By TYLER COWEN
Published: April 16, 2010
Source: The New York Times.
AMERICA’S long-run fiscal outlook is bleak, mostly because of an aging population and rising health care costs. To close the gap between expenditures and revenue, we’ll likely see a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts. And we’ll need to focus especially on reducing spending, largely because that taxes on the wealthy can be raised only so high.
Consider the tax burden on high earners once the Bush administration’s tax cuts expire next year. Add up the federal, state, city and sales taxes for a lawyer in New York City who earns $300,000 a year. Depending on the circumstances, this individual could be facing marginal tax rates in the range of 60 percent. Higher income tax rates would discourage hard work and encourage tax avoidance, thereby defeating the purpose of the tax increases.
The most potent way to add revenue is to impose a value-added tax. As its name indicates, a V.A.T. takes some percentage of the value added at each stage of production. V.A.T.’s raise money so readily and so invisibly that they often climb to a range of 15 to 20 percent; politicians like the revenue, and voters don’t always notice the burden.
A move toward a V.A.T., however, also brings price inflation, a big increase in the tax-collecting bureaucracy and the emergence of favored sectors with exemptions or lower rates. Though we may well end up with a V.A.T., it isn’t obviously the best option.
Burdening citizens with much higher taxes would fundamentally change what this country is about. Our founders envisioned a government that would provide public goods but not guarantee everyone’s well-being against every possible obstacle. Immigrants would be offered a franchise to come here and make good if they could — while bearing considerable risk themselves. To this day, this openness has elevated many millions in health, prosperity and liberty — and enabled many newcomers to innovate and offer new goods and services, or scientific ideas, to the world.
Higher levels of government spending and taxation would also soak up resources that might otherwise foster innovation and new businesses. And sentiment would most likely turn ever stronger against those immigrants who consume public services and make the deficit higher in the short run. Current residents might feel more secure in a larger welfare state, but over time the loss of commerce and innovation takes a toll.
The macroeconomic evidence also suggests the wisdom of emphasizing spending cuts. In a recent paper, Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, economics professors at Harvard, found that in developed countries, spending cuts were the key to successful fiscal adjustments — and were generally better for the economy than tax increases. Their conclusion was based on data since 1970 from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The received wisdom in the United States is that deep spending cuts are politically impossible. But a number of economically advanced countries, including Sweden, Finland, Canada and, most recently, Ireland, have cut their government budgets when needed.
Most relevant, perhaps, is Canada, which cut federal government spending by about 20 percent from 1992 to 1997. The Liberal Party, headed by Jean Chrétien as prime minister and Paul Martin as finance minister, led most of this shift. Prompted by the financial debacle in Mexico, Canadian leaders had the courage and the foresight to make those spending cuts before a fiscal crisis was upon them. In his book “In the Long Run We’re All Dead: The Canadian Turn to Fiscal Restraint,” Timothy Lewis describes Canada’s move from fiscal irresponsibility to a balanced budget — a history that helps explain why the country has managed the current global recession relatively well.
To be sure, the spending cuts meant fewer government services, most of all for health care, and big cuts in agricultural subsidies. But Canada remained a highly humane society, and American liberals continue to cite it as a beacon of progressive values.
Counterintuitively, the relatively strong Canadian trust in government may have paved the way for government spending cuts, a pattern that also appears in Scandinavia. Citizens were told by their government leadership that such cuts were necessary and, to some extent, they trusted the messenger.
IT’S less obvious that the United States can head down the same path, partly because many Americans are so cynical about policy makers. In many ways, this cynicism may be justified, but it is not always helpful, as it lowers trust and impedes useful social bargains.
Forces like the Tea Party movement argue for fiscal conservatism, though it isn’t obvious that they are creating the conditions for success. Over the last year, we have been treated to the spectacle of conservatives defending Medicare against proposed cuts, in large part to curry favor with voters and mobilize sentiment against the Democratic health care plan.
Right now there is plenty of concern about debt and deficits, but little consensus on which expenditures should be cut or reined in. Sooner or later, we’ll have to reconsider virtually every segment of the federal budget.
The issue of fiscal responsibility isn’t going away. So the question is now this: How deeply will we dig ourselves in before we create a more mature and more forward-looking political culture?
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Why Quebec has so much trouble attracting immigrants
By HENRY AUBIN, The Gazette April 17, 2010
One of the most frustrating social trends in Quebec is the way that we as a society treat immigrants.
It's a crazy situation. We need - seriously need - immigrants. We need them to fill jobs that will be left vacant by Quebec's shrinking labour pool. We need them to pay the taxes that will pay for the health and social costs of this province's looming geezer-ization. And we need them to help pay back Quebecers' public debt (including our part of the federal debt), which the province's finance ministry rates as the world's fifth-highest (after Japan, Italy, Greece and Iceland).
And yet, as a study this month by the Montreal think tank CIRANO suggests, we as a society are blowing it.
The study notes, for example, that the jobless rate for immigrants who have a post-secondary education is 13 per cent. According to the 2006 census, that's almost twice the jobless rate among comparable immigrants in Ontario and British Columbia. It's three times the rate for Canadian-born holders of post-secondary diplomas.
This partly explains why only 18 per cent of all immigrants to Canada come to Quebec, too few for a province with 23 per cent of the country's population. (By contrast, Ontario and B.C. between them account for 51 per cent of the population but get 63 per cent of immigrants.) What makes Quebec's situation all the more unacceptable is that for decades the province has wielded more power over the selection of immigrants than any other province. Quebec sets its own criteria on who gets in.
You'd think that those it chooses to welcome would be more likely to do well. Not so: 19 per cent of immigrants age 25 to 54 are unemployed five years after arriving. Compare that with the 12-per-cent level for Canada as a whole.
Why this appalling record? Let's not heap too much blame on Quebec's language law. Yes, the primacy of French here induces many people to settle in English Canada, but it doesn't explain why even French-speakers often fail to crack the job market. Indeed, language theoretically ought to be less of a barrier to finding work here than in other provinces: 60 per cent of immigrants to Quebec in 2008 spoke either French or English upon arrival, the highest rate of any province.
So let's look beyond language.
The study suggests that part of the unemployment problem (although perhaps only a modest part) is Quebec's standing as "l'État providence" - that is, as the province with the most generous social benefits. The study's authors, the Université de Montréal's Brahim Boudarbat and Maude Boulet, note that the 2001 census shows that immigrants age 25 to 54 in Quebec obtained a whopping 52 per cent more public money than did their counterparts in the rest of Canada. The authors note this hardly spurs some people to work at a poorly paid job.
The problem here is not only with freeloading but also with the Quebec government's immigrant-screening process and social-benefits rules. They do too little to guard against parasitism.
A bigger problem is Quebec employers' well-known reluctance to recognize diplomas and experience acquired elsewhere than in North America or Europe. The study says this wariness is more acute here than in Ontario or B.C. Given that most immigrants are visible minorities, the study suggests racial bias can play a role.
The study does not deal with it, but Quebec's business establishment is notably remiss about putting out a welcome mat for visible minorities. Example: Of the 25 members of the Montreal Board of Trade's board of directors, not one is a visible minority.
