What Canada Can Teach the U.S. About Immigration

America's neighbors to the north point the way to economically rational immigration reforms.

Republicans seem ready to play ball on immigration, if only to patch up their image with Hispanics. It would be a pity if this political moment—which comes only once every few decades—was squandered on minor and temporary fixes. U.S. immigration policy needs a fundamental rethinking.

This isn’t as daunting as it appears. For inspiration, Americans need look no farther than Canada.

Canada’s provincial-nominee program, while not perfect, avoids the economically meaningless distinctions between skilled and unskilled workers that bedevil the employment-based U.S. immigration laws. It also puts in place incentives to treat foreign workers not as foes but as friends whose labor and skills are vital to the economy.

Most reforms of the U.S. system under consideration won’t put American employers in a position to make competitive bids to ensure the steady supply of foreigners they need.

There is talk about raising the cap on visas for skilled workers—called H1-Bs—and scrapping the limit on green cards so that applicants from some countries don’t have to wait longer than others. Right now, no more than 7 percent of the roughly 140,000 employment-based green cards issued every year can go to residents of one country. (That creates a 10- to 15- year wait for immigrants from India and China, the biggest suppliers of graduates from high-demand STEM fields: science, technology, engineering and math.)

As for the unskilled, a guest-worker program for Mexican labor that would make it easier for migrants to get temporary visas for seasonal work is gaining traction.

Such changes might address the most egregious defects in immigration policies, yet the discussion shows how behind the curve the U.S. is compared with other countries. Canada and Australia, for example, skip the temporary work-visa step completely and offer fast-track permanent residencies to highly skilled workers and their spouses before they even arrive in the country. Australia offers almost as many employment-based green cards as the U.S., even though the American population is 14 times bigger.

But Canada’s provincial-nominee program is a model of economic enlightenment. Under this system, 13 provincial entities sponsor a total of 75,000 worker-based permanent residencies a year, and the federal government in Ottawa offers 55,000. Each province can pick whomever it wants for whatever reason—in effect, to use its quota, which is based on population, to write its own immigration policy.

Provinces may pick applicants left over from the federal program. They can also solicit their own applicants from anywhere in the world. In a direct attempt to poach talent from the U.S., some provinces are sponsoring H1-B holders stuck in the American labyrinth.

The government in Ottawa can’t question either the provinces’ criteria or their methods of recruitment. Its role is limited to conducting a security, criminal and health check on foreigners picked by the provinces, which has cut processing time for permanent residency to one or two years—compared with a decade or more in the U.S.

Richard Kurland, a lawyer who is considered Canada’s top immigration expert, notes that provinces use the program for diverse goals such as enhancing existing cultural or ethnic ties with other countries. Not surprisingly, the most popular reason is economic: to augment the local labor market.

The program gives British Columbia the same flexibility to sponsor, say, bricklayers as it gives Ontario to sponsor computer programmers. It doesn’t treat the entire Canadian economy as monolithic and pretend that distant federal bureaucrats can effectively cater to local job markets. (Canada’s federal program is a different story altogether.)

There is no built-in bias against the labor needs of any province. By contrast, thanks to the high skill-low skill distinction in the U.S., California’s economy is able to import foreign workers more easily than, say, Florida’s agrarian one. Although some Canadian provinces, such as Saskatchewan, struggle with retention rates, by and large this hasn’t been a huge problem as immigrants’ skills are matched to the availability of local jobs. All of this has made the program popular with provinces. Some of them are lobbying to have their quotas expanded or even eliminated.

Above all, the program is far more in tune with the spirit of true federalism than U.S. immigration policies are. Provinces have a natural interest in their economies and the federal government in national security. Canada divides the federal and provincial roles in accordance with their primary interests, ensuring a balancing of both.

Such an arrangement might seem untenable in the U.S., given that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to set immigration policy whereas Canada’s explicitly makes it a joint federal-provincial responsibility.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • mr lizard||

    Ya but it's cold there and the beer sucks.... And first biotches

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The Beer what?

  • rts||

  • The Derider||

    I'm an advocate of more immigration,and fewer barriers to immigration, but letting states set their own immigration policy seems deeply flawed.

    If California grants amnesty and citizenship to all the undocumented immigrants in the state, what stops them from immediately moving to Arizona? Are we creating a new class of pseudo-citizen who can only work or travel in one, or some states?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why stop there, Derp? States clearly shouldn't be able to set any of their own policies, on any subject.

    Using your logic, of course.

  • The Derider||

    My point is that California's immigration policy invariably affects Arizona's, because citizens can travel and work freely in the US.

    Whereas the education policy in California doesn't really affect the education policy in Arizona.

  • ||

    My point is that you're pathetic and a Napoleon Complex sufferer, joe. Do you feel me here?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I call bullshit, Derp. You're cheerleading for the federal level here; your kind despise state-level governance.

  • The Derider||

    I don't despise it, and I don't worship it.

    I think the Feds do some things better than states, and vice versa.

    I see some problems with allowing states to set their own immigration policy. Do you?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You worship the federal level, obviously.

    Where would you stop, Derp? Would you allow states to pass any of their own laws, were you to be dictator of America? Or would you toss them tiny bones of meaningless self-governance?

  • The Derider||

    I think states tend to do a better job of implementing policy than the Feds. I think that the diversity and innovation associated with state-level control are unambiguously good for the country. I think there are efficiency gains as well.

    But there are arenas where this just isn't true. I think having one federal military is a lot better than having 50 state militaries. I think federal counterterrorism works better than 50 state counterterrorism efforts. I think having one immigration policy is better than having 50. I think allowing states to determine whether slavery was legal was a massive mistake.

  • ||

    I see some problems with you being short. Don't you? I mean, look in a mirror, scumbag.

  • iggy||

    How about the oil policy in California? I'm sure all their laws about efficient gasoline somehow impacts the overall price of oil in this country. Therefore, the government has to get involved in California's gas policy because COMMERCE CLAUSE!

