[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Kenney fixes Canada (click to view)
Date: February 17, 2011
Jason Kenney, the nation's portly minister of immigration, proudly announced this week that in the year 2010 Canada welcomed over 280,600 immigrants to the country; the largest one-year total in almost six decades.

At a special celebratory press conference, Minister Kenney gave the standard political justification for the high numbers he worked so hard to achieve, declaring that "Canada’s post-recession economy demands a high level of economic immigration to keep our economy strong."

His words inspired me to write the following letter to the National Post, which was printed in Tuesday's issue:
For how long must we sit idly by and listen while politicians such as Minister Jason Kenney spout worthless bromides about how Canada must continue to increase its immigration rate in order to "improve our economic performance," or whatever the latest talking points are.
While certain types of immigrants can theoretically help grow the Canadian economy by providing needed skills or talents, the actual statistics show that such "economic" migrants only comprise a minority of our overall immigrant take in. Far more immigrants enter the country as sponsored relatives of existing ones, or as charity case refugees, neither of which category serves much obvious economic purpose.
This obsession with continuously raising our immigration rates is politics, pure and simple. Since the Tories know they'll never win a majority government with the present Canadian population, their only hope for future electoral success is, to quote journalist Peter Brimelow, "dissolving the people and electing a new one.
Canada is said to be the single most generous nation on earth when it comes to open-doors immigration, and one of the great lies of Canadian politics is that this policy serves any coherent economic purpose. As I noted in my letter, though Canada does target the admission of so-called "economic class" immigrants who come to this country bringing useful skills or accreditation, the majority of immigrants welcomed to Canada have no obvious economic benefit whatsoever. This becomes obvious after even a quick peruse the 2010 numbers on the department of immigration's own website.

Of the 280,636 folks who came to Canada last year, 170,536 of them, or about 60%, were simply relatives of other immigrants; either sponsored latecomers joining family members already settled, or those brought along at the time as spouses or "dependents." Another 8% were refugees, and 3% were "other"(?), meaning the grand total of people brought into Canada for the explicit purpose of improving the Canadian economy, as Kennedy alluded to, only comprised about 29% of our overall immigrant take-in.

And obviously in a welfare state as generous as Canada's, it's an open question as to whether or not the economic gains brought by economic class migrants are even substantial enough to cancel out the net losses brought by their frequently far-less productive collection of tag-along "dependents." Indeed, the depressing fact remains that the government of Canada does not even bother to crunch these numbers at all, so impolite is the matter considered. So when a political espouses the "need" for economic immigration, you can rest assured that he's simply spouting stale truisms that "feel right."

Canada's immigration hustle is a bit different than the one in America, which, for all its obvious faults, does at least have a sort of twisted, exploitative economic logic to it. Lacking a third-world border for people to stream across, the Canadian immigration model is far more voluntary — and thus political — in nature. Immigrants are brought into Canada largely because it is politically popular with other immigrants to do so, a generosity which politicians can then giftwrap and market in exchange for partisan loyalty.

In an era where the Canadian political discourse is becoming increasingly vacuous and boring, immigrant communities from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East can often prove far easier to rally to the polls in large numbers. Through shallow tactics such as ethnic candidates, pandering speeches, or, of course, promises of an ever-laxer immigration policy to bring over more friends and relatives, immigrants can be easily motivated to perform the civic duties that Canadians have grown too cynical for.

For a long time, such strategy was a hallmark of the Liberal Party, and routinely criticized by conservative leaders, including Stephen Harper. But now, surprise surprise, the Conservatives have found the same tactics work just as well when employed for their side. Kenney in particular has taken immigrant pandering to a new level, often loudly announcing that immigrant "outreach" must be one of the cornerstones of future Conservative electoral success.

Amidst all this, the Canadian public (remember them?) have continued to tell pollsters the same things they've always said: we don't want immigration to increase. An Angus Reid poll taken this fall found that only 16% of Canadians said they wanted to see immigration increase, with 39% instead saying they wanted it to stay the same and 38% saying they wanted to see it decrease. Yet up it has steadily gone anyway, especially during the 1990s and 2000s, as we edge ever-closer to importing a full 1% of our population every year.

Now immigrants themselves are obviously fun and lovely people, and one can't live in a vibrant multicultural city like Vancouver, as I do, without having some appreciation for what imported diversity can bring. But still, the fact remains that Canada's 21st Century immigration policy is one of the most sweeping, transformative, and culturally and economically uncertain projects ever undertaken in this country's history, and one that is occurring for primarily political reasons in open spite of public sentiment.

