Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Election financing rules and double standards | Main | Desperate dishonour »

Monday, September 29, 2008

The truth about immigration...

...is that costs exceed benefits. That's the conclusion reached in the Vancouver Sun's highlighted op-ed piece in today's edition.

The essay's author declares that there is incontrovertible evidence that: 1. immigration's only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers; 2. immigration does not provide the answer to an aging population; and 3. immigration is not linked to economic progress.

The author believes that Canada is taking in far too many immigrants, but that each of the three big parties in the current election is promising to open the doors even wider. He states: "The fact is there is no valid rationale. There is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party.

"This is not only irresponsible it borders on culpable negligence."

Significantly, the author of this powerful piece is James Bissett, "a former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service." Read his entire piece here.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on September 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534e22867970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The truth about immigration...:

Comments

I'm disappointed to see this protectionist dreck featured in the Western Standard. A lot of socially-conservative libertarians down here in the States are having trouble with this too: it makes no sense to support individual rights with free trade, free communication, and limited government, but then to say 'fuck those brown people, seal up the border and ensure border guards are above the law.'

Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, these people are just individuals, with the same rights you have, that are looking to make a better life for themselves. Basic economics will teach you that these people serve to boost domestic jobs and wages, in the long term, by increasing specialization in the economy. If that weren't true, then wages in sparse Wyoming would be much higher than in dense New York. In fact, the opposite is true, mostly as a result of mass immigration to New York in the late 19th Century. The only reason people really oppose immigration is that they think it will harm their government benefits, which are guaranteed to every citizen equally regardless of their productivity, or because they think the new arrivals will dilute their imaginary 'nation,' which is a nasty manifestation of human tribalist behavior.

The only reason to deny another person their freedom of movement is if they directly threaten your rights or those of your loved ones. You do not have a right to your wage if someone will work for cheaper. You do not have a right to live in a white-majority country. You do have a right to despise immigrants like Olivia Chow, MP (Trinity-Spadina), who are welcomed into Canada and then work to dismantle its freedoms. You even have a right to buy some property and form a community of similar customs and ancestry, though this right is often abridged due to anti-discrimination laws.

In closing, stop being so damn xenophobic. It doesn't suit you, libertarians. Having lived in Toronto, but frequently escaping its dead, over-regulated streetscape for a taste of the relative freedom of New York or New Hampshire, I can attest that border crossings are scary places. They are, along with airports, one of the few places on this continent where you have NO recognized rights, little legal recourse, and you are truly putting your life in the government's hands. All this because of the misguided idea that immigrants are an economic or security threat, when you should know that the greatest threat to economy and security is the state itself.

Posted by: Mike Vine | 2008-09-29 11:55:45 AM


p.s. for all those racist-ass people who discount whole groups because they don't have a cultural history of liberty, go watch video from Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic. You will see a good mix of every color and creed. There's a certain percentage of every population that 'gets' freedom, and many who don't. But the only effective way to judge and educate is to do what we do best: treat people as individuals. When we generalize people into groups, we are behaving like socialists. They are the ones who, in the Soviet Union, divided the people into ethnic 'republics.' They are the ones who, through the United Nations, enforce the nation-state as the only viable form of government.

http://www.mikevine.com/

Posted by: Mike Vine | 2008-09-29 12:01:12 PM


"it makes no sense to support individual rights with free trade, free communication, and limited government, but then to say 'fuck those brown people, seal up the border and ensure border guards are above the law.'"

Sure it does and Hoppe makes the libertarian case for it.

"All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a "freedom to move around," unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregagtion, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow."

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:11:56 PM


p.s. for all those racist-ass people who discount whole groups because they don't have a cultural history of liberty,
Posted by: Mike Vine | 29-Sep-08 12:01:12 PM

Mike. Go fuck yourself. Canadian immigration policy will be made by Canadians not Americans. And spare me the BS by labeling anybody who disagrees with immigration as a racist.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-29 12:12:14 PM


"mass immigration to New York in the late 19th Century"

Mass European immigration to the US in the 19th drove down wages. See Globalization and History;Kevin H. O'Rourke Jeffrey G. Williamson.

Stats Canada:

"A key finding of this study is that there was a sizable, statistically significant, and roughly comparable inverse relationship between immigrant-induced shifts in labour supply and wages in each of the three countries.

