Who is "fit" to immigrate to Canada?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

I teach at Université de Montréal, at a Master's degree level, and a little more than half my students every year are from outside of Canada (France, Belgium, Burkina, Tunisia, Algeria, Colombia, Russia and China, mostly...) They have to pass a French test in order to be accepted, but nothing difficult really. They have the right to submit papers in english if they don't have the level in written french, but all the classes have to be taught in french. It's an attractive institution, AFAIK it is the 4th university in Canada for research, and the 2nd in the French world.

License programs in general have a very good connexion to the international, with many exchange programs and partnerships with universities from all over the world (bilateral conventions). The Maison Internationale and the Bureau des étudiants internationaux, along with LOJIQ (Les Offices jeunesse internationaux du Québec) do a wonderful job at promoting foreign education and also attracting foreign students. The mobility funds are generous (there are more than 200 different scholarships available specifically for this purpose) and quite easy to obtain (with an average of 3.2 in license, and 3.7 in master's).

Last year, there were around 10 000 foreign students in UdeM, on a student population of 67 000.

There are not a lot of stats about the retention of international students, but we know that between 2011 and 2015, 20 000 of them became immigrants.

Cool. I also taught at HEC-Montreal (grad class, Research Methodology), but I taught it in English. Students could do a HEC degree in French, English or Spanish, back in those days (early 2000s).

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Cool. I also taught at HEC-Montreal (grad class, Research Methodology), but I taught it in English. Students could do a HEC degree in French, English or Spanish, back in those days (early 2000s).

Great! And yes, HEC and Polytechnique still have bilingual and trilingual degrees. They are very popular.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

yes. Concordia and McGill (Bishops is undergraduate) also attract a huge number of students from the Francophonie...I would estimate that perhaps a third of my PhD cohort and a quarter of my master's cohort were Francophonie students (Tunisia [lots!], Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.). A quarter of PhD/MSc students were from China. Less than a quarter were local Quebecois (Anglos/allos 50%, Francos 50%). )

While the lion's share of students from France and Francophonie countries go to Quebec's francophone universities, for a decent-sized chunk of them Montreal is seen as a great place to study in or learn English. For the French (and probably the others too) due to bilateral agreements they get to pay the same tuition fees as students from Quebec (whereas kids from other parts of Canada actually pay more), and these bargain fees apply to all Quebec universities, not just the francophone ones. So they can go to McGill and learn English while at the same time the wider city still functions in French so it's not as intimidating.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My idea would be to raise tuition to the real cost of providing education, and individuals who attend can choose to either pay for it, or take out an interest-free loan from the government to pay for it. After they graduate, they start paying the loan. For every $1.00 of income tax paid to a Canadian government (either federal or provincial), the government will forgive $0.90 of the loan, but otherwise the graduate is paying the loan back themselves.

This way, tuition is free when enrolling (gives even the poorest students the chance to attend). And if they stay in Canada after they graduate, they'll ultimately have 90% of their education paid for, but if they leave, they'll have to pay it themselves.

Some people like to do short stints overseas after graduating (I know quite a few people who spent 2 years in Europe afterwards but came back). To accommodate those people, as well as people who take a bit of time to get their careers started, I propose that there be a 2-3 year grace period after graduation before repayments have to begin (right now there is such a grace period, but it only lasts 6 months).

The one flaw in your way of doing things, which mine specifically addresses, is that the person who permanently leaves Canada may not feel bound to pay whatever's asked of them. I know people who left behind them unpaid tickets in foreign countries, and never had much (if any) consequence. People in Canada used to declare bankruptcy upon graduating to wipe off their student loans (in the 1980s and earlier, IIRC) and the problem was so widespread we had to change the laws, so I wouldn't count on "voluntary" reimbursement, we need a stick.

[Acajack]

I was too busy over the weekend to respond to the posts that came before this became all about international students, but I did have a bit of time to read and jeez... my reaction was: "who are you guys and what have you done to SSP Canada?"