Contrary to popular opinion, one doesn't have to be a bigot to find this a troubling trend for the future of Canadian democracy.

[bootlegga]

Interesting letter to the editor - too bad it's totally wrong. Family class immigrants and refugees each count for only about 10% of all immigrants, while economic class immigrants account for between a third and one half of all immigrants (depending on the year).

[Bruce_the_vii]

Economic immigrants account for as much as 50% of the quota, as you say, but they come in families. So you have a husband who is an economic immigrant with the wife and two kids. The actual number of skilled workers that are added is small.

[andyt]

Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills.

Even for people who support high immigration, it's about the benefits for the immigrants, rather than for Canadians:

Quote:

One of the most ringing endorsements of a high immigration rate came from the 1991 report by the Economic Council of Canada, the first detailed analysis of Canadian policy. It called for immigration to be increased to eventually bring Canada's population to 100 million. While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."[17][18]

(^ a b Economic Council of Canada (1991), Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada)
^ Hogben, David. "Wanted: 100 million people to make Canada efficient." The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Feb 21, 1991. pg. E.1)

Do we really want to so drastically increase the population of Canada, and stuff them all into 3 major cities?


But in defense of the Reformacons, they've at least taken steps to slightly reduce family class immigrants (to howls from the immigration industry, of course) and moved to make immigrants a bit more aware that they are expected to integrate.

But yep, politics is politics, gotta get those votes anyway you can, even from people who have no idea what they're voting for, just do as their community leaders tell them to. We're seeing that again in the memmbership sign ups in both the Liberal and NDP leadership campaigns.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I actually purchased and read the Economic Council of Canada's report on immigration. One of their studies was a correlation between economic performance and population size. That is they mathematically graphed China, India and Pakistan against Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada. They concluded that size does not mean better. Top quality research, eh. The Council was eventually disbandoned by Mulroney as a cost cutter.

[andyt]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

I actually purchased and read the Economic Council of Canada's report on immigration. One of their studies was a correlation between economic performance and population size. That is they mathematically graphed China, India and Pakistan against Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada. They concluded that size does not mean better. Top quality research, eh. The Council was eventually disbandoned by Mulroney as a cost cutter.

GDP per capita. The outlier is the US, everyone else is small until you come to Germany at 24

1 Qatar 145,300
2 Liechtenstein 122,100
3 Luxembourg 81,800
— Bermuda 69,900
4 Singapore 62,200
5 Norway 59,100
— Jersey 57,000
6 Kuwait 51,700
7 Brunei 50,300
8 United States 47,400
— Hong Kong 45,600
9 Andorra 44,900
10 Switzerland 42,900
11 San Marino 41,900
12 Australia 41,300
13 Netherlands 40,500
14 Bahrain 40,400
15 Austria 40,300
16 United Arab Emirates 40,200
17 Canada 39,600
18 Sweden 39,000
19 Iceland 38,400
20 Belgium 37,900
21 Equatorial Guinea 37,900
22 Ireland 37,600
23 Denmark 37,000
24 Germany

Since recent immigrants cost us 18 billion a year more in govt services than they contribute in taxes, and every year we add more recent immigrants, it doesn't sound worth it to me.

[EyeBrock]

Quote:

While it found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large. The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains."

Yep, we should all rejoice that we are making immigrants life so much better with little gain for Canada.

Great thinking.

[Psudo]

Wow, andyt, the USA has dropped down that list a LOT since the 2008 fiscal crisis. We used to be third place. I was so surprised I had to check around myself, but your GDP per capita ranking is spot-on.

There have been a lot of different figures floated around about the proportion of immigration into Canada that is motivated by economic factors. These official figures should help. With a little arithmetic, you get these numbers for these years:

Code:

                                     2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  5-year average
Economic Class, Principle Applicants  21%   21%   22%   23%   25%      22.4%
Economic Class, Spouses & Dependents  31%   32%   34%   33%   37%      33.4%
Economic Class, Live-In Caregivers     3%    3%    4%    5%    5%       3.9%
All Other Classes Combined            45%   45%   40%   39%   33%      40.4%
Family Class Only                     28%   28%   27%   26%   21%      26.0%
Refugee Class Only                    13%   12%    9%    9%    9%      10.3%

JJ's 60% estimate for family-based immigration is pretty much correct -- Family Class immigrants plus spouses & dependents of Economic Class immigrants fit in the range from 58.5% and 60.3% during those five years. (He had originally put 54%, which was a little low, but he has already corrected himself. Also, I'm not counting live-in caregivers for spouses and dependents because, while they are hangers-on rather than principle applicants, they aren't family and aren't obviously burdens on the Canadian economy. They bring their jobs with them.)

