The ABC's pro-immigration bias on display

From CanDoBetter.org:

Over the weekend Federal Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone came out strongly to call for a cut in immigration levels by 25%, back to 2005-2006 levels. She was interviewed on ABC Newsradio on Sunday morning after 9AM (26th October 2008).

Mainstream media mumble muffles Stone's proposal
On the morning of Monday 27th October 2008. ABC's Radio National Breakfast program featured two stories in response to Stone's call. The first was on the segment featuring commentary of federal politics with Michelle Grattan
(Read the transcript or listen to the MP3 audio).

During this segment Grattan made several unsubstantiated assertions regarding immigration policy. Grattan is the senior political journalist for The Age.

Grattan obfuscates
The section of interest starts at the 2 minute mark of the MP3. She said the "government would be unwise to jump too quickly", i.e. it should not respond to the opposition's calls. She then goes on to say "our program is very much targeted to skills and these skills are really necessary if the Australian economy is to grow and labor shortages are not to cause a problem, now that's really important, now just as it was in better times. There is always pressure calls to cut back migration but there are a lot of positives in immigration and I think the government should be just wary of anything that's too knee-jerk"

Much Touted 'Targeted program' fails to target
I will not go into details here, but the idea that Australia's skilled immigration program is targeted is not born out by the fact that there is a very broad range of categories that will allow a person to come to Australia. I don't have an antonym to "targeted", but that is a much closer description of Australia's immigration program.

That old 'growth' argument again (groan)
Grattan then says that immigration is necessary for growth, but even the Productivity Commission that did a study on this found that immigrants have very marginal benefits on the economy. Whatever specific labor shortages Australia may have had, they are now quickly disappearing and I don't see how Grattan can argue that Australia's immigration program should go full steam ahead during bad economic times just so we will not have mythical labor shortages when things turn around. Lastly she briefly mentions there are "lot of positives in immigration " without bothering to mention any. Another useless argument, in any debate about immigration there can be many arguments that are just as valid against immigration.

Predictable Fairfax media pro-immigration line
Sadly Grattan is an employee of Fairfax. A predominantly print-media company that made most of its money out of classifieds, mainly in real-estate, jobs adverts and car sales. The print classifieds are losing market share to the internet, where dedicated web-companies have come in to all 3 of these categories and are eating into Fairfax's income. The Age which is the broadsheet newspaper of Melbourne has as far as I know always propagated a pro-immigration line so in this case Grattan is simply parroting the company line. Really she should be a commentator of federal political events and not a mouthpiece for a particular point of view.

'Our' ABC also touting growth (again)
A few minutes after Grattan's opinions were given, the Breakfast program ran another pro-immigration segment, headed "Global financial crisis impact on Australian immigration". The audio file is here.

ACTU National Secretary defends immigrant worker flood
As is all too common on the ABC these days, it presented only one side of the argument. It started with Sam Wong, a pharmacist and skilled migrant from the 1970's who extolled the virtues of immigration, telling us how they have created more wealth for the Australian economy. Surprisingly, they had the ACTU National Secretary Jeff Lawrence, someone who you would think would want to protect the right of workers, said the government should wait for a serious slowdown before making changes. Not surprisingly, Peter Anderson CEO, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also urged caution. He used a nice weasel word phrase "As we move into more difficult economic times the levels of demand in the labor force will progressively change" - i.e. unemployment is now going to jump significantly.

But he wants labour force to be "properly resourced" - a code word for employers to maintain low wages.

'Targeted' Immigration Program more like Blind Man's Buff
The immigration minister Chris Evans then gets his say. He says the skilled immigration program needs to be "better targeted", focusing on doctors nurses and the mining industry. Despite the collapse in commodity prices he still thinks that the mining industry is an area of serious skills shortage. He then says it "might be the economic boost that these migrants provide be important for maintaining strength in the economy and provide jobs for other Australians".

Peter Anderson - a conservative sermon
At the end Peter Anderson makes the point that "a political stoush over immigration levels is the last thing the economy needs. What we must avoid is creating a political process and a political bidding war around the reduction in skilled migration that would ultimately weaken the Australian economy and make it more difficult to come out these global challenges with our economy in a stronger position."

So in this last sentence Peter Anderson sounds very much like Michelle Grattan. Readers of The Age may think that it is has a progressive and occasionally left-of-centre viewpoint but in serious matters such as the immigration program, they are completely aligned with the right-wing business groups.

