New lobby group wishes to reduce immigration levels

[dumpthemonarchy]

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, a new think tank wants a serious debate to lower immigration in Canada. Immigration is good for the country, but it's too high. The country takes in 400,000 immigrants and temporary workers each year.

New lobby group aims to stir serious debate on immigration levels

New lobby group aims to stir serious debate on immigration levels


By Norma Greenaway, Postmedia News September 27, 2010 7:03 PM




OTTAWA — The federal government should consider cutting the number of immigrants accepted in Canada and avert the kind of anti-immigrant sentiment wave hitting parts of Europe, says a founder of a new immigration lobby group.


James Bissett, a former Canadian diplomat, said Monday the group wants to challenge the conventional wisdom that immigration is needed to fuel Canada's economic growth and to fill current and future labour shortages.


"Why do we feel we have to keep bringing in large number of migrants to fill our labour needs when there are large numbers of Canadians, aboriginals and other Canadians, out of work?" Bissett asked in an interview.


He was speaking on the eve of the public launch Tuesday of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, a group that boasts some prominent public servants and former diplomats. Among them are Derek Burney, a one-time adviser to Stephen Harper and a former ambassador to Washington; Martin Collacott, a former ambassador and senior fellow at the Fraser Institute; and businessman Peter White, a former top adviser to Brian Mulroney.


Bissett said the group wants to provoke what it considers a long-overdue debate on the merits of bringing in about 250,000 immigrants and upwards of 175,000 temporary foreign workers each year.


"It may be a completely hopeless task we've gone out on here, but we'd like to raise the profile of the issue and get people to think about it a little bit and ask questions," said Bissett, a one-time ambassador to the former Yugoslavia who spent much of his career working on immigration issues in Ottawa and abroad.


"We shouldn't wait until, you know, an extreme right-wing party rises up and starts saying, 'Get rid of immigrants.' "

Bissett said he wants to believe that wouldn't happen in Canada. But, he added, nobody would have thought anti-immigrant parties would make the inroads they have now made in Hungary, the Netherlands and other European countries, he said.


The most recent breakthrough was in Sweden, where the Sweden Party snagged 20 seats and six per cent of the vote after running a campaign that depicted immigrants as threatening and on the dole.


Bissett said the new Canadian group is not anti-immigration or anti-refugee. There will always be a need for newcomers in Canada, he said.


But it does want to stir debate about how many immigrants Canada can absorb while still providing the newcomers with the economic and social security they seek.


He argued new studies have suggested recent immigrants are not doing as well as immigrants who arrived 25 years ago.

Bissett blamed the decline on an overpopulation of immigrants, and said all future immigrants should be selected almost exclusively on whether they have the skills to fill labour voids.


Bissett said the group expects a tough uphill climb, in part because all four federal parties fall into the camp of promoting immigration.

"In the late '80s and early '90s, politicians realized that in order to win the ethnic community vote, they had to appear very pro-immigration," he said. "They began to rise immigration levels (regardless of) whether the economy indicated they were required or whether there were shortages."

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News






​

 

[Andem]

It's a very good message.

Canada's immigration levels have remained high throughout the past two decades and at this moment, Canada has the largest per-capita immigration rate in the western world, or even the entire world. Regardless of whether the labour is required, Canadians continue to feel the pressure on their economy, with so-called skilled immigrants facing an unemployment rate of over 1/3 [src]. Furthermore, in large cities such as Toronto and Montreal, immigrants are very often given unfair advantage in many sectors of the labour market. While skilled immigrants are rightfully* given less opportunity to work in their qualified* field.

I think it's absolutely outrageous that Canadian citizens, including recent immigrants from across the world, are forced to continue to subsidise such a large quantity of unemployed immigrants receiving social assistance. Mathematically, this system of constant migration is doomed to fail as economically advantaged immigrants that Canada so desperately seeks out continue their migration to more economically viable countries like the United States or even back home to countries such as Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Middle East and elsewhere.

