A foundational debate on Immigration

[mcqueen625]

It seems to me that the subject of immigration is never discussed in terms of its essential divisive issue. I'm not sure how come the core of a topic never gets reached in the public discourse, but let's try it here.

I think that the main question to be asked in an immigration policy is a two-parter: part of fact, and part of principle as follows:

Facts (1): How much/what impact will a certain immigration policy actually have on the nature our society?

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.

Where do we want to draw the line? Our political process never seems to directly canvas this question ... perhaps the people in charge don't care what the citizenry thinks, or perhaps they fear they won't like it. Regardless, the question is answered implicitly, in practice, so perhaps making it explicit will be informative.

I think immigration is both desirable and should be encouraged, but I believe that we have gone about it all wrong. What I believe we have done entirely wrong is to encourage these immigrants to change the way we as cradle-Canadians have been brought up. It's fine for them to have their own cultures as do most of us, but it is wrong for them to axpect us to change our western society to accomidate their traditions and cultures.

Where we have also screwed up is in allowing these supposed immigrants to carry duel citizenship. My opinion is that they either want to be Canadians or they want to retain the citizenship from whence they came. This was made glowingly apparent during the recent hostilities in Lebanon, when thousands of these supposed Canadian citizens were taking our government to task for not rescuing them right away, at taxpayer's expense. To make matter even worse I read on teh Cnadian Free Press where a very large percentage wnet directly back to Lebanon as soon as the hostilities died down. They either want to be citizens of Canada or they don't. Being a Canadian citizens means they should be declaring income in Canada from ALL sources and paying Canadian taxes on that income, and most of all they should be either living in Canada or surrendering their Canadian citizenship and going the hell back to where they came from, for good.

We the taxpayers of Canada are the ones who will be footing the bill for emergency evacuations from Lebanon, and other hot-spots, and why should we pay for people who obviously only want a Canadian passport for convenience purposes. Maybe it is time we change the law on immigration and require every citizen to participate in all Canadian traditions including filing a T-1 General every year and claiming income from ALL sources, both domestic and foreign, and paying the required percentage of taxes on that income. If they are not willing to fulfill that little obligation, then maybe it is time to stamp their Canadian Passport with a CANCELLED stamp, and ship them all back where they came from.

[Argus]

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.

Didn't say it would be made up of goat herders.

Meanwhile, that flake Ignatieff, in a venal appeal to immigrants, has said he wants immigration to go up to nearly 400 thousand by increasing family class immigrants and making it easier for immigrants here to bring in relatives. Family class immigrants are the worst economic performers, other than refugees, a drain on the economy, on social service networks, and contribute to poverty and crime. Everyone knows this, and certainly he must. But who cares, right? Bring over an extra hundred thousand goat herders who don't speak English and have no job skills every year, no matter what the social consequences, so long as it helps you get elected.

[Argus]

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.

Business leaders don't want to increase demand, they want cheap labour. Immigrants will work harder, for less money, and won't complain of abuse the way Canadians will. That's what business leaders like.

[Argus]

I think immigration is both desirable and should be encouraged,

Why?

[jdobbin]

Didn't say it would be made up of goat herders.

Meanwhile, that flake Ignatieff, in a venal appeal to immigrants, has said he wants immigration to go up to nearly 400 thousand by increasing family class immigrants and making it easier for immigrants here to bring in relatives. Family class immigrants are the worst economic performers, other than refugees, a drain on the economy, on social service networks, and contribute to poverty and crime. Everyone knows this, and certainly he must. But who cares, right? Bring over an extra hundred thousand goat herders who don't speak English and have no job skills every year, no matter what the social consequences, so long as it helps you get elected.

Even family class immigrants have to be able to speak one of the official languages.

Don't know that Harper has proposed any changes. In fact, immigration is up since he became prime minister.

[Charles Anthony]

I think immigration is both desirable and should be encouraged,

Why?

Because Canada is generally NOT a tourist attraction / vacation resort.

[Argus]

I think immigration is both desirable and should be encouraged,

Why?

Because Canada is generally NOT a tourist attraction / vacation resort.

Could you expand upon that?

[Charles Anthony]

Why?

In simple terms:

Canada's economy depends on Canadians working and domestic wealth creation. Canada needs more Canadians to meet its future demands because we tax each other to meet our demands. Immigration is the cheapest way to increase the population and keep the economy from stagnating.

Tourist resort countries are lucky. They have foreigners come in routinely and pour wealth into the domestic economy. Similarly, countries with neverending sources of oil do not need immigration.

[scribblet]

Didn't say it would be made up of goat herders.

Meanwhile, that flake Ignatieff, in a venal appeal to immigrants, has said he wants immigration to go up to nearly 400 thousand by increasing family class immigrants and making it easier for immigrants here to bring in relatives. Family class immigrants are the worst economic performers, other than refugees, a drain on the economy, on social service networks, and contribute to poverty and crime. Everyone knows this, and certainly he must. But who cares, right? Bring over an extra hundred thousand goat herders who don't speak English and have no job skills every year, no matter what the social consequences, so long as it helps you get elected.

