Is Canada's Immigration System Ideal?

[hobbsyoyo]

I ask because a segment of the Republican party wants to emulate it in the US.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything, but the way immigration into Canada works is based on points. You get points based on educational attainment, employment status and a few other things like language proficiency (someone fill in the details please).

According to random people on the internet, some of the net effects of this system is that wages on the lower end (service sector workers and laborers) are boosted because the country does not allow a lot of unskilled immigrants into the country. Wages on the upper end (professionals like engineers and doctors) are suppressed as highly qualified immigrants are allowed into the country.

Additionally, the system does not allow for (or at least is not generous) families to come over just because one member has successfully immigrated and established themselves.


The US system is based (IIRC) mostly on family ties. The Republicans have re-branded this as 'chain migration' to add to their repertoire of dog whistles. Claiming you want to end chain migration certainly is more palatable than saying you don't want immigrant families to come over. This effort to set up a points-based system could hurt employers in the service and labor-heavy industries while helping those in technology and medicine as wages will be depressed in those sectors. Given the rampant abuse of the H1-B program we already have, I'm not sure these tech employers really need the help.

So...what have I got wrong about these two different immigration systems? Which one is the better model to follow?

 

[Borachio]

Better for whom?

I must say I find quotas and point systems a little suspect. It's like: "OK boys let's pull some figures out of thin air".

And only accepting highly qualified immigrants just drains the country of origin of the brightest and best people that it needs the most.

Admittedly some of them will return all the better for the experience they gain.

And a lot contribute to their country of origin through remittances.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Better for the two countries. Or better in absolute terms, however people care to take measure of them.


I do not have any problems with one country being the recipient of a brain drain from another country.

Edit: But on the other hand, I don't support a system that is meant to only take brain drain immigrants either.

 

[Borachio]

You don't?

You have no problems with a poor country training its people up to a high standard only to have them poached by a richer country?

It's like a football league, isn't it? Where the poorer clubs have to continually search for local talent that they can sell on to richer clubs thereby ensuring they can never enjoy great success.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So I added this via an edit to avoid multi-posting-

But on the other hand, I don't support a system that is meant to only take brain drain immigrants either.

So I don't support a system that is set up to only take these kinds of immigrants. But, however, if one country is consistently pulling highly skilled people away from one country then I see that as a problem for the donor country to solve.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The United States became a power in part by taking in poor people from the "[stuff]hole countries" of their day. Some of the people who criticize today's illegal or quasi-legal immigrants like to say "My ancestors came here legally, why can't yours?" What those people don't realize, or perhaps just fail to mention, is that back then the US had the wide-open borders they're so afraid of now. There was no illegal immigration to the US until the late 19th Century, I think. Of course that was then and this is now, and it's always a question whether and how history is applicable to the present or the future, but worries about immigration in the US have always been tied up in bald-faced racism and religious intolerance. I don't know if Canada has to carry the same baggage. I'm not saying other countries don't have racism, but US policy needs to deal with US issues and history, not someone else's. I think any American trying to restrict or amend immigration policy in any way bears the burden of explaining, clearly and in detail, how their concerns and/or proposals are not racist or religious. Our starting point, our baseline, is always - and always has been - intolerance. Like it or not, our car drifts that way, so if you want to steer in the other direction, you need to pull harder on the wheel.

Also, obviously-wrong claims about immigrants just make me swerve the other way. I live in a city with a lot of Haitians, in a neighborhood with a lot of Dominicans, my landlord is from East Africa, and my ancestors came from Ireland and Russia in the early 19th Century. So, please Mr. President, tell me more about "[stuff]hole countries" and how Mexicans are all rapists and drug-dealers while I watch a Guillermo Del Toro movie and eat some chicken with mole sauce.

 

[Lexicus]

What those people don't realize, or perhaps just fail to mention, is that back then the US had the wide-open borders they're so afraid of now. There was no illegal immigration to the US until the late 19th Century, I think.

Not quite. From le wiki:

Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".

Then you have the 1802 naturalization law.

