Talk:Economic impact of immigration to Canada

• Archive 1

Positive impacts

Does this article even mention any positive economic/social contributions that immigration has done to Canada? The article should argue the pros and cons of immigration, not simply stating the costs of it. (unsigned: User:Anothertruthteller)

Any positive contribution statistics would be a welcome addition to the article. Please identify them either in the article or here on the talk page. Thanks. Deet 12:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Balance and Neutrality

Concerns arise in this article in the minimal statement of positive impacts, and then the overwhelming refutation of them, and/or comprehensive argumentative support of views that consider their economic impact negative. To ensure this article paints an accurate picture, there should be a better balance of positive and negative support of the economic benefit debate. This article does not fulfill this critieria at this moment, and therefore, I have added a neutrality tag.

For example: in economy-wide impacts, there is not a single dedicated paragraph for positive economic contributions.

This article mentions positive economic impacts of immigration. These include:

"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."

"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."

"...the theory that it results in a stronger Canadian economy."

As per Wikipedia guidelines:

"Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.163.210 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptionally few sources, studies, and/or articles for these statements, nor close to the level of development of anti-economic impact immigrant arguments. This article must be more balanced. 142.151.163.210 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and please consider registering. We can only add positive impact statistics to the article to the extent they can be identified. I personally attempted to source positive economic impact statistics; however, I was not successful. I asked others to help, and I have had similar discussions with others such as yourself:

• I made an appeal to Canadian Wikipedians to help find more positive economic impacts here (scroll to the right) and did not receive any responses.
• I had a similar discussion with Ggbroad in Talk:Immigration to Canada, where he was going to look for positive impacts and get back to the article, and never did.
• I have made a request for a Peer Review (above) which has not resulted in POV points.
• The article has been well "advertised" (linked to) for over a year, without any edit wars or fact disputes.
• The above noted discussion with Anothertruthteller is relatively straight-forward, and neither he nor anyone else who read the talk page has offered any positive economic impact statistics.

Please see the above section "The scope of citations."--P00r (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would note that in the Expanded economy section (which is featured early on in the Economy-wide impact section you reference), it implies that the entire economy stems from people who migrated to Canada, so I think that is consistent with your objective. However, we can't publish benefits if we can't statistically support them. Wikipedia is not censored, so the facts should not be curtailed to fit anyone's views, even if that means the article does not mirror your thinking on the topic (e.g., if it results in more negatives than positives).

WRT, your comments on there being few sources, um, this is probably one of the best referenced article. 42 sources, referenced 57 times, for what is still a fairly short article, with every stat found in one of the sources, and each source is from a mainstream organization.

How do you see us moving forward? Deet 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful in conflating a lack of contribution by Wikipedia members with a lack of positive economic impacts on the whole, as per your note that an issue of Wikipedia censorship is present. I have little quarrel with the validity of the negative economic impacts presented here, in that they each are well developed and supported. It stands to say, however, that two briefly referred to positive economic impacts have minimal elaboration, these are:

"Canada can use the skilled worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs."

and

"New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities."

I will try to locate supporting evidence for these, but do not have the time to effectively commit to their development. I would suggest examining some pro-immigration websites to begin. As it stands, however, that does not mean the POV tag should be removed. The qualifications of the POV tag, principally "that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner" still stand, even if there is an unfortunate dearth of individuals who can contribute to the other side.

To address your last concern, I was referring to there being few sources, studies and articles for the positive economic impacts, not the negative ones.

142.151.163.210 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the weakest explanations for a POV tag that I have ever encountered. Nonetheless, I will leave it for a time to see if this flushes out the positive impact side more completely. Deet 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please identify and explain your concerns with my justifications for the POV tag. As previously mentioned, the concern arises from the qualification for a POV tag that "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to the best of its ability." This is where my concern in relation to POV with the article lies.

The article dedicates considerable and astute elaboration to the negative economic impacts of immigration to Canada. It does not, however, do the same for examining positive economic impacts. This is exemplified by the following:

1. The section on economy-wide impacts contains few lines (these being those at the start of the Expanded economy section, as you pointed out) addressing positive impacts. The vast majority of this section, two large paragraphs, addresses negative impacts only.

2. The two major positive impacts identified, "Canada can use the skills worker immigrant program to fill existing labour market needs." and "New residents can assist in meeting future government obligations relating to pay-as-you-go liabilities." are not elaborated upon beyond these statements, nor are there any supporting studies, articles, and sources of the like. This is in contrast to negative economic impacts, which as aforementioned, are discussed at length.

