[andyt]

oops double ppost

[andyt]

http://www.immigrationreform.ca/index.shtml

$1:

Herbert Grubel: The invisible price tag of immigration
National Post
May 18, 2011

There has been much huffing and puffing by politicians, the media and immigrant lobbyists about the government’s plan to reduce the number of parents and grandparents joining their immigrant offspring in Canada next year.

Yes, the policy change is unfair. Many immigrants have come to Canada having been promised that their parents and grandparents could join them so that they can continue the cultural traditions of their homelands and receive help with family chores and child care.

But, as is the case with all government policies, benefits to one group of citizens impose costs on another. In this case, the benefits to immigrants come at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Unfortunately, these costs do not show up in government budgets but are hidden behind the provisions of the welfare state and driven by low average incomes of recent immigrants.

New data and studies show the extent of this fiscal burden; recent immigrants remit lower average incomes and tax payments than other Canadians, even 10 years after their arrival. At the same time, these immigrants on average absorb at least the same amount of social benefits as other Canadians.

As a result, $6,000 is annually transferred to the average immigrant at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. In 2006, the value of these transfers to all 2.7 million immigrants who arrived between 1987 and 2004 and still live in Canada came to $16.3-billion. Taking account of the 1.5 million immigrants who arrived since 2004, the fiscal burden comes to $25-billion in 2010. These costs represent a significant portion of the federal government’s $55-billion deficit projected for the fiscal year 2011.

Important here is the fact that parents and grandparents lower the observed average incomes of all immigrants. The reasons are obvious: parents and grandparents tend to be elderly, often cannot speak English or French and possess few marketable skills. At the same time, the number of parents and grandparents arriving as immigrants are high: 84,917, or 6.7% of the 1.3 million immigrants admitted to Canada from 2006 to 2010.

The fiscal transfers to parents and grandparents are much higher than those of the average immigrant, not only because of their low incomes but also because they tend to be of an age where their demand for costly medical services is at its highest level.

For example, in 2009, family-class immigrants made up 22.1% of all immigrants who entered Canada that year. Those who were selected by the federal government on the basis of their occupational skills and other characteristics contributing to their economic success accounted for only 16.2%.

To alleviate this fiscal strain on taxpayers, Canada’s immigration selection process should be reformed to replace the existing, failed system of using points to select immigrants, with a system that emphasizes a reliance on market forces. This would result in giving preference to immigrants with job offers in Canada and skills needed by Canadian employers.

In our recent paper, Immigration and the Canadian Welfare State 2011, Patrick Grady and I outlined our proposals for reforming the Canadian immigration system to one that places a premium on employable skills. We envisioned a system where would-be immigrants with job offers are provided with temporary work visas, valid for two years and renewable for an additional two years upon the presentation of evidence of continued employment. After four years and continued employment in Canada, the holders of work visas would be eligible for landed immigrant status and for citizenship two years later. Spouses and dependents of the holders of work visas would be allowed to enter Canada under a program of family work visas, which would allow them to accept employment. Finally, immigrants would be able to have their parents and grandparents join them as landed immigrants in Canada after posting a bond that is used to pay for their health care and other social benefits.

Since holders of work visas pay the same personal income, GST and other sales taxes and social insurance premiums as Canadian citizens do, the holders of these visas would rightfully and automatically be entitled to receive the same public benefits that are available to Canadian taxpayers, including employment insurance, provincial welfare, health care and public pensions.

Over time, the immigration issue has attained a kind of religious mystique, so much that any debate over the costs of immigration will immediately be dismissed as racist, or anti-Canadian. But with Canada now facing the prospect of large, cyclical deficits, it’s time for a no-holds-barred examination of current immigration policy.

An examination of the true costs of immigration on Canadian taxpayers would be a good place to start.

[martin14]

Caelon Caelon:

It is the second and third generation that integrates into the base and inter marries. The first generation is the visibly different one and subsequent generations are 'Canadianized'.

The British thought the same, and other Euro countries.

Turns out this idea may not exactly hold water.

[andyt]

martin14 martin14:

Caelon Caelon:

It is the second and third generation that integrates into the base and inter marries. The first generation is the visibly different one and subsequent generations are 'Canadianized'.

The British thought the same, and other Euro countries.

Turns out this idea may not exactly hold water.

Immigrants have integrated much better in Canada than other countries. The trick is not to bring in too many from any one culture. In Vancouver, at least, we don't have those ethnic areas like they seem to have in Britain. We're close with the Punjabis - time to lay off on importing more of those for a bit. And especially avoid the family class that brings in old people set in their ways.

Britain now requires a sponsored spouse to also have adequate English. (Being challenged as racist in the courts right now) We should institute the same.

[Brenda]

$1:

Last year, Canada received 281,000 immigrants -the highest number since 1957.

