Immigrants in Canada are a good bet

Canada, 31st May: The latest buzz is that immigrants in Canada are good for the nation.

This means that the findings of the study by Fraser Institute revealing exorbitantly higher newcomer costs seem to look at just one aspect of this phenomenon.

The Fraser Institute had revealed that Canada is facing a whopping $23.6 billion annually for supporting immigrants here.

Fraser Study looked at one aspect of Canada immigration--The Fraser study was undertaken by researchers Patrick Grady and Herb Grubel who had asserted imposing restrictions on Canada immigration considering the fact that immigrants had received average benefits of $6,051 higher than the taxes paid by them.

However, the study findings are now being considered as without having sound base due to the narrowness of the figures.

Both the researchers involved in the study, who are themselves immigrants in Canada, had used data from the 2006 census for asserting cuts in Canada immigration.

Canada must focus on increasing immigration levels--According to a former Director of Federal Provincial Relations, Immigration Canada, Robert Vineberg. He states that the immigration level in Canada should be increased annually by 100,000 to match the required targets of population.

Currently, a research fellow with Canada West Foundation, he wants Canada to increase the immigration intake by 1 percent each year.

While reacting to the recent Fraser Institute study findings which had called on cutting immigration numbers in Canada, Vineberg stated that the average earnings of immigrants living in Canada for a period extending 15 years was quite higher than the Canada-born people taking into consideration the data before 2006 census.

So, what Vineberg seems to suggest is that rather than being highly costly for Canada, immigrants are, in fact, big net contributors to the federal revenues if the whole working life of these immigrants in Canada is taken into consideration.

Vineberg concludes by saying that the figures used by Fraser Institute could result in opposed results adding that the research fails to address the issue as a whole. The principle of such research is faulty, asserts Vineberg since it took into consideration just one small aspect of immigration while ignoring the bigger picture all together.