DEMOGRAPHV@ Volume 13, Number 1 February 1976

IMMIGRATION POLICIES AND TRENDS: A COMPARISONOF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

Monica BoydDepartment of Sociology/Anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, KIS 586 Canada

Abstract-This paper discusses recent migration to North America with refer­ence to the 1962 and 1967 Canadian immigration regulations and the1965 United States Immigration and Nationality Act. Despite the similaremphasis on manpower and kinship criteria as the basis for the admissionof immigrants, differences between Canada and the United States existwith respect to the importance of immigration for the respective economies,the organization of immigration, the formal regulations, and the size andcomposition of migrant streams. After an examination of the volume,origin, and occupational composition of immigration to Canada and theUnited States, flows between the two countries are studied. The paperconcludes with a scrutiny of changes in immigration regulations which arepending in both countries.

It is well known that twentieth-centuryinternational migration no longer is de­termined by events and decisions of in­dividuals in countries of origin. Instead,major countries of destination have con­trolled both the volume and the composi­tion of international migration streams.This change away from free immigrationto regulated immigration is evident in thepost-World War I policies of Canada andthe United States. In Canada, the 1927Immigration Act was followed by the Actof 1952 which was subsequently amendedby changes to its regulations in 1962 andin 1967. The United States ImmigrationAct of 1924 was followed by the Immi­gration and Naturalization Act of 1952and the Immigration Act of 1965.

Post-World War I and II immigrationpolicies of Canada and the United Statesparalleled each other not only with re­spect to timing but also with respect tocontent. During the 1950's, both countriessought to curb the volume and to admitonly those immigrants from countries con­sidered compatible with North American

83

society. The continued similarity duringthe 1960's of the immigration policieswhich were enacted in Canada and theUnited States may be observed fromCharts I and II. The Canadian immigra­tion regulations (Chart I) are the exten­sion of the earlier 1962 policy changewhich removed much of the discrimina­tion against persons of non-European ori­gin and explicitly used occupational skillrather than citizenship as the main cri­terion for the admittance of persons whowere not sponsored by relatives (Hawkins,1972, p. 125; Timlin, 1965). When thecriteria for immigrant selection are com­pared with those adopted by the UnitedStates in 1965 (Chart II), it becomesobvious that the recent immigration legis­lation of the United States is simply partof the general North American experienceof adopting manpower and kinship cri­teria as the basis for the admission ofimmigrants.

Because of the similar criteria used toadmit aliens, international migration toCanada and the United States should be

84 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

similar in character. There are similaritiesin the increasing admission of non-Euro­pean and skilled aliens. However, despitethe apparent convergence in the admis­sion criteria of the Canadian and U.S.immigration policies, differences do existwith respect to the volume, origin, andoccupational composition of recent immi­gration. This paper contends that thesedifferences reflect the differential impor­tance of immigration for the two econo­mies and the greater responsiveness ofimmigration to economic conditions inCanada as compared to the United States.Differences in the character of immigra­tion also reflect differences in Canadianand U.S. immigration management and inthe immigration policies themselves al­though the effect of the latter may beblunted by actual practice. These observa­tions are based upon a short review of theformal organization of Canadian and U.S.immigration management, a discussion ofthe immigration regulations and the im­portance of immigration for the respectiveeconomies, and an analysis of originand occupational characteristics of immi­grants to, and between, the United Statesand Canada.

IMMIGRATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY

In the United States, immigration ismanaged primarily by two governmentaldepartments. The Visa Office, which han­dles the issuing of visas, is part of theBureau of Security and Consular Affairsof the Department of State. Other matterspertaining to immigrants are handled bythe Immigration and Naturalization Serv­ice of the Department of Justice (Haw­kins, 1972, p. 338; Schwartz, 1966). Twoother agencies are less centrally involved:the Department of Labor, which providesinformation needed for labor certification,and the Department of Health, Educationand Welfare, which provides selected so­cial security information on aliens to theImmigration and Naturalization Service.

Overall, the U.S. management of immi­grant entry appears to be under the juris-

diction of agencies whose primary func­tion is social control. In contrast, thecurrent location of the Canadian immigra­tion branch in the Department of Man­power and Immigration stresses the con­tribution of immigration to the economicdevelopment of Canada. The focus onimmigrant recruitment is clearly shown inthe 1966 reorganization of the Depart­ment of Citizenship and Immigration andthe Department of Labor and NationalEmployment to form a separate ministry,the Department of Manpower and Im­migration (Richmond, 1969; Hawkins,1972). In this reorganization, matters per­taining to citizenship were separated fromthe issue of immigrant entry, and placedin the Citizenship Branch of the Depart­ment of State. Alien entry was tied morefirmly to Canadian manpower needs.

The placement of the responsibility forimmigrant visa information and selectionin the Canadian Department of Manpowerand Immigration rather than in legalisticand control-oriented agencies ultimatelyreflects differences in the training and re­cruitment of manpower in the Canadianand U.S. economies. Comparisons of theeducational attainment of the Canadianand U.S. populations suggest that relativeto the United States the educational sys­tem of Canada underproduces highly edu­cated manpower. For example, in 1971,12 percent of native-born Canadians aged25-44 had more than a high school edu­cation compared to 27 percent of the samenative-born age group in the United Statesin 1970 (Canada, Statistics Canada, 1974,Table 7; U.S. Bureau of the Census,1973a, Table 1. Also see: Legace, 1968,Table C3; Economic Council of Canada,1965). This underproduction of skilledmanpower needed in an industrial econ­omy is attributed to the absence of highlypositive values about education; it alsoreflects previous successful reliance on im­migration to provide the requisite highlytrained manpower (Porter, 1967, 1971).

The lack of internally generated highlyqualified manpower means that in con-

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

trast to the economy of the United States,that of Canada is heavily dependent uponthe external training and recruitment ofimmigrants to meet its manpower needs.Although precise measurement is difficult,Jenness (1974) suggests that post-WorldWar II immigrants account for approxi­mately one-third of the annual net addi­tion to the Canadian labor force (also seeMarr, 1974a; Parai, 1974a). The contri­bution of immigrants to economic growthis also considerable (Jenness, 1974; Marr,1974b; Parai, 1965, 1974b). Reflectingthis dependence on the movement of hu­man capital, the 1967 Canadian immigra­tion amendments were designed both torecruit desired manpower and to insureflexibility in the recruitment process.

The Canadian immigration regulationswhich appear in Chart I reflect the strongexpansionary approach to immigrationduring the 1960's which was articulated

85

in the 1966 White Paper (Canada, Man­power and Immigration, 1974a). Spon­sored and independent categories of im­migrants had been established in the 1962regulations; the addition of the nominatedrelative category in the 1967 regulationspermitted immigration of relatives outsideof the immediate family of Canadian resi­dents. However, like independent immi­grants, nominated relatives are admittedon the basis of their potential adjustmentand contribution to Canada and the Ca­nadian economy. Although they may re­ceive between 15 and 30 points on thebasis of their relationship to the sponsor,nominated relatives must receive the re­maining 20 to 35 points necessary for a50-point minimum from the first five cate­gories of the assessment system. Indepen­dent relatives must receive a minimumtotal of 50 points based on nine assess­ment categories. Thus, the 1967 Immigra-

CHART I

Canada's Immigration Policy, 1967-1973"

On October 2, 1967, Canada adopted new immigration regulations; there are three maincategories of immigrants:A. Independent.B. "Sponsored" dependents-husband, wife, fiance or fiancee, generally close relatives.C. "Nominated relative"-apply likewise to close relatives; responsibilities of nominator in­

clude willingness and ability to provide care, maintenance for the person, to otherwiseassist him in becoming established.

The independent immigrant must obtain 50 out of 100 assessment points based on the systemdescribed below. Nominated relatives also are assessed on the basis of education, age, personalassessment, occupational skill, and occupational demand criteria discussed below.The assessment system for potential immigrants is based on:1. Education and Training: up to 20 assessment points to be awarded on the basis of one year

of school per unit.2. Personal Assessment: up to 15 points on the basis of the immigration officer's judgment of

applicant's adaptability, motivation, and initiative.3. Occupational Demand: up to 15 units if demand for applicant's occupation is strong in

Canada.4. Occupational Skill: up to 10 units for professionals, ranging down to one unit for the un-

skilled.5. Age: 10 units for applicants under 35, with one unit deducted for each year over 35.6. Arranged Employment: 10 units if the candidate has a definite job arranged.7. Knowledge oi French/English: up to 10 units depending on degree of fluency.8. Relative: up to 5 units if applicant has relative able to help him become established.9. Employment Opportunities in Area oi Destination: up to 5 units when applicant intends to go

to area of Canada where there is a strong demand for labor.

