[Khar]

If you wish to use the Fraser Institute in this discussion, keeping aside concerns over the potential for bias in their work, you have to keep in mind a few things. One, the Fraser Institute does not support ideals of wage equity, living wages or minimum wages you have supported on this site. If you wish to use them as a source in this case, I urge you not to be selective in your support (and I know you have argued with their thoughts in the past on various topics). Two, the Fraser Institute does not employ only trained professionals but often those without credentials to perform their studies (professional diplomats, CEOs, those in other fields outside of economics, maths or stats when writing a topic on economics, etc), and hence, if a trained economist or statistician comes up with a differing result (as is suggested in some parts above), then I will take the results of the statistician or economist over that of the untrained writer. Three, the peer review process at the Fraser Institute is different from actual academic centers as the Fraser Institute knowingly allows some level of bias by keeping a sizable portion of article types in-institute reviewed only, such as commentaries and conference papers. Four, the Fraser Institute knowingly keeps actual academically driven papers partially peer-reviewed in-institute, which exacerbates issues of bias. Their page describing their peer reviewing method uses fairly nebulous terms for "recognized expertise" or describing how peer reviewers are selected. Compare this to any other journal's page on submissions and you will see how sparse it is in comparison, and what those journal pages cover which the Fraser Institute does not. Five, many of those papers in that book use sources which are not academic, ranging from media articles through blogs.

On the actual content, you will note that Grubel's portion speaks of 12 years, a short term analysis. In other words, I have already accommodated for what Grubel discusses in my post via mentions of lag time and the differences in policy for the long term specifically, whilst noting the possibility that short term immigration impacts are likely negative (as I already pointed out, in areas such as where imports increase before exports catch up). Grubel specifically focuses on short term factors in that paper and therefore his paper is in no way a response to the views I have reflected here. Where his views brush mine, I have already mentioned them peripherally. I have to admit that it's pretty tough to make a calculation of an actual social cost from the way he's doing it, there are too many variables to be sure on any value in my books. I can't really argue with him but I do have to question the value he ended up with for the same reason I can't really argue with it, but this definitely may be due to my limited expertise.

It should be noted that his estimation is the exception to the rule with regards to how large our population would have to be, and he specifically focused on the worst case scenario. As the paper I presented showed, our current rate of immigration potentially already remedies up to 30% of the aging problem, and the author estimates we'd have to more than double our rate of immigration to cover the gap. This is not a viable solution, yes. Are they suggesting it? No. Indeed, that study makes numerable unlikely assumptions, such that we will retain our current policies outside of immigration for the next 40 odd years, that we are looking to use immigration to fix these problems 100%, etc. These ideals are way off base and represent the overstated and extreme of these scenarios.

Your second source, as you know, is a conference paper (which, as a conference paper, is in house peer reviewed, as in only other members of the Fraser Institute reviewed it) which was part of the book which you sourced originally. My criticisms for it fall under the more general criticisms above.

On your final source, I explicitly posted papers which disproved some of those comments. Indeed, absolutely none of those assertions are sourced anywhere, and the links/background section is mostly just to sites like the Fraser Institute or the Howe Institute, related to the Fraser Institute. Like both of those organizations, it's filled with engineers, media professionals, diplomats and the like, many of the same people from the other organizations -- with very few actual professionals in the field of economics or the like amongst them.

Numbers 1, 4, are in direct contrast to academic papers in their abstracts alone. Number 2 focuses predominantly on short term impacts and ignores long term benefits. Number 5 assumes that parents and grandparents will not work, which is way off base to make such a sweeping and extreme assumption, as well as ignoring other impacts of having family there (being able to raise children, for example, and buying Canadian goods). Number 7, 8 and 10 I cannot find on the net, and I'd like to see the source material for that (to see how they are calculated). Number 9 is an irrelevant factoid about the various kinds of immigrants we have, not a negative thing in my mind. 11 is a pretty ridiculous one to bring up, considering that it's easier for people in Sri Lanka to make it to Canada than to Germany or Britain. A better comparison would be to Australia, which has a little more Sri Lankans than Canada, for example. Hell, LA alone has between 30,000 and 40,000 Sri Lankans. I also do know that Canada has accepted asylum for people from other democratic countries, but that does not mean it's unwarranted. People seeking asylum in Canada come as per number 12 because they will be persecuted or prosecuted wrongfully and cannot be defended adequately by the country they are from. There are cases where a nation cannot defend someone and they need to flee. Canada has accepted people for such things in the past, and I think that's a good thing, imo. Democracy was also around when Canada was a more segregated, racist society, when we shoved the Japanese into internment camps, when the States shot down equal gay rights, etc, etc. Just because a nation is democratic doesn't mean it works fine. Also, I got a very long rambling opinion on number 13. I can write it out if you want. That goes for anyone!

Needless to say, urban sprawl, farmland use, and similar topics should not be so simply tossed out there, in my view. There's a lot of factors to consider when we look at that, and I don't think stopping immigration will fix half the problems people think they will to even half the extent they want it to. In fact, in the long term, many short term fixes will simply be negatives in my opinion.

Only numbers 3 and 6 fall under something I can verify and agree with, because I support streamlining and improving the process.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I love the way Jessen Kenny is asking for more immigrants while Finance Minister Flaherty is asking for $50 billion in tax cuts to create more jobs.Bascialy these guys know how to send, and that' about all.

[EyeBrock]

Immigration is fine but has the government ever gone to it's people to ask if we approve of such huge immigration numbers and the social impact?

I think it's time we re-adjusted immigration to make it reflect OUR needs as Canadians, not what is on offer for immigrants.

Canada is a very attractive proposition for billions of potential immigrants. Surely we can take the pick of them? How about ensuring they all have excellent communication skills, as in they can speak English or French to a standard that they can compete for decent jobs? Or making sure their values reflect our values?

We could still get 300,000+ a year, we just need to start taking in the immigrants that will add to our society, not take from it or demand we change to accommodate them.

[bootlegga]

Khar Khar:

If you wish to use the Fraser Institute in this discussion, keeping aside concerns over the potential for bias in their work, you have to keep in mind a few things. One, the Fraser Institute does not support ideals of wage equity, living wages or minimum wages you have supported on this site. If you wish to use them as a source in this case, I urge you not to be selective in your support (and I know you have argued with their thoughts in the past on various topics). Two, the Fraser Institute does not employ only trained professionals but often those without credentials to perform their studies (professional diplomats, CEOs, those in other fields outside of economics, maths or stats when writing a topic on economics, etc), and hence, if a trained economist or statistician comes up with a differing result (as is suggested in some parts above), then I will take the results of the statistician or economist over that of the untrained writer. Three, the peer review process at the Fraser Institute is different from actual academic centers as the Fraser Institute knowingly allows some level of bias by keeping a sizable portion of article types in-institute reviewed only, such as commentaries and conference papers. Four, the Fraser Institute knowingly keeps actual academically driven papers partially peer-reviewed in-institute, which exacerbates issues of bias. Their page describing their peer reviewing method uses fairly nebulous terms for "recognized expertise" or describing how peer reviewers are selected. Compare this to any other journal's page on submissions and you will see how sparse it is in comparison, and what those journal pages cover which the Fraser Institute does not. Five, many of those papers in that book use sources which are not academic, ranging from media articles through blogs.

