Talk:Economic impact of immigration to Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Economic impact of immigration to Canada was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 14, 2006
Peer review Economic impact of immigration to Canada has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] The scope of citations

As with Canadians of convenience, this article has essentially 1 author. At some point, one has to wonder where the line lies with Vanity site!
You stated, in this article's peer-review discussion, that the Canadian government has not published data in relation to economic impact. And your focus is on recent immigration patterns. This has left the article, as it currently stands, with a few right-wing think tanks, and Statistics Canada papers whose reading, I submit, would result in alternative interpretations from that produced by the current article. Not only would a logical analysis fail to sustain the deductive context of the citations, but the implications of this article would, I expect, come as a surprise to the papers' authors.
In the article, you cite this document. Unstated is its assertion that, prior to 1976, immigrants fared better than the native-born population. This [1] government paper notes a "small but positive" economic impact. And this [2] government paper reflects on the state of research. Discrimination is noted as a possible cause for the post-1986 drop whereas your article mentions none.
One would expect that an article which aims to tackle the issue of economic impact of immigration as a whole, would not ignore positive impacts prior to 1976, and would delve deep into the causes of any alleged post-1986 drop. --P00r (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See also my related comments in Homelessness in Canada which uses the same reference sources.--P00r (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, in the "Expanded Economy" section the article attributes the existence of virtually the entire economy to immigration since the beginning of time, so contributions of before 1976 are not currently ignored in that sense. But the article does state that "In previous decades, immigrant income levels did rise to the national average after 10 years, but in recent years the situation has deteriorated". Isn't that very consistent with what you are saying? It certainly seems very consistent with the sources you cited. The decline in economic performance of immigrants in the past 30 years I think it a legitimate focus of discussion in the article because, well, it is the most relevant time frame to most people thinking about the topic today. We do have a separate articles on the History of immigration to Canada and Economic history of Canada. Regarding discrimination, if people think race discrimination in Canada has increased post-1986 compared to pre-1986, then we should add that into the Other possible explanations section. I had not because it seems a bit of a stretch to me, but if others believe that then we should add it with the appropriate citation. Which brings me to your last point, the "Other possible explanations" section mentioned above does "delve" as deep as I think we can in the context of a summarized article into the possible causes of post 1986 decline. PS, it would be easier if you continued the discussion in the talk sections we previously started so the continuity is easier for others to follow; and if you feel the need to make a new section it is customary to make them at the bottom of the talk pages. Deet (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[3][4] 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)

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)