The Quebec government itself is part of the problem. On the one hand, it recognizes the economic imperatives of attracting more immigrants and, indeed, it is doing so: It settled 49,500 immigrants last year, the most since 1991. On the other hand, it fails to use its own colossal civil service as a model by hiring immigrants or even their born-in-Quebec offspring.
To be sure, politicians say they want to do better. In 1990, the Bourassa government expressed embarrassment that a minuscule 1.7 per cent of its public service was from the cultural communities (loosely, first- or second-generation immigrants); it said it would double the rate by 1994. Only now, 16 years later, are we reaching Robert Bourassa's modest interim target. Most other provincial governments are miles ahead.
No other province needs immigrants so badly. No other province has so much power to choose desirable applicants. And yet, of the three provinces that receive the lion's share of immigrants, Quebec has the most trouble easing immigrants into roles in which they can contribute to society.
Crazy.
haubin@ thegazette.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Quebec+much+trouble+attracting+immigrants/2917753/story.html#ixzz0lS0EWIW5
One of the most frustrating social trends in Quebec is the way that we as a society treat immigrants.
It's a crazy situation. We need - seriously need - immigrants. We need them to fill jobs that will be left vacant by Quebec's shrinking labour pool. We need them to pay the taxes that will pay for the health and social costs of this province's looming geezer-ization. And we need them to help pay back Quebecers' public debt (including our part of the federal debt), which the province's finance ministry rates as the world's fifth-highest (after Japan, Italy, Greece and Iceland).
And yet, as a study this month by the Montreal think tank CIRANO suggests, we as a society are blowing it.
The study notes, for example, that the jobless rate for immigrants who have a post-secondary education is 13 per cent. According to the 2006 census, that's almost twice the jobless rate among comparable immigrants in Ontario and British Columbia. It's three times the rate for Canadian-born holders of post-secondary diplomas.
This partly explains why only 18 per cent of all immigrants to Canada come to Quebec, too few for a province with 23 per cent of the country's population. (By contrast, Ontario and B.C. between them account for 51 per cent of the population but get 63 per cent of immigrants.) What makes Quebec's situation all the more unacceptable is that for decades the province has wielded more power over the selection of immigrants than any other province. Quebec sets its own criteria on who gets in.
You'd think that those it chooses to welcome would be more likely to do well. Not so: 19 per cent of immigrants age 25 to 54 are unemployed five years after arriving. Compare that with the 12-per-cent level for Canada as a whole.
Why this appalling record? Let's not heap too much blame on Quebec's language law. Yes, the primacy of French here induces many people to settle in English Canada, but it doesn't explain why even French-speakers often fail to crack the job market. Indeed, language theoretically ought to be less of a barrier to finding work here than in other provinces: 60 per cent of immigrants to Quebec in 2008 spoke either French or English upon arrival, the highest rate of any province.
So let's look beyond language.
The study suggests that part of the unemployment problem (although perhaps only a modest part) is Quebec's standing as "l'État providence" - that is, as the province with the most generous social benefits. The study's authors, the Université de Montréal's Brahim Boudarbat and Maude Boulet, note that the 2001 census shows that immigrants age 25 to 54 in Quebec obtained a whopping 52 per cent more public money than did their counterparts in the rest of Canada. The authors note this hardly spurs some people to work at a poorly paid job.
The problem here is not only with freeloading but also with the Quebec government's immigrant-screening process and social-benefits rules. They do too little to guard against parasitism.
A bigger problem is Quebec employers' well-known reluctance to recognize diplomas and experience acquired elsewhere than in North America or Europe. The study says this wariness is more acute here than in Ontario or B.C. Given that most immigrants are visible minorities, the study suggests racial bias can play a role.
The study does not deal with it, but Quebec's business establishment is notably remiss about putting out a welcome mat for visible minorities. Example: Of the 25 members of the Montreal Board of Trade's board of directors, not one is a visible minority.
The Quebec government itself is part of the problem. On the one hand, it recognizes the economic imperatives of attracting more immigrants and, indeed, it is doing so: It settled 49,500 immigrants last year, the most since 1991. On the other hand, it fails to use its own colossal civil service as a model by hiring immigrants or even their born-in-Quebec offspring.
To be sure, politicians say they want to do better. In 1990, the Bourassa government expressed embarrassment that a minuscule 1.7 per cent of its public service was from the cultural communities (loosely, first- or second-generation immigrants); it said it would double the rate by 1994. Only now, 16 years later, are we reaching Robert Bourassa's modest interim target. Most other provincial governments are miles ahead.
No other province needs immigrants so badly. No other province has so much power to choose desirable applicants. And yet, of the three provinces that receive the lion's share of immigrants, Quebec has the most trouble easing immigrants into roles in which they can contribute to society.
Crazy.
haubin@ thegazette.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Quebec+much+trouble+attracting+immigrants/2917753/story.html#ixzz0lS0EWIW5
Regulator Cautions the Public: Only Use Immigration Representatives Authorized by the Canadian Government
/CNW/ - The RCMP charged an uncertified immigration consultant in Windsor with fraud yesterday, prompting the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) to warn consumers who might decide to hire a paid immigration representative to only hire one that is authorized by the Canadian Government.
Francesco Salvatore (Sam) Burgio is facing eleven charges for fraud after clients allegedly paid his firm thousands of dollars to submit their immigration applications and got no service in return. CSIC revoked Burgios membership in 2006.
That should have set off red flags for anybody who was considering hiring him, said John Ryan, CSIC Chair and Acting CEO. Most people would never consider hiring an unlicenced doctor or lawyer, and consumers need to realize that hiring an uncertified immigration consultant is just as unwise. Its easy to check because there is a list of all current and former members on the CSIC website.
Only members of CSIC, a provincial or territorial bar, or Quebec notaries can advise, represent or consult clients on immigration matters before the Government of Canada for a fee.
CSIC membership is important because CSIC members must meet rigorous ongoing educational requirements and adhere to strict Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, CSIC provides extensive consumer protection measures by offering a complaints and discipline process, requiring members to carry errors and omissions insurance and maintaining a client compensation fund.
Unfortunately uncertified immigration consultants, known as ghost agents, have exploited legal loopholes that allow them to continue offering immigration services with little danger of law enforcement taking action.
CSIC has long advocated for legislative changes that would introduce penalties for those who pretend to be Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. We look forward to the changes promised by the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is the professional regulatory body for Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. Established in 2004 it currently has nearly 1,700 members. CSICs mandate is to protect consumers of immigration consulting services. Consequently, it is responsible for ensuring the education, competency testing and the discipline of its members. CSIC also requires its members to carry errors and omissions insurance and to contribute to a compensation fund. The best way to find a CCIC is via CSICs toll free referral line, 1-877-311-7926.
Francesco Salvatore (Sam) Burgio is facing eleven charges for fraud after clients allegedly paid his firm thousands of dollars to submit their immigration applications and got no service in return. CSIC revoked Burgios membership in 2006.
That should have set off red flags for anybody who was considering hiring him, said John Ryan, CSIC Chair and Acting CEO. Most people would never consider hiring an unlicenced doctor or lawyer, and consumers need to realize that hiring an uncertified immigration consultant is just as unwise. Its easy to check because there is a list of all current and former members on the CSIC website.
Only members of CSIC, a provincial or territorial bar, or Quebec notaries can advise, represent or consult clients on immigration matters before the Government of Canada for a fee.
