The U.S. immigration debate is a mess. It’s different in Canada.

Canada’s Liberals and Conservatives have competing priorities, but both parties take a pragmatic approach.

ALEXANDER KUSTOV

Much of the U.S. immigration discussion devolved into a bizarre investigation of missing pets in Springfield, Ohio, last month. This was a particularly ridiculous episode in American presidential debate history. But former President Trump’s accusations about Haitian immigrants living and working legally in Springfield also highlighted a frustrating feature of the U.S. immigration conversation.

Immigration policy is highly complex, to be sure. But observers have described the contours of debate in the United States on immigration as “sensationalist,” and in need of greater attention to policy details. America’s last comprehensive immigration reform effort dates back to the Reagan administration. There’s recent evidence of bipartisan areas of agreement, though current immigration policies have significant areas to address. “Surface-level” discussions and unhelpful platitudes have not aided progress on the issue. 

For those who study immigration, here’s a big frustration. We don’t actually have to look far to see a very different discourse – just across our northern border, in fact. While many high-income democracies struggle with divisive immigration debates, Canada has maintained a more policy-focused discourse. Canada, a country with high levels of immigration, may offer lessons for what a more productive policy debate could look like in the United States.

Immigration in Canada 

Canada has built a reputation for welcoming immigrants in a sustainable way. Legal permanent immigrants make up nearly one-quarter of the population – one of the highest shares among industrialized nations, and roughly twice that of the United States. Over the past decade, Canada has granted permanent residency to over 300,000 foreigners per year, equivalent to about 1% of its population. The U.S. population, in contrast, has only grown by about 0.3% due to legal immigration during this timeframe. Even when accounting for unauthorized immigration, Canada’s per capita intake remains much higher than that of the United States. 

A number of countries see Canada’s immigration system as a model, particularly the prioritization of skilled workers using a points-based system that factors in education and work experience. Canada admits immigrants mainly through selective economic pathways, but also has extensive family sponsorship and humanitarian programs.

Even the Conservative Party seems on board

According to their most recent platform, the Conservative Party of Canada combines security with pragmatism and support for immigrant integration. While Canada’s Conservatives still prioritize the system’s selectiveness and the enforcement of immigration laws, the party acknowledges the importance of relatively high admissions of foreign workers, along with family reunification programs, to help immigrants contribute positively to society. 

The Conservative’s platform explicitly aims to ensure “Canada is successful in encouraging skilled immigrants and their spouses and children to make Canada their destination of choice.” Jasraj Singh Hallan, a Conservative member of parliament and frequent critic of how the Liberal Party handles immigration, summed up: “Canada’s Conservative Party is a pro-immigration party and Canada benefits from an efficient and effective immigration system.”

At the same time, the Liberal Party, arguably, advocates for even a more open and welcoming approach to immigration. Liberals emphasize increasing immigration levels and building a fairer system. In the 2021 platform, for instance, the party promised to shorten processing times for family reunification, introduce electronic applications, and issue visas to spouses and children abroad while their permanent residency applications are processed.

Canada has faced some headwinds

This is not to say that Canada has not had its challenges. The post-covid economic recovery has been slow, and the country faces ongoing issues like increasing application backlogs and housing strains in local communities. Public attitudes have recently soured, as they did in the U.S. Many Canadians also talk about a growing anti-immigration “backlash.” And Canada, like other countries, has reportedly cracked down on the numbers of international students and temporary residents. 

From recent headlines along these lines, one might also assume the public discussion on immigration in Canada is perhaps not that different from that in the United States. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre called for cutting visas for foreign students and temporary workers, blaming the Liberal Party for wrecking Canada’s immigration system. And current polls give Poilievre’s party a good chance of beating Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party in Canada’s next election. Not surprisingly, as a result, even the Liberal leadership now acknowledges the need to revise the target numbers for admitting permanent residents. 

The key differences between Canada and the U.S.

To date, however, none of Canada’s mainstream parties seem eager to dismantle the current system of high-level immigration. While political debates on immigration do exist, these are generally civil and focused on policy specifics impacting current residents. Sensationalist claims about immigrants are the exception. Even if Canada implements all the restrictions proposed by both Conservatives and Liberals in response to today’s challenges, it would still remain much more open to immigration than the United States and Europe.

There is no doubt that the civility of Canada’s immigration debate partly reflects domestic political coalitions and electoral incentives. The anti-immigration Reform Party merged with the Conservative Party more than 20 years ago to avoid splitting the right-wing vote. Since then, the Conservatives have found it beneficial to appeal to immigrant voters and have been quite successful in doing so.

Global surveys suggest Canadians have an unusual amount of trust in their government on immigration. They also seem to have a better understanding of their immigration system than Americans. But few, if any, experts believe that Canadians’ general approval of the official immigration approach or their policy knowledge resulted from the extensive campaigns by pro-immigration advocates. Instead, it’s likely many Canadians see the robust immigration system, which prioritizes admitting skilled immigrants while adapting to changing economic realities, as explicitly and straightforwardly advancing the national interest. 

But what about illegal immigration?

Of course, it’s easy to think that Canada’s immigration debate might be different, if illegal immigration was a larger concern. Canada, unlike the United States, doesn’t share a southern border with a region experiencing high levels of emigration. While geography does play a role, it’s important to note that the Canadian government has responded harshly to even relatively minor levels of unauthorized migration in recent years. 

In other words, a key point is that Canada’s immigration system is intuitively designed to serve the country’s needs, which includes maintaining border security. This approach, in turn, fosters public confidence and perceptions of control of the system. And the high levels of public confidence reduce the political incentive to exploit immigration issues for partisan gain. 

What the U.S. can learn from Canada

Canada’s experience demonstrates that governments can maintain productive immigration policy debates, treating immigration as any other public policy and implementing pro-immigration policies that benefit society as a whole. As some commentators also note, there are no inherent reasons why the U.S. Republican Party can’t similarly start appealing to immigrant voters, many of whom hold conservative values.

As I document in my upcoming book, by focusing on specific policies that have broad public benefits, it’s possible to break the cycle of negative perceptions of immigration and political exploitation of this issue. By learning from Canada’s example, the United States can foster a more constructive immigration debate, addressing legitimate concerns and ensuring that immigration is orderly and serves the U.S. national interest.

Alex Kustov is a 2024-2025 Good Authority fellow.