Education of newcomers to Canada (moved from transport)

[afransen]

I knew a lot of 'bananas' (though I've never really heard anyone use a term like that) in university, which was nice as whites were the minority, and many of the visible minority students only socialized within their ethnicity. It's a shame that people think that becoming more 'Canadian' means that you are giving up your cultural heritage, to the point where 'whitewashed' is used as a pejorative.

 

[jenny_zhang]

It's a shame that people think that becoming more 'Canadian' means that you are giving up your cultural heritage, to the point where 'whitewashed' is used as a pejorative.

I agree. I certainly haven't suddenly shed any ounce of my heritage. My boyfriend hasn't completely forgotten his culture either. It's a shame but it's all due to the cultural fragmentation of this country, well, especially this city. Like it or not, that's "multiculturalism" for you.

I don't think many people actually used the word "banana" a lot, haha. And I've heard a lot of these terms for different ethnicities, it's kind of amusing. Although "whitewash" is indeed the common term. I used to ask people that if acting Canadian is so bad, why live here in the first place?

When I was in university I tried hard not to "ethnic cluster" but at the same time, when you're entering that new scary environment, it's easy to just be lazy with socializing and just join one of those ethnic clubs to make friends.

 

[cacruden]

I fail to see why anyone would feel the need to lose their culture. There is a difference between integrating and rejecting the heritage and discarding some of your own past. In fact in some cases I could see the need to throw away their past as a character flaw. Are they ashamed of it? Are they ashamed of who their parents are? Those are some of the questions that go through my head. When people move here I expect them to integrate, and if they have problems, their children will integrate, and by the third generation - the country of their grandparents is foreign - although they may be curious about their family heritage - it does not necessarily "tug at your heartstrings". When I was working in the UK for a year, I visited Scotland and I was talking to my mother - and she said something to the effect that does it tug at your heartstrings, and I said not really - I find it interesting - it is part of my heritage - but I am not Scottish.

Before new immigrants to Canada arrived here, they lived decades in their country of origin, all of their family is from there, and of course all of your friends up until that point were from your country of origin. Just because you like/love another country, and want to live their, and become a citizen of that country - does not mean that you can or should reject everything that you were.

If I had stayed in the United States, and become a citizen - I still would have carried the fact that I am also Canadian. In fact some of my american co-workers thought it was funny, if they mentioned someone or something that had a Canadian input to it, I would mention it (i.e. actors or news personnel or sports figures or even inventions). I could not resist, even if I were to immigrate to another country, my own history follows me. When I was returning to San Diego, I was taking a taxi from the airport and he asked me where I was from/coming from - and I mentioned Toronto. He asked how long I had lived/worked in the US - and I said 2 years. His then mentioned something that I thought was funny - he said - people that come other countries recently - will mention which US city they are now living in and you really have to push to get them to tell you where they immigrated from. He says Canadians - they may have lived here 40 years, but when you ask them where they are from - they are from Canada.

 

[Admiral Beez]

When we emigrated to Canada in the 1970s we didn't need ESL or settlement assistance, nor did we concern ourselves with having our credentials recognized, etc. etc. Indeed, we were the perfect immigrants, being from England we already had the language, arrived with some savings, my Dad's credentials and experience were immediately recognized and he had a good job and housing before we landed, bought our house within a couple of years and we've never needed any social assistance beyond the usual government programs of education, health care, never asked the nation, education or laws of the country to accommodate or change for our needs, etc. Now my Dad is a partner in a large firm, big house, nice car, etc. All his kids have their own houses, new cars, nice jobs, good, prosperous lives.

Today's immigrants to Canada arrive not speaking the language, with no money, nearly worthless (in the eyes of Canadian business) credentials, no housing pre-arranged beyond being stuffed with twenty other countrymen or relatives in crowded apartments or inner-suburban housing, demand special education costs (ESL), accommodation of their cultural needs (sharia law, anyone?), and add massively to our poverty and welfare rolls. If we had continued to bring immigrants from England, much of this could have been abated. Many of today's immigrants to Canada do not, IMO, choose Canada because of its appeal, but because it is a last resort escape from their otherwise dire and awful circumstances of poverty. With the English immigrants, it was much different...sure the home country was in trouble after the war, but my uncles, aunts, grandparents and cousins have all prospered well, but they chose Canada not as a last - no one else will take us - resort, but as a place a little like home.

 

[cacruden]

^I am curious about how you see immigrants - do all, most, half, minority -- fall into the the above view of yours? Are the groups you talk about classified as Skilled Immigrants, Refugees, or Refugees (by name only - i.e. came here declared that they are a refugee - but are not persecuted at home).

You know that most of the earliest immigrants to Canada had little or no money (if you are well off - you are less likely to immigrate) i.e. the early scottish resettlements - most were farm labourers that they were moving off of Scottish lands so that they could raise something more worthwhile - sheep.