* It's right that a doctor or lawyer from a third world country should not automatically qualify to work in Canada with said previous qualifications. Unlike many European countries, education even for requalification is costly in Canada.

 

[Bcool]

Somehow the idea of a senior member of the Fraser Institute, a 'businessman' & former adviser to Mulroney and a former Harper adviser influencing decisions on such sensitive policies as immigration does not inspire me with confidence. For those people, especially the Fraser Institute - a right wing think tank - it's always "what will profit me best?" But this will be sure to cheer you up:

Canada cuts refugee targets for 2010

Canada cuts refugee targets for 2010

Canada's 'broken' refugee system will be fixed:Kenney

 

[Machjo]

This seems to miss the whole point. It has nothing to do with the number of immigrants, but with the 'quality'. If we allowed in no more than one immigrant per year and he did not want to work, that would already be one immigrant too many. If we allowed in 30,000,000 immigrants a year, and they could all integrate nicely, we couldn't have enough of them.

To focus on numbers totally misses the point. If we should focus on specific objevtives the immigrant must meet instead, we wouldn't even need quotas since the point system itself would keep many out owing to such a high bar. For a start, let's require all potential immigrants to pass an English or French test before being allowed in. At the moment, even this most basic of requirements is not met, as the need for these proves:

Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program

Programme Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC)

Why should we need such organizations if immigrants are required to know English or French already?

Aside from genuine refugees from tyrany, all ought to be required to meet these most basic requirements to the highest level of fluency.

And as for legitimate refugees who don't know English or French, then they could be required live on campus, take full time English or French courses and stay there until they pass (obviously sending them back home might not be an option if their lives are genuinely in danger of course).

Also, require all immigrants to get a job contract before setting foot on Canadian soil or have proof of the means of financial self-sustenance at the time of application. Again, as for genuine refugees fleeing from danger, they'd be required to stay on campus until they learn some skill to get them a job, any job.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

This seems to miss the whole point. It has nothing to do with the number of immigrants, but with the 'quality'. If we allowed in no more than one immigrant per year and he did not want to work, that would already be one immigrant too many. If we allowed in 30,000,000 immigrants a year, and they could all integrate nicely, we couldn't have enough of them.

To focus on numbers totally misses the point. If we should focus on specific objevtives the immigrant must meet instead, we wouldn't even need quotas since the point system itself would keep many out owing to such a high bar. For a start, let's require all potential immigrants to pass an English or French test before being allowed in. At the moment, even this most basic of requirements is not met, as the need for these proves:

The numbers are important. Size matters.

We have 250 ethnic enclaved in Canada, down from 30 in 1970. An eclave is where over 30% of an area is of one ethnic group. This is a shocking increase.

It is not good because it allows immigrants to stay in "their own community" and this are communities where Canada is not number one in their mind. Immigrants are integrating less and less.

 

[Trotz]

President Eisenhower in the United States warned Americans of the military industrial complex.

Nowadays, we could really use a leader to warn us of the immigration industrial complex. Multiculturalism, which receives propaganda support from the media and government, is institutionalized theft of the tax payers' money. Patronage is so common in our political society and most of these contracts, which provide housing, education and healthcare to refugees, are awarding billions to friends of parliament and the various governmental agencies in our country.

 

[Tonington]

It is not good because it allows immigrants to stay in "their own community" and this are communities where Canada is not number one in their mind. Immigrants are integrating less and less.

How is this any different than the manner that Canada was populated? There were enclaves everywhere. That's what people do. Acadians, Scottish, Irish, English, French, Germans, Ukrainians, Polish, Norwegian, etc.

The only thing that's changing is that we have a larger pool of emigrating nationalities, instead of just Europeans.

Why should it be desirable that immigrants are expected to avoid forming communities? That's how this nation has grown. And as far as economic statistics go, immigrants earn as much as native-born Canadians.

