Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Al Gore places infant son in rocket to escape dying planet | Main | Ron Paul on Washington's spending addiction »

Monday, August 04, 2008

Is Immigration a Problem?

Comments on my last post inspired me to take a brief look at common arguments against immigration.

The Economic Argument
Arguments against immigration on economic grounds basically boil down to “They took our jobs!”. Some feel that allowing people to freely cross borders will result in a flood of low-wage labor that will “steal” jobs from natural born citizens. Labor is a factor of production, just like raw materials or financial capital. Restricting the flow of capital and labor will always decrease economic prosperity. Access to more resources – human or otherwise – always increases wealth and opportunity. If this does not make sense to you, I recommend Frederic Bastiat’s “What is Seen and What is Unseen”, chapter 7, as well as his brilliantly satirical “Candle Maker's Petition

The Culture Argument
Others argue that immigration must be restricted in order to protect the nation’s unique cultural heritage. I submit to you that any culture which must be maintained by force is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one. Cultures freely arise because they provide benefits to those who participate in them. Cultures are always changing. Getting government in the business of protecting culture is dangerous and counter-productive. First, who gets to define what constitutes culture? Bureaucrats don’t have the best track record in such matters. Second, do we really want to live in a culture that is forced upon us by government prohibitions, restrictions and mandates? By the way, the same goes for language, which is part of culture. 

The Welfare Argument
Advocates of limited government sometimes argue against immigration on the grounds that immigrants make use of the welfare state and increase the cost of government. State-sponsored welfare programs are a problem. Stopping immigration because immigrants might use welfare programs treats one tiny symptom, not the disease itself. If you routinely dumped garbage on your front lawn and found raccoons frequenting your property, would you try to ban raccoons or would you clean the up the garbage? Though I think the vast majority of immigrants immigrate for jobs, freedom and opportunity, I’m sure some come and make use of government handouts. The handouts are an attractive nuisance and should be addressed on their own merits, not by attempting to ban the free movement of people.

The Safety Argument
Some argue that allowing easy immigration will bring bands of criminals into their country and make them less safe. First, if something is a crime it is already, by definition, illegal. Threats to life and property are already protected against via the existing police/military operations. Putting up a wall and stopping anyone from crossing it on the grounds that some of them may be criminals is ludicrous. By this logic, governments should perpetually engage in random home searches because they might discover criminal activity. Closed borders probably don’t stop criminals, but let’s pretend that they could; if we could keep foreign criminals out by keeping out anyone foreign, what would we gain? We’d have spent tons of resources keeping out foreigners, most of whom aren’t criminals, and we’d have that much less to use fighting domestic crime. Banning people from movement because some of them may be criminals is even dumber than banning gun ownership because some people use them for crime. Readers of a blog named “The Shotgun” should see the problem. 

The Right Argument
Freedom to immigrate can be defended from several angles, but I believe the most important argument is based on rights. Imagine you and I have pieces of property that share a border. You wish to traverse my property and I wish to let you, but lawmakers prohibit it. What business do they have dictating whether we can make decisions about our own property? Sure, they were democratically elected, but what business do others have of voting to determine how you and I peacefully use our property?

What if government issued a decree that business owners were prohibited from hiring anyone born on a Tuesday? It’s no different when they prohibit hiring anyone born in another country. Shouldn’t the business owner be free to hire whom he wishes? If an individual wishes to travel, work, buy, or sell peacefully and all other parties involved agree, why should government prohibit it?

When you think up other arguments against immigration, ask yourself why they should not also be applied to province to province immigration? City to city? Home to home?

At bottom I think much anti-immigration sentiment comes from a fear of people unlike us. I support anyone’s right to be prejudiced, or to associate only with those of like culture. But putting that attitude into public policy not only hampers wealth and progress, it violates my right to associate peacefully with whom I choose.

Posted by Isaac Morehouse on August 4, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553e9cb798834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Immigration a Problem?:

Comments

It depends where we get immigrants from. If they come from dhimmi and socialist Europe, we will likely get lazy welfare statists we don't want. If from India and China we know likely they will be hard workers. From Jamaica? Duck!

In any case, we have well over 7% unemployment in the Maritimes. We don't need to put our culture and national security in danger for the sake of greedy employers, especially in the oil patch. So called laisse faire conservatives, of which I am one, that argue for no borders and employers get to do whatever they want, including breaking laws, are essentially little different that anarchists. Laisse faire needs to be balanced by the rule of law - and heh, a little care and concern (called Patriotism) for your country might be nice. Since each and every immigrant is potential terrorist I would prefer we admit nobody new into Canada.

Your private property analogy reveals you to be another one of these anarchists that think individual freedom trumps Rule of Law. The difference is we have a NATION to defend from the Mad Mohammeds and other wreckers of Western Liberalism. What is at stake is far larger than your anarchist view of individual liberty - but the very foundation of those rights. Asssociate with who the hell ever you want, but not by putting my safety in danger. Travel anywhere you like.

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-04 12:19:46 PM


Others argue that immigration must be restricted in order to protect the nation’s unique cultural heritage. I submit to you that any culture which must be maintained by force is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one.
Posted by Isaac Morehouse on August 4, 2008

Here's a hypothetical example that I would like you to comment on. Let's say that the government opened up the immigration flood gates. Let's also say that 200,000 muslims moved to PEI. That would give them a majority. Those muslims them had a referendum on having Sharia law as the dominant legal system, which they won as they were now the majority. Would you argue that pre-immigration PEI was "not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one"?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 12:20:39 PM


Faramir: "Since each and every immigrant is potential terrorist I would prefer we admit nobody new into Canada."

