Is the Canadian immigration points system's influence overstated compared to the US?

[Capsicum]

Sometimes the Canadian points-based immigration system makes its way into the American political discourse or stimulates discussion, and there are Americans who praise it for favoring the needs of the economy, rather than family reunification. Some say that the points system is good in how selective it is in picking highly educated, skilled workers rather than just the "average Joe" who comes in because he has family in the country.

However, from what I hear, it appears that Canada's immigrants aren't doing socio-economically that much better than south of the border. Many groups like Indian-American immigrants actually attain more on average than their Canadian counterparts economically and educationally. Many more foreign-born Canadians get stuck with jobs they're "overqualified for" than Americans who seem to translate their credentials and skills into greater actual use.

Naturalized Americans who were once immigrants are very high achieving and they make up a good chunk of high socio-economic status occupations like CEOs, artists, writers, intellectuals, tech workers, scientists etc. so even if there's a high percentage of less well-off immigrants, I think Americans have gotten a large share of its immigration contributing a large amount to society.

The US, even if not having a points system in the same way, has no problem attracting the world's best and brightest talent, and even brain drains away immigrants who came using Canada's points system and used the latter as merely a way-station.

So I hear contradictory statements about the "problems" or "advantages" with either the US or Canadian immigration systems, but the Canadian (or Australian) points system is still no match for the pull of the American dream.

[MolsonExport]

the American dream is perhaps less enticing as of late.

[mistercorporate]

The US attracts higher quality immigrants, but it also lets in a larger proportion of low quality ones. What you keep out is more important than what you let in.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

The US attracts higher quality immigrants, but it also lets in a larger proportion of low quality ones. What you keep out is more important than what you let in.

This is how I tend to see things as well.

[SpongeG]

I remember watching a story a few years ago about this on the ABC show 2020, I think it was, about an immigrant from India, he was a doctor and iniitially got into Canada and could not find work as a doctor as no place would recognize his credentials etc. So he was given a chance to go to the states, he had to take some test to prove himself etc. I think it was one of the Dakotas where he ended up and was welcomed with open arms and had been running a very successful practice, the locals loved him and had a great reputation at the state level and he was happy but disappointed with his Canadian experience which was his first choice to settle.

[ssiguy]

Canada's Immigration bureaucrats seem to do a stellar job of letting in skilled workers and simultaneously making it as hard as possible for those skilled workers to use their skills. Conversely they make unskilled refugees who often lack even English/French language requirements fell welcome and letting them by-pass official borders to make a claim knowing it will take so long to go thru the refugee bureaucracy that they will all be allowed to stay.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada's Immigration bureaucrats seem to do a stellar job of letting in skilled workers and simultaneously making it as hard as possible for those skilled workers to use their skills. Conversely they make unskilled refugees who often lack even English/French language requirements fell welcome and letting them by-pass official borders to make a claim knowing it will take so long to go thru the refugee bureaucracy that they will all be allowed to stay.

That actually has more to do with provincial regulators than with the immigration bureaucracy, no?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That actually has more to do with provincial regulators than with the immigration bureaucracy, no?

Well that hints at the bigger problem of Canada doing a poor job of promoting its national interests through cooperation with the Provinces. I'm a big fan of decentralisation, but Canada goes too far with its weak sense of national goals.

[kwoldtimer]

No argument from me ....

[wave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well that hints at the bigger problem of Canada doing a poor job of promoting its national interests through cooperation with the Provinces. I'm a big fan of decentralisation, but Canada goes too far with its weak sense of national goals.

I'll argue the opposite.

Every time we've had a 'national goal', we've done a better job of effectively dividing ourselves than uniting ourselves - with maybe the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

The era of 1970-1995 was filled with "national goals" and it was one of the most bitter eras in federal-provincial relationships. By and large since then, we've not had much in the way of national goals and things have been relatively peaceful.

Things that unite other countries tend to divide us - for instance, the World Wars produced division in Canada whilst they produced unity in other countries.