Why does the ABC depart from usual process on population growth?
Normally when the ABC has such segments, they say they sort out the politician who represents the opposite viewpoint, stating that such-an-such was unavailable for comment for this report. In this case they didn't even bother seeking an alternative. Except for the ABC NewsRadio interview on Sunday morning (26th Oct 2008), I cannot find any mention on the ABC web-site of opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone's call except for this very brief item. "Australia in no rush to reduce migrant intake" (http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200810/s2401501.htm)

Let's see if the ABC can correct this situation and examine viewpoints that support Sharman Stone.

Original article

Opposition leads calls to slash immigration

From the Courier Mail:

Opposition leads calls to slash immigration in 2009

Clinton Porteous
October 21, 2008 12:00am

PRESSURE is mounting on the Government to slash the immigration intake next year as the global meltdown is tipped to push up unemployment.

Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone yesterday urged the Federal Government to ditch past practice and consider cutting new arrivals before the financial year's end.

"It is important they remain flexible because the most important thing to do is look after Australia's own unemployed," she told The Courier-Mail.

This year Australia was due to accept a record 190,000 immigrants for the 12 months to the end of June.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised the Government will re-examine the migrant intake in the May Budget, but the Opposition is now pushing for earlier action.

"This Government needs to be watching very carefully the way the economy probably seems to be unravelling in the new year with higher unemployment occurring," Ms Stone said.

*snip*

The migrant intake is usually set in the Budget and locked in for the following 12 months, but the Opposition is calling for a re-think.

Ms Stone said the first step was to examine migrant intake by skill category and then by settlement location.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard refused yesterday to say what the expected unemployment rate would be by the end of June.

Budget documents estimated a jobless rate of 4.75 per cent, although that was now unlikely.

Full article

Economic hardship and "diversity" don't mix

From TheRealists.com.au:

Economic hardship and Joys of Multiculturalism don’t mix

October 14th, 2008

Over the course of the past few decades the face Australia’s largest cities have changed quite dramatically. For example, from being mostly homogeneous back in the 1970’s (before the word ‘Multiculturalism’ existed), now over 1 in 3 people residing in Sydney today were born somewhere other than Australia.

*snip*

Many people hold Australia up as a shining example of ‘how multiculturalism should be done’ (It’s ironic that the supporters of multiculturalism have to search for places in the world where the effects of multiculturalism haven’t been devastating in order for them to claim that multiculturalism is the panacea to all of societies ills). It has been quite fortuitous that during the time of historically high levels of immigration Australia’s economy has grown quite strongly.

The Howard government began the large increases in immigration in 1998 (from a level of 82,000 in Paul Keating’s final year in office to 159,000 in Howard’s last year in office). Kevin Rudd has taken the baton and ran with it, increasing immigration to a staggering 190,000, more people coming to this country than the number of children being born in Australia.

During these times economic conditions have been good and there has been little disquiet about the levels of immigration. After all, we were all getting rich, why not share the wealth?

Sure, there were racially motivated gang rapes, sure we had race riots; and so what if some traditional white families were fleeing suburbs where immigrants were settling? Things were going along great, house prices and the share market were rising, everyone had a job; why complain when things are good?

However, when things are good and everyone is ‘comfortable and relaxed’ and we still have race riots, what could occur if unemployment really starts to rise?

How much community spirit would there be in our wonderful multicultural suburbs if, as has occurred in places like Iceland, people are so scared that they start hoarding food?

Will the great spirit of Aussie mateship shine through if people are doing it tough, when communities really have to band together in order to see the tough times through?

If the experience of other countries is anything to go by then nobody can say for certain what will eventuate in Australia. It’s a gamble that successive governments have chosen to take on behalf of the Australian people.

Hopefully luck will stay with us.

Original article

Record immigration exacerbating WA's housing affordability crisis

From WA Today:

Immigrants put pressure on WA house prices

Vanessa Williams
September 25, 2008

Western Australia has seen the highest influx of immigrants in the nation, putting even more pressure on housing affordability, according to the Housing Industry Association.

Figures released from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show WA recorded the highest growth in Australia in the year to March, with 52,000 people flocking to the state.

HIA chief executive of policy Chris Lamont said the population growth led to less affordable housing.

"We need to look at the growth in population," Mr Lamont said.

"The mining boom is not going to continue and housing is going to be in critical demand."

The First Start shared equity program - a scheme whereby state government contributes to the home-buyer's mortgage - has been suspended due to a fund blow-out.

