It is widely believed that most immigrants support high immigration levels. Political parties in particular buy into this assumption, assuming that bringing in large numbers of newcomers will increase their support among ethnic voters. Research in the United States, however, suggests that this is a mistaken premise and that immigrants think immigration levels should be lowered.
A recent poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., found that 56% of Asian-American voters surveyed thought immigration levels in the United States were too high, 7% thought they were too low and 14% just right. Among Hispanic voters, the results were not that different, i.e. 57%, 5% and 18% respectively.
It is true that some newcomers do not want immigration levels reduced -particularly those who hope to bring in large numbers of extended family members. For many immigrants already in the country, however, the arrival of a great many more in our larger cities means increased competition for the jobs they themselves are seeking.
There is no shortage of data, moreover, showing that immigrants who arrived in recent decades have been much less successful economically than those who came before 1980. Their earnings have been much lower and their poverty rates significantly higher, with estimates that the benefits they receive over what they pay in taxes is in the order of tens of billions of dollars every year.
While research suggests that a number of factors have contributed to their weak economic performance, one of them is almost certainly that we are bringing in far more people than we need and can successfully integrate into the economy. This is particularly the case during a recession -- as was demonstrated during the economic downturn in the early 1990s, when new immigrants fared particularly badly on the job market and never really recovered after the skills they brought with them became dated before they could find suitable employment.
Why then do political parties persist in maintaining such high immigration levels if they are so costly to Canadians in general and not even popular among most immigrants?
Because those who claim to represent newcomers often have agendas of their own that differ significantly from the interests of those whom they are supposedly serving. Most notable are organizations that purport to represent ethnic communities but that don't reflect the concerns of the latter.
Chief among these are groups that receive government funding to assist in the settlement of newcomers and provide such services as English language training. Were immigration intake to decline, their level of public funding would decline accordingly. Such organizations also have a vested interest in the continuous growth of the ethnic communities they claim to represent since this will give them greater political clout.
An example of such divergent interests could be seen in the late 1990s when a report commissioned by the federal government recommended that newcomers have a working knowledge of English or French when they arrive in Canada since research showed clearly that such an ability was key to their successful integration. The proposal was successfully attacked by organizations that could stand to lose significant government funding if newcomers arrived already proficient in English and French and did not require language classes after their arrival.
Interestingly, a poll was carried out in the Vancouver area at the time showed that not only 75% of Canadian born but 73% of immigrants themselves supported the report's recommendation that newcomers be competent in English or French when they arrived.
Surveys show far more Canadians want immigration levels lowered rather than increased. This is particularly the case in large cities such as Toronto where inhabitants are concerned about large-scale immigration for such reasons as stress on educational and health-care systems, cost to taxpayers, impact on the environment, effect on the employment market, difficulties with integration into the social fabric of Canada, etc.
Such concerns are largely ignored at election time in the expectation that most people born here do not care enough about the problems of immigration to make it a voting issue -- while immigrants do care about immigration policy and will vote for whatever party supports increased intake.
If the American survey results are any guide to the situation in Canada, the assumption that most newcomers support high intake is wrong and suggests that our political parties have been listening too closely to those who claim to represent immigrants rather than to the immigrants themselves.
- Martin Collacott is a former Canadian ambassador in Asia and the Middle East and lives in Vancouver.
Fraser Institute
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/Fraser_Forum_July_August_2008.pdfReassessing immigration policy
On June 4-5, 2008, the Fraser Institute hosted a conference in
Montreal which focused on reassessing the economic, demographic,
and social impact of immigration on Canada. Marking
the Institute’s new initiative in Quebec, all proceedings were
available through simultaneous translation in both French and
English.
Over 100 people attended the conference and heard the Hon.
Diane Finley, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
present a keynote address on the government’s legislative
initiatives aimed at dealing with the backlog of 900,000 applications
for immigration visas.
The conference had a distinctly international flavour. Experts
from France, Britain, and the United States gave papers that discussed
the state of immigration policies in those countries.
Similar to Canada, those countries face economic and social
problems that increasingly are coming to the attention of
politicians and the public. A fundamental point made by most
speakers at the conference was that these problems are not the
result of immigration per se, but of mass immigration, which
in recent years has reached levels that are unusually high by
historical and international standards.
Many of the speakers also agreed that the overriding objective
of immigration policies should be to serve the interests of
the people born in Canada or already residing here by increasing
their present and future average incomes. (The humanitarian
reception of refugees was treated as a separate issue.) The objective
of these policies should not be to serve “Canada’s interest,”
which is a vague and non-operational term that is used widely.
The papers presented at the conference showed that by these
standards, recent immigration policies in Britain, the United
States, and Canada have failed. This failure is mainly the result
of the existence of the welfare state and the low average earnings
of immigrants.