"Revised in 1974, see text.Source: Canada. Manpower and Immigration, 1974b; Hawkins, 1971; Parai, 1974a.

86 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

tion regulations place considerable em- versely affect U.S. workers. In contrast,phasis on the labor force skills of aliens. an alien who does not score highly on the

Students of migration will observe that occupational demand or occupational skillthe United States 1965 Immigration Act regulations of the 1967 Canadian Immi­also controls the manpower aspects of gration Regulations may still enter if 50immigration by introducing labor certifi- points are awarded on the basis of othercation requirements for nonpreference criteria (Chart I).aliens or those entering under the third The restrictive stance of the Unitedor sixth preferences. However, in the States Immigration Act toward the im­United States, immigration plays a rela- portation of manpower is further showntively minor role in meeting the manpower by the small proportion (20 percent) ofrequirements of the economy. United visa preferences that are reserved for pro­States immigration regulations perform a fessional, skilled, or unskilled workersgatekeeping rather than a selective re- (Chart II). The annual number of alienscruiting function. This is clearly shown who enter on the basis of their occupa­by the labor certification procedure, by tional skills is in turn restricted by thethe visa preference system, and by the numerical hemisphere limitations. Thesenumerical ceilings for the Eastern and limitations curb the general volume of im­Western Hemispheres. In the United migration to a 170,000 yearly quota forStates, labor certification for an alien non-Western Hemisphere immigration,worker is issued only when there is a defi- and a yearly quota of 120,000 immigrantscit of qualified workers in the United from the Western Hemisphere, which wasStates and when admittance would not ad- imposed in 1968 (Chart II). Unlike the

CHART II

The United States of America Immigration Policy, 1965

As of December 1, 1965, new immigration regulations were in effect for immigration to theUnited States. Between that date and June 1968, the quota system of the 1952 McCarran­Walter Act was phased out. The Act of 1965 contains regulations on numerical limitations,labor certification, and a preference system for visas.A. Annual Numerical Limitation: 170,000 for the Eastern Hemisphere and 20,000 per country.

120,000 for the Western Hemisphere with no country limitation. The following persons areexempted from numerical limitations: parents of U.S. citizens over 21 years, spouses,minor unmarried children of U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens returning from abroad;certain former citizens applying for reacquisition of citizenship; certain former U.S. govern­ment employees

B. Preference System (applied to aliens from the Eastern Hemisphere only):1. First Preference: Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens-20% maximum of the

170,000 person ceiling2. Second Preference: Spouse and unmarried sons and daughters of an alien lawfully ad-

mitted for permanent residence-20%3. Third Preference: Professionals. Labor certification required-IO%4. Fourth Preference: Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens-IO%5. Fifth Preference: Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens-24%6. Sixth Preference: Skilled and unskilled workers. Labor certification required-lO%7. Seventh Preference: Refugees-6%8. Nonpreference: Other aliens from Eastern Hemisphere

C. Labor Certification: Required of all Eastern Hemisphere aliens in third, sixth, and non­preference categories. Required of all Western Hemisphere aliens except parents, spouses,and children of U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens.

Source: Hohl, 1974, pp. 73-75; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Security and ConsularAffairs. Report of the Visa Office, 1972, Appendix B.

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

United States, Canada has no formalhemisphere or country ceiling.

Although differences in policy corre­spond to trends in the volume of immi­gration to Canada and the United States,students of migration will accurately ob­serve that discussions based on immigra­tion policies may be misleading if consid­erable slippage exists between formalregulations and the actual practice of suchregulations. Such slippage may arise wherethe opinions of a visa-issuing official pre­determine the eligibility of an alien forentry into Canada or the United States.The Canadian regulations do give consid­erable discretion to the immigration offi­cial. Not only does he grant up to 15points according to his assessment of anapplicant's potential adaptability to Can­ada, but he also may send to his superiorsfor action a supporting brief for an alienwho lacks 50 points or a nonsupportingbrief for an alien who meets the require­ments for admittance (Canada, Manpowerand Immigration, 1974b; Hawkins, 1971;Moldofsky, 1972). The potential racistnature of this discretionary power has re­sulted in several Manpower and Immigra­tion hearings on discrimination, and itcontinues to be an unresolved controversyin Canada (Hawkins, 1971; Loney, 1971).However, as in the United States, any de­partures from the Canadian regulationsremain unquantified. Although such de­partures undoubtedly occur in both Can­ada and the United States, presumably thepractice of admitting aliens tends to cor­respond to the actual guidelines set forthin the immigration regulations.

ECONOMIC SENSITIVITY

Although the issuing of visas accordingto the personal biases of officials remainsunquantified in both Canada and theUnited States, visa issuing may be affectedby governmental directives. In Canada,the volume and composition of immigra­tion streams is regulated by the Ordersin Council, which are issued by the Fed­eral Cabinet and which in turn are em-

87

bodied in departmental directives (Parai,1974a). These directives regulate the es­sentially expansionary nature of Canadianpost-World War II immigration policiesand tie immigration to fluctuations in theCanadian economy.

Canadian economists have long studiedand documented the association betweenimmigration and the Canadian economy(for recent studies see: Comay, 1971c;Marr, 1974a, 1974b; Parai, 1970). Datapresented below suggest that immigrationto Canada is more sensitive to economicconditions than is immigration to theUnited States. The economic sensitivity ofCanadian immigration is indicated by thedepressed total number of immigrants go­ing to Canada during the early and late1960's (Tables 1 and 2). Both the earlyand later years of the 1960'-1970 decadewere characterized by a slowdown in theCanadian economy (Cowan, 1972; Haw­kins, 1972; Rawlyk, 1962).

In contrast, the volume of immigrationto the United States does not reflect thesame responsiveness to economic condi­tions (Tables 1 and 3). The relativelyhigh annual immigration to the UnitedStates during 1967 and 1968 probablyrepresents the transition period of the1965 Immigration Act (Keely, 1971,1974) rather than the sensitivity of im­migration to U.S. economic conditions. Assuggested by the waiting period for visas(Keely, 1974, p. 8), it would appear thatthe demand for entry into the UnitedStates is in excess of the annual 290,000persons permitted by hemisphere ceilings.

The apparent greater sensitivity of im­migration to Canadian economic condi­tions may result either from aliens voli­tionally deciding not to immigrate toCanada in the face of high unemploymentthere, or from the deliberate regulationof immigrant visas by the Canadian De­partment of Manpower and Immigration.While no doubt both factors are operat­ing, there is considerable precedent forthe active intervention by the CanadianDepartment of Manpower and Immigra-

88 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

TABLE I.-Immigration to Canada and the United States,' Calendar Year: I960~I972

Total Immigration Immigration Immigration Percentage ofto to to Immigrants Going

Year North America United States Canada to Canada

Total1960-1972 5,449,266 4,016,639 1,532,627 28.8

1960 316,420 223,556 92,864 29.31961 289,525 229,352 60,173 20.81962 314,984 252,04~ 62,943 20.01963 331,720 250,305 81,415 24.51964 341,652 341,611 100,041 29.31965 393,627 262,012 131,615 33.41966 480,598 303,369 177 ,229 36.91967 562,636 358,798 203,838 36.21968 550,497 386,945 163,552 29.71969 483,506 344,760 138,746 28.71970 460,899 337,610 123,289 26.81971 454,792 357,258 97,534 21.41972 468,410 369,022 99,388 21.2

a- Excludes immigration between Canada and the United States. Persons who last re­sided in Canada before immigrating to the United States and vice versa are exclud­ed from the appropriate columns.

Source: Canada Department of Manpower and Immigration, Immigration Statistics 1960­1971, Table 13. U.S. Department of Justice. Annual Immigration Reports 1960­1973, Table 2. U.S. Department of Justice. Immigrant Aliens Admitted to theUnited States Whose Country of Last Permanent Residence was Canada by Occupation.Bulletins issued November 3, 1960; December 5, 1961; January 28, 1963; December19, 1963; December 3, 1964; January 18, 1966; December 21, 1966; January 29, 1968;February 10, 1969; January 28, 1970; January 6, 1971; subsequent bulletins, butundated.

tion in the immigration process. The highrates of unemployment in 1955 and 1957­1961 prompted the immigration authori­ties to reduce the number of immigrantvisas granted (Rawlyk, 1962, p. 287).Conversely, the increases in immigrationto Canada during 1963-1965 reflect theintensification of recruiting and promot­ing activities abroad and the increasednumber of visa offices (Canada, StatisticsCanada, 1972, p. 223). As noted above,such intervention continues to be formal­ized both by Orders in Council and de­partmental directions, and by the 1967Canadian immigration regulations, whichgrant considerable discretion to the immi­gration officer and which give points foroccupational demand and arranged em­ployment (regulations 2,3, and 6, Chart I).