Bruce_the_vii's estimate of "as much as 50%" for Economic Class is a little low. The actual range, families included, is between 52.2% and 61.6% even if you exclude the live-in caregiver rows from the Economic Class.

Bootlegga's estimate of 10% for Refugee Class is a good rule of thumb, but that's the only one of his many claims that matches the official figures.
- His 10% estimate Family Class is way off. The actual numbers range from 21.4% to 28.0% over those five years.
- His implied 20% estimate for the sum of Refugee and Family Classes never comes close. The actual figure ranges from 30.2% to 40.9%.
- His estimate for Economic Class immigrants, "between a third and a half," is also significantly off, and a little ambiguous. The total for all immigrants in that class never drops below 55.5%, and goes as high as 66.6% (two thirds, not one third). If he meant one of the subsets of that class, he didn't make that clear and is still imprecise at best.

I don't know where andyt got his 17% figure. It doesn't match anything on the chart. Maybe the figure for Economic principle applicants was that low sometime in the past? 2001 maybe?

There's also a tendency to compare apples to oranges here: the entire Economic Class is a little more than half of all immigrants, but only half of that class is actually vetted for economic benefit. It's important to remember the distinction between those two figures.

The Canadian Economy can look to one positive trend in these data: the proportion of immigrants that are Economic Class principle applicants seems to go up every year. I'll optimistically presume that's from greater interest in Canada by skilled immigrants rather than lowered standards of what constitutes "skill."

[Khar]

Yet, counting landed immigrants versus those born in Canada, there's not as large a distinction between the two as is always implied. When looking at ages over 15, the participation rate of all landed immigrants was only 6% less than Canadian born residents, hanging in the low 60% range, which is a lot higher than the 29% we begin with for express economic purpose. In recent years (with exception of 2009 and 2010), the immigrant unemployment rate has only be 1 or 2% higher than the Canadian born unemployment rate, usually hanging around 1%. This is all out of Table 2820102 from StatsCan.

According to the same table, it's landed immigrants in the past five years which has a negative impact on unemployment rates. The problem is that so many people leap on immigration and view it purely from a short term perspective, and that does not only include those in politics. It also includes those who are criticizing the way things are handled. Economic benefits do not always come the moment they step off the boat or the plane. There's been experienced lag time between an immigrant coming and the effect they, and their children, have on our growth is excellent.

We also have to keep in mind that the reason it's the highest in decades is because Canada is the largest it's been... well, since the late 1800s when it came into existence. Those 280,000 people are a smaller proportion than Canada has had immigrate previously. There are certainly problems. Issues with the process. These problems should be fixed, rather than used as an excuse to lower immigration, in my book. Canada is one of the best case studies in the world for immigration. Our entire nation is built upon the foundations of people who themselves or who's ancestors were born elsewhere, and we can see the long term ramifications now -- Canada has seen growth so impressive we have one of the most powerful economies in the world, but we hold such a small portion of the world's population.

I kind of feel like the commentary of this article is a good example of how you need to put the numbers into context. This period is certainly not the highest proportion of immigrants we have brought in. While there are those that come expressly for economic benefits, that does not mean we can exclude the others who are here -- others who lead to a participation rate which almost approaches the Canadian born rates. We speak about the social costs, but we don't speak about the long-term economic benefits. We talk about how we'd need to need 100 million people to cancel out aging issues, but we never consider whether Canada is actually attempting to do that, or if there are other methods our population will take.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

I don't know where andyt got his 17% figure. It doesn't match anything on the chart. Maybe the figure for Economic principle applicants was that low sometime in the past? 2001 maybe?

There's also a tendency to compare apples to oranges here: the entire Economic Class is a little more than half of all immigrants, but only half of that class is actually vetted for economic benefit. It's important to remember the distinction between those two figures.

Your second paragraph answers your first. http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml

Quote:

From the same website: 6. Most of the quarter of a million people who immigrate to Canada every year are not interviewed by a visa officer to determine if they are well-suited to integrate into Canadian society and its economy.

[andyt]

That's the point Kahr, we just keep importing people we need them or not. If immigrants in the last 5 years have increased unemployment, then we should not have been bringing them in until conditions are favorable to do so. And we should be much more selective in who we bring in - people that are of benefit for Canada.