• The "free white" requirement remained in place
• The alien had to declare, at least three years in advance, his intent to become a U.S. citizen.
• The previous 14-year residency requirement was reduced to 5 years.
• Resident children of naturalized citizens were to be considered citizens
• Children born abroad of US citizens were to be considered citizens
• Former British soldiers during the "late war" were barred unless the state legislature made an exception for them

You can notice the pattern here, I assume. We had de facto open borders...for sufficiently "respectable" white people. Though of course, as the nature of the country's economic needs changed (moved from an agrarian economy of notionally self-sufficient households to an industrial capitalist economy) the "respectability" bit became less important than a strong back and working limbs.

I don't know if Canada has to carry the same baggage. I'm not saying other countries don't have racism, but US policy needs to deal with US issues and history, not someone else's.

Canada's immigration system also has a history of vicious racism. Among the most shameful episodes are the Kogamata Maru incident (a boat full of people of South Asian descent was turned away from Canada for no other reason than racism) and the MS St Louis, which carried around 900 Jewish refugees who were denied entry into Cuba, the US, and then Canada before returning to European countries which were mostly occupied by the Germans bare months later. An estimated 25% of these refugees ended up murdered by the Nazis.

 

[warpus]

Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything, but the way immigration into Canada works is based on points. You get points based on educational attainment, employment status and a few other things like language proficiency (someone fill in the details please).

I can't confirm or deny, but I do know that it's pretty hard to immigrate to Canada. We seek out people with jobs and skills that we need in our economy, such as doctors. So if you're a Cambodian carpenter, you might have a hard time getting in.

According to random people on the internet, some of the net effects of this system is that wages on the lower end (service sector workers and laborers) are boosted because the country does not allow a lot of unskilled immigrants into the country.

It's true, we don't, but we do let a lot of foreign low-wage forkers into the country to do menial work, such as selling coffee at Tim Horton's. Companies have to n theory offer these jobs to Canadians first, before they are offered to TFW's but.. this is all pretty controversial right now and I'm not 100% on the details.

Additionally, the system does not allow for (or at least is not generous) families to come over just because one member has successfully immigrated and established themselves.

True, but we do have a problem with rich foreigners buying up properties here as an investment. So parents will send their kid here, buy him/her a house or apartment, and anchor some of their wealth in this country, so that when their country goes to crap (or the family has to leave or whatever) they have a bit of a nest here in Canada. A lot of people also do this without any kids involved at all, they'll just buy up a property in Vancouver as an investment, and it will sit empty. It's been driving up housing prices and driving out Canadians from some cities from being able to own their own homes.

Canada is a country of immigrants and IIRC we see about 250,000 new immigrants each year. We don't border a poorer country though, so we can afford to be a lot more selective about who we let in and who we don't. It's a lot easier to control if the only land border you have is with the U.S. After Trump got elected a bunch of Haitians and others tried to cross the border into Canada, but IIRC we only admitted 5% of all those people crossing the border to find a new life. It's a completely different situation in the U.S. with a long border with Mexico and all

Our immigration system works for us, I think. The main problem that I see is that most immigrants want to live in Toronto (or Vancouver). Toronto has been growing very quickly and barely has the public transit infrastructure (or highway infrastructure) in place to deal with all the new people. My whole province is actually right now of a bit of a public transit spending spree, the governing liberal party is offering funding for cities to build Rapid Transit routes, which are now being constructed in most (all?) cities with a population over 350,000 or so. They are also planning on building a high speed rail line connecting Toronto to some nearby communities, along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, where 50% of all Canadians live IIRC. It's going to help, but housing prices in Toronto are through the roof and going up by the day.

When we arrived here in this city (of about 350,000 at the time, 450,000 now), I remember the city being mostly made up of white people. Some Italians here, Poles, Portugese, Greeks, German and British background, etc. The main driver recently in terms of foreigners settling here have been the 2 centres of higher learning in this city. A lot of foreign students have been moving here, and the city is definitely changing along with all those new arrivals. A lot of them move on after school, but some of them do stay. My part of town for instance is now basically Sushi central. There's like 15 different sushi places in this part of town. 10 years ago there were 0. There's also east asian grocery stores, bubble tea places, etc. I would attribute a lot of this to the new students, but also prices in Toronto being so high. Most new immigrants want to live there, but if you can't afford it, you go somewhere else. And my city is really chap to live in and is only 2 hours away from Toronto

 

[Ryika]

And only accepting highly qualified immigrants just drains the country of origin of the brightest and best people that it needs the most.

