Some Canadians are having second thoughts about their traditionally liberal immigration policy. But many still support it

As a resident of Toronto with a long family history in Canada (all four grandparents born here, which is not common) I fully support a liberal immigration policy. Restricting immigration is the opposite of what we should be doing following an up-tick in unemployment, since immigrants are more than their fair share of entrepreneurs and thus job creators. We have the capacity to grow, if only governments could agree to fund infrastructure improvements. I do sometimes wonder if Canada is unfairly prospering at the expense of the countries who lose such bright stars, but that is a complex line of inquiry because of immigrant communities' remittances and nascent global networks.

The positive social litmus test of whether this is sustainable is inter-community marriage rates, which are among the highest in the world. I despair, however, of our politics; the majority are old white men, Calgary's new Muslim mayor notwithstanding.

Interesting in that just this day the Federal Court decided to deport...well...

"He served until July, when he fled to South Africa. He applied for refugee status in Canada and was granted permanent residence in 2003, but two years later Ottawa began trying to deport him under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Quebec+complicit+genocide/398454...

Canada has pretty much admitted its refugee system is out of control.

The issue is the usual one of who can score the points with the home crowd AND the new voters...which is increasingly the province of the Conservatives. The Liberal Party has found itself increasingly adrift, and this is one of many reasons, which is why the party gains no traction year 6 of a minority...also like the government.

Honestly, most Canadians only have problems with the missing 30 000 new Canadians (by default), and of course the queue jumping and smuggling thing...and don't forget the endless spending on ever more generous welcome gifts...for families that don't even live here even!!!

Change is coming one way or another. The pandering in Canada to special interest groups is about to become competitive sport for reduced dollars. More please...

A minor note: The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is hardly a non-partisan think tank. it is firmly in the conservative camp and extends the biases of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, and in particular, its founder Brian Lee Crowley, a neo-conservative.

Canada is not the second "biggest" country as your article refers. "Big" is associated with population where nations are concerned. Thus, the world's second biggest country would be India, not Canada. Canada is the world's second "larget" country, after Russia.

The Economist forgets to mention that Canadian Immigration levels have been hovering around 200,000 - 250,000 for almost quarter of a century. In % terms the number of immigrants have dropped in Canada over the past 20 years. I don't the government is going to decrease it or increase it.

When my grandfather and grandmother left the Ukraine 100 years ago, they left with the knowledge that because of the lack of money and the political situation in Russia, they would never see their parents, aunts/uncles or cousins ever again. They chose Canada and made a life here. They DID not bring every relative or in-law with them. With the economy being what it is these days in contrast to what it was and with air travel what it is, there is no reason for the so called family re unification program. It's nice for the families but it's a killer on our government coffers.

If there is or is going to be a backlash it is because of the growth in population unmatched with investment in infrastructure. The money is available but it is bled out of cities to finance rural pork projects. Immigration is mostly a federal area but the majority of immigrants go to cities, especially Toronto and Vancouver. Infrastructure, welfare, health care and education are provincial areas and are somewhat devolved to the city's budget. Population increases strains these areas the most. There is an obvious disconnect between policy and funding made worse by the gerrymandering of federal and provincial legislatures where rural ridings and less populated provinces have more ridings then their populations warrant. The result is very crowded and uncomfortable cities further agitated with suburbanites listening to anti-immigrant right wing talk radio (entertainment) during those long commutes.

Canada has an aging population. The ratio between the number of workers paying taxes and supporting the country to the number of non-workers is falling. The birth rate is also falling.

There is, therefore, no substitution for immigration if our public finances are to be restored to health.

Since the 1780's Canada has done very well from immigration, yet each successive wave of immigrants has faced barriers of prejudice. Nonetheless, wave after wave of immigrants has driven our economy forward. It is no different now.

----------

The current "Conservatives" like to fire up their base with hot button emotional issues - their idiotic pandering on gun control would top the list, closely followed by their "tough on crime" agenda that ignores the fact that the crime rate for all major crimes has fallen 40% in the last 20 years - and stoking up fear of, and prejudice against, immigrants fits their style entirely.

Yet do they have any intention of changing the basic policy that has served this country well for two centuries? No, despite all their pretending. Why? Because changing that policy would be economic disaster for Canada, and everybody in Parliament, on both sides of the House of Commons, knows it.

It's economically stupid, and it's intellectually dishonest, but that will not deter them in the least. They'd sell their grandmothers if they thought it would get them one seat closer to a majority. So let's pour more gasoline on the fires of hatred and prejudice.