People saying Canada might need to cap immigration?

People saying that some nationalities are more difficult to integrate than others?

People saying that some nationalities are more culturally similar to Canadians?

People saying that some countries should be prioritized over others or given more of a free pass than other when it comes to immigration?

What happened here?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

The one flaw in your way of doing things, which mine specifically addresses, is that the person who permanently leaves Canada may not feel bound to pay whatever's asked of them. I know people who left behind them unpaid tickets in foreign countries, and never had much (if any) consequence. People in Canada used to declare bankruptcy upon graduating to wipe off their student loans (in the 1980s and earlier, IIRC) and the problem was so widespread we had to change the laws, so I wouldn't count on "voluntary" reimbursement, we need a stick.

Unless we're talking about people migrating to third world banana republics, there's no reason why Canada can't collect debt from people living overseas. Debt collectors work across borders all the time. Small parking tickets are one thing, massive loans are another.

[saffronleaf]

Sorry for ghosting on the thread and I appreciate the quality of discussion that has taken place here.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

So let's assume university is free...


*Is it fair to dump this on an already over-taxed citizen? What's the data? What's the business case for it?

- In terms of the data and business case, an empirical study would have to be undertaken and a survey of existing cases would need to be conducted. I don't have the data or business case, so admittedly this is higher-level discussion that, if we were serious about considering implementing, would warrant an investigation by the government and other relevant experts.

- Not sure if I would consider Canadians to be over-taxed, but I think it would have to be viewed as a long-term investment, and the fruits of that investment shouldn't only be measured monetarily. For citizens, I think the rewards of investing in public education are pretty clear and many countries provide this, although of course it is not without disagreement. For foreign nationals, we would be giving up international tuition fees, thereby helping recruit the most qualified foreign nationals on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of how loaded their parents are. This would likely mean that a greater percentage of international students will come from poorer countries, and countries (including Canada) tend to retain more international students from poor source countries rather than rich ones. I can pull up data on this if you'd like. I suspect that whether one's parents are rich will also affect retention rates, but do not have data.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

*Should all programs be free? I.e. Should we be paying for BAs in Women's Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, etc.? Or should we fund only programs that are in demand from an employment perspective?

- That's a good question and I'm interested in your thoughts. At a higher and perhaps philosophical level, I'm not pleased with university programs turning into job training centers. I'm not sure if short-term post-graduation employment metrics should be used as a way to evaluate the value of education. The emphasis on standardized testing and turning universities into job training centers has, I think understandably, turned many away from education and the desire to learn and think critically. The wave of anti-intellectualism and populism is not surprising. And with how the economy continues to rapidly change, our focus I think should be on inculcating critical thinking skills and then making available job search resources and entrepreneurship resources. I suspect that those kinds of fundamental skills can be inculcated through a variety of programs.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

*Should we raise the bar back where it used to be, ensuring that only those with an inclination towards higher study are accepted?

- I'm not sure where the bar used to be or where it is now, but I would hope that only those with an inclination are accepted. The point would be to remove money out of the admissions process and make it about merit. Obviously, merit is not easily defined, so there is room for disagreement and discussion, but I think many will agree money shouldn't play a role. This will perhaps naturally increase the competitiveness of university admissions.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Offering free tuition to high-achieving International Students is a wonderful idea but how do we ensure they stay and contribute? How do we get our share of the pie? We can't do this and then just hope they stick around.

- Removing money out of the equation will likely mean that the source country composition of our international student pool will shift in the sense that there will likely be more students from poorer countries and poorer families. There's data showing that students from poorer countries stay back in Canada more, understandably. I can pull up some of that data if you'd like. I don't have data on whether people from poorer families tend to stay back in Canada more, but I would suspect it can help retention. Right now, we get a lot of rich kids from rich families who are simply coming here for the experience and respectable foreign degree, then go back home to work in their family business empire. The system isn't designed well for retention.