TRENDS IN NORTH AMERICAN

IMMIGRATION

The gatekeeping function of the UnitedStates 1965 Immigration Act and the es­sentially expansionary nature of the Cana­dian immigration policy during the 1960'smean that Canada receives a dispropor­tionate share of the immigrants destinedto North America. Having a populationone-tenth the size of the United States,Canada received 1.5 million internationalimmigrants between 1960 and 1972, or29 percent of the total number of immi­grants to North America, excluding move­ments between the United States and Can­ada (Table 1).

An examination of region and countryof birth for all immigrants (including in­tracontinental flows) to both Canada and

TA

BL

E2.

-Im

mig

rati

onto

Can

ada

byR

egio

nof

Bir

than

dP

erio

do

fIm

mig

rati

on,

Cal

enda

rY

ears

:19

56-1

972

Perio

do

fIm

mig

rati

on

19

56

-19

61

19

62

-19

67

19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

Reg

ion

Nu

mb

er

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

um

ber

Percen

t

To

tal

85

4,6

00

10

0.0

84

4,7

20

10

0.1

18

3,9

74

10

0.0

16

1,5

31

99

.91

47

,71

31

00

.01

21

,90

01

00

.01

22

,00

61

00

.0

Eu

rop

ea7

34

,65

98

6.0

61

5,7

25

72

.91

18

,28

46

4.3

87

,46

15

4.1

74

,69

95

0.6

52

,49

14

3.1

50

,74

04

1.6

Bri

tain

(u,

K.)

21

7,9

53

25

.521

7,2

31

25

.73

3,8

14

18

.42

8,7

90

17

.82

3,6

88

16

.01

4,2

30

11

.71

6,6

37

13

.6

No

rth

and

Cen

tra

lA

mer

ica

65

,57

87

.71

04

,57

61

2.4

27

,50

31

4.9

34

,85

22

1.4

36

,04

12

4.4

33

,80

82

7.7

29

,91

12

4.5

Un

ited

Sta

tes

52

,19

66

.16

1,7

52

7.3

17

,07

69

.31

9,2

58

11

.92

0,8

59

14

.12

0,7

23

17

.01

9,1

76

15

.7

So

uth

Am

eric

a4

,73

6.6

9,7

47

1.2

2,3

68

1.3

4,1

58

2.6

4,5

06

3.0

4,5

98

3.8

4,0

36

3.3

Asia

23

,07

62

.77

5,9

44

9.0

26

,23

11

4.3

26

,29

01

6.3

24

,95

51

6.9

25

,22

92

0.7

25

,93

82

1.

3

Afr

ica

12

,83

51

.42

0,1

18

2.4

5,0

53

2.7

4,4

95

2.8

3,0

51

2.1

2,7

06

2.2

8,9

39

7.3

Oce

an

iab

11

,41

91

.31

6,4

99

2.0

4,1

45

2.3

3,5

23

2.2

3,4

62

2.3

2,1

82

1.8

1,6

46

1.4

Oth

er2

,29

7.3

2,1

11

.23

90

.27

52

.59

99

.78

86

.77

96

.6

a-

Inclu

des

Tu

rkey

.

b-

Inclu

des

on

lyA

ust

ra

lia

an

dN

ewZ

ea

lan

d.

Oth

erO

cea

nia

-bo

rn

are

inclu

ded

inth

e"

Oth

er"

ca

teg

ory

.

So

urc

e:C

an

ad

a.

Dep

art

men

to

fM

anp

ower

and

Imm

igra

tio

n.

Imm

igra

tio

nS

tati

sti

cs,

19

64

-19

72

.

o ... ::I III Co iii'

::I III ::I Co c: ~ 3" 3 ciQ'

iil .. c)" ::I ~ n'

iii'

III P8

TA

BL

E3.

-Im

mig

rati

onto

the

Un

ited

Stat

esby

Reg

ion

of

Bir

than

dP

erio

do

fIm

mig

rati

on,

Fis

cal

Yea

rs:

1953

-197

2

Perio

do

fIm

mig

ra

tio

n

19

53

-19

65

19

66

-19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

Reg

ion

Num

ber

Percen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

umbe

rP

ercen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

t

To

tal

3,4

94

,55

41

00

.01

,13

9,4

60

10

0.0

35

8,5

79

99

.93

73

,32

61

00

.13

70

,47

81

00

.03

84

,68

51

00

.0

Eu

rop

ea1

,74

5,0

62

49

.94

04

,05

13

5.5

12

0,0

86

33

.51

18

,10

63

1.6

98

,25

42

6.5

91

,97

92

3.9

Bri

tain

(U.K

.)3

05

,03

88

.77

4,9

92

6.6

15

,01

44

.21

4,1

58

3.8

10

,78

72

.91

0,0

78

2.6

No

rth

and

Cen

tra

lA

mer

ica

1,2

79

,59

43

6.6

49

5,5

38

43

.51

32

,42

63

6.9

12

9,1

14

34

.61

40

,11

43

7.8

14

4,3

75

37

.5

Can

ada

40

0,7

95

11

.57

9,4

62

7.0

18

,58

25

.21

3,8

04

3.7

13

,12

83

.51

0,7

76

2.8

So

uth

Am

eric

a1

83

,58

55

.36

4,3

29

5.6

23

,92

86

.72

1,9

73

5.9

20

,70

05

.61

9,3

59

5.0

Asi

a2

46

,13

87

.01

56

,34

01

3.7

73

,62

12

0.5

92

,81

62

4.9

10

1,7

13

27

.51

19

,07

23

1.0

Afr

ica

26

,21

9.8

12

,45

11

.15

,87

61

.68

,11

52

.26

,77

21

.86

,61

21

.7

Oce

an

iab

10

,29

5.3

4,6

62

.41

,87

8.5

2,2

80

.71

,87

0.5

1,5

51

.4

Oth

er3

,66

1.1

2,0

89

.276

4.2

922

.21

,05

5.3

1,7

37

.5

a-

Inclu

des

Tu

rkey

.

b-

Ref

ers

on

lyto

Au

stra

lia

and

New

Zea

lan

dd

uri

ng

yea

rs

19

53

-19

7l.

In1

97

2N

ewZ

eala

nd

wa

sn

ot

tab

ula

ted

sep

ara

tely

bu

tin

clu

ded

inth

e"O

tber"

ca

teg

ory

.

So

urc

e:U

.S.

Go

ver

nm

ent.

Dep

art

men

to

fJ

usti

ce.

Ari

nual

Re

po

rt

:Im

mig

rati

on

and

Na

tura

liza

tio

nS

erv

ice.

19

53

-19

72

.

Ul o C /TI

3: o C) :a J> "V :I: .:< s c 3 CD .... ~ :::J

c: 3 i .., .... ~ 0" .., c: III -< .... Ul "en

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

the United States also reflects the influ­ence of recent immigration policy changesin North America (Tables 2 and 3). InCanada, increases in Asian and Africanimmigration are discernible in the earlysixties, reflecting the impact of the 1962amendments to the regulations of the1952 Immigration Act which removedorigin criteria for admission (see Timlin,1965). However, the proportion ofAfrican-born immigrants declined duringthe late 1960's for both Canada and theUnited States, with the upswing in 1972of African immigration to Canada reflect­ing the admittance of approximately 5,000Ugandan Asians. For both the UnitedStates and Canada, the decline in Africanimmigration has been accompanied bysharp increases in the number and propor­tion of immigrants who are born in Asiancountries.

However, different trends exist for Can­ada and the United States with respect toimmigration from the Western Hemi­sphere. For Canada, the proportion ofimmigrants born in South America andthe United States has steadily increasedsince 1968. But, the implementation of a120,000 yearly limitation on WesternHemisphere immigration and the laborcertification provision of the 1965 UnitedStates Immigration Act has reduced im­migration to the United States from LatinAmerica and Canada (Keely, 1971, 1974).