CSIC membership is important because CSIC members must meet rigorous ongoing educational requirements and adhere to strict Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, CSIC provides extensive consumer protection measures by offering a complaints and discipline process, requiring members to carry errors and omissions insurance and maintaining a client compensation fund.
Unfortunately uncertified immigration consultants, known as ghost agents, have exploited legal loopholes that allow them to continue offering immigration services with little danger of law enforcement taking action.
CSIC has long advocated for legislative changes that would introduce penalties for those who pretend to be Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. We look forward to the changes promised by the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is the professional regulatory body for Certified Canadian Immigration Consultants. Established in 2004 it currently has nearly 1,700 members. CSICs mandate is to protect consumers of immigration consulting services. Consequently, it is responsible for ensuring the education, competency testing and the discipline of its members. CSIC also requires its members to carry errors and omissions insurance and to contribute to a compensation fund. The best way to find a CCIC is via CSICs toll free referral line, 1-877-311-7926.
Canadian Immigration signs working holiday deal with Taiwan
April 16 2010 by Liam Clifford
The Canadian immigration authorities and their counterparts in Taiwan have signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a working holiday scheme between the two nations.
Working holiday schemes allow young people, usually aged 18-30, but in this case aged between 18 and 35, to live in another county, working temporarily to pay for their trip.
This scheme would allow young people from Taiwan to live in Canada and obtain a temporary Canadian work visa to allow them to work for a short periods in certain industries. The agreement will also allow young people from Canada to spend time living in Taiwan under the same terms.
Taiwan has had a similar agreement in place with Australia since 2004 and thousands of people have benefitted from the chance to experience living and working in Australia as a result.
The scheme is intended to boost the number of people from Taiwan visiting Canada, and maybe even eventually deciding to move to Canada. The number of visitors from Taiwan has reduced from 112,413 in 2004 to just 61,893 last year, according to official statistics.
The agreement is set to come into effect on 1 July.
The Canadian immigration authorities and their counterparts in Taiwan have signed a Memorandum of Understanding for a working holiday scheme between the two nations.
Working holiday schemes allow young people, usually aged 18-30, but in this case aged between 18 and 35, to live in another county, working temporarily to pay for their trip.
This scheme would allow young people from Taiwan to live in Canada and obtain a temporary Canadian work visa to allow them to work for a short periods in certain industries. The agreement will also allow young people from Canada to spend time living in Taiwan under the same terms.
Taiwan has had a similar agreement in place with Australia since 2004 and thousands of people have benefitted from the chance to experience living and working in Australia as a result.
The scheme is intended to boost the number of people from Taiwan visiting Canada, and maybe even eventually deciding to move to Canada. The number of visitors from Taiwan has reduced from 112,413 in 2004 to just 61,893 last year, according to official statistics.
The agreement is set to come into effect on 1 July.
Work Force Fueled by Highly Skilled Immigrants
ST. LOUIS — After a career as a corporate executive with her name in brass on the office door, Amparo Kollman-Moore, an immigrant from Colombia, likes to drive a Jaguar and shop at Saks. “It was a good life,” she said, “a really good ride.”
Amparo Kollman-Moore, 60, moved to St. Louis in the 1970s and is now a consultant and business school professor.
As a member of this city’s economic elite, Ms. Kollman-Moore is not unusual among immigrants who live in St. Louis. According to a new analysis of census data, more than half of the working immigrants in this metropolitan area hold higher-paying white-collar jobs — as professionals, technicians or administrators — rather than lower-paying blue-collar and service jobs.
Among American cities, St. Louis is not an exception, the data show. In 14 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, more immigrants are employed in white-collar occupations than in lower-wage work like construction, manufacturing or cleaning.
The data belie a common perception in the nation’s hard-fought debate over immigration — articulated by lawmakers, pundits and advocates on all sides of the issue — that the surge in immigration in the last two decades has overwhelmed the United States with low-wage foreign laborers.
Over all, the analysis showed, the 25 million immigrants who live in the country’s largest metropolitan areas (about two-thirds of all immigrants in the country) are nearly evenly distributed across the job and income spectrum.
“The United States is getting a more varied and economically important flow of immigrants than the public seems to realize,” said David Dyssegaard Kallick, director for immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan group in New York that conducted the data analysis for The New York Times.
The findings are significant because Americans’ views of immigration are based largely on the work immigrants do, new research shows.
“Americans, whether they are rich or poor, are much more in favor of high-skilled immigrants,” said Jens Hainmueller, a political scientist at M.I.T. and co-author of a survey of attitudes toward immigration with Michael J. Hiscox, professor of government at Harvard. The survey of 1,600 adults, which examined the reasons for anti-immigration sentiment in the United States, was published in February in American Political Science Review, a peer-reviewed journal.
Americans are inclined to welcome upper-tier immigrants — like Ms. Kollman-Moore — believing they contribute to economic growth without burdening public services, the study found. More than 60 percent of Americans are opposed to allowing more low-skilled foreign laborers, regarding them as more likely to be a drag on the economy.
Those kinds of views, in turn, have informed recent efforts by Congress to remake the immigration system. A measure unveiled last month by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, aims to reshape the legal system to give priority to high-skilled, high-earning immigrants, offering narrower channels for low-wage workers. (A bill in 2007 by the Bush administration tilted even more sharply toward upper-tier immigrants; it failed in Congress.)
Yet while visa bottlenecks persist for high-skilled immigrants, on the whole, the census data show, the current system has brought a range of foreign workers across skill and income levels. The analysis suggests, moreover, that the immigrants played a central role in the cycle of the economic growth of cities over the last two decades.
Cities with thriving immigrant populations — with high-earning and lower-wage workers — tended to be those that prospered the most.
“Economic growth in urban areas has been clearly connected with an increase in immigrants’ share of the local labor force,” Mr. Kallick said.
Surprisingly, the analysis showed, the growing cities were not the ones, like St. Louis, that drew primarily high-earning foreigners. In fact, the St. Louis area had one of the slowest growing economies.
Rather, the fastest economic growth between 1990 and 2008 was in cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix that received large influxes of immigrants with a mix of occupations — including many in lower-paid service and blue-collar jobs.
In metropolitan Denver, where the economy doubled between 1990 and 2008, 63 percent of immigrants worked in jobs on the lower end of the pay scale.
Denver “did a great job of attracting people from other places in the world,” said Rich Jones, director of policy and research at the Bell Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in that city that focuses on the impact of economic and fiscal policies in Colorado. “They are coming with a variety of skills,” Mr. Jones said. “They created demand for goods, services and housing that began a dynamic.”
The figures on jobs and earnings of immigrants in American cities are based on an analysis by the Fiscal Policy Institute of census data for the 25 largest metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2008. The data from 2008 are the most current in-depth census statistics on immigrants’ places of residence and earnings; they also include the first year of the severe recession. The analysis includes legal and illegal immigrants and naturalized citizens.
St. Louis is a good vantage point to observe the census analysis play out on the ground — both in the past and, possibly, the future.
Amparo Kollman-Moore, 60, moved to St. Louis in the 1970s and is now a consultant and business school professor.