With Premier Colin Barnett not yet committing extra funds to the programme, Mr Lamont believed that the state government needed to urgently review the situation that many first home-buyers now faced.

He said one solution would be to reduce statutory charges with new housing.

"My suggestion to the WA state government would be to boost the supply of housing affordability and focus on supply," he said.

"However, it is a solution that will require both the state and the federal government to work together."

Original article

Immigration "not serving the country"

From The Australian:

Migration Not Helping Skills Shortage

Guy Healy
Oct. 16, 2008

The Immigration Department has admitted tertiary enrolments are failing to meet state and territory demands for graduates in mining, construction and nursing, despite an overhaul of the skilled migration system to meet the labour shortage.

The surge in vocational education and training and intensive English-language courses for overseas students was in areas “which appear to be outside those demanded”, senior Immigration official Peter Speldewinde told a Brisbane conference.

The skilled immigration category was revamped last year to give greater emphasis to speaking English and developing skills among the tens of thousands of overseas students who now go on to form a key plank of the permanent skilled migration program every year.

Registered nurses, dentists, engineers, radiographers, urban planners, occupational therapists, electricians, bakers, bricklayers, mechanics, carpenters and chefs are among the top 20 occupational shortage areas identified by the states and territories.

But Immigration Department data shows overseas students under the skilled immigration category are flocking instead into hospitality management, welfare studies, hairdressing, accounting, cookery and computing.

There were almost 11,000 course commencements in hospitality, almost 2000 in welfare studies and almost 1500 in hairdressing, all winning valuable points towards permanent residency.

Mr Speldewinde, the department’s skilled-migration director, told educators at the conference last Friday that it was “clear there are not so much loopholes, but areas in which (earning) points probably stimulate people to go down certain paths”.

“Clearly the Migrant Occupation on Demand List (under which migrants get points toward permanent residency) is driving very, very strongly migrants’ choices,” he said.

Mr Speldewinde said the system was under review to conform with Immigration Minister Chris Evans’s aim of ensuring the selection of high-quality skilled migrants who will more directly address labour market shortages.

“The focus is on quality, not quantity,” he said.

Two of the key architects of last year’s reforms, Monash University demographer Bob Birrell, and National Institute of Labour Studies director Sue Richardson, yesterday described as a mixed success the effort to recruit skilled migrants instead of educating younger Australians.

Dr Birrell told The Australian “the surge in skilled migration program is not delivering the skills needed in mining and construction industries, and that’s the Government’s main concern”.

“More than half the skilled immigrants are settling in Sydney and Melbourne,” not in Queensland and Western Australia where they are needed, he said.

Dr Birrell—a fierce critic of aspects of the migration program—said that despite the sobering assessment from Mr Speldewinde, Australia was “likely to get better-equipped migrants and it’s a good thing Labor has stuck by this initiative of former (Coalition) minister (Kevin) Andrews”.

“The acknowledgement the system is not serving the country is quite striking, as is vocational education overtaking higher education because it’s an easier and cheaper route to permanent residency,” he said.

Professor Richardson told The Australian she was concerned that more than half our population growth was now coming from migration rather than births.

Original article

Rudd Government to reduce immigration?

From The Age:

Rudd flags cut in migrant numbers

October 10, 2008 - 9:56AM

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has flagged a cut in immigration because of the global financial crisis, faltering economic growth and a rise in unemployment.

Mr Rudd said the current immigration rate was an increase on the previous year.

He said that increase was to meet employer demands for more skilled workers, particularly in mining and resource intensive Western Australia and Queensland.

"As with all previous governments, and mine's the same, whenever we set immigration targets we will adjust them according to the economic circumstances of the day," he told the Fairfax Radio Network in Melbourne.

The 2008-09 Migration Program is set at 190,300 places, representing a 19.8 per cent increase on the 2007-08 program. The figure includes 56,500 places for family migrants sponsored by people already in Australia and 133,500 places for those with special skills.

But that's now been criticised as excessively large in a period of economic turmoil.

Full article

Rudd's immigration program "dumb" and "dangerous"

From the Herald Sun:

Door squeaks as PM peeks

Andrew Bolt
October 08, 2008 12:00am

EVEN on the day it was announced, the Rudd Government's plan to import a million extra people in just three years seemed stupid.

Now, as stock markets melt and shares shrivel, it's positively dangerous.

Question: Why is the Government running the biggest immigration program in our history just as the economy may be careening into a wall?

