With the benefit of hindsight, how to change Canada's immigration policy?

[b13]

With the benefit of hindsight, if you could go back to the late 1960s through to today, how would you change Canada's immigration system?

I'd start by looking at our most successful immigrant communities, such as African, British, Italian, Greek, American (of all sorts), Indian, Chinese, Sikh, eastern European, Jewish (from all origins), and other communities that in the immediate arrival group or in one generation are usually very well integrated, economically successful, entrepreneurial, well educated and with limited criminal or social problems, and make sure I got more of these.

Next I would look at our least successful immigrant communities, where we have generations of social problems such as pan-generational poverty, higher than average criminal involvement, economic failures, and restrict immigration from those countries. Jamaica and other Caribbean (not all) countries would be prime examples. It seems that a week doesn't go by in Toronto where some son of Caribbean-born immigrants is not involved in violent crime in Toronto. The cause of this trouble is definitely poverty and family breakdown, and has nothing to do with race, as Canada's African immigrants are doing well. However, if we can avoid bringing the parents of these future criminals to Canada, we can avoid the problem all together.

Added to the mix, I'd follow Australia's later example by required pre-screening for English (or French), and limit family reunification. I would also enact a "first safe haven" policy for refugee claimants, meaning that you must claim refugee status in the first UN Refugee Charter signatory that you land in, and can not shop around for the best deal, by for example, landing in the US from Haiti (or wherever) but then claiming status in Canada.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh. As an immigrant myself I am very grateful to this country for taking us in, and have ensured to show that gratitude by working hard to contribute back. In hindsight how would you adjust Canada's immigration policy from the late 1960s to today.

how the fuck can you say it doesn't seem a week goes by that the son of a Caribbean immigrant isn't involved in crime? Do you think its only Caribbean immigrants creating crime in Toronto?? The only reason why you have this mindset is because the media emphasizes on the gun problem which unfortunately is associated with African Canadians but they are not the only ones with guns and not the only ones committing crimes. How many burglary's happen in this city that are from Asian, European, Latin descent that is not broadcast on tv?? Every nationality in the GTA commits crime whether its categorized as big or small its still crime. So don't fucking tell anyone that Caribbeans are committing crime every week in Toronto. And they are not the only one living under the poverty line because if im not mistaken when you take a walk in downtown Toronto how many of those homeless people look like their from the "Caribbean"? Not many eh. Every race has people who are struggling and every race has people who are doing really well. Don't come on this forum with your bias opinion which we all know here that you really want to say black but trying to hide it by saying "Caribbean" and "Jamaican". Look at all those kid napping in Toronto who were those committed by? I thought so, what about that murder in the Greyhound bus a couple weeks ago..who was that committed by? I thought so..do your home work before you go and start criticizing other races you fucking bastard because last time i checked if it wasn't for these immigrants coming here there would be massive labour shortages, an even greater strain on the health-care system without those extra tax dollars, less culture and festivals for this country and less tourism which is greatly contributed to those immigrants friends and family visiting them. this thread should be closed because there is nothing hear to discuss other than Canada is a nation full of immigrants who are proud to reside here and work here and respect this nation for the opportunity it has given them.

 

[lordmandeep]

the thing is that other immigrant groups have gone into more white collar crime or more money based crimes rather then violent criminal behavior.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:
Immigrants are already subjected to Canadian law. Any practices congruent with that is not the purview of the government.

"Multiculturalism" is indeed the purview of the government, and for me that is exactly what this discussion is about (i.e. not about diversity or whether we need or should respect immigrants etc.) All the while Multiculturalism remains an active state-funded, government policy we have the right and obligation to question whether it is ultimately right for Canada or not.

Beyond that, just what does our "past traditions" mean, exactly, and where do we stop? It could range from our institutions (which is by and large respected by all) all the way to prohibition of Sunday shopping - something that even modern Canadians won't stand for.

What Canada needs is a shared mythology for its citizens to embrace. Indeed I believe almost every nation/society/tribe on this earth has one, and diversity will only function, in the long run, if there is an overall unity among citizens, imo. Multiculturalism has been fairly uncompromising in its refusal of this, with the exception of self-promoting itself (Multiculturalism) as the only legitimate response to the question of identity.

One can't even define with Canadian ethnocentrism is, beyond some vague myth and the general belief in peace, order and good government - something immigrants haven't changed, really. In fact, considering how many immigrants comes from mutually antagonistic nations, ethnic and religious groups (e.g. Greeks and Turks; Indians and Pakistanis; Jews and Muslims, etc), I think Canada is doing a pretty good job allowing people to retain their various identities while at the same time, detoxifying the more vulgar aspects. You might not like it, but that's VERY Canadian.