The same is true of natural-born citizens. Terrorism committed by natural-born citizens is higher than terrorism committed by foreigners. Do you advocate a zero-child policy for Canadians? Since each and every new-born is a potential terrorist, after all.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 12:26:04 PM


Faramir: "Your private property analogy reveals you to be another one of these anarchists that think individual freedom trumps Rule of Law."

Uhm, private property laws are part and parcel of the rule of the law.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 12:27:28 PM


I always wondered why babies keep you up at night. It's all a terrorist plot, isn't it?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-04 12:27:43 PM


At this point I shall address your comments concerning culture. I see you have it backwards. By limiting the number of immigrants from totally different cultures, values and traditions, the government is not artificially maintaining culture. However the government has most certainly and purposely carried out the opposite - which has been to flood the country with such immigrants in order to change traditional culture.

As long as the percentage of such immigrants remained 5% or less, they, or their children, gradually blended in and became Canadians. But when any society is flooded with immigrants from totally different cultures, values, languages and traditions, it not only feels threatened but is indeed threatened.

I do agree that culture is never a static thing and is always evolving, but it does so on its own and in its own time. It is organic change, not forced changed by government social engineering as we have had. The result is the balkanisation of Canada along with all political parties acting like cheap whores to get the various ethnic votes.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 12:34:45 PM


Libertarian theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe uses property rights to make the case against open immigration. Here's a link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-04 12:41:25 PM


Jaws,

In Canada we do not have private property rights. Trudeau refused to put it in our constitution. The government of Canada, in effect owns all land. We just rent some of it.

I would like to address some of the arguments of this post.

THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT: We simply need to allow in people who have proved to be skilled enough to take the jobs that are available. We need to trash the much abused 'family reunification' option. We need to be able to quickly deport those who after a time prove to not willing or able to contribute to their own well-being. If they come here to work and prosper they will no problem understanding those conditions. If they want to bring other family members over, they must take full responsibility for them and those members should have to pass a test indicating that they are not sick and not criminals.

THE CULTURE ARGUMENT: What's wrong with wanting to preserve our culture and gearing immigration to ensure that that is the case. We don't need a nation of bickering nations. Quebec is all we can handle. We also spend about 12 billion a year preserving the worthless native Indian culture in Canada. Why not spend a little to preserve our democratic, Christian based culture. It has proved to be the most successful in history so far.

THE WELFARE ARGUMENT: Welfare is already grossly abused in Canada and despite the immigrunts who take full advantage of it (namely the unskilled Muslim hordes who continue to come here for it with their huge families and many wives) we need to drastically put time limits on receiving it and only the truly disabled should remain on it.

THE SAFETY ARGUMENT: We are already at risk due to a lax system that allows criminal to rule the streets. We need tougher laws, more prisons and an active deportation strategy for immigrant criminals. We could very much use some better self defense laws and the right to own and carry a gun. More guns less crime. An armed society is a polite society. Both proved true.

THE RIGHT ARGUMENT: Again we have no private property rights in Canada, but we need them. There could be a problem with that though. What if the person near the border wants to use his property for the smuggling of drugs or refugees. or simply opens a landfill in the neighborhood? There need to be some restriction of land use.

I am an objectivist by nature. I believe in strong individual rights and privileges, but I am aware that a lot of people simply cannot handle their own lives and therefore we need some sort of law and regulations to keep them from getting in my face and the faces of others who are trying to get along and do well.

Humans are far from evolved into and intelligent species, so we will need zoo keeper to some extent for a long time to come.

Please forgive any typos, I don't feel like editing today. It's hot and sunny.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-04 12:49:06 PM


Both Marxists and Libertarians are fans of 'a world without borders'. In both cases of course it is an utter fantasy with no basis in reality.

Posted by: TJN | 2008-08-04 2:30:11 PM


John V.: "In Canada we do not have private property rights. Trudeau refused to put it in our constitution. The government of Canada, in effect owns all land. We just rent some of it."

I did not say anything about private property rights, I said private property laws. We have laws against theft, implying that there is a legally recognized owner. We also have a custom, well established through the common law, of compensating people for eminent domain. The common law is normative for judges in Canada, and appeals to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is merely one way of arguing your case. Appealing to the common law is a separate method.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 3:27:47 PM


The opinions expressed by the author are biased. By diminishing the very real concerns of Citizens, pro-illegal immigration advocates and cheap labor interests seek to justify that which cannot be justified.

Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, diminishing resources, vanishing farm land and green space, lack of affordable housing, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the marginalization or Citizens, tax payers and voters, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration. Indeed, there isn't any problem confronting legal citizens that would not be measurably improved by securing the borders and enforcing the immigration laws.

Too many people competing for the same limited resources cannot be considered sound economic, environmental, social or cultural policy.

Virtually every industrialized nation, China, Mexico, Great Britain, and most recently the member states of the European Union, has taken steps to end illegal immigration, and to curtail legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interests of their native population. It's dangerously misguided to suggest that Canada and the United States should not do likewise.

Fresh air, clean water, and wide open spaces, they aren't making anymore of any of these things!

Posted by: Ed Weirdness | 2008-08-04 3:34:49 PM


Isaac, excellent post! Matthew, very interesting link. I will have to read it in more detail.