Which is not the same as "280,000 per year"

$1:

In addition, 182,000 temporary foreign workers arrived, so that by the end of the year, there were 283,000 of these workers in the country. There were also 218,000 foreign students here and most of the temporary workers and students will remain permanently.

Opinion.

$1:

There is also a massive backlog of over one million immigrants waiting to come who have met all of the entry requirements.

Really? They approved over 1 million visas in 3 years, on top of the "280,000 per year" that enter the country , and all these people did not show up?

You have to land in the country within 3 years after the date your visa is issued, and stay for 3 years (or 1095 days in 5 years) after the date stamped on your visa, or you lose your Permanent Residency.

So I call bullshit.

[andyt]

$1:

Right now there are more than one million people awaiting a decision on their applications across all categories. You can see from this slide that we have enough applicants to meet our levels targets for several years in many categories. We have enough parent and grandparent applicants for seven years, and this problem is getting worse. The federal business class, meanwhile, has enough applicants for six years. And we have enough live-in caregiver applicants for permanent residence for more than two years.

(Jason Kenney, Minister of Immigration.)

[Brenda]

$1:

There is also a massive backlog of over one million immigrants waiting to come who have met all of the entry requirements.

$1:

Right now there are more than one million people awaiting a decision on their applications across all categories.

SO not the same thing...

[andyt]

OK. You've picked that nit. Now what are you saying.

[Brenda]

That's nitpicking? I'm thinking there is a difference between "we have a backlog in processing about a million applications" and "there are a million people with visas out there that are eligible to move here tomorrow".

[peck420]

I think we need to be very careful in how we judge immigration policy.

Are we interested in how the specific immigrant and their immediate family operates in Canada? Or are we interested in the potential long term gain garnered from immigration?

If we are only interested in the immediate, we are already lost IMHO. We need to focus on how our policy today is shaping the Canada of tomorrow. How are immigrants children doing in Canada, both born here and immigrated at young age (under 6 or so).? How are the second and third generations integrating? How are they adding value to Canada as a whole?

I think we focus far too much on the near term issues and forget the long term goals we should be aiming for...

[Bruce_the_vii]

My answer is long term we haven't been improving for about 30 years. In the last decade the jobs being created were contract positions, in boom and bust industries or without a pension. The percent of jobs in the private sector with pensions is declining. We used to have increasing per capita income but now middle class wages are stagnate. Competition with the rest of the world for good jobs is intense. So economic growth is not working, let alone immigration. This has to be faced up to, it's the country we are leaving the next generation.

[andyt]

peck420 peck420:

I think we need to be very careful in how we judge immigration policy.

Are we interested in how the specific immigrant and their immediate family operates in Canada? Or are we interested in the potential long term gain garnered from immigration?

If we are only interested in the immediate, we are already lost IMHO. We need to focus on how our policy today is shaping the Canada of tomorrow. How are immigrants children doing in Canada, both born here and immigrated at young age (under 6 or so).? How are the second and third generations integrating? How are they adding value to Canada as a whole?

I think we focus far too much on the near term issues and forget the long term goals we should be aiming for...

Good point. But to only focus on the long term and not the short term isn't a great idea either. That's what we've been doing for 30 years, and immigrants now earn significantly less than Canadians, we have problems of integration and with immigrants who are right pissed because they were made promises that didn't come true when they got here. We're not doing right by Canadians or by immigrants. If you say don't worry about the short term, well you'll always have the short term problems - for the long term, since a quarter million new ones come in every year, not counting almost as many temp workers. Unless you turn down the tap, allow some breathing space, the short term problems will be with you for the long term and only get worse. That's what we used to do - open and close the tap according to need and what's best for Canada. Now we just allow the tap to flood every year, no matter what.

[Brenda]

Since they have a backlog of about a million, what they should do is say "we do not accept new application for any immigration class at this moment. Please try again in about 3 years."

THEN get rid of the backlog with the rules that are in place now, and get a whole new set of rules in place for the new applications that can be filed in 3 years.

[andyt]

I like Gruebel's idea better. Basically stop all current immigration and use temp work permits to fill in where we really need people. That way we match the immigrant with a specific job. After somebody has done two stints on work permits, they can apply for fast tracked immigration. We know they can speak the language and fit in well enough to work here. Then three more years till they can become citizens, so they've been here 7 years and working when they become citizens. They can bring their spouse and dependent kids with them when they come on the work permit, but spouse must also be able to speak the language. Then for family class, the only category would be a Canadian marrying a foreigner, and that foreigner also has to be able to communicate in English/French to be accepted.

[Brenda]

You can't do that to the people who applied 5 years ago and are still waiting for their visa. You can't change the rules on the ones that have been waiting (AND PAID) for years.

You can however implement a system of the sort when you got rid of the backlog.