As a member of this city’s economic elite, Ms. Kollman-Moore is not unusual among immigrants who live in St. Louis. According to a new analysis of census data, more than half of the working immigrants in this metropolitan area hold higher-paying white-collar jobs — as professionals, technicians or administrators — rather than lower-paying blue-collar and service jobs.
Among American cities, St. Louis is not an exception, the data show. In 14 of the 25 largest metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York and San Francisco, more immigrants are employed in white-collar occupations than in lower-wage work like construction, manufacturing or cleaning.
The data belie a common perception in the nation’s hard-fought debate over immigration — articulated by lawmakers, pundits and advocates on all sides of the issue — that the surge in immigration in the last two decades has overwhelmed the United States with low-wage foreign laborers.
Over all, the analysis showed, the 25 million immigrants who live in the country’s largest metropolitan areas (about two-thirds of all immigrants in the country) are nearly evenly distributed across the job and income spectrum.
“The United States is getting a more varied and economically important flow of immigrants than the public seems to realize,” said David Dyssegaard Kallick, director for immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonpartisan group in New York that conducted the data analysis for The New York Times.
The findings are significant because Americans’ views of immigration are based largely on the work immigrants do, new research shows.
“Americans, whether they are rich or poor, are much more in favor of high-skilled immigrants,” said Jens Hainmueller, a political scientist at M.I.T. and co-author of a survey of attitudes toward immigration with Michael J. Hiscox, professor of government at Harvard. The survey of 1,600 adults, which examined the reasons for anti-immigration sentiment in the United States, was published in February in American Political Science Review, a peer-reviewed journal.
Americans are inclined to welcome upper-tier immigrants — like Ms. Kollman-Moore — believing they contribute to economic growth without burdening public services, the study found. More than 60 percent of Americans are opposed to allowing more low-skilled foreign laborers, regarding them as more likely to be a drag on the economy.
Those kinds of views, in turn, have informed recent efforts by Congress to remake the immigration system. A measure unveiled last month by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, aims to reshape the legal system to give priority to high-skilled, high-earning immigrants, offering narrower channels for low-wage workers. (A bill in 2007 by the Bush administration tilted even more sharply toward upper-tier immigrants; it failed in Congress.)
Yet while visa bottlenecks persist for high-skilled immigrants, on the whole, the census data show, the current system has brought a range of foreign workers across skill and income levels. The analysis suggests, moreover, that the immigrants played a central role in the cycle of the economic growth of cities over the last two decades.
Cities with thriving immigrant populations — with high-earning and lower-wage workers — tended to be those that prospered the most.
“Economic growth in urban areas has been clearly connected with an increase in immigrants’ share of the local labor force,” Mr. Kallick said.
Surprisingly, the analysis showed, the growing cities were not the ones, like St. Louis, that drew primarily high-earning foreigners. In fact, the St. Louis area had one of the slowest growing economies.
Rather, the fastest economic growth between 1990 and 2008 was in cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix that received large influxes of immigrants with a mix of occupations — including many in lower-paid service and blue-collar jobs.
In metropolitan Denver, where the economy doubled between 1990 and 2008, 63 percent of immigrants worked in jobs on the lower end of the pay scale.
Denver “did a great job of attracting people from other places in the world,” said Rich Jones, director of policy and research at the Bell Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in that city that focuses on the impact of economic and fiscal policies in Colorado. “They are coming with a variety of skills,” Mr. Jones said. “They created demand for goods, services and housing that began a dynamic.”
The figures on jobs and earnings of immigrants in American cities are based on an analysis by the Fiscal Policy Institute of census data for the 25 largest metropolitan areas from 1990 to 2008. The data from 2008 are the most current in-depth census statistics on immigrants’ places of residence and earnings; they also include the first year of the severe recession. The analysis includes legal and illegal immigrants and naturalized citizens.
St. Louis is a good vantage point to observe the census analysis play out on the ground — both in the past and, possibly, the future.
Immigrants wanted: foreign workers will help pay pensions, Conference Board says
By Sunny Freeman (CP) – 4 hours ago
TORONTO — Canada will have to increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country by about 100,000 per year and boost productivity to help pay for pensions, the Conference Board of Canada's chief economist said Tuesday.
The government will have to implement an immigration policy to grow the workforce to increase the number of workers making pension contributions and help offset the retirement of the baby boomers, Glen Hodgson told an audience at the Board's 2010 Summit on the Future of Pensions.
Hodgson predicted slow labour force growth in the coming decades, means there will be fewer workers contributing to pension plans, but more retirees drawing from them.
"As all the boomers get ready to retire, as we look to new entrants, we won't have any where near the same numbers of entrants from the born in Canada population," he said.
"We'll have fewer workers coming in to feed the system... that's going to suck the life out of our economy. Slower labour force growth means slower economic growth."
Governments and the business world are struggling to head off a potential crisis borne of an aging workforce that is not putting aside enough for retirement.
Currently about 250,000 immigrants are currently allowed to enter Canada every year. As an older population and smaller families become the norm, immigrants will be the only source of population growth in Canada at some time around 2030, Hodgson said.
While immigration alone will not reverse Canada's aging trend, it will help keep population growth stable at around one per cent per year. As a result, immigration will be the dominant source of labour force growth in the future, Hodgson said.
Governments will need to implement policies that boost productivity, including developing an integrated immigration policy, investing in a more skilled workforce, and increasing the labour force by encouraging older people to work longer, he added.
While the recession took a toll on many people's pensions, a survey conducted by the Conference Board earlier this year found that the economic downturn did not significantly affect the age at which Canadians plan to retire, Hodgson said. Only one person in three said the recession made them think about delaying retirement.
The average retirement age in Canada is exceptionally low, he said, but Canada should aim to avoid measures taken across Europe and Japan to raise the age at which workers can access government-sponsored retirement plans.
Hodgson said he favours a voluntary supplement to the CPP, in which enrolment would be automatic for all people with no corporate pension plans, with a choice to opt out.
But moves toward that approach were shot down by Alberta's finance minister at a pension summit in that province Tuesday.
Ted Morton said Alberta would rather see an "incremental" approach that would allow governments make a few regulatory changes to give financial institutions more leeway to encourage people to save.
Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
TORONTO — Canada will have to increase the number of immigrants allowed into the country by about 100,000 per year and boost productivity to help pay for pensions, the Conference Board of Canada's chief economist said Tuesday.
The government will have to implement an immigration policy to grow the workforce to increase the number of workers making pension contributions and help offset the retirement of the baby boomers, Glen Hodgson told an audience at the Board's 2010 Summit on the Future of Pensions.
Hodgson predicted slow labour force growth in the coming decades, means there will be fewer workers contributing to pension plans, but more retirees drawing from them.
"As all the boomers get ready to retire, as we look to new entrants, we won't have any where near the same numbers of entrants from the born in Canada population," he said.
"We'll have fewer workers coming in to feed the system... that's going to suck the life out of our economy. Slower labour force growth means slower economic growth."
Governments and the business world are struggling to head off a potential crisis borne of an aging workforce that is not putting aside enough for retirement.
Currently about 250,000 immigrants are currently allowed to enter Canada every year. As an older population and smaller families become the norm, immigrants will be the only source of population growth in Canada at some time around 2030, Hodgson said.