This topic, and Isaac's post, is worth some research and meditation to speak inteligently about so I will say little.

In general I agree with Isaac, but struggle to understand how we should deal with the coming threat of Jihad and Sharia, considering most of the people who would advance these ideologies are immigrants.

Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 3:36:07 PM


TJN said: "Both Marxists and Libertarians are fans of 'a world without borders'. In both cases of course it is an utter fantasy with no basis in reality."

Actually, I'm all for borders - borders on my individual property. I'm against someone else telling me what I can do on my own border.

If you do not like immigrants, do not hire them, invite them in, buy from them, sell to them or speak to them. If everyone in a particular province boycotted immigrants, they wouldn't come anyway. You say they are damaging and you don't want them, but you're revealed preferences show the opposite. It's like people who claim a Wal-Mart will destroy the neighborhood. If it were truly bad for people there, they wouldn't shop there, yet they do, revealing their preference for Wal-Mart. Immigrants come because they are making money. They make money because we like hiring them, selling to them and buying from them. It's beneficial to all, otherwise we wouldn't do it.

Posted by: Isaac M. Morehouse | 2008-08-04 3:37:31 PM


TJN: "Both Marxists and Libertarians are fans of 'a world without borders'. In both cases of course it is an utter fantasy with no basis in reality."

I'm not even sure what this means. But there are multiple possible interpretations.

1. Guilt by association: You agree that Marxists are dumb, and here's a view that is shared by you and the Marxists! Therefore this view is false.

Response: We can all play this game. Nationalists (like National Socialists) and closed-border conservatives are fans of "a sealed border with no immigration." In both cases, of course it is an utter fantasy with no basis in reality.

2. What counts as the "utter fantasy" is that there has never been such a thing as an open border in the real world.

Response: False.

3. (And this is really being charitable) What counts as an "utter fantasy" is the idea that open borders are a good idea. That there is no basis in reality for thinking that opening borders would be a good idea.

Response: America and Canada had policies approximating open borders. So did other powerhouse nations. In fact, you could argue that what creates the conditions of becoming a powerhouse nation is a relatively porous border.

So this doesn't settle the issue between open or closed borders, but it does provide a reason to want to avoid keeping everybody out, and being open to plenty of immigration.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 3:42:33 PM


Jaws,

I hear you, but my point is that we are only renting property from the government and they can change that agreement in a heartbeat. Just do something they disapprove of or just happen to be in the way of one of their land speculator friends and see who the courts side with.

In my world, private property means that absolutely no can take your land away by any means. They may be able to impose reasonable restrictions, which I can agree with to protect your neighbors, but you don't own your land in this country. No private propery rights means you are a tennant.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-04 3:42:45 PM


Ed, a lot of the problems you speak of have more to do with government mismanagement than with immigration. There several things you say that I do wonder about. For example, depressed wages is not really happening I don't believe. And urban sprawl is actually good in some ways. For example, keeping real estate prices down.

The "balkanization" of our communities is a concern but may have as much to do with multiculturalism as with anything else.

Also, China, Mexico, GB and some EU countries are hardly what we should be aspiring to.

In a free society we will never run out of fresh air, clean water, and wide open spaces.

I do agree with you about being marginalized as a tax payer though. Especially a white male tax payer.

Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 3:48:39 PM


Not surprisingly,the Ethnic Genetic Interest (or race-replacement) argument is not mentioned. Mass migration of distant ethnic groups into anothers territory, for economic, cultural or reasons of political expediency, isslow motion genocide.

"A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. According to Dr. [Frank] Salter, of the Max Planck Society, [“Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?”]...

“The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates a population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances …” Acquisition and defense of territory are therefore an integral part of the tribal strategy of humans. The passionate relationship between a people and its homeland has been constant throughout history, and, as Dr. Salter points out, a people can suffer many setbacks, but as long as it retains its own territorial space, it can recover.

In the long run, only territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction — precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. A large part of Dr. Salter’s work in this paper is a quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact."

Posted by: DJ | 2008-08-04 3:58:13 PM


Mr. Weirdness: "The opinions expressed by the author are biased. By diminishing the very real concerns of Citizens, pro-illegal immigration advocates and cheap labor interests seek to justify that which cannot be justified."

Exactly what do you mean? Biased? You're busy diminishing the very real concerns of those who want to come and live here in Canada. Those in other nations that suck, wanting to live their lives in a great country like Canada. And you support Big Union interests (who share your position in wanting to close the borders).

I just don't see how this has any bearing on anything being said at the moment.

"Overpopulation"

Uhm, in Canada? False. (But even if this were true, wouldn't this also count as an argument against having babies? So do you also support zero-birth rates?)

"congestion"

Yeah, in Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver. But Canada is so much more than just the big cities, Weirdness. And you'll notice that you are once again plumping for zero-birth rates...

"urban sprawl"

I know Al Gore and David Suzuki think this is a problem, but I don't. What's wrong with urban sprawl? (And if it's such a problem, why not advocate zero-birth rates?)

"crumbling infrastructure"

So privatize. Don't build a fence, which will, of course, crumble as the number of immigrants increase... (Actually, aren't there more citizens than immigrants in Canada? And doesn't it follow that use of infrastructure leads to infrastructure crumbling? And if both of these things are true, then shouldn't we be arguing for less use of infrastructure by citizens?)