In each, a migration-induced shift of 10% in labour supply was associated with a 3% to 4% change in weekly earnings in the opposite direction."

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070525/d070525a.htm

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:26:25 PM


Well now this is hard to believe and in the Vancouver Sun no less. I still recall the days when we did not have an open door system, when we required that potential immigrants have skills and abilities to contribute to Canada and that they have a working knowledge of one of the two official languages. The article simply states the facts that none of the three major parties are willing to address. As for the idiotic comments by Mike Vine, Stig is right. I am sick and tired of people like Mike trying to trot out the race card, since it is just another leftist lie.

Another example I note south of the border are those crying that anyone rejecting Obama is a racist. Get real! It has a lot to do with his policies or rather lack of policies and his socialist and collectivist views. Of course anyone there objecting to illegals has to be also a racist, anti-Mexican. What rubbish.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-29 12:28:57 PM


Since I am technically an immigrant, born in England, came to Canada when I was 18 months old, I as glad this country welcomed my parents.

They repaid Canada's generosity many times over.

At the same time, I believe this country reserves the right to define its immigration policy and design a policy that puts a premium on those who will be hard-working assets to the Canadian economy.

I may even favour a temporary moratorium until the financial markets settle down.

What's the sense in welcoming immigrants if there will temporarily be fewer opportunities for them?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-09-29 12:30:32 PM


Actually, the cold truth is that the baby boomers are aging and did not have enough children to offset their numbers. Now they're getting old and about to milk the system dry, and there aren't enough young workers to tax to sustain the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed. These immigrants are their succour. That's a failing of naturalized Canadians, not the immigrants.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 12:35:51 PM


"You do not have a right to live in a white-majority country."

Funny no one decries the Chinese right to live in a homogeneous China. Or the Japanese right to live in a Japanese Japan. Ditto Korea, India (who has the largest border fence in the world ) or Israel. It's only the white West that must endure replacement of the founding people.

There is a right to self defense. The mass transfer of people by government coercion is genocide defined by the UN as:

"(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."

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:39:31 PM


If immigrants receive no handout from the government, they hurt themsleves and their relatives more than society.

In a free society, more people is associated with greater wealth.

Posted by: TM | 2008-09-29 12:41:42 PM


Interesting that Master Vine escapes the "browning" of Toronto by running to a 97% white New Hampshire.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:41:45 PM


"Actually, the cold truth is that the baby boomers are aging and did not have enough children to offset their numbers."

Another lie propagated by the multi-cult myth makers. Even if accepted for arguments sake, it makes no sense. Who will support the immigrants whose replacement rate falls to Canadian levels. More immigrants; and who will support more immigrants; more immigrants. There will never be enough immigration to support a burgeoning population grown through mass immigration.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 12:47:49 PM


DJ wrote: "There will never be enough immigration to support a burgeoning population grown through mass immigration."

Yes, DJ, I'm well aware of that. The 1960s-era model of social welfare was created on a flawed model that required a constantly growing population to sustain it. Unfortunately, that's the world the boomers still live in. If there's one thing they're known for, it's take, take, take.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 1:01:28 PM


"The 1960s-era model of social welfare was created on a flawed model that required a constantly growing population to sustain it."

There were no boomers in the 1890s. What was the excuse then? It's a myth perpetrated on a population coerced into accepting it.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 1:11:30 PM


The excuse in the 1890s was that the country was still underdeveloped. Are you being intentionally dyspeptic?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 1:16:08 PM


I'm not so sure about the numbers cited in that article. Here are the conclusions of a White House report in 2007:

"Foreign-born workers make up 15 percent of the U.S. labor force, with large concentrations at the top and bottom of the education scale, the report says. For example, immigrants make up 36 percent of workers who lack a high-school diploma and 41 percent of scientists with doctoral degrees.

As a group, immigrants earn 77 cents on the dollar compared with native workers, though that gap largely disappears among college graduates.

More than 90 percent of native workers benefit from the influx of low-wage labor because immigrants take jobs that complement higher-paid native workers rather than competing with them, according to the report. For example, [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edwin P.] Lazear said, immigrant roofers lower costs for contractors and home-builders, creating jobs for plumbers and electricians and lowering the price of houses for consumers."