I've questioned the bias and validity of the Andy's Fraser Institute several times, but that is a far better examination of their opinion than I did.

Khar Khar:

On the actual content, you will note that Grubel's portion speaks of 12 years, a short term analysis. In other words, I have already accommodated for what Grubel discusses in my post via mentions of lag time and the differences in policy for the long term specifically, whilst noting the possibility that short term immigration impacts are likely negative (as I already pointed out, in areas such as where imports increase before exports catch up). Grubel specifically focuses on short term factors in that paper and therefore his paper is in no way a response to the views I have reflected here. Where his views brush mine, I have already mentioned them peripherally. I have to admit that it's pretty tough to make a calculation of an actual social cost from the way he's doing it, there are too many variables to be sure on any value in my books. I can't really argue with him but I do have to question the value he ended up with for the same reason I can't really argue with it, but this definitely may be due to my limited expertise.

It should be noted that his estimation is the exception to the rule with regards to how large our population would have to be, and he specifically focused on the worst case scenario. As the paper I presented showed, our current rate of immigration potentially already remedies up to 30% of the aging problem, and the author estimates we'd have to more than double our rate of immigration to cover the gap. This is not a viable solution, yes. Are they suggesting it? No. Indeed, that study makes numerable unlikely assumptions, such that we will retain our current policies outside of immigration for the next 40 odd years, that we are looking to use immigration to fix these problems 100%, etc. These ideals are way off base and represent the overstated and extreme of these scenarios.

Your second source, as you know, is a conference paper (which, as a conference paper, is in house peer reviewed, as in only other members of the Fraser Institute reviewed it) which was part of the book which you sourced originally. My criticisms for it fall under the more general criticisms above.

On your final source, I explicitly posted papers which disproved some of those comments. Indeed, absolutely none of those assertions are sourced anywhere, and the links/background section is mostly just to sites like the Fraser Institute or the Howe Institute, related to the Fraser Institute. Like both of those organizations, it's filled with engineers, media professionals, diplomats and the like, many of the same people from the other organizations -- with very few actual professionals in the field of economics or the like amongst them.

Numbers 1, 4, are in direct contrast to academic papers in their abstracts alone. Number 2 focuses predominantly on short term impacts and ignores long term benefits. Number 5 assumes that parents and grandparents will not work, which is way off base to make such a sweeping and extreme assumption, as well as ignoring other impacts of having family there (being able to raise children, for example, and buying Canadian goods). Number 7, 8 and 10 I cannot find on the net, and I'd like to see the source material for that (to see how they are calculated). Number 9 is an irrelevant factoid about the various kinds of immigrants we have, not a negative thing in my mind. 11 is a pretty ridiculous one to bring up, considering that it's easier for people in Sri Lanka to make it to Canada than to Germany or Britain. A better comparison would be to Australia, which has a little more Sri Lankans than Canada, for example. Hell, LA alone has between 30,000 and 40,000 Sri Lankans. I also do know that Canada has accepted asylum for people from other democratic countries, but that does not mean it's unwarranted. People seeking asylum in Canada come as per number 12 because they will be persecuted or prosecuted wrongfully and cannot be defended adequately by the country they are from. There are cases where a nation cannot defend someone and they need to flee. Canada has accepted people for such things in the past, and I think that's a good thing, imo. Democracy was also around when Canada was a more segregated, racist society, when we shoved the Japanese into internment camps, when the States shot down equal gay rights, etc, etc. Just because a nation is democratic doesn't mean it works fine. Also, I got a very long rambling opinion on number 13. I can write it out if you want. That goes for anyone!

Needless to say, urban sprawl, farmland use, and similar topics should not be so simply tossed out there, in my view. There's a lot of factors to consider when we look at that, and I don't think stopping immigration will fix half the problems people think they will to even half the extent they want it to. In fact, in the long term, many short term fixes will simply be negatives in my opinion.

Only numbers 3 and 6 fall under something I can verify and agree with, because I support streamlining and improving the process.

Yeah, his second source is nothing academic, just some malcontents blaming all of society's ills on immigrants.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Immigration is fine but has the government ever gone to it's people to ask if we approve of such huge immigration numbers and the social impact?

I think it's time we re-adjusted immigration to make it reflect OUR needs as Canadians, not what is on offer for immigrants.

Canada is a very attractive proposition for billions of potential immigrants. Surely we can take the pick of them? How about ensuring they all have excellent communication skills, as in they can speak English or French to a standard that they can compete for decent jobs? Or making sure their values reflect our values?

We could still get 300,000+ a year, we just need to start taking in the immigrants that will add to our society, not take from it or demand we change to accommodate them.

I think we do get the best of the best.

From the top 10 nations, three are Western (US, UK, France) as well as three other developing/developed nations (South Korea, India and China). I'd argue that most, if not all of the immigrants from those six nations are highly educated and capable of easily fitting into Canadian culture. Many 2nd/3rd gen Chinese/Koreans/Indians have assimilated to a degree where there might be differences in religion or attitude, but have similar cultural values as Canadians descended from western Europeans. And finally, if it wasn't for immigration from the Philippines, our health care industry (nursing in particular) would be in shambles.

However, I do agree that Pakistan should not be our sixth choice for immigrants.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/ ... ent/10.asp

[EyeBrock]

I disagree on Pakistan or naming any country above others. Even in a theocratic nightmare like Pakistan there will be people who will fit very well into Canada.

I don't think we should be looking at country of origin, instead lets look harder at the individual applicant.

There are plenty of Brits I know that wouldn't add anything to our country and I know a few Pakistani's, both here and in the UK that would be and are great candidates.

If we ensure that new immigrants can speak English/French well and share our values, bring them in, and that includes Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia or any of the other current pariah-type nations.

[andyt]

I know Khar - the usual CKA argument. Your sources are unimpeachable and right, and mine are bullshit. Never mind that The Centre For Immigration Policy Reform has many ex-immigration officials associated with it. (Maybe one of them is the one who dared to state that the Punjab is the most corrupt state in India, which is saying something. He was never heard from again. Can't have our officials speaking the truth.) They're just a bunch of biased white men talking out their ass.