 

[damngrumpy]

Immigration is not the problem for this country. We have a problem letting everyone in. Our country needs certain skills and if
the immigrant has them they should be considered. I don't like the idea that because we let one person in they are allowed to
bring in their entire family. Each person on their own merit I say. We should also be looking at defining what makes a good
citizen. yes people who believe in democracy without trying to change every law we have to suite their political or religious
beliefs. If people want to come here, it is time they left behind their old hatreds and wishes to promote such things as social
and religious laws according to their sect back home. We need to be more selective in who we let in and establish some
serious ground rules about our immigration policy. The immigration policy is the problem not the immigrants themselves.

 

[Bar Sinister]

How is this any different than the manner that Canada was populated? There were enclaves everywhere. That's what people do. Acadians, Scottish, Irish, English, French, Germans, Ukrainians, Polish, Norwegian, etc.

The only thing that's changing is that we have a larger pool of emigrating nationalities, instead of just Europeans.

Why should it be desirable that immigrants are expected to avoid forming communities? That's how this nation has grown. And as far as economic statistics go, immigrants earn as much as native-born Canadians.

Absolutely correct. In fact in many areas of Canada immigrants of the same ethnic background were deliberately settled in one place so that they could provide community support to one another. Hence the creation of places like Gimli (settled by Icelanders), Bruderheim (settled by Germans), and Viking (settled by Norwegians) just to highlight a few. Other groups like the Chinese and Japanese settled in enclaves due to the fact that they were excluded from from contact with the mainstream white communities.

 

[Stretch]

the govs of various countries, australia included, dont really have a say on how many people they let in. its about depopulating certain "explosive" areas on the planet at the request of the un.....it also has the effect of diluting patriotism in selected countries.......

we're under the misconception that governments (poli = many tics = blood sucking parasites) actually govern a country and that they only have our best interests at heart.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!!!
till we wake up and accept that fact, and we best wake up phucking soon, nothing will change.
we have a choice.....we can get off of our collective arses and say "Im not gunna take it any more" which will mean expence, pain, and possible death to you and yours...........or you can stick to the old adage "i'm only one person, what can I do", and place your head back in the sand............. wot ya gunna do?

 

[Liberalman]

As long as you have abortion you need immigration.

A couple of weeks ago an important statistic came out where the percentage of old people equalled the percentage of young people.

This means that there is not going to be enough people to take care of the old and the faster older people leaves their jobs less people will be there to fill them.

I heard on the radio this morning that euthanasia is being discussed if it is made legal it is only a matter of time before doctors will be killing the elderly just to make room for new people coming in.

Canada needs immigration to survive or it has to make abortions illegal.
.
.

 

[Tonington]

I heard on the radio this morning that euthanasia is being discussed if it is made legal it is only a matter of time before doctors will be killing the elderly just to make room for new people coming in.

That is such unmitigated bull sh*t. Do you actually believe that?

 

[damngrumpy]

Oh what a load of crap, old people are not going to be killed to make room for young people, and abortion has nothing to do with
immigration.. These are social issues fought over by various groups and will be long after I am dead and gone. Look at the
real issues here. We need immigration, but we need a real policy. We are bowing to pressure from the UN and other groups
instead of doing what is best for Canada. We need people who can fill positions that contribute to the nation. We should not
have Doctors who are taxi drivers, because the Medical Association dictates all things medical. We should not have qualified
lawyers, driving cabs because of artificial quotas. We have skilled trades people who can't come here yet they would fit into
our society and work and play next to their neighbours. Instead we are bringing in more and more people with suspect skills.
There are business people who get to come here by buying their way into this country. We have people who can barely
support themselves given entry and then they allowed to apply to bring their relatives here, and live off the social services we
Canadians paid for in the first place without contributing their full fair share. I am not talking about welfare. I am talking about
pensions and medicare, and senior citizen homes and so on.
At the risk of raising the Erie of some I also question bringing in some people who by religion or customs do not fit into a
real democratic society as they do not share the value system the rest of us do. We must be careful to ensure the people
we are admitting are contributors and not a drain on this country. You don't have to be rich, but you should at least know
enough to be able to survive and thrive. You should be able to understand that while you don't like some things, others do
and in a democracy the will of the majority prevails while we respect the view of the minority, but the entire country should
not be in a position where the tail wags the dog as it were. This country needs a full and frank debate about immigration and its
future in this country.