For both Canada and the United States,the proportion of immigrants who areborn in Europe has declined in the yearsfollowing the adoption of the 1962 and1967 Canadian immigration regulationsand the 1965 United States ImmigrationAct, respectively (Tables 2 and 3). How­ever, the proportion of the immigrantsborn in European countries (includingBritish Isles) continues to be greater forCanada than for the United States. Thispartially reflects the legacy of the earlierpost-World War II emphasis on the ad­mittance of groups considered culturallycompatible with Canadian society (Haw­kins, 1972, pp. 90-91; Richmond, 1967,

91

pp. 20-21). Many of the visa-issuing of­fices were initially established in, and re­main in, European countries (Canada,Manpower and Immigration, 1974b;Par ai, 1974a) .

The higher proportion of immigrants toCanada who are born in Europe as com­pared with European-borns entering theUnited States also reflects the historicalties between Great Britain and Canada.The absolute and proportionately largenumbers of immigrants from Britain toCanada contrast with the immigration ofCanada's second charter group. Since1970, immigrants from France representedaround 2 percent of the total annual im­migration to Canada. Numerically, yearlyinflows are between two and three thou­sand, a figure which is comparable to thenumber immigrating to the United States.When coupled with the fact that since1968 Quebec has had the lowest birthrate of all Canadian provinces, the lownumbers of immigrants from France meanthat the national proportion of Canadianswho speak French may decline. This po­tential diminution no doubt underlies therecent concern expressed by the Quebecgovernment over language maintenanceand the resultant passage of Bill 22 whichmakes French, rather than French or Eng­lish, the official language of the province.

OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

OF IMMIGRANTS

Because of the emphasis given to im­migrant manpower in Canada, some dif­ferences between Canada and the UnitedStates should exist in the occupationalcharacteristics of immigrants. Table 4shows the occupational characteristics ofCanadian immigrants beginning with 1955when the occupational classificationchanged from previous years. The dataare aggregated for the years prior to the1962 immigration regulations, which re­moved origin criteria as the basis for en­try, and for the 1962-1967 time period.They are presented annually from 1968to 1972 in order to capture the possible

TA

BL

E4.

-Im

mig

rati

onto

Can

ada

byP

erio

do

fIm

mig

rati

on,

Wor

ker

Stat

us,

and

Inte

nded

Occ

upat

ion,

Cal

enda

rY

ear:

19

56

-19

72

ID N

Perio

do

fIm

mig

ra

tio

n

19

56

-19

61

19

62

-19

67

19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

Wor

ker

Sta

tus

and

Inte

nd

edO

ccu

pa

tio

nN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

umbe

rP

ercen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

um

ber

Percen

tN

um

ber

Percen

t

To

tal

85

4,6

00

10

0.0

84

4,7

20

10

0.0

18

3,9

74

10

0.0

16

1,5

31

10

0.0

14

7,7

13

10

0.0

12

1,9

00

10

0.0

12

2,0

06

10

0.0

To

tal

wor

ket

;sa

44

5,2

90

52

.14

28

,49

45

0.7

95

,35

45

1.8

83

,21

55

1.5

75

,50

75

1.1

59

,26

74

8.6

56

,94

64

6.7

To

tal

oth

er

40

9,3

10

47

.94

16

,22

64

9.3

88

,62

04

8.2

78

,31

64

9.5

72

,20

64

9.9

62

,63

35

1.4

65

,06

05

3.3

To

tal

Wor

ker

s4

45

,29

01

00

.04

43

,76

71

00

.09

5,3

54

10

0.0

83

,21

51

00

.07

5,5

07

99

.95

9,2

67

99

.85

6,9

46

99

.9

Pro

fess

ion

al

54

,01

51

2.1

10

0,9

67

23

.52

9,2

50

30

.72

6,8

83

32

.322

,41

22

9.7

16

,30

72

7.5

15

,26

22

6.8

Ma

na

ger

ial

and

tech

nic

al

5,7

14

1.3

10

,50

72

.42

,38

52

.52

,56

63

.13

,09

54

.13

,46

45

.84

,36

87

.7C 1"1

'1C

leric

al

48

,61

71

0.9

58

,77

81

3.7

12

,65

11

3.3

12

,22

21

4.7

12

,14

31

6.1

9,9

09

16

.78

,54

91

5.0

~

Tra

nsp

orta

tio

ntr

ad

es

8,7

61

2.0

5,0

07

1.2

926

1.0

71

0.9

632

.85

99

1.0

65

41

.10

Co

mm

un

ica

tio

ntr

ad

es

2,7

23

.61

,80

8.4

331

.32

22

.321

1.3

14

1.2

14

1.2

C) ::u

cceeerc

ra.I

sa

les

16

,88

43

.81

2,8

97

3.0

2,6

31

2.8

2,7

44

3.3

2,5

99

3.4

2,1

07

3.6

2,0

76

3.6

>F

ina

ncia

lsa

les

1,2

27

.31

,13

6.3

564

.65

43

.643

1.6

37

9.6

384

.7-a :r:

Serv

ice

an

drecrea

tio

n2

4,2

83

5.5

27

,82

96

.55

,82

76

.15

,25

36

.34

,86

76

.43

,72

46

.33

,85

26

.8.:<

Serv

ice,

do

mest

icw

ork

er4

3,6

52

9.8

17

,52

74

.13

,40

83

.63

,80

74

.62

,98

54

.02

,66

34

.52

,72

34

.8< 0

Ma

nu

fact

uri

ng

and

mech

an

ica

l9

3,9

52

21

.11

00

,45

42

3.4

23

,18

92

4.3

17

,47

92

1.0

16

,00

52

1.2

12

,16

12

0.5

11

,55

82

0.3

2"C

on

stru

cti

on

tra

des

41

,58

39

.33

8,0

97

8.9

7,7

37

8.1

5,9

64

7.2

6,0

01

7.9

4,0

05

6.8

3,8

31

6.7

3L

abor

61

,74

51

3.9

35

,93

88

.42

,68

12

.82

,01

82

.41

,61

42

.11

,32

42

.21

,18

42

.1III

Lo

gg

ing

,fi

sh

ing

,m

inin

g6

,04

81

.42

,27

6.5

610

.65

21

.638

3.5

324

.523

7.4

....A

gric

ult

ure

36

,03

68

.11

5,2

73

3.6

3,1

64

3.3

2,2

83

2.7

2,1

29

2.8

2,1

60

3.6

2,1

27

3.7

~ :::I

Ca

-In

clu

des

tho

sep

erso

ns

who

sp

ecif

ied

bo

than

inte

nt

tow

ork

and

inte

nd

ed

occu

pa

tio

n.

3 r:r

b-

Wiv

es,

no

tw

ork

ing

,ch

ild

ren

,o

ther,

and

tho

sep

erso

ns

wit

hu

nk

now

no

ccu

pa

tio

n.

III ...S

ou

rce:

Can

ada.

Dep

art

men

to

fM

anp

ower

and

Imm

igra

tio

n.

Imm

igra

tio

nse

att

sctc

s,

19

60

-19

72

..!"'

" ;r r:r 2 D

I -< .... \0 ......

eft

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

effects of the 1967 Canadian immigrationregulations. Likewise, Table 5 presentssummary data for immigration prior toand during the transition period of theUnited States 1965 Immigration Act andannual data for 1969-1972 (excellentdiscussions of disaggregated data appearin Keely, 1971, 1974).

Although Tables 4 and 5 are used toindicate probable differences and similari­ties in the immigration of manpower toCanada and the United States, the datain these tables are not strictly comparablebecause of the difference in tabulation bycalendar years (Canada) and fiscal years(United States). In addition, the occupa­tional classification schemes of the twocountries differ. While a conversion man­ual now exists which converts the detailedUnited States Dictionary of OccupationalTitles, 1965, to the Canadian Classifica­tion and Dictionary of Occupational Oc­cupations, 1971 (Canada, Manpower andImmigration, 1972) , the 1971 censusclassification differs drastically from thatof 1961, which is used in Canadian an­nual immigration reports. Furthermore,even if the appropriate conversions ex­isted, the failures of the Canadian Depart­ment of Manpower and Immigration andthe United States Immigration and Natu­ralization Service to publish detailed oc­cupational information prevent any dataadjustment.

As comparisons of Tables 4 and 5 willshow, the main differences in the occupa­tional classifications of the Canadian andU.S. immigration reports arise from theCanadian categories of transportationtrade, communication trade, commercialsales, and financial sales. Generally theselatter categories contain occupationswhich in the United States are classifiedas professional, managerial (excludingfarm), clerical, and sales although someblue collar occupations such as truck andtaxi drivers and delivery men also appearin the transportation category. Compari­sons of the 1961 Canadian census manual(Canada, Dominion Bureau of Statistics,

93

1961) to the United States 1965 Diction­ary of Occupational Titles (United StatesDepartment of Labor, 1965) suggest thatin general the numbers of Canadian immi­grants who are intending to enter profes­sional, managerial, clerical, and salesoccupations are underestimated relativeto the U.S. classification scheme.