I don't have the Canadian stats in front of me, but I believe the Fraser Institute has argued (and I usually find their positions persuasive) that immigration does decrease native wages.

I wonder if a lot of this has to do with the way we cut up the pie. While immigration might decrease the wages of the (lower-skilled) native workers, it probably increases the wages of the new Canadians (compared with their wages from wherever they came from).

That was true for my family, when we emigrated from Communist Poland, by way of a three-year stay as political refugees in Germany.

Even if we attach a discount value to current non-Canadians, it still matters that people are doing better than otherwise.

At any rate, and for what it's worth, I'm a proponent of a much looser immigration policy in Canada. But this is based primarily on my personal experience, my suspicion that the truth is that immigrants, over time, benefit the economy (although the numbers in the Bisset piece give me pause), and other, non-economic, benefits of having a population that comes from all over the world.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 1:35:12 PM


I forgot to include the reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/20/AR2007062002349.html?nav=rss_politics

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 1:40:48 PM


"The excuse in the 1890s was that the country was still underdeveloped."

Another myth. Still deluded? The impact of mass immigration in the 1890s was exactly the same. It lowered wages and Canadian birthrates. It also removed freedoms Canadians enjoyed. The whole reason the multi-cult, HRCs and "hate laws" exist is because of the agitations of those groups. Immigration benefits the immigrant. The reason Olivia Chow supports immigration despite as a socialist, a ludicrous position(drives down wages) is because it furthers the interest of her ethnic group. It's race based.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 1:47:32 PM


"benefits of having a population that comes from all over the world."

What benefit? Is Italy, Poland or Austria (95% Italian, Polish and Austrian) somehow inferior to a multi-racial Canada? China, Japan, Korea, Israel all failed states because they strive to maintain their homogeneous nature. Do you welcome the genocide of the founding Canadians? Is your hate for the Anglo-Saxon founders so insatiable that you wish to replace them. Clearly, you desire their extinction.

Posted by: Dj | 2008-09-29 1:55:52 PM


Mr Vine,

The best and most successful countries in the history of the world were made so by white Christian people.

The worst places in the world are the places where your 'brown' people flee from. However, too many of them will not assimilate and thereby are ruining their host counties.

At present rate, by the end of this century, white people will be the most persecuted and endangered race in the world.

I don't go for that shit. I say slow down this immigration game or get more people immigrating who share our honky values.

If I may quote another commenter here Mikey, ... go fuck yourself.

Posted by: John V | 2008-09-29 2:02:33 PM


"America must not be overwhelmed.

"Every effort to enact immigration legislation must meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength.

"One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.

"The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country.'

-- Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and himself an immigrant. From a letter to Congress dated March 19, 1924.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 2:04:14 PM


"Do you welcome the genocide of the founding Canadians? Is your hate for the Anglo-Saxon founders so insatiable that you wish to replace them. Clearly, you desire their extinction."
DJ calm down man! P.M. didn't say anything of the sort. In keeping with the U.S. example he was using, he simply stated the successes that have been observed with such policy. He did not claim that other (culture, religion, political etc.) factors are discounted. BTW would the "hate for the Anglo-saxons" extent to white-european immigration (Poles, Germans, Irish). Just wondering =-)

Posted by: Condor | 2008-09-29 2:26:32 PM


Thanks, Condor.

I'm happy to debate and discuss this issue with intellectually honest, and sincere people. I think I made it plain that I am open to having my mind changed, on the basis of stats, data, and moral argument.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 2:33:28 PM


"BTW would the "hate for the Anglo-saxons" extent to white-european immigration (Poles, Germans, Irish). Just wondering =-)"

He's Polish, apparently, so maybe its self-hatred.
The Germans are Anglo-Saxons and Irish Catholics like Ted Kennedy, are vehement open border advocates. Hart Celler is a prime example. Kennedy an appeaser of the IRA? Naaaw.

"At any rate, and for what it's worth, I'm a proponent of a much looser immigration policy in Canada."

Much looser? This policy is the most open in the world. What would you call it?

If there is no benefit to socialists like Chow supporting mass migration then why does she do it?

"...they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country.'"