I certainly don't agree with most things the Fraser Institute comes out with. But surprisingly I read an article from them that does come out for greater wage equality, or at least higher low income wages. The argument is that if low income people earn more, they will be taxed more, so contribute to the system more and feel they have a greater stake in it. They will show up to vote in greater numbers. Also that overall tax levels could be reduced because more people are contributing. This sort of thinking exactly mirrors my biases, so I heartily agree with them on that. It may have also been Grubel who wrote that piece, but I don't recall. But he makes similar points in his argument about what immigrants are costing us.

You say it's short term analysis. All the analysis I've seen in the newspapers makes the same point - that since we've been importing people mainly from Asia as opposed to Europe, immigrants do much less well economically than native born Canadians. When we were importing people from Europe, the opposite was true. This has been going on since the 1980's, when we made the switch, so I don't know at what point you will keep calling it short term.


And Khar - instead of just attacking the credibility of my sources, how about providing some pithy quotes from yours that make counter claims. Don't bury them in your usual verbal avalanche, I rarely read more than half your posts. You know, use the quote function so they stand out.

[Bruce_the_vii]

It sort of depends on in you have the jobs, given that we certainly have the space. Currently there are about 3.5 million Canadians earning less that $12 an hour and real unemployment is something like 15%. The thing of it is in any social gathering of adults in Canada there will be people will jobs problems and people that know others with job problems but Still people will say , "Problem, there's a problem? It's social dysfunction.

[Khar]

Since you complained about post length, andyt, you can skip to the end of this post to the bold part.

You've used the same group of people as your source, andyt, a group which has been called worse than questionable by the only accredited expert on this site and one which numerous others have called out in the past for various reasons. You should not be surprised if I am in agreement with many of the posters here that using the Fraser Institute as a source is not going to cause some concern on the part of others. Especially when I can directly cite the reasons why I do find it questionable.

The Center for Immigration Policy Reform does not provide literature to support any of their assertions. Their board members are an engineer, a media professional, a business man/journalist and an ambassador. Of the 12 members of the advisory board, only two are economists. Of the 16 members mentioned above, only 3 are previous immigration officials or immigration experts before joining these sources -- none were economists.

When discussing actual impacts of immigration, we are looking at quantitative, valid evidence. Because a few men who once held positions in immigration think we are going the wrong way does not mean their opinion trumps the opinion of hundreds of others who have worked in the field, or the academic work of literally dozens of other economists on the topic of immigration to Canada alone.

The reason we import more people from Asia now is because, as I mentioned in my last post, the focus shifted strongly into what was best for Canada's economy and well being. As a result, less people from Europe and more people from Asia come into Canada each year. It's not because they are from Asia that they are doing badly, it's because we focused more on bringing in immigrants who were good for Canada's well being. Switching back to a more Europe-centric immigration system might be good for them, but bad for Canada and Canadians as a whole. This was part of the explanation in my last post. Ignoring it and then claiming I am doing the same smacks of hypocrisy.

A short-term analysis means that it only looks at a short period of time, in this case, 12 years. It doesn't mean that it's only been analyzed for a short period of time, so I don't know why you wanted to bring newspapers into this. Nor are newspapers reputable sources, for the same reasons I mentioned before. The simple fact is, Grubel specifically avoids discussing the long-term impacts of immigration in that piece, and I have already provided you with a plethora of links on that topic.

Andyt, I did provide you with a post loaded with sources and academic results. Instead of responding to any of those points, you decided to use questionable sources which I demonstrated were not up to the same level of validity as the ones I have provided. Sources you knowingly admitted are questionable, but expected others to accept with equal relevance of other sources in this thread. My sources are just as open for scrutiny, hence why I use reliable ones whenever possible. I expect my sources to be questioned. Pointing out that your sources are insufficient is important when you are trying to use them to confront contrary evidence I have already provided. When confronted about the lack of credibility to your sources, you complain that I attacked your sources without arguing your points -- points I have already provided arguments for in previous posts and which you have ignored, points derived from sources which are questionable and points which I hence cannot respond to further than I already have in previous posts without giving a level of credibility to sources which do not deserve it.

A simple google search would have provided you with the abstracts for most of these, as I already had provided you both authors and article titles. Here are the parts of the abstracts I use.

Ironically, I wrote as I did to keep the post shorter, but if you want more, here you go.

Fougere, M Fougere, M:

30% figure:

The population in OECD countries is ageing rapidly and this may trigger important macroeconomic, labour market and fiscal effects in the future. Among the policies considered, immigration is seen as a possible way to mitigate some of the consequences of ageing. This paper evaluates the potential economic-welfare effects of expected future immigration trends in Canada using a computable general equilibrium overlapping generations model. Among the key findings, the simulations indicate that the accommodating effects of immigration in Canada could reduce the negative real-per capita GDP impact of ageing by as much as 30% in the long run.

To cover for aging:

The results also suggest that the level of immigration would need to more than double from recent trends to fully offset the negative macroeconomic effects in the long run.

Hall, P, & Sadouzai, T Hall, P, & Sadouzai, T:

We use data from three waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada to compare how pre-immigration experience in hi-tech and regulated occupations affects employment outcomes. While differences do decline over time, those with experience in an unregulated hi-tech occupation are more likely to be employed sooner in a matching and/or full time job. Immigrants with hi-tech occupational experience are more likely to have their foreign experience accepted, possibly due to the transferability of these skills and the absence of institutional barriers. These findings indicate important sectoral, regulatory, and institutional differences in the treatment of pre-immigration experience, with policy implications.

Islam, A Islam, A:

This paper examines the relationship between unemployment and immigration in Canada. The bi-directional causality test finds no evidence of a significant effect of Canadian immigration on unemployment. Cointegration tests indicate that there is no observed increase in aggregate unemployment due to immigration in the long run. The results from the causality test based on the vector error correction model confirm that, in the short run, past unemployment does cause (less) immigration but not vice versa. There is also a long-run positive relationship among per-capita GDP, immigration rate and real wages. The results indicate that, in the short-run, more immigration is possibly associated with attractive Canadian immigration policies, and in the long-run, as the labour market adjusts, Canadian-born workers are likely to benefit from increased migration.

Moore, E, & Pacey, M Moore, E, & Pacey, M:

Income inequality, and Labour adjustment lag time:

The evidence suggests that the overall impact of immigration is a relatively short-run phenomenon as recent immigrants take time to adjust to the labour market. If recent immigrants are excluded, inequality is still increasing, but at a slower rate, especially in the largest metropolitan areas.