"overcrowded schools"

Privatize them already. That's the end of that problem. Don't blame immigrants for stupid government policies. In addition, more citizens' children attend school than immigrants do. Is this yet another bullet in your zero-birth policy chamber?

"emergency rooms"

Again, more the fault of citizens than immigrants.

"diminishing resources"

?

"vanishing farm land and green space"

There's more than enough in Canada so that some more could vanish without worry.

"lack of affordable housing"

Where? Show me some numbers and I'll believe you. Just reading from your local union pamphlet isn't going to persuade me.

"crime"

Crime is mostly committed by citizens. Proportionately, I believe citizens commit more crimes than immigrants.

"pollution"

This is the Western Standard. Not the David Suzuki Foundation.

"depressed wages"

Where? Not in Canada or the U.S.

"the overall decline in quality of life"

The quality of life has increased, not decreased.

"are all the result of unconstrained immigration. Indeed, there isn't any problem confronting legal citizens that would not be measurably improved by securing the borders and enforcing the immigration laws."

You forgot to mention the decline in pretty artwork, the reduction in our consumption of broccoli, the increases in the sun's solar activity, the cold in winter, and the balmy heat in summer as also things that are the fault of immigrants. Also, do you remember how good meatloaf was before the immigrants came along? Yeah, me too. Oh, yes, children used to brush their teeth before the immigrants came. Immigration is the number one cause of cavities.

You have me convinced. Are immigrants also the cause of email spam? Because that would be the cincher. Man the barricades! Stop those immigrants!

Give. me. a. break.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 4:00:13 PM


John V: And I hear you, and I am glad to say that I agree with you completely.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 4:02:10 PM


"If you do not like immigrants, do not hire them, invite them in, buy from them, sell to them or speak to them."

Not hiring or renting or selling to an identifiable group, is of course against the law. Freedom of association, in Canada, was destroyed by the Drummond Wren decision, largely the effort of organised Jewry to further their own ethnic interests. Ditto fair business practices, oulawed by Ontaio PM Les Frost, again largely at the behest of the Jewish Labour Congress and CJC.

"Dresden was one of the first issues facing this new committee. NUA Executive Secretary Hugh Burnett had attended a JLC-sponsored Race Relations Institute as a delegate from his carpenter’s union, and deeply moved the others with his stories of discrimination in Dresden. As a result, the Ontario human rights community took the issue to the new Conservative premier, Leslie Frost, on 7 July 1949. Accompanied by about 35 other human-rights activists, Irving Himel presented a brief from the Toronto Association for Civil Liberties on behalf of a "policy network,"62 of various churches, different ethnic organizations (including Jewish, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, and black), several women’s groups, and a number of non-communist trade unions: the International Bookbinders Union, the ILGWU, the Oil Workers Union, the Printing Pressman’s Union, the Street Railwaymen’s Union, the Textile Workers Union, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, the CCL, and the TLC-affiliated Toronto and District Labour Council.63"

In Israel, Chinese contract workers are forced to abide by a no sex with Jewish women, even if prostitutes, clause, which of course is illegal in Canada.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-08-04 4:11:11 PM


""emergency rooms"

Again, more the fault of citizens than immigrants.

"diminishing resources"

?

"vanishing farm land and green space"

There's more than enough in Canada so that some more could vanish without worry.

"lack of affordable housing"

Where? Show me some numbers and I'll believe you. Just reading from your local union pamphlet isn't going to persuade me.

"crime"

Crime is mostly committed by citizens. Proportionately, I believe citizens commit more crimes than immigrants.

"pollution"

This is the Western Standard. Not the David Suzuki Foundation.

"depressed wages"

Where? Not in Canada or the U.S.

"the overall decline in quality of life"

The quality of life has increased, not decreased."

Sources please. Or must it be accepted just because you say it's so.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-08-04 4:15:42 PM


Sure, DJ, happy to provide (in order):

>>>"emergency rooms"
Again, more the fault of citizens than immigrants.

I hope you don't need me to cite statistics on the number of immigrants vs. citizens. Clearly there are more citizens. Clearly more citizens go to the emergency room than immigrants. Agreed?

>>>"diminishing resources"
?

A question mark is supposed to indicate my confusion at this point. Just what is being argued here? That a reduction in resources is the fault of immigrants? I just don't get it.

>>>"vanishing farm land and green space"
There's more than enough in Canada so that some more could vanish without worry.

Farmland: http://www.fcc-fac.ca/en/Products/Property/FLV/Spring2008/index.asp
Forests: http://www.globalforestwatch.org/english/canada/maps.htm

Plenty of green spaces in Canada. Plenty.

>>>>"lack of affordable housing"
Where? Show me some numbers and I'll believe you. Just reading from your local union pamphlet isn't going to persuade me.

This was a request for sources, not a statement of fact. Show me your source and I'll show you mine.

>>>>"crime"
Crime is mostly committed by citizens. Proportionately, I believe citizens commit more crimes than immigrants.

Somewhat related: Canada's crime rates lowest in 25 years: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/18/crime-stats.html
Statscan: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm


"pollution"

This is the Western Standard. Not the David Suzuki Foundation.

>>>>"depressed wages"
Where? Not in Canada or the U.S.

Not precisely on point, but relevant: Study showing no relationship between immigration and unemployment: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118538316/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"There is also a long-run positive relationship among per-capita GDP, immigration rate and real wages." from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118538316/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Also, follow the references from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada#Economic_rationale_for_immigration

>>>"the overall decline in quality of life"
The quality of life has increased, not decreased."