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 2:46:12 PM


Wow, talk about intellectual (dis)honesty...after Bisset's data, and the data long published by Stats Canada, showing that mass immigration lowers wages, an argument is made that "lowering roofers wages allows the hiring of plumbers and lowers house prices". Right. Why not lower plumber's wages by hiring immigrants ? Whose buying the houses that are allegedly lower in price? Milton, Ontario is a prime example. Milton grew 71% between 2001 and 2006, from 31,471 to 53,939. Where did those new home buyers come from?

After all that data is presented what do we find?

"At any rate, and for what it's worth, I'm a proponent of a much looser immigration policy in Canada."

Posted by: Dj | 2008-09-29 3:00:50 PM


He's Polish, apparently, so maybe its self-hatred.
Posted by: DJ | 29-Sep-08 2:46:12 PM

Maybe embarrassment that his homeland produced this.
Bwahahahahahaha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU0cPUtyoi0

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-29 3:02:25 PM


Sure, DJ. Everything's a myth; you alone know better; we should just exterminate the First Nations and send all the non-white rabble packing back to wherever. If immigration is such a bad idea, why has Canada's standard of living increased so much throughout the entire 20th century? Of course you'll say that it really hasn't; that's another myth, and you'll find a way to blame the coloureds. Did a little Chinese boy cut off your ear when you were a child, or something?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 3:17:39 PM


If immigration is such a bad idea, why has Canada's standard of living increased so much throughout the entire 20th century?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 29-Sep-08 3:17:39 PM

And why has Canada's standard of living declined throughout much of the late 20th and early 21st century?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-29 3:27:14 PM


"you alone know better;"

Don't you read? The Bisset study shows immigrations negative impacts. The Stats Canada study shows mass migrations negative impacts. Collacott Immigration Study shows negative impact. Grubel Immigration Study shows the negative impact. The Borjas study in the US shows the same. The report on immigration from the House of Lords Economic Committee strikes a devastating blow against years of blatant government propaganda. It rejects outright the Government's argument that a high level of immigration is of economic benefit to the UK.

So yeah, it's just me.

Japan has grown wealthy w/o immigration. (Check the front page). South Korea has higher GDP growth than Canada w/o immigration. China has higher GDP growth w/o immigration, ditto India. How's that possible Shane?

Clearly, you harbour an irrational desire to see the genocide of Canada's founding people. The question is why?

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 4:04:18 PM


"send all the non-white rabble packing back to wherever"

If they want to go, why not, as Enoch Powell suggested, give them some help? www.notcanada.com prints the top eights reasons for not immigrating to or staying in Canada:

8. Discriminatory and Dishonest Immigration System.
7. Out Of Control Cost Of Living.
6. Health Care Crisis.
5. Very High Taxes
4. Money Hungry Government.
3. No Culture.
2. Worst Weather.
1. No Jobs.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 4:13:30 PM


Even Pierre Trudeau voiced regrets about the form that his multiculturalism experiment has taken in Canada.

Can anyone please list for me the top 5 ways that multiculturalism enriches our lives (in particular ways that are specific to Canadian multiculturalism, and can't be had just by travelling and by keeping an open mind)?

Thanks.

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 4:55:48 PM


I'm disappointed to see this protectionist dreck featured in the Western Standard. A lot of socially-conservative libertarians down here in the States are having trouble with this too: it makes no sense to support individual rights with free trade, free communication, and limited government, but then to say 'fuck those brown people, seal up the border and ensure border guards are above the law.'
Posted by: Mike Vine | 29-Sep-08 11:55:45 AM

I'm with you in principle. The problem is "how" immigration is being implemented. Up here in Canada we're starting to think that the immigrants are getting a free ride and being used as political clout. Whether or not this is actually true, I have no idea....but it looks like it.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-29 5:03:33 PM


It's interesting how people often distort the motives of those calling for scrutiny of our immigration policies and practices. Nowhere did Bissett and others specify any countries, regions or races. What they have said applies equally to all races and colors. Yet "racist" is usually the first response. Odd.