Nadeau, S, & Seckin, A Nadeau, S, & Seckin, A:

This paper examines the nature of the differences in the wage gap between Canadian born males and immigrant males in Quebec and in the rest of Canada (ROC) over the period 1980-2000. Relative to Canadian born individuals, immigrants in the ROC have been consistently, and increasingly, faring better in terms of wages than immigrants in Quebec. We cannot conclude that this is a consequence of Quebec having different immigration policies than the ROC, as the wage gap would be even larger if Quebec attracted the same immigrants as the ROC, nor can we conclude that immigrants are more discriminated against in Quebec. We find that the increased differential in the Quebec-ROC immigrant wage gap mostly reflects changes in the premium earned by immigrants who become citizens over those who remain landed immigrants; this premium virtually disappeared in Quebec while remaining stable in the ROC over the period.

Partridge, J, & Furtan, H Partridge, J, & Furtan, H:

We utilize an enhanced gravity model to estimate the effect of lagged immigration waves on Canadian imports and exports by province. Empirically, this model was tested using Canadian data on import and export flows to the top 40 countries of origin for Canadian immigrants based upon the composition of the most recent immigrant wave. The results are consistent with previous studies, where immigrants increased both import and export trade flows. By adding the provincial immigrant wave variable, it was also found that new immigrants affect imports almost immediately, whereas for exports, the immigrant effect is not significant for at least five years and may take as long as 20 years to reach full impact.

Singh, Surjit Singh, Surjit:

This paper looks at the immigration pattern, the region of origin, class, age and sex of Canadian immigrants. The changes in immigration policies in Canada have led to changes in origin of immigration to Canada from European to Asian countries, particularly China and India. Policy shifts have made Canada a truly multicultural society. Labour market considerations and the health of the economy have determined the flow of immigrants into Canada. Therefore, there has been rise as well as fall in the immigration over time. The skill level of immigrants has declined over time. Canada has tremendously gained from immigrant population over the years, though.

[andyt]

@Khar

Fougere, M Fougere, M:

30% figure:

The population in OECD countries is ageing rapidly and this may trigger important macroeconomic, labour market and fiscal effects in the future. Among the policies considered, immigration is seen as a possible way to mitigate some of the consequences of ageing. This paper evaluates the potential economic-welfare effects of expected future immigration trends in Canada using a computable general equilibrium overlapping generations model. Among the key findings, the simulations indicate that the accommodating effects of immigration in Canada could reduce the negative real-per capita GDP impact of ageing by as much as 30% in the long run.

To cover for aging:

The results also suggest that the level of immigration would need to more than double from recent trends to fully offset the negative macroeconomic effects in the long run.

He himself says immigration would need to more than double to offset the aging effect. That's what my guys say too, and they ask do we really want to more than double our immigration, and do we have the jobs and infrastructure in place to absorb all those people. They say no, and I agree.

Hall, P, & Sadouzai, T Hall, P, & Sadouzai, T:

We use data from three waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada to compare how pre-immigration experience in hi-tech and regulated occupations affects employment outcomes. While differences do decline over time, those with experience in an unregulated hi-tech occupation are more likely to be employed sooner in a matching and/or full time job. Immigrants with hi-tech occupational experience are more likely to have their foreign experience accepted, possibly due to the transferability of these skills and the absence of institutional barriers. These findings indicate important sectoral, regulatory, and institutional differences in the treatment of pre-immigration experience, with policy implications.

This is only about immigrants with high tech occupations. Tell the taxi driving PhD's how wunnerful immigration is.

Islam, A Islam, A:

This paper examines the relationship between unemployment and immigration in Canada. The bi-directional causality test finds no evidence of a significant effect of Canadian immigration on unemployment. Cointegration tests indicate that there is no observed increase in aggregate unemployment due to immigration in the long run. The results from the causality test based on the vector error correction model confirm that, in the short run, past unemployment does cause (less) immigration but not vice versa. There is also a long-run positive relationship among per-capita GDP, immigration rate and real wages. The results indicate that, in the short-run, more immigration is possibly associated with attractive Canadian immigration policies, and in the long-run, as the labour market adjusts, Canadian-born workers are likely to benefit from increased migration.

Well this contradicts my beliefs. Are we really creating 250,000 new jobs every year to take care of all those immigrants? Well less, since some people are retiring. But I just don't see how, when we have high unemployment, adding a bunch of people to the population is supposed to be helpful there.

Moore, E, & Pacey, M Moore, E, & Pacey, M:

Income inequality, and Labour adjustment lag time:

The evidence suggests that the overall impact of immigration is a relatively short-run phenomenon as recent immigrants take time to adjust to the labour market. If recent immigrants are excluded, inequality is still increasing, but at a slower rate, especially in the largest metropolitan areas.

So even if recent immigrants are excluded, inequality is increasing - how does that prove any point you're trying to make?

Nadeau, S, & Seckin, A Nadeau, S, & Seckin, A:

This paper examines the nature of the differences in the wage gap between Canadian born males and immigrant males in Quebec and in the rest of Canada (ROC) over the period 1980-2000. Relative to Canadian born individuals, immigrants in the ROC have been consistently, and increasingly, faring better in terms of wages than immigrants in Quebec. We cannot conclude that this is a consequence of Quebec having different immigration policies than the ROC, as the wage gap would be even larger if Quebec attracted the same immigrants as the ROC, nor can we conclude that immigrants are more discriminated against in Quebec. We find that the increased differential in the Quebec-ROC immigrant wage gap mostly reflects changes in the premium earned by immigrants who become citizens over those who remain landed immigrants; this premium virtually disappeared in Quebec while remaining stable in the ROC over the period.

This is only looking at Quebec vs ROC, it says nothing about immigrants not doing less well than Canadians (see your above quote) only that in Quebec they're doing even worse.

Partridge, J, & Furtan, H Partridge, J, & Furtan, H:

We utilize an enhanced gravity model to estimate the effect of lagged immigration waves on Canadian imports and exports by province. Empirically, this model was tested using Canadian data on import and export flows to the top 40 countries of origin for Canadian immigrants based upon the composition of the most recent immigrant wave. The results are consistent with previous studies, where immigrants increased both import and export trade flows. By adding the provincial immigrant wave variable, it was also found that new immigrants affect imports almost immediately, whereas for exports, the immigrant effect is not significant for at least five years and may take as long as 20 years to reach full impact.

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? (if you don't know the expression, what does it have to do with what we're talking about?)

Singh, Surjit Singh, Surjit:

This paper looks at the immigration pattern, the region of origin, class, age and sex of Canadian immigrants. The changes in immigration policies in Canada have led to changes in origin of immigration to Canada from European to Asian countries, particularly China and India. Policy shifts have made Canada a truly multicultural society. Labour market considerations and the health of the economy have determined the flow of immigrants into Canada. Therefore, there has been rise as well as fall in the immigration over time. The skill level of immigrants has declined over time. Canada has tremendously gained from immigrant population over the years, though.