Why does it plan in its first term to import the equivalent of the population of Adelaide when even Prime Minister Kevin Rudd concedes unemployment is about to climb?

Oh, sorry - you didn't know Rudd had so ramped up immigration?

Don't blame yourself. He never mentioned in his campaign launch last year that he had any such intention.

*snip*

Fact is, almost all the other policies of the federal and state governments leave us totally unprepared to deal with an intake that huge.

For a start, most states have got out of the habit of laying on the essential infrastructure we need for ourselves, let alone for migrants as well.

These are now green times, so they hate building dams. They despise building power stations. They shy at building city freeways. They resent releasing farmland for houses. They even want less irrigation of crops, and not more.

Result? They can't even give those here already enough water. They can't unclog our roads or unjam our trains. They can't make new houses affordable or food cheaper, and soon they'll struggle even to generate enough electricity.

So how are they going to offer land, water, power and transport to more than 500,000 permanent newcomers Rudd hopes to settle here permanently in just three years?

No wonder Premier John Brumby two months ago cried enough on immigration: "I think we are probably at the limits of growth."

Sure, eager-to-please Rudd thought turbo-charging the intake of migrants and temporary workers would please big business.

After all, importing workers thrills companies that want to keep down wages. Importing migrants puts a glint in the eye of house builders and car makers salivating to sell the new arrivals homes and wheels.

But, as the Productivity Commission warned just two years ago, for the rest of us immigration just means more competition and not much gain.

Even with a modest rise in immigration of some 40,000 skilled workers each year, the commission said in Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, "the impact of migration is very small compared with other drivers of per capita income growth".

Britain's House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs this year found the same was true there: "Our general conclusion is that the economic benefits of positive net immigration are small or insignificant."

In fact, thanks to the Rudd Government's manic belief in man-made global warming, a lot of migrants could actually make us a lot worse off.

That's because every new migrant, with his eating, burping, driving, computering and light-switching, adds to the greenhouse gases we pump out - just when the Government is determined to bring an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to make us cut those gases. Or pay.

That means the more migrants we bring in, the more the rest of us will have to cut our own emissions to make up for them and meet the cap the Government eventually sets. So importing migrants is importing carbon pain.

And remember: all this was clear even before our economy started to slide. How much dumber does it seem now to amp up immigration when we could be on the brink of mass lay-offs?

Even Rudd last week conceded: "The global financial crisis is having a greater impact on economies around the world, including in Australia, and that will mean unemployment in Australia could now increase more than forecast earlier in the year."

So the plan is to bring in even more migrants to compete for jobs with Australians who are now losing their own? I don't think so.

But I said Rudd's plan was not just dumb but now dangerous.

Here's why. We may hate to admit it, but we today struggle to assimilate some groups of migrants as well as we once did -- especially those with poor skills and worse English. In NSW, for instance, Lebanese-born citizens are twice more likely as the rest of us to be jailed. In Melbourne, police battle ethnic gangs of African refugees.

So it's important that future immigrants have the background and the skills to fit in, and especially the education they need to land good jobs and make their own way.

But the Rudd Government, crazily enough, has skewed its immigration policies to allow in more poorly skilled immigrants who may not even speak English.

Full article

Foreign students exploiting immigration "loopholes"

From The Australian:

Fast-tracked residents not tied to their trades

Jonathan Porter | September 20, 2008

AS far as immigration mandarins are concerned, Jinal Patel is meeting a critical skills shortage in hairdressing. But it may not be that cut and dried.

Migration experts have branded as a loophole a scheme that gives preference to onshore students who study trades such as hairdressing and cookery.

Ms Patel paid $16,500 to a migration agent in her home town of Gandhinagar, in India's west, for the ironclad promise of permanent residency in Australia. She arrived on a student visa in July.

In the process, the 23-year-old became part of the largest and fastest-growing sector of our immigration program: young people who arrive on student visas and change their status, usually by completing a trade certificate in hospitality.

There are about 20,000 of these students who achieve permanent residence each year. Most have university degrees, particularly in accounting. But there has been a surge in the number of trade-qualified cooks and hairdressers -- and their numbers are likely to escalate in the near future.

These students make up about half of the skilled migrants selected under Australia's points-tested skilled migration program.

Sydney-based Ms Patel, whose husband is here on a dependent spouse visa and doesn't work, said Australian immigration authorities did not deem her bachelor of commerce degree sufficient to give her permanent residency.

