She doesn't touch on any new ground that for those who follow the immigration debate haven't already heard but it still needs repeating because most Canadians are intentionally left in the dark about the realities of the immigration system. And so, the more people that speak out the chances are that the voices of opposition will be heard by more and more people and hopefully spread amongst the wider population. Canada's immigration system is a wreck and Canadians need to be informed about it.
For the sake of disseminating information here are some quotes with emphasis being mine:
Accordingly, his [Herbert Grubel] paper, “Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada: Growing Conflicts, Constructive Solutions” and published by the Fraser Institute in 2005, estimates a cost to Canadian taxpayers of over $18 billion for immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002.
And this as well:
In 2002, 23.3% of all Canadian immigrants were principal applicants, that is skilled workers who acquired sufficient points for language, skills, etc., under Canada’s selection criteria to gain admission to Canada while their spouses and dependents, who are allowed automatic entry, comprised a further 30.5%. Together, at 53.5% of total immigrants, they made up the bulk of Canada’s Economic Immigrants.
Family Class Immigrants, at 28.5% of the total in 2002, are the other dominant set. Consisting of parents and grandparents (9.8%) and ‘immediate’ family members (18.7%), these immigrants must be sponsored. Like parents and grandparents, the myriad cousins, uncles, in-laws, sisters and fiances are then able to sponsor other ‘immediate’ family members, leading to a phenomenon known as ‘chain’ migration - that is, an ad infinitum continuum of family links which may be far removed from the principal applicant who started the chain.
In other words, Family Class immigrants meet no selection criteria. This means they often arrive with no language or job skills and a commensurately diminished capacity for paying taxes and social integration.
Take note that in 2002 as a percentage Canada accepted more Family Class Immigrants into the country as landed immigrants (at 28.5%) than principal applicants who were accepted based on pertinent job and language skills (at 23.3%). What this means is that Canada brought in more people with no language or job skills than people who did. If Canada is dependent on immigration to meet its labour market needs, why is Canada bringing in more people who have no job skills than people who do? If you accept the fact that immigration is about votes then it all makes sense. It is by no coincidence (it is by design actually) that an immigrant can get citizenship in as little as three years and Canadian elections typically are held every four to five years.
Despite similar economic conditions during the same period, Australian immigrants fared better than Canada’s. Migrants there must fulfill a more stringent set of skills, credentials and language requirements. Australia also denies entrants social benefits for two years and admits a higher proportion of work-age immigrants. Parents of principal applicants, for instance, may enter only if the majority of their independently qualified children already reside in Australia.
It is self serving of Canada to selectively use Australia as an example to improve the immigration system when it comes to admitting more foreign students into the country as described in this article yet ignores Australia's example in others areas. As explained above Australia employs a more stringent set of criteria for language and job skills. Australia will not let any accredited professional immigrant land unless he or she meets Australian standards. And most importantly Australia accepts fewer immigrants. Why doesn't Canada also follow Australia's lead in these areas when Australia has shown that it produces a more successful immigration system?