  • The Derider||

    California's gas taxes have effects on those of us living here, but they don't affect the national oil price, because that's based entirely on the international oil price and federal taxes.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Wow Joe,

    You've got team Orange panties all twisted.

    Good Job.

  • Calidissident||

    Of course, if you don't agree with VG on immigration, you must be a cosmotarian Team Orange tool

  • ||

    No one cares that you're an advocate for being short and pathetic, joe.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    If California grants amnesty and citizenship to all the undocumented immigrants in the state, what stops them from immediately moving to Arizona?


    Only the long and continuous barbed-wired and machine-gun-guarded wall that Moonbeam decides to build to keep the slaves - I'm sorry, the productive people, inside.

    He will have to do it one way or the other, so why not have it as well to keep all those immigrants inside his personal fief?

  • The Derider||

    I know you're trying to be snarky, but I think you're right. Having state level immigration policy would require states to police all their borders, not just their international borders.

  • Historyshowsus||

    This is so typical of the current mentality for abdication of responsibility in this country.
    Sorry, but one of the few jobs that are specifically defined in the constitution as being a RESPONSIBILITY of the federal government is immigration. It was also the basis of the current lawsuit by the Fed against AZ (in spite of the same administrations ironic protestations against legalizing marijuana as not supporting federal law) on their recent passing of immigration laws that enforce federal law.
    So now, when the job just becomes too tough we will let the states take care of it?? Lets do that for defense too. How about Tariffs? Heck why do we need a federal government at all if this is where we are going?

  • RweallCrazy||

    Illegal immigration in Canada is one major problem for the country. Human trafficking is estimated to make up 10% of all illegal immigration to Canada.[1]
    According to Canada.com most Canadian citizens are in favour of deporting illegal immigrants.[

  • Pro Libertate||

    First, relocate your nation to a cold, cold climate, with lovely Arctic Ocean beachfront.

  • The Derider||

    Bordering one nation that is richer and freer than yours.

  • ||

    joe, why do you suck so fucking badly?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    shrike taught him well, Epi.

  • ||

    joe has studied at the altar of true stupidity.

  • sarcasmic||

    At any rate, working toward a system that is able to respond quickly and efficiently to state needs would be the final goal.

    The federal government doing something quickly and efficiently?

    *phppppt*

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It is to laugh, yes.

  • ||

    I agree that the skills-based approach that Canada takes is better, but Canada also has the benefit that it lacks a long border with a poor country. There's no natural influx of very low-skilled labor, as there is from Mexico to the US. Immigrants are therefore biased towards the higher skill levels. And Canada isn't as attractive a country to move to because of the climate so that holds down the numbers.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The democrats went crazy over when the house passed the STEM Jobs Act last week.

    Which shifts 55k immigration slots from 'refugees' to educated people.

    Shows what the democrats immigration policies are all about. The question is why libertarians think importing socialist voters is a good idea.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytsev,

    The question is why libertarians think importing socialist voters is a good idea.


    Speaking from experience, it is a fact that Hispanics in the US become socialists after a few years in those indoctrination camps you choose to call (with a very sick and disturbing sense of humor) "Public Schools."

    So don't think for a minute that you're "importing" socialists - you're creating them. It's entirely YOUR fault for being such pussies when it comes to education.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So don't think for a minute that you're "importing" socialists - you're creating them. It's entirely YOUR fault for being such pussies when it comes to education.

    Yes, because Mexico is libertopia.

    And it's not like a larger percentage of Hispanics, than non Black-non Hispanics, vote for socialism.

    AND BTW Old Mexico, thanks for demonstrating that you are a racist.

    My original post never mentioned Hispanics at all, you injected the racial aspect into a comment about poor vs educated immigrants.

  • iggy||

    ^ HAHAHAHA! When you say 'poor immigrating socialists' do you think there is a single person reading that who doesn't assume you mean Hispanic immigrants? There's no way in hell you wrote that without knowing full well that you were talking about Hispanics. There's no other large enough group of immigrating socialists for you to have been talking about anything else.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ok so you're a racist too.

    Look, when you hear criminal gangs to you assume "black people"?

  • iggy||

    Hello, my name is VG Zaytsev. I am clearly talking about Mexicans, and I don't believe we should allow Mexicans to move here because they're all poor socialists. However, since I'm using code words to talk about Mexicans, I am not a racist. You however, are a total racist if you point this out.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cosmotarians hear dog whistles too?

    Guess that makes you the dog.

  • ||

    Ok so I'm being a dishonest dickwad again.

    Fixed.

  • iggy||

    Hey, VG. There is such a thing as obvious racial code. The type of 'dog whistling' we mock is when Chris Matthews says 'Anyone in favor of spending cuts is saying that out of hatred for black people!'

    There's a difference between that and the fact that you are talking about low income immigration to California. When people say that, they ALWAYS are talking primarily about Mexicans since that is by far the largest immigrating group to the state. Nice try with your race baiting though, dipshit.

  • American||

    Everyone knows when people speak out against crime they are talking about enwords. Enwords commit over half of the murders in the country. Enwords also take out 35% of the welfare.

  • Joel0903||

    Is it REALLY racist if it's true? Also, Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Just like American isn't a race.

  • ||

    Yes, because Mexico is libertopia.

    Unlike America, of course, which is a holy land of pure liberty. It's practically the only thing we teach in our mandatory completely voluntary juvenile warehousing facilities self-sufficiency centers!

    And it's not like a larger percentage of Hispanics, than non Black-non Hispanics, vote for socialism.

    Minority groups that are bombarded with the idea that they're helpless victims identify with the people who claim to want to help them? Who'd have though!

    AND BTW Old Mexico, thanks for demonstrating that you are a racist.

    Thanks for demonstrating again that you're a dishonest dickwad!

    My original post never mentioned Hispanics at all, you injected the racial aspect into a comment about poor vs educated immigrants.

