Thursday, 3 March 2011

I Think We've Been Cheated: Immigration Is More Bane Than Boon For Canadians.

This report out of the U.K. reveals that the Labour party knew of and covered up negative conclusions about mass immigration to the U.K. while it was in power.

Labour is today accused of a ‘shocking’ cover-up over the impact of years of mass immigration as damning official research buried by the last government is revealed.

Ministers will publish three reports commissioned at the taxpayers’ expense by Labour politicians – but then apparently ‘sat on’ because of their inconvenient conclusions.

Government advisers concluded immigration had depressed wages, threatened to increase community tensions and seen many incomers stay longer than intended.

Since Canada foolishly (and naively) accepts more immigrants per-capita than any other country in the world I doubt the conclusions would be much different here.

Indeed, some data point us to that reasonable assumption. For instance, this wikipedia entry provides some valuable insight.

According to this StatsCan report "a migration-induced shift of 10% in the supply of labour is associated with a 3% to 4% movement of wages in the opposite direction. International migration, in other words, raises a country’s wages whenever it decreases the size of its workforce; it lowers wages whenever the opposite is true." Putting it bluntly, immigration driven population growth drives incomes down.

Trying to put a positive spin on this "inconvenient conclusion" the "brain-trusts" at the Montreal Gazette inform us immigrants improve pay equality in Canada. How do they do this? By driving the incomes of professionals down towards the income levels of those who earn less. Since Canada, allegedly, places emphasis on education and training the immigration system technically favours those with professional credentials. This has resulted in the over-supply of skilled labour, like IT and engineers, allowing employers to pay them less. From the StatsCan report we read "immigration played a
role in the 7% drop in real weekly wages experienced by workers with post-graduate degrees in Canada between 1980 and 2000. Over this period the immigrant share of all workers with post-graduate degrees in Canada increased; between the 1986 and 2001 censuses they report that this share rose from 32.5% to 38.2%."

In relation to the above the OECD concluded in a 2008 study titled Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries that in Canada "after 20 years of continuous decline, both inequality and poverty rates have increased rapidly in the past 10 years, now reaching levels above the OECD average." I'm sure immigration had nothing to do with that.

From this ironically pro-immigration site we read the following summary.

Analysis of census data as of 2000 shows that immigrant incomes were at 80% of the national average after 10 years of residing in Canada.In previous decades, immigrant income levels did rise to the national average after 10 years, but in recent years the situation has deteriorated. A 2003 study published by Statistics Canada noted that "in 1980 recent immigrants had low-income rates 1.4 times that of Canadian born, by 2000 they were 2.5 times higher, at 35.8%."The study noted that the deterioration was widespread and affected most types immigrants. The 2003 study explains that the low-income rate among non-immigrants declined in the 1990s, but this was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net rise in Canada's total low-income rate. An updated January 2007 study by Statistics Canada, explains that the deterioration continued into the next decade, with the low-income rate of recent immigrants reaching rates of 3.5 times that of Canadian born in 2002 and 2003, before edging back to 3.2 times in 2004. The 2007 study explains that this deterioration has occurred even though Canada implemented changes in 1993 to encourage more highly educated immigrants, with 45% of new immigrants having university degrees as of 2004, compared to 13% in the early 1990s.

We also read "recent immigrants are also significant users of subsidized housing, with 42% of immigrants who arrived after 1990 having a "core need" (as defined by CMHC) for subsidized housing as of 2001 compared to 17% for the non-immigrant population."

Furthermore:

In 2001, the overall unemployment rate of immigrants was 37%. Combined with the overall participation rate of 70%, this means that only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15 years and higher were working in 2001 (i.e., a majority of 56% were not working). The 44% employment rate was significantly lower than the average 2001 employment rate in Canada of 61%. Immigrant unemployment levels do not reduce to the Canadian average during at least the first 10 years of residing in Canada.

Then, of course, who can ignore the The Fraser Institute's claim "that immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2002 cost governments $18.3 billion per annum (as of 2002) in excess of taxes raised from those immigrants."