 

[TenPenny]

As long as you have abortion you need immigration.

Feel free to go buy a brain some time.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

How is this any different than the manner that Canada was populated? There were enclaves everywhere. That's what people do. Acadians, Scottish, Irish, English, French, Germans, Ukrainians, Polish, Norwegian, etc.

The only thing that's changing is that we have a larger pool of emigrating nationalities, instead of just Europeans.

Why should it be desirable that immigrants are expected to avoid forming communities? That's how this nation has grown. And as far as economic statistics go, immigrants earn as much as native-born Canadians.

What century you're in matters. Canada had enclaves during the 19th century because the country had just begun, transportation and communication was limited, and the Canadian identity was weak. New provinces were being made in the 20th century and the sorting out process, that is, takes time. Not too long ago our British/English identity prevailed, now it doesn't. In those days, these groups got zero dollars from the govt to maintain their culture.

When immigrants talk of "my community" and they don't mean Canada, I see something of a problem. For the govt to spend thousands of dollars helping immigrants maintain their old language, it's a waste of my tax dollars. Spend your own money, no problem. These people are Canadians because they have grown up in Canada, yet have a feeling they are different. Richard Gwyn wrote in NATIONALISM WITHOUT WALLS, that multiculturalism made ethnic Ukrainians in Canada think they are the real Ukrainians, even more so than the ones in the Ukraine page (196-200). Same for Italians he writes. This is false, because the real Italians and Ukrainians are in Europe, not here. These people are untouched by their old homelands. What happens is that they become disaffected and clients of the federal govt and very good at lobbying it. Gwyn also writes that very few Canadians lobbied for multiculturalism in the late 1960s, it was a top down idea.

I'm not forcing anyone to become Canadian, they do that just by living here, but I really can't see the point in paying taxes to them so they can maintain false differences and lay the groundwork for potential conflict in the country based on race or religion.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I have seen a number of references to the UN in this thread. So far as I know (and I would be happy for someone to show me that I am wrong) the UN is not involved in promoting immigration from developing nations to the more developed. I expect that what is being referred to is the international agreement regarding the treatment of refugees, which is a bit of a separate issue from immigration. Certainly, there is little evidence that Canada has been influenced by the UN to open its borders to non-refugees. What the UN probably would like is for people to be able to live comfortably in the nations of their birth, which ironically, is what most people would prefer to do anyway.

It would be most interesting to see what would happen if all immigration was stopped and the developed world was deprived of its source of cheap labour. It might be a real disaster if the developed world was forced to give the lowest paid workers a decent living wage in order to have them carry out all of the undesirable jobs.

 

[damngrumpy]

The United Nations is always begging countries to take large numbers of refugees.
The UN is always in the background diplomatically, they want first world nations to
take those without skills. I understand the world is always changing, however it is
up to every country to uphold its traditions and laws, and we in Canada have done
a terrible job. Again, I believe we must be selective as to who we are letting in to
be part of the Canadian family. Those who don't fit in should not be admitted here
under any circumstances. No I am not referring to those of color or those of other
faiths, in particular. Those who would do this country harm should not be admitted
though. And I do believe that when we are at war, as we are in the Middle East, we
must question, the immigration of those who could be in conflict with our goals.
The time is coming when the immigration of people posing as refugees will come
to an end and that can't happen to soon. Those who come without papers and
without going through official channels should be removed from this country within
twenty four hours of arriving here, from whatever nation or port.

 

[Tonington]

What century you're in matters.

We're only ten years removed from the twentieth century. There were and still are, plenty of those enclaves.

Canada had enclaves during the 19th century because the country had just begun, transportation and communication was limited, and the Canadian identity was weak.