AoD

On the one hand you state that there is no such legitimate notion of what Canada is (beyond Multiculturalism, I'm assuming you to mean), yet then go on to state that I might not like something that is in your opinion very 'Canadian'. Sigh. Well which is it, Canadian ethos or not?...

Your last comment is enlightening though. At heart you are saying that Canada was nothing before the arrival of Multiculturalism in 1971, that the country's history, heritage and traditions - its very mythology, in short - stand for nothing, save the potential for discrimination against newcomers. This is a very unfortunate position for a nation to take. It disrespects all that the nation has evolved to be, the very sum of its history in fact, and the very reasons that many immigrants of all different backgrounds come to it in the first place

As a first generation Canadian, and one of non-white/anglo or franco background I think Keith says it well:

I think multi-culturalism as a policy should be debated. I doubt Pierre Trudeau intended the formation of ethnic ghettos when he promoted this policy. I doubt he imagined that someone could live their entire life in Canada with a minimal knowledge of English or French and survive in their little ethnic enclave. My parents moved here for the quality of life, and to escape the old worlds discriminatory attitudes (try being Catholic in India), and increasingly we are finding that many immigrants from the old country haven't dropped the old ways or attitudes and have a cavalier attitude towards developing a sense of community or civic pride in their neighbourhoods.

Somewhere in all of this there is an affirming ethos for the nation that all Canadians can take pride in, imo.

 

[Dichotomy]

how the fuck can you say it doesn't seem a week goes by that the son of a Caribbean immigrant isn't involved in crime? Do you think its only Caribbean immigrants creating crime in Toronto?? The only reason why you have this mindset is because the media emphasizes on the gun problem which unfortunately is associated with African Canadians but they are not the only ones with guns and not the only ones committing crimes. How many burglary's happen in this city that are from Asian, European, Latin descent that is not broadcast on tv?? Every nationality in the GTA commits crime whether its categorized as big or small its still crime. So don't fucking tell anyone that Caribbeans are committing crime every week in Toronto. And they are not the only one living under the poverty line because if im not mistaken when you take a walk in downtown Toronto how many of those homeless people look like their from the "Caribbean"? Not many eh. Every race has people who are struggling and every race has people who are doing really well. Don't come on this forum with your bias opinion which we all know here that you really want to say black but trying to hide it by saying "Caribbean" and "Jamaican". Look at all those kid napping in Toronto who were those committed by? I thought so, what about that murder in the Greyhound bus a couple weeks ago..who was that committed by? I thought so..do your home work before you go and start criticizing other races you fucking bastard because last time i checked if it wasn't for these immigrants coming here there would be massive labour shortages, an even greater strain on the health-care system without those extra tax dollars, less culture and festivals for this country and less tourism which is greatly contributed to those immigrants friends and family visiting them. this thread should be closed because there is nothing hear to discuss other than Canada is a nation full of immigrants who are proud to reside here and work here and respect this nation for the opportunity it has given them.

Is that your learned opinion? LOL

 

[lordmandeep]

Lets all go back to 50's.

Everything and everyone was so clean and pure back then...

 

[Tewder]

Ah yes, they say the 1850s were wonderful

 

[syn]

What Canada needs is a shared mythology for its citizens to embrace. Indeed I believe almost every nation/society/tribe on this earth has one, and diversity will only function, in the long run, if there is an overall unity among citizens, imo. Multiculturalism has been fairly uncompromising in its refusal of this, with the exception of self-promoting itself (Multiculturalism) as the only legitimate response to the question of identity.

Nationalism in that form is outdated.

The idea behind Multiculturalism is to bring people together through their differences. Classic nationalism seeks to induce a homogeneity that doesn't really reflect the world anymore.

Many people seem to view Multiculturalism as an enemy of Canadian culture, when it's really an integral part of it. I'm sure as years go by it will give rise to new forms of music, storytelling, etc. which could all be described as uniquely Canadian.

Your last comment is enlightening though. At heart you are saying that Canada was nothing before the arrival of Multiculturalism in 1971, that the country's history, heritage and traditions - its very mythology, in short - stand for nothing, save the potential for discrimination against newcomers. This is a very unfortunate position for a nation to take. It disrespects all that the nation has evolved to be, the very sum of its history in fact, and the very reasons that many immigrants of all different backgrounds come to it in the first place


Somewhere in all of this there is an affirming ethos for the nation that all Canadians can take pride in, imo.