Given the constraints of the availablepublished data, what are the occupationaltrends in recent immigration to Canadaand the United States? Focusing first uponthe differences in the occupational char­acteristics of immigrants to the two coun­tries, Tables 4 and 5 reveal that regardlessof year, a lower proportion of immigrantsto the United States declare both an intentto work and an intended occupation thando immigrants entering Canada. This cor­responds with other data collected on en­try categories of immigrants. For example,between 1966-1972, the majority (51percent) of all immigrants arriving in theUnited States entered under the relativepreference category whereas 42 percentof the immigrants entering Canada duringthat period were sponsored or nominatedimmigrants (U.S. Department of Justice,1966-1972, Table 7; Canada, Depart­ment of Manpower and Immigration, un­published tabulations).

Data on the occupational characteris­tics of recent Canadian immigrants (Table4) support the argument that Canadianimmigration is sensitive to expansions orslowdowns in the economy. Variations inthe volume and proportion of immigrantsdestined to the Canadian labor force inmanufacturing and professional activitiesparallel fluctuations in the economy, whichexpanded in the mid-1960's and sloweddown during the early and late 1960's(see Cowan, 1972).

A comparison of trends in occupationalcharacteristics of workers destined for theUnited States and for Canada after 1968and 1967, respectively, points out addi­tional similarities and differences in theselective processes of the two recent im­migration policies. In both countries, the

TA

BL

E5.

-Im

mig

rati

onto

the

Un

ited

Stat

esby

Per

iod

ofIm

mig

rati

on,

Wor

ker

Stat

us,

and

Inte

nded

Occ

upat

ion,

Fis

cal

Yea

r:19

53-1

912

10 .ro.

Perio

do

fIm

mig

rati

on

19

53

-19

65

19

66

-19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

Wor

ker

Sta

tus

and

Inte

nd

edO

ccu

pa

tio

nN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

umbe

rP

ercen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

tN

um

be

rP

ercen

t

To

tal

3,4

94

,55

41

00

.01

,13

9,4

60

10

0.0

35

8,5

79

10

0.0

37

3,3

26

10

0.0

37

0,4

78

10

0.0

To

tal

wo

rker

sa1

,62

2,0

13

46

.44

90

,28

94

3.0

15

5,7

53

43

.41

57

,18

94

2.1

15

3,1

22

41

.3T

ota

lo

ther

b1

,87

2,5

41

53

.66

49

,17

15

7.0

20

2,8

26

56

.62

16

,13

75

7.9

21

7,3

56

58

.7

To

tal

Wor

ker

s1

,62

2,0

13

10

0.0

49

0,2

89

10

0.0

15

5,7

53

10

0.0

15

7,1

89

10

0.0

15

3,1

22

10

0.0

Pro

fess

ion

al

28

2,5

43

17

.41

20

,44

42

4.6

40

,42

72

6.0

46

,15

12

9.4

48

,85

03

1.9

Ma

na

ger

ial

72,8

34

4.5

24

,18

34

.95

,35

63

.45

,82

93

.76

,25

44

.1C

leric

al

24

8,3

99

15

,35

8,6

07

12

.01

4,7

01

9.4

13

,81

88

.81

2,0

13

7.8

Sa

les

57

,55

13

.51

2,9

42

2.6

2,7

47

1.8

2,6

99

1.7

2,6

54

1.7

Cra

fts

24

6,2

87

15

.26

4,3

82

13

.12

6,6

78

17

.12

8,1

92

17

.92

1,9

08

14

.3O

per

ato

rs1

97

,59

61

2.2

57

,75

81

1.8

16

,58

81

0.6

18

,43

01

1.7

18

,84

41

2.3

Serv

ice,

no

n-p

riv

ate

ho

use

ho

ld1

22

,91

57

.65

3,3

83

10

.91

6,8

22

10

.81

0,4

79

6.7

10

,58

66

.9S

erv

ice,

priv

ate

ho

use

ho

ld1

06

,94

76

.63

9,7

84

8.1

10

,46

16

.79

,27

25

.91

2,1

82

8.0

Lab

or1

85

,50

91

1.4

34

,33

37

.01

3,0

62

8.4

14

,14

89

.01

3,1

37

8.6

Far

mm

an

ag

ers

38

,30

82

.48

,96

71

.83

,68

72

.43

,83

92

.41

,21

5.8

Far

mla

bo

rers

63

,12

43

.91

5,5

06

3.2

5,2

24

3.4

4,3

32

2.8

5,4

79

3.6

Inclu

des

perso

ns

who

sp

ecif

ied

bo

than

inte

nt

tow

ork

an

dth

eir

inte

nd

ed

occu

pa

tio

n.

b-

Inclu

des

wiv

es

no

tw

ork

ing

,ch

ild

ren

,th

ose

perso

ns

wit

hn

oo

ccu

pa

tio

n,

and

sta

tus

un

kn

ow

n.

So

urc

e:U

nit

edS

tate

sD

epa

rtm

ent

of

Ju

stL

ce

,A

nn

ua

lIm

mig

rati

on

Rep

orts

,1

95

3-1

97

2.

.usu

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

38

4,6

85

10

0.0

15

7,2

41

40

.92

27

,44

45

9.1

15

7,2

41

10

0.0

C 1""1

48

,88

73

1.1

3: 07

,74

84

.9liJ

12

,36

37

.9:u

2,5

58

1.6

> ."1

8,9

44

12

.0J:

19

,01

91

2.1

~-<

15

,40

39

.8<

10

,49

86

.70

15

,25

79

.72'

16

1.1

3 CD6

,40

34

.1... ~ ::::

II: 3 16 .. !'"

'

~ l:T .. I: Dl -< ... 10 '"en

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

proportion of workers intending mana­gerial positions has increased. As notedearlier, the proportion of immigrants toCanada who intend managerial occupa-

95

tions is underestimated relative to figuresfor the U.S. immigrants because somemanagerial occupations are included incommercial and financial sales categories.

TABLE 6.-United States-Destined Emigrants, Last Residing in Canada, and Canadian-DestinedEmigrants, Last Residing in the United States, Calendar Years: 1960-1972

Year

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

All Migrants

CanadianTotal Total MigrantsNumber Number to the

of of United StatesMigrants Migrants as Percentage

to the to Canada Dif ference of TotalUnited States from the (United States- Immigration

from Canada United Sta tes Canada) to Canada(1) (2) (3) (4 )

48,136 11,247 -36,889 46

45,209 11,516 -33,693 63

47,579 11,643 -35,936 64

51,512 11,736 -39,776 55

49,995 12,565 -37,430 44

49,656 15,143 -34,513 34

28,837 17,514 -11,323 15

38,854 19,038 -19,816 17

34,583 20,422 -14,161 19

28,892 22,785 -6,107 18

23,608 24,424 816 16

21,039 24,366 3,327 17

16,329 22,618 6,289 13

Migrants Destined for Labor Force

(5) (6) (7) (8)24,317 4,373 -19,944 46

23,213 4,181 -19,032 67

24,331 4,127 -20,204 66

25,811 4,180 -21,631 56

25,307 4,883 -20,424 45

24,782 6,414 -18,368 34

12,002 7,389 -4,613 12

17 , 163 8,239 -8,924 15

16,235 9,537 -6,698 17

13,476 10,184 -3,292 16

10,888 11,415 527 14

9,631 10,586 955 16

7,397 9,645 2,298 13

96 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

TABLE 6-Continued

Intended Professional and Technical Occupationa

CanadianTotal Total MigrantsNumber Number to the

of of United StatesMigrants Migrants as Percentage

to the to Canada Difference of TotalUnited States from the (United States- Immigration

from Canada United States Canada) to CanadaYear ( 9) (10) o.n (12)

1960 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

1961 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

1962 4,977 1,519 -3,458 65

1963 5,474 1,635 -3,839 60

1964 5,351 1,839 -3,512 48

1965 5,385 2,503 -2,882 34

1966 4,372 2,999 -1,373 19

1967 5,615 3,702 -1,917 19

1968 4,977 4,623 -354 18

1969 4,265 4,806 541 17

1970 3,639 4,888 1,249 18

1971 3,762 4,328 566 25

1972 2,633 3,708 1,075 19

a- The "Professional and Technical" label includes only the following occupationalcategories: accountants and auditors; architects, artists and art teachers; au­thors; chemists; chiropractors; clergymen (religious professionals); college tea­chers; dentists; dietitions and nutritionists; draftsmen; economists; editors andreporters; engineers; lawyers and judges (law professionals); librarians; musi­cians and music teachers; natural scientists--biologists, geologists and geophysi­cists (geologists), physicists; nurses--professional and students; optometrists;osteopaths; pharmacists; photographers; physicians and surgeons; social and welfareworkers (social workers); statisticians and actuaries; surveyors; teachers; tech­nicians--medical and dental; other engineering and physical science (science tech­nicians); therapists and other healers (therapists); veterinarians. The categoriesin parentheses are the Canadian occupational categories; they appear only whenCanadian and United States category titles differ slightly.

n.a.- Data are no~ available for all of the above categories.Source: Canada. Department of Manpower and Immigration. Immigration Statistics,

1962-1972. U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration and Naturalization Service.Immigrant Aliens Admitted to the U.S. Whose Country of Last Permanent ResidenceWas Canada by Occupation for Years Ending June 30, 1960-1972. Bulletins issuedJanuary 28, 1963; December 19, 1963; December 3, 1964; January 18, 1966; December21, 1966; January 29, 1968; February 10, 1969; January 28, 1970; January 6, 1971;subsequent bulletins, but undated.