- We can also study other approaches to enhancing retention. A soft approach could be requiring international students who seek tuition relief to submit a personal statement and attend an admissions interview to help evaluate the student's desire (or lack thereof) to remain in Canada for at least a few years after graduation. This can be incorporated into the admissions process. A more hard-line approach may be to temporarily suspend the payment of tuition and, if the student does not make a good faith effort to secure qualifying employment, then the tuition fees will be due and payable.

- The retention question is also a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg situation, and I think there's parallels to immigration in general. At the heart of it, what really affects retention? It's the quality of the host country, simple as that. If the host country provides excellent opportunities, safety, basic rights, etc., people will want to stay there. We need to focus on the many that will stay behind and help develop our economic clusters. And the continued development of these economic clusters will further boost retention. The numbers might not be immediately pretty, but I think it can snowball into more. This is a bit tangential, but when you look at the retention of immigrants in general, you kind of see this too. I would guess, for example, that immigration retention has increased over time in a place like Winnipeg. Maybe only few stayed back from the initial waves of immigrants, but successive waves are able to build on social and other capital held by the few who stayed back.

- Bottom line is that retention (absent regulations like conditioned tuition relief) is a function of how attractive the host country is. And I think the ones who stay back will contribute to making Canada a more attractive destination, which lead to future waves of international students being more easily retainable.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

And it's been my experience that universities are not great economic engines, as such. Yes, they contribute something to the economy, it's true, but they're also bloated, bureaucratic and sometimes ideological. They're businesses in a sense, yes, but not innovative or well-run as far as I can tell.

Universities in a vacuum don't seem like economic engines, but when they're successfully integrated into economic clusters, they can serve as a pillar for the success of the economic cluster. There's a lot of literature about the importance of economic clusters. Perhaps one of the closest examples we have in Canada is Kitchener-Waterloo.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, given that I've been on record here for years saying that our low tuition is a problem - we educate people using public money who then leave for the U.S. or Europe - and suggesting ways to fix it (for example, having the parents on the hook for the true cost of education if their kid leaves), I'm certainly not going to find it a good idea to fund the education of foreigners, given that even locals are already problematic for their imperfect retention rate, and that's in spite of their roots and families and friends being here so foreigners would no doubt be a lot worse.

We need to do less subsidizing of highly-educated people who end up not paying any taxes here after their studies, not more - that would just be plain crazy.

If we want to increase the retention rate, we could adopt hard line policies such as what you suggested -- conditioning tuition relief on remaining in Canada for a certain number of years after graduation.

But at the end of the day, I think the most important component of retention is to ensure that graduates have strong economic and other opportunities to make use of their education. And one of the cornerstones of increasing those opportunities is having a well educated and entrepreneurial labor pool. Some will leave, but those who remain will deepen the labor pool and engage in entrepreneurship. With complementary policies to increase the competitiveness of our economic clusters, the retention rate will increase, creating a positive feedback loop.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'd like to see saffronleaf explain why he thinks it was advantageous for Canada to fund the education of these people with scholarships and low tuitions...?

Again, my idea would be to have the parents commit unmovable Canadian assets (plus they'd have to both declare bankruptcy to escape paying) to guarantee the reimbursement of the true public cost of their kid's education if the kid leaves. In 99% of cases, I'm sure with this $300,000 a year salary in the U.S. you could clear the actual cost of your education over a few years, without ever having to bother the parents.

- What about kids without parents who are able to commit unmovable Canadian assets? As far as more hard line policies to encourage retention, I prefer @1overcosc 's proposal (quoted below).

- I think the idea in general is to look beyond the short-term nickle-and-diming of students and focus on the long-term benefits. We need to have a suite of complementary policies to further develop our economic clusters and integrate universities into them. And while some of the students may not be retained, the ones who are retained will contribute and strengthen these economic clusters by deepening the quality of the labor pool and engaging in entrepreneurship. The increasing strength of these economic clusters will boost retention in the future.