Why can't Canadians take pride in Multiculturalism?

Canada has a history and culture that developed before Multiculturalism, of course, but I'm not sure why it has to be an instance of one or the other.

Canadian culture is evolving and it appears there are people who simply don't know how to deal with it without recalling some sort of ideal period in Canadian history which never really existed.

 

[theowne]

The idea behind Multiculturalism is to bring people together through their differences.

Isn't happening. Most of the cultural communities in Toronto are fragmented and divided. Promoting a unified national "essence" (whatever word you want to use) promotes diversity, promoting multiculturalisms and differences results in separation. It's as easy as comparing the Chinese community in Britain with the one in Canada. One is somewhat integrated, while one is intensely separate.

For all the glorified advertising about how Toronto is so cross-cultural and diverse, I think if an immigrant from somewhere in the world came here in hope of having lots of cross-cultural interaction and diverse environment, he'd be sorely disappointed.

Canada has a history and culture that developed before Multiculturalism, of course, but I'm not sure why it has to be an instance of one or the other.

Because the country, for the most part, was built and turned to what it is now on its old roots. Multiculturalism is a more recent invention and only began to come into existence after Canada was already "good", so to speak.

 

[syn]

Isn't happening. Most of the cultural communities in Toronto are fragmented and divided. Promoting a unified national "essence" (whatever word you want to use) promotes diversity, promoting multiculturalisms and differences results in separation. It's as easy as comparing the Chinese community in Britain with the one in Canada. One is somewhat integrated, while one is intensely separate.

I would say it's happening in Toronto. There are certainly groups of people from similar backgrounds who spend most of their time together, but I find there to be more and more mixing as time goes on.

Is it any wonder that interracial marriages are on the rise? I don't think it's because people are just sticking with those of their own background.

I'd also say in the grand scheme of things Multiculturalism isn't that old. While it's common in the major cities of Canada, there are many areas where it's more theory than practice.

People seem to expect it to work perfectly, but the reality is that things evolve over time. All things considered I'd say it's going quite smoothly so far.

Because the country, for the most part, was built and turned to what it is now on its old roots. Multiculturalism is a more recent invention and only began to come into existence after Canada was already "good", so to speak.

The old country was built by people of many different backgrounds - unfortunately one was predominant over the others.

The old Canada is gone and isn't coming back. I agree that immigration isn't perfect, but people hoping for an 18th century version of nationalism to take root are stuck in the past.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

"Multiculturalism" is indeed the purview of the government, and for me that is exactly what this discussion is about (i.e. not about diversity or whether we need or should respect immigrants etc.) All the while Multiculturalism remains an active state-funded, government policy we have the right and obligation to question whether it is ultimately right for Canada or not.

Ah ha, except that multiculturalism is more than just something that is state-funded. You make it sound as if it is above all else, something that is just about government funding. Question it as a government policy is your right and obligation, but then again, so is questioning the motives and soundness of any alternatives.

What Canada needs is a shared mythology for its citizens to embrace. Indeed I believe almost every nation/society/tribe on this earth has one, and diversity will only function, in the long run, if there is an overall unity among citizens, imo. Multiculturalism has been fairly uncompromising in its refusal of this, with the exception of self-promoting itself (Multiculturalism) as the only legitimate response to the question of identity.

Multiculturalism accepts the reality that people, for whatever reasons, are different within the context of allowable behaviour under Canadian Law and citizenship. The latter is the representation and the key to functioning of overall unity - because it sets forth what responsibilities as Canadians are, regardless of differences. To say that multiculturalism is uncompromising in the refusal of this is about as valid as saying that the various non-ethnic subcultures that exist within Canada produces no overall unity.

On the one hand you state that there is no such legitimate notion of what Canada is (beyond Multiculturalism, I'm assuming you to mean), yet then go on to state that I might not like something that is in your opinion very 'Canadian'. Sigh. Well which is it, Canadian ethos or not?...

I didn't say that. What I said is beyond some very general concepts like peace, order and good government (values enshrined in our institutions and laws) we have no legitimately universal mythology. Whether you value multiculturalism or not doesn't change this reality even among non-ethnic Canadians. In fact, I argue that enforcing or coercing Canadians to do so is probably a very un-Canadian thing to do, because it contradicts our enshrined values AND institutions.