By that logic, would not the "ideal" immigration policy be one with no immigration at all? After all, even in the based case, by letting somebody migrate into your country, you're taking away a body that could have done valuable labor in his country of origin.

 

[Borachio]

That's certainly taking things to their logical conclusion.

But poor countries tend to have high unemployment rates (I think. I haven't actually looked it up.), so it's natural for migrants to seek work elsewhere because they're unemployed.

That doesn't apply to highly qualified individuals who can find work just about anywhere.

All I'm really saying is that brain drains make rich countries richer (because they're dipping into a cheap pool of qualified labour) and poor countries poorer (because their scant resources for training people are being exploited by the rich).

It was ever thus. To them that hath shall be given, and from them that hath not shall be taken away even that which they hath.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@EgonSprengler
I don't think it makes sense to argue with the effects of past immigration if you only focus on the effects it has today, but not at the time. The kind of immigration one receives does change things not just in 100 years but today, and not exclusively for the better. You remind me of radical free-market theorists. Not only the limited perspective, but one excusing everything with a never to be reached long-term. But as Keynes said: "On the long run, we are all dead."
Even if we look at the great successes of immigration to the US, to my mind, the USA is still more a warning sign than anything else. All the reasonable concerns about immigration I can see fully realized there, and never want to see realized where I live.

Btw I am a proponent of the Canadian system, add to that a humanitarian quota, and if that quota is not sufficient, i guess neither is just relocating to a better country.

 

[Lexicus]

All I'm really saying is that brain drains make rich countries richer (because they're dipping into a cheap pool of qualified labour) and poor countries poorer (because their scant resources for training people are being exploited by the rich).

But at the same time, it doesn't really seem fair or sensible to intervene to forbid people from migrating because they have some arbitrary level of skill. The USSR did generally forbid emigration on the basis that the state had invested in its citizens and it amounted to theft for those citizens to just take the state's investment and bring it to some other country (usually a capitalist enemy state no less). I really don't think we want to walk down that path.

 

[Borachio]

I don't disagree.

It's an unfortunate state of affairs, where those in least need of emigration can do so easily, while those who need it most cannot.

 

[Farm Boy]

But, however, if one country is consistently pulling highly skilled people away from one country then I see that as a problem for the donor country to solve.

How would you suggest they go about doing this? What tools are in the box?

Considering most big issues take place on smaller scales which possess most of the same features - let's look at this domestically: We're happy when kids from our poorest neighborhoods succeed. We're glad when they become doctors, and professors, and bankers, and businessmen. That's a success. But the big winners that come from those places, do they tend to stay there? Does sending the smartest and most driven 2% out of Ford Heights early in life to send home money that helps pay nearly minimum wage cops, is that a win for Ford Heights that can leveraged by the local governments and organizations of Ford Heights? It might be, but I could use help seeing it, I think.

 

[warpus]

All I'm really saying is that brain drains make rich countries richer

Oh we definitely want to improve our country. As long as we accept people to move here and become Canadians, we might as well pick the best people out of all the applicants.

Unfortunately that means that some countries will lose some highly trained and/or educated people. But that's out of our control. They are looking for a better life and Canada is usually not the only door they are knocking on.