[/quote]

So, skill level of immigrants has declined - again a point my guys make. How has Canada "gained from immigrant population over the years" (Is this guy an immigrant himself, his English is poor here)? If you take over the years to mean since the founding of Canada, of course we've gained tremendously from immigrants. At one time they did better than native born Canadians, and were readily absorbed into an agrarian economy. But how much have we gained since we divorced immigrant numbers from economic conditions (under Mulroney) and just import more and more every year? And how much have we gained since our main source of immigrants were from Asia instead of Europe.

You've posted a lot of fancy sounding links here, that don't seem to add up to much.

[Khar]

Ugh, I hate posting in this style, it destroys the stream of thought and context each piece shares with each other and I can kind of see that playing out below. If we could, following this, go back to the nice, simple paragraphs after a single set of quotes kind of posting?

I can understand you saying no, it's just a personal preference on my part. In the past, when discussions get to the point of needing to being broken down like this, the discussion is breaking down, because it turns more into nitpicking rather than handling the overall point. In my experience, at least.

Plus, it makes my posts even looooooongeeeeeeer...

$1:

He himself says immigration would need to more than double to offset the aging effect. That's what my guys say too, and they ask do we really want to more than double our immigration, and do we have the jobs and infrastructure in place to absorb all those people. They say no, and I agree.

This was already in my original post, but your post suggested that Canada would need to be over 150,000,000 in population by 2050 for that to work. The highest that the guy would suggest it would get is 100,000,000, and he does not recommend we do so (nor do I). Your source is 50 million higher than even the most negative presentation of academic sources I could find, so what I originally said was true (50% more in the end population!), and what you originally said was false. That is a very outlandish claim.

Also, what your source said was false. As is clearly shown here, there are many benefits from immigration in respect to aging, while your source claimed there was not. A source without any literature to back up it's assertions.

$1:

This is only about immigrants with high tech occupations. Tell the taxi driving PhD's how wunnerful immigration is.

Show me the evidence, man. How many taxi drivers have PhDs? How many immigrants are even taxi drivers? How many immigrants come in each year who aren't taxi drivers? Yes, Canada has problems with accreditation of previous degrees and experience, because our programs are of a higher standard here. That should be fixed -- we should not try and limit immigration because of a straw man. Or is it a red herring because you are trying to divert attention away from how a very large industry is making use of immigrants in a fashion which is not represented in your stance?

The fact is that I can provide an example of a field in Canada where immigrants with skills are coming here and it is adding on to the Canadian economy. This refutes your claim of them coming over here for our low paying jobs. Do not forget the original context in your posts. It's likely true for many other fields as well, the fact is that the focus of this study was only on hi tech and technical fields.

$1:

Well this contradicts my beliefs. Are we really creating 250,000 new jobs every year to take care of all those immigrants? Well less, since some people are retiring. But I just don't see how, when we have high unemployment, adding a bunch of people to the population is supposed to be helpful there.

I remember recently there was a thread on Toronto labour, where it was shown that there was high unemployment and a ton of immigrants coming into the same city. The author believed that this meant immigration was causing unemployment. In actuality the immigrants were getting jobs there -- for the same period viewed, the population of unemployed decreased as the city continued to grow, and is today producing far more with a population a million more than it would have been if we had restricted growth during a recession.

Unemployment is a deterrent for immigrants to Canada, but people already here ARE capable of getting jobs. When we are out of the recession, we will have a larger labour force already -- we don't lose part of the good times because we are waiting for adequate labour to arrive, the labour is already trained. The labour is already being absorbed into the economy. Our current immigrants are managing to join out labour force, as these sources show. It means that even if they aren't getting jobs, their consumption, there existence in Canada means that others could be getting jobs. Each and every immigrant contributes to Canada in some way, even if it is only because they are consuming.

If we had followed your belief through to it's policy-driven end of reducing immigration, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto would be much smaller cities, and the immigrant growth in the West which has spurred a lot of economic growth in Canada would not have occurred to the degree it did. Canadians, as a people, are well off because of this. As I have said before, immigrants are a long term benefit -- trying to drag it back into the short term (in this case from year to year rather than over several years) when I am arguing about the long term makes no sense.

$1:

So even if recent immigrants are excluded, inequality is increasing - how does that prove any point you're trying to make?

If you had bothered to read my first post (which you have implied you only read portions of) you'd see I took the time to point out some negatives. Part of those negatives is where I said that immigration adds on to an "already" increasing amount of inequality. I provided a source for the "already" part, since I did say it and I had to provide a source for that content.

$1:

This is only looking at Quebec vs ROC, it says nothing about immigrants not doing less well than Canadians (see your above quote) only that in Quebec they're doing even worse.

This was an example of "institutional differences" in my original post, showing that the wage gap is not necessarily due to what you suggest it is in these posts. In this case, it shows that it's a failure on the part of Quebec than on the part of companies. In context, it follows:

"Immigrants are not all grouped together in the low-income bracket, just like refugees in Canada make up a relatively smaller portion of immigrants in comparison to those who enter via normal methods each year. Rather, the reason for variances in employment for immigrants is because of important sectoral, regulatory, and institutional differences (Hall & Sadouzai, 2010). For example, there is a wage gap between immigrants in Quebec and immigrants in the rest of Canada, likely due to premiums earned when becoming a citizen of Canada rather than remaining a landed immigrant (Nadeau & Seckin, 2010)."

Since I said it as a fact, I had to source it. I also used it as a negative for immigration as an example.

$1:

What does this have to do with the price of rice in China? (if you don't know the expression, what does it have to do with what we're talking about?)

If you remembered a bit more of my original post, you would understand the context of this paper and it's relevance. This was showing that there was a lag-time impact economically for new immigrants for exports compared to imports. This is showing that immigrants have a positive impact on the economy. In other words, this paper directly contradicts what you posted about immigration so far, whether via sources or via your own opinion.

$1:

So, skill level of immigrants has declined - again a point my guys make. How has Canada "gained from immigrant population over the years" (Is this guy an immigrant himself, his English is poor here)? If you take over the years to mean since the founding of Canada, of course we've gained tremendously from immigrants. At one time they did better than native born Canadians, and were readily absorbed into an agrarian economy. But how much have we gained since we divorced immigrant numbers from economic conditions (under Mulroney) and just import more and more every year? And how much have we gained since our main source of immigrants were from Asia instead of Europe.

The guy is an Indian, yes. But he is not Canadian, and continues to study in his home country. Indeed, about half of these papers were not done in Canada. I specifically chose them due to their lack of personal bias on the topic being an outside source to the country while still being accepted in well known publication bases.

