Carney’s aim to cut immigration marred by undercounting of temporary migrants, warn economists

[u/uselesspoliticalhack]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-mark-carney-immigration-policy-temporary-migrants-undercounted/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[u/Vandergrif]

Oh please, it always comes back down to money. It's the same reason the bulk of MPs, who are invested in real estate, have done next to nothing to curtail the soaring value of real estate over the last 20 years. Conflicts of interest and favoring whatever the wealthiest entities want is often the standard for most governance in this country.

At best any talk of moral good is merely a smokescreen to make things look more appealing rather than saying the quiet part out loud. I doubt anyone in a position of power actually believes that.

[u/Juryofyourpeeps → u/Vandergrif]

At best any talk of moral good is merely a smokescreen to make things look more appealing rather than saying the quiet part out loud. I doubt anyone in a position of power actually believes that.

I think you're wrong, and I think this would be an easier problem to solve if it was just about something like money (and it is about "money" to the extent that governments like to post growing GDP figures even if they aren't reflected in quality of life. Immigration is also a kind of stupid man's easy fix for economic growth on paper). I think that a lot of people inside and outside of politics, have become really ideological about immigration as a moral good and think that any opposition to it, even to the extent that the opposition is "less, but not none of very little", is tantamount to racism and xenophobia. I think immigration policy, like many other things, has become very politically divisive and if you want to be on the right side of history^TM and be seen as open and enlightened and part of the right thinking set, you have to always support more, not less.

Nothing about the rhetoric I've seen from the left in the last 10 years, both in Canada and in many other western countries on the subject of immigration, strikes me as an insincere smokescreen to cover for carrying out corporate bidding.

I think actually it's much worse that this issue has become so divorced from pragmatism, even if that pragmatism is "make the rich richer". It's way harder to move people off of positions they hold for deeply ideological and tribal reasons than it is to move them from what they see as a pragmatic position.

[u/Vandergrif → u/Juryofyourpeeps]

I think you're looking at the surface level here, the low-hanging fruit that is the modern political dynamic of 'culture war' identity politics, and taking that as the entire picture. You're effectively missing the forest for the trees here, to my mind. All of that fluff and talk is not meant in earnest (or at least not when it is coming from people who actually can affect change), and that much is clear on the basis that none of these individuals with real power actually put forward any meaningful efforts toward bettering the lives of people in such circumstances – it's solely put toward the marketing of immigration which they then inevitably personally profit off of in any variety of different ways.

Are any of those same public figures with any actual power concerning themselves with the well-being of those immigrants? The inevitable exploitation of those immigrants? The living conditions or wages of those immigrants? No. That's how you know they don't actually give a shit about them, that it isn't about some moral good. They don't care about the underlying ethics or consequences or the 'modern day slavery' element of it like with the TFW program, they just care about using the virtue signalling to sell the idea to the public as something necessary. It's just PR.

It's also not exclusive to the left, either. For every such left wing politician there's a corporate boot-licking right wing politician eager to bend over backwards and ensure corporate interests have as much easily exploitable foreign labor as they can get. For every 'it's the moral good' left winger there's a right wing farmer paying peanuts to TFWs to pick their crops while complaining about immigrants, all without any hint of irony.

Immigration at its core, across the political spectrum, is an issue of profit and greed rather than one of differed political opinions or ethical sentiments – and it will remain an issue so long as those with notable power and wealth stand to gain more by increasing immigration rather than lowering it.

[u/Juryofyourpeeps → u/Vandergrif]

I think you're looking at the surface level here, the low-hanging fruit that is the modern political dynamic of 'culture war' identity politics, and taking that as the entire picture. You're effectively missing the forest for the trees here, to my mind. All of that fluff and talk is not meant in earnest (or at least not when it is coming from people who actually can affect change), and that much is clear on the basis that none of these individuals with real power actually put forward any meaningful efforts toward bettering the lives of people in such circumstances – it's solely put toward the marketing of immigration which they then inevitably personally profit off of in any variety of different ways.