Once Ms Patel, who also doesn't work and is being supported by her family back home, and fellow student Eileen Li, from Fouzhou in southern China, complete their two-year hairdressing certificates, their papers will be stamped by Trades Recognition Australia.

They will then submit their applications for permanent residency to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and will be given permanent residency.

Immigration expert Bob Birrell said that, in 2005, there were 10,782 overseas students starting courses in the service, hospitality, and transport areas.

"In 2006 there were 18,524 and in 2007 there were 30,492," Professor Birrell said. "Of these, in 2005 some 1800 were from India, rising to 4661 in 2006 and 11,866 in 2007. They will be seeking permanent residency at the end of 2008 and in 2009."

Sydney-based migration agent Mark Webster said the fast track for trade certificates in hairdressing and cooking was "a loophole" and called for the Government to re-examine its migration program.

"The system doesn't really pick people the economy needs," Mr Webster said.

"I don't think anybody has asked themselves if that's the best way for the immigration program to be run."

The students are flooding into private colleges set up under competition reforms introduced by the Howard government as an alternative to TAFE.

An industry insider at one private hairdressing school said that in a class of 26, maybe six actually wanted to be hairdressers.

"They are just doing it to get permanent residency," the source said. "But once they have paid their $15,000 a year, the bosses are not going to fail them, are they?"

The occupations of cook and hairdresser have been on the preferred list for immigration for four and nine years respectively but Professor Birrell said the large numbers of migrants coming here supposedly to fill the gaps "are not solving Australia's skill shortage problem".

"However, by leaving hospitality jobs on the eligible occupation list they are acting as a beacon of opportunity for migrants to come here," he said.

Professional Hairdressers Association chief executive Gregory Christo said the private colleges were "bastardising the industry".

"This is a huge problem," Mr Christo said. "The vast majority (of migrant students) are using hairdressing to get residency with no intention of staying in the industry."

Original article

Indian chain migration gains momentum

From The Australian:

Indian brides lead migration surge

Jonathan Porter | October 04, 2008

WHEN 21-year-old Kanika Puri was sponsored by her new husband to emigrate to Australia just three months after their Anzac Day wedding in 2004, she became part of the largest and fastest-growing group of spouses seeking a new life down under.

Last year, 2782 Indian brides, sponsored overwhelmingly by men of Indian birth, arrived in Australia, compared with 496 husbands brought out by women.

Eleven years ago, just 434 Indian brides were sponsored and 149 men, meaning there has been a six-fold increase.

The next largest group is British men. According to immigration figures obtained by The Weekend Australian, 2259 were brought out by Australian women in 2007-08, compared with 1862 British women sponsored by our men -- virtually unchanged from 11 years ago.

After that there is China, with 2409 women and 1243 men coming to our shores; and then The Philippines with 1158 women and just 318 men. This compares with 455 Bangladeshi brides who called Australia home in 2007-08, and 92 husbands, up from a base of 79 and 34 respectively in 1996-97.

Immigration expert Bob Birrell said the growth in Indian spouse sponsorship proved the immigration program had "a life of its own". "Visas issued under the spouse and fiancee program have grown from 25,500 in 1996-97 to 39,931 in 2007-08," Professor Birrell, from Monash University, said. "This is very substantial growth and illustrates the dynamics of the program, which has recently been boosted by the Labor Government largely to keep a lid on the price of labour.

"Most of the growth in spouses and fiancees is from non-English-speaking countries. That reflects the stock of people who have migrated here in recent years who are now looking for a spouse. They are in a good position to attract a partner from their homeland because movement to Australia is such an attractive option."

Professor Birrell said once a country had a "pioneer community from a place like Bangladesh, where there is enormous pressure to get out, the spouse numbers can rise dramatically". "Mostly it is men going back for a bride."

The program could run into problems because, when combined with the humanitarian program, there were large numbers of people coming in who were not being skills- or language-tested.

"We are bringing in spouses who are likely to not speak English and not have skills they can sell in the marketplace," Professor Birrell said. "This could be a problem if the market goes off the boil."

Full article

Massive immigration to worsen Sydney's housing shortage

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Squeeze for homes worse than targets

Sunanda Creagh, Urban Affairs Reporter
October 2, 2008

A SOARING immigration rate means Sydney's suburbs will need to squeeze in a third more apartment blocks and houses than councils and government planners first thought - and that's on top of already ambitious development targets laid out in the State Government's 25-year city growth plan, says one of the state's top planning experts.

