Canada’s population surpassed 40 million last year, recording its highest growth rate since 1957.
The vast majority of this growth — 97.6 percent — was from international migration, both permanent (almost 500,000 people) and temporary (just more than 800,000). As a cosmopolitan and classical liberal, I applaud this kind of openness. Yet, it also worries me.
It is not just Canada — Ireland, New Zealand and the UK are seeing historically high levels of immigration as well.
Illustration: Yusha
How long would citizens of these countries continue to accept this trend? Who exactly benefits, and how? Why has the backlash not been stronger?
After all, immigrants do not bring an immediate economic boom.
When New Zealand closed its borders during COVID-19, for example, output did not fall and the post-pandemic resumption of immigration did not cause a noticeable boost. Meanwhile, in the UK, economic stagnation has accompanied a wave of immigration.
Whatever the benefits of the migrant arrivals might be, they lie in the more distant future, which does not help its political popularity now.
Yet, for all the cultural and economic adjustments immigration might require, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, for many countries, high rates of immigration are simply flat-out necessary.
In Canada, for instance, the current fertility rate is about 1.33 children per woman, the lowest on record, and it probably would have been lower yet without recent immigrant arrivals.
Canada’s geography also argues for more immigration. It is likely to have much more usable territory, due to global warming, so a much larger population is feasible.
If Canada wants to maintain a reasonable balance of power with the US and have the resources to develop and protect its Arctic and Arctic-adjacent areas, it needs a commensurately large population and economy.
Toronto has become one of the most interesting cities in North America and immigrants deserve much of the credit for that, as well as for the growth of Vancouver.
Canada is now also a premier spot for international dining. My point is not to make travel recommendations (though the restaurants in the town of Scarborough remain a particular favorite), but to show how Canada is connected to many global trends that would help keep it vital.
In general, Canada — like Ireland, where the fertility rate is about 1.77, higher than in Canada, but still below replacement — faces a choice: either take in migrants or depopulate.
Perhaps one reason voters are tolerating such high migration rates is an intuitive fear of living in an empty, stagnant country. Voters tend to want their country to be able to project influence and defend its interests.
Economic debates about immigration typically focus on the wage effects on domestic workers, and there, the impact of immigration is often neutral or marginal. However, the more important effects of immigration might be more impressionistic: how it affects people’s views of their own country and what it is like to live there, as well as its global reputation.
In this sense, Canada is ahead of much of the rest of the world in seeing the importance of these factors and turning it into actionable policy. It is willing to give up some of its present cultural identity to achieve a brighter cultural and political future.
This trade-off is much better than it looks at first. For one thing, birth rates for native-born citizens might fall further than they have already.
If a country wants to preserve its national culture, it might be better off allowing more migration now, when there is still a critical mass of native-born citizens to ease assimilation.
To put the point more generally: Whatever costs there might be to immigration, successful nations would have to deal with them sooner or later. And the sooner they do, the better off they would be.
The choice is not so much between more immigration and less immigration, but rather a lot of immigration now or a lot later. This choice would become all the more pressing as the need to fund national retirement programs requires for more tax-paying citizens.
One of the most common criticisms of immigrants is that they push up real estate prices. Yet there is a home-grown explanation: Stringent regulations on building make it difficult for the supply of housing to respond when demand increases.
In fact, there is a way immigration can help address this problem.
First, immigrants might themselves induce their adopted country to free up its real estate markets. So, immigration might increase real estate costs in the short run, but help reduce them in the longer run.
Second, immigrants can help lower-tier cities move to the fore. The suburbs of Toronto, for example, have seen much of their growth driven by Asian in-migration, and longer term that would give Canadians more residential (and commercial) options.
These points aside, note that higher real estate prices, to the extent they result from immigrant demands, largely translate into capital gains for homeowners — most of whom are native-born.
To be sure, the higher home prices might be bad for many younger Canadians, who might be locked out of housing markets, but eventually many of them would inherit high-value homes from their parents.
My argument is not that there are no short-run transition costs to high levels of immigration — especially in housing, where Canada is seeing some now. However, in the long term, more immigration is better for a country than less.
To me, the question is not so much why Canada and similar countries are allowing so much immigration. It is how long voters in these countries would allow this experiment to continue.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS