Immigration debate

[TheNewSpudWebb]

Due to the fact that unemployment is twice as high among immigrants as born Canadians and underemployment among immigrants is much higher some Canadians say we should alter our immigration policy to accept only educated or skilled immigrants, at least for now. I think preference should always be given to skilled immigrants but im not comfortable with the idea of totally rejecting the unskilled. They deserve an opportunity for a better life to. What do you think?

 

[steveman525]

I think the same as you. even the unskilled deserve a better life.

 

[Kinnari23]

I agree to a point. A high unemployment level is bad for the economy, you can't simply take in everyone. Usually though the children of migrants do better - they get the same schooling as other citizens, grow up in the culture and have the same opportunities. So an intake of unskilled migrants is acceptable - just not too many.

One of the drawbacks of the first world is that there is less demand for unskilled labor, and good language skills are required for many jobs. Thirty or forty years ago a migrant with no english could still work on a construction site for example. You don't need any education to use a pick or shovel. Now it's a different story. Most jobs require some degree of training and/or education, and how do you explain OH/S rules to someone if you don't speak the language? It simply wouldn't be safe to employ a person who can't read warning signs.

Bottom line, you do what's best for your country. Take as many as you can without being burdened.

 

[doodlesnicker]

From what i've seen you don't see many Chinese or Filipinos on welfare. Not many Vietnamese or Middle Easterners either. However you do see Samali refugees and caribs on public assistance. Some Indians to, when their sponsor stops paying the bills.
If that sounds racist sorry, its just my personal observations.
The whole skilled vs unskilled argument would apply to refugees to which makes it an even more difficult an issue.

 

[young_buck_gurl]

A certain amount of migration is healthy, unskilled labor is essential to fill a void in certain industries. On the flip side there are some skilled labor that can be imported to fill voids in other areas. I think a lottery based on demographics that are preset for people of different levels of skill and education could solve the issue. That way a country can manage the influx of population and not be accused of profiling the applicants.

 

[TrippMe]

I know a Filipina girl, college graduate, it took her 5 years to get to Canada. Someone from India or Pakistan gets here sooner because their Commonwealth nations. I think the Commonwealth is obsolete, a relic from a bygone era but it is what it is and it influenes immigration policy.
We have Iranians, Afghans, Sri Lankans, Samalis claiming refugee status. Many of the Iranians are educated professionals. Theres an affluent Persian community in Vancouver, they leave Iran because they dont like living under Sharia. But most other refugees are not as educated and careful screening is required to ensure they have no connection to Al Qeda or the Tamil Tigers.
Our Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney is fair, some say too fair when it comes to refugees. Thats a whole nother debate.

 

[wazuupster]

No question, it's not cut and dry when it comes to immigration. Very complicated and with the threat of terrorism the screening process must be vigorous, no doubt Minister Kenney has his hands full. He deserves a lot of credit for taking on that job.

 

[CARLOSO]

I believe that any immigrant to any country should mandatorily learn the language, take a history class, prove that they have sufficient funds to maintain themselves and families for a certain amount of time, and have some usable skill. They should also not have any communicable diseases or disabilities. I also believe in a very narrow window for 'humanitarian' immigration cases.

If you are going to move to a new country, integrate yourself, don't pledge allegiance to a foreign flag or leader. Don't denigrate the religion or lifestyle of the nation you move to while you take advantage of all the benefits your new nation has to offer. If you're going to move to Canada, the US, Australia or Pakistan, become a functioning member of that society, don't be a Mexican or Pakistani or an American in a new country and insist THAT country changes to your way of thinking!

 

[FemaleTalking]

I think countries should accept immigrants with the intention of making them citizens.

So applicable skills, working knowledge of the language, and the intention to be put on a path towards citizenship should all be factors.

