Canadians know the Numbers !

wallst_wizz

Registered Users (C)
Read in http://www.bijili.com on 02/27/03

The demographic realities of the 21st century are stark and inescapable: Rich countries are aging fast, and that will make keeping pension promises excruciatingly difficult. The Europeans and the Japanese aren't having enough babies to keep their populations from shrinking. Poor countries, despite the scourge of AIDS and spread of birth control, are growing much faster. Many are struggling to educate and employ their youth.

New United Nations projections, released Wednesday, show the population of more-developed regions growing at 0.25% a year and the population of less-developed regions growing nearly six times as fast, at 1.46% a year. Immigration from fecund, poorer countries to richer ones is a part of the answer.

A few countries are explicit about this: Canada has a stated goal of increasing immigration gradually until inflows reach roughly 1% of its population, up from about 0.85% currently. Thoughtful people in continental Europe and Japan understand the immigration imperative, but the general population and the average politician don't. The 15 countries of the European Union today have 2.6 working-age adults to pick up the pension tab for every person over 65; in 2050, they will have only 0.8, according to the Organization for Economic Coordination and Development in Paris.

The U.S. is in between: It remains a magnet for immigrants and an exemplar of the economic vitality that accompanies immigration. But rising unemployment, the bitterness of workers who bear the brunt of the pain that comes with globalization, and the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, contribute to a palpable increase in hostility to immigration. Footnotes to the reports by Social Security trustees, who anticipate 900,000 immigrants to the U.S. each year, underscore one economic benefit: Every additional 100,000 immigrants shaves 3% off the 75-year cost of fixing Social Security because of payroll taxes that immigrant workers will pay to finance the retirement of the baby boom.

The economic oomph of immigration is hardly a new phenomenon, of course. It was more significant in earlier eras even though travel was tougher. The wave of European immigration to the Western Hemisphere between 1870 and 1910 took 40% of Italy's labor force and 45% of Ireland's. The U.S. work force in 1910 was 24% larger than it would have been without immigration, according to economists Timothy Hatton of the University of Essex and Jeffrey G. Williamson of Harvard.

A return to flows of that magnitude is very unlikely. Immigration alone can't defuse the demographic time bomb. "Immigration doesn't really solve the problem in the long run," says Jeffrey Passell of the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. "But it obviously helps."

The economic appeal of immigration, particularly to receiving countries, was more evident just a few years ago.

"Economic growth in the late 1990s, coupled with increasing concerns about aging populations, led many [industrialized] countries to envision using migration to ease labor shortages," the OECD says in its latest "Trends in International Migration" report. The flow of immigrants rose in the late 1980s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, slowed in the early 1990s as rich countries tightened controls, and then surged again at the end of the 1990s and the first couple of years of this decade, says the government-backed research agency.

One fact shines through all of these compendiums of facts of immigration: the exceptional nature of the U.S. The number crunchers at the U.N., for instance, figure that about two million people will move each year from China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, Indonesia and other countries to richer countries over the next 50 years. More than half, they project, will come to the U.S.

Although the demographic pressures aren't abating, the continuation of recent immigration trends isn't a certainty. Continued globalization, despite the rhetoric of proponents and critics, isn't inevitable. World War I proved that. A global economic downturn and all of the tensions produced by Sept. 11, 2001, and, more recently, by the prospect of war with Iraq could disrupt immigration flows.

It is "difficult," the cautious OECD analysts write, "to gauge the impact of those events ... or to predict whether they will reverse the trend in immigration flows." It is clear, though, that the Bush administration's eagerness to cut a deal with the Mexican government on immigration evaporated after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, that American public attitudes toward immigrants have turned more negative, and that Arab and Muslim immigrants -- not a large fraction of U.S. immigration -- aren't as welcome as they were before Sept. 11.

No one can know how long this will last, and whether it is a hiccup or a sea change. But we do know that the stakes are very large -- not only for the immigrants who seek better lives as the grandparents and parents of so many of today's native-born Americans did, but to the continued prosperity of the U.S. and other developed countries.
 
Canada needs to think out side the box

Canada has to come out of her traditional ideas and think more progressively and objectively. Bringing people to Canada (by immigration) will not solve any issues for Canada unless this massive work force is being utilized properly. The conservative ideas and old school of thoughts are very detrimental for any nation who is looking for more economic prosperity and a solid countrywide economic base. After living in both countries (US and Canada), what I found the biggest difference between these two is (at least intellectually) the perception towards the intellectual ability of people of non-native origin (immigrants) by the native people (Canadian) of Canada. I have been told (and I am sure others have the same experience too) time and again that we don't possess as much quality as native-Canadian, hence not considered as "safe to try".

One basic thing that Govt. Of Canada has to understand that her immigration dynamics has changed over the years. Vast majorities of us are not so called "People looking for Political Asylum" but "Professional". We immigrate here not to avoid war or to save our lives from unforeseen troubles, but to excel in our fields of expertise and have a better life than what we had. To prosper, a nation (just like what US did after Word war II) has to keep these erudite and explore their intellectual ability and give them the first "break" so that they can positively contribute and help the nation grow. Unfortunately, that very basic concept is still missing from the main agenda of Canadian immigration and its policies. If this is the way it goes, I have not doubt, Canada will again turned in to a place for only " People looking for Political Asylum”, not professional. I see everyday more and more people (engineers, accountants etc) are looking for alternative options and talking about going out after "Citizenship" to a better place. But I though it is that better place!!!!, what happen to it. Why people are talking about going back to Oman or Mascot or even US to get work. Are they feeling alienated? . Unless Canadian govt and department of immigration looks deeper in to these problems – the basic purpose of immigration will definitely fail. Immigration is not about bringing some people and charge landing fees from them, it is about how can you use them efficiently so that they can positively contribute and feel important.

I was talking to a British Charter Accountant who was really upset about (what he believes to be the deception game of Canadian corporation and immigration department of Canada has failed to act on it) the “Canadian experience requirement”. He is been here for closed to 3 years and could not secure a gainful employment and looking for better option after “citizenship” on the other side of the border. That is to me a dangerous trend and should not happen to a country that needs more immigrants to prosper. Unless these issues are taken care off, it is going to be that arithmetic problem I used to do in grade 7-- “ there is a small tank of water, from one end there is pipe which fills the tank in 4 minutes and other end has another pipe which drains the water within 5 minutes. So after 3 and ½ minutes how much water would be in the tank?” >> I hate to see that happen to Canada, as I believe it is a better place to live.


Thank You
Moloy
 
Excellent thoughts Bagchi!

You spoke for me! After reading Ray's post, I was about to write the exact same stuff but couldn't find correct words. I hope that things will improve in Canada and all of us will be able to make it our 'first choice' for living and working.

Ray: BTW, what happened to your 'Calling Bay Area Canadians' thing? We were supposed to meet a long time ago.

logicators
 
well said baghchi,

I personally feel it...Whatever change in attitude has to happen fast. I am losing patience. Once I get Citizenship guess where I am going (or at least try to)....

It is Ironic because Canada is such a nice place and the people are great too...any way motherland is beckoning me so please give some input to my other thread....
 
Top