You identified this as occurring because:

1. There has been a lack of response on the part of Wikipedia members to contribute.

2. You have been unable to locate information that supports this position.

I understand your explanation of difficulty in fostering a better balance between the two sides. This does not mean, however, that a POV concern does not exist. That concern does exist, which is why you have undertaken the various steps you talked about. The fact these moves have not proved fruitful does not mean that the POV concern has been eliminated. Therefore, the POV tag is justified.

Accordingly, the POV tag is governed by Wikipedia guidelines re: resolution, not individual assessment and unilateral decision. These should outline when the POV tag should be removed, not individual decision to "leave it [POV tag] for a time".

142.151.163.210 04:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually, a POV tag revolves around an actual content dispute (delete this or add that). Instead, your basic position seems to be: (1) not enough references for the positive impacts, and (2) your assumption that there is more to the positive impact story that we have yet to discover and elaborate upon. Now, we can put references on the positive impact statements easily enough (for example, the birth rate argument can be seen in the already referenced link; however, in my view this is not a Wikipedia requirement. References are not required for every sentence written in Wikipedia, but instead are required when a fact is likely to be disputed. And I do not believe you are actually disputing the positive impact statements, nor has anyone else. Now about your argument (2), is your idea that we wait around on the hope that your assumption is correct and eventually we or someone else will find the statistics or study that supports these ideas? Sorry, but that's just not a credible position to take. Using the birth rate argument again, look at what the government said:

Recently, the question of immigration has been linked closely with Canada’s future as the implications of demographic changes become clearer. Given our country’s relatively low birth rate and aging population, many inside and outside government have seen immigration – and greatly increased immigration – as essential both to stave off severe labour market dislocation and to protect social programs. Others are not so sure. The implications of our demographics and the current debate surrounding it thus deserve a special section of their own.

It goes on with statistics (which our article references via a link). But there is no direct economic link presented. Well, we can't wait around for someone to elaborate. Unless you have a factual dispute, please remove the POV tag. Deet 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem, IMO, is that this article attempts to itself analyze the problem, which is not our job at Wikipedia. We shouldn't be looking for positive or negative statistics, but instead should summarize the current state of the debate itself, with reference to existing secondary sources. What does the government say about it? What do Canadian and foreign economists say about it? Can we write an article that both sides of the debate would agree is a fair summary of the debate? As it stands this article reads more like it's itself an entry into the debate, digging into primary sources, presenting arguments based on them, refuting contrary arguments, etc., rather than acting as a neutral summary of the debate. Parts of the article are perfectly fine of course—it does actually do a good deal of quoting pro and con arguments, but somehow reading it I don't come away with a neutral impression, but instead it seems like the article "takes sides" in the debate. --Delirium 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What does the government say about it? That the economic benefits are 1 of 3 key reasons behind Canadian immigration policy. However, even though this is a fairly well studied topic (only a handful of Statistics Canada studies are cited here), I do not see the government referring to many (any?) immigration/economics related statistics. And, for example, while many may disagree with the Fraser Institute, I have not seen anyone publish any recent study (even left-wing organizations) that says taxation exceeds expense. But I do not agree that this article enters the debate; it has no thesis or conclusion; the article was intended to be a summary of on-topic facts. Deet 11:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE. I have been re-reading the government's own view (from the first footnote: Canada's Immigration Program (2004). You can see that the government's own write-up is reflective of the content of the article:

It has been pointed out, and acknowledged by the federal government, that immigrants arriving in the 1990s were initially less successful economically than previous arrivals, despite having higher levels of education, on average, than Canadians.(15) There may be numerous reasons for this situation, including: inadequate systems for evaluating foreign education and training credentials and providing for any necessary upgrading; a reluctance of Canadian employers to hire workers without Canadian experience or less than complete language fluency; and negative attitudes on the part of some employers toward hiring newcomers, particularly visible minorities. Some have argued that, until these problems are ironed out, it would be fairer to potential immigrants to keep immigration levels modest, or at least provide better information to prospective immigrants.

It should be noted that there is some evidence that immigrant performance did begin to improve in the mid-1990s but, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this recovery has been tentative.(16)

Finally, some commentators note that the immigration program costs money. At the federal level, significant resources are required for overseas and inland processing, for settlement and integration programs, and for the additional enforcement activities that higher immigration levels could be expected to bring. Such costs are only partly offset by user fees charged to applicants. Provincially, many newcomers require settlement services and their children typically need second-language instruction in English or French. Some immigrants need social assistance, and there are the medical services to which all permanent residents are entitled.

I also reviewed the positive impact theories, which are discussed in the same document, but again they are presented more as theories without supporting statistics (other than the birth rate stats which are acknowledged in this article and covered here via the link). Deet 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent modifications to the first paragraph

I recall reading this article a few months back and was glad to see that it stuck to the facts. However it seems that a few sentences were slipped into the first paragraph that are entirely misleading and are in fact negated by content found further in the article.

