Many Countries Criticize High Immigration ; Canada Flashes A Happy Face
We present the immigration views of people of influence in four other
countries.
Note that they express serious concerns about high immigration and its implications for the societies that accept it.
Note also that we have recorded no concerns about high immigration from Canadian politicians.
As a structural (permanent) federal deficit of about $20 Billion every
year looms and high unemployment continues in Canada, none of these
politicians and others want to admit publicly that senseless immigration contributes significantly to this deficit and to a real unemployment rate of probably about 14%.
Instead, all of them flash a happy face.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MANY COUNTRIES CRITICIZE HIGH IMMIGRATION : CANADA FLASHES A HAPPY FACE
(1) Australia :
Bob Carr, the former Labor Premier of New South Wales : We can depend on economic growth that comes in an easy fashion driven by population growth (mostly immigration) (or)… on the other hand, we can sustain jobs and economic security by using our brains, by being a smart economy, by adding value to the products we produce here—the food and the fibre and the mineral products we produce here…that’s a smart Australia. …(A) lazy Australia depends on job growth by driving up population numbers and …on the growth you get by building houses and shopping malls.
Labor MP Kelvin Thomson : “Food shortages, water shortages, housing
affordability, overcrowded cities, transport congestion, loss of species, waste, terrorism… all of these things we can only tackle if we are prepared to confront population (growth).” “If we were to reduce our migration rate from the levels it’s got to, of the order of 170,000 back to 82,000, that would give our immigration authorities more time in which to better assess applicants for entry in Australia. If we’re not prepared to address the issue of population, we simply will not be able to discharge our obligation to pass on to our children a world in as good a condition as the one left to us.”
Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy (at Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research) : “Rapid (immigration-driven) population growth … makes the attainment of even the most modest reductions to overall greenhouse emissions in Australia very difficult to achieve.” There (is) little prospect Australia could cut emissions by the minimum 5 per cent, let alone anything more ambitious. But there (is) a “relatively painless” solution – stabilising the population.
Bob Birrell and Ernest Healey (at Monash University) : The Australian
government’s $42 Billion economic stimulus will be neutralized by
Australia’s unjustified and unnecessary high immigration levels.
Researchers recommended the following: (a) Priority should be given to how Australian training and mobility incentives can help Australian workers relocate to areas of skill shortages, not to removing obstacles to immigrant recruitment. (b) Immigration should be strictly limited to those skills where there is a substantiated case that the skill cannot be obtained from within Australia. (c) The range of occupations eligible for skilled immigration should be curtailed, particularly for employer-sponsored visas. (d) Employers should have to provide proof that Australians are not available for the jobs in question.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(2) The U.K. :
Labour MP Frank Field : the present scale of immigration … is bound to have a negative aspect on many aspects of life of Britain… If the Labour government does not adopt the policy of balanced migration, or somethingclose to it, our population is set to rise to a level to which the vast majority of people are strongly opposed. Britain will need to build one house every 6 minutes just to meet the current scale of immigration.
Conservative Leader David Cameron : In the last decade, net immigration in some years has been … 200,000, so implying a 2 million increase over a decade, which I think is too much. We would like to see net immigration in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands. I dont think thats unrealistic. Thats the sort of figure it was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again. (Mr Cameron was responding to the warning by George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, that an increase in the population to 70 million would be intolerable….)
Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas: “This government isn’t going to allow the population to go up to 70 million. There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(3) Walter Bos, the current leader of the Dutch Labor Party : We must
choose between a generous welfare state and restrictive immigration on the one hand, and a restrictive welfare state and generous immigration on the other hand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(4) Olaf Scholz (Sweden’s Centre-Left Social Democrat Leader) : In January 2010, his party, along with Conservative politicians,rejected a proposed Affirmative Action/Employment Equity programme for Sweden’s civil service. The programme was aimed at hiring more immigrants. Mr. Scholz said: A quota is not compatible with our constitutional and legal culture.
