I was also born in Canada to where my parents immigrated so I know this story well. In 1995 Canada changed the mix of immigrants from primarily family reunification to primarily skilled worker, and slapped a fee on each new immigrant. The popularity of immigration soared.
But there is a dirty little secret behind that, and that is that the Canadian economy does not actually generate that many skilled worker jobs. This is most blatant in fields like medicine, where being a doctor gets you immigration points but a Canadian med school degree is required to actually practise. But almost across the board, immigrants deskill to a greater degree than elsewhere. Their earnings remain lower than locally born Canadians, and usually fails to converge in their entire lives.
The real truth Canada stumbled upon is that, by filtering for post-secondary education, Canada ends up with immigrants who almost never end up on welfare or commit crimes. Not merely less welfare and crime than the locally born; that's not enough to satisfy the public. It has to be zero.
The reason the post-2022 surge in temporary workers and students broke this consensus is that that was a much more average group of people, a few of whom did commit crimes and go on welfare. Hence the unpopularity.
Thanks, I agree with many of these points. In Canada's defense though, they did introduce job offers as a part of the point system which significantly helped the overqualification situation. They can certainly do more on qualification recognition, too.
The issue is that Canada and Australia are not that attractive destination for high volumen skilled migration. Most skilled people stayed in their home country (they make lots of money in home country), or want gigantic pay of USA https://x.com/fullantho/status/1673822160111173632?s=46
As a Canadian, I agree that Canada exemplifies your thesis: they had selective orderly immigration for years and people liked it, and then it got less selective and orderly (e.g. through diploma mills, letting in IRGC operatives allegedly, not paying enough attention to integration, etc.) and people liked it less, and now they're taking small steps to right the ship and opinion is taking small steps in favor again.
Current U.S. policy has taken massive steps, swinging the pendulum well past public opinion in several areas, and my understanding is that the response has been thermostatic here too. Right? You know the data better than I do.
The opinion swung back (including increased dissatisfaction with Trump's approach), but, unlike Canada, the government clearly didn't do anything productive in response. That's arguably even a more important part of the whole thermostatic politics dynamic. Which, of course, all gives an opening to the next administration, but I worry they'll botch it yet again.
The problem isn't mainly housing and size. It is about moving from definitely great migrants to the so-so category. And here comes the credibility loss.
When most "pro skilled migration" avocadoes are in truth semi open borders and definite pro asylum people, the truth leaks. And one of the places it clearly shows is in the murky middle.
Someone who really only want skilled migration will be strict about the criteria, and try to reduce family unification, avoid asylum etc.
Back to Canada.
The original "skilled migration model" was ever popular because it was limited and selective. But it slowly became much less selective and more numerous.
The fact that under Trudeau migration expanded implies that the criteria was relaxed. The logic is inexorable. You move from prime value to the margin, and your claim for "clearly rational and beneficial" gets shaky. If the value is marginal it starts depending on taste. If your skilled migrants adds to the budget $400k/lifetime, it's hard to dislike it. If it's 100k it starts getting dubious. Are the numbers credible? Do I even want migration for near break even value? You move from "obviously good" to "some academic calculations find it good".
An extra example is Singapore, a technocratic and rational government if there ever was one.
Between 2011-2015 they realized that the public doesn't like too much immigration, even tho it is selective and as perfect in details as imaginable. The government changed tack and is currently much less permissive, following the logical imperative.
I was also born in Canada to where my parents immigrated so I know this story well. In 1995 Canada changed the mix of immigrants from primarily family reunification to primarily skilled worker, and slapped a fee on each new immigrant. The popularity of immigration soared.
But there is a dirty little secret behind that, and that is that the Canadian economy does not actually generate that many skilled worker jobs. This is most blatant in fields like medicine, where being a doctor gets you immigration points but a Canadian med school degree is required to actually practise. But almost across the board, immigrants deskill to a greater degree than elsewhere. Their earnings remain lower than locally born Canadians, and usually fails to converge in their entire lives.
The real truth Canada stumbled upon is that, by filtering for post-secondary education, Canada ends up with immigrants who almost never end up on welfare or commit crimes. Not merely less welfare and crime than the locally born; that's not enough to satisfy the public. It has to be zero.
The reason the post-2022 surge in temporary workers and students broke this consensus is that that was a much more average group of people, a few of whom did commit crimes and go on welfare. Hence the unpopularity.
Thanks, I agree with many of these points. In Canada's defense though, they did introduce job offers as a part of the point system which significantly helped the overqualification situation. They can certainly do more on qualification recognition, too.
The issue is that Canada and Australia are not that attractive destination for high volumen skilled migration. Most skilled people stayed in their home country (they make lots of money in home country), or want gigantic pay of USA https://x.com/fullantho/status/1673822160111173632?s=46
Not depended on local policy.
As a Canadian, I agree that Canada exemplifies your thesis: they had selective orderly immigration for years and people liked it, and then it got less selective and orderly (e.g. through diploma mills, letting in IRGC operatives allegedly, not paying enough attention to integration, etc.) and people liked it less, and now they're taking small steps to right the ship and opinion is taking small steps in favor again.
Thanks! Right, but it's crazy how few other governments are actually doing this well or at all: taking small steps to right the ship.
Current U.S. policy has taken massive steps, swinging the pendulum well past public opinion in several areas, and my understanding is that the response has been thermostatic here too. Right? You know the data better than I do.
The opinion swung back (including increased dissatisfaction with Trump's approach), but, unlike Canada, the government clearly didn't do anything productive in response. That's arguably even a more important part of the whole thermostatic politics dynamic. Which, of course, all gives an opening to the next administration, but I worry they'll botch it yet again.
(And I also think there should be some emphasis on the word "small" for Canada's steps.)
Fair :)
The problem isn't mainly housing and size. It is about moving from definitely great migrants to the so-so category. And here comes the credibility loss.
When most "pro skilled migration" avocadoes are in truth semi open borders and definite pro asylum people, the truth leaks. And one of the places it clearly shows is in the murky middle.
Someone who really only want skilled migration will be strict about the criteria, and try to reduce family unification, avoid asylum etc.
Back to Canada.
The original "skilled migration model" was ever popular because it was limited and selective. But it slowly became much less selective and more numerous.
The fact that under Trudeau migration expanded implies that the criteria was relaxed. The logic is inexorable. You move from prime value to the margin, and your claim for "clearly rational and beneficial" gets shaky. If the value is marginal it starts depending on taste. If your skilled migrants adds to the budget $400k/lifetime, it's hard to dislike it. If it's 100k it starts getting dubious. Are the numbers credible? Do I even want migration for near break even value? You move from "obviously good" to "some academic calculations find it good".
An extra example is Singapore, a technocratic and rational government if there ever was one.
Between 2011-2015 they realized that the public doesn't like too much immigration, even tho it is selective and as perfect in details as imaginable. The government changed tack and is currently much less permissive, following the logical imperative.
See opus 4.8 extra summary (seems true).
https://claude.ai/share/3a29509a-a2c3-48d6-abd0-6754a66daf54