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:10:06 PM


Again, assuming people want to have an honest discussion about this...:

"Virtually all economists agree that immigration increases the wealth of the United States. For example a group of economists all of whom had been either president of the American Economic Association or a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, were asked “On balance, what effect has twentieth century immigration had on the nation’s economic growth.” 81% of these prominent economists answered “very favorable”, 19% said slightly favorable, not a single one said slightly or very unfavorable (See Appendix C, to Julian Simon’s The Economic Consequences of Immigration, 1989, Basil Blackwell)." (http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=486)

"Whereas many millions of immigrants came to America in the early 20th century, the decades that followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1921 saw a severe decline in immigration. This was tragic for those who wanted to enter America, most notably when huddled masses of European Jews sought refuge from Hitler’s terror but were denied entrance into the land of the free by Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most socialist presidents in American history.

The history of immigration in America coincides well with the history of liberty, and it shows the socialist origins of immigration controls. In its history, its theory, and its practice, immigration controls are just one more boondoggle of dysfunctional, immoral, unconstitutional, and socialist central planning. A welfare state may depend on such controls, but a free society should reject them. Severe restrictions on immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies libertarians oppose in their efforts to bring liberty back to America." (FFF: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410e.asp)

Q&A with Philippe Legrain: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/the-case-for-open-immigration-a-qa-with-philippe-legrain/

Good back-and-forth between proponents and opponents of looser immigration laws: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3512992.stm

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 5:11:06 PM


As for the Borjas study, it isn't as clear-cut as you think:

"This near unanimity of opinion among economists as to the economic effect of immigration is worth emphasizing. Even George Borjas, the most prominent economist advocating restrictions on immigration agrees that immigration increases the wealth of the United States. Borjas differs from the mainstream only in two respects. First, he thinks that current immigrants are less desirable to the United States than previous immigrants—a famous quip has it that Borjas thinks the last good boat of immigrants was the one he came in on—a little cruel, perhaps, but with an element of truth. Borjas still thinks that the current generation of immigrants raises the wealth of the United States but he argues that the gain is not as large as it was before. Second, according to Borjas there is a distributional issue—poor natives are harmed by immigration even though total wealth is increased. The prominent economists surveyed earlier, however, do not agree with Borjas’s conclusions, when they were asked “What level of immigration would have the most favorable impact on the US standard of living,” 56% said more, 33% said the same number and none said fewer."

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 5:15:44 PM


What makes no sense for libertarians is to make freedom of association taboo and then trumpet free speech, free trade and limited government. It's just cherry picking.

"The Supreme Court ruled...that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said."

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're for government intervention or you're not. And holding and justifying both positions at the same time is simply the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 5:16:56 PM


P.M. Jaworski writes "The prominent economists surveyed earlier, however, do not agree..."

The prominent economists likely supported the economic policies that have led to the current meltdown too. In other words, saying that something is supported by economists is, to me, damning with faint praise.

With apologies to Disraeli (and that wonderful American Clemens), there are liars, damned liars, and economists.

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:29:24 PM


The Stig wrote: "And why has Canada's standard of living declined throughout much of the late 20th and early 21st century?"

Competition from emerging markets and business- and consumer-hostile government policies, starting, oh, around 1968.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 5:32:07 PM


Shane Matthews writes "Competition from emerging markets and business- and consumer-hostile government policies, starting, oh, around 1968."

So, you seem to be saying that immigration contributed to the temporary and unsustainable economic bubble prior to 1968, but that other forces are causing the decline. Would you like a knife to cut that cake with?

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:35:21 PM


Nice try, DJ, but the studies you mention seem to take issue not with immigration per se, but with the criteria we use to admit them. Admittedly there was a lot of abuse in the past with one person coming over and then bringing three generations of family. That loophole is now pretty much shut, and Harper endured no small amount of flak for daring to assert our sovereignty over who gets to stay within our borders.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 5:36:36 PM


"Virtually all economists agree that immigration increases the wealth of the United States."

No ones denied that mass migration is a huge transfer of wealth to the business and government "elites" (for the lack of a better word) and the immigrant (including raising wages in their homeland), however, it provides no benefit to working class (Americans) or middle class (Canadians) who see their wages drop.

Re: The 1921 Restriction

The point is that the founding Americans have no right to determine who shall and shall not enter their country. Their desire to protect themselves from displacement/genocide is antisemitic. These damn antisemites should have seen it coming even though Hitler was in jail in 1921.

This is intellectual honesty?

FDR was not President in 1921.