Such is ethos of our ruling party.

I fear that the “smaller welcome mat” that you are referring to in an article published today perfectly reflects reality. I find this shocking. How can a country, which claims itself a “cultural mosaic”, restrict refugee entrees of 36%? This is an extremely high number. I understand how Canadian citizens and the government might be afraid of a potential abuse of the refugee system but don’t you think that those refugees would actually try to get in if they didn’t have a good reason too? A reason involving their own safety or the well-being of their relatives. I don’t think so. According to Citizen and Immigration Canada: “Refugees and people needing protection are people in or outside Canada who fear returning to their home country. In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and international obligations, Canada provides protection to thousands of people every year.” But why even affirm this when this is not the case? The humanitarian tradition that is mentioned is well on its decline since the new government of Stephen Harper was elected in 2006. And the most needy of protections are the ones on who visas were imposed. Sure, protection of our country is great but no major terrorist attack has happened in the past few years, and it is rather useless to protect ourselves from it by denying other human beings’ rights to good life conditions. Canada has always been seen as a hospitable country glad to welcome immigrants and refugees. And as much as it is beneficial for them, it is beneficial for our economy. Although the grand majority or your arguments made sense, I strongly disagree about the one concerning competition from immigrants. Why then give priority to the highly skilled workers instead of help the most needy first? Isn’t that contradictory? Plus, our population is aging and a labor shortage has been predicted to happen within the next few years and decades. If immigration policies restrict entrees now, we will have to deal with many more problems in the future. Immigration is a key factor to the well being of this society and a solution for labor shortage.

Alicia Angel-Despins
Québec City

Just so long as Americans are granted political asylum should Sarah Palin gain the Presidency...

@albertaclipper

'When my grandfather and grandmother left the Ukraine 100 years ago...'

Shocking, a ukrainian living in Alberta harbouring barely concealed racists tendencies.

Having grown up in the midst of Ukrainian Albertans I can assure readers out there that the notoriety of East European racism is alive and well in Alberta. Ironic though considering how badly Ukrainians were treated when they first arrived.

Albertaclipper, please remember that these 'damn' immigrants who are usually quite well educated and entrepreneurial will be paying your pension. Also remember that you did not pay a cent for their education. In most cases their families sacrificed to pay for that education, which you lot will be benefiting from. If they want to help their family to a better life then how can you deny them that?

When Harper and the reform party got into power the inevitable decline in Canada's reputation began. Sad.

Well, this is a rather selective bit of “journalism” . . . indeed, it’s more akin to lying-with-statistics than any sort of proper reporting. For example, the characterization of our immigration policy as becoming more restrictive is misleading at best, as a more difficult citizenship test (an assertion that’s in itself a bit of a joke) is an issue only for people who are ALREADY PERMANENT RESIDENTS – i.e., it has nothing whatever to do with gaining entry as an immigrant. Similarly, doubling the lump sum for the investor class restricts access only for those who cannot meet the minimum – i.e., while the investor stream is now limited to richer applicants, the total number admitted under this category REMAINS UNCHANGED. Moreover, people-traffickers ARE CRIMMIMALS whose activities fall outside of our regular immigration policy – i.e., locking them up is NOT an immigration issue, but a legal matter. And “cracking down on crooked immigration consultants” again HAS NOTHING TO DO with the flow of immigrants to Canada.
Next we have the declaration that “All this adds up to slight tinkering . . .” which reminds of devious phrases such as “I’m not saying he’s a crook, but . . .” The reality is that, contrary to what is suggested by your exceedingly narrow focus on extremist perspectives, NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE HAS CHANGED in our immigration policy that would suggest a reduced flow of immigrants. Indeed, you provide, and likely have, NO BASIS to declare that “Public opinion in Canada has been affected by the European backlash,” let alone to suggest a link between the two. It may well be, and probably is so, that “Conservative voters are twice as likely to believe Canada has too many immigrants . . .” but “conservative voters” represent LESS THAN ONE THIRD of all voters, so the immigration naysayers among them make up a very small minority indeed. And the parenthetical assertion that Canada has been free from terrorist attacks “in recent years,” is the squirmiest sort of “truth”, as we have NEVER BEEN A VICTIM OF TERRORISM THAT CAN BE LINKED TO IMMIGRATION. Seriously, the tripe spewed forth in this “article” smells very much like a regurgitation of the inflammatory rhetoric sprayed around by the two right-wing opinion-making lobbyist groups quoted within – shame on you.
While the Harper government is certainly not shy about pushing its ideological biases into policy, the changes to Canada’s immigration policy are, on their face, intended to REDUCE APPLICANT PROCESSING TIMES – they have had NO IMPACT on the total number of immigrants.