Here are the questionable sentences (highlighted):

The economic impact of immigration is an important topic in Canada. Throughout its history Canada has depended on a large stream of immigrants for its economic success. While the immigration rate has declined sharply from its peak early in the 20th century, Canada still accepts more immigrants per capita than any other major country. Modern economic theory[citation needed] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[2] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration.

Do I have support to revert the first part of this article to a previous version?

Your comment does not surprise me as several positive comments were recently inserted into the article that I also believe are unsupportable. Sentences such as this also confuse support for immigration with the recognition of positive economic impacts, which are not necessarily the same thing. Deet (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The generally positive view of immigration is not just a popular view among the Canadian population, but is also the overwhelming result of the academic studies and government reports that have been published on the subject. While there are contrary views, and they deserve to be mentioned in this article, the opposition mostly comes from fringe groups like the Fraser Institute. The lead should give precedence to the mainstream opinion. - SimonP (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Simon, considering your talk opinions on in the homelessness in Canada article, you are quite selective as to what anecdotal information is relevant in an article. The topic of this particular article is the ECONOMIC IMPACTS. General opinion of immigration is irrelevant here. In fact, no opinions of the Fraser Institute are even represented, only the results of their peer-reviewed studies. The media seems happy to quote the Fraser Institute for much of their work, such as schools. But regardless of what you think of them, they are one of the only groups that makes any attempt at even measuring immigration-related costs/benefits. Inserting mere theories and opinions to counter them is not helpful. The new studies you have inserted are instead better suited for that purpose. Deet (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Fraser Insitute publications are not peer reviewed. Public Policy Source is an in house journal of the Fraser Institute. Their papers hardly ever meet the standards needed for academic peer review. It's an organization whose goal is public persuasion, not rigorous research. We thus have to be careful about using it as a source. It can be a useful reference for the opinions of a certain segment of the Canadian right, but it should never be used a reliable reference for facts. Currently the Fraser Institute is cited five times, and mentioned twice in the text of this article, that is certainly enough. - SimonP (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than creating unique opinions of the Fraser Institute for this article, I suggest we rely on the main Fraser Institute article that states: "Institute research is peer-reviewed both by internal panels and external academics and policy researchers."[1][2] Deet (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean our article that states "the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method?" - SimonP (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is under what "critics" "claim", as opposed to my quote that was stated as fact. Deet (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence introducing your claim is "Institute supporters respond that this view is false." - SimonP (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Original enquirer here.

I've removed the following sentences from the first paragraph as they do not fit into the article subject. Explanation below each respective sentence.

Modern economic theory[2] posits that immigration and the free movement of labour are an overwhelming positive for an economy. Link points to a Frasier Institute study on the income status of immigrants. It is not at all related to economic theory and does not link "immigration and the free movement of labour" as positive contributions to the economy. Most Canadians agree, and in recent years support for immigration has increased in Canada.[3] All of Canada's major political parties support either sustaining or increasing the current level of immigration. Popular opinion has no weight on the economic ramifications of immigration. Additionaly, two major political parties (Quebecois and Conservative) have voiced concern and made steps to curb current immigration levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.121.24 (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with these changes. The most important question this article should examine is why Canada is unique from pretty much every other country in the world in aggressively pursuing such high rates of immigration. Explanations for this Canadian exceptionalism is the central theme of the literature on the subject, and also a topic of international interest. The widespread popular and political support for high immigrations rates is a crucial component of this, and can't simply be ignored. Could you provide a reference for the Bloc and CPC planning wanting to cut immigration levels? The Tories have been very explicit through the recent immigration debate that they have no plans to reduce the overall number of immigrants. Here a quote from Harper himself on the issue, when he unveiled the new reforms: "On immigration generally I want to be clear that this government favours an aggressive immigration policy. We are bringing in more immigrants than any previous government." (Toronto Star, April 19, 2008).