    In a topic that almost always refers to hispanic immigrants and their relative poverty, it's racist to refer to hispanic immigrants and their relative poverty? Novel!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In a topic that almost always refers to hispanic immigrants and their relative poverty, it's racist to refer to hispanic immigrants and their relative poverty? Novel!

    Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it.

    So far, you, iggy and Old Mexican have demonstrated the logic skills seen in Dauly Kos and HufPo commentors.

    You just know what is meant by a statement, even if it doesn't actually say anything like what you want it to mean.

    Oh, and racist!

  • ||

    Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it.

    Honest discussion is your weakness, isn't it? It's ok to admit you're a lying asshole.

    So far, you, iggy and Old Mexican have demonstrated that I'm a liar who makes personal attacks when I'm called out for bullshit

    Fixed.

    You just know what is meant by a statement

    Yes, immigrants, the majority of whom, and the ones considered the most in discussions of immigration, are from Central and South America.

    even if it doesn't actually say anything like what you want it to mean.

    No, it merely implies it, so you can ineptly accuse anyone referring to hispanics as being racist.

    Oh, and racist!

    So far you have demonstrated the logic skills seen in Dauly Kos and HufPo commentors.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Honest discussion is your weakness, isn't it? It's ok to admit you're a lying asshole.

    How about you try responding to what I wrote instead of the voices in your head then.

    Oh yeah, because your a racist asshole.

    Fuck You.

  • Calidissident||

    VG, stop pretending that you don't mean exactly what everyone knows you mean. While you haven't said it in this thread, you have used the phrase "poor Mexican immigrants" in similar discussions in the past. The fact you didn't specifically refer to Mexicans in this thread doesn't mean everyone here doesn't know who you're talking about

  • Joel0903||

    Mexican isn't a race. Perhaps he is, instead of being racist, being nationalistic. Which, in this time of post-racial and post-national/post-American values America, is, in the minds to the post-Education-is-important citizenry, the same thing.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, because your a racist asshole.

    Fuck off libtard.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytsev,

    My original post never mentioned Hispanics at all


    Which is why I initiated my reply with "Speaking from experience..."

    Yes, because Mexico is libertopia.


    So? Your sarcastic remark does not mean Mexicans are particularly socialist, at least before they arrive to the US. It is their chldren, those that have to endure the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem, who become socialist.

  • American||

    I endured it and I came out alright. So did 61% of white Americans. Mexicans have some special suseptability to the "Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem?" Racist!!!

  • Calidissident||

    I assume the 61% figure is in regards to the percent of whites who voted for Romney? As if that means you oppose socialism? 90% of your argument (at least when you're talking to libertarians) against immigration is based on them voting Democrat, and not once have you even tried to explain why that's unacceptable, but voting Republican is ok.

  • Calidissident||

    "And it's not like a larger percentage of Hispanics, than non Black-non Hispanics, vote for socialism."

    Let me guess, only votes for Democrats count as votes for socialism?

  • American||

    Let me guess, you think having public school is "socialism?"

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah it is. A country where the government pretty much only did public school (beyond the basic stuff like courts, police, military) wouldn't be very socialist, but that doesn't meant that particular policy isn't socialist.

  • Chris Mallory||

    No, we aren't importing socialists. We are importing peons and 3rd world savages that to not fit with the traditional American culture.

  • Calidissident||

    mumble mumble THIRD WORLD SAVAGES mumble mumble TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES mumble mumble

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Needs moar argle bargle, then you would have it exact!

  • American||

    Go to the third world Cali. Don't want to? Why? Because you are afraid of being raped or killed by "savages?" Because the socialist government will throw you in prison? Because the police will activly harm you unless you pay a bribe? Those police could use some "TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES." Don't worry, you don't have to go to the third world. It'll be in your backyard pretty soon anyway.

  • Calidissident||

    You're such a fucking moron. Despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, you insist that people leaving one place and moving to another will maintain the EXACT same culture and tendencies of the homeland. As if there's no reason for these individuals immigrating besides ruining whatever place they're moving to. And there are plenty of authoritarian governments that aren't socialist. If this country does reach third world status, it will be because of the collapse of the welfare-warfare state and our fiat monetary system. Minorities might not have done anything to stop it, but they sure as hell didn't cause it in the first place, and they're hardly the only thing standing in the way of people who would want to implement policies that would actually solve the problems

    Oh, by the way, I've been looking at exit poll data (for various reasons) and one thing I noticed is that in the one state where Johnson was included in the exit polling (his home state of New Mexico), he received 6% of the Hispanic vote compared to just 3% of the white vote. I don't know whether that held up in other states, but I did think it was quite interesting

  • American||

    Can't wait till we get rid of public schools, and give the rich another tax cut. After all oportunity is for loosers. This totally explains why as much as 40% of whites voted for Obongo, compared to 70% of hispanics.

  • Calidissident||

    "Can't wait till we get rid of public schools, and give the rich another tax cut."

    Am I the only one starting to feel like American and Rick Santorum (the poster, not the politician) are the same person?

    Oh, and voting for Mitt Romney doesn't really mean much in terms of small government libertarian credentials

  • American||

    Favoring public schools and immigration restriction. Rare ideas, aren't they?

  • Calidissident||

    I based that comment off the "give the rich another tax cut" part. It doesn't sound very libertarian, and sounds a lot like what Rick Santorum (again, the poster) would say. And other aspects of your philosophy are pretty similar.

    Oh and thanks for ignoring the second paragraph. You have a habit of doing that every time I challenge you to justify your positions, considering they're seemingly so dependent on the notion that Republican = good and Democrat = bad

  • American||

    I was challenging the Mexican's willingness to abolish "public schools," as well as his insistence that public schools, not anything else(wink, wink), led to hispanic's voting patterns.

  • iggy||

    ^ Libertarians don't think we should choose which human beings we get to import. Or should we base our immigration policy entirely on the likelihood of an individual voting the way we want them to?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, it's a suicide pact.

    Working like a charm in CA.

  • iggy||

    You call Old Mexican a racist because you supposedly weren't necessarily talking about Hispanics and he 'injected a racial aspect' into the conversation.