 

[civvver]

[QUOTE="hobbsyoyo, post: 15002358, member: 231182"

According to random people on the internet, some of the net effects of this system is that wages on the lower end (service sector workers and laborers) are boosted because the country does not allow a lot of unskilled immigrants into the country. Wages on the upper end (professionals like engineers and doctors) are suppressed as highly qualified immigrants are allowed into the country.
[/QUOTE]

I think the wages on the lower end depends entirely on geography. For example in suburban south east Michigan I can't just go to home depot and hire some guys looking for work to finish my basement for $10 an hour. I'm not sure where you can do that at all actually but it's like a perpetuated tale that in southern california or arizona there's tons of manual labor available for cheap. In my area you'd hire a contractor, usually it's a licensed pro and really expensive, like the rates you pay match my professional salary. Of course they don't net the same in the end cus they're self employed and have costs but it's like $75-100 an hour to get a plumber or electrician to come out for a repair. The other option is guys doing side jobs for cash. These would probably be the equivalent of the cheap laborers except they still aren't that cheap. They usually work for a contractor during the week and will come do stuff like install an electrical panel half price on weekends. They still pocket tons of money.

So again it all depends on your area. There is no insanely cheap labor here.

As far as high end jobs again geography. There are tons of Indian and Asian immigrants here, mostly on work visas. Tons of doctors and IT pros. Silicon valley companies are also purportedly hiring many h1bs. Supposedly they will work for less and suppress wages of professionals. I don't know if I believe that. My belief is that not enough Americans are going into stem fields to meet the demand. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But Trump did say he wants to drastically cut down on h1bs.

I'm not sure what our immigration policy should be. I don't want general amnesty but the fact is we are a consumer economy, more people means more consumption which helps the economy, as long as there are enough jobs to go around. If we focus on full employment as rising wages as policy I think there would be plenty of jobs to go around. We also need more young people paying into medicare and social security.

So I guess my stance is as long as they are not criminals and are younger and healthy, let em in. I would probably tie the numbers to the overall unemployment rate or labor participation percentage.

 

[EgonSpengler]

@EgonSprengler
I don't think it makes sense to argue with the effects of past immigration if you only focus on the effects it has today, but not at the time. The kind of immigration one receives does change things not just in 100 years but today, and not exclusively for the better. You remind me of radical free-market theorists. Not only the limited perspective, but one excusing everything with a never to be reached long-term. But as Keynes said: "On the long run, we are all dead."
Even if we look at the great successes of immigration to the US, to my mind, the USA is still more a warning sign than anything else. All the reasonable concerns about immigration I can see fully realized there, and never want to see realized where I live.

Btw I am a proponent of the Canadian system, add to that a humanitarian quota, and if that quota is not sufficient, i guess neither is just relocating to a better country.

Well, I was looking at the whole 20th Century, not just today, but sure, short-term effects and long-term effects are both worth looking at. Claims about immigrants stealing jobs, imposing religious law, and committing acts of crime and terrorism are all assertions of short-term effects. I assume that stuff falls outside the realm of reasonable concerns, but I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. So what are the reasonable short-term concerns that you don't want to see where you live?

 

[Synobun]

Just a minor note on the OP, Canada also has "chain migration". My father was born in Canada (first generation) and his parents moved back to Belgium when he was a child. Then, when I was born, we moved back to Canada. My father and I had Canadian citizenship while my mother, half-brother, and half-sister didn't. They had to go through the citizenship process and that was made possible because of my father and I.

Canada has "strict" requirements (it's not that strict, at least if you're from a Commonwealth nation and the US) but this is mostly a consequence of the country's lack of infrastructure, IMO. We are a huge country but very little to show for it. The old incentive programs of encouraging immigrants to move to the midlands/Prairies don't work in a modern society and so most newcomers (and even locals) congregate in the already established cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

The US doesn't really have that problem and I'm not sure that it should emulate programs that are based on limited capability. America's had a pretty solid contribution ratio from immigration for a long while now and scaling that back doesn't seem to have any logical benefit unless you're only interested in brain drain and America First(tm) propaganda.

 

[warpus]

How many immigrants does the U.S. accept each year?

Would like to compare that number to the 250,000 or so we take in each year here in Canada.

 

[Synobun]

How many immigrants does the U.S. accept each year?

Would like to compare that number to the 250,000 or so we take in each year here in Canada.

According to Wikipedia, they take 1,000,000 immigrants a year. 600,000 of those are people who are already in the US but are switching to immigrant status. So that means about 400,000~ a year. It's not even twice as much as Canada.