Your last comment is enlightening though. At heart you are saying that Canada was nothing before the arrival of Multiculturalism in 1971, that the country's history, heritage and traditions - its very mythology, in short - stand for nothing, save the potential for discrimination against newcomers. This is a very unfortunate position for a nation to take. It disrespects all that the nation has evolved to be, the very sum of its history in fact, and the very reasons that many immigrants of all different backgrounds come to it in the first place.

You are now putting your words in my mouth and uncompromising in your interpretation of what being Canadian should and shouldn't be. What Canada before multiculturalism is not mythology - it's history. I accept and respect it as such, but I found no need to dress it up in myth so as to satisfy your personal (and by no means universal) sense of manifest destiny. What I do find offensive, however, is how casually you label any other position as disrespectful just because they don't share your views. Last time I checked, you don't make those rules.

I think multi-culturalism as a policy should be debated. I doubt Pierre Trudeau intended the formation of ethnic ghettos when he promoted this policy. I doubt he imagined that someone could live their entire life in Canada with a minimal knowledge of English or French and survive in their little ethnic enclave. My parents moved here for the quality of life, and to escape the old worlds discriminatory attitudes (try being Catholic in India), and increasingly we are finding that many immigrants from the old country haven't dropped the old ways or attitudes and have a cavalier attitude towards developing a sense of community or civic pride in their neighbourhoods.

Ethnic ghettos are nothing new - they exist in and even before Pierre Trudeau's time, and indeed there are plenty of immigrants from th at era who lived their entire lives with minimal capacity in either official languages (in fact, quite a few among the first few waves of Chinese immigrants are illiterate - and they are all in their senior years, if not dead). Look at where their children are now? Mostly absorbed into Canadian society.

AoD

 

[theowne]

I would say it's happening in Toronto. There are certainly groups of people from similar backgrounds who spend most of their time together, but I find there to be more and more mixing as time goes on.

That's not what I'm seeing everyday. At the children's level, sure, as I mentioned before, which is good. But that doesn't matter too much.

Is it any wonder that interracial marriages are on the rise? I don't think it's because people are just sticking with those of their own background.

Yet it isn't common for all ethnic groups. For example, Chinese and South Asians have very low rates of intermarriage. It isn't a coincidence that these are also very large groups who have their own distinct communities in the city, as well as a large pool of people in that community to begin with. Is it?

I don't think interracial marriages has any particular use in this debate.

but people hoping for an 18th century version of nationalism to take root are stuck in the past.

I think you know that this argument is about more than just blind patriotism or Nazi Germany levels of nationalism.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

theowne:

Yet it isn't common for all ethnic groups. For example, Chinese and South Asians have very low rates of intermarriage. It isn't a coincidence that these are also very large groups who have their own distinct communities in the city, as well as a large pool of people in that community to begin with. Is it?

Incidentally, these two groups are also dominated by recent immigrants to Canada. Is it really about them having distinct communities? Or is it about whether they're first generation or not?

AoD

 

[syn]

That's not what I'm seeing everyday. At the children's level, sure, as I mentioned before, which is good. But that doesn't matter too much.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. Someone else can have a completely different experience.

I know exactly what you're talking about, but I see the exact opposite just as much if not more.

Yet it isn't common for all ethnic groups. For example, Chinese and South Asians have very low rates of intermarriage. It isn't a coincidence that these are also very large groups who have their own distinct communities in the city, as well as a large pool of people in that community to begin with. Is it?

Again, is this based on anecdotal evidence? I know a lot of interracial couples, and even among my family in NA, more than half are in interracial marriages.

The stats would support my observations. Between 1991 and 2001 interracial marriages grew by 35% (according to a Leger marketing poll). There are always some close minded people who want their kids to marry within their own background, but the trend is moving away from that, especially as older stereotypes fade away with new generations.

I think you know that this argument is about more than just blind patriotism or Nazi Germany levels of nationalism.

My statement suggested nothing of the sort.

 

[syn]

theowne:



Incidentally, these two groups are also dominated by recent immigrants to Canada. Is it really about them having distinct communities? Or is it about whether they're first generation or not?

AoD

Exactly.

 

[theowne]

theowne:
Incidentally, these two groups are also dominated by recent immigrants to Canada. Is it really about them having distinct communities? Or is it about whether they're first generation or not?

AoD

Good point.

syn is right in that arguments between anecdotes rarely lead anywhere useful.

I still believe, personally, that certain groups are inheriting the divisiveness for their communities and that multiculturalism will ensure that it will always exist...

In continuation of the earlier mentioned "Chinese Engineers Club" at a university...isn't that an example of a discriminatory club? Why is it allowed on campus?