The proportion of workers in these cate­gories also rose between 1968 and 1972.

However, immigration to the UnitedStates and Canada during the late 1960's

and early 1970's differs in the trends ob­served for professional and technical,clerical, and labor occupations. In theUnited States, the proportion of workers

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

intending clerical and sales occupationshas declined since 1969 (Keely, 1974),whereas the proportion of immigrantworkers in clerical occupations for Can­ada has risen. The latter increase reflectsthe employment opportunities for clerksin Canada (Cowan, 1972, p. 1). The de­mand for domestic servants in Canada isalso associated with the slight increase inservice workers. Immigration of domesticservants in the United States has been ahighly sensitive issue with the result thatimmigration of private household workershas declined (Keely, 1974).

The proportion of immigrants to Can­ada who declared a professional andtechnical occupation declined between1968-1972, regardless of whether theprofessional category alone is examined orwhether the professional category is en­larged by the inclusion of transportationand communication workers (many of

97

whom would be considered professionalsaccording to U.S. criteria). This declinecontrasts with the increasing proportionof professional workers immigrating to theUnited States during the late 1960's andearly 1970's. The increase in the propor­tion of highly qualified manpower enter­ing the United States is the obvious con­sequence of a policy that restricts theadmittance of those aliens who are notclosely related to U.S. citizens and resi­dents to the nonpreference category andto the third, sixth, and seventh prefer­ences. In contrast, the numerical and pro­portionate decline of professional workersto Canada in part reflects economic slow­down in the late sixties. Marr (1974c)argues that the attractiveness of Canada,particularly for European aliens, declinedduring this period as the rates of unem­ployment increased in Canada, and as the

TABLE 7.-Persons Intending Professional and Technical Occupations" as a Proportion of AllPersons Intending to Work, for Canadian-Destined U.S. Residents and for United States­

Destined Canadian Residents: 1962-1972

Canadian Residents U.S. ResidentsImmigrating to the Immigrating to

Year United States Canada

1962 20 371963 21 391964 21 381965 22 391966 36 411967 33 451968 31 481969 32 471970 33 431971 39 411972 36 38

a- See Table 6, footnote a.Source: Same as Table 6.

98 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

growth rates of income in Europe beganto rise above those in Canada.

While variations in the intended occu­pations of immigrants can be related toeconomic conditions in Canada (see Marr,1974a, 1974c; Parai, 1970, 1974b), pastmigration streams and governmental pol­icy also are factors which underlie thedecreasing proportion of highly qualifiedimmigrants during the late 1960's andearly 1970's. Since 1967 the proportionof immigrants who enter Canada in thesponsored, nominated, or refugee cate­gories has increased from one-third toover one-half (52 percent) in 1972 of allimmigrants. As discussed earlier (ChartI), sponsored and nominated immigrantsare relatives of persons already residingin Canada, and their numbers in part de­pend on past migration streams. Althoughpublished data are not available for in­tended occupation by entry status, it isgenerally conceded that sponsored andnominated immigrants are occupationallyless skilled than independent immigrants(Hawkins, 1972; Parai, 1974a). Thus,any increase in sponsored or nominatedimmigration would be associated with theentrance of immigrants intending blue col­lar or primary occupations.

Canadian immigration data also areconfounded by the provision in effectfrom 1966 to November 1972 which per­mitted nonimmigrants to apply for landedimmigrant status from within Canada. Re­jections of applications could be appealedwith the result that the Immigration Ap­peal Board, established in 1967, was facedwith a considerable backlog of appealswhich frequently were from people whowould not have received enough pointsto enter Canada as immigrants. The ap­peals often were granted on humanitariangrounds and reinforced the practice ofvisitors or students applying for immi­grant status from within Canada (Parai,1974a, pp. 24-26). Thus annual immi­gration data during the late 1960's andearly 1970's included those persons whohad been living in Canada for some time

prior to the processing of their applica­tions. To the extent that these personswould be of low educational and occupa­tional status, the annual occupational datawould be affected. Data for the UnitedStates are also confounded by the adjust­ment of resident alien status to immigrantstatus. The practice has increased duringthe late 1960's and 1970's with the resultthat in 1971 and 1972 aliens adjustingtheir status constituted 20 and 23 per­cent, respectively, of the total U.S. im­migrants.

In the late 1960's, the practice of aliensapplying for immigrant status from withinCanada posed an increasing problem. Notonly was the number of backlog casesoverburdening a small and understaffedImmigration Appeal Board, but the prac­tice undermined Canada's immigrationpolicy. Between 1967 and 1969, personsin Canada who had been granted immi­grant status were 6 and 12 percent re­spectively of the annual number of immi­grants. By 1971 and 1972, the proportionhad risen to 29 percent of all immigrants(Parai, 1974a, Table 6). Accordingly,the provision to apply from within Canadawas removed in November 1972. It re­mains an issue of increasing controversyin the United States.

MIGRATION BETWEEN THE UNITED

STATES AND CANADA

It is suggested that the occupationaland origin characteristics of recent immi­grants to Canada and the United Statesreflect the various regulations of their re­spective immigration policies, their immi­gration management, and the importanceof immigration for each country's econ­omy. These factors not only affect migra­tion to each country but also between thetwo countries. Although European mi­gration to Canada has numerically andproportionately declined during the late1960's, the decrease is partly replaced byincreased migration from the United States(Table 2). In contrast, the proportionand numbers of migrants to the United

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

States who were born in Canada is de­clining (Table 3). This decline can beattributed to a variety of factors (Hanes,1968; Timlin, 1951, pp. 82-87), amongthem the 1965 United States ImmigrationAct.

Migration between Canada and theUnited States has long intrigued Canadiansocial scientists. In the past, the issue wasexplored because emigration to the UnitedStates was large and reflected the use ofCanada as a stepping stone by would-beimmigrants (Hawkins, 1972, pp. 38-41;Rawlyk, 1962, p. 289). Extensive studieshave been conducted into the reasons forsuch movement, the size of the flow south­ward, and the rate of return emigrationfrom the United States to Canada (Comay,1971a, 1971b, 1971c, 1972; Johnson,1965; Pankhurst, 1966; Samuel, 1969;Scott and Grubel, 1969).

Emigration from Canada to the UnitedStates still contains a substantial propor­tion of foreign-born, and for a steadilydiminishing number, Canada continues toserve as an intermediate stopover (Can­ada, Statistics Canada, 1972, Table 10,p. 232). However, migration from Can­ada to the United States sharply decreasedafter 1966 while migration from theUnited States to Canada increased. In thelate 1960's some of the increased migra­tion from the United States reflected reac­tion to the Vietnam War policies. Esti­mates of draft dodgers and deserters (someof whom entered legally) in Canada rangefrom 30,000-60,000 (Killmer et aI., 1971;Williams, 1971). But, the continued posi­tion of the United States as a major send­ing country of migrants to Canada in the1970's suggests that resistance to the Viet­nam War does not fully account for theincreased U.S. emigration. Other factorscausing the increase could be the struc­ture of industrial society, which createsan international career system (Rich­mond, 1969, pp. 279-280), the expan­sion of U.S. subsidiary companies in Can­ada, and new patterns of recruitment by

99

Canadian employers (such as in the uni­versities) .