No. Canada had enclaves because immigrants settled into communities. That is what most people do when they are in a new unfamiliar place. They form social bonds with people who share a common language, or culture. Exchange students today, form groups.

New provinces were being made in the 20th century and the sorting out process, that is, takes time.

And in time the children produced in the enclaves will move out into Canada as all other fledgling Canadians. Some will stay. What is wrong with that?

When immigrants talk of "my community" and they don't mean Canada, I see something of a problem.

I'm born and raised in Canada. Multiple generations on both sides of my family. When I talk about my community, I don't mean Canada...Canada is my country, not my community. The issues and culture in my community are not the same as they are in yours.

I'm not forcing anyone to become Canadian, they do that just by living here, but I really can't see the point in paying taxes to them so they can maintain false differences and lay the groundwork for potential conflict in the country based on race or religion.

Because leaving them to their own methods creates greater opportunities for conflict? Besides which, as so many people ignore, immigrants quickly cover the economic gap, and are then contributing taxes that you benefit from.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Immigrants no longer earn more than native born Canadians. I doubt they're over qualified though. Which is because they come now from third world countries and their qualifications aren't great. Would you hire an engineer from India after the debacle with the Commonwealth Games in clear memory? Or skilled construction workers?
Immigrants overqualified, earn less - The Globe and Mail
Immigrants overqualified, earn less

Tavia Grant

Globe and Mail Update

Published Monday, Nov. 23, 2009 10:46AM EST

Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009 7:50AM EST

We're only ten years removed from the twentieth century. There were and still are, plenty of those
enclaves.

No. Canada had enclaves because immigrants settled into communities. That is what most people do when they are in a new unfamiliar place. They form social bonds with people who share a common language, or culture. Exchange students today, form groups.

And in time the children produced in the enclaves will move out into Canada as all other fledgling Canadians. Some will stay. What is wrong with that?

I'm born and raised in Canada. Multiple generations on both sides of my family. When I talk about my community, I don't mean Canada...Canada is my country, not my community. The issues and culture in my community are not the same as they are in yours.

Because leaving them to their own methods creates greater opportunities for conflict? Besides which, as so many people ignore, immigrants quickly cover the economic gap, and are then contributing taxes that you benefit from.

----------------------------
Canada had enclaves like in the Maritimes where villagers spoke Gaelic, especially on Cape Breton Island. Kind of neat too. Now they produce don't speak Gaelic, they've become Canadianized and produce Celtic music, fine with me.

The national issues are the same across the country. I remember Joe Clark talking about Canada as "a community of communities." Here's a westerner that most people thought came from Ontario. It's just so fake. Tories pander to ethnic communities like Ukrainians because that has become their base. This stagnant support of dated diasporas is not good for Canadian politics. This is not growth and one reason why the Tories will never get a majority.

 

[Machjo]

The numbers are important. Size matters.

We have 250 ethnic enclaved in Canada, down from 30 in 1970. An eclave is where over 30% of an area is of one ethnic group. This is a shocking increase.

It is not good because it allows immigrants to stay in "their own community" and this are communities where Canada is not number one in their mind. Immigrants are integrating less and less.

One reason these enclaves exists in the first place is their inability to speak the local language. Obviously a Chinese who does not know English or French is sure to settle in Vancouver's Chinese-populated areas and stay there. If we require all of them to have a decent mastery of English, while there is the possibility that some of them will choose to live together anyway, at least they'll integrate.

President Eisenhower in the United States warned Americans of the military industrial complex.

Nowadays, we could really use a leader to warn us of the immigration industrial complex. Multiculturalism, which receives propaganda support from the media and government, is institutionalized theft of the tax payers' money. Patronage is so common in our political society and most of these contracts, which provide housing, education and healthcare to refugees, are awarding billions to friends of parliament and the various governmental agencies in our country.

Immigration policy and cultural policy are unrelated matters. If you require all immigrants to meet minimum language competence skills (which we are not doing right now), then those imigrants will be in a position to learn our culture easily enough and so integrate appropriately. The problem comes when they don't know the local language, resulting in a certian ghettoization.