Has much changed in the last decade?

It is clear that when it comes to immigration Canadians are the ones bearing most of the costs and the majority of the benefits are going to immigrants. This is made more true when we consider that the majority of immigrants to Canada come from the developing world and immigrating to Canada moves them from an environment of low consumption to one of high consumption (as the saying goes it's better to be poor in Canada than poor in the third world). Mass immigration, as has been demonstrated, is having a negative effect on Canadian livelihoods while nursing social tensions. It is reckless to continue down the path that the nation's politicians have, in their arrogance and self-interest, undemocratically steered the populace. Sadly, it's see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil in Ottawa. It is abundantly clear that Canada accepts too many immigrants, especially the wrong type of immigrant, and has been doing so for a very long time.

They say immigrants built Canada. If that is the case then immigrants can also ruin it.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's another report out of the U.K. that says in part:

"Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.

The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.

Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.
"

The question begs to be asked "just who do these traitors work for??"

The same question could be put before every western political leader for the past 20 years, because this multi-racial program has been operating non-stop.

dollycanadian said...

President and CEO of Canada Post is....DEEPAK CHOPRA. YES IT'S TRUE...google it!
Immigrants on the Standing Committee for Immigration.
Why are immigrants deciding who gets into Canada?
Corruption breeds corruption...you cannot bring immigrants from corrupt countries and give them power in Canada...it's just f***ing stupid.
So I am asking you bloggers...are you going to get out from behind your computers and start doing something...if you are let me know and I am there with you.
If we don't do more than bitch and moan...which is what Canadians are good at...then the immigrants win...believe me they are not in their mosques praying for milder winters, THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER.
If we push immigration reform by mere words then we will lose.
It is time now to take to the streets like they are in the middle east and demand that the government give us back our country. Harper, Mason and Ignatieff should all be arrested for treason...Jason Kenney be damned.

PaxCanadiana said...

President and CEO of Canada Post is....DEEPAK CHOPRA. YES IT'S TRUE...google it!

There's a lot of that in the public sector where immigrants are given top jobs. It's meant to create the illusion they were needed in the first place. This isn't to question Deepak Chopra's abilities but I am positive there are more than enough Canadians capable of doing that job as well. It needn't of gone to an immigrant. If Mr. Chopra thinks he got the job on merit instead of MultiCult tokenism then he's deluding himself.

So I am asking you bloggers...are you going to get out from behind your computers and start doing something...if you are let me know and I am there with you.

I am giving it thought. I thought of starting a facebook page but ImmigrationWatchCanada launched one and a group called the Canadian Culture and Integration Society has one as well. You could contact them if you wish and see what they are about. You could also lend your support to the Centre For Immigration Policy Reform. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada is calling for refoms I agree with. You could support them in the upcoming election and volunteer your time for your local candidate.

The challenge is to get Canadians talking about it and make it an election issue. I don't know how to accomplish this but I do feel there is discontent among the masses. But since we are a passive lot I don't expect miracles.

Starting a new political party, as some have suggested, is not the way to go. Public pressure works and that's where we should focus our energy.

Anonymous said...

After conducting a quick scan of related stories on INDIA-born Deepak Chopra, I could find no Canadian newspapers informing readers of his origins. Grant you, I may have missed it, but knowing how Canadian newspapers always underplay the race or nationality angle, I wouldn't be surprised.

But I did find this apparent cheer-leading immigrant website proudly proclaiming his birthplace on the first line.

"It needn't of gone to an immigrant. If Mr. Chopra thinks he got the job on merit instead of MultiCult tokenism then he's deluding himself".

There's been so many known and unknown racially-designated token appointments to top managerial jobs in Canada, the implication arises that White Canadian executives are just not capable enough, so keep those floodgates open to attract even more "talented" minorities. How can we possibly manage our own country without them, seeing how "advanced" their own countries have become?