While immigration alone will not reverse Canada's aging trend, it will help keep population growth stable at around one per cent per year. As a result, immigration will be the dominant source of labour force growth in the future, Hodgson said.
Governments will need to implement policies that boost productivity, including developing an integrated immigration policy, investing in a more skilled workforce, and increasing the labour force by encouraging older people to work longer, he added.
While the recession took a toll on many people's pensions, a survey conducted by the Conference Board earlier this year found that the economic downturn did not significantly affect the age at which Canadians plan to retire, Hodgson said. Only one person in three said the recession made them think about delaying retirement.
The average retirement age in Canada is exceptionally low, he said, but Canada should aim to avoid measures taken across Europe and Japan to raise the age at which workers can access government-sponsored retirement plans.
Hodgson said he favours a voluntary supplement to the CPP, in which enrolment would be automatic for all people with no corporate pension plans, with a choice to opt out.
But moves toward that approach were shot down by Alberta's finance minister at a pension summit in that province Tuesday.
Ted Morton said Alberta would rather see an "incremental" approach that would allow governments make a few regulatory changes to give financial institutions more leeway to encourage people to save.
Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Government of Canada Introduces New Program for Business People From Mexico
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - April 9, 2010) - Canada's visa office in Mexico City has established a special visa application program for Mexican business travellers, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today.
"Canada welcomes travellers from Mexico and has been looking at ways to provide enhanced services to applicants. The Business Express Program is another example of our commitment to making service improvements where we can," said Minister Kenney.
"Canada and Mexico are among each other's largest trading partners," said Peter Van Loan, Minister of International Trade. "This program will help Canadian and Mexican companies do business together and continue to fuel our economic recovery."
The new Business Express Program was created to provide qualified businesses and their employees with a number of service advantages, including less paperwork, priority processing of visa applications, and a dedicated service to respond to the needs of those within the program. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is working closely with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and visa application centres in Mexico on this initiative.
The Business Express Program is modeled on a similar successful program introduced in New Delhi, India, in June 2008.
The program in Mexico is targetted at people employed by companies in Mexico who have a proven need for frequent travel to Canada. Participation in the program is by invitation only. Businesses with key connections to Canada are identified by the visa or trade sections of the Embassy of Canada in Mexico City, or Export Development Canada.
Businesses that have good immigration track records, meaning those with employees who were admissible, who previously travelled to Canada and adhered to Canada's immigration laws, and who have a significant number of business visitors destined to Canada are then invited by the Embassy of Canada to register for the program. Only businesses that are registered can submit visa applications through the facilitated process.
So far, the embassy has invited 113 companies to enrol in the program. Twelve businesses have registered.
Qualified applicants from businesses that are enrolled in the program can apply for their visa at one of the three visa application centres in Mexico, located in Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara. Processing by the Canadian visa office will be swift, with a turnaround time of 24 hours.
"Mexico is an important strategic partner. The Government of Canada continues, as a priority, to extend and improve services that will facilitate official, trade and educational travel from Mexico to Canada," said Minister Kenney.
"Canada welcomes travellers from Mexico and has been looking at ways to provide enhanced services to applicants. The Business Express Program is another example of our commitment to making service improvements where we can," said Minister Kenney.
"Canada and Mexico are among each other's largest trading partners," said Peter Van Loan, Minister of International Trade. "This program will help Canadian and Mexican companies do business together and continue to fuel our economic recovery."
The new Business Express Program was created to provide qualified businesses and their employees with a number of service advantages, including less paperwork, priority processing of visa applications, and a dedicated service to respond to the needs of those within the program. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is working closely with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and visa application centres in Mexico on this initiative.
The Business Express Program is modeled on a similar successful program introduced in New Delhi, India, in June 2008.
The program in Mexico is targetted at people employed by companies in Mexico who have a proven need for frequent travel to Canada. Participation in the program is by invitation only. Businesses with key connections to Canada are identified by the visa or trade sections of the Embassy of Canada in Mexico City, or Export Development Canada.
Businesses that have good immigration track records, meaning those with employees who were admissible, who previously travelled to Canada and adhered to Canada's immigration laws, and who have a significant number of business visitors destined to Canada are then invited by the Embassy of Canada to register for the program. Only businesses that are registered can submit visa applications through the facilitated process.
So far, the embassy has invited 113 companies to enrol in the program. Twelve businesses have registered.
Qualified applicants from businesses that are enrolled in the program can apply for their visa at one of the three visa application centres in Mexico, located in Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara. Processing by the Canadian visa office will be swift, with a turnaround time of 24 hours.
"Mexico is an important strategic partner. The Government of Canada continues, as a priority, to extend and improve services that will facilitate official, trade and educational travel from Mexico to Canada," said Minister Kenney.
Canada ready to lead the world recovery
Actions have spoken louder than words for the federal government
By Jayson Myers
Source: The National Post
In the run-up to this year’s G20 meetings, which Canada will host, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning world leaders that economic recovery is by no means fully assured and is asking each one to continue to take steps to stimulate economic growth. Above all, he is urging governments to work together to avoid protectionism and open markets even further to encourage international trade and investment.
Harper’s advice reflects his government’s priorities, based on the sensible rationale that the private sector economic and job growth needed to sustain economic recovery, depends on access to business and investment opportunities around the world.
From the Canadian point of view, this is self-evident. Exports account for more than half of Canada’s industrial output and imports for 30% of total domestic demand. High value jobs in the country depend on the ability of Canadian businesses to expand and find customers for their more-specialized products, services, and technologies around the world. At the same time, they need to attract investment and draw on the best of goods and services, skills, knowledge and technologies that international markets have to offer.
Actions have spoken louder than words for the federal government. To encourage business investment, it has cut Canada’s federal corporate tax rate. By 2012, the average combined federal and provincial tax rate on business income will fall to 25%. The government has also introduced a two-year depreciation rate for investments in manufacturing equipment and accelerated write-offs for investments in clean energy and information technologies. As a result of federal support, value-added consumption taxes will be in place in all but three smaller Canadian provinces by this summer.
In a bold move, Harper’s government took the initiative to open Canadian markets to international trade and investment. The recent federal budget eliminated tariffs on all imported machinery and equipment and manufacturing inputs. And the government went further in its plan to loosen investment restrictions in Canada’s telecommunications and other regulated services sectors and to improve the tax treatment of foreign venture capital funds invested in Canada.
On the trade front, the Harper government has concluded free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan and EFTA, and has launched trade negotiations with the European Union and more than 10 other countries and regional trading blocs. The recent procurement agreement that the Canadian government concluded with the United States will keep provincial and municipal procurement markets in Canada open to U.S. producers in return for exclusions for Canadian manufacturers from Buy American restrictions applied under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also commits Canada and the United States to enter into negotiations on a more open procurement agreement covering state, provincial and local jurisdictions.
Some economic experts may believe that during this period of fragile markets and dependency on government stimulus, Harper’s call for concerted action to liberalize trade may seem altruistic. In the face of continuing overcapacity and intense international competition in many industrial markets, his commitment to open the Canadian economy even further to international trade and investment may even appear naive.
As host of the G20, Prime Minister Harper surely has an obligation to remind world leaders of their commitment not to erect protectionist barriers, but the reality over the past year has been an increasing array of regulatory and procurement restrictions put in place around the world that favour domestic producers. The result — mounting tensions among governments.