The increases and decreases in migra­tion between the two countries can beobserved for those persons born in Can­ada or in the United States (Tables 2 and3). The trends are also shown by data onthe yearly flows of all immigrants, thoseintending to work, and those intending towork as professionals between the UnitedStates and Canada by country of last resi­dence (Table 6), adjusted to calendaryears (for an analysis which does notadjust for differences in fiscal and calen­dar years of tabulation, see St. John-Jones,1973 ).

As a result of the changing volume ofmigration between the two countries, Can­ada experienced a population gain duringthe late 1960's and early 1970's as com­pared with rather substantial deficits dur­ing previous years (Table 6, columns 3,7, 11). Although a decline was occurringprior to 1966, Table 6 (columns 4, 8, 12)also shows that the loss of Canadian resi­dents to the United States relative to gainsfrom total yearly immigration decreasedsharply with the implementation of the1965 United States Immigration Act.Keely (1971) has suggested that the laborcertification requirements of the 1965American immigration policy depressedthe subsequent immigration of the Cana­dian-born. Data presented here suggestthat immigration of those persons last re­siding in Canada was depressed as well.

The steady decline in the number ofCanadian migrants to the United Statesis noteworthy because of the steady in­creases in immigrants from the UnitedStates' southern neighbor, Mexico. Thesetrends reflect the first come/first servedvisa-issuing procedures of the UnitedStates. Canadian emigrants must now taketheir place on the waiting list along withparents, spouses, and children of alreadyresident aliens from Mexico.

Although the number of migrants fromCanada to the United States has been de­clining, there has been an upgrading in

CHANGING IMMIGRATION POLICIES

Canadian migration to the United Stateshas been numerically curtailed and com­positionally altered as a result of the 1965United States Immigration Act. However,this trend may change in the near future.The United States House of Representa­tives has recently (September 26, 1973)passed a bill (H.R. 981) to extend thecountry ceiling assigned to the EasternHemisphere countries by imposing a20,000 annual limit on each of the West­ern Hemisphere countries as well. TheSenate Judiciary committee is now underpressure to increase the quotas to 35,000persons each for Canada and Mexico andto apply the preference system on a world­wide basis with an annual ceiling of300,000 (Hohl, 1974, p. 70). If the coun­try-specific ceilings are approved by theSenate, emigration from Canada to theUnited States may numerically rise.

However, labor force certification re-

100 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number I, February 1976

the quality of worker in response to the quirements remain. Although they may beUnited States 1965 Immigration Act. dropped for parents of U.S. adult aliensCensus data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, and citizens, the effect will be to insure1973b, Table 18) shows that native-born that all persons entering under the thirdCanadians who immigrated to the United and sixth preferences will be carefullyStates during 1965-1970 and who were selected. Thus, the current inflow of highlyemployed were of higher occupational skilled Canadian-born and Canadian resi­standing than those Canadian-born who dents will certainly continue.immigrated during the early 1960's. Simi- The proposed changes in the 1965 Im­larly, Table 7 shows that the proportion migration Act also will affect immigrationof highly skilled (selected professional to the United States from other countries.and technical categories) workers to the Immigration from Mexico will be numeri­United States from Canada rose from 22 cally halved from its 1972 level of 64,000percent of all workers in 1965 to 36 per- persons. Indeed the exchange of Canadiancent in 1966 and thereafter range between for Mexican immigrants may be the con­31 and 39 percent. In contrast, the pro- sequence of assigning quotas to Westernportion of highly skilled workers to Can- Hemisphere countries. Because the immi­ada from the United States ranges be- gration of parents of U.S. resident alienstween 37-42 percent with the exception may also be curtailed, immigration fromof immigration during 1967-1969. It thus such major sending countries as Mexico,appears that as a result of the 1965 United India, China, and the Philippines alsoStates Immigration Act there has been a will be occupationally and numericallyconvergence in the degree to which mi- affected.grants between Canada and the United While debate continues over revisionsStates are highly skilled recruits to the to the United States Immigration Act, newrespective economies. Canadian regulations were introduced on

February 21 and October 22, 1974. The1974 regulations, which were the re­sponses to increased immigration during1973 and 1974, represent further amend­ments to the 1952 Immigration Act. Toqualify as an immigrant, anyone who isnot entering as a sponsored immigrantmust now meet one of three conditions:a) to have a firm job offer; b) to havean occupation in which there are knownto be persistent vacancies in the area ofCanada where he/she is going; or c) re­ceive at least one of a possible ten pointsfor occupational demand. Credit for pre­arranged employment will be granted onlywhen it has been established, normallythrough a Canada Manpower Centre, thatno Canadian citizen or permanent resi­dent is available to fill the vacancy. Fur­thermore, if an applicant does not havesatisfactory evidence of bona-fide prear­ranged employment or is not going to adesignated occupation, ten points are de­ductedfrom the total (Office of the Min-

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

ister, Manpower and Immigration, Febru­ary 21 and October 22, 1974). Theseregulations upgrade the points assigned toregulation 9 (Chart I), make mandatorythe awarding of points in any of regula­tions 3, 6, or 9, and attach a penalty ifan applicant does not have arranged em­ployment or does not go to the designatedoccupation. Otherwise, the point grantingsystem set forth in Chart I remains thesame.

The changes in these regulations repre­sent a twofold attempt to control the moreproblematic aspects of nominated immi­gration and to link immigration morefirmly to manpower needs. Like sponsoredimmigrants (Hawkins, 1972, pp. 47-51),nominated immigrants to Canada tend tobe less highly skilled than other immi­grants and vulnerable to unemployment.The revised regulations will operate toreduce unemployment and in doing so willalter the occupational distribution of im­migrants in favor of those for which thereis a demand and a scarcity of Canadianlabor.

By granting credit for prearranged em­ployment only if a qualified Canadiancitizen or permanent resident is not avail­able, the regulations move closer to thelabor certification regulations found in the1965 United States Immigration Act.However, the new Canadian regulationsstill remain more flexible when comparedto the current and proposed U.S. immi­gration policy. Individuals who either failto receive credit for prearranged employ­ment or lack prearranged employmentmay still enter Canada if they receive 50or more points on the basis of other as­sessment criteria.

In addition to recent changes in Can­ada's immigration regulations, a new im­migration act may be forthcoming some­time during 1976 (Hawkins, 1974). Theintention of the Canadian government toreplace the often amended 1952 Immigra­tion Act with a new act has led to thepreparation of the Green Paper on Im­migration, which was tabled on February

101

3, 1975 in the Canadian House of Com­mons. The purpose of this four-volumepaper (Canada, Manpower and Immigra­tion, 1974a, 1974b, 1974c, 1974d) is toprovide a framework for public discussionon the nature of future immigration policy.In addition to reviewing past and presentCanadian immigration policy and trends,the paper also outlines four possible op­tions which could be incorporated intofuture immigration policy (Canada, Man­power and Immigration, 1974a, pp. 42­45) :

(a) Retain the present responsive system ofimmigration management abroad-a sys­tem that does not fix in advance thenumbers of visas to be issued over agiven time span.

(b) Gear the immigration program evenmore intensively than is the case atpresent to meet its economic and labormarket objectives.

(c) Develop and announce explicit targetsfor the number of visas to be issuedannually-on a global basis, regionally,and possibly post-by-post.

(d) Establish annually a global ceiling forthe total immigration movement, speci­fying the priorities to be observed inthe issuance of visas to different cate­gories of immigrants within that ceiling.

Option (b) is viewed as incompatible withretaining the nominated relatives categoryof immigrants, who are admitted partiallyon the basis of labor force criteria butwho tend to be unskilled and vulnerableto unemployment. Options (c) and (d)advocate a quota system.

With the exception of option (a) inrelation to options (c) and (d), the aboveoptions set forth in the Green Paper donot appear to be mutually exclusive, andany immigration policy which is legislatedin the near future may adopt elements ofeach. However, the emphasis which theGreen Paper gives to the problems createdby immigration for Canadian society andthe presentation of options (b) through(d) suggests that a future immigration

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 1961.Occupational Classification Manual, Censusof Canada, 1961. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

Canada. Manpower and Immigration. 19n.Conversion Tables for Titles from Dictionaryof Occupational Titles 1965 to CanadianClassification and Dictionary of Occupations,1971. Ottawa: Information Canada.

--. 19'74a. Immigration Policy Perspectives.Ottawa: Information Canada.

--. 1974b. The Immigration Program.Ottawa: Information Canada.

--. 1974c. Immigration and PopulationStatistics. Ottawa: Information Canada.

--. 1974d. Three Years in Canada. Ottawa:Information Canada.

