Poll shows 56 per cent of Canadians think immigrants burden social services

Wong added the strong sense of independence among immigrants, as well as the support from extended family, could explain why immigrants make less use of social services.

"There is this thing of self-reliance," he said. "The first generation immigrant tends to be very independent . . . They're very reluctant to be a burden."

Wong used the example of a day program for Chinese seniors in Toronto that did not take off at first because the participants did not want to be a bother.

"You almost have to put them in handcuffs to go see the doctor," Wong said, describing the reluctance of new Canadians to access health care.

"They're apologizing for inconveniencing the physician."

...

those Canadians with higher levels of education were more likely to believe the impact of immigration is positive ? 62 per cent versus the 39 per cent national average.

...

According to figures from the 2006 census, nearly 20 per cent of Canadians are foreign-born. It is the highest proportion in 75 years.

"peck420" said
It has nothing to do with being afraid of the unknown.

It has everything to do with some immigrants starting to come here specifically to get benefits.

And the unfortunate truth, is that the few that do abuse the system have stained the whole system.

Few rotten apples have spoiled the bunch...or something like that.

As with most things, it is very easy for the negatives to become a primary focus, while the much larger positives are ignored.

"Brenda" said
It has nothing to do with being afraid of the unknown.

It has everything to do with some immigrants starting to come here specifically to get benefits.

And the unfortunate truth, is that the few that do abuse the system have stained the whole system.

Few rotten apples have spoiled the bunch...or something like that.

As with most things, it is very easy for the negatives to become a primary focus, while the much larger positives are ignored.

"andyt" said


And before Brenda jumps in - this is about immigrants as a whole, not about you. Some immigrants do just fine. But many don't, and 280,000 per year is just too many to absorb, especially when we're still worried about our own unemployment numbers.

"the article" said
The government expects between 240,000 and 265,000 permanent residents to settle in Canada in 2011.

Immigration policy a drain on Canada
With one million more people expected to come to Vancouver by 2030, country requires informed public debate
By Martin Collacott, Vancouver Sun
May 26, 2011


As Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of BC noted in a recent Sun commentary, Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy fails to address the fact that we are a relatively low-income urban region despite having the most expensive housing in Canada. One of the factors he cites as the cause for this poor showing is our high immigration intake combined with the low median incomes of new Canadians. Finlayson points out that although immigration will increase the population of Metro Vancouver by more than a million people by 2030, the regional growth strategy will be of little use in terms of providing housing and finding jobs for the newcomers.

Finlayson's concerns are, indeed, fully justified if one looks at the results of a study released on May 18 by the Fraser Institute. It found that the weak economic performance of recent immigrants is costing Canadian taxpayers between $16.3 billion and $23.6 billion a year. Using Canadian census data, economists Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady calculated that this is what it costs Canadians because of what newcomers receive in government benefits over what they pay in taxes.

The question one must ask in the circumstances is: Why are we going to bring another million immigrants into the Vancouver area and who is going to benefit from having them here?

Professor George Borjas of Harvard, one of the pre-eminent experts on the economics of immigration in the United States, pointed out that there are winners and losers when it comes to large-scale immigration such as what we are experiencing in Vancouver. Winners obviously include employers looking for a large pool of inexpensive labour, real estate developers, immigration lawyers and organizations that receive government funding to help in the settlement of newcomers. Losers are Canadian workers and residents of Vancouver in general, including immigrants who have already arrived. Homeowners also benefit from the appreciation of the value of their homes while those who rent or are buying a home for the first time lose.

Advocates of high immigration argue that, notwithstanding the difficulties associated with current immigration policy, continued high intake is essential if we are to be able to meet anticipated labour shortages and keep the economy moving forward. Research shows, however, that while there may be temporary labour shortages at times in the years to come, Canada has both the educational and human resources to meet most of them from within the country and does not need to rely on immigration.

A further argument frequently advanced to justify high levels of immigration is that it is essential to provide the labour force needed to pay the taxes required to fund the social services for the increasing proportion of the population that will be over 65 in the years to come. While the population is definitely living longer and we will have to figure out where the money is coming from to support the requisite social services, research shows beyond a doubt that immigration will not provide a solution to this challenge simply because immigrants grow old and require the same services as everyone else.

The fact is that, while high levels of immigration played an important role in Canada's economic development at various times in the past, it can no longer be justified on either economic or demographic grounds -a point made by one of Canada's most respected specialists in the relationship between immigration and labour markets, the late professor Alan G. Green of Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

It is curious, therefore, that in the recent election campaign, not a single Canadian political party called for a reduction in the record-high immigration levels that are both entirely unnecessary and are, in the event, extremely costly to Canadians. Three parties, in fact, called for even higher numbers. Why they did is not entirely clear.

One explanation is that the parties believe that immigrants themselves support high levels of intake and will vote for those who promise to make this happen. While some newcomers are particularly interested in bringing in their parents and extended family members, it is very much open to question whether immigrants in general want to see large numbers of new arrivals competing with them for the same jobs. Research in the U.S. and United Kingdom suggests they are not enthusiastic about such a prospect.