We're a funny country that way. We do better when we focus on maintaining the status quo and getting things done by incrementalism, especially at the federal level.

[GernB]

Originally Posted by wave46

I'll argue the opposite.

Every time we've had a 'national goal', we've done a better job of effectively dividing ourselves than uniting ourselves - with maybe the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

The era of 1970-1995 was filled with "national goals" and it was one of the most bitter eras in federal-provincial relationships. By and large since then, we've not had much in the way of national goals and things have been relatively peaceful.

Things that unite other countries tend to divide us - for instance, the World Wars produced division in Canada whilst they produced unity in other countries.

We're a funny country that way. We do better when we focus on maintaining the status quo and getting things done by incrementalism, especially at the federal level.

I'd argue that that's more a symptom of timid federal governments that are afraid of using their constitutionally sanctioned powers. The Trans Canada Highway for instance could have been started in the 1930s, had the feds had the balls to invoke their declaratory power. They could also have expanded it to a national freeway under the same clause in the 1970s, rather than allowing the original agreement to lapse. National healthcare could have been instituted in the late 1940s had Mackenzie King the will to push harder for it. The TransCanada pipeline could have been built to Montreal had St. Laurent not been afraid of offending Duplessis. The idea of a national power grid that only recently has been floated again could have been started in the 1960s had Pearson not been afraid of offending Lesage. Diefenbaker was afraid to risk upsetting the provinces by pressing his Bill of Rights as a constitutional document. Bennett and Mackenzie King allowed New Brunswick to block constitutional patriation in 1935-36.

On the other hand, the Trudeau Mk. 1 and Mulroney governments allowed their preoccupations to distract them from dealing with the economic crises of the 1970s and 80s, while those same preoccupations exacerbated the problems they were ostensibly attempting the deal with, so I suppose an overly bull-headed government isn't a great thing either.

[drew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada's Immigration bureaucrats seem to do a stellar job of letting in skilled workers and simultaneously making it as hard as possible for those skilled workers to use their skills. Conversely they make unskilled refugees who often lack even English/French language requirements fell welcome and letting them by-pass official borders to make a claim knowing it will take so long to go thru the refugee bureaucracy that they will all be allowed to stay.

I can't speak for other professions, but for Engineers - it should be no mystery to any immigrant as to what countries the provincial associations view engineering degrees as "equivalent" to those obtained in Canada.

For those that arrive in Canada with degrees from countries that don't meet the criteria, there are ways to demonstrate technical competency, and obtain the necessary Canadian experience. It happens all the time, but does take time and requires a willing employer.

The provincial professional associations have a legal duty to protect the safety of Canadians - not to fast track immigrants into getting credentials that could pose serious public safety risks.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by drew

I can't speak for other professions, but for Engineers - it should be no mystery to any immigrant as to what countries the provincial associations view engineering degrees as "equivalent" to those obtained in Canada.

For those that arrive in Canada with degrees from countries that don't meet the criteria, there are ways to demonstrate technical competency, and obtain the necessary Canadian experience. It happens all the time, but does take time and requires a willing employer.

The provincial professional associations have a legal duty to protect the safety of Canadians - not to fast track immigrants into getting credentials that could pose serious public safety risks.

I agree, although there is a general perception (for good reason, I believe) that the professions and provinces could be doing more to facilitate the process by which immigrants obtain Canadian qualifications. I'm particularly sceptical of any requirement for "Canadian experience" - it has too often been misused.

[drew]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I agree, although there is a general perception (for good reason, I believe) that the professions and provinces could be doing more to facilitate the process by which immigrants obtain Canadian qualifications. I'm particularly sceptical of any requirement for "Canadian experience" - it has too often been misused.

The Canadian experience is a big one for Engineering associations - and for good reason.

Canada has Codes, rules and regulations, climatic extremes and other things that can be quite different to what many P.Eng. hopefuls have experienced in their home countries.

To become a P.Eng. in Canada without some degree of demonstrable Canadian experience is not possible - and that's fine by me.