Oh, BTW, do you have some western looking Syrians living next to you?

 

[ganjavih]

If we had continued to bring immigrants from England, much of this could have been abated.

It's not that Canada stopped bringing in immigrants from England, it's that they're no longer interested in coming. Europe is in better shape now than it was many decades ago... there's less incentive to leave.

 

[cacruden]

^ That is a pretty accurate response. I remember at one point (before Maggie or BM vs AM) seeing a poll where people responded that given the option 60% would immigrate elsewhere..... but things improved, and that dropped considerably - and only a subset of those would choose Canada over elsewhere. Besides -- my mother told me when going to England not to get marry and English girl - we have too much bad blood in our line already, but Scottish is quite acceptable (as well as Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French --- just no English ).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Besides -- my mother told me when going to England not to get marry and English girl - we have too much bad blood in our line already, but Scottish is quite acceptable (as well as Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French --- just no English ).

There's a great book named How the Scotts Built the Modern World, or something like that, and while it's much tongue in cheek, it is very informative about the Scottish legacy around the world.

 

[jenny_zhang]

Oh, BTW, do you have some western looking Syrians living next to you?

I think there is some good points and dumb ones buried in Beez' mini-rant there. For one thing, it is definitely true that today's immigrants don't have much love for Canada as a nation. It's just an easy place to go where they will bend over backwards to accommodate you, free health care, good education, etc. There was a news story about HKers taking advantage of Canadian immigration. Of course where Beezy is wrong is that English immigrants speaking the language weren't all of the immigrants to Canada before some magical switch was pressed and suddenly the foreigners started flooding in. In reality there were not only many non-English Europeans, but also plenty of non-whites, East Asians, East Indians, whose mostly well-educated parents brought them to Canada when assimilation wasn't just a "choice".

But my opinion remains the same: the root of the problem is multiculturalism over assimilation...

I also think that Canada accepts too many refugees. While it's a noble idea, you have to be realistic and realizes that the quality of the country goes down if you bring in too many unskilled refugees who initially, at least, drain more than they give back. It's like having a ship. It's noble to rescue lost passengers, but if they don't have any skills to help, but you still have to feed them, then the quality of your ship is going down...

And anyways, considering how little valued foreign-earned skills are in Canada, I'm not surprised that educated foreigners choose to go to America where they can make 1.5 times the income of the national population (and do).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Of course where Beezy is wrong is that English immigrants speaking the language weren't all of the immigrants to Canada before some magical switch was pressed and suddenly the foreigners started flooding in.

I never said that. Canada's first immigrants were Siberian-natives crossing the land-bridge, later on Vikings, and then a huge mix of Europeans. My wife's Ukrainian family has been in Canada since before the First World War. I have a Sikh co-worker who's family came to Canada in the late 1800s.

 

[cacruden]

Actually, there were five waves of genetic descendants that entered North America, 4 from asia, 1 from around current day France (based on genetic research and probability). The current guess on how the french entered was they probably skimmed along the edge of the ice shield during the ice age (which may be the reason why my sister's ex had non-dark eyes) - and yet was a full blooded native - which is not uncommon in his tribe. Immigration is not new. The North American arrowheads are very close to those used in France 16,000 years ago.

I would not count the vikings - they did not really stay - so they were just tourists

 

[prosperegal]

I would not count the vikings - they did not really stay - so they were just tourists

Ehh...I'd say that they were expats, considering they set up a community and all...

 

[cacruden]

Ehh...I'd say that they were expats, considering they set up a community and all...

Sorry, no Vikings....

My last name means.... "Killer/Slaughter of Danes"

 

[Admiral Beez]

I never said that. Canada's first immigrants were Siberian-natives crossing the land-bridge, later on Vikings, and then a huge mix of Europeans. My wife's Ukrainian family has been in Canada since before the First World War. I have a Sikh co-worker who's family came to Canada in the late 1800s.

My point here is that Canada's historic immigrants received no ESL or much settlement assistance, but thrived. Canada has changed since then of course, and today unskilled labour is not likely to succeed as well as those Ukrainian farmers that arrived in the early 1900s, for example. The problem is, Canada continues to score the unfinished/developing world for its poor and unskilled, and then wonders why they have trouble finding early success as immigrants.

It's almost impossible to immigrant to Australia if you do not pass the English test before you arrive in Australia. That would be a good place to start. Second, a true means test, and an enforced penalty of sponsor default would help. Lastly, an immediate end of extended family reunification for anything beyond your own kids and spouse. If you want to see your parents, fly home...that's what we did, flying back to England every couple of years to visit family.

 

[ganjavih]

The problem is, Canada continues to score the unfinished/developing world for its poor and unskilled,

Word to the wise... people who overuse over-the-top rhetoric in their arguments often aren't taken that seriously.