Indeed, the amount of skill per immigrant is going down. This is not something I have disputed. Also, as is clearly shown and written by many of these authors, any idea of "divorcing immigration from economic conditions" is bull. As I said in my previous post, "the reason we import more people from Asia now is because, as I mentioned in my last post, the focus shifted strongly into what was best for Canada's economy and well being." We cannot also assume this is negative. These people are more capable of integrating into the Canadian economy. These people are more capable of finding adequate employment. These people come to Canada with the skills we actually need.

You said it yourself, in a round about way. Times change, and things which may have been good before might not be good now. The problem is that you are being too selective in your use of this. Europeans might have been better at one point, but now it's Asians who are good for Canada. At one point people with more skills might have been good, but now people who are skilled in the trades or people who have various technical backgrounds may be needed more in modern Canadian society.

Not too long ago, Calgary was experiencing a shortage of people in the trades, for example. We needed more people who are capable in those fields, and if immigrants fill those roles readily, it was better for the city, and by extension, the province and country. We also needed more techs (geology, engineering, geophysics, you name it) and many of the people filling those roles were older folks who went back for new education or folks from other nations (although this is entirely my own experience for feel free to ignore it).

What matters is that Canada is getting the people we need in the positions we need. If we get a new engineer working on a major civil engineering project in Canada and he brings his wife, parents and five kids over from Italy, then yeah, the average education is going to go down -- but we now have three children in Canada, two grandparents to look after them, and three more adults potentially available for employment in other positions. This is a benefit.

$1:

You've posted a lot of fancy sounding links here, that don't seem to add up to much.

On the contrary, they add up to a lot!

All of them are in agreement that overall, immigration is a good thing, something the sources of those papers agree with as well! Several of them disprove things your sources contend are true, as I pointed out previously. They point out the posiutives of the long term otweigh the short term, which is what you and your sources (which I contend are questionable still) continue to focus on.

They show that a lot of the misconceptions often touted, that these people are here for low paying jobs, that they are the cause of inequity, or that they are damaging Canada's economy are untrue to at the very least some degree, if not entirely. Nothing in your defense adequately covers for the fact that, for the negatives stated (which I had already covered) the positives well outweigh them. In addition, a lot of those sources depend on the context use, and you have to keep that in mind when you go back and read my first post in this thread -- which I sincerely recommend you do, because it's clear you don't remember the context in which I used those papers above.

On top of that, they show that the idea that this is a purely government driven decision, and that it's done out of the interest of political correctness and affirmative action, is incorrect. These papers come from an international database of papers. The first paper is from Italy, for example. The one by Asadul Islam is from India. I provided you an international perspective from academics that it's a good thing for Canada. I provided you a national non-government perspective from academics that it's a good thing for Canada. The problems with immigration are problems with immigration (bad processes, poor accreditation processes) which we need to fix, immigration itself is not the problem.

The end result is that I can provide you with peer reviewed, internationally sourced articles with quantitative evidence suggesting many positives for immigration, even with the negatives in the short term. The end result is that I can provide evidence that what your sources suggest from less than reputable sources is at least partially false, much of it based on opinion and here-say rather than from actual, definitive data. The end conclusion is that immigration is and has been a good thing for Canada, and with the right direction it will continue to be a good thing.

My opinion, anyways.

[andyt]

from Wiki:

$1:

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

(^ 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)

But it becomes a matter of what you consider a benefit. I don't consider a benefit to double immigration. The bid cities where immigrants settle are already struggling to absorb those coming now. If immigrants were to settle in the north, it would be a different matter, but it makes no sense for them to do so.

The fact that immigration helps immigrants, I don't care about so much - I put Canada and what helps us first.

And nobody is talking about us closing the door completely, tho I would have during the recession. I would also abolish the family class. But mostly, as the Centre for Immigration Policy reform says, we need to reform our immigration system:

$1:

Immigration intake should be based on Canada’s economic benefit.
Background: Immigration levels and selection standards should be related to our economic needs as they were in the past. It makes no sense to maintain high levels of immigration when large numbers of Canadians are unemployed.

Better selection standards should be developed to ensure that those who come here are needed and have a reasonable chance of success in the labour market. Immigration should be used only to complement the existing workforce in Canada and not to provide a quick source of cheap labour that discourages Canadians from entering the job market.
Background: Research shows that Canada now has the educational infrastructure in place to meet all of our labour needs except in rare cases. Priority should be placed on utilizing the skills and potential of people already in the country before resorting to bringing in more people from abroad.

Temporary foreign worker programs should be limited in scope and duration.
Background: Employers understandably welcome temporary foreign workers as a source of relatively inexpensive labour. Such programs, however, tend to keep down wages and discourage Canadians from acquiring training and entering the job market. The most successful programs of this nature are those involving relatively short work periods, such as the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program. Other countries have found longer-duration temporary worker schemes to be problematic in that many participants come with the intention of staying permanently and often remain illegally after their contracts have expired.

To the extent we need immigration, greater priority should be given to applicants who can contribute to the economy rather than to sponsorship of extended family members.
Background: For political reasons priority has been given to the processing of applications of relatives rather than to applicants who contribute to the economy. Such relatives are not required to have any occupational skills or ability in either of our official languages. We should adopt policies similar to those in effect in Australia where the sponsorship of extended family members without qualifications has been kept to reasonable proportions.

Greater effort should be made to ensure that immigrants to Canada are willing and able to integrate fully into the Canadian economy and society within a reasonable timeframe.
Background: Immigration policies of questionable value, including maintenance of high levels of intake during periods of recession, have resulted in the economic performance of recent newcomers falling well below that of earlier immigrants and the Canadian-born. This, combined with the arrival of large numbers of sponsored family class members and refugees who are often limited in their official language skills, has resulted in the development of increasingly numerous and large ethnic districts in our larger cities. This slows down the process of integration into Canadian society and it is in the interests of both Canadians and the newcomers themselves to put in place policies that provide for the swift and effective integration of future immigrants. We should continue to welcome immigrants of all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds but make it clear that newcomers are expected to have an unequivocal commitment to basic Canadian values and exclusive loyalty to Canada.
Background: Canada is one of the most generous and inclusive countries in the world when it comes to welcoming immigrants. We should not, however, be reticent about stating what we require from them in terms of a commitment to basic Canadian values such as rule of law, gender equality and separation of church and state. While some may retain the citizenship of their previous nationality, we should demand that, if we accept them as citizens, their allegiance will be strictly to Canada.