We see examples in the news all the time of immigrants that were just leeching off Canada. It doesn't mean they all do, but we should not bring the ones in who will. Or, those wealthy Chinese that made a big fuss about a hospice being built next to their million dollar condos, because they're "afraid of ghosts." That stuff shouldn't fly either. Then theres the immigrants that have actually sued Ottawa for misrepresentation because they thought their qualifications would be accepted here and they weren't. That does neither the immigrant nor us any good. They don't get to live the life they were planning on, might have done better at home. We get a disgruntled immigrant who takes away a job from somebody with less qualifications and we don't fill the need for which we imported him in the first place.

And importing old people to drive up costs in our medical system (it's old people that cost it the most money) when they've never contributed dime one to it is just insane. If you as an immigrant can't live without mommy and daddy, you should stay home so you can be close to them - give your spot to somebody that is willing to make a new life. here.

[EyeBrock]

Andy, good post mate and I totally agree with you.

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Bootlegga's estimate of 10% for Refugee Class is a good rule of thumb, but that's the only one of his many claims that matches the official figures.
- His 10% estimate Family Class is way off. The actual numbers range from 21.4% to 28.0% over those five years.
- His implied 20% estimate for the sum of Refugee and Family Classes never comes close. The actual figure ranges from 30.2% to 40.9%.
- His estimate for Economic Class immigrants, "between a third and a half," is also significantly off, and a little ambiguous. The total for all immigrants in that class never drops below 55.5%, and goes as high as 66.6% (two thirds, not one third). If he meant one of the subsets of that class, he didn't make that clear and is still imprecise at best.

Just because you consider the spouse/dependents of an economic immigrant not to also be an economic immigrant does not make it so. For example, in many immigrant families, both parents work - just like many Canadian families.

You can break down immigrants however you want, but the GOVERNMENT - which the true arbiter in this case - notes that economic class comprised well over 50% of immigrants in each of the last 5 years.

At least that was according to the source you posted;

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/ ... ary/01.asp

I'll admit I was off on Economic class (underestimated) and Family Class immigrants (underestimated), but then again so was JJ.

[bootlegga]

andyt wrote:

And importing old people to drive up costs in our medical system (it's old people that cost it the most money) when they've never contributed dime one to it is just insane. If you as an immigrant can't live without mommy and daddy, you should stay home so you can be close to them - give your spot to somebody that is willing to make a new life. here.

People don't sponsor mommy and daddy because they want to be close to them, they usually do it out of cultural values or economic incentives.

In many other cultures, your elders are treated with respect and cared for by the family - not tossed into an old age home and visited for birthdays and holidays - like we do here in North America. In most of Asia, the 'social contract' between parents and children goes something like this; parents will sacrifice everything to ensure their kids get a good upbringing, an excellent education and maybe even financial help in buying homes/cars/etc. In return, the kids are expected to help care for their elderly parents. This is especially prevalent in nations like Korea, China, etc - countries that just happen to be the largest source of immigrants to Canada.

Others do it for economic reasons, such as having live-in caregivers for their children, thereby saving a small fortune on day care fees (for example I pay almost $1000 per month). This allows both parents to work and, while many here might take exception to it, also allows for their children to have instilled in them some of the cultural values they (the parents) themselves have. That can mean anything from just language instruction to cultural values/beliefs to even religious instruction.

[andyt]

bootlegga wrote:

People don't sponsor mommy and daddy because they want to be close to them, they usually do it out of cultural values or economic incentives.

In many other cultures, your elders are treated with respect and cared for by the family - not tossed into an old age home and visited for birthdays and holidays - like we do here in North America. In most of Asia, the 'social contract' between parents and children goes something like this; parents will sacrifice everything to ensure their kids get a good upbringing, an excellent education and maybe even financial help in buying homes/cars/etc. In return, the kids are expected to help care for their elderly parents. This is especially prevalent in nations like Korea, China, etc - countries that just happen to be the largest source of immigrants to Canada.

You're contradicting yourself here, Boots. They're sponsoring them because they want to be close to them - it's their cultural value. And if the kids are expected to take care of them, why am I expected to help them with my taxes that go to medicare?

bootlegga wrote:

Others do it for economic reasons, such as having live-in caregivers for their children, thereby saving a small fortune on day care fees (for example I pay almost $1000 per month). This allows both parents to work and, while many here might take exception to it, also allows for their children to have instilled in them some of the cultural values they (the parents) themselves have. That can mean anything from just language instruction to cultural values/beliefs to even religious instruction.

Again, why should it cost our medicare system because they want a cheap babysitter? The immigrants are offloading their costs on the rest of us. Benefits them, not Canada. And we don't need more teaching immigrants their cultural values, we need more teaching them our cultural values. I don't want to live in Korea or Pakistan.