This paper is a revision of a paper pre­sented in the Social Demography of Oc­cupations Section, American SociologicalAssociation annual meeting, Montreal,August 1974. Although the author re­mains responsible for all errors and omis­sions, comments made on earlier draftsby Charles B. Keely, John Porter, An­thony H. Richmond, and John de Vriesare gratefully acknowledged.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper has discussedthe similarities and differences in recentimmigration to Canada and the UnitedStates. The data show there has been anincreasing number of non-Europeans whoare immigrating to North America. Fur­thermore, as a result of the 1965 UnitedStates Immigration Act, the proportion ofworkers moving between Canada and theUnited States who are highly skilled isquite similar. However, it appears that theoccupational distribution of immigrantscoming to Canada is responsive to eco­nomic conditions in Canada, if not tothose abroad. This responsiveness pointsto a major difference between Canada andthe United States, notably the elasticityof immigration. In the United States, de­mand for entry appears higher than thesupply of visas issued, and because man­power requirements often can be met bythe native-born population, the labor cer­tification system of the 1965 United StatesImmigration Act functions as a gatekeeperrather than a mechanism for immigrant

102 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

policy may be less expansionary and more recruitment. In contrast, Canada's 1967gatekeeping in function than was the case immigration policy is not formally tied toduring the 1960's. The desirability of such a numerical ceiling; rather entry into Can­a future policy is discussed in the Green ada is determined by economic conditionsPaper, which observes that the Canadian which influence incentives to move as welllabor force now is receiving a substantial as the points awarded to aliens with nomi­number of well-trained recruits from the nated and independent status. However,maturing post-World War II birth co- a review of Canadian immigration policyhorts. At the same time, the volume of is now under way. Any policy changesimmigrants to Canada has risen in part which result from such a review will notbecause of the restriction of immigration be legislated for several years, but theby Great Britain, Australia, and the EEC discussion and proposals found in thecountries (Canada, Manpower and Immi- Green Paper suggest that future immigra­gration, 1974a, pp. 25-26). If public de- tion to Canada may be closely controlledbate concurs with the discussion and op- by manpower needs and by numericaltions found in the Green Paper, future ceilings. The adoption of such proceduresCanadian immigration policy will move would mean that in future years Canadiancloser to the restrictive stance adopted by and U.S. immigration policies may bethe United States 1965 Immigration Act. similar not only with respect to generalSuch convergence would represent a con- timing and admissions criteria, but alsotinuation of the historical similarities be- with respect to formal mechanisms usedtween the two countries with respect to to regulate immigration.immigration policies.

Canadian and U.S. Immigration Policies

Canada. Statistics Canada. 1972. Canada YearBook: 1972. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

---. 1974. 1971 Census of Population: TheOut of School Population. Volume 1, Part 5.Bulletin 1.5-3. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.

Comay, Y. 1971a. Determinants of ReturnMigration: Canadian Professionals in theU.S. Southern Economic Journal 37: 318-322.

---. 1971b. Influences on the Migration ofCanadian Professionals. Journal of HumanResources 6:333-344.

---. 1971c. Salaries, Employment Oppor­tunities and Migration of Engineers. Inter­national Migration 9: 80-88.

---. 1972. The Migration of Professionals:An Empirical Analysis. Canadian Journal ofEconomics 5: 419-429.

Cowan, A. W. 1972. Migration and the LabourForce, 1971. Canadian Manpower Review5:1-7.

Economic Council of Canada. 1965. TowardsSustained and Balanced Economic Growth.Second Annual Review. Ottawa: Queen'sPrinter.

Hanes, H. G. A. 1968. A Study of CanadianEmigration to the United States, 1947-1967.Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Kingston: Queen'sUniversity.

Hawkins, F. 1971. Canada's Immigration Re­examined. Race Today 3:369-371.

---. 1972. Canada and Immigration: PublicPolicy and Public Concern. Montreal: McGillUniversity Press.

---. 1974. Canadian Immigration Policyand Management. International MigrationReview 8: 141-153.

Hohl, D. G. 1974. Proposed Revisions of U.S.Western Hemisphere Immigration Policies.International Migration Review 8:69-76.

Jenness, R. A. 1974. Canadian Migration andImmigration Patterns and Government Pol­icy. International Migration Review 8: 5-22.

Johnson, H. G. 1965. The Economics of the"Brain Drain": The Canadian Case. Minerva3:299-311.

Kalbach, W. E. 1970. The Impact of Immigra­tion on Canada's Population. Ottawa: Queen'sPrinter.

Keely, C. B. 19'71. Effects of the ImmigrationAct of 1965 on Selected Population Charac­teristics of Immigrants to the United States.Demography 8: 157-169.

---. 1974. Effects of the Manpower Provi­sions of the U.S. Immigration Law. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Popu­lation Association of America, New YorkCity.

Killmer, Robert L., Robert S. Lecky, andDebrah S. Wiley. 1974. They Can't GoHome Again. Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press.

103

Lagace, M. D. 1968. Educational Attainmentin Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics.Special Labour Force Study No.7. Ottawa:Queen's Printer.

Loney, M. 1971. Canada's Immigration Policy.Race Today 3:303-304.

Marr, W. L. 1974a. Canadian ImmigrationPolicy in the 1960's. Unpublished paper.School of Business and Economics. WilfredLaurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.

---. 1974b. Post-War Canadian Immigra­tion and the Canadian Economy. Unpub­lished paper. School of Business andEconomics, Wilfred Laurier University, Wa­terloo, Ontario.

---. 1974c. The Importance of Disaggre­gation: Canadian Immigrant OccupationalGroups. Unpublished paper. School of Busi­ness and Economics: Wilfred Laurier Uni­versity, Waterloo, Ontario.

Moldofsky, N. 1972. Planning in Immigration?The Canadian Experience. Australian Out­look 26:67-82.

Pankhurst, K. V. 1966. Migration BetweenCanada and the United States. Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and SocialScience 367: 53-62.

Parai, L. 1965. Immigration and Emigration ofProfessional and Skilled Manpower Duringthe Postwar Period. Economic Council ofCanada. Special Study No. 1. Ottawa:Queen's Printer.

---. 1970. Canadian and Australian Post­War International Immigration. Presented atthe annual meeting of the Canadian Eco­nomics Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

---. 1974a. Canada's Immigration Policy1962-1973. Unpublished paper. Departmentof Economics. University of Western On­tario, London.

---. 1974b. International Migration intoAustralia and Canada, 1946-1971. Unpub­lished manuscript. Department of Economics:University of Western Ontario, London.

Porter, J. 1967. Social Change and the Aimsand Problems of Education in Canada. Edu­cation 6:101-105.

---. 1971. Post-Nationalism, Post-Industrial­ism and Post Secondary Education. CanadianPublic Administration 14:32-50.

Rawlyk, G. A. 1962. Canada's ImmigrationPolicy, 1945-1962. Dalhousie Review 42:287-299.

Richmond, Anthony H. 1967. Post-war Immi­grants in Canada. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

---. 19'69. Sociology of Migration in In­dustrial and Post-Industrial Societies. Pp.238-281 in J. A. Jackson (ed.), Migration.New York: Cambridge University Press.

104 DEMOGRAPHY, volume 13, number 1, February 1976

Samuel, T. J. 1969. Migration of Canadiansto the U.S.A.: The Causes. InternationalMigration 8:106-116.

Schwartz, A. P. 1966. The Role of the StateDepartment in the Administration and En­forcement of the New Immigration Law. An­nals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science 367:93-104.

Scott, A., and H. G. Grube!. 1969. The Inter­national Movement of Human Capital:Canadian Economists. Canadian Journal ofEconomics 2:375-388.

St. John-Jones, L. W. 1973. The Exchange ofPopulation Between the United States ofAmerica and Canada in the 1960s. Inter­national Migration 11:32-51.

Timlin, M. F. 1951. Does Canada Need MorePeople? Toronto: Oxford University Press.

---. 1965. Canada's Immigration Policy:

An Analysis. International Migration 3:52-72-

U.S. Census Bureau. 1973a. Census of Popula­tion. 1970. Subject Reports. Final ReportPC(2)-5B, Educational Attainment.

---. 1973b. Census of Population: 1970.Subject Reports. Final Report PC(2)-IA,National Origin and Language.

U.S. Department of Justice. 1966-1972. AnnualReports of Immigration and NaturalizationService. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. Department of Labor. 1965. Dictionaryof Occupational Titles, 1965. Volume 2.Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Docu­ments.

Williams, Roger N. 1971. The New Exiles:American War Resisters in Canada. NewYork: Liveright Publishers.