 Canadian Government announces record-high number of immigrants last year TORONTO - Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says Canada welcomed a record-high number of immigrant newcomers last year. Kenney released a report today that indicates in 2010, Canada admitted 280,636 new permanent residents.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Never mind that immigrants cost us 18 billion more in govt spending than they pay in taxes each year. It's well worth it, I say, and at least nobody will call us xenophobic.
I don't think Canadians should be allowed to move anywhere else in the world.
Thank God you'll never be in charge of anything more important than the fry station at Rotten Ronnies. Without a doubt one of the stupidest comments I've read here in quite some time comrade.
-J.
edited by mod
Do you not understand at all the reason why I posted that? I was not being serious.
There's something wrong if you have to continually explain your posts.
edited by mod
Do you not understand at all the reason why I posted that? I was not being serious.
There's something wrong if you have to continually explain your posts.
That's just wonderful. We need more people because we're such an empty country, and we have all those $8/hr jobs just waiting for them because no Canadian will take them.
Never mind that immigrants cost us 18 billion more in govt spending than they pay in taxes each year. It's well worth it, I say, and at least nobody will call us xenophobic.
I was wondering where you got that 18 billion dollar figure? I don't mean to question the validity of the value, I just want to know what is included and calculated in that figure. The reason I ask is because it doesn't make logical sense to me to simply cast aside the long term benefits of these immigrants for short term ones, and I find it hard to believe that immigrants, as a whole, do not have an aggregate long term benefit for Canadian society. After all, I am willing to bet that a lot of people here are not too far unrelated from immigrants in some form, and a large portion of our current GDP is dependent on the fact that, at some point in time, those immigrants were a bit of a burden on Canadian society before they became productive members of it, as their children, children's children, and so on have.
I'm going to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here a bit, but I do also support the position to follow as well. On the plus side, because about 100 of my 500 posts have been on this topic it's hard not to have some of this stuff memorized!
There is a lag impact between immigrants coming and economical benefits of these immigrants taking effect. This should not be a surprise, as some industries work with long terms into the double digits of years (such as oil companies). For example, let's look at the trade balance. In some cases, this lag time for a rise in exports is five years, and in other cases, as much as 20 (Partridge & Furtan, 2008). Imports are seen to rise immediately (Partridge & Furtan, 2008). While the Canadian taxpayer may have to support immigrants from the beginning, the longer terms show that they do have beneficial impacts on the amount of exports Canada produces and a beneficial impact on the Canadian economy as a whole. This is one of the reasons I want to see where that figure is from, to see how they identify immigrants; 5 years landed immigrants, 10 years landed immigrants, immigrants indefinitely?
Besides, we cannot ignore the potential benefits of immigration either. For example, the long term negative real-per capita GDP impact of aging could be reduced by as much as 30% due to the accommodating effects of immigration (Fougere, 2005). To fully offset the negative impacts of aging, however, we would need to more than double our current rate of immigration (Fougere, 2005). Still, it does show that our current immigration rate successful offsets aging effects on the economy to a substantial degree. Labour market factors and the health of the Canadian economy are two defining characteristics of modern Canadian labour policy which are largely responsible for the change in our immigration patterns over the past few decades (Singh, 2004). Indeed, the drive for a healthy economy is one of the reasons why we now see a lot of people coming to Canada out of Asia now (Singh, 2004). Note that this does not mean they are sweatshop workers -- to have the economic and personal capital to move to Canada through normal means requires a certain level of adequacy in education and employment eligibility.
I also strongly contend the idea that immigrants are only here for the low paying jobs. As I have showed in other threads, the major countries contributing to Canadian immigration are those from other first world nations at the top of the development scales or, typically, skilled and educated workers from the top end of those nations not matching the aforementioned criteria (CKA Source, Comprehensive Government Source). It's been shown that workers with previously work experience in (and including non-regulated) technical and hi-tech fields have high levels of employment and their experience is typically accepted here in Canada for jobs comparable to what other Canadians get (Hall & Sadouzai, 2010). 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).
It has also been stated that immigration has no evidence of an effect on Canadian unemployment (Islam, 2007). Unemployment in Canada, however, does cause a reduction in immigration (Islam, 2007). Islam points out a long-run positive relationship among per-capita GDP, immigration rate and real wages as well (2007).
Sure, there are negative impacts in Canadian society. Immigration adds onto an already increasing amount of wage inequality, for example, although this is a short run phenomenon as these immigrants adjust to the labour market (Moore & Pacey, 2003). Immigrant skills have declined over time, although Canada has gained tremendously from the immigrant population over the years (Singh, 2004). The aforementioned wage gap between Quebec and the RoC for immigrants (Nadeau & Seckin, 2010).
A lot of those come with "howevers" or "buts." Even though there are, of course, some negatives, there are positives or corrections occurring within the Canadian economy. I personally conclude that immigration is essentially a positive aspect of the Canadian economy, and that we should work to improve the immigration process rather than reduce it. I think more immigrants is not a bad thing, and hope that any negative trends are targets for future public policy on the part of whichever government is in power. That 18 billion dollar figure and reference to 8 dollar an hour wages just doesn't fit all that well in my book.
Three short notes. The below references do not contain the links, since you can directly see the source anyways (no reason to cite something you can literally look at while reviewing this). I've also limited my use of these papers to what you can read in their abstracts or summaries if you look for the paper name on google. Finally, I will admit that the focus of this was on the positive aspects (devil's advocate), but I do stand by my end conclusion.
Fougere, M 2005, 'Ageing and the Economic Benefits of Immigration: An Analysis for Canada', RISEC: International Review of Economics and Business, 52, 1, pp. 113-143, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 13 February 2011.