[Acajack]

Quebec just had a cabinet shuffle this week and one of the ministers was explicitly given the mandate to loosen up professional certifications so that more highly trained and educated professionals from abroad can work in their areas of expertise here in Quebec.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by drew

The Canadian experience is a big one for Engineering associations - and for good reason.

Canada has Codes, rules and regulations, climatic extremes and other things that can be quite different to what many P.Eng. hopefuls have experienced in their home countries.

To become a P.Eng. in Canada without some degree of demonstrable Canadian experience is not possible - and that's fine by me.

I ask this out of ignorance - what Canadian experience would a Canadian engineering student not in a coop program bring to his first employer?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by drew

I can't speak for other professions, but for Engineers - it should be no mystery to any immigrant as to what countries the provincial associations view engineering degrees as "equivalent" to those obtained in Canada.

For those that arrive in Canada with degrees from countries that don't meet the criteria, there are ways to demonstrate technical competency, and obtain the necessary Canadian experience. It happens all the time, but does take time and requires a willing employer.

The provincial professional associations have a legal duty to protect the safety of Canadians - not to fast track immigrants into getting credentials that could pose serious public safety risks.

Engineering shows you exactly what's wrong with professional governance in this country. We have 13 regulators. For a country of 35 million. Ridiculous.

There should be a "Canadian College of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists" (or something to that effect) that is the national licensing body for the country. Sure, we have different licensing regulations in each province. But there's no reason, they shouldn't be harmonized and why there can't be a single national regulatory body that handles licensing and accreditation.

A single national regulator would also likely be much more capable to both assessing and shepherding through foreign trained engineers.

And this is just one profession. Look at the new ones popping up, like HR. Even they have provincial divisions. Why?

The fact that we are a tenth the size of the behemoth to the south should compel us to seek out economies of scale where possible. And that should normally mean we do more at the national level. Instead, this country's instinct is to run to their provincial corner on just about every single issue. Professional governance is just one more manifestation of this. And this does impact us. It destroys productivity while costing us top tier marginal talent.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Engineering shows you exactly what's wrong with professional governance in this country. We have 13 regulators. For a country of 35 million. Ridiculous.

And this is just one profession. Look at the new ones popping up, like HR. Even they have provincial divisions. Why?

Because labour law is the domain of the provincial governments.

The US has a number of states that are very small in population, yet have all the licencing requirements of larger states.

Building consensus in this country is hard. Really hard. To the point that the compromises needed would likely destroy any efficiency advantage that might be achieved.

Realistically - aside from Quebec - is it really difficult to change professional designations aside from the bureaucracy? I would have no problem moving to another province and practicing my career. Maybe other professions are different?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wave46

Realistically - aside from Quebec - is it really difficult to change professional designations aside from the bureaucracy? I would have no problem moving to another province and practicing my career. Maybe other professions are different?

I think you're right. It's not really that hard to move between most of the provinces for professionals. Education and certifications are generally recognized and it's often just a question of a simple application (and payment of course) to the certifying body in the new province.

I'm from a multi-province family and lots of people have moved around without any problems getting certified.

The toughest one, though not impossible, is Quebec. Even for francophones from outside Quebec it can sometimes be complicated so it's not always a language thing (at least not for them) but a question of training and various other criteria. So you have to have passed Quebec Test 4Gfhy545 of Quebec Course ZZZZ57678 in order to be able to work in Quebec. An anglo who went to McGill won't have this issue because McGill of course meets all of the Quebec requirements, whereas an Acadian from the Université de Moncton might not have them.

As I said, it's not impossible to overcome this but it is more complicated. It's one of the reasons there are so many Acadians working in Ottawa in the Franco-Ontarian milieu. (Even though perhaps a majority of them end up living in Gatineau...)

[Pinion]

My admittedly unique Vancouver perspective is Canada doesn't have any immigration standards at all, both on the working class and elite ends of the spectrum. We get other country's garbage, and they're turning Vancouver into garbage.