Comparing Migration Policies in Australia and Canada - Case Study Example

Comparing Migration Policies In Australia and Canada Student’s Name: Name of Institution: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Migration is a significant factor in a country’s economy, which then affects business and the native population (Coppel et al, 2001). A report by UK’s ‘House of Lords’ (2008) cited correlations between migration and trends in the labor market and macro-economy, labor shortages, public finance and services, as well as the impacts of the resultant population increase on housing and even wider welfare issues (e.g. in terms of demand, prices and rents, homelessness, etc. And Peri (2010) cites the US state-level data showing that, while immigrants increase a country’s economic productive capacity as they stimulate investment and promote specialization, they also diminish employment opportunities for workers born in the US. But perhaps it is only a matter of approach. There are many similarities between Canada’s and Australia’s approaches to migration. These approaches are characterized by major migration programs that have strong economic focus and aim for balanced geographical distribution of migrants in the countries, and based on similar economies (Richardson & Lester, 2004). Yet, despite these similarities, Australia seems to have achieved labor market success for migrants than Canada. Many factors have been credited for this trend, including: economic environment, e.g. the state of the Australian labor market; the environment within which immigration policies operate or are implemented; the criteria for migrants’ selection; migrants’ characteristics, e.g. age, gender, education and skills, language, business and cultural attitudes, etc; and the acceptance of non-permanent foreigners who increase labor market competition (Richardson & Lester, 2004). But all these factors rest on the policies adopted in Australia; the very policies that set it apart from Canada’s. This paper aims to compare the migration policies in these two countries, i.e. both similarities and differences, including how they influence the labor market. Discussion: Comparison Generally, the two countries have relatively similar policy environments. Both of them share a rationale on the basis of which particular migrants are accepted/encouraged or refused/discouraged. This is in line with both countries’ objective to improve their economic prospects through the inflow of more skilled migrants. However differences, perhaps attributed to contextual factors, still remain. For instance, the two countries place responsibilities for immigration at different levels of government. In Canada immigration is in the hands of both the provincial and federal governments. This is based on Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). According to the Act, CIC is still responsible for defining categories of migrants, setting levels of immigration and enforcing the immigration programs Also, the Act permits the Minister to enter into deals/agreements with territories and provinces that can offer more provincial responsibility of immigration (CIC, 2003; Hagopian, 2003; ). In Australia the responsibility is solely in the hands of the federal government. As a result, it is more cumbersome to recognize the qualifications of migrants in Canada than it is in Australia (OECD, 2003a). This comparison also takes into account the selection criteria, based on migrant characteristics. Selection criteria, i.e. assessment of applications, in both countries are complex (OECD, 2004), and combine certain thresholds, e.g. age. The criteria simplify key qualities of focus and assign weight to each. Both countries implement the immigration policy based on the points system for economic class/skill stream migrants, i.e. potential migrants are awarded points for specified attributes, and based on a set minimum range of points. However, evaluating both systems reveals that Australia subjects potential migrants to a set of demanding requirements than Canada does, especially with regard to skilled migrants. The selection criteria in both countries can be evaluated on the basis of: Qualification Assessment: As already touched-on above, the qualification assessment processes in relation to skilled migrants differ. For instance, in Australia qualifications of skilled migrants are, first and foremost, assessed before they are allowed to apply for migration. On the other hand, while Canada conducts early assessments, it is merely advisory. Australia assesses the post-secondary qualifications of potential migrants and must be considered fit for the applied-for occupation. On the same note, potential migrants placed in the ‘general migration’ category have instructions on the application document not to go on and apply before their qualifications are assessed by an appropriate body (Coppel et al. 2001). On the contrary, Canada’s assessment of skilled migrants’ credentials before migration is only advisory, especially regarding how the qualifications in the potential migrant’s country of origin compares to those of the local standards (Coppel et al. 2001). Notably, this does not mean one gets a license to practice from the relevant regulatory body or that the applicant’s credentials will necessarily be accepted by a potential employer. It merely helps an applicant understand Canada’s educational system. Otherwise, the applicant may have to prove the equivalence of his/her foreign credentials to the Canadian standards to different potential employers. Also, the fact that immigration is in the hands of the federal government, assessment is nationally uniform, i.e. the assessment is applicable