"Severe restrictions on immigration compromise the liberty of the people inside as well as outside the borders, and they should be among the policies libertarians oppose in their efforts to bring liberty back to America."

Therefore, the liberty of Americans counts for nothing. Freedom for me but not for thee. Let us in your damn country you racist bastards.

Wow.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 5:37:20 PM


Rick wrote: "So, you seem to be saying that immigration contributed to the temporary and unsustainable economic bubble prior to 1968, but that other forces are causing the decline. Would you like a knife to cut that cake with?"

So, Rick, exactly where should we place the cutoff? Unless you're First Nations, you're an immigrant of some sort. Exactly when did immigrants stop becoming productive naturalized Canadians, and start becoming loathsome fungi growing beneath our toenails? 1920? 1900? Or are you going to be a real snob about it and exclude everyone who arrived after 1867?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 5:39:36 PM


Are you changing the subject, DJ?

What libertarian opposes freedom of association? Certainly not me.

I'm sorry the Boy Scouts can't run their organization the way they'd like. I'm opposed to government intervention.

What this has to do with immigration, however, is not clear.

Rick S.: So then, uhm, are you of the opinion that economic arguments are beside the point when it comes to immigration? Who or what do you count as authoritative in this field, if not economists?

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-09-29 5:40:03 PM


"Immigrants who were fully selected on the basis of their qualifications under the points system (skilled immigrants – principal applicants), moreover, comprised only 17.5% of the 251,643 immigrants admitted in 2006." Martin Collacott (of the Fraser Institute, and a former Canadian Ambassador)

In other words, most im migrants are in fact still bringing over "three generations of family."

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:41:32 PM


Collacott:

"The government's principal reason for promoting high immigration levels is the belief that most newcomers will vote for the Liberal Party in federal elections. This is particularly true of family class immigration, which is the least successful category in terms of economic performance and should be significantly curtailed.

In addition to the lack of economic and demographic justification for current immigration levels and priorities, there are indications of social problems arising from the difficulties many immigrants encounter in adapting to the Canadian workforce and society. The important progress Canada has made in becoming a more tolerant and welcoming country to people from all over the world will be placed at risk if we fail to bring immigration levels and priorities in line with our economic and demographic needs and absorptive capacity. "

Obviously you never read the study, Shane. No surprise really.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 5:41:57 PM


I agree immigration quotas are much too high. That said, I've seldom seen a group of people so determined to hate people they've never met. Not a very pretty facet of contemporary libertarianism. The last time people started talking like this Canadians of Japanese descent wound up in internment camps.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-29 5:43:13 PM


Economic arguments are irrelevant in that the majority of economists still ignore the "externalities." A very few economists (former World Bank economist Herman Daly, UBC economist William Rees of the "ecological footprint" and others for example)point out that our current economy is simply unsustainable. Period. I'll take the opinion of someone who is concerned about the long term survival of this planet and of our race over the opinion (and note that I am emphasizing opinion) of most mainstream economists any day. Daly and others are pointing out that, not only do we need to halt population growth voluntarily (and that is mainly driven by immigration in Canada), but we also need to begin reducting our numbers voluntarily. NOW.

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:46:41 PM


"Unless you're First Nations, you're an immigrant of some sort."

Unless you believe that aboriginals were put here by the Great Gitchigumi or evolved from beavers, they too were immigrants. Of course those who founded Canada were not immigrants.

An immigrant is "A person who comes from another country to settle in a new country." Those who founded Canada were not immigrants, however, it is a difficult concept for certain groups to grasp.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 5:47:50 PM


"The last time people started talking like this Canadians of Japanese descent wound up in internment camps."

The last time people of Japanese descent were interned was when people of Japanese descent bombed a peaceful trading partner.

The "Day that shall live in Infamy".

Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-29 5:51:00 PM


Shane says "That said, I've seldom seen a group of people so determined to hate people they've never met."

Why do you automatically impute hate (and therefore some flavor of racism)? There are many other reasons for opposing immigration, including a concern for the environment and the fact that most immigrants magnify their carbon footprint and general ecological footprint many times over when they come to Canada and the U.S. That sort of growth will negate any efforts at conservation and, in particular, any efforts for Canada to reduce its emissions.

Posted by: Rick S. | 2008-09-29 5:51:27 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.