Just to take an example to show how immiration policy and cultural policy are unrelated matters, compare the British or French immigrant on the one hand, and the Inuit who does not know English or French on the other. According to Statistics Canada, about 15% of the population of Nunavut knows neither English nor French. While this statistic never specified the origin of that 15%, I highly doubt that Nunavut is experiencing an immigration boom right now.

But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that boom.

What century you're in matters. Canada had enclaves during the 19th century because the country had just begun, transportation and communication was limited, and the Canadian identity was weak. New provinces were being made in the 20th century and the sorting out process, that is, takes time. Not too long ago our British/English identity prevailed, now it doesn't. In those days, these groups got zero dollars from the govt to maintain their culture.

When immigrants talk of "my community" and they don't mean Canada, I see something of a problem. For the govt to spend thousands of dollars helping immigrants maintain their old language, it's a waste of my tax dollars. Spend your own money, no problem. These people are Canadians because they have grown up in Canada, yet have a feeling they are different. Richard Gwyn wrote in NATIONALISM WITHOUT WALLS, that multiculturalism made ethnic Ukrainians in Canada think they are the real Ukrainians, even more so than the ones in the Ukraine page (196-200). Same for Italians he writes. This is false, because the real Italians and Ukrainians are in Europe, not here. These people are untouched by their old homelands. What happens is that they become disaffected and clients of the federal govt and very good at lobbying it. Gwyn also writes that very few Canadians lobbied for multiculturalism in the late 1960s, it was a top down idea.

I'm not forcing anyone to become Canadian, they do that just by living here, but I really can't see the point in paying taxes to them so they can maintain false differences and lay the groundwork for potential conflict in the country based on race or religion.

Now this is a separate issue, unrelated to immigration. Again, we're confounding immigration policy with cultural policy. On this front, I absolutely agree with you that we need to cut government funding to multiculturalism.

But again, this is an unrelated matter.

The United Nations is always begging countries to take large numbers of refugees.
The UN is always in the background diplomatically, they want first world nations to
take those without skills. I understand the world is always changing, however it is
up to every country to uphold its traditions and laws, and we in Canada have done
a terrible job. Again, I believe we must be selective as to who we are letting in to
be part of the Canadian family. Those who don't fit in should not be admitted here
under any circumstances. No I am not referring to those of color or those of other
faiths, in particular. Those who would do this country harm should not be admitted
though. And I do believe that when we are at war, as we are in the Middle East, we
must question, the immigration of those who could be in conflict with our goals.
The time is coming when the immigration of people posing as refugees will come
to an end and that can't happen to soon. Those who come without papers and
without going through official channels should be removed from this country within
twenty four hours of arriving here, from whatever nation or port.

While I don't have an issue with accepting genuine refugee claimants, I think we need to ensue that they really are legitimate refugees as per the most stringent definition in international law. Beyond that, anyone coming to Canada ought to meet the minimal standards required.

As for helping other countries, I believe it would be preferable, rather than give money to poorer countries, to simply open our borders to trade with them, and establish labour-movement agreements with them allowing for the free movement of labour. I'm not a die-hard capitalist by any means, but I do see certain capitalistic and free-market ideas as being beneficial to the development of these countries. by the way, this is often a contentious issue even among socialists, whereby many Canadian socialsits want more trade barriers, whereas socialists in poorer countries want to tear them down. I guess to some degree, poverty brings people back down to basics rather than losing themselves in piein-the-sky theories.

Immigrants no longer earn more than native born Canadians. I doubt they're over qualified though. Which is because they come now from third world countries and their qualifications aren't great. Would you hire an engineer from India after the debacle with the Commonwealth Games in clear memory? Or skilled construction workers?

Well, you could use the same argument with the George Bush fiasco. Would you hire a Harvard graduate as a grammar teacher when they come out talking like this:

"Rarely is the question asked:Is our children learning?"

"As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

So this is by no means a stereotypical 'third world' vs. 'first world' issue.