy should not adversely impact any citizen's employment/financial status. Some might also feel that immigration must not impact on qualitative, or even subjective aspects of their lives.

Immigration has already adversely affected the lives of massive numbers of Canadians. Remember when they used to call Toronto "New York run by the Swiss". When was the last time anyone ever used that term except sarcastically? It's a city overcrowded with cultures, which now has the kind of ethnic slums it never would have imagined, and the kind of gang problem it never would have believed possible. the majority of kids in its schools are immigrants and the children of immigrants, many of them with poor or non-existent english language skills. Try being a Canadian kid sitting in a classroom filled with immigrants as the teacher tries repeatedly to get across a point you understood ten minutes ago but half the class can't because they don't understand English or the concepts she's teaching. Try doing that day after day, in class after class. That is the reality of public schools today in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, and many other places. Guy I know had his daughter go to her first day at high school not long ago. It was her last day at that high school, too, as she was sexually harrassed and threatened by groups of Somali and Lebanese kids who make up the great majority of the student population (she now goes to Catholic school in the suburbs).

The last time I was in Toronto I felt like I was in Africa or the mid-east. I had a lot of trouble just trying to communicate with some of the service people, both at my hotel and in stores. Their command of English made Jean Chretien seem superbly fluent. The city is dirty and there's garbage and bums everywhere downtown.

Did anyone ever suggest to the people of Toronto in Nineteen Seventy that this was what was being planned for them? Do you think many of the citizens of Toronto would have agreed with it?

As for Ottawa, let's see, in the last week or so we had our first honour killing by an Afghani man outraged his sister had moved in with her fiancee. A young working man was stabbed to death on a bus for his ipod by a Somali gang member, and a drug dealer named Mustafa Hassan murdered a junkie named Sami El-Ghazal

The most wanted man on the Ottawa Police web site is named Fu Kwok WEI, wanted for a double murder.

People used to laugh at how dead Ottawa was, but they didn't have this in mind.

Did anyone ask me if this was what I wanted for Ottawa?

[scribblet]

No one has ever asked the public what they want for Canada, or if they want the face of Canada to change so dramatically. The issue of immigration is so volatile and open to accusations of racism that a thorough discussion is not possible. Any critique of immigration is immediately labelled racist.

I have no problem with immigration per se, just the quality and quantity. Canada has every right to determine who and what is best for Canada, not what is best for the potential immigrant. Immigrants should be selected based on Canada's economic needs, not theirs.

Many of the entrants come in as refugees or relatives without meeting the points system criteria and would never get in on their own merit, which results in a large very poor underclass. This also results in a huge drain on the education system as more and more tax dollars are directed towards English as a second language, and in Toronto there is the taxpayer funded Heritage Language programs.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040407/d040407a.htm

In 2000, recent immigrants had a low-income rate of 35.0%, nearly twice the average rate for metropolitan areas overall. In 1980, in contrast, recent immigrants had a low-income rate of only 23.1%. This growth was substantial in all metropolitan areas with a large population of recent immigrants.

At the same time, recent immigrants increased their share in the population, especially in the 1990s. In 2000, 9.0% of residents in the largest 27 metropolitan areas were recent immigrants, compared with 6.1% in 1990.

Toronto and Vancouver were two large metropolitan areas where the low-income rate increased in the 1990s. Virtually all of the rises in low-income rates seen in these areas during the 1990s were concentrated among recent immigrants.

[jdobbin]

Did anyone ask me if this was what I wanted for Ottawa?

Isn't that what the federal election was about. Harper at that time pledged to keep immigration at the numbers we have now.

[Fortunata]

The same sentiment has been expressed over and over again on this forum, but there hasn't been a practical idea to how this could be implemented.

You could have a box on a forum that immigrants have to check: 'Do you agree with Canadian values yes/no ?'. How effective would that be ?

The other extreme is to restrict certain types of people based on religion or where they're from. That would be a political non-starter - it couldn't even be suggested. Anyone who tried to do this would have impossible legal hurdles to get it through.

We have tests to determine everything from I.Q., apptitude, mental disabilities and illnesses to career suitability to whatever, surely we could have some test designed to better determine who will or will not integrate into our culture. It would not be foolproof but it would be better than what we have now. But a test like this would not be politically correct and no government will take it on, not even big, bad tough talking Harper.

[Michael Hardner]

The latest information I have seen strongly suggests immigration produces no net economic benefit today. If anyone disputes that I will dig up the study.

Argus - you know how contentious this is. A single study isn't going to provide a definitive answer.

My guess is that business leaders obviously want to increase consumer domand, domestically, and this is why governments of the right and left in North America have favoured immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

We have tests to determine everything from I.Q., apptitude, mental disabilities and illnesses to career suitability to whatever, surely we could have some test designed to better determine who will or will not integrate into our culture. It would not be foolproof but it would be better than what we have now. But a test like this would not be politically correct and no government will take it on, not even big, bad tough talking Harper.

You could conceivably put in a test that wouldn't be politically objectionable, and it might even screen out some people. But such a test would probably amount to no more than a restatement of our constitution, and would be easily faked by anybody but the stupidest applicants.