    Then you go on to specifically talk about low income immigrating socialists in California.

    Gee, why would anyone assume that you're talking about Mexicans?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    1) Old Mexican introduced the racial angle, not I.

    2) CA has tons of non Mexican socialist voters, so nice try but you fail.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: ZG Zaytsev,

    2) CA has tons of non Mexican socialist voters, so nice try but you fail.


    So what difference does it make if California imports more 'socialists', if one believes your assertion?

    And I didn't introduce a racial angle. Hispanic simply means "Spanish-speaking" or related to an Iberian origin.

  • ||

    1) Old Mexican introduced the racial angle, not I.

    Mentioning hispanic immigrants when they're directly relevant to the discussion at hand isn't "introduc[ing] a racial angle". Accusing your opponents of being racist is.

    2) CA has tons of non Mexican socialist voters, so nice try but you fail.

    That's pretty much our point, douchetard. You're the one talking about importing socialists when that argument is always made in the context of hispanic immigrants.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Mentioning hispanic immigrants when they're directly relevant to the discussion at hand isn't "introduc[ing] a racial angle". Accusing your opponents of being racist is.

    Go reread my original comment, fucktard.

    The only way that 'hispanics' are relevant to the point I made is if you think those people are all igrunt poor and unqualified for immigration in the STEM program.

    Which makes you a racist.

    Fuck Off Douchebag.

  • ||

    Fuck off, lying libtard.

  • ||

    The only way that 'hispanics' are relevant to the point I made is if those comments are always made in reference to relatively poor hispanic immigrants

    Fixed your post again, you lying dickwad.

  • Calidissident||

    VG, your original post also mentions a line about "importing socialist voters." We all

  • Calidissident||

    (cont) know exactly who you're referring to

  • Randian||

    Yeah, VG, youse a liar.

  • The Derider||

    Liberals think this too, it's why democrats rejected saving 55000 slots for immigrants with STEM degrees.

  • SIV||

    Did Reason cover that?

    Call out the Dems for xenophobic bigotry and protectionism?

  • ||

    Personally I would prefer ADDING immigration slots rather than "shifting" them.

    But my real point is that America needs a program that effectively manages what is an inevitable large number of low-skilled immigrants from Latin America. A problem Canada doesn't really have.

    We're not going to deport them all, and we're not going to stop people from immigrating. And having an underclass of "illegals" encourages crime and corruption and is, frankly, anti-libertatian on multiple levels.

    So we need a way that people can immigrate legally and integrate into our society. It's not like they aren't willing to work. It's precisely the fact that they ARE hard workers that makes domestic labor piss their pants at the thought of more legal immigration.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Bus tickets to Toronto?

  • JeremyR||

    They work. But their families don't.

    And they don't integrate, which is why you now see signs in Spanish everywhere.

  • ||

    Shorter Jeremy: "Integrations means SPEAKING AMERICAN. None of this other language stuff."

  • American||

    "We're not going to deport them all, and we're not going to stop people from immigrating."
    Why not?

  • MWG||

    Because that would require authoritarian style government you racist piece of shit.

  • Abdul Kareema Wheat||

    Racist???? I don't like Illegal French, Russian or Italians either....does that make me a racissssss???

    Mexicans..are NOT a race.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I look forward to Shikha's articles praising the state level immigration reform efforts of GA, OK and AZ.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I hope you have a very, very long time to wait.

  • Almanian.||

    Open borders, no social programs for...I dunno, 20 years or something. And no SSN ever. Your kids born here are citizens, of course, with all rights, privileges, benefits thereof (incl social programs if they exist...hah! ..."if"...).

    Oh, and LEARN FUCKING ENGLISH.

    On that basis? Come one, come all!

  • ||

    Hablaré español si yo querría. Cierra tu baca.

  • ||

    *vaca

  • OldMexican||

    vaca = cow
    baca = upper luggage grill on a car
    boca = mouth

    Also, Hablaré español si yo querría has conflicting tenses: I will speak Spanish if I wanted to.

    The correct way to write the above sentence is: "Hablaré español si yo quiero."

    Ok, now let's conjugate the verb "querer" (in this context, "to want".) Everybody:

    Yo quiero
    Tu quieres
    El (ella, ello) quiere
    Nosotros queremos
    Ustedes quieren
    Ellos quieren

  • ||

    I thought that querer was in the conditional tense there, as in "I would want". I wasn't sure I could just use the present tense. Thanks.

    And yes, I'm aware that "vaca" is cow.

  • Almanian.||

    But my cow wasn't open....? Vaya con Dios, amigo

  • ||

    "Open borders, no social programs for...I dunno, 20 years or something. And no SSN ever. Your kids born here are citizens, of course, with all rights, privileges, benefits thereof (incl social programs if they exist...hah! ..."if"...).

    Oh, and LEARN FUCKING ENGLISH."

    Why the language requirement? Why can't the marketplace determine that sort of thing? How can a self-proclaimed libertarian be so authoritarian when it comes to language?

  • Almanian.||

    When did I EVER proclaim myself a libertarian?

    I think people coming to the US ought to learn English. But I'm not the state, so how can I enforce that?

    Smarten up.

  • R C Dean||

    So, Almanian, you're basically in favor of immigration and social welfare policy circa, say, 1910?

    Me, too.

  • Almanian.||

    Kinda sumthin like that. Come on over...get a job, do work, start a company, grow your family - WILKOMMEN, leute!

  • American||

    Read with Mexican accent:
    Dude man, Almanian says I ain't not get no welfare, man. He want get welfare, but i get none man how that fair? And he tell me to learn english why i gotta learn english i cant speak english. Man I voting for Obama.

  • Homple||

    "Nothing, however, prevents the U.S. government from giving states greater latitude in setting their own immigration policies."

    Nothing, perhaps, other than whatever it was that prompted the U.S. government to prevent Arizona from attempting to get existing U.S. laws enforced.