Of course, Haitian-born Michelle Jean took the top prize of tokenism as "head of state" with her Governor-General appointment. Clearly, that was world broadcast signal of how "inclusive" Canada had become. Or, by way of a world-wide proclamation, saying "See, we're not racists!"

Another example seen a few months ago, had a high-ranking government medical official in lily-white Saskatchewan giving a short interview on television. His facial features and accent designated his origins to be from AFRICA!

If those innumerable and prestigious job positions are allocated to minorities for the sake of the colour of their skin, imagine the tens of thousands of qualified White Canadians who were denied good paying jobs/promotions to satisfy a racial quota system through a euphemistic program called "employment-equity".

PaxCanadiana said...

If those innumerable and prestigious job positions are allocated to minorities for the sake of the colour of their skin, imagine the tens of thousands of qualified White Canadians who were denied good paying jobs/promotions to satisfy a racial quota system through a euphemistic program called "employment-equity".

I think it's more than obvious that tokenism is at play. Canada has a highly educated workforce to begin with, the highest amongst all G8 nations in fact. I find it absurd to believe we have to look to immigrants to fill job vacancies especially at top level managerial positions.

It's not just crown corporations doing it though. Canada's banks will hire and advance people based on their ethnicity and racial background for the purposes of attracting customers from immigrant communities. Just look at the bank ads you see in print media and on TV. It's clear they are after immigrant dollars which is why it comes to no surprise the banks are unanimously in favour of a liberal immigration system with ever expanding intake quotas. It's good for business albeit bad for most Canadians.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 7 March, 2011 10:50:00 AM EST, do you feel the same way/make the presumption that "tokenism" is at play whenever you see a white woman in a managerial or government position? I'm just wondering how much of people rising to positions of influence we can or should attribute to their race in this country. Of course the implication also being, then, that white males within multiracial cities in Canada that compromise the vast majority of upper management are *also* on the receiving end of racial favoritism in securing their jobs. But of course not! You people know nothing of hypocrisy:D

Anonymous said...

I have just one question, granted, it is more of a symbolic one: What is your stance on atheist immigrants, for instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Anonymous said...

"There's been so many known and unknown racially-designated token appointments to top managerial jobs in Canada, the implication arises that White Canadian executives are just not capable enough..."


http://www.torontosun.com/money/2010/10/21/15774336.html


Ten bucks says this comment is not allowed through; I don't doubt that Pax would prefer to keep her audience ignorant of reality.

PaxCanadiana said...

Ten bucks says this comment is not allowed through; I don't doubt that Pax would prefer to keep her audience ignorant of reality.

"White men dominate boardrooms" translates into "they only got there because of the old boys network and not merit". Visible minorities and women get top managerial jobs translates into "they only got there because of diversity quotas and not merit". I guess no one can win.

Let's look at this rationally. Do you honestly believe that there is not enough talent in Canada to fill managerial jobs in the public sector that they must go to immigrants? It's absurd to think that.

As for reality, well, when it comes to intelligence men are smarter than women (dumber too). This has been scientifically measured. When it comes to intelligence women, generally, occupy the mid range on the scale. Men not only occupy the mid range but are in abundance at both ends of the scale. When it comes to the genius level men out number women 8 to 1 (if I am not mistaken). But that's tempered by the fact that men overwhelm the prison system.

So that's why men dominate boardrooms. As for them being white I expect that to change in the future. There is an ongoing war against white males which is having a ruinous effect on their lives and futures. But I guess they need to be sacrificed for the greater good of multiculturalism and diversity.

Anonymous said...

"There is an ongoing war against white males which is having a ruinous effect on their lives and futures."

We'll have to chalk this up to subjective perception. I do not see the maintenance of high immigration rates even in times of tepid economic growth as a "war on the white man," but rather, a nod toward the economic future of the country with a declining population. Do I think they're a bit high? If the numbers surpass the annual number of deaths, then yes. Do I think there should be a "tap on/tap off" approach that you've referenced before? I think that would be productive, yes. Do I think that thorough screening should be done - including health - prior to allowing someone to become a permanent resident of this country? Yes, absolutely. The problem lies not within the fundamental message of the blog but in the tone, one of victimization, and the many comments from readers which seek to demonize immigrants and non-whites. If the only way to convincingly convey the pragmatic benefits of large-scale immigration reform is to exploit emotion and portray newcomers and non-whites as "the enemy" you can't truly be surprised if your movement is largely a failed one.