In welfare states, personal income taxes are highly progressive
and most social programs equally benefit all residents, including
immigrants. For this reason, recent immigrants receive
large net transfers paid for by the rest of the population. In
addition, immigrants benefit from many costly programs that
were designed specifically for their benefit.
The speakers also discussed the supposed benefits of mass
immigration, some of which are gained at costs that are not
widely appreciated. For example, they noted that immigrants fill
vacant jobs and this benefits employers. However, the speakers
suggested that this may actually depress the wages of Canadian
workers who are competing with the immigrants. As immigrants
compete with Canadians with low skills and wages, the poverty
rate among these Canadians would increase correspondingly
and the immigrants themselves may join the ranks of the “poor.”
In addition, the speakers argued that mass immigration leads
to the greater use of infrastructure facilities, like schools, hospitals,
roads, and municipal services, which often leads to overcrowding
and congestion. The construction of new facilities designed
to end overcrowding and congestion tends to use much
labour. As a result, the speakers argued, it is possible that mass
immigration increases rather than eliminates job vacancies.
Several speakers noted that, contrary to popular belief, immigration
cannot solve the problems caused by low fertility
rates and the pending increase in the dependency ratio, which
is defined as the number of recipients of pensions and health
care over the number of taxpayers. (At present, this ratio is 0.2
or 20 percent.)
A study presented at the conference showed that if Canada
were to keep this ratio at its present level by increasing the number
of tax-paying immigrants to pay for the fiscal transfers to
the growing number of recipients of pensions and health care, in
2050 Canada would have a population of 160 million and would
have to accept seven million immigrants in that year alone. This
result is due to the fact that immigrants also age and like aging
Canadians are entitled to public pensions and health care.
The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
speaks at the conference.
In Closing
The Institute holds second annual conference in Montreal
Reassessing immigration policy
36Fraser 36 Forum 07/08 36 www.fraserinstitute.org
A number of conference papers addressed non-economic
effects of mass immigration on the well-being of Canadians.
Mass immigration to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver has
resulted in the creation of enclaves in which immigrants can
live without having to learn French or English or adapt to Canadian
society. Yet immigrants with poor language skills have
poor employment and earnings prospects.
Some speakers discussed how the maintenance of native
cultures, institutions, and traditions has led to demands for the
modification of Canadian culture, institutions, and traditions.
These demands, they noted, do not sit well with many Canadians
who are proud of their heritage.
The ongoing debate regarding immigration policies that are
designed to raise the incomes and speed up the integration
of recent immigrants to Canada was not discussed at length.
However, there was broad agreement among the speakers that
such policies should be enacted in the name of fairness and in
order to reduce the negative impact on other Canadians.
At the final luncheon of the conference, politicians from the
three main parties of the Quebec legislature—Catherine Morissette,
Martin Lemay, and Minister Yolande James—spoke about
problems that have arisen in Quebec due to the public debate
over the “reasonable accommodation” of immigrants, which
was made prominent by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.
The ensuing discussion was lively and revealed the deep divisions
that exist in Quebec over this issue.
The policy recommendations that emerged from the conference
concerned improvements in the immigrant selection process.
The principle of any reform should be to distance the selection
process from political influences as much as possible. One
proposal was to create an independent agency that carries out the
will of Parliament but, much like the country’s courts and judges,
without interference from politicians in its daily operations.
Another proposal put forth by the conference speakers was to
replace the present selection system with one that would require
applicants to have an employment contract for work in Canada
in order to enter the country, and continuous employment for a
number of years to qualify for permanent resident status.
Under this proposal, politicians would determine eligibility
by setting minimum wages for employment contracts and setting
maximum annual rates of immigration based on the country’s
absorptive capacity. These criteria would be adjusted periodically
after proper consultation with experts and the public
through hearings. While this proposed system still leaves much
room for the introduction of political motives into the selection
of immigrants and the determination of their numbers, it
would be superior to the one used presently, which makes virtually
no use of signals sent by the private sector.
The adoption of the proposed changes in immigration policies
faces strong resistance from politicians and interest groups
that have a vested interest in current policies. For this reason,
the conference participants were quite pessimistic about the
likelihood that the proposed changes would be adopted.
However, the experience in Britain, as related by one participant,
suggested that there is room for some optimism. After
being provided with information concerning immigration issues,
the people there have begun to demand changes and have
attracted the attention of politicians. Given their demands, it
appears that the British public considers mass immigration one
of the most significant causes of Britain’s recent and growing
economic, social, and environmental problems.
The conference (and the planned publication of the proceedings)
was designed to make Canadians more aware of the effects
of mass immigration on their economic and social well-being.
Only time will tell whether this increased awareness will result in
political pressure for reform and change to government policies.
— Herbert Grubel
No comments:
Post a Comment