Lessons for politicians from public opinion polls on immigration

All newcomers were once seen with suspicion. Not anymore, says Jack Jedwab

Through much of our history, immigrants have been the objects of vilification. And there were more than enough European and North American politicians ready to appeal to the popular prejudice of the domestic-born population about these so-called outsiders.

Migrants were accused of taking jobs from non-immigrants (even though they did jobs that the domestic-born didn’t want) and they were chastised for living in ghettos (even though concerns were expressed when they moved into the neighbourhoods of the domestic-born). Immigrant families were accused of refusing to adapt to “our” culture as they stubbornly preserved their customs and traditions (while it was perfectly natural for the domestic-born to transmit their heritage to their children).

Over the latter half of the 20th century, the multiple waves and diverse composition of migrants made it difficult to distinguish the newcomers from the domestic-born. Indeed, the immigrant label sometimes gets applied to those born in Canada.

A January 2016 Léger survey for the Association for Canadian Studies revealed that two in three Canadians agreed that “with the exception of Canada’s aboriginal peoples, everyone that settled in Canada is an immigrant” and that some three in four Canadians “have an ancestor that comes from another country.”

A majority of the population surveyed agreed with the description of Canada as a nation of immigrants. It is not uncommon to hear the term second-generation immigrant, an oxymoron used to describe persons born in Canada to immigrant parents.

By contrast with the start of the previous century, in this one the immigrant label no longer has the same negative connotation. Politicians seeking gains around electors’ migration concerns now draw distinctions between the “good” and the “bad” migrant. It is often the most vulnerable who get singled out, with Syrian refugees the most recent object of suspicion.

In several countries, there has been some effort to monitor public attitudes toward the Syrian refugees. The government of Canada is no exception.

A survey commissioned last fall by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) revealed four in 10 Canadians felt that the right number of refugees were coming to Canada; three in 10 felt there were too many; and some two in 10 felt there were too few. Overall, some 52 per cent of Canadians felt that the country was receiving the right number of immigrants (although many were unsure about what the number actually was).

A slight majority of Canadians favoured increasing the number of “economic” immigrants. Just over one-third of Canadians would support an annual increase of 200,000 “economic” immigrants.

In February 2017, Radio-Canada commissioned a survey to examine public opinion on migration and identity. Incorporating questions asked in Europe and the U.S. a year earlier, the survey revealed that 42 per cent of Canadians agreed that refugees “increase the likelihood of terrorism in the country” and that “they are a burden to society because they take jobs and social benefits that would otherwise be available to citizens of each nation.”

But the same survey revealed that 60 per cent of Canadians thought the decision to admit Syrian refugees was a good one. And nearly three in four Canadians rejected the idea of selecting refugees based on their religion. In the IRCC survey, 72 per cent of the population felt that accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition.

At the beginning of the 20th century, while many politicians in Canada capitalized on suspicion and anxiety over newcomers, by the end of the century an increasing number realized that the better strategy was to get the votes of the foreign-born, whose share of the electorate grew considerably ( just ask the mayors of Canada’s largest cities, who have increasingly become the champions of immigration issues).

Still, there remain politicians in Canada who draw conclusions from opinion polls and have yet to realize that, however subtle, making an appeal to non-immigrants about the threat of immigrants in general and refugees in particular is a losing proposition rather than a winning one.