Also, please check references more closely. The Fraser Institute study states that "the classical model of the economic effects of immigration strengthens these views about the benefits of liberal immigration." It's not an ideal reference for the theoretical support economists have for high immigration, but it will do. - SimonP (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Curly Turkey, how would anyone know what even in the sources? Most of the sources quoted that suggest economic benefits are all "unclickable" references. I realize that doesn't make them bad, but is is unfortunate compared to clickable links, and it has allowed for potential selective interpretation by the original contributors using the references without easy double-checking. To then come along and bully other edits that try to balance the language is the reason nobody wants to edit wikipedia anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.65.71 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm talking about having changed the line "86.9% of Canadian exports go to the United States" to "However, 86.9% of Canadian exports go to the United States, from which relatively fewer people leave to come to Canada". Just where is this information coming from? Certainly not the referenced source, which is now a dead link. Further, how does this information (having magically appeared from nowhere) create more "balance"? That's only one of the mass of changes, which are all over the place. How about "The well established libertarian think tank Fraser Institute..." Why was "well established" added? To create more "balance"? Seriously?!? And why was the reference to "The Impact of Immigrants on Canada's Treasury" removed? Was it unreliable? Can't tell, because it was removed without any explanation. Where did "Recent immigrants are also less likely to make use of subsidized housing than native Canadians of the same income level" go, and why? Some of the other portions of the edit do seem to bring in more neutral wording, but as a whole, I having trouble seeing it as merely an attempt to bring "balance". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right... the 86% figure is high. The better figure is 73.3%[3] However, this still shows just how dumb the original point was. 73% is way out of whack with the number of American immigrants to Canada, and is probably one of the least diversified export profiles of any country in the world. It just shows how ridiculous that entire section is... why haven't you deleted the entire section... must have been the great info in the source used for it... too bad none of the rest of us can read it as it is unclickable. Most stuff from the pro-impact side of this article is similarly flaky and its sources are usually obscure university studies by students using simplistic methodologies and are not from serious sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.65.71 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

bias

Just finished reading the article and noticed a lot of bias towards the positive effects and against the negative effects of immigration. The author mentions a study that found a net benefit from immigration but fails to mention its name or who wrote it and then mentions another outdated one from 20 years ago. They then go on to make comments on the recent Fraser institute report and discredit it by calling them right wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.90.21 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Steinhardt's comment on this article

Dr. Steinhardt has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

There should be some information about naturalizations and its economic impact.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Steinhardt has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Facchini, Giovanni & Steinhardt, Max, 2011. "What Drives U.S. Immigration Policy? Evidence from Congressional Roll Call Votes," CEPR Discussion Papers 8299, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New additions to the lead

The new additions to the lead read like a personal essay. The thesis seems to be:

"the two conflicting narratives that exist in Canada is one of politicians that higher immigration levels helps to increase economy (GDP) and the other of economists that say it decreases GDP per capita "

This isn't referenced, and it can't be because it isn't true. On the economic side there is a consensus to the benefits of immigration. The concern tends to come from the political side. - SimonP (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And even if it is true, it's riddled with grammatical error. The whole article is, which concerns me. It's hardly of a neutral tone as well. Arctinius (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Immigration’s impact on housing availability and cost

Shouldn’t this be part of the page? 2607:FEA8:5362:1E00:C81A:8754:14B2:F3E9 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page doesn't look like it was written by a native English speaker

The grammar in the opening section is off, not to mention its general weirdness (long sections attributed to unnamed figures like 'an award-winning Canadian journalist" and "an ex-policy maker") 2604:3D08:7074:9200:F143:DCBC:CF49:45F1 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Article cleanup rewrite tag

Hello everyone. I have added a rewrite cleanup tag to this article because, in its present state, it presents multiple issues.

Grammar

There are numerous and consistent issues with grammar in this article. Example sentences include:

• "Increased immigration numbers and the associated soaring housing prices has significantly contributed to the rise of inflation in 2021 to the highest in 18 years." The tense is the wrong grammatical person.
• "Canada is one of the top Western countries that accepts most immigrants per capita." The "the" article is missing and the overall sentence is extremely vague in terms of meaning.

Tone issues

Several sentences read like a high school essay with severe tone issues that are not appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Here are some examples:

• "An award-winning Canadian journalist revealed the poor preparedness for receiving immigrants in swathes, aligning with Canada's historic need for a "servant class" and "cheap labor" for the bourgeoisie and owning class."

• As a part of the process, by default, the government systematically forces a majority of immigrants into vulnerable positions and economic disenfranchisement." This statement is very reaching, considering the two sources are an opinion piece and a single Minister's comments.

• "An article by an ex-policy maker states that Canada is rooting for the low-wage-low-productivity model of competitiveness that it has been locked in from the mid-1980s with this aggressive immigration targets." This is uncited.

Shows as cited: https://ppforum.ca/publications/don-wright-middle-class/

• "A problematic approach per Paul Krugman in long term, he considers throwing more cheap labour at problems without a significant increase in productivity will affect a country's ability to improve its standard of living over time." This is a comma splice, but also not of professional tone for Wikipedia.

• "The article further observes that..." Again, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I could go on and on about this but there are a lot of severe issues that need fixing at a level of depth that I'm not entirely comfortable fixing myself. The rest of the article is somewhat better but it still suffers from generalized statements that are uncited and of somewhat dubious tone. The grammar should certainly be improved, and the sources need updating in some spots. I am not trying to be judgmental here. The article could use a few sets of eyes from native speakers, as it somewhat reads as though perhaps a non-native speaker made significant edits with some mistakes. Arctinius (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)