The Metropolitan Strategy - Sydney's blueprint for development - estimated in 2005 that the city would need an extra 640,000 dwellings by 2031 but a co-author of the report now says up to 876,640 will be needed.

"The numbers are somewhat alarming. It means we really do need to refocus our attention on how we will accommodate Sydney's growing population and we are not producing anything like the targets needed to meet this demand," Patrick Fensham, a director at SGS Economics and Planning, said yesterday.

"That will mean pressure on housing affordability, people staying at home longer, cramming in more bodies than people like to in the house. We need a policy response," said Mr Fensham.

SGS used the latest population projection figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to calculate that up to 575,295 new units or houses will need to be built in existing suburbs over the next 23 years, while up to 301,345 new dwellings will be needed on greenfield sites in Sydney's outer areas. That is about a third more homes than the Metropolitan Strategy assumed would be required, said Mr Fensham.

Full article

'Soaring' immigration to send NSW into deeper debt

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

We can't afford to keep Sydney running: Rees

Brian Robins, Sunanda Creagh and Wendy Frew
October 2, 2008

SYDNEY has grossly under-estimated the population explosion that will squeeze its resources over the next 20 years, but the cash-strapped Premier admits it is "pointless" to promise the billions of dollars in extra spending the city will need.

Nathan Rees yesterday signalled deep cuts in the capital spending program and a radical departure from the $140 billion infrastructure strategy of the former premier, Morris Iemma.

On the same day that it emerged Sydney will need almost 900,000 extra homes by 2031 - a third more than estimated three years ago - Mr Rees told a news conference: "Governments can boast about capital works programs extending out five, 10, 15 years. But essentially what you're boasting about is the level of debt you have."

*snip*

Population growth in such areas will be a big test for the city's future infrastructure needs. A soaring immigration rate means Sydney will need to squeeze in a third more houses and flats by 2031 than was estimated only three years ago. The city's flagging infrastructure is already struggling to cope with population pressures. But falling tax revenue had left the Government little choice but to slash spending, Mr Rees said.

Full article

Costs of immigration exceed benefits

Common sense from Canada:

The truth about immigration is that costs exceed benefits
James Bissett, Special to the Sun
Published: Monday, September 29, 2008

We sometimes complain about politicians who don't do what they promise to do after they get elected. Ironically, it is sometimes much better for the country when some of these promises are broken.

Let's hope, for example, that the promises made by our political leaders to raise immigration levels and provide more money for immigrant organizations are not kept. Either our political leaders do not know that Canada is facing an immigration crisis or they care more about gaining a few more so-called "ethnic voters" than they do about telling the truth about immigration.

Canada is taking far too many immigrants and the leaders of all the parties are promising to take even more. There are already close to a million immigrants waiting in the backlog to come here. They have all met the requirements and by law must be admitted. There is also a backlog of 62,000 asylum seekers before the refugee board and even if these are not found to be genuine refugees most will be allowed to stay. In addition, there are between 150,000 and 200,000 temporary workers now in the country and here again it is unlikely many of them will ever go home.

Despite these extraordinary numbers, the Harper government wants to raise the immigration intake next year to 265,000. The Liberals and the New Democrats have said they want even more, as much as one per cent of our population, or 333,000 each year.

These are enormous numbers and even in the best of times would place a serious burden on the economy and on the already strained infrastructure of the three major urban centres where most of them would end up. Let's face the facts -- when there is a downturn in the world economy and dire predictions of serious recession or worse this is not the time to be bringing thousands of newcomers to Canada. In July of this year, Ontario alone lost 55,000 jobs. So what is the rationale for more immigration? 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.

There are few economists today who argue that immigration helps the economy in any significant way. Studies in Canada since the mid-1980s have pointed out that immigration has little impact on the economic welfare of the receiving country and similar studies in the United States and Britain have reached the same conclusion. Comprehensive studies by George Borjas, the world's most renowned immigration economist at Harvard University have shown that immigration's only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers.

Our politicians justify their desire for more immigrants by raising the spectre of an aging population and telling us immigration is the only answer to this dilemma, and yet there is not a shred of truth to this argument. Immigration does not provide the answer to population aging and there is a multiplicity of studies done in Canada and elsewhere that proves this. Moreover, there is no evidence that a larger labour force necessarily leads to economic progress. Many countries whose labour force is shrinking are still enjoying economic buoyancy. Finland, Switzerland and Japan are only a few examples of countries that do not rely on massive immigration to succeed. Productivity is the answer to economic success not a larger population.

Full article