Who Gets In: What's wrong with Canada's immigration program - and how to fix it [Hardcover]

Subtitled What's Wrong with Canada's Immigration Program--and How to Fix It, this well-reasoned study is highly critical of the government's immigration and refugee policies as they have evolved under Mulroney and Chrétien. Stoffman begins by disposing of two myths: immigration, he writes, is necessary neither to sustain economic growth nor to compensate for a declining birth rate. Nevertheless, all major political parties support massive immigration increases and anyone opposed to immigration is likely to be labelled a racist. Stoffman points out that both right and left support immigration, but for different self-serving reasons. He states that Canada's present immigration policies exist because they help the Liberal party to stay in power; that immigration transfers millions of dollars from workers to employers (through lower wages); and those who service immigration (lawyers and political appointees) control the industry they have created. As for Canada's refugee policy, Stoffman says it's widely abused--so-called refugees can come to Canada, claim refugee status, and immediately have access to welfare and strained health services. Thousands are using false refugee claims to avoid regular, slower immigration channels. This ease-of-entry fosters dangerous people-smuggling schemes from around the world. While Stoffman repeats a number of his main arguments and could rely on more statistics to bolster his arguments, he uses real-life anecdotes to good effect. This important book should give Canadians a wake-up call concerning the myths about and costs of immigration. --Mark Frutkin

Canada receives more than a million immigrants every five years, far more on a per capita basis than any other country. The size and composition of the country's urban centres has been transformed in the last fifteen years with little critical discussion about who gets in or why Canada's immigration targets are so much higher, proportionately, than those of the other principal immigration destinations—Australia and the United States. One recent publication asks some hard questions about current policies, while sharing the belief that more modest immigration numbers, with a greater focus on language and labour market skills, will serve Canada and would-be immigrants much better.
Daniel Stoffman is the co-author of the best-selling Boom, Bust and Echo. His interest in immigration stems from a 1991 Atkinson Fellowship in Public Policy he received to study the issue. Eleven years later he has written a devastating indictment of a system which he believes betrays Canada's national interests and is creating increased poverty among immigrants ill-equipped to compete in the labour market. Stoffman argues that Canada should welcome immigrants but that the primary objective should be to ensure that Canada benefits from immigration, with immigration targets reset well below the current levels.
Stoffman makes a powerful case for redeploying our resources by directing them away from our current refuge-granting system—that uses up hundreds of millions of dollars on would-be refugees who are in reality economic migrants—in order to aid bona fide refugees in camps overseas. The camps contain the destitute and the desperate, while many of those who arrive in Canada claiming refugee status are simply seeking to by-pass immigration procedures, sometimes with the help of people smugglers. Unfortunately, selection from the camps provides little work for immigration and refugee lawyers, or the friends of the Liberal Party who hold $100,000.00 sinecures on the Immigration and Refugee Board. The current system receives powerful support from those who profit from the status quo, argues Stoffman. Our policies have turned Canada into an international laughing stock, a system admitting 'refugees' who would be recognised by no other country.
Stoffman pulls no punches; the current system survives because the immigration program has become the prisoner of its clients. Lowered targets (quotas) might ensure more success for those admitted but such proposals are vetoed. The reduction in income for immigration lawyers and service providers wouldn't be tolerated.
Contrary to what the strident voices raised in defense of current policies would have us think, these critics are not anti-immigrant. They'd like to see a system that maximises immigrants' chance of succeeding. Stoffman highlights the false expectations of success which Canada raises for some immigrants. But the admission of large numbers of unskilled immigrants depresses wages and militates against individual success, since there is continuing competition from other new arrivals.
Liberal politicians seeking to harvest ethnic votes have been quick to reject proposals for reform. Stoffman reports the antics of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, chaired by Joe Fontana. The committee was overwhelmingly composed of advocates for current policies—large numbers and generous family reunification allowances—most whom worked in the industry or in tax-funded advocacy groups. Critics were few and far between but when the committee did meet with some in Vancouver, Stoffman reports the prevailing attitude was reminiscent of McCarthy's approach to dissent. Committee chair, Fontana, shouted at one witness who had made a careful presentation on the ecological consequences of Vancouver's high immigration levels: "We don't want to hear any more from you. We know what your philosophy is". A quintessential example of the way in which intelligent debate on the issue is closed down. But as this publication—along with a number of other current ones—shows, silencing the critics is becoming harder.
Martin Loney (Books in Canada) -- Books in Canada