Anonymous said...

Something that needs to be understood about the Conservative Party, both in and Canada and elsewhere: they don't exist to protect your ethnic interests. You refer to them as Conservative-In-Name-Only but they are actually acting in precisely the way that modern Conservatives are expected to. These parties exist to protect the interests of businesses. They do not care what the people want or think. Since business owners seem to be telling them get us more specialized workers, get us more cheap labour, get us more potential real estate buyers, I'd put my money on them being the part most invested in RAISING immigration targets. You really do need your own party if "ethnic preservation" is the goal. It never ceases to amuse me that Canadians and Americans vote Conservative because of the symbolic nature of "voting for their own and screwing the brown people," with apparently no regard for the fact that you are actually screwing your own in voting for them - the working class.

jammer said...

Yes, please let us stand up. The time has come to once again fight for our country, e-mail me at D.Pratt@live.ca

Anonymous said...

"There is an ongoing war against white males which is having a ruinous effect on their lives and futures."

What in the hell?! Lady, you are a little bit nuts, aren'tcha?? Every nation on planet Earth with below-replacement fertility levels has liberalized their immigration policies in recent years to compensate. YOU'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE FACT ON THIS VERY BLOG. Also, white males are still overwhelmingly the group which run this country. The implication of this statement being that white males are waging a war on... themselves?? Makes no sense.

PaxCanadiana said...

We'll have to chalk this up to subjective perception. I do not see the maintenance of high immigration rates even in times of tepid economic growth as a "war on the white man," but rather, a nod toward the economic future of the country with a declining population.

I should probably be more specific and say it is a war against white working class males. This is made apparent in employment equity laws which are disproportionately applied to working class jobs. These laws are not applied or enforced the higher the pay grade. Immigration is, and always has been, a war against the native poor.

No demographer will agree with you that Canada's current immigration system will alleviate Canada's aging demographic. Far from it. For it to accomplish that the intake numbers must be increased to approach 1 million if not more. And that's per annum. This is too costly frustrated further by the fact that the immigration system may very well be a money losing operation for the country. The real solution is to increase the birth rate and encourage a natural growth rate not more immigration. The "aging demographic" canard is pap for the ignorant to sell an unpopular item to a weary public.

The problem lies not within the fundamental message of the blog but in the tone, one of victimization, and the many comments from readers which seek to demonize immigrants and non-whites.

Not victimization but self preservation. And there's nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it and Canadians shouldn't not be held to a different standard. You fail to give consideration that a host society exists here that Canadians identify with and value and immigration should not be allowed take that away from them.

And I don't demonize immigrants. I can't blame them for surrendering to self interest. What I do is point out the problems they are creating when too many of them are introduced. That is the problem. Too many immigrants from too few source countries hinders assimilation. They are then not immigrants but colonizers; it is not population growth but population replacement.

If the only way to convincingly convey the pragmatic benefits of large-scale immigration reform is to exploit emotion...

The current immigration system is largely supported by statements that appeal to emotion more so than reason. But of course that is "the only way to convincingly convey the pragmatic benefits of large-scale immigration" since no pragmatic benefits actually exist.

and portray newcomers and non-whites as "the enemy" you can't truly be surprised if your movement is largely a failed one.

Do you ever read the comments to immigration issues in the online edition of newspapers? If you did you'd see how wrong you are. Canadians are angry but they have no voice in Ottawa because no party wants to discuss it for political reasons. Besides the Reform Party was quite successful campaigning on an immigration reform ticket. But since it has been absorbed into a party full of political careerists and opportunists it's business as usual.

PaxCanadiana said...

Every nation on planet Earth with below-replacement fertility levels has liberalized their immigration policies in recent years to compensate.