The story's headline is at odds with its contents. The welcome mat remains extraordinarily welcoming. Numbers have not been reduced. In fact, adding the number of temporary workers to the permanent residents accepted annually the numbers are increasing. The changes the Government is pursuing are, indeed, "tinkering". It is much what the previous Liberal governments did when they added control measures such as visitor visa requirements to deter bogus refugee claimants, tightened appeal provisions for permanent residents who had committed serious crimes and passed new legislation designed to streamline the refugee determination process. Control measures are essential if a government is to maintain a respected and accepted legal system; if illegals are accepted without impediments than what is the point of legal immigration. Just let in everyone who wants to come and dispense with the pretense of legality. Both Liberal and Conservative governments behave the same suggesting little difference in beliefs and acceptance of public support for immigration. It was Mulroney's Government that increased immigration to an annual 1% of population (rarely fully realized)regardless of the economic sitaution whereas the Liberal Government had tied annual intake more closely to economic need. It is hardly surprising that immigrant unemployment today is much higher than it was before the 1% came into effect. What neither party is willing to deal with are the immediate and long-term consequences of large scale immigration. A debate is much needed but unlikley to come.

As a Quebecer, I used to wonder why I should feel proud to belong to a multicultural country. After all, don't Quebecers already have their own culture? Couldn't our provincial neighbours get their own culture instead of borrowing that of the United States? Isn't multiculturalism the expression of a lack of identity or elitist social re-engineering.

Then I met a beautiful Mexican woman, had children with her and realized that no civilization will ever last. Nationality is like a leash on a dog. Nationality is a brand name. It eventually becomes obsolete - like Rome and the Aztec Empire.

But do I believe that all immigrants are qualified to live in Canada? Yes, so long as they work hard, don't collect welfare, don't engage in criminal activities and respect the middle class lifestyle.

The vast majority of Canadians have no problem with immigration, or indeed people of other cultures coming to Canada. What many Canadians have a problem with is immigrants that bring their ethnic and religious issues with them and trying to impose their values on Canadians....example pressing for Sharia Law....etc. I am a Conservative voter, as is my wife, a first generation immigrant from Latin America. I am also a active member of a multi-cultural and immigrant settlement society. Canada and Canadians are very accomodating but tolerance levels are being stretched by immigrants that don't want to change to become Canadians but work at trying to get Canada to reflect their former countries society.

Immigrants fill the need for skilled workers. They are a benefit to the economy.

It is true that a lot of people have taken advantage of the refugee entry program, which has created a nuisance for honest, educated and deserving candidates looking to immigrate to Canada. Canada needs to further limit the immigration through refugee program. Most of the refugees live off the government welfare and have problems integrating with the society.

Having said that, The foundations of North American Society was laid down by immigrants. In essence, Canada should look forward to attract more talent from across the world. These will be the people who will drive the country forward. They are energetic, enthusiastic and open-minded and have no problems integrating with the society.

If Canada could reform its immigration program in favor of the people who deserve to settle here, then it would achieve it's purpose of immigration reform.

What a load of cr*p! The author and The Economissed have done it again! A thoroughly misleading article full of falsehoods and one eighth truths. For example. Suffered no terrorist events? How about one of the largest in the world at the time 289 people in the Air India flight before it got to Ireland from Toronto by Sikh extremist bombers from the lower mainland of British Columbia. How about the Sikh editor in that area killed by his fellow immigrants who disagreed with his views. How about the Toronto 18 Muslims recently found guilty of terrorist activities? OH! You forgot those?

Immigration is supported by most Canadians, it is the queue jumping and false refugee claimants who are not wanted. The "family reunification" claims that are being abused. These are some of the issues that render some refugees unpopular. By the way, destitute economic refugees may be entrepreneurial, but have no capital to start a business. Uneducated refugees have little expertise that is sorely needed here. Such people just add to the welfare costs in a difficult economy.That is probably a revelation to the author apparently.

I think this article is blowing Canada's thoughts on scaling back on its liberal immigration policy out of proportion. It is natural for a country to question its policies, especially when people are concerned about the economic downturn. Immigrants have become the scapegoats in many countries, unjustly I might add. The only real surprise is thiat it is coming from Canada, which is very liberal. But these concerns are only concerns. Once the economy bounces back, what the Conservative minority says will have no bearing and Canada will go back to normal.

If you take enough people from the 3rd world and move them into a country, you get a ________ country.