This study compares how we are doing *relative* to other countries (and the numbers are not good): http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/overview/default.aspx

However, the same study makes plain that our quality of life has been on an increase. The claim was that quality of life has decreased, not that it has decreased relatively to other countries. I need only demonstrate that absolute quality of life has increased.

"Sources please. Or must it be accepted just because you say it's so."

Happy?

Now you.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 4:49:09 PM


The last 40 some odd years of indoctrination have clearly been successful based on the various comments. Sadly we no longer have a clear vision and understanding of where we are, where we wish to go and from where we came as a nation.

As to the "right" to immigrate, get real. This is not a right nor should it be. True since 1982 we have been transformed into a "rights" society without freedom. What this means now is that someone's "right" means someone else must pay the price.

I mentioned already the balkanisation of Canada, which can only spell the end of Canada in the long run. We have been purposely flooded with non traditional immigrants for the past 30 to 40 years with no decrease in sight. While the country was founded on British principles, law and form of government, our immigration policy ignores it at our peril. When one adds the government funding and assistance through "multiculturalism", the result is already seen with large ghettos of non traditional immigrants who have simply transplanted their language, culture, dress and traditions on Canadian soil. Furthermore their numbers only get bigger due to our insane immigration policy with "family re-unification". The fact remains that this results in a financial drain on our school system, health care, welfare and most social programs.

So are these immigrants who have no intent nor interest in assimilating to blame? Of course not, since it is universal human nature to take advantage of any free lunch offered. For most of this we can thank PET, although not one conservative government did anything to change things.

Unless this is stopped and turned around there will be no more Canada. All the chattering about promoting national unity by pandering to Quebec is a hoot, because we are becoming a multitude of many nations within what was once British North America.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 5:12:19 PM


>>>>"depressed wages"
Where? Not in Canada or the U.S.
Happy?

Now you.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 4-Aug-08 4:49:09 PM

After you read both sites try and tell me that immigrants don't depress wages.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters8f44
http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1305.html

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 5:24:24 PM


Actually, Alain, we have always been a country of immigrants. Always. That is a defining feature of the Canadian experiment. And I, for one, think the experiment is a ringing success.

True, we can make things better. We can limit social programs. We can increase economic freedom. We can shrink the size and scope of government. We can further privatize education and health care.

Many of the objections to immigration are based on dumb government policies. But you know what libertarians think of government programs.

In addition, many objections to immigration are based on gut feelings about how things were so much better when we didn't have immigration (which was, incidentally, when? 1200?). If you consult the stats, and not your gut, you'll see that the arguments against immigration fall apart.

And yet people continue to think that things are getting worse and worse. This is as true of the left (with their environmental fear mongering) as of the right (with their terrorist-under-every-bed fear mongering). They are not. Things are constantly improving in relatively capitalist countries.

True, things would be improving at a faster clip if it weren't for government intervention in our lives, but that doesn't undermine the fact that things have been improving.

And immigration is a significant reason for the improvement in Canada. We should be glad of immigrants, not angry about them. We should be thrilled that so many people look to our country as a place that will give them a better life. Of course, from a moral point of view, it is the lives of human beings that matter, not just the lives of Canadian citizens.

Immigration? More like Immi-great!-ion.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 5:35:01 PM


Hey, The Stig, Canada, not the U.S.

My stats are better than yours: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118538316/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 5:36:49 PM


Oh, The Stig, did you read the CIS report you cite? It goes to my point, not yours.

1. It's about H-1B visas (not Canadian...), so we couldn't generalize from that category to immigrants in general.

2. "According to the law (8 U.S.C. § 1182(n)), employers must pay H-1B workers either the same rate as other employees with similar skills and qualifications or the "prevailing wage" for that occupation and location, whichever is higher." (from the study you cite).

3. "It compares wages in approved Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B workers in computer programming occupations to wage levels of U.S. workers in the same occupation and location." (from the study you cite).

Even if this study purported to show depressed wages (which it doesn't), it would only go to show that immigration amongst computer programmers results in this. Not that immigration in general does.

4. "The analysis demonstrates that, despite the H-1B prevailing-wage requirement, actual pay rates reported by employers of H-1B workers were significantly lower than those of American workers."

5. This hints at (but does not yet support) your position: "Moreover, the data suggest that, rather than helping employers meet labor shortages or bring in workers with needed skills, as is often claimed by program users, the H-1B program is instead more often used by employers to import cheaper labor."

The reason why this doesn't prove your point is this: The number of jobs is dynamic, not static. It isn't as though there is a fixed number of computer programming jobs that need filling, and once they're filled, no more. The amount of computer programming jobs is dependent on demand, coupled with the cost of hiring people. It is entirely possible that wages in computer programming increase even while more immigrants come in to fill these positions.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-04 5:45:52 PM


Oh, The Stig, did you read the CIS report you cite? It goes to my point, not yours.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 4-Aug-08 5:45:52 PM

Yes I did, and it clearly shows that wages for H-1B visa holders, which are supposed to be the same as what an employer would pay a US worker, are almost always substantially lower.