  • Turd in the Punchbowl||

    Q: How do know when a cosmotarian is lying about immigration?

    A: Her lips are moving.

  • Calidissident||

    COCKTAIL.PARTIES

  • Randian||

    I have to ask the immigration haters why the political affiliation of a particular immigrant matters so much.

    Would you like to see them swear fealty oaths to the Republican Party before you let them in?

    And just because say, half of immigrants favor social welfare policies* it doesn't mean you get to go full-bore collectivist and broad-brush / tar all of "them" with the "socialist" label. That is called stereotyping and prejudice.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I have to ask the immigration haters why the political affiliation of a particular immigrant matters so much.

    Because in the service of one narrow component of the libertarian movement, you jeopardize the remainder. Mexicans (and Swedes for that matter, if you want to play the THAT'S RACIST card) come from a political culture that values freedom less than America's. Import Mexicans to America and America will become more Mexican. That's fine as far as tacos go, but it's a problem when our political parties start looking more like Mexico's.

  • ||

    Because in the service of one narrow component of the libertarian movement,

    No, in the service of personal liberty. The right to move and associate freely without regard to an imaginary non-property line isn't "narrow".

    you jeopardize the remainder.

    So you say. And so we continually argue isn't true. Immigrants aren't notably more socialistic than American citizens in general.

    if you want to play the THAT'S RACIST card)

    The only person doing that in this discussion is one of the people arguing against immigration reform.

    Mexicans (and Swedes for that matter... come from a political culture that values freedom less than America's.

    Which they're FLEEING from.

    Import Mexicans to America and America will become more Mexican.

    And they and their children will become more American. Cultural transference works both ways.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    These are some well-thought-out, carefully made points. I understand your arguments. Now my response to each and every one:

    "California."

    All the talk of theoretically industrious, freedom-loving immigrants cannot survive contact with reality.

  • MWG||

    Texas.

  • Almanian.||

    this^

    Also, AZ/NM

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    NM has become solidly blue. Arizona is trending that way. And neither Texas, Arizona, nor New Mexico have the levels of illegal immigration that California has.

  • The Derider||

    Illegal immigrants can't vote!!!

  • ||

    But any children born here can, which is what we're mainly talking about. You do have a point, though.

  • Calidissident||

    New Mexico has been largely Hispanic for decades. On a percentage basis, California and Texas have the same number of Hispanics, and very similar demographics overall. Texas has slightly more white people (again on a percent basis), more black people, and fewer Asians. I don't know the illegal immigrant numbers, but if (on a percentage basis) it is higher in CA, then that would mean that more Hispanics can vote in Texas than in California

  • The Derider||

    Come to LA and watch our industrious immigrants recycle scrap metal in makeshift trucks, sell bacon wrapped hotdogs at 2 in the morning, open small businesses, and do all the landscaping, construction and child are they are usually associated with.

    Immigrants are what make the city great.

  • American||

    "Which they're FLEEING from."
    You think they know that? To them, we(white Americans) are rich because we steal and are greedy and got it from our daddies. They think we "oppress" them. They want our money. Sure, some are not like that. But most are.

  • The Derider||

    Do you have any proof of this statement? Or is it just nativist pathos?

  • American||

    I've talked to them. Opinion polls say they favor socialism to capitalism. It's no secret the Democrat ideology.

  • Calidissident||

    Someone, or a group, can have socialistic views without having the idiotically simplistic thinking you portrayed. Even most of the liberal Hispanics I know don't think White = evil, greedy, oppressors in anywhere near the simplistic terms you portray the entire group. Then again, considering you once said Asians and Jews vote Democrat because they hate "gentile white America," I'm not surprised.

    Once again, your philosophy of Democrat = bad and socialist versus Republican = good and capitalist is ridiculously simplistic and idiotic. And never once have you actually tried to argue why it's no big deal if people vote TEAM RED, but someone voting TEAM BLUE (or potentially voting D) is outrageous to the point of limiting the freedom of entire groups of people

  • American||

    I always try to mention that not all hispanics are such and such. I waste my time. Anyway, if you talk to the underclass, the "simplistic" temrs start to make sense. Recall the "Obamaphone" woman, they're like that. As for "gentile white America,"(how it's relevant here I can only guess) why else do you think Asians and Jews vote Democrat? The problem here is that you see "TEAM RED's" adovocacy of such insults as public schools as equivilantly "socialist" to the democrats. "TEAM RED" is not admirable, it's imperialism, ect, and ,ect are bad. But they are the only party of capitalism and it's supporters, the only party of low taxes, that can get more than 2 percent of the vote. "TEAM BLUE," on the other hand, is the party of socialism and europe, restrictions on speech and religion and gun ownership. Don't look at the party leaders, look at the people. Republicans overwhelmingly support capitalism, democrats overwhelmingly support socialism. Who of the people are more responsible, who wants gummint to take care of them? Look at state and local level governments. Which are freer? Finally, look at Mexico. That is the model of the Democratic party, controlled by the Latinos, for our country.

  • American||

    "And they and their children will become more American. Cultural transference works both ways."
    But that would offend DIEversity!!!

  • Randian||

    Because in the service of one narrow component of the libertarian movement, you jeopardize the remainder.

    "Would you like to see them swear fealty oaths to the Republican Party before you let them in?"

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    No. I would simply prefer that the people we allow in because we believe in freedom of movement of labor don't subsequently vote to take away most of our other freedoms.

  • ||

    That's would pretty much be a political fealty oath, yes. And a completely unenforceable one, at that.

  • ||

    Mexicans (and Swedes for that matter, if you want to play the THAT'S RACIST card) come from a political culture that values freedom less than America's.

    Yay idiotic collectivist thinking! Down with logic and reality!

  • American||

    Yay, individualism. There is no such thing as collectivism. Nowhere. Logic and reality make it impossible. There is no such thing as a culture. To point out differences between the views of most Americans and Mexicans is RACISSSSSS.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I have to ask the immigration haters why the political affiliation of a particular immigrant matters so much.