Hall, P, & Sadouzai, T 2010, 'The Value of 'Experience' and the Labour Market Entry of New Immigrants to Canada', Canadian Public Policy, 36, 2, pp. 181-198, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 13 February 2011.
Islam, A 2007, 'Immigration Unemployment Relationship: The Evidence from Canada', Australian Economic Papers, 46, 1, pp. 52-66, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 14 February 2011.
Moore, E, & Pacey, M 2003, 'Changing Income Inequality and Immigration in Canada, 1980-1995', Canadian Public Policy, 29, 1, pp. 33-52, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 14 February 2011.
Nadeau, S, & Seckin, A 2010, 'The Immigrant Wage Gap in Canada: Quebec and the Rest of Canada', Canadian Public Policy, 36, 3, pp. 265-285, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 13 February 2011.
Partridge, J, & Furtan, H 2008, 'Immigration Wave Effects on Canada's Trade Flows', Canadian Public Policy, 34, 2, pp. 193-214, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 13 February 2011.
Singh, S 2004, 'Immigration into Canada: Some Issues', Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 47, 2, pp. 349-367, EconLit with Full Text, EBSCO, viewed 14 February 2011.
On the demographics front, contributing authors Marcel Merette, Robin Bannerjee, and William Robson examine the feasibility of financing government social programs through increased immigration. They show that it currently requires five taxpayers to cover the costs of government benefits provided to each recipient, and calculate that in order to maintain that ratio, the number of immigrants would have to rise so much above present levels that Canada's economy and society could not deal with them successfully.
"One estimate is that by the year 2050, Canada's population would have to be 165.4 million to meet this objective and that the intake of immigrants that year alone would be 7 million. The basic reasons for this outcome are that immigrants age at the same pace as everyone else and, like other Canadians, are eligible to receive social benefits in retirement," Grubel said.
Contributing author Stephen Gallagher discusses the implications of increasing numbers of recent immigrants who have retained their loyalties and attachment to their native countries, many to the extent that they live in their native countries while they are citizens of Canada and enjoy all the privileges that come with that status including a Canadian passport and protection while abroad.
The extent of this phenomenon became clear during the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, when thousands of Canadian passport holders living in Lebanon demanded that the Canadian government evacuate them on the basis of their rights as Canadian citizens.
Gallagher suggests that immigrants with Canadian passports living abroad have turned Canada into a "global suburb", a home away from home to which one returns only when conditions abroad warrant.
Salim Mansur focuses on how mass immigration and the policy of multiculturalism are undermining Canadian culture and identity. His chapter addresses what he sees as a wide-spread self-loathing among Western societies, and he foresees continuing conflicts between Canadian society and large numbers of immigrants from different cultures.
"The efforts by the citizens of Herouxville to protect their culture are indicative of a growing conflict and efforts to resist the undermining of Quebec and Canadian culture," Grubel said.
The book concludes that Canada needs a better process for selecting immigrants, since the costs and problems of immigration are the direct consequence of the present system used to select immigrants. Ideally, the new selection process would bring the range of immigrants' incomes closer to the average incomes of other Canadians. Under these conditions, the taxes paid by the immigrants with high incomes are sufficient to pay for the public benefits absorbed by those with lower incomes, just as is the case with other Canadians. The fiscal costs to other Canadians, which arise under the present system, would disappear.
"Immigration is without a doubt, one of the most important political issues facing Canada. In order to make the necessary changes to immigration policy to ensure the well-being of all Canadians, politicians need to begin having a reasoned discussion of the issue without fear of offending specific voting blocs," Grubel said.
1. Immigration increases the size of Canada’s population and economy but does not improve Canadians' standard of living.
2. It is estimated that recent immigrants receive billions of dollars a year more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
3. Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills.
4. While the average age of Canadians is increasing and the proportion of seniors will almost double in the next few decades, immigration will do very little to offset this trend despite the widely held belief that it will do so.
5. There are more than 100,000 parents and grandparents of immigrants who have met requirements and are waiting to enter Canada. They will receive the benefits of our public health care system without having contributed to costs by paying income tax.
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.
7. Far more Canadians want immigration levels lowered rather than increased. Despite this, and the lack of economic or demographic benefits to Canadians, we maintain the highest per capita intake in the world.
8. In terms of Canadians’ attitude towards a multicultural mosaic, a 2007 survey indicated that 18% thought that it is reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities while 53% thought immigrants should adapt fully to Canadian culture.
9. The number of visible minority neighbourhoods in Canada’s three largest cities increased from six in 1981 to 254 in 2001.
10. Canada’s acceptance rate for refugee claimants is three times the average of other countries, suggesting that two-thirds of those accepted would probably not be considered genuine refugees by other countries.
11. In 2003 Canada accepted 76% of refugee claims by Sri Lankans while Britain accepted 2% and Germany 4%. That year Canada accepted 1,749 refugee claims by Sri Lankans while all the other countries together accepted only 1,160.
12. Canada, uniquely among nations, allows nationals of many democratic countries with good human rights records to make refugee claims in Canada on the basis that they fear persecution in their homelands.
13. As cities have increased in population, largely because of international immigration, urban expansion has devoured a large amount of Canada’s best, Class 1, agricultural land, consuming 7,400 kilometers between 1971 and 2001 and occupying 7% of the total during this period.
Jane and Finch didn't exist, IIRC.
YYZ was still on the outskirts.
There was a pretty good sized parking lot surrounding the CN Tower. Now when yer downtown, you can barely see it for all the other tall buildings.
The Science Centre wasn't smack dab in the middle of some borough.
In 30-35 years, Metro Toronto has gone from about 3 million ppl tops, to over 6 million in the GTA. And almost all of that increase is from immigration.
And considering Vancouver's geographic limitations, they must be having a whee of a time trying to keep up with the influx.