- As noted above, I think there's parallels to immigration. The Canadian government expended political capital on opening up Canada to immigration and invested in programs to help welcome, integrate and retain immigrants. I'm sure that many felt (and still do) that 'we should take care of 'our own' first', and fought against these policy changes and investments. Moreover, these policies and investments likely weren't great at retention at the beginning, lending credence to critics. I suspect retention rates have improved as these programs have continued to develop and communities of immigrants exist to facilitate integration and retention. These long-term outlays with little short-term returns have turned Canada into a magnet for immigrants and has benefited Canada on the whole in numerous ways.

- We should think long-term and progressively about our outlook on education its relationship to the quality of our economy and society.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My idea would be to raise tuition to the real cost of providing education, and individuals who attend can choose to either pay for it, or take out an interest-free loan from the government to pay for it. After they graduate, they start paying the loan. For every $1.00 of income tax paid to a Canadian government (either federal or provincial), the government will forgive $0.90 of the loan, but otherwise the graduate is paying the loan back themselves.

This way, tuition is free when enrolling (gives even the poorest students the chance to attend). And if they stay in Canada after they graduate, they'll ultimately have 90% of their education paid for, but if they leave, they'll have to pay it themselves.

Some people like to do short stints overseas after graduating (I know quite a few people who spent 2 years in Europe afterwards but came back). To accommodate those people, as well as people who take a bit of time to get their careers started, I propose that there be a 2-3 year grace period after graduation before repayments have to begin (right now there is such a grace period, but it only lasts 6 months).

[whatnext]

UH, oh. This is the kind of stuff that just started riots in Germany. Could be bad news for Trudeau if political opponents decide to run with it:

A man has been arrested and charged in the death of Burnaby teen Marrisa Shen.

Ibrahim Ali, 28, is charged with first-degree murder in Shen’s July 2017 death, according to an updated shared Monday by the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.

The 13-year-old Burnaby girl was reported missing after she failed to return home by 11 p.m. on July 18, 2017. Police launched a search, using GPS to track her phone. In the early morning hours of July 19, 2017, Shen’s body was found in Burnaby’s Central Park...

..Ali came to Canada 17 months ago from Syria as a refugee, according to IHIT. The officer in charge of the investigation said they did not know whether he came in as a government or privately sponsored refugee...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...n-marrisa-shen

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

UH, oh. This is the kind of stuff that just started riots in Germany. Could be bad news for Trudeau if political opponents decide to run with it:

A man has been arrested and charged in the death of Burnaby teen Marrisa Shen.

Ibrahim Ali, 28, is charged with first-degree murder in Shen’s July 2017 death, according to an updated shared Monday by the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team.

The 13-year-old Burnaby girl was reported missing after she failed to return home by 11 p.m. on July 18, 2017. Police launched a search, using GPS to track her phone. In the early morning hours of July 19, 2017, Shen’s body was found in Burnaby’s Central Park...

..Ali came to Canada 17 months ago from Syria as a refugee, according to IHIT. The officer in charge of the investigation said they did not know whether he came in as a government or privately sponsored refugee...

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...n-marrisa-shen

As disturbing as I find stories like this, they're unlikely to have much of a political impact if you go by what's happened in Germany (despite the marches) or in countries like France or Sweden.

Compared to Canada, all of these countries and a few others have seen an alarming spike in the number of attacks, rapes and even murders of young women in the past couple of years, and unfortunately a disportionate number of them have been committed by a demographic that might be called "young migrant men".

And yet, when elections have taken place in the midst of the turmoil, the most rabid anti-migrant parties have been kept at bay and haven't won power. Even if their influence has grown a bit. As in Sweden just yesterday.

So far a clear majority of Euros have been good at keeping their cool about stuff that's hard to keep your cool about.

I don't think Canadians would be any different.