    Because I don't want the US to turn into a third world socailist shithole. Which it is rapidly becoming.

    Cosmotarians, on the other hand, imagine that they will be advantaged in that shithole and so welcome it.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Let's stop fooling around with half-measures. Forget this "border" business. Let's merge the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. Then we wouldn't have any border issues. Each of the 31 Mexican states gets two Senators and we re-district so that Mexicans get proportional representation in the House.

    Anyone care to take a guess as to what's going to happen to the prospects for libertarian government after this merger? You know exactly what's going to happen. It's going to disappear. But at least we're honoring the libertarian value of free movement of labor!

  • ||

    "Because I don't want the US to turn into a third world socailist shithole. Which it is rapidly becoming."

    It was rapidly becoming that for a long time. Look to Woodrow Wilson and his ilk before you start blaming immigrants. Old Mexican's right. If there's any correlation between Mexican immigrants and socialist ideology, we can blame our public schools as the causal factor. At any rate, the whole idea of infringing on the natural right to travel because of someone's political affiliations isn't very libertarian. Focus on reducing the power of government so that it doesn't have anything to sell.

  • Calidissident||

    We all know the New Deal, Great Society, the Fed, and the military-industrial complex were all the fault of those damn third world socialists coming here

  • Almanian.||

    Sonofabitches MUST PAY!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    We all know the New Deal, Great Society, the Fed, and the military-industrial complex were all the fault of those damn third world socialists coming here

    Do you think FDR would have been elected without the votes of immigrants and their children?

  • ||

    Yes. Claiming it was all because of liberty-hating foreigners is idiotic. I doubt you have anything to back that claim up with.

  • Calidissident||

    And was Hoover much better? He pretty much started the New Deal

  • MWG||

    Because of all the Asian immigrants, right VZ?

  • Almanian.||

    I thought it was all the Germans and Eastern Europeans after WWWII? No?

  • MWG||

    Too white.

  • ||

    it's pretty facile to just say look at canada. canada can afford to do all sorts of things in ways we can't, because they don't have mexico bordering them. duh. canada is not faced with the prospect of dealing with a quasi third world country unskilled labor force illegally jaunting (gamboling?) across their border whereas we do.

    if you want to see a country that does not fuck around with immigration, just look TO mexico. and look at its heavily protected southern border.

    heck, even those who enter legally into mexico face myriad restrictions we don't. if you weren't born in mexico, for example, there are tons of things you can't do, like be a police officer.

  • Almanian.||

    look at its heavily protected southern border

    Yet another way I DON'T want to be like Mexico. We should "protect our southern border" because....they do? I think not.

    Mexicans come flooding up to the US? Ultimately, it would be a GREAT thing - as long as we don't provide social programs. If they're earning a living, what's not to like?

  • Homple||

    When we stop providing social programs and they are earning a living for themselves and the relatives they bring with them, I'll be with you 100%.

    Until then, control the Mexican Border as well as we control the people coming through customs and immigration at any airport or sea port.

  • Randian||

    When we stop providing social programs and they are earning a living for themselves and the relatives they bring with them, I'll be with you 100%.

    When do you start advocating for the forcible deportation of American welfare recipients?

  • ||

    way to (COLOSSALLY) miss the point

    the fact that we HAVE these social programs is a given

    GIVEN these social programs, iow a de facto welfare state, the question is what is the best IMMIGRATION program.

    it is clear it is WELL within the authoritah of the government to strictly regulate immigration

    it is also clear it is NOT within their authoritah to DEPORT people for being lazy or falling on hard times.

    only one factor is regulatable (and only one SHOULD be)

    the whole point is that GIVEN citizenship, you get a host of rights

    without citizenship - well, it's OUR discretion as to whether you even get to enter and enjoy our rights and cruise around.

  • ||

    it is clear it is WELL within the authoritah of the government to strictly regulate immigration

    it is also clear it is NOT within their authoritah to DEPORT people for being lazy or falling on hard times.

    SAME fucking SHIT from MY persPECTIVE.

  • Homple||

    "When do you start advocating for the forcible deportation of American welfare recipients?"

    Never. I merely argue for controlling immigration to the extent that those unable or unwilling legally to support themselves and those they bring with them stay out of the country.

  • American||

    "Yet another way I DON'T want to be like Mexico."
    Then don't import forty million Mexicans. A nation of Mexicans will look like Mexico.

  • American||

    "Yet another way I DON'T want to be like Mexico."
    Then don't import forty million Mexicans. A nation of Mexicans will look like Mexico.

  • American||

    "Yet another way I DON'T want to be like Mexico."
    Then don't import forty million Mexicans. A nation of Mexicans will look like Mexico.

  • ||

    And a nation of Americans with immigrants will look like.... AMERICA.

  • American||

    Wow, real inshightfull. I didn't know (2 + 3)/2 = 2. Why would they assimilate? With an average IQ of 89, is assimilation possible?

  • Calidissident||

    Since when is assimilation dependent on IQ (not that that's the only issue with your comment)? Every immigrant group ever has been accused by nativists of being incapable of assimilation

  • American||

    Since when has the burden of proof lied not on those who claimed a large population would give up its culture for no reason, but on those who deny that claim?

  • ||

    Good thing we never claimed it happens for no reason.

  • Calidissident||

    Is that why El Paso, a majority Hispanic city, is one of the safest big cities in the country, and Juarez, right across the border, is one of the most dangerous in the world?

  • American||

    "one of the safest big cities in the country"
    Lies. Juarez is more dangerous, thanks to competent policing by (mostly white) Americans.

  • Calidissident||

    It's not a lie jackass, there are statistics to back it up. And you're seriously claiming that policing by white Americans is the reason Juarez is more dangerous? Take away white cops and El Paso turns into Juarez? El paso is 86% Hispanic (almost all Mexican), you don't think there's a few Mexicans and Latinos on their police force (and again, I don't think quality of police force is the primary driver of crime rates)? Why is there more crime in whiter cities in Texas? Why would there be less competent policing there?