in all territories and states. But in Canada, qualifications for formal acceptance in one province may be void in another, i.e. systems of assessment in one province are not necessarily the same in another. According to Hagopian (2003), in 2003 Canada had more than 400 self-regulated regulatory and professional organizations. As such, migrants are subjected to multiple applications in case they need to move within Canada. In agreement, Ruddick (2003) contends that the difficulties associated with the recognition of foreign credentials mostly mean that migrants must begin from scratch to finally work in their profession of choice in Canada. Ease of access to Social security: It is possible that that the differing outcomes of labor markets in both countries may also be as a result of the benefits associated with self-selection of migrants based on access to social security. Australia deters potential migrants not sure about how quickly they can find work. The Australian government places a wait period of two years for non-Humanitarian migrants, which means that migrants in Australia must support themselves in the first two years. The need for social security encourages Australian migrants to make greater effort to find employment. In Canada, accepted migrants get immediate access to the benefits of social security, e.g. employment insurance. Richardson and Lester (2004), in favor of the Australian system argue that the Canadian system encourages the migration of people with low entrepreneurial attitudes. Proficiency in Official Language: This factor is based on research findings that language proficiency is important for migrants’ qualifications and experience to be fully utilized. Language barriers can be major obstacles to finding work. According to Richardson and Lester (2004), Australian migrants tend to display greater proficiency in official language, which is partly attributed to the mandatory requirement of English language as a skill for migrants. This is accompanied by great cultural familiarity based on the Australian pattern of origin. For instance, much of the migrant inflow comes from English-speaking countries, e.g. the UK and South Africa. Prime Age: There are also differences in the way that both countries define age limits and place importance of on it. Australia, for instance, places more weight to age than Canada: 17 and 10 percent respectively. Australia also has an age limit, especially for skilled migrants, i.e. between 25 to 45 years old. Equally, the inflow of old family migrants is lower. Canada on the other hand places maximum age limit at 54 years of age. Non-Visaed Inflow: statistics show that Canada’s net inflow of non-permanent workers significantly adds to its labor force than is the case in Australia (OECD, 2003b). In other words, permanent migrants in Canada face greater labor market competition from the non-permanent migrants than the same group of migrants in Australia. It is possible that this trend contributes to the lower employment rate for Canada’s visaed migrants. And the contrary may be the reason for a larger proportion of permanent migrants arriving in Australia. But Canada has two favoring factors: higher rate for labor force participation, as well as a higher skilled migrants proportion than Australia (OECD, 2003b). Unfortunately, contrary to expectations, the high migrant participation rate is linked with higher unemployment rate. Equally, too much dependence on skilled/economic migrants may actually reduce the success of labor markets. In other words, these factors do not overrule Australia’s advantages. Conclusion It is worth noting the increasing global demand for skilled labor. Also accompanying this is the phenomena of decreasing fertility and increasingly aged population. For the latter, countries are increasingly seeking to win young and skilled migrants who can boost the sustainability of economic growth. Australia and Canada, being some of the leading migrant countries, will face increasing competition for skilled migrants. According to Richardson and Lester (2004), both countries changed some of their immigration policies so as to boost skilled immigration while lessening the emphasis on immigrations on the basis of family reunion. These policy changes have had significant effect on the countries’ labor markets. But this is not to say that the countries have grown alike. Differences still remain between them, partly attributable to contextual factors. References CIC. (2003). Facts and Figures 2002: Immigration Overview. Ontario: Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Coppel, J. & Dumont, et al. (2001). Trends in Immigration and Economic Consequences. Paris: OECD Hagopian, S. (2003). Canada's Skilled Worker Program: Speaking to the Experts. Metropolis. OECD (2003a). Economic Surveys Australia. Paris: OECD. OECD (2003b), Economic Surveys Canada. Paris: OECD. OECD (2004), Trends in International Migration. Paris: OECD. Richardson, S. & Lester, L. (2004). A Comparison of Australian and Canadian Immigration Policies and Labour Market Outcomes. Report to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: The National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University – September. Ruddick, E. (2003). "Immigrants Economic Performance - A New Paradigm in a Changing Labour Market." Canada Issues. Peri, G. (2010). ‘The effect of immigrants on U.S. employment and productivity’, FRBSF Economic Letter, Aug. 30. Retrieved 1 May, 2012. http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html UK House of Lords (2008). The Economic Impact of Immigration: Report, Volume 1. Retrieved 1 May, 2012, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf Read More