[caltrane74]

Some refugee just killed some adorable little kid in BC.

We are gonna have trouble here for sure.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As disturbing as I find stories like this, they're unlikely to have much of a political impact if you go by what's happened in Germany (despite the marches) or in countries like France or Sweden.

Compared to Canada, all of these countries and a few others have seen an alarming spike in the number of attacks, rapes and even murders of young women in the past couple of years, and unfortunately a disportionate number of them have been committed by a demographic that might be called "young migrant men".

And yet, when elections have taken place in the midst of the turmoil, the most rabid anti-migrant parties have been kept at bay and haven't won power. Even if their influence has grown a bit. As in Sweden just yesterday.

So far a clear majority of Euros have been good at keeping their cool about stuff that's hard to keep your cool about.

I don't think Canadians would be any different.

If Bernier actually had a team behind his party of one, I could see them making use of it. The demographic he was courting with his "cult of multiculturalism" comments would respond to it.

[misher]

Immigration should be run as a business so that it makes us a profit.
Immigrants should only be people who are good workers who agree to pay extra taxes for the first few years during a probationary period and get their citizenship once they pay their debt off. Sort of a student loan but lets call it an immigration loan, we can charge inflation+2% on the loan so we make interest too! If they can't speak the language but can get a good job with their current language, thats ok.

In lieu of taxes, they can pay an upfront fee when immigrating or join specific work programs that benefit Canada with reduced pay such as non-profits, welfare services, the armed forces, etc.

People requiring additional social services such as seniors should be charged more, children less so but still a bit due to cost to school them.

We can have probationary periods so if workers lose their jobs and can't find another, they have to join the service programs or get deported.

I know this is totally against what governments are meant to do, but how about we make some money here.

Lets forget about language, race, ethnicity, etc. Besides things like criminal records that are important, lets make a business case for each immigrant and make them pay their way. Why should the Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for immigration? Lets make the immigrants do so. Why can't we allow immigration and turn a tidy profit?

Let the workers of the world in! So many hard working American immigrants/illegal immigrants want in, why turn them away? Lets just tax them.

Canada's population needs to rise greatly, we have so much land, a labor shortage, and small towns are dying.

Lets let good workers in and restrict access/deport unprofitable cases.

We can fund our refugee programs from the funds we get from people who buy citizenship.

Honestly if our government was run well we wouldn't need so many taxes. Canada didn't even charge an income or corporate tax until WW1 in 1917. It was supposed to be a temporary measure and like most taxes, it stayed. For 50 years our government was run like a business and then emergencies happened which gave them enough political power to impose "temporary" taxes that never went away. Governments need to be run like businesses not non-profits. Every dollar spent needs to be personally painful for bureaucrats. Bonuses and pay needs to be tied to performance. Imagine how crazy strong our economy would be if there were no corporate taxes or income taxes. Hell, imagine how much we would save on accountants and government bureaucracy alone.

For more than 50 years after Confederation, customs and excise duties had provided the bulk of federal revenues; by 1913 they provided more than 90 per cent of the total. In 1917, however, to help finance the First World War, Parliament introduced personal income tax and corporate taxes. In 1920, a manufacturers' sales tax and other sales taxes were also introduced.

Provincial revenue at this time came primarily from licences and permits, and sales of commodities and services. In addition, the provinces received substantial federal subsidies. They hesitated to impose direct taxes but by the late 1800s were taxing business profits and successions. Taxes on real and personal property were the bulwark of local government finance, and by 1930 total municipal revenues surpassed those of the federal government.

The Great Depression bankrupted some municipalities and severely damaged provincial credit. Customs and excise duties declined by 65 per cent from 1929 to 1934. Parliament resorted more to personal and corporate taxation, and raised sales taxes dramatically. Before the Depression was over, all provinces were taxing corporate income. All but two provinces levied personal income taxes, and two had retail sales taxes.