The political stakes in economic recovery are high. As Prime Minister Harper insists, it will take real leadership to overcome the short-term political attractions of protectionism. But, that is what will be required to ensure a sustainable economic recovery.
We know the consequences of a game plan based on restrictive preferences and retaliation. In today’s world of internationally-integrated financial markets, supply chains and business operations, jobs cannot be secured anywhere when economic opportunities are being restricted more and more to domestic markets.
Canada and other economies around the world will suffer if Harper’s advice is ignored. Yet, my bet is that at the end of the day, the economic advantage will go to those countries that follow our lead.
We are the little country that could, and did. It’s time the globe followed our lead as we chart the course to economic renewal and prosperity.
By Jayson Myers
Source: The National Post
In the run-up to this year’s G20 meetings, which Canada will host, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is warning world leaders that economic recovery is by no means fully assured and is asking each one to continue to take steps to stimulate economic growth. Above all, he is urging governments to work together to avoid protectionism and open markets even further to encourage international trade and investment.
Harper’s advice reflects his government’s priorities, based on the sensible rationale that the private sector economic and job growth needed to sustain economic recovery, depends on access to business and investment opportunities around the world.
From the Canadian point of view, this is self-evident. Exports account for more than half of Canada’s industrial output and imports for 30% of total domestic demand. High value jobs in the country depend on the ability of Canadian businesses to expand and find customers for their more-specialized products, services, and technologies around the world. At the same time, they need to attract investment and draw on the best of goods and services, skills, knowledge and technologies that international markets have to offer.
Actions have spoken louder than words for the federal government. To encourage business investment, it has cut Canada’s federal corporate tax rate. By 2012, the average combined federal and provincial tax rate on business income will fall to 25%. The government has also introduced a two-year depreciation rate for investments in manufacturing equipment and accelerated write-offs for investments in clean energy and information technologies. As a result of federal support, value-added consumption taxes will be in place in all but three smaller Canadian provinces by this summer.
In a bold move, Harper’s government took the initiative to open Canadian markets to international trade and investment. The recent federal budget eliminated tariffs on all imported machinery and equipment and manufacturing inputs. And the government went further in its plan to loosen investment restrictions in Canada’s telecommunications and other regulated services sectors and to improve the tax treatment of foreign venture capital funds invested in Canada.
On the trade front, the Harper government has concluded free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan and EFTA, and has launched trade negotiations with the European Union and more than 10 other countries and regional trading blocs. The recent procurement agreement that the Canadian government concluded with the United States will keep provincial and municipal procurement markets in Canada open to U.S. producers in return for exclusions for Canadian manufacturers from Buy American restrictions applied under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also commits Canada and the United States to enter into negotiations on a more open procurement agreement covering state, provincial and local jurisdictions.
Some economic experts may believe that during this period of fragile markets and dependency on government stimulus, Harper’s call for concerted action to liberalize trade may seem altruistic. In the face of continuing overcapacity and intense international competition in many industrial markets, his commitment to open the Canadian economy even further to international trade and investment may even appear naive.
As host of the G20, Prime Minister Harper surely has an obligation to remind world leaders of their commitment not to erect protectionist barriers, but the reality over the past year has been an increasing array of regulatory and procurement restrictions put in place around the world that favour domestic producers. The result — mounting tensions among governments.
The political stakes in economic recovery are high. As Prime Minister Harper insists, it will take real leadership to overcome the short-term political attractions of protectionism. But, that is what will be required to ensure a sustainable economic recovery.
We know the consequences of a game plan based on restrictive preferences and retaliation. In today’s world of internationally-integrated financial markets, supply chains and business operations, jobs cannot be secured anywhere when economic opportunities are being restricted more and more to domestic markets.
Canada and other economies around the world will suffer if Harper’s advice is ignored. Yet, my bet is that at the end of the day, the economic advantage will go to those countries that follow our lead.
We are the little country that could, and did. It’s time the globe followed our lead as we chart the course to economic renewal and prosperity.
The reasons why Countries allow immigrants.
Posted by: Rukhsana Khan
Sometimes it amazes me that people can look past other people’s differences and see the humanity behind them.
I find it fascinating that as societies, communities, we develop a certain collective consciousness, where, even though we might have some conflicts, we’re a cohesive whole.
Along come some outsiders, ‘others’, and at first they’re viewed with mistrust and suspicion. And yet, there always are some people who are willing to buck convention and be nice to the newcomers.
Speaking for Canada, there was a strong reason that Canada opened its doors to immigration in the early 1900’s. A lot of native Canadians don’t know this, but there’s a strong reason why we’re such a multicultural nation.
Canada is a vast land mass, with a huge, very powerful neighbour to the south, Canada was afraid of being overwhelmed. They needed more people! And so they opened the doors to immigration to settle the west. But they didn’t want just anyone. They wanted people who could blend in, assimilate, basically they wanted white people.
Right after the second world war, even though they’d fought with Germans, German nationals were quickly considered non-threatening and allowed into the country. Even before Jewish refugees from Europe were allowed in, the Germans were allowed in.
At one point the prime minister Mackenzie King even announced that they wanted people who would assimilate. They couldn’t allow people from non-white countries in because they ‘couldn’t take the climate’.
But the immigration wave was slowing down. People don’t emigrate from their country unless there are strong reasons. There are three basic reasons: economics, security and opportunity for their children. Now that Europe was stabilized, there was less immigration from the white countries and so Canada had to open the door to other less desirables.
It wasn’t until 1963 that Canada opened the door to non-white immigrants.
There is a reason for this. The only ones who were allowed into the country were skilled labourers, people who’d work hard. Assimilation was assumed. And in return these labourers would contribute taxes to the national coffers.
Then along came Lester B. Pearson with his ideas of human rights. And following him, in the sixties, came a charismatic leader named Pierre Elliot Trudeau, from Quebec.
I remember Trudeau. He was the first prime minister who said that we, as a country, would be multicultural.
People didn’t have to assimilate. We’d recognize all cultures and they’d all be part of Canada. This was in part a gesture to pacify Quebec, a province that clung to their French roots and long refused to assimilate.
I remember listening to speeches by Trudeau on our old black and white T.V. My father found him fascinating.
As immigrants, we could stand a bit taller, not so humble. And in time, we could appreciate the fact that we were Canadian, just like almost every other Canadian whose family had come to this land somewhere in the distant past.
I think a lot of people don’t realize how much immigrants contribute to the prosperity in the West. There are very good reasons why Western countries continue to allow the influx of people from other countries.
It’s a way of maintaining the status quo.
Before, immigrants provided cheap labour for nation building.
Now, immigrants are often highly-skilled people looking for opportunity. (The exception would be refugees from war-torn countries) When immigrants arrive they have to set up homes, they buy stuff, and they often bring in wealth from their homelands. This stimulates the local economy.
And the taxes they pay, help pay for services.
These immigrants actually represent a ‘brain drain’ from their home countries, because the brightest and most educated are often the first to leave for greener Western pastures.
And right now, with the advent of the birth control pill, the local populations of Western countries are not having enough children. Without immigration, the aging population and the social security entitlements that go with them, would have no tax base to support them, so immigration is necessary to keep the tax machine oiled smoothly.