Surveys in the U.S. also indicate that there is also a very large gap between the views of opinion leaders (members of Congress, the administration, leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics and leaders of major interest groups) and those of the general public when it came to immigration; 55 per cent of the public said it should be reduced compared with only 18 per cent of opinion leaders. It would not be surprising if a gap of similar proportions exists in Canada. What is clearly needed is an informed public debate on immigration policy in this country with a clear opportunity for Canadians to make their voices heard. Until now attempts to ascertain what Canadians want have usually been dominated by interest groups bent on preserving the benefits they get from continued high levels of immigration. Unless members of the public are prepared to step forward and tell politicians what they want when it comes to good immigration policy, they can expect to get more of what they are getting now.

Immigration isn't as beneficial as politicians claim
By James Bissett, Calgary Herald
May 20, 2011

The recent election campaign focused a great deal of attention on immigrant communities. There are good reasons for this. Since 1990, Canada has been accepting about a quarter of a million newcomers each year and these numbers have caused a dynamic transformation in the demographic characteristics of our country.

The pace of change is underlined by research done by Statistics Canada showing the phenomenal growth in the number of so-called ethnic enclaves since the early 1980s. Statistics Canada defines an ethnic enclave as a community where over 30 per cent of the population is of one ethnic group other than English or French. In 1981, there were six ethnic enclaves in Canada. Today, there are 260.

Immigration has also had a powerful impact on our political system. All of the political parties favour large-scale immigration. Every immigrant is seen by them as a potential voter for their party. The politicians justify high immigration levels by claiming immigration is desperately needed to sustain our economic growth, enhance our labour force and combat our so-called aging problem.

Last year, Canada received 281,000 immigrants -the highest number since 1957. 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. There is also a massive backlog of over one million immigrants waiting to come who have met all of the entry requirements.

These are very high numbers -on a per-capita basis, no other country receives as many immigrants. Clearly, the program is out of control, but our political leaders seem incapable of acknowledging there is a problem and continue to urge even higher numbers.

It is significant that of the 281,000 immigrants who arrived in 2010, only 17 per cent, or 48,800, were skilled workers selected for their potential contribution to our labour force. The remainder were spouses and children accompanying them, relatives sponsored by people already in Canada, immigrants sponsored by the provinces, refugees or others accepted for humanitarian reasons. So much for helping our economy or labour force!

vo There are few economists today who argue that immigration is a significant factor in economic development. Studies in Canada since the MacDonald Royal Commission Report of 1985 and the Economic Council of Canada's studies in the early 1990s concluded that immigration was not necessary for economic prosperity. In 2003, Prof. Alan Green of Queen's University released a study that argued that while immigration had been useful in the past, the economic argument for it had largely disappeared and that the current political posture of using immigration to solve economic problems was no longer valid.

In 2008, Prof. Herb Grubel of Simon Fraser University, in a landmark study, showed that the 2.5 million immigrants who had come to Canada from 1990 to 2002 had received in benefits and services in one year (2002) $18.3 billion more than they had paid in taxes. That amount was more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what was spent on defence in fiscal 2000-2001.

Studies in the United States and Britain have reached similar conclusions.

In 2008, the British House of Lords warned that the plan to admit 190,000 immigrants per year would achieve little benefit and criticized the Labour government for misleading the public by justifying such high levels, which provided no economic benefit and were not needed to fill labour force demands.

Demographic studies in various countries have conclusively put to rest the myth that immigration can help a country overcome its aging problem. In 2006, the C.D. Howe Institute study Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young pointed out that to have any significant impact on aging, Canada would have to accept several million immigrants each year.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, our political parties -even the Green party -repeatedly advocate raising our immigration levels, and do so, as they did in 2008, regardless of economic down turn. The name of the game is to get more numbers, because numbers are seen as voters.

In fact, the pressure to increase immigration has become such an overwhelming obsession with politicians that our overseas visa officers do not have time to interview prospective immigrants and the vast majority are no longer seen or interviewed.

The assessment of qualifications is done by reviewing documentation and the visas are issued by mail. Is there an employer in Canada who would hire someone without a personal interview?

Immigration is a critical public policy issue. The kind of Canada we will be in the future depends on the policies we follow today.

The dramatic changes in our demographic composition are being done without public knowledge or debate. This is wrong. There may be reasons why demographic change is desirable, or even inevitable, but if through mass immigration, the traditional society of a nation is in danger of becoming marginalized, then surely it should be done as a deliberate and open policy objective of government -and not driven by politicians competing desperately for ethnic votes.

Immigration has always been an integral part of the Canadian story and has made a powerful contribution to our historic achievements.

We must not allow our politicians to use it as a political game that patronizes the immigrants and damages our national interest.

James Bissett is a former ambassador and the executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service. He serves on the advisory board of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.