They are also in the process of scaling back immigration except, of course, Canada.

Also consider Asian states like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have among the lowest replacement levels in the world but have not liberalized their immigration systems.

Your argument is flawed since Canada's current immigration intake quotas cannot alleviate Canada's aging demographic trend. For it to accomplish this immigration quotas must approach a million if not more. This we cannot afford since the current immigration system costs more than it is worth. The solution is to increase the birth rate not more costly immigration.

The current immigration system's history can be traced back to the Mulroney conservative government who fashioned it as a scheme to buy ethnic votes to support a party Mulroney was running into the ground. In the words of then immigration minister Barbara McDougall "immigrants make good conservatives." It was and still is about votes. But you cannot sell it like that to a weary public. So you spew nonsense like "we need more immigrants because we have an aging society and low birth rate" in the hopes that they swallow it and so far it has been sucessful.

The implication of this statement being that white males are waging a war on... themselves?? Makes no sense.

It does when you realize that those who run for office are not immune to socially fashionable trends if it can get them elected.

The trend has been to address this thing called "white male privelge". This is being done in the education system and the law where increasingly women dominate. Employment equity laws and "diversity quotas" (thanks to immigration) attack white males in the workplace. They lack role models in the media often being the butt of jokes, portrayed as man child womanizers, crooks, or charlatans. Positive role models are in short supply and if they are they are beta-male types subjected to a female influence. The fruits have been a rising generation of males in a state of arrested development bereft of direction and wasted potential.

Currently white males may dominate politics and business in Canada but that will change as a generation of white males are set adrift to make room for the much more inclusive "new Canada". Small price to pay I guess.

Anonymous said...

March 12, 2:42PM says in part:

"The problem lies not within the fundamental message of the blog but in the tone, one of victimization, and the many comments from readers which seek to demonize immigrants and non-whites".

Insert White Canadians in respect of your terms "immigrants' and "non-whites" in this instance, and you'll arrive at the same conclusion.

Non-white immigrants, and visible-minorities in general, have the full force and financial support of none other, than the federal government, employment-equity programs, tax-supported NGOs (non-government organizations), etc. etc., in support of their vested interests. But, long established White Canadians receive nothing... only gratitude in giving up power to recently-arrived minority interests.

Why would the prevailing hegemonic race of people from European White backgrounds (84% of Canada's current population), even consider such an suicidal agenda?

Only because of clever and coercive propaganda techniques being used today to denounce, diminish, demean or castigate, by whatever means possible, the people of the White race, while simultaneously elevating the status of Blacks (2%), Browns, and Asians recently introduced through mass immigration.

For the past 35 years, White Canadians have been slowly backed into a corner. So, when we begin fighting back against the "invading conquerors", we're met with scornful slurs meant to dissuade us from defending ourselves.

Such is the case on this little blog when the "long knives" dripping with "racist" innuendos are jabbed into our mid-sections in the hope we capitulate to intimidating tactics.

Perhaps, you've been ensnared by multi-culti propagandists into believing fairy tales of different races happily mingling together in a happy, uptopian rainbow nation. That's not going to happen.

Look what happens when "white flight" takes off, beginning with neighbourhoods, then districts and finally, cities. Is there an unwritten message in that action that fails to resonate with you?

Understand one important point:

Canadians were neither asked for, nor welcomed the false ideology of "multiculturalism".

Japan will not tolerate such a blasphemy on their land, and neither should Canadians in our nation.

Anonymous said...

Anon 14 March, 2011 8:02:00 PM says:

"What in the hell?! Lady, you are a little bit nuts, aren'tcha??"

It's strange how some can see the big picture, while others prefer to accept whatever suitable dogma fits their own perceptions.

"There is an ongoing war against white males which is having a ruinous effect on their lives and futures."

...more on this timely subject can be read HERE.

This is Part 4 of a 4-part series by another lady who must also be "a little bit nuts", but I include the ending part because I liked what the first commentator had to say in the comments section. An opened mind, or at least, one willing to listen and learn, I assume.