  • ||

    pretty good case. motion to suppress granted based on violation of 4th amendment grounds...in a child porn case no less

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/.....qus_thread

  • XM||

    Canada is supposed to be pretty darn white (the Latino population in the US just about outnumbers the entire Canadian population), expensive, and not as fun. I've heard some bad things about the western half of that country.

    Asian countries actively recruit English teachers and other foreign workers too, promising to pay for housing and such. Thing aren't quite as rosy when they actually get there. The US is the exception to the rule, which is that most countries are ethnically homogeneous and monolithic. Most countries don't have 50 million people, which is something like the Latino population in America.

    I am genuinely curious as to why there aren't that many Latinos in Canada. Not many other Latinos, high gas prices, climate? But free healthcare is here, though.

  • ||

    latino and hispanic are cultural, not racial designations.

    one can be white as the driven snow and still be latino or hispanic.

    one can also be black or asian and be latino or hispanic

  • American||

    Most of them are metsitzo, though.

  • American||

    "I am genuinely curious as to why there aren't that many Latinos in Canada."
    It's mostly because of their immigration policy. Immigrants are selected based on how they will benefit the economy. Because most latinos are uneducated, they aren't selected. In America, in contrast, it is the immigrants themselves ("family reunification") who decide.

  • ||

    It's mostly because of their immigration policy. Immigrants are selected based on how they will benefit the economy.

    Actually no, as the point is driven home again and again, Canada tries much LESS to pick winners and losers in it's immigration policies. You can't read, can you? You just have someone read the comments for you and type replies.

    In America, in contrast, it is the immigrants themselves ("family reunification") who decide.

    What a laughably ignorant assertion. Our immigration policies are much stricter and arbitrary.

  • American||

    "Canada tries much LESS to pick winners and losers in it's immigration policies."
    That's what you got from that?
    "Richard Kurland, a lawyer who is considered Canada’s top immigration expert, notes that provinces use the program for diverse goals such as enhancing existing cultural or ethnic ties with other countries. Not surprisingly, the most popular reason is economic: to augment the local labor market."
    What a moron.

  • Calidissident||

    Did you read the rest of the article?

  • ||

    Where have I seen these anti-immigration arguments before...?

  • Robert||

    The H1B program is a relatively small part of total immigration to the USA. Anybody here want to make something like that the basis of the entire immigration law, and have states put in their bids for the criteria they want, and have them judge all those cases individually? Because that's what's being advocated here.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Someone mentioned our beer sucks. Maybe. Quebec micro-breweries are very good though. They win all sorts of awards - if that matters.

    As for Canada, yeah, our immigration policies have shifted to become sensible but we don't have the same problems the U.S. faces.

    It's a little like foreign policy. Canadians like to bash American foreign policy but no one really gives a shit what a middle-tier power, albeit a respected one with a moral voice, has to say. We just don't have the same responsibilities as the Americans.

    If you want to argue a big picture point, America leads Western civilization at this point. Canada is in on the ride.

    Last, we have one of the most decentralized Federation in the West. The provinces have a lot of power. Just ask Quebec. It's a defacto independent state and it chooses to direct and restrict its immigration policies, for example, towards French-speaking countries - and I believe we force them to take French tests now. I would argue the results speak for themselves.

    The best part is some of these people are actually educated. For example, they come with Med degrees but we don't allow them to practice because they don't meet certain criteria spelled out by law. And we have a doctor shortage! The result is you have all these smart people - engineers etc. - driving taxis, selling insurance and flipping burgers.

    Not a fan of my home province at the moment.

  • ||

    For example, they come with Med degrees but we don't allow them to practice because they don't meet certain criteria spelled out by law. And we have a doctor shortage!

    I don't think that is the case anymore: precisely because of the doctor shortage, immigrant doctors can obtain license to practice medicine easier than in the past (especially for family medicine practice/GPs).

  • American||

    Wow, something i can agree with. Sorta. Canada's immigration policy, while far from perfect, has several advantages to the US's. Canada uses a system whereby english-speaking, highly skilled workers are selected in a point system. In contrast, immigrants themselves select who comes to our country through "chain migration." I do have some issues with the idea of province selected immigration. How are states supposed to stop people from entering or exiting them? It must be noted that most immigrants will go to where they have friends or family. And I have one basic economics question for those who think there is a lot of demand for in "STEM" fields. Why haven'y their wages risen very much? I work in a "STEM" field, and I can tell you what the "problem" is. Americans aren't willing to work for 15 dollars an hour. Sure, you can argue that having wages at 15$ an hour will ultimately benefit those 15$/hour workers, but don't try to pretend that there is a scarecity. There isn't. And should we be importing more unskilled agrarian workers? Are wages in that industry not low enough? Wages are never low enough for employers. Remeber that.

  • RweallCrazy||

    Can you agree with this Canadian view

    Illegal immigration in Canada is one major problem for the country. Human trafficking is estimated to make up 10% of all illegal immigration to Canada.[1]
    According to Canada.com most Canadian citizens are in favour of deporting illegal immigrants.[

  • ||

    "Canada’s provincial-nominee program is humane, efficient and economically rational"

    What a fkn pantload.
    We recruit skilled immigrants and then when they get here we allow the labor cartels - unions, physicians college, trade association, what-have-you - bar them from working as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., so that wages of the entrenched are protected. It's cruel and capricious and the model that should be copied by no civilized country.

    Then we let in tens of thousands of English-as-a-2nd-language immigrants with no skills, whose kids clog up our schools.

    They disproportionately end up on welfare.

    And then we allow them to bring in their relatives, some of whom come here, and having paid no money into our crazy socialized health care or our pension system, enjoy full benefits for life.

    The only people who think our immigration system works are lefty mush-heads. People who are working for a living and paying attention want immigration numbers cut drastically.

    Don't copy it, America. You'll regret it.