A nice example of bureaucratic waste is the Pentagon's war machine below, 1 bureaucrat for every 1.3 active soldier:

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by misher

Immigration should be run as a business so that it makes us a profit.
Immigrants should only be people who are good workers who agree to pay extra taxes for the first few years during a probationary period. If they can't speak the language but can get a good job with their current language, thats ok.

In lieu of taxes, they can pay an upfront fee when immigrating or join specific work programs that benefit Canada with reduced pay such as non-profits, welfare services, the armed forces, etc.

People requiring additional social services such as seniors should be charged more, children less so but still a bit due to cost to school them.

I know this is totally against what governments are meant to do, but how about we make some money here.

Lets forget about language, race, ethnicity, etc. Besides things like criminal records that are important, lets make a business case for each immigrant and make them pay their way. Why should the Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for immigration? Lets make the immigrants do so. Why can't we allow immigration and turn a tidy profit?

Let the workers of the world in!

Hear! Hear! Be careful, you make too much sense, the puppies and rainbows brigade will call you a racist right wing asshole!

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If Bernier actually had a team behind his party of one, I could see them making use of it. The demographic he was courting with his "cult of multiculturalism" comments would respond to it.

He's apparently launching his party officially sometime this week. I saw in the news the other day that, after his announcement the other week, he went on vacation. I shouldn't have been surprised, but I kinda was.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Cool. I also taught at HEC-Montreal (grad class, Research Methodology), but I taught it in English. Students could do a HEC degree in French, English or Spanish, back in those days (early 2000s).

Huh, just noticed MolsonExport is 'online' (green light next to username is 'on') at the moment I'm writing this, interesting!

Welcome back...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by misher

Lets let good workers in and restrict access/deport unprofitable cases.

This is largely how it already works.

2017 parliamentary report on immigration: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...tion-2017.html

Skilled worker and business-related programs account for most of the immigration to Canada.

In 2016, Canada admitted 296,346 immigrants. Of those, 155,994 were economic, 78,004 were family (e.g. a Canadian marries someone in some other country who is then allowed to immigrate), 58,435 were "protected persons and refugees", and 3,913 were in the generic humanitarian class.

The investor/business class immigrants pay an extra tax as you described which is considered an "investment". From what I can tell, this class of immigration has been the least successful and the most prone to abuse and bureaucratic problems.

The skilled worker classes pay fees but don't pay extra taxes once they get PR or citizenship. I think the extra tax is a bad idea. We can tune who we let in with the points system to bring in people who will pay more taxes (e.g. people with advanced degrees and offers for high paying jobs). We don't need an extra layer of bureaucracy to administer special taxes after, and we don't want second-class citizens or to scare away people who are likely to pay a lot into the system here.

[someone123]

I don't think the military vs. civilian vs. contractor thing is meaningful on its own for proving that the Pentagon is run poorly.

It is possible that they have a bloated bureaucracy. Then again, boots on the ground mean less in 2018 than they did in 1818. The Manhattan Project employed 130,000 people and there were 12 people on the bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

[whatnext]

Didn't take long for the media to go there:

Opinion: During his mad dash to bring in Syrian refugees, the prime minister haphazardly exposed Canada to the dangers of unchecked immigration from a war zone.
We could have yet another tragic indicator that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s refugee policy is failing us.

Earlier this week, police arrested a Syrian refugee and charged him with the murder of 13-year-old Marissa Shen in Burnaby, B.C.

The accused, 28-year-old Ibrahim Ali, had only been in Canada for a few months when this horrific crime took place. Police believe that the two did not know each other and that this was a totally random act of brutality.

Ali came to Canada as one of 40,000 Syrian refugees admitted through Trudeau’s elaborate PR stunt, which saw the government skip important security steps, bypass integration programs, and overwhelm refugee resettlement agencies, all in pursuit of achieving Trudeau’s naive 2015 election campaign pledge...

https://theprovince.com/opinion/colu...1-89f9cf81edf9