It is the family class of immigrants that are the least qualified, I can't believe he said that, a craven last minute attempt to buy votes. That much of an increase would be a crushing burden for our education and health care systems, he really is a flake.

Despite the evidence of economic damage, we are all afraid to speak up, while politicians pander to the immigration and refugee industry and buy the immigrant vote.

Most people are afraid to speak out as we know what happens. so, in the absence of a real debate, the liberals can continue to pander to the immigration industry.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/...Immigration.pdf.

there is the problem that a substantial proportion of all sponsorship commitments go unfulfilled for at least a part of the time when the sponsors are committed to looking after the needs of the immigrants. As a result, significant numbers of sponsored immigrants become a public burden. The federal government does not publish official figures on the magnitude of this problem. The provincial governments, which bear the costs of reneged sponsorship commitments, have the data but do not publish them (..why not..)

snip

he family class relative to the skilled class of immigrants on average has 20 percent lower incomes and a higher incidence of unemploy-ment and need for social assistance benefits. These statistics also show that the family class of immi-grants receives social assistance payments that, as a percentage of all such payments, have been increasing through time.

[scribblet]

Dianne Francis Immigration : The Economic Case (Paperback

Canada receives more than a million immigrants every five years, far more on a per capita basis than any other country. The size and composition of the country's urban centres has been transformed in the last fifteen years with little critical discussion about who gets in or why Canada's immigration targets are so much higher, proportionately, than those of the other principal immigration destinations—Australia and the United States. One recent publication asks some hard questions about current policies, while sharing the belief that more modest immigration numbers, with a greater focus on language and labour market skills, will serve Canada and would-be immigrants much better.

Diane Francis, a well-known financial journalist, takes direct aim at the economic arguments used in support of current immigration flows. Francis highlights the low skill levels of many family class immigrants; of some 600,000 immigrants admitted in 1998 to 2000, 43 per cent spoke neither English or French, and one third of the adults reported that they did not intend to work. Canadian residents who sponsored immigrants gave guarantees that they would not be a burden on social assistance for the first 10 years, but in practice many such sponsors simply reneged on their commitments.

In Ontario alone broken sponsorship commitments are costing taxpayers $150 million annually. Faced with growing evidence of withdrawn family support and with the difficulty of enforcement, the Liberals reduced the sponsorship commitment requirement to three years.

Francis's slim book delivers some hard blows to those who believe that Canada's immigration policies are well conceived and well managed. They are neither, she concludes. Instead, together with an incompetent, patronage-driven refugee determination (status-granting) process, current policies are economically disastrous, porous to criminals seeking new opportunities, and incompatible with Canada's national security needs.

[Argus]

Why?

In simple terms:

Canada's economy depends on Canadians working and domestic wealth creation.

And in what way is this different from just about any other economy?

Canada needs more Canadians to meet its future demands because we tax each other to meet our demands.

This is silly. The more Canadians there are, the more demand there is. Bringing in more Canadians brings in more taxes, but also brings in more demand. So there is no advantage there. And if the new Canadians are poorer than is the norm, then the economic affect is actually negative.

Tourist resort countries are lucky. They have foreigners come in routinely and pour wealth into the domestic economy.

You mean, like, Iceland?

Similarly, countries with neverending sources of oil do not need immigration.

Canada is one of the world's largest producers of oil.

[scribblet]

I'll post this here rather than start another thread, its worth a read and caused a stir in Britain, another case in point on how reasonable debate on immigration is stifled.

"How on earth have we got to such a pass, where a patently decent person is smeared as a racist simply for wishing to preserve a national identity?"

Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail

Discomfort of strangers

David Goodhart's essay challenging liberals to rethink their attitudes to diversity and the welfare state has provoked a bitter debate among progressive thinkers. Here, for the first time in a national newspaper, we publish it in full.

a couple of paragraphs here

In the rhetoric of the modern liberal state, the glue of ethnicity ("people who look and talk like us") has been replaced with the glue of values ("people who think and behave like us"). But British values grow, in part, out of a specific history and even geography. Too rapid a change in the make-up of a community not only changes the present, it also, potentially, changes our link with the past. As Bob Rowthorn wrotein Prospect in February 2003, we may lose a sense of responsibility for our own history - the good things as well as the shameful things in it - if too many citizens no longer identify with it.

Is this a problem? Surely Britain in 2004 has become too diverse and complex to give expression to a common culture in the present, let alone the past. Diversity in this context is usually code for ethnic difference. But that is only one part of the diversity story, albeit the easiest to quantify and most emotionally charged. The progressive dilemma is also revealed in the value and generational rifts that emerged with such force in the 1960s. At the Prospect roundtable mentioned above, Patricia Hewitt, now secretary of state for trade and industry, recalled an example of generational conflict from her Leicester constituency. She was canvassing on a council estate when an elderly white couple saw her Labour rosette and one of them said: "We're not voting Labour - you hand taxpayers' money to our daughter." She apparently lived on a nearby estate, with three children all by different fathers, and her parents had cut her off (evidence that even close genetic ties do not always produce solidarity).