Reduce the welfare state, not immigration
This week, the Fraser Institute released a major study on immigration in Canada. It tracks the income earned, taxes paid and public benefits received by new Canadians since 1987. Contrary to popular belief, the authors conclude, immigrants no longer represent a net economic gain: “The low average incomes of immigrants, combined with the provisions of our welfare state, have reduced the average per-capita incomes of [all] Canadians.” A summary of the calculations contained in the study appears in an op-ed published elsewhere on these pages by Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Herbert Grubel. The annual fiscal burden of immigration, he argues, comes to about $25-billion.
To remedy this problem, the study authors propose that we replace the current immigration system with one that would issue temporary renewable two-year work visas, under strict conditions, to persons who found employment in Canada. After four years of continued employment, a worker would qualify for a permanent immigrant visa, and two years later, would be eligible to apply for citizenship.
The study also proposes to eliminate the family class of immigrants — a group that consists in large part of parents and grandparents with scant language or job skills. Under the new rules, only spouses and dependents could immigrate; as an exception, the study proposes that parents and grandparents might be sponsored through an annuity program funded by their younger relatives. The argument here is that older, unemployed immigrants use our health-care system, but don’t pay the taxes that fund it.
Mr. Grubel and his co-author, Patrick Grady, are to be lauded for embarking on this comprehensive effort to catalogue the economic effects of immigration. But their focus on the direct fiscal costs and benefits is too limited to serve, by itself, as a basis for creating public policy. Looking beyond dollars and cents, Canadian governments should encourage, where possible, the integrity and cohesiveness of families, whether they be immigrant or native-born — even if not everyone in the family earns wages and pays taxes.
What of the many people born in Canada who never pay any taxes, yet use our health-care system? By the logic at play in the Fraser study, a stay-at-home mother or elderly married woman who was born in Canada but never worked outside the home should also be regarded as a drain on our economy. In fact, if state benefits were tied to income taxes, 40% of Canadians would not receive them, because they don’t pay any. Yet these Canadians generally contribute to society in other ways — by raising children, doing unpaid work inside households, or as future taxpayers.
Many native-born Canadians wonder how it is that new immigrants can work 16-hour shifts at a convenience store or balance multiple full-time jobs, even though they have small children. The answer, in many cases, is the caregiving grandmother or grandfather living at home — the very folks who immigration hawks ask us to regard as an economic nullity.
As any visit to an urban Canadian hospital, child-care facility or old-age home will attest, Canada needs immigrants to fill many of the jobs that native-born Canadians can’t or won’t do. And many of our most economically vibrant communities — such as Toronto’s northern suburbs — are full of immigrant entrepreneurs. Much of our nation’s future economic progress depends on them.
National Post editorial board: Reduce the welfare state, not immigration | Full Comment | National Post
This week, the Fraser Institute released a major study on immigration in Canada. It tracks the income earned, taxes paid and public benefits received by new Canadians since 1987. Contrary to popular belief, the authors conclude, immigrants no longer represent a net economic gain: “The low average incomes of immigrants, combined with the provisions of our welfare state, have reduced the average per-capita incomes of [all] Canadians.” A summary of the calculations contained in the study appears in an op-ed published elsewhere on these pages by Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Herbert Grubel. The annual fiscal burden of immigration, he argues, comes to about $25-billion.
To remedy this problem, the study authors propose that we replace the current immigration system with one that would issue temporary renewable two-year work visas, under strict conditions, to persons who found employment in Canada. After four years of continued employment, a worker would qualify for a permanent immigrant visa, and two years later, would be eligible to apply for citizenship.
The study also proposes to eliminate the family class of immigrants — a group that consists in large part of parents and grandparents with scant language or job skills. Under the new rules, only spouses and dependents could immigrate; as an exception, the study proposes that parents and grandparents might be sponsored through an annuity program funded by their younger relatives. The argument here is that older, unemployed immigrants use our health-care system, but don’t pay the taxes that fund it.
Mr. Grubel and his co-author, Patrick Grady, are to be lauded for embarking on this comprehensive effort to catalogue the economic effects of immigration. But their focus on the direct fiscal costs and benefits is too limited to serve, by itself, as a basis for creating public policy. Looking beyond dollars and cents, Canadian governments should encourage, where possible, the integrity and cohesiveness of families, whether they be immigrant or native-born — even if not everyone in the family earns wages and pays taxes.
What of the many people born in Canada who never pay any taxes, yet use our health-care system? By the logic at play in the Fraser study, a stay-at-home mother or elderly married woman who was born in Canada but never worked outside the home should also be regarded as a drain on our economy. In fact, if state benefits were tied to income taxes, 40% of Canadians would not receive them, because they don’t pay any. Yet these Canadians generally contribute to society in other ways — by raising children, doing unpaid work inside households, or as future taxpayers.
Many native-born Canadians wonder how it is that new immigrants can work 16-hour shifts at a convenience store or balance multiple full-time jobs, even though they have small children. The answer, in many cases, is the caregiving grandmother or grandfather living at home — the very folks who immigration hawks ask us to regard as an economic nullity.
As any visit to an urban Canadian hospital, child-care facility or old-age home will attest, Canada needs immigrants to fill many of the jobs that native-born Canadians can’t or won’t do. And many of our most economically vibrant communities — such as Toronto’s northern suburbs — are full of immigrant entrepreneurs. Much of our nation’s future economic progress depends on them.
National Post editorial board: Reduce the welfare state, not immigration | Full Comment | National Post