1. It's about H-1B visas (not Canadian...), so we couldn't generalize from that category to immigrants in general.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 4-Aug-08 5:45:52 PM

Come on. H-1B is a dual intent category, meaning it usually is a green card fast track.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 5:57:08 PM


Even if this study purported to show depressed wages (which it doesn't), it would only go to show that immigration amongst computer programmers results in this. Not that immigration in general does.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 4-Aug-08 5:45:52 PM

It in fact does. Typical H-1B occupations include architects, engineers, computer programmers, accountants, doctors, business managers, and college professors. The H-1B visa program also includes fashion models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B_visa

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 6:13:53 PM


John V said, "Humans are far from evolved into and intelligent species, so we will need zoo keeper to some extent for a long time to come."

This begs the question - who are the zookeepers? If humans are too dumb and/or corrupt to make decisions for themselves, how can those same humans be trusted to put on their leader hat and make decisions for others?

C.S. Lewis put it nicely:

"Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

Posted by: Isaac M. Morehouse | 2008-08-04 6:18:39 PM


"True, we can make things better. We can limit social programs. We can increase economic freedom. We can shrink the size and scope of government. We can further privatize education and health care"

Jaws,

We can't do any of those things. It is our soma that we think we can. The fact is that the guys in charge (the government) are loathe to give up an iota of the power and strength they have usurped of the past forty years.

The only way a powerful government can be pushed back into some reasonable state of being that would be beneficial to freedom and enterprise is to go and shoot them then replace them with whomever.

That too will not likely happen because Canada is rich enough to pay most citizens off in order to keep them on the treadmill. Only when there nothing left to lose will people revolt.

Further ... I am of the opinion that when a leader of a wealthy western country comes into power, he is handed a binder with the rules and agenda that will be followed or else. How else can we explain the sudden change of policy and attitude by some leaders such as Harper (gone liberal) and even Geroge W Bush (sounding more democratic as time went on).

I am not an Art Bell type conspiracy type, but I simply don't believe that our politicians are truly in charge. What they do makes no sense. There must be a ruling elite behind the curtain taking us in a specific direction. That direction looks like a giant melding of cultures into what can be described as a global tower of Babble.

Why are the climate changer so adamant that the west transfer it's wealth to the polluters in the developing world? How did white people and Christians in particular become the whipping post of every other culture. Eventually white people will become an endangered species.

as things are going no country will be strong enough with shared values and common culture to mount any resistance to the socialistic domination of the earth under the rule of an elite group. Everything else is window dressing.

I have another theory along these lines. I think that the Jews are summarily excluded from this elite group and that is why no one in the world seems to support them. Perhaps they are the rebel force fighting the Empire. May the force be with them.

I am aware of some theories that there is an elite who is determined to take the earth's population back to what is was around the turn of the 18th century. I think that might actually be a good idea, I just don't think I will like the methods nor the living standards that will available to the commoners if that comes about.

But I digress.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-04 6:21:22 PM


Today's immigration is nothing but a pyramid scheme perpetrated by the real capitalists.

I heard some really funny comments on a radio talk show on the weekend. The topic was lowering taxes, and it wandered into comments on the "capitalist system" A couple of phone in comments went something like, "I firmly believe in the capitalist system, as long as everyone profits by it". I firmly believe a lot of people need to brush up on first year economics.

Believe what you want, because you don't really matter. The industrialists will control immigration, and get all the benefits. It's cheaper to have the government sponsor their low cost labourers with the middle classe's tax dollars, than it is to relocate overseas. The end result to the economy is the same though.

The middle class will bear all the social costs as well. The filthy rich could go for years without even seeing a single brown skinned person up close. They aren't affected by inflation, recession, crime, or pollution. They can afford to sponsor pro-immigration politicians, and campaigns to embarrass the middle class into accepting that their culture is no longer relevent in today's multicultural world.

Globalization is our best friend. We must embrace the change, and work twice as hard for 75% of the spending power our parents had. God bless Standard Oil.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-04 7:13:31 PM


Morehouse:

You never answered my question. If the government allowed 200,000 muslims immigrants to move into PEI, which would make them a majority, then they held a referendum on implementing sharia law which they won, that the Canadian government should accept it because the pre-immigration PEI culture " is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one." How long have you considered Canadian culture an traditions inferior to muslims?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-04 7:14:32 PM


It seems like John V have decided to make some sense.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be a smart ass, it’s just that I was surprised and pleased to read many of John’s conclusions.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-04 9:12:25 PM


DP,

I agree that globalization is a good thing. However, even if real capitalists/industrialists are behind government policy on immigration, it is still governments that make the legislation.

Regarding living on 75% of what our parents lived on, that is just not true. Have a look at this:
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/11/home_run.html

In it you will see that the price per square foot of house for the average American in 2005 was less than in 1981 if you convert to present day $.

There are probably many similar examples. VCR's for example, were $1500 and more in the 80's, yet you can now get DVD players for $100.

Posted by: TM | 2008-08-04 9:23:28 PM


TM

I was being totally sarcastic. Globalization is our worst enemy. That was the theme of my comment. You can go right ahead and compare the price of Ipods and a bunch of other shit, and it doesn't change the fact that our economy and our society is entering the last stage of capitalism. That's the part where big business actually becomes big government.

Who was the genius that decided our economy has to be in a constant state of growth? I'll tell you who, it's the same son of a whore that told us we have to have a growing population to keep up with our growing economy. You think Switzerland follows those principles? Try to move there and apply for social assistance.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-04 9:54:03 PM


PMJ, I am disappointed that you chose to trot out the old Liberal platitude that we are a nation of immigrants. This is silly at best and has nothing to do with the problem. After all every country was a country of immigrants at one time.

