immigration ideology

Only in Canada you say? Perhaps you have wondered, like me, why--- given the substantial number of Canadians who have consistently told pollsters that they want lower immigration levels---there isn't a single MP in any party who will take up their cause. Not one. At least four MPs from two different parties in the UK have done so, and in Australia, Labor MP Kelvin Thomson has loudly spoken out for lower population numbers and a cut in migration levels. But there is not a whisper about reducing immigration numbers from the trained seals on either side of the aisle in Canada's House of Commons. Why not?

Party scrutiny of politicians screens out 'surprises'

At least part of the answer, I think, came up during a panel discussion on CBC news ("The National") last night February 25th. Panellists were asked how various nominees for the three major parties are "vetted" so that there are no embarrassing "surprises" that emerge during the election campaign. They told host Peter Mansbridge that nowadays, candidates' lives are intensely scrutinized. There is a search for every possible skeleton in every possible closet. Everything they have done or said in the past is investigated. Even ex-wives or ex-husbands are approached for information, if they can be.

Since being "anti-immigration" in Canada is regarded as a sin equal to pedophilia or murder, you can imagine that anyone who is on record of making any negative comment about immigration or any class of immigrants is subject to instant excommunication from the party. There is not a chance that such an individual could ever survive as a nominee if such "racist" feelings were to come to light. Not a chance. And if it is somewhere on the Internet, it is there forever and it will be found. The party brass will hunt you down and ferret you out.

That is true of the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. What about the Greens, you ask? No worries there. Obviously you can't run for the Green Party unless you are certified open-borders moron and Islamopanderer.

Pity you need to be Swiss to have Swiss-style direct democracy

My answer? We need Swiss-style direct democracy. An end to the monopoly of political parties. That should be the first reform.

But then, to bring that about, you would need to work within one of the major parties, who have a vested interest in maintaining the party system. Good luck with that. You wouldn't even get your foot in the door. Start a new party? Forget it. It has been tried. It is a ticket to oblivion. You need at least 35% of the popular vote and a bucket money just to win one seat, and without a seat, you have no profile at all.

The only option is to become a Swiss citizen. But the recent referendum has shown us that the Swiss, wisely, will not have us.

In order for Australia to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at present levels, enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion.

By Edward Drabik [1]

Can immigration offset an ageing population?

A 1999 Australian parliamentary research paper, entitled "Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives", looked at the claim that immigration could offset an ageing population. It found that in order to maintain the proportion of the population aged 65 and over at present levels,

"enormous numbers of immigrants would be required, starting in 1998 at 200 000 per annum, rising to 4 million per annum by 2048 and to 30 million per annum by 2098. By the end of next century with these levels of immigration, our population would have reached almost one billion."

The paper concluded:

"It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young. No reasonable population policy can keep our population young."

UN Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution?

The UN has also examined this issue. Its report, entitled "Replacement Migration: Is It A Solution to Declining and Ageing Population?", often cited as proving the case for replacement migration, actually came to the completely opposite conclusion. The authors concluded that the scale of immigration needed to change the demographic profile of a whole country is so large as to be “out of reach”. For example, to combat the effect of aging population in South Korea (a very rapidly aging society) almost the entire population of the earth would have to move there by 2050!

British Government: Migrants grow old too!

As a British government report summed up in 2001:

“The single reason why even large constant net migration flows would not prevent support ratios from falling in the long term is that migrants grow old as well! Although a steady large inflow of young migrants would continue to boost the working-age population, before long it would start adding to the retirement-age population, and a four-to-one (say) potential support ratio could not be maintained.”

The same British report came to this conclusion:

“Immigration policies should be governed by political and humanitarian objectives, and not by demographic considerations."

Council of Europe: Migration cannot reverse ageing trends

The Council of Europe came to the same conclusion in a 2000 report:

“Migration flows cannot in future be used to reverse trends in population ageing and decline in most Council of Europe countries. The flows required would be too large and it would be impossible to integrate them into the economy and society.”

So, unless the immigrants in question are miraculously immune to the ageing process, using immigration to offset population ageing is a demographic nonsense. Yet, pro-immigrationists continue to peddle this ridiculous argument even though they must know by now that it is utterly fallacious.

NOTES

[1] This article was originally posted as a comment on
http://theconversation.edu.au/new-migration-council-to-fight-for-a-bigger-australia-7895#comment_53165 and is republished here with Edward Drabik’s permission.