Canada should continue to assist refugees but should make changes to its refugee determination system to prevent large-scale abuse.
Background: Canadians support the resettlement of reasonable numbers of genuine refugees but are concerned about the use of the system by large numbers of persons whom no other country would regard as refugees or would allow to make claims. Many are by international standards asylum shoppers who reached other countries where they could have sought refuge but chose to move on to Canada because of our more generous package of benefits. There is also concern over the fact that those refugees whose claims are refused are often able to remain on our soil for years and even decades because of the range of appeals and reviews that can be used to delay their removal.

Greater effort and resources must be applied to the prevention of immigration-related fraud and abuse of our programs in general.
Background: While most immigrants are honest and come to Canada to build a better life for themselves and their families, there have been significant incidences of criminals, terrorists and their supporters entering the country as well as the use of bogus marriages to gain permanent residence in Canada. There must be more thorough screening to prevent the entry of undesirables into Canada as well as more stringent rules and penalties to discourage immigration-related marriage fraud. Because of the high volume, the majority of immigrants are not seen by visa officers and receive no counseling about what is expected of them in terms of accepting Canadian core values. Nor in many cases does the officer have the chance to verify the applicant's identity or other relevant information. All prospective migrants, especially those coming from non-democratic countries, should be interviewed by a visa officer.

[Khar]

Apologies for my slow response, either my computer connection or CKA has been horribly slow.

Maybe I have a slight bias because I know a lot of immigrants and a lot of people who want to immigrate to Canada permanently, many of whom have excellent skills but will take years to get here. Every single one I feel would be good for Canada, and I can't wrap my mind around why they should wait longer to contribute to a country they already feel patriotic about before they even return to it's soil.

There are some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. Even if the overall benefits are marginal for Canadians, that is still a marginal benefit. Improving the system to make sure we are maximizing those benefits should take priority. If it's a benefit for all involved, than I think it's a benefit worth following. That the aforementioned articles suggest that we get 30% reductions in the problem with an aging population from immigration is already a massive boon, in my mind.

I would also disagree with your thoughts on family class. As I posted in another thread, for 2010 all landed immigrants only had a 6% lower participation rate than born Canadians -- that includes those right off the boat to those on the edge of passing away. Even if they are family, they can and will take jobs at the same rate. When in times of low employment, I would even suggest keeping immigration high -- the labour market can and will absorb them, more people consuming and working helps get the economy back on it's feet and when we come out of the recession we can enter into the next cycle more powerfully than we otherwise could. As I mentioned with the Toronto sample, had immigration to that area been slowed as some suggested, we could have had as much as a million fewer workers after the recession in the 90s was over. One million is no small number. Not to mention the children and family they eventually have who will make money -- I am a second generation Canadian citizen myself.

We also have to keep in mind that our labour market does take in all immigrants in the long run. As I mentioned in the other thread, those here for longer than 10 years have almost the same unemployment rate as Canadian born citizens.

On the "Canadians before others" for positions, I again disagree somewhat. If a Canadian is a fat slob, or a guy who barely made it through university, there's one thing I want in his job -- someone else. I don't care if they are a Chinese exchange graduate via Norway, if they are more competent and are attracted by that wage to that job, and can do the job better, that's better for all Canadians in the long run -- that guy is more likely to build the growth that gets a few more jobs made. I'd rather we pick up the slack for a few years on the Chinese guy, then waste tens of thousands of dollars on the fat slob in wages alone and watch as he slows down the economy. It's one of the reasons why communalism doesn't work in big groups -- self-sacrifice is all well and good until someone seeks to sleaze through the system. Our priority should be to maintain our companies and encourage growth not only for immigrants but for those already here. The best people for the best positions.

Also, I don't know about you, but I cannot cite a single source showing an immigrant getting a job for less than a white man, only that immigrants have an early trend of going for the inherently lower paying jobs (which pay the same for white men) in the beginning. I don't think a company is going to hire someone highly trained, as implied, from another country for a lower wage -- the whole point is to get the best person possible, and by providing a higher wage they bring in higher grade talent. Sorry, slob from Canmore, Erik from Germany speaks better English and is more organized as an engineer, so he gets that job.

Now, onto the bits I agree with.

I agree with the problems with ethnic districts in Canada. While I certainly do not mean to promote the removal of any cultural mosaic idea in Canada (as I am sure you do not either, from your post) there are problems which form when overall importance is given over to ideals not of a Canadian nature. Canada is a nation, and as such there are certain things which we take as primary to our existence. Woman's suffrage, toleration of cultures, freedom of religion, expression, the ability to move where you want, and the ability to be safe form harm as both a child and an adult should take precedence for any Canadian living in Canada, any immigrant living in Canada, and any visitor to Canada, since these are part of the Canadian value system and are part of what they stand for. It's also worth mentioning that our drive for diversity is based on the idea that everyone should tolerate everyone, and does not make allowances for culture to override Canadian society's values -- indeed, it says nothing close to that at all, and I feel that should be brought to light.

Culture ghettos do not help Canada or the people living in them in any way. There's more than enough talk about Toronto and Vancouver's various districts over the decades and the activism which arose there to see that the end result of cultural segregation is never good for the people who are segregated, whether they are forced to or if it happens willingly.

I agree that Canada's economic process should be refocused to allowing in people with the best economic benefit. As I mentioned before, this is why we have more Asians coming, because this is what is happening. However, I cannot deny the existence of evidence that this could be done better. Like you said, few immigrants get access to a counselor, a lot of people are forced to wait a long time, and so forth. The process needs to be redefined and more focused. I think most Canadians would be willing to spend more tax money on this, especially since it would also provide better means of support for those who have already entered Canada.

I also agree partially with your refugee remarks. I think there are cases, like homosexuality, where Canada sort of took the lead and we end up with a lot of cases you don't see in other countries. People from Singapore and Indonesia, for example, can claim homosexuality as a reason for leaving their countries much earlier in Canada than anywhere else, and I think that this is important -- Canada is on the forefront here, as few other countries have done this, and many nations who do allow it don't do it seriously. We also certainly cannot ignore the people who attempt to make ill use of the process. One example brought up by an immigration lawyer was that over 600 Mexicans in one year attempted to claim homosexuality to get into Canada. A single digit value of people got in, and hundreds were tossed in the bin. This is not the only example either. A lot of people want to come to Canada, and I think this is a good thing. However, if it really is a matter of life and death, Canada is one of the most out-of-the-way placed to go, and I think this should be considered a little more strongly. It's put a bad name to the Canadian refugee system, which brings in a tiny portion of all immigrants each year, and because of that it's gotten a bad rap and they try to be rough in all the wrong places as a result. I agree with your assertions here.

Stringent legal ramifications should be made on some cases of fraud and such, as suggested as well.

