Immigration hits Canadians in the pocket
A leading public policy organization wants Canada's immigration selection process revamped to counter the huge cost caused by people emigrating to the country.
The Fraser Institute said the cost of supporting immigrants who arrived in Canada between 1987 and 2004 is between $16 billion and $23 billion a year.
That's because they receive more in government services and payments per person than they pay in taxes.
“As a result of Canada's welfare-state policies, our progressive income taxes and universal social programs, these immigrants impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” said report co-author Herbert Grubel.
Immigrants who have come to Canada since 1987 “are not doing as well economically” as those who came previously, with their annual income 72 percent of that of other Canadians, he said.
The controversial report calls on the government to scrap the points-based selection process and instead let the market decide the types of workers and professionals that are needed in Canada.
Report co-author Patrick Grady said their lower income and tax payments “are likely to persist over all stages of their lives.”
SOURCE
Foes of illegal immigration put pressure on GOP leadership to vote on E-Verify
A group calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration is pushing a bill that would require businesses nationwide to verify the work status of their employees. They're also running ads accusing House Republican Speaker John Boehner of not letting Congress vote on internet database E-Verify:
Right now, only a handful of states require employers to check a nationwide electronic database before hiring new workers. According head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Alejandro Mayorkas, so far, more than a 100,000 have tapped into E-Verify.
"We have the capacity currently to process far more queries than we currently handle," he said.
A bill sponsored by Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas would require nationwide use of Everify. Mayorkas said that would be a challenge.
"If it was mandated across the country, it would take us some time to ramp up for that exponentially greater volume," he explained.
Critics accuse GOP leaders of dragging their feet in an election year for fear of alienating Latino voters. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner says the bill is stuck in the legislative process. The Obama administration supports nationwide expansion of E-verify as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment