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."
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.