The major difference is how the government changed with policy in order to import large numbers of immigrants who have nothing in common with the language, culture or traditions of Canadians. I agree that most of us enjoy the exoticism of visiting foreign countries with completely different customs and language, for then we return home to the familiar. Now there are whole areas in English Canada where one can no longer communicate with shop keepers and one finds himself a "foreigner" in his own country. If your goal is to make people racist or whatever, then this is an excellent way to go. There is not a single non Western country which allows immigrants to drown their own traditional culture.

As I already stated and anyone can check it out, we used to keep such immigrant numbers in small enough numbers, that they, or at least their children, were certain to assimilate - thus becoming as Canadian as anyone else regardless of colour. Even then immigrants were free to preserve their own language and culture on their own dime. The result was that we did not have huge areas of the country that amount to the complete importation of foreign nations. I mean other than a geographic change, they made none whatsoever. To allow this and to promote this is madness.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 10:03:27 PM


"Now there are whole areas in English Canada where one can no longer communicate with shop keepers and one finds himself a "foreigner" in his own country. If your goal is to make people racist or whatever, then this is an excellent way to go."

Are you serious Alain...?
English Canadians National sport, after hochey, is to vomit on Québécois for our bill 101 an other language policies to preserve our culture.
Do you seriously think you will make someone to cry now that you've just wake up to the fact that it's the only way...?

And of course, people like you would happilly tarnish us, Québécois, as racists for the same exact reasons. This sounds like a bad joke.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-04 10:23:34 PM


>>>"True, we can make things better. We can limit social programs. We can increase economic freedom. We can shrink the size and scope of government. We can further privatize education and health care"

Jaws,

We can't do any of those things. It is our soma that we think we can. The fact is that the guys in charge (the government) are loathe to give up an iota of the power and strength they have usurped of the past forty years.<<<


This is an excellent point, and an excellent argument for allowing open borders.

So long as people feel as though the government is paying them off and the government is able to hold on to power because of that fact, people will be happy to allow the bloated social programs to fester as they have been for the past forty or so years. There is simply no incentive for anyone to change it so long as citizens are (for the most part) happy - they feel safe with a social safety net in place - and government can continue to do as it pleases. There is no incentive to change anything.

Allowing open borders would be an extremely noble way to initiate pressure on the government to get its programs and nanny-state policies under control. Obviously, though, a change in the cultural interpretation of what immigration to our country means needs to take place first.

Unfortunately, all too often points of view that can only be described as politely racist and/or selfish seem to win over respect for individual rights or compassion.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-08-04 11:18:13 PM


Marc you are full of it. You know nothing about "people like me" while I know Quebec very well.

As far as I am concerned Ottawa's official bilingualism should be scrapped. It is not the federal government's jurisdiction. Each province has the right to determine its language policy, so if Quebec chooses solely French, then the rest of the country has the right to choose English. Actually this is exactly how it works for the Swiss and they maintain a very small federal/national government which is not allowed to infringe on the cantons (provinces).

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-04 11:23:34 PM


>>>You never answered my question. If the government allowed 200,000 muslims immigrants to move into PEI, which would make them a majority, then they held a referendum on implementing sharia law which they won, that the Canadian government should accept it because the pre-immigration PEI culture " is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one." How long have you considered Canadian culture an traditions inferior to muslims?

Posted by: The Stig | 4-Aug-08 7:14:32 PM<<<

This is a nonsense question. We don't live in a pure democracy and the theoretical threat that a large group could come in and vote away the rights of the minority is precisely the reason we don't live in a pure democracy.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-08-04 11:23:58 PM


>>>We need to be able to quickly deport those who after a time prove to not willing or able to contribute to their own well-being.<<<

Well gee, that's a great idea. Let's do it to Canadians who don't get a job, too!

/sarcasm.

Though I don't see why, if you supported one, you wouldn't support the other.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-08-04 11:25:53 PM


"As far as I am concerned Ottawa's official bilingualism should be scrapped. It is not the federal government's jurisdiction. Each province has the right to determine its language policy, so if Quebec chooses solely French, then the rest of the country has the right to choose English."

Les Patriotes, Les Felquistes, Les Indépendantistes, Les Souvrainistes, Les Péquistes, Les Blocistes, Me; would/are all agree/ing with you on that.
But while we're there, why is it that a country that speak a foreign language and go to sleep at 9pm should decide for us on any local issues that are none of their business ? Starts from there and you'll see that it's not billingualism that is the problem...it's the whole fucking picture.

The same government that force massive immigration on us without no real preparation is also the one that inject billions of dollars to screw Québecers when we try to exercice our democratic right; or invent new idiotic expressions to try to control us more. Expressions like: Your a Nation; but only if you stay within OUR Nation because if not, you wont be a Nation...kind of.

*

Most people here fight and work every nights to tarnish the Left or the Right; to grow differences between Chretien and Harper.
To cheer blindly for the Libs or the Cons;
An asshole from the left and an asshole from the right = (always) two assholes.
whatever their pollitical gains - it's always for the worst for WE the people. They all serves the same cause.

Wanna know why they don't rule as they should ? Because Canada let too much countries interfeering in their internal politics. We do like England do, we do like the US do, we do like...
Yeah right - those places really reflect what freedom, liberty and happiness should be.

*

I don't know where Canada is going but there's one thing I know for sure: I don't want to be part of it while it reach its final destination.

