Fennec wrote:"In terms of the impact of immigration to economy-wide wage levels, Statistics Canada estimates that for every 10% increase in the population from immigration, wages in Canada are now reduced by 4% on average (with the greatest impact to more skilled workers, such as workers with post-graduate degrees whose wages are reduced by 7%)."
The paper is examining the short-run consequences of immigration. Cohen-Goldner and Paserman (2011) approach the question using the same empirical design as applied to Israel and find that the consequences for workers dissipated across the medium- and long-run. I would suggest that this was a result of firms returning to the equilibrium capital-labor ratio. I would be cautious about relying too heavily on the approach used in those studies, though. They seem to only take into account the consequences for wages as a result of competition with immigrants within the same education-experience cell. If immigrants from one education-experience cell compliment another, that goes unrecognized.
This is especially problematic when you realize that incumbents tend to re-specialise when immigrants enter the labor market. Peri and Sparber (2011) find that in the United States, when high-skill immigrants enter the market, high-skill incumbents re-skill in more communication-intensive tasks, and Foged and Peri (2016) find that in Denmark, low-skill workers re-skilled into less manually-intensive occupations. In both cases, incumbents earned higher incomes as a result.
What's more, high-skill immigration seems to - at a pure economic level - improve the living standards of basically every other group through lower prices, increased output, etc. so I'm not sure what the specific issue is here, approaching it from the 'save-the-poor' approach being taken: Your paper fails to demonstrate, in and of itself, that the welfare of incumbents falls.
Fennec wrote:[...] indigenous population [...]
I always find this to be such a curious turn of phrase to describe modern native communities.
What is your opinion on Free Trade and Interventionism as a foreign policy strategy.
If you agree with the former, but not the latter, then you are a Libertarian [Conservative].
If you agree with the former and agree with the latter, then you are a neo-Libertarian [Conservative].
If you disagree with the former, and disagree with the latter, then you are a Paleoconservative.
If you disagree with the former, but not with the latter, then you are a probably closest to what guides Trump.