I'm American and a child of Taiwanese immigrants. I don't see any value in not learning the language it just creates a whole host of problems that IMO make it hard to understand why you would want to move somewhere if you can't at least learn the national language. America has no "official" language but we all know the de facto language is English. At my work I deal with a lot of immigrants of all ethnics and trust me an understanding of a common language would be unbelievably helpful.

I think having an immigration policy emphasizing a pathway towards citizenship is most important. I don't want to see people work or school here and then leave. We and every country has finite resources. Those should be reserved for our citizens. Now if immigrants want to be citizens here I have no problem with that but if they are going to go back to their country of origin I'd rather we reserve jobs and vacancies at schools for citizens. We've got plenty of unemployment and education gaps.

Now don't get me wrong I don't think skewing the immigration policy in my direction will magically lower unemployment and under education but it would be an ingredient for helping to drop those stats.

 

[SofiyaL]

I've developed the perfect response for racists (and being against immigration is racist). Some chap was giving it the standard 'bloody pakis, coming over here, taking our jobs' schtick. So I smile nicely and say "Oh, you're a doctor are you?"

Oh, so your discrimination is based on economics? Nice going. Not that I believe it for a moment, but it's still racism.

 

[ms827wins]

There is a proposal for an incentive to hire immigrants who have been in Ontario for less than 5 years - a $10,000 tax break.
http://www.migrationexpert.com/canada/visa/canadian_immigration_news/2011/sep/0/776/tax_incentive_proposed_to_hire_new_canadian_immigrants_in_ontario

I know Ottawa has been growing by leaps and bounds from immigration - might be nice if there was a way to help get jobs for immigrants. Might be nice to hire Canadian citizens as well...

 

[JUMPMAN1000]

So you feel we should have open borders?

 

[chinhn]

[No message]

 

[jonboy]

Not entirely open, I think we have a right to restrict criminal activity, but otherwise, yes.

Obewan- whatever. No amount of silly pictures can change this fact- the idea that the rights and priviledges of your country should be restricted to your race or national group is, by definition, racism.

 

[pdevans1963@rogersecom]

In principle I agree with you, I like the idea of freedom of movement and don't believe being born somewhere gives you automatic entitlements ("british jobs" for example) but I do see merit in the arguement that countries have finite resources.


Agree except for the bit in bold. There was a thign on facebook a while back that let you take the test immigrants applying for British Citizenship needed to pass and the historic questions were things I'd never heard of. There's a sizeable chunk of most indignous populations that don't know they're own history so why should an immigrant? For example if I applied for US citizenship what part of US history would be absolutely vital knowledge without which I would be completely incapable of being a good citizen?

 

[Shebdude101]

The unemployement rate is higher in the US than Canada so it must be really rough for immigrants there.

 

[FrDougalMcGuire]

Would you agree that the influx to English speaking first-world countries would be impossible if borders were 100% open? How many people would you expect in the first few years?

New schools required for young population, new houses, new jobs and changes to the mass transport network. UK being the worst off due to current population density.

Within the UK you might point towards the general brain-drain to the southeast and claim there is lots of room up north - but immigration won't focus on these areas...

Now I generally support immigration as beneficial within certain caveats, but FREE borders are just not possible. There are waaaay more people who would wish to enter than a country can deal with. Remember that Japan bankrupted itself with the bullet train and HS2 is pitched in the billions, infrastructure is not cheap and it is not quick - and quick infrastructure is what you need when adding a few million people in a decade.

 

[sarahh]

Nah, they'll stop wanting to come here if it gets that bad.

 

[dboi2130]

So we should ruin our society just to help people who didn't see the need to be productive in their own country?

 

[JuggaloSoldier]

Hahaha you like to think you believe in free markets. But labour is a market, and that's one that you insist on controlling. Besides which, it would never get that bad. The idea that the whole world is just itching to break into the west is something of a myth. It's actually a pretty small percentage of the world population that wants to emigrate.
Also, little phrases like 'their own country' reveal how you really think. All rightwingers are latent racists.