Monday, July 12, 2010

"Uh, sir... the recover is over this way"

Nice write-up from the L.A. Times on how Canada has weathered the recession better than the United States.

Executive summary: A combination of banking regulations that were actually complied with, lack of political pressure and sensible individual Canadian prudiciousness prevented the country from falling into the sub-prime mess in the first place.

But once they did get caught in the global recession slipstream, their stimulus spending was far less than what we and the Europeans did thus keeping a greater percentage of capital and labor in the private sector thus allowing the economy to be wrung out more quickly and a subsequent recovery to be experienced also more quickly and robustly.

Then the article starts talking about the two country's differences with respect to immigration:

Its approach to immigration is one example. With one of the highest immigration rates in the world, Canada has been receiving about 250,000 permanent residents annually. About one-fourth of the new arrivals gain entry through family relations, but more than 60% are admitted as "economic immigrants" — that is, skilled workers, entrepreneurs and investors.

In the U.S., it's basically the reverse: Most of the 1 million-plus permanent residents received annually have been family-sponsored; only about one in seven are admitted on the basis of employment preferences.

Wait. Canada chooses who they want to admit? And they choose the best and brightest? What a novel concept.

Make no mistake, despite xenophobic charges hurled, immigration is important and it is perfectly logical for a sovereign entity as the United States to be discerning in who we wish to admit to our little club. That is perfectly our right.

Just how discerning and to what degrees? This debate needs to be had but unfortunately, we never get to that point as it's tough to get into wonky policy details when the federal government is unwilling to perform even the most basic duty of immigration policy: controlling who it is that is entering the country. And doubly so when open border shills are just fronts for advancing a 3rd world statist agenda of anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism via victimization, intimidation and racism.

Remember this next time you hear someone whining about not being able to have a sensible debate regarding immigration.


SarahB said...

everyone gets to be picky but us...sharing!

Road Dawg said...

Although the immigration numbers are duly noted, there is a similar disparity in the population.
This does not make it anti-hypocratic, it just means there are numbers and there are proportions.

Canada will also soon be overun with immigration problems simply because of the smaller population and the acceleration forthwith.

They are still steeped in a liberal mentality regarding immigration despite the discernment of the legal immigrants. What is there policy on illegal immigrants?

Dean said...

'Dawg, I'm so glad you brought that up. The article went to great pains to emphasize the population differences.

Yes, Canada's pop is smaller but why should we not be following a similar discerning and pick-and-choose policy with respect to our own country?

Forget absolute numbers and per capita... this is our house. Do we not invite in only those whom we wish to be invited?