  • Calidissident||

    Sounds like a classic failure of socialism, not immigration

  • American||

    Socialism is spontaneously generated during the collision of L particles from outer space with the upper atmosphere. It is never caused by anything else.

  • Calidissident||

    Now immigrants are responsible for Canadian socialism? Did you even read the comment I responded to?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I agree with 'you gotta be kidding.'

    It IS cruel especially considering that according (to immigrants I've spoken to) we LURE them here with all sorts of promises only to fuck them over.

    THAT part is embarrassing and unacceptable.

    In Quebec it's worse. People don't realize how powerful the unions are hence affecting their ability to achieve success quicker, how toxic the language issue is whenever the douches in the PQ are in power and the tax load.

    If I'm American I stay CLEAR of Quebec.

    One of my employees is from Iran and regrets choosing Quebec over Ontario. Imagine, Iranians think Quebec is backwards.

    She's pretty, educated and young yet she can't find work.

    Hey Reason, want topics that impact civil liberties? Pay close attention to what the PQ are doing these days with Bill 101.

    Bunch of mean-spirited assholes who take 1984 literally.

    For shame.

    It's why I'm shipping my kid off elsewhere on this continent. No way am I leaving her here to put up with tribal crap.

  • Historyshowsus||

    "the model that should be copied by no civilized country"
    As a good example: this is exactly how it works in Kuwait, UAE, Oman etc. The immigrant workers are second class citizens. Kuwait is especially bad bordering on racism.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Actually, that's what happened to my Iranian employee. They had a business in UAE and were basically kicked out. Now they can't even get their money out of Iran because the currency exchange ratio because of that a-hole in power is so bad they'd lose all their cash. Tough spot for them.

  • MHefler||

    Am I the only one who sees this for what it is? Big businesses want to hire foreign laborers for 1/2 the price of American ones. This is glaringly obvious in any of your larger IT/Technical shops here in Silicon Valley. This is just another way to increase profit margin, but in the long run you get what you pay for.

    But, if we can get unlimited employment visas then employers can force our hands and pay us below market rate. It's genius really and this glorified blog is right on board with it. First it was manufacturing - see where that got us? Can you name any American product 'Made in China' that is better than when it was made here? Next will be science and technology, where those in the industry will simply take the lessons learned after a four year "apprenticeship" back to their home countries and rock our world.

    Keep it up righties, kill the unions, and destroy the workforce! Down with America, right?

    Signed,
    Some Military Veteran who now slaves away (for a decent wage) in Silicon Valley high tech.

  • Blacksaint||

    Migrating to America legally is, and should be, a thorough procedure
    meant to protect the interests of American citizens. It involves more than
    simply jumping a fence and heading north in pursuit of free health care,
    education, food stamps, and other handouts paid for by broke U.S. citizens
    and a Bankrupt nation!

    Legal immigration means enduring rigorous hurdles like background checks to
    detect a criminal background or possible ties to terrorists; medical
    examinations to detect diseases still prevalent in third-world nations, but
    long since eradicated here; proof of financial solvency so as to prevent
    newcomers from becoming a burden on U.S. taxpayers, and testing for
    knowledge of American history and English skills.

    Those who have jumped a fence into America in order to avoid our
    immigration checks are not immigrants. Rather, they are invading criminals,
    with no claim whatsoever to the welcome mat extended to legal immigrants.

    Such people do not deserve recognition or sanction by the United States,
    and should be rounded up and deported as soon as possible, alone with the corrupt politicians that support this invasion.

    In truth, illegal aliens have invaded our nation, leaving America
    vulnerable to undetected crime, terrorism, disease, and financial
    devastation at the hands of people with no legal or moral justification for
    being here.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    American immigration laws are far more light than the ones in Europe.

  • Page 7||

    With this law is there a provision that prevents an immigrant from migrating from one province to another? I'd imagine there must be if the province controls the amount of visas given out?

  • ||

    Not that I'm aware of. Being a landed immigrant confers all the rights of a citizen with the exception of voting and being eligible for election.

    As the article mentioned, it seems Saskatchewan has problems with keeping its immigrants within the province.

  • Historyshowsus||

    Seriously?? This idiot is comparing a country that borders a wealthy prosperous nation to one that borders a corrupt, violent, crime ridden and impoverished one??
    Then he spends most of his discussion capital on the mechanics of legal immigration which, just like most liberal logic, takes the focus off the real issue.

  • Historyshowsus||

    Meanwhile, the US accepts as many LEGAL immigrants than ALL nations of the world combined.
    So, where is the problem really?

  • RweallCrazy||

    Yes Canada can in fact teach us a lot.

    Illegal immigration in Canada is one major problem for the country. Human trafficking is estimated to make up 10% of all illegal immigration to Canada.[1]
    According to Canada.com most Canadian citizens are in favour of deporting illegal immigrants.[

  • KRoyall||

    For this to work we would need to have control over our borders. We don't and it doesn't appear as though we ever will. But I have a question for all of you open borders Libertarians.

    If allowing millions of low skilled workers into a country is such an economic benefit, why doesn't every advanced nation on earth begin offering citizenship to the millions of 3rd world people who would love to migrate to a better place? For example why doesn't Canada recruit more Hispanic immigrants?

    There are millions of people worse off than Mexicans, why not bring in millions from war torn Africa? They have workers to spare. Of course we know the answer to this which is why the pro-immigration position as currently defined is total bullshit.

  • MargieMerle||

    i saw your post, through the subject is new too me,its easy to understand the facts behind this.

    Limo Services Raleigh NC

  • CLM1227||

    I was under the impression that the economic boon that illegal immigrants provides for businesses that employ them is that they don't have to pay minimum wage to undocumented workers.

    So how exactly does making them legal help anyone? They then become just as expensive to employ as legal residents, making them less desirable to businesses, and more legitimate to demand other "entitlements" without calling attention to their illegal status - which seems like it would just be another big burden on the tax payers of this country.

    Feel free to correct if I'm wrong.

  • attractions guide||

    Is the iusse of immigration in canada better than USA?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement