[andyt]

The Reformacons are playing the same "ain't immigration grand" game as the Lieberals before them. But they've made a few small steps toward making the system a bit better. They want to give more points to people who speak the language(s), ie give them preference. They've muttered something about reducing the family reunification class, don't know if they've actually done anything here. And they give out some sort of pamphlet to immigrants about what's expected of them. Nothing major, but at least they're taking the odd baby step. Doubt if it will amount to much. If the Reformacons really took the bull by the horns with immigration, I would probably hold my nose and vote for them.

BTW - Canada also took in huge numbers of immigrants per capita in earlier times, same as the US. We have similar settlement histories. But the agricultural economy of the time could easily absorb them, and there was lots of land to settle them on. Not like now, where they all crowd into our three major cities.

[Khar]

Psudo wrote:

In the long term, then, do immigrants ever reach a point where their employment rate is greater than the national average or the average for those born domestically?

Yes.

It's not rare that immigrants who have been here 10 years or more have dropped below the Canadian born population's unemployment rate. At other times, it is higher. Usually the two modulate around each other in a range of less than half a percent.

When looking at them compared to the national average, all immigrants share the same relationship with average unemployment to some degree, although usually all immigrants lag behind by a few tenths of a percentage point, about 0.2% or 0.3%. The biggest reason for this appears to be newer immigrants according to the same table I was using before. The large shift off I could find was 0.5% and that was during a recession.

I'm sorry I cannot provide the table, but the conditions of use I agree to to have access to this database specifically state "the distribution of any data obtained under this agreement outside of the ********* through sale, donation, transfer or exchange of any portion of these data files in any way is expressly prohibited" except for "research communications, scholarly papers, journals and the like is permitted" in small quantities.

andyt wrote:

What Kahr's argument ignores is that we bring in 250,000 immigrants or more every year, so there is always a new cohort that is experiencing the problems and costing us the money. If it was a one time deal it would be a whole different matter.

This is not ignored, it has been part of numerable concepts I have brought up. As I have said many times now over several threads, the long term benefits outweigh the long term, and short term, costs. These 250,000 people may cost us in the short term, but in the long term they contribute to economic growth. Their short term savings help offset issues they bring with them, and their long term impact in the system brings money into Canada.

They might cost us money back in the short term, but it's an investment in these immigrants. Down the line 10, 20 years, we are making money off of these immigrants, their children an so forth. Even if they have dependents (which I have already shown in this thread and others is far from as severe as you claim it to be), these dependents can play a role in making life easier for those immigrants and hence making them more effective (google "effective worker," it's a common and simple economic concept and is one of the reasons why I was hard on you when you asked me if I understood supply and demand). You also cannot ignore how often life savings and such are brought to Canada as well. These people spent their entire lives working, it's not as if they are bringing nothing with them here.

Our current and local population per worker is rising without immigrants. We cannot state that somehow these immigrants having dependents is any worse than Canadian-born people having dependents other than the one-time lump-sum cost of them not having paid into the system over as long a period of time to import older dependents. Older folks might not pay into programs in the long term, but they do pay into consumption, and the money they have is going to go on to their children, as well as their assets -- and these become Canadian. They are a social cost that their children and their children's children can and will rectify, and I consider this problem extremely overstated -- especially since it's only one aspect of immigration and does not touch on so many other aspects of the topic. These old folks might not have paid into the program, but they won't be drawing from it for as long either.

Besides, it's ridiculous of us to state "you can work for us, pay taxes and participate in our culture, but your family can't." That's not only not very Canadian, it's pretty odd in my books.

A singular "problem" which has already been addressed by my posts several times over, andyt.

[JBG]

andyt wrote:

If the Reformacons really took the bull by the horns with immigration, I would probably hold my nose and vote for them.

If I were Canadian I'd really have to hold my nose from the Sponsorship stench.

andyt wrote:

BTW - Canada also took in huge numbers of immigrants per capita in earlier times, same as the US. We have similar settlement histories. But the agricultural economy of the time could easily absorb them, and there was lots of land to settle them on. Not like now, where they all crowd into our three major cities.

Trust me, very few Jewish or Italian immigrants, the bulk of the "great wave" of 1890's to 1910's immigration were agricultural. The Scots and the Scandinavians were but mostly our farmers were close to the original crew of Americans. Don't know how it went in Canada though.

[Psudo]

My theory is that the economic gap between immigrants and the native-born fades to zero over time. It is a reflection of assimilation. Initially, immigrants do not know the system and are economically awkward because of it, but they learn and adapt until they are soon indistinguishable from the native-born. The longer the term you're considering the smaller the economic cost, but it's never really better than zero. That's my theory. I think Khar's data reflects that, but it's necessarily unclear.

My policy advice is to accept as many immigrants as the economy can reasonably handle. If you love your country and your countrymen, what objection can there be to having more of them? I don't believe, as some do, that immigration dilutes or destroys the native culture over the long term. I don't believe North American countries have anything to fear from overcrowding on a national scale: both countries have more undeveloped than developed land area. The short-term negative economic effect is a very low cost to spread national values, enlarge national strength, and give individuals a chance to live in the greatest country in the world.

I don't know how many the economy can reasonably handle, but I'm sure it's more than are currently allowed. I can see postponing until the economy recovers a little, but I can't see retaining the current limitations long-term.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Immigration is fine but the numbers are never really right. Here's suggesstion for getting the numbers just so.


The Immigration Department should put all corporate class immigration including a city-by-city movement in one central department in Ottawa and the Director of that would be the Governor of Canadian Labour Markets and Social Conditions. In fact each region of the country should have a bureaucrat responsible for it, an economic Czar. That would be like a Czar for Western Canada which is going to have a hot economy if all goes well. He or she would be responsible for optimizing labour market conditions in lead cities for both economic and social benefits. The department would be concerned with Best Practices and balancing demands, say from business and of labour. His mandate would be broad and in addition to meeting spot shortages with foreign talent include trying to dampen inflation in the lead cities and determining what the root supply and demand situations for skills was and whether or not the government should step up formal schooling in specific fields. It would be a very visible position in the economy from which he could advocate policy. As the cost savings from getting it right are large the Czar would be a priority funded area. This would be a key government role, not unlike the Auditor Generals or Governor of the Bank of Canada’s.

[JBG]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Immigration is fine but the numbers are never really right. Here's suggesstion for getting the numbers just so.


The Immigration Department should put all corporate class immigration including a city-by-city movement in one central department in Ottawa and the Director of that would be the Governor of Canadian Labour Markets and Social Conditions. In fact each region of the country should have a bureaucrat responsible for it, an economic Czar.

How would you control where the immigrant goes once he or she arrives in Canada?

[Bruce_the_vii]

The corporate class immigrants have a pre-arranged job. They go to the job. If the job is a dud, unfair, they are free to move. Corporate class jobs should be the top up, business is always calling for more quota.

[andyt]

Is JJ writing blogs as well:

Quote:

Selling Out Canada: Jason Kenney: An Introduction.

http://canadianimmigrationreform.blogspot.com/2011/02/selling-out-canada-jason-kenney.html

Quote:

His role is to get new Canadians — whom he believes are already Conservative-minded — “tuned into our frequency.” And there are more than anecdotal signs his strategy is working. In one study, McGill University political scientist Elisabeth Gidengil and four colleagues showed an erosion of visible minority support for the Liberals began after the 2000 election. “In fact, minority voters were almost as likely to vote Conservative in 2008 as they were Liberal,” says the study, “The Anatomy of a Liberal Defeat.”