Too often people in the West see this as a one-way relationship. That immigrants should be darn well grateful to be here when it is really a mutually beneficient relationship.
One of the few times that the social situation gets rough is when there is a recession and then local people start grumbling that the immigrants are taking away all the jobs.
What people don’t realize is that immigrants will often work harder and for less money than any of the locals.
There are many a taxi driver that has a Phd., in fact multiple Phd’s. I met one in Vancouver who told me his life story, how he’d hopped around from country to country and finally settled in Vancouver. He liked the climate there, but still wished he could use his education.
I’m not sure why I blogged about this. I guess I just wanted to talk about things that are not often understood over here.
Sometimes it amazes me that people can look past other people’s differences and see the humanity behind them.
I find it fascinating that as societies, communities, we develop a certain collective consciousness, where, even though we might have some conflicts, we’re a cohesive whole.
Along come some outsiders, ‘others’, and at first they’re viewed with mistrust and suspicion. And yet, there always are some people who are willing to buck convention and be nice to the newcomers.
Speaking for Canada, there was a strong reason that Canada opened its doors to immigration in the early 1900’s. A lot of native Canadians don’t know this, but there’s a strong reason why we’re such a multicultural nation.
Canada is a vast land mass, with a huge, very powerful neighbour to the south, Canada was afraid of being overwhelmed. They needed more people! And so they opened the doors to immigration to settle the west. But they didn’t want just anyone. They wanted people who could blend in, assimilate, basically they wanted white people.
Right after the second world war, even though they’d fought with Germans, German nationals were quickly considered non-threatening and allowed into the country. Even before Jewish refugees from Europe were allowed in, the Germans were allowed in.
At one point the prime minister Mackenzie King even announced that they wanted people who would assimilate. They couldn’t allow people from non-white countries in because they ‘couldn’t take the climate’.
But the immigration wave was slowing down. People don’t emigrate from their country unless there are strong reasons. There are three basic reasons: economics, security and opportunity for their children. Now that Europe was stabilized, there was less immigration from the white countries and so Canada had to open the door to other less desirables.
It wasn’t until 1963 that Canada opened the door to non-white immigrants.
There is a reason for this. The only ones who were allowed into the country were skilled labourers, people who’d work hard. Assimilation was assumed. And in return these labourers would contribute taxes to the national coffers.
Then along came Lester B. Pearson with his ideas of human rights. And following him, in the sixties, came a charismatic leader named Pierre Elliot Trudeau, from Quebec.
I remember Trudeau. He was the first prime minister who said that we, as a country, would be multicultural.
People didn’t have to assimilate. We’d recognize all cultures and they’d all be part of Canada. This was in part a gesture to pacify Quebec, a province that clung to their French roots and long refused to assimilate.
I remember listening to speeches by Trudeau on our old black and white T.V. My father found him fascinating.
As immigrants, we could stand a bit taller, not so humble. And in time, we could appreciate the fact that we were Canadian, just like almost every other Canadian whose family had come to this land somewhere in the distant past.
I think a lot of people don’t realize how much immigrants contribute to the prosperity in the West. There are very good reasons why Western countries continue to allow the influx of people from other countries.
It’s a way of maintaining the status quo.
Before, immigrants provided cheap labour for nation building.
Now, immigrants are often highly-skilled people looking for opportunity. (The exception would be refugees from war-torn countries) When immigrants arrive they have to set up homes, they buy stuff, and they often bring in wealth from their homelands. This stimulates the local economy.
And the taxes they pay, help pay for services.
These immigrants actually represent a ‘brain drain’ from their home countries, because the brightest and most educated are often the first to leave for greener Western pastures.
And right now, with the advent of the birth control pill, the local populations of Western countries are not having enough children. Without immigration, the aging population and the social security entitlements that go with them, would have no tax base to support them, so immigration is necessary to keep the tax machine oiled smoothly.
Too often people in the West see this as a one-way relationship. That immigrants should be darn well grateful to be here when it is really a mutually beneficient relationship.
One of the few times that the social situation gets rough is when there is a recession and then local people start grumbling that the immigrants are taking away all the jobs.
What people don’t realize is that immigrants will often work harder and for less money than any of the locals.
There are many a taxi driver that has a Phd., in fact multiple Phd’s. I met one in Vancouver who told me his life story, how he’d hopped around from country to country and finally settled in Vancouver. He liked the climate there, but still wished he could use his education.
I’m not sure why I blogged about this. I guess I just wanted to talk about things that are not often understood over here.
Will a new bill save the refugee mess?
Nicholas Keung Immigration Reporter
Source: The start
Jaime Carrasco Varela came to Toronto from Nicaragua on a refugee claim in 1991. It took 19 years for the asylum seeker, once allegedly part of a death squad, to exhaust legal avenues for staying in Canada.
While Varela's case is a complex rarity, it illustrates what some say are the real problems plaguing Canada's refugee system: It is too slow for legitimate claimants and doesn't weed out ineligible ones quickly enough.
This week, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney introduced Bill C-11 to overhaul the system. Among its most controversial provisions: borrowing from the British model, it would have bureaucrats pre-screen candidates based on whether their country of origin is deemed to be safe (the "White List") or unsafe.The government plans to expedite the hearing process for applicants from safe, democratic countries deemed to have human rights, since it expects almost all of them would fail.
Those rejected claimants would not have the right to a full appeal before the new appeal division that's to be created. They could still, however, go to the federal court to have negative decisions reviewed over arguments of law (rather than the merits of the case for their refugee status).
That is currently the only appeal process available to failed applicants. The best outcome from a federal court review, however, is a reassessment.
C-11 has had mixed reviews from refugee advocates and lawyers.
Many experts welcome the creation of an appeals process to reassess the merits of a case and with the power to reverse decisions and grant status, but some are strongly opposed to preventing refugee claimants from appealing a negative decision if they're from countries deemed safe. They also detest the idea of allowing civil servants – as opposed to members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an independent tribunal – to decide on initial claims.
Canada's refugee system is often seen as too generous and ultimately dysfunctional because close to half of all claims are rejected, withdrawn or abandoned – and thus deemed fraudulent. Kenney has said this about claimants from Mexico and the Czech Republic.
"We will take the political risk," Kenney told the Star Wednesday during a whirlwind day in Toronto packed with 16 meetings and interviews with editorial boards and broadcast outlets.
The proposed changes would speed the process, but some parties ask if they also would compromise the fairness of a system that's won Canada international acclaim.
Under the new legislation, decisions would be made on new claims within 60 days. Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Board takes an average of 19 months to determine claims. Outstanding cases have tripled from fewer than 20,000 in 2006 to 63,000 last year, largely because the Conservative government left board vacancies unfilled for two years.
But critics of the new legislation do not believe the new safe/unsafe country system is an acceptable solution. They fear that politics will affect which nations the government deems to be democratic, and that a legitimate applicant from a supposedly "safe" country might not get a fair hearing.
Critics also argue that Canada needs to deal seriously with the backlog of cases sitting in the system long after a negative decision from the refugee board. They say there haven't been enough resources to process pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) applications, humanitarian/compassionate applications and federal court reviews.