I think it's important that over the years Canada has earned a lot of political capital because of our immigration and refugee system. We are forward thinking and we help a lot of folks, and that's important. I wish we were more involved in peace keeping and such still, because I feel it's an important part of the Canadian identity. I think our ability and drive to give aid and our politeness are also important, as is our pride in our accomplishments. I think anything which aids that political capital, which we have made significant use of over the years, is a good thing, if we can handle it through other means. I think being Canadian should play a big role in how we handle this situation.

In the end, I have been playing Devil's Advocate and you've been remarkably calm and wonderfully thorough in your responses. I apologize so much for my irritating quirks and long posts, and thank you a ton for taking the time to write that response. I'd likely have repped you up for it, if it had not been hidden from view. I think now it just comes down to a difference in view.

[andyt]

Khar Khar:

There are some things I agree with and some things I disagree with. Even if the overall benefits are marginal for Canadians, that is still a marginal benefit. Improving the system to make sure we are maximizing those benefits should take priority. If it's a benefit for all involved, than I think it's a benefit worth following. That the aforementioned articles suggest that we get 30% reductions in the problem with an aging population from immigration is already a massive boon, in my mind.

Except those people will also grow old - what do we do then, when we have even a larger number of old people to support. The aging of the world population is unavoidable as reproductive rates drop. (And lets hope they do or we'll have a whole other problem). Isn't it better to deal with this problem now, than wait for war or famine or disease to do it for us?

Khar Khar:

I would also disagree with your thoughts on family class. As I posted in another thread, for 2010 all landed immigrants only had a 6% lower participation rate than born Canadians -- that includes those right off the boat to those on the edge of passing away. Even if they are family, they can and will take jobs at the same rate. When in times of low employment, I would even suggest keeping immigration high -- the labour market can and will absorb them, more people consuming and working helps get the economy back on it's feet and when we come out of the recession we can enter into the next cycle more powerfully than we otherwise could. As I mentioned with the Toronto sample, had immigration to that area been slowed as some suggested, we could have had as much as a million fewer workers after the recession in the 90s was over. One million is no small number. Not to mention the children and family they eventually have who will make money -- I am a second generation Canadian citizen myself.

Does it really make sense to import old people who will immediately cost the medical system big bucks without having ever paid into it?

Khar Khar:

On the "Canadians before others" for positions, I again disagree somewhat. If a Canadian is a fat slob, or a guy who barely made it through university, there's one thing I want in his job -- someone else. I don't care if they are a Chinese exchange graduate via Norway, if they are more competent and are attracted by that wage to that job, and can do the job better, that's better for all Canadians in the long run -- that guy is more likely to build the growth that gets a few more jobs made. I'd rather we pick up the slack for a few years on the Chinese guy, then waste tens of thousands of dollars on the fat slob in wages alone and watch as he slows down the economy. It's one of the reasons why communalism doesn't work in big groups -- self-sacrifice is all well and good until someone seeks to sleaze through the system. Our priority should be to maintain our companies and encourage growth not only for immigrants but for those already here. The best people for the best positions.

Why are all Canadians fat slobs in the eyes of immigration defenders - it's like you guys don't like Canadians very much? You understand supply and demand, don't you? If we bring in more people to compete with qualified Canadians for a job, then wage rates for that job will decline. If we bring in people to take all the low skill jobs, as I see all around, then those jobs will have shit wages that barely support a family, with all the problems that poverty costs us.

Khar Khar:

Also, I don't know about you, but I cannot cite a single source showing an immigrant getting a job for less than a white man, only that immigrants have an early trend of going for the inherently lower paying jobs (which pay the same for white men) in the beginning. I don't think a company is going to hire someone highly trained, as implied, from another country for a lower wage -- the whole point is to get the best person possible, and by providing a higher wage they bring in higher grade talent. Sorry, slob from Canmore, Erik from Germany speaks better English and is more organized as an engineer, so he gets that job.

See above. Man, you're really down on native born Canadians, aren't you?

[Khar]

$1:

Except those people will also grow old - what do we do then, when we have even a larger number of old people to support. The aging of the world population is unavoidable as reproductive rates drop. (And lets hope they do or we'll have a whole other problem). Isn't it better to deal with this problem now, than wait for war or famine or disease to do it for us?

The reason Canada is having problems with aging is because our population without immigration has a small negative population growth -- our native population is dropping. One of the reasons why people want immigrants here is because they haven't dropped below the 2.1 children rate and can help stave off the worst of things in the long run.

Relying on Malthusian tactics to control these problems is ridiculous. Malthus has not been right ever since he brought his ideals of population growth into a public forum 200 years ago, and to this date he has still not been proven right. We do need changes in how we live to deal with aging. However, I don't think we should stop or slow down bringing in immigrants because of this.

$1:

Does it really make sense to import old people who will immediately cost the medical system big bucks without having ever paid into it?

Does it really make sense to expect people to work in Canada and not be able to bring over their family?

I don't know about you, but if I moved down into the States I'd definitely want my family to be with me, rather than sitting without any support in Canada. If they wish to move with me, go for it. If by moving here they can take care of my kids, then yes, I'd not mind them coming.

$1:

Why are all Canadians fat slobs in the eyes of immigration defenders - it's like you guys don't like Canadians very much? You understand supply and demand, don't you? If we bring in more people to compete with qualified Canadians for a job, then wage rates for that job will decline. If we bring in people to take all the low skill jobs, as I see all around, then those jobs will have shit wages that barely support a family, with all the problems that poverty costs us.

No where did I that all Canadians are fat slobs. I used one Canadian fat slob as an example. Do not try and put words into my mouth.

I do understand supply and demand. I also understand the Keynesian cross, IS-LM curves, liquidity preference models, endogenous growth theory graphs, aggregate calculations and graphing, regressions and various other forms of economic analysis and calculations. Indeed, if all you are basing this on is supply and demand, then stop now. Economics is a lot more than two lines on a graph and equilibrium where they meet.

The problems with using short term analysis of supply and demand (again, we go back to the short term -- and I will not use condescending language like you did to ask if you understand what the short term is) fails to encapsulate effective worker theory, various growth models, and many other economic factors in favour of a very twisted and simplified version of supply and demand. Otherwise, every time we brought in an immigrant since confederation, we'd be moving up the supply curve. You can't tell me that we've been doing that the entire time since confederation, and that's because it hasn't been happening.

People who come here and take jobs in the high tech area get jobs at similar wages to any native Canadian. This has been shown in previous sources. People who come here for lower wage jobs take them and get a certain wage. These people taking jobs and doing them well supplies an engine for economic growth, which creates more jobs. The more people who are good at a job and get a job early on, the better growth will be in Canada and the more jobs will be made in the long run.

Technological growth and economic expansion both bring efficiencies which expand rather than contract the employment pool. This growth has almost been constant.