| |
©Gregory James, November 2006 Most immigrants come to Canada for work. They do not want to be on welfare, they want to have jobs. Those who come to Canada and work illegally are included in this description. If the jobs are available, and migrants are qualified, then surely this benefits the local economy. Focussing only on the highly skilled is silly. Our economy needs them, but it also needs skilled trades people, service industry workers, and unskilled workers. This can be seen from how many people are working illegally in the construction industry (for example) and how many engineers are driving taxis. The current system is not filling our needs. So why do we need immigration laws? Why can’t we just allow in anyone who wants to work here? What’s the harm? We want to protect the jobs of Canadians, don’t we? Of course we do. But is this really an immigration issue? The economics advocated by most politicians these days includes free movement of money, and of goods. We are told that this makes everyone richer. But the most fundamental economic tool of all, labour, is treated differently than goods and money. We do not allow the free movement of labour across international borders. But we do allow the free movement of labour across provincial borders. What makes people who want to move from New York State to Alberta different from people who want to move from Ontario to Alberta? Why is inter-provincial movement good, while international movement is bad? They are both responding to economic incentives and will both only find work if it is available and they are qualified. In most instances, if they can’t find work, they will go back where they came from or move on. Why can’t we just let the market sort it out just like we do for money and goods and inter-provincial movement of labour? The simple economics model says free movement of money, goods and labour enriches the whole economy. The most obvious harm is if the people arriving here are dangerous. We certainly do not need criminals, war-mongers, or terrorists here. So there is a clear and simple logic to screening immigrants for these characteristics and barring their entry. Other than the dangerous, most concerns about immigration are about the burden immigrants might put on social programs. What about the sick? Health care is expensive, and it is paid for by the tax payer. Most Canadians would resent someone who has never before paid Canadian taxes or contributed to Canadian society taking advantage of expensive health care services. So let’s disqualify them. What about the unemployable? In many cases, someone who can’t work is in poor medical condition. Therefore, most immigrants in this category would be disqualified on medical grounds. Is there is a category of healthy unemployables? If there is, then taxpayers will be concerned about giving welfare payments to people who have never made a contribution the Canadian economy or to Canadian society. So why can’t we just refuse to give them welfare and tell them to go home if they can’t find work here? It seems to me that a simple economic model would say we can open our borders to anyone who wants to come here to work. If they can’t make it here, they will have to leave. We can require them to have a return ticket or make some kind of a deposit to help pay for their departure. In a simple economic model they will want to leave anyway, to go to another place where they can find more appropriate work. The simple economic model is not perfect. The first failing is political. No politician will ever have the courage to do it. The second one is a problem with the theory. Not all of the incentives to come to Canada are economic. Many people (including professionals such as engineers) would prefer to be marginally employed in Canada if it means they can avoid going back to a country with a poor human rights record, little respect of the rule of law, too much corruption, poor infrastructure, poor education systems, poor health care etc. Under these circumstances, simple economic factors are not going to guide human behaviour. So countries like Canada seek to implement a model that tries to address both the market concerns and the non-market concerns. Like many compromises, what we end up with is a muddle. |
|
|
Home | Contact Us | Assessments and Consultations | Sponsorship
© Gregory James 2004-2007
|
||