After all, drowning our culture into massive immigration was Lord Durham's dream plan.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-05 12:07:03 AM


Recent non-European immigrants were more likely than the Canadian-born to become frequent visitors to doctors

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/82-618-MIE/2005002/charts/chart2.htm

>>>"vanishing farm land and green space"

"Never overestimate the media's ability to engage the public in a thoughtful debate. It's a lesson the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), Gord Miller, learned the hard way last week. In his annual report, released November 1, Miller went beyond the usual question of how we are going to accommodate population growth to ask if it is even ecologically feasible to add another 4 million to the GTA over the next couple of decades.

"This is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. Will the resulting demands for water, sewer systems and roads leave our natural heritage areas intact? Will there be enough natural lands left over to support biodiversity?" his report asks."

http://hogtownfront.blogspot.com/2006/07/daniel-stoffman-on-consequences-of.html

Crime in the GTA is committed disproportionately by blacks. In 1971 Toronto was 97% European origin. Crime rates increased from ~3000 per 100,000 in 1962 to over 8,000 per 100,000 in 2002.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

>>>>"depressed wages"
Where? Not in Canada or the U.S."

Not true.

"Immigration and Wages in Canada

The Canadian media today is discussing the results of a study that Abdurrahman Aydemir (of Statistics Canada) and I wrote about the wage impact of immigration in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Here is a nice summary:

A new study suggests immigration has tended to lower wages for educated Canadians...

The Statistics Canada study, entitled "A comparative analysis of the labour market impact of international migration: Canada, Mexico, and the United States," suggests Canada has more highly skilled immigrants compared to the U.S. or Mexico.

In 2001, about four in 10 people with more than an undergraduate degree were immigrants in Canada compared to about one in five in the United States, says the study, which was released Friday.

The StatsCan study found having more highly-skilled workers in Canada has curtailed earnings growth for the most educated Canadian workers relative to the least-educated.

In the U.S., the opposite has happened. Immigrants have depressed the earnings of low-paid Americans and further widened the gap between low and high income earners....

Mexico experienced the opposite effect. The country had a 14.6 per cent loss in the size of its potential male workforce, mostly due to people moving to the U.S.; The decline in the labour market has actually increased the wages earned by those working in Mexico."

http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/05/immigration_and.html

The points are moot because the real issue of mass distant migration is race replacement. The gov'ts of Canada both liberal and conservative embarked on an immigration programme designed to replace the founding European peoples of Canada. What benefit is derived by replacing white Toronto with brown or yellow or black Toronto?

If...

" 1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

and

2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress
for:

(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;

(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them

then so do Canada's founding European people.



Posted by: DJ | 2008-08-05 5:28:38 AM


Canada takes in too many immigrants, the wrong kind of immigrants and has a refugee determination process that cannot distinguish between real and phoney refugees.


Other than that, no problemo.

Posted by: JMD | 2008-08-05 6:32:42 AM


This essay is hardly original, you can go to any libertarian cite and find the like. But errors are always in need of correcting so...

People are not 'factors of production', they are people. If I import a machine to make, say, bottlecaps, the machine doesn't vote, it doesn't produce other machines on its own, it doesn't set up organizations to press the 'concerns' of other machines like it, it doesn't get welfare ... I could go on but you get the point.

Cultures always need protecting -- by violence. Your 'property' needs protecting, what's to stop some squatters from setting up on it. Either state violence or your own. Does that invalidate the concept of 'property' -- which is itself, of course, a product of culture.

Empirically, some of the most libertarian societies have strict limitations on immigration. Hong Kong was Milton Friedman's dream country, but it drastically limited immigration, even from China. It refused to take more than a small number of Hakka Chinese refugees from South East Asia, for example. Its Filipinos are strictly 'guest workers' (mostly single woman domestic servants) who have to leave when their contracts are done.

I'm all for small government, but let's get real.

Posted by: Mitchell Young | 2008-08-05 7:22:42 AM


This is a nonsense question.
Posted by: Janet | 4-Aug-08 11:23:58 PM

Oh is it. Tell that to the people of several states in Nigeria where the movement of muslims into non-muslims states resulted in a muslim majority and the imposition of sharia law. Though a bit closer to home black migration into many northern US cities resulted in municipal legislated and enforced quota's, affirmative action programs, etc, whose sole goal was to benefit blacks. Just look at that shining example across the river in Detroit.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-05 7:53:32 AM


Too bad the immigrants Libertarians love so much consistently vote for socialist politicians and policies. I guess its true, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Posted by: DMT | 2008-08-05 8:05:28 AM


The people who are born in Canada are at least a known entity. They have a history here. We know something about them and that mitigates some risk. While someone we decide to import is an unkown entity. We do not know their true motivations. As for private property rights, yes, they are part and parcel of the rule of law. But equating private property rights to the common security of one's nation is absurd. If we are to open up the floodgates on the premise that every private property owner should be able to import labour at their whim, why have government at all?

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-05 9:04:40 AM


John V, I agree completely. Just as in Detroit, the crapholes of Canada like Windsor have the unfortunate experience of huge Moslem populations who have no qualms whatsoever living off the public tit, as they scheme for Sharia or Jihad. Perhaps the advocates of open immigration love the situation in the United States, which is becoming Taco Time. Hospitals and schools are going bankrupt while traitorous companies and citizens conspire with government officials (Johnny Sutton, Homeland Security) to erase the American border. Why even have borders? Why even have nations?

Posted by: Faramir | 2008-08-05 9:12:04 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.