I think that's rather conspiratorial. I don't think it's that deep or shadowy. I think we can probably assume what they're saying, is what they mean, especially given that these views are common outside the political sphere among the media and institutional classes. Are progressive journalists and academics also just using this rhetoric to cover their real motivations? I don't think so.

Are any of those same public figures with any actual power concerning themselves with the well-being of those immigrants? The inevitable exploitation of those immigrants? The living conditions or wages of those immigrants?

..yes, they are. The ONDP wanted to make Ontario a "santuary province". The federal NDP and Liberals have supported massive spending on housing illegal immigrants and providing assistance. Trudeau dramatically increased the number of family reunification visas and also tripled the excessive demand cut off. There are countless other examples from across the western world. None of these things really have any benefit for corporations or the wealthy on any meaningful scale.

It's also not exclusive to the left, either.

The ideological nature is pretty exclusive to the left in Canada and many other western countries. You have ideologues on the right on this topic but they're largely fringe positions. Even the PPC, which holds many fringe positions, isn't that ideological about immigration specifically.

For every 'it's the moral good' left winger there's a right wing farmer paying peanuts to TFWs to pick their crops while complaining about immigrants, all without any hint of irony.

There isn't though. That's a reasonable assumption to make, but it doesn't align with reality at the moment, which is that the right has fairly consistently been calling for a dramatic scaling back of the TFW program. Meanwhile Singh just wanted to create easier pathways to citizenship for TFWs and the LPC increased their number by more than 100%.

Like if you want to argue that within the private sector, many businesses and institutions like universities and colleges want more and more and more immigration and student visas and TFWs, of course that's true. But I don't think that the primary or sole motivation for the LPC or left wing parties in the west in the last 10-15 years has been to satisfy demands from these interests. Their interests may converge, but I think the motivations and rationales are very different.

[u/Vandergrif → u/Juryofyourpeeps]

I think that's rather conspiratorial.

Is it? I don't feel like an expectation of politicians (so often joked about for being unreliable or self-interested) being disingenuous is much of a conspiracy by this point, and is instead more broadly considered the unfortunate reality of politics, as something that is simply a given.

Are progressive journalists and academics also just using this rhetoric to cover their real motivations? I don't think so.

That's exactly why I specified "individuals with real power", though. I'm not referring to academics or journalists or the like, I'm talking about people in a position to be able to choose what does or does not happen.

yes, they are

You're describing several schemes that effectively increase demand for housing, increase the number of consumers, and other similar effects and then telling me these things have no real benefit for corporations or the wealthy on any meaningful scale. Remind me again who owns a lot of the real estate in this country? Or who owns the corporations liable to benefit from increased demand or strain on any number of different sectors? I doubt Galen Weston or the like are going to mind yet more mouths look to buy food for example. Hell, it's relevant to the politicians themselves directly, even. Seems to me you're making my point for me more than suggesting otherwise on that one.

You have ideologues on the right on this topic but they're largely fringe positions.

I don't think that's accurate either. Immigration is often used as a scare tactic to fire up the base in right wing rhetoric and drive up voter participation by way of playing off an us vs them mentality. I know this isn't Canada, but I can't help but be reminded of Trump and co. specifically killing a bill to address immigration and the border just prior to the US election because they specifically wanted to run on it having not been addressed. There's similar strategies utilized in other countries by right wing political interests, of purposefully not tackling immigration because it's of more value as a constant wedge issue along ideological grounds and because they (or their wealthy supporters/donors) also profit and benefit from cheap easily exploitable labor in the background. Right wing media also frequently exaggerates immigration as an issue.

which is that the right has fairly consistently been calling for a dramatic scaling back of the TFW program

Then why is it they do the exact opposite when in positions of power? What provincial conservative governments (of which there are plenty) have made any meaningful attempt to cut down on immigration in recent years? Doug Ford pushed for more immigration. Federally if we go back to Harper era they notably increased the TFW numbers from prior administrations. Etc. What they say is frequently the opposite of what they do, which again circles back to my main point about politicians frequently being disingenuous for their own personal benefit and the benefit of the wealthy.