PaxCanadiana said...

I have just one question, granted, it is more of a symbolic one: What is your stance on atheist immigrants, for instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

I have no problem with atheist immigrants. I find Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be more Dutch or American than Michaelle Jean was ever Canadian.

PaxCanadiana said...

Look what happens when "white flight" takes off

There actually is a "white flight" going on in Toronto. Whites move out of mixed neighbourhoods and into white majority ones. If not that then into white majority communities.

White Torontonians give lip service to immigration and multiculturalism but talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words and settlement patterns tell us a lot about their real preferences.

PaxCanadiana said...

It's strange how some can see the big picture, while others prefer to accept whatever suitable dogma fits their own perceptions.

I made the statement, about white males being under attack, in the wake of a Maclean's article about the under-performance of the Canadian male. And it's not here but elsewhere. In fact there have been several articles I have encountered about the sorry state of males today. They are in a state of suspended adolescence and arrested development. They are men children so to speak and are the fruition of fully realized socially fashionable trends that arose since the mid 1970s.

Anonymous said...

"They are in a state of suspended adolescence and arrested development. They are men children so to speak and are the fruition of fully realized socially fashionable trends that arose since the mid 1970s."

So when minority groups underachieve it is exclusively their own fault but when white males do it is the outcome of politics? Why doesn't this surprise me?

PaxCanadiana said...

So when minority groups underachieve it is exclusively their own fault

No, it's the fault of systemic racism. You should know that.

And this is the fault of white males.

In fact, when anyone but white males underachieve it is the fault of white males.

I know you don't care that the advancement of women and minority groups is being done at the expense of white males, it's probably because you benefit from it, but the decline of the male, not necessarily white ones, is an observed reality.

You can read this if you like:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_crisis_of_modern_male_imma.html

But since it is happening to males, and the whiter the better, what do you care? I mean this is the fruit of "progressive" policies so it must be a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Systematic discrimination against white males - LOL!!!

What we have now is the advent of choice. Women now have the choice to stay home and raise babies, or be an active part of the workforce. If they're involved in unhappy or abusive marriages, they now have the choice to leave them and become single mothers. They also have the *choice* to take math and science, but choose not not to do so in large numbers. And so, these fields continue to be dominated by men. Similarly, young men have the *choice* to enroll in universities in the same large numbers that women do, but choose not to do so. If a man and woman decide to have premarital sex and be irresponsible about it, a baby could result, but that was their choice. Minorities now have the choice to pursue higher education and work in professions other than childcare, gerontology or retail, so they exercise the choice to enter different fields of employment, albeit at lesser pay
than their white counterparts. That's far from the only thing messed-up about pay structure in our society though, there are lots of invaluable workers who are not paid nearly enough. It is not discrimination against the white man if he chooses to play video games rather than go to university and his sister doesn't, sorry. I agree with you though that the media does have a large influence on young people's behaviour and the current "I Love You Man" strain of movies does promote a sort of prolonged adolescence. You know what else does, though? $40k of student debt and a job at Starbucks. That's not colour discrimination, that's the result of allowing education to become another part of Big Business.

PaxCanadiana said...

Systematic discrimination against white males - LOL!!!

Sure, at least when it comes to the working class and some entry level positions.

What we have now is the advent of choice...That's not colour discrimination, that's the result of allowing education to become another part of Big Business.

I guess. What's your point exactly?

Anonymous said...

Simple economic reasons, Immigration is a highly propaganda to improve declined population of a country. If a country is really developed, what happen its its population with prosperity growth.Stress, pressure and Debit, Is it a prosperity of an integrated culture ? Immigrants are the Charity resource(Human as a Resource) with real real estate and infrastructure growth in the name of quality life.Impact will reverse with in short time?All immigrants realizing the true facts.

Anonymous said...

interesting to see the silly ponzi scheme being trotted out about immigration being necessary to alleviate low birth rates. So what happens when the immigrants get old? Bring in more immigrants?