According to Peter Showler, who teaches refugee law at the University of Ottawa, it can take a long time for the Canada Border Services Agency to deport failed claimants after they exhaust their legal options in federal court.
"During that dead space of two to three years, nobody takes responsibility for that file," says Showler, who chaired the refugee board from 1999 to 2002. "The longest period of delays is at the back end of the system. From a refusal decision by the federal court to the actual removal of the person, it can be a matter of years."
When they're interviewed in preparation for deportation, failed claimants can apply for PRRA, which determines whether it's safe for them to return home. That job falls to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. A government report this year found the average time between a removal order and the day the person actually leaves the country has jumped to 611 days. Before 2002, it was 437 days.
Kenney's solution is to not allow failed refugee claimants to apply for pre-removal risk assessment or humanitarian/compassionate relief until a year after their claim is rejected – by which time they may have been deported. The minister also said he would offer a $2,000 removal incentive to failed refugees.
Gulsum Koca's life has been in limbo since August 2002, when she says she fled persecution in Turkey. Koca, 37, is a member of the Alevi Muslim minority. The refugee board rejected her claim in April 2004, and the federal court refused to review her case; the federal court process allows reviews only on errors made in the administration of justice, not the actual evidence for her asylum claim.
More than two years later, Koca was contacted for a pre-removal risk assessment. Last April, immigration officials decided it was safe for her to return to Turkey and rejected her application to stay on humanitarian grounds. Another judicial review followed.
Raoul Boulakia, former president of the Refugee Lawyers' Association of Ontario, said a practice of designating countries such as Turkey to be "safe and democratic" would allow room for diplomatic pressure and political manoeuvring in the system. It could also exclude from consideration people who have a legitimate fear of persecution by states or by a third menacing party, such as drug lords.
The latest figures show that, in Britain, with its safe/unsafe country system, the average refugee processing time was just 127 days. Only 19 per cent of the 19,400 claims were accepted at the initial stage. But 34 per cent of appeals of rejected refugee claims were granted. In Canada, the refugee acceptance rate hovers around 50 per cent.
"The implication is that there is often poor decision-making at the initial stage and that there is a systemic culture of disbelief (of the claimants) by bureaucrats," says Colin Harvey, head of the school of law at Queen's University Belfast. "This does not recommend itself as a model to follow. There is also the risk that decision-making itself can become broadly politicized."
Source: The start
Jaime Carrasco Varela came to Toronto from Nicaragua on a refugee claim in 1991. It took 19 years for the asylum seeker, once allegedly part of a death squad, to exhaust legal avenues for staying in Canada.
While Varela's case is a complex rarity, it illustrates what some say are the real problems plaguing Canada's refugee system: It is too slow for legitimate claimants and doesn't weed out ineligible ones quickly enough.
This week, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney introduced Bill C-11 to overhaul the system. Among its most controversial provisions: borrowing from the British model, it would have bureaucrats pre-screen candidates based on whether their country of origin is deemed to be safe (the "White List") or unsafe.The government plans to expedite the hearing process for applicants from safe, democratic countries deemed to have human rights, since it expects almost all of them would fail.
Those rejected claimants would not have the right to a full appeal before the new appeal division that's to be created. They could still, however, go to the federal court to have negative decisions reviewed over arguments of law (rather than the merits of the case for their refugee status).
That is currently the only appeal process available to failed applicants. The best outcome from a federal court review, however, is a reassessment.
C-11 has had mixed reviews from refugee advocates and lawyers.
Many experts welcome the creation of an appeals process to reassess the merits of a case and with the power to reverse decisions and grant status, but some are strongly opposed to preventing refugee claimants from appealing a negative decision if they're from countries deemed safe. They also detest the idea of allowing civil servants – as opposed to members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an independent tribunal – to decide on initial claims.
Canada's refugee system is often seen as too generous and ultimately dysfunctional because close to half of all claims are rejected, withdrawn or abandoned – and thus deemed fraudulent. Kenney has said this about claimants from Mexico and the Czech Republic.
"We will take the political risk," Kenney told the Star Wednesday during a whirlwind day in Toronto packed with 16 meetings and interviews with editorial boards and broadcast outlets.
The proposed changes would speed the process, but some parties ask if they also would compromise the fairness of a system that's won Canada international acclaim.
Under the new legislation, decisions would be made on new claims within 60 days. Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Board takes an average of 19 months to determine claims. Outstanding cases have tripled from fewer than 20,000 in 2006 to 63,000 last year, largely because the Conservative government left board vacancies unfilled for two years.
But critics of the new legislation do not believe the new safe/unsafe country system is an acceptable solution. They fear that politics will affect which nations the government deems to be democratic, and that a legitimate applicant from a supposedly "safe" country might not get a fair hearing.
Critics also argue that Canada needs to deal seriously with the backlog of cases sitting in the system long after a negative decision from the refugee board. They say there haven't been enough resources to process pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) applications, humanitarian/compassionate applications and federal court reviews.
According to Peter Showler, who teaches refugee law at the University of Ottawa, it can take a long time for the Canada Border Services Agency to deport failed claimants after they exhaust their legal options in federal court.
"During that dead space of two to three years, nobody takes responsibility for that file," says Showler, who chaired the refugee board from 1999 to 2002. "The longest period of delays is at the back end of the system. From a refusal decision by the federal court to the actual removal of the person, it can be a matter of years."
When they're interviewed in preparation for deportation, failed claimants can apply for PRRA, which determines whether it's safe for them to return home. That job falls to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. A government report this year found the average time between a removal order and the day the person actually leaves the country has jumped to 611 days. Before 2002, it was 437 days.
Kenney's solution is to not allow failed refugee claimants to apply for pre-removal risk assessment or humanitarian/compassionate relief until a year after their claim is rejected – by which time they may have been deported. The minister also said he would offer a $2,000 removal incentive to failed refugees.
Gulsum Koca's life has been in limbo since August 2002, when she says she fled persecution in Turkey. Koca, 37, is a member of the Alevi Muslim minority. The refugee board rejected her claim in April 2004, and the federal court refused to review her case; the federal court process allows reviews only on errors made in the administration of justice, not the actual evidence for her asylum claim.
More than two years later, Koca was contacted for a pre-removal risk assessment. Last April, immigration officials decided it was safe for her to return to Turkey and rejected her application to stay on humanitarian grounds. Another judicial review followed.
Raoul Boulakia, former president of the Refugee Lawyers' Association of Ontario, said a practice of designating countries such as Turkey to be "safe and democratic" would allow room for diplomatic pressure and political manoeuvring in the system. It could also exclude from consideration people who have a legitimate fear of persecution by states or by a third menacing party, such as drug lords.
The latest figures show that, in Britain, with its safe/unsafe country system, the average refugee processing time was just 127 days. Only 19 per cent of the 19,400 claims were accepted at the initial stage. But 34 per cent of appeals of rejected refugee claims were granted. In Canada, the refugee acceptance rate hovers around 50 per cent.
"The implication is that there is often poor decision-making at the initial stage and that there is a systemic culture of disbelief (of the claimants) by bureaucrats," says Colin Harvey, head of the school of law at Queen's University Belfast. "This does not recommend itself as a model to follow. There is also the risk that decision-making itself can become broadly politicized."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Check our online courses now
Click Here now!!!!