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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoaccio:

The article didn't speak to any growth in the number of immigrants being isolated (much less speak to such growth being a result of the changing character of the immigrant body). What the article does seem to indicate antedotally is 1. the regret by immigrants themselves of not being able to speak English, particularly as a barrier of full social participation (which contradicts the thesis that non-English speaking immigrants prefers to be isolated, with as little to do with others as possible) and 2. how in spite of the importance placed on the mothertongue, children of these immigrants are basically English speakers (or learning English actively).

AoD

 

[Dichotomy]

All of this pleasant banter back and forth avoids the Elephant in the Room: it isn't in our nature to mix and mingle with people who are 'not like us.' The English/French language debate is about the only 'allowed' debate in public any more. The banner of 'national security' in our post 9/11 world has opened the door a tad more to more frank discussion, because we can now openly say that certain groups pose a security risk over others. It's a nightmare for the border guards: they have to frisk little old ladies for weapons because they can't be seen to descriminate on the basis of nationality.
I can't imagine moving to China, Poland, Egypt or any other country and actively seeking out 'Canadians' there. If that was my attitude, why wouldn't I just stay home? My partner has the correct attitude: he avoids contact with Brazilians/Portuguese because he understands it will only hold him back. People we know from 5-6 years ago that had better English than him are now clearly falling behind because they only associate with other South Americans in their pool of friends/associates. Learning English is far more than just learning the language: you must learn the cultural roots of the language or much of it won't make any sense! Half the challenge to learning English is learning the coloquialisms and most of those are based on historical/cultural references that would make no sense to someone taking a class twice a week at a ESL course or who only hung around with fellow countrymen, who themselves were oblivious to those cultural references.
When I was in Florianopolis (in southern Brazil) last year, we ran into a group of Italian-Canadians from Vancouver who were on a tour of places where Italians had settled in the early 20th century. WTF? I can't imagine a bigger waste of time. England is really the LAST place I want to visit. Why would I seek out places where English people have settled? The entire point of visiting another country is to mix/mingle with the natives and their culture!
Some people may go out of their way to include other ethnic groups in their social mix, but for the vast majority of both whites and non-whites, that is not the case. Nothing wrong with that; it's natural.
However, there are now critical masses of cultural groups in and around the Vancouver and Toronto areas that do not need the 'rest of us.' Entire blocks of shops don't even sport any English signage - a clear 'sign' that nobody else is welcome. Again, this is not entirely new (the Portuguese, the Italians and the Jewish communities are other notable groups that tend to 'congregate'), but I suspect fewer of these people identify themselves as 'Canadian' and many that I talk to dismiss many of this country's institutions and traditions as being trivial.
Recent objections in Surrey, BC by the Muslim community to certain books in the schools that promoted 'alternate' relationships is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of these cultures do not share our history of tolerance and democracy. We may expect them to adapt to the 'Canadian' way of life, but that does not mean that they will.
If Canada had one predominant culture that the rest of the country could orbit, collectively, would be assured a secure place in history. Unfortunately, Canada has 2 major cultures that this country was founded on, and promoting one over the other only results in howls of protest and rage. Therefore, 'multiculturalism' was the compromise that Trudeau hoped would silence those protests. I fear that recent trends are erasing gains made in the past 50 years and what we could see are dozens of competing cultures shouting over each other for dominance - at least in the GTA and Vancouver.

 

[Tewder]

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.

I understand the idea behind Multiculturalism but I just do not believe in it. You cannot bring people together through differences. All that Multiculturalism does is entrench those differences, and normalize a lack of unity. Not good.

Nationalism is irrelevent to the discussion. It is an entirely different issue, not to mention a concept loaded with specific historic connotations. Nationalism is not about the perception of identity internally, so much as how it relates externally with respect to other nations. I hardly think Canada is at risk of being a Nationalistic danger to others.

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.

I would say that 'diversity' is part of Canadian culture, but not "Multiculturalism'. It is a subtle difference, but a very important one. No artists will sing the song of Multiculturalism in a Langston Hughes 'I too sing America' way because they'll all be too busy celebrating and 'singing' the cultures of their homelands. Maybe you're perfectly fine with that, but I am not.

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.

I think you're getting lost in the specifics. A nation's mythology doesn't function in specifics. It's not about harkening back to an idealism of a pre-European contact aboriginal Canada, or some noble Loyalist/pioneer/voyageur past or anything like that necessarily. Rather it's about connecting with the underlaying themes that come together in the development of the nation, and in the expression of that nation (laws, rights, traditions etc) over time. It functions on a macro level to unite Canadians at the micro level in their diversity.

 

[Tewder]

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.

AoD, please remember that I am not opposed to diversity. I just do not see diversity as synonymous with Multiculturalism. When I debate about Multiculturalism here I'm talking about how it functions as a government policy, and the consequences of this to Canadian society, as I perceive them.

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.

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.

But how did those 'Canadian' Laws come into being? What and who created them and informed them? What shaped those very notions of citizenship, and those notions of what the responsibilites of that citizenship are?? Those things didn't emerge out of thin air. Our specific version of them are unique to Canada and our history. They are the sum of that history and reflect the ethos or value-system that created them. So how can you say they do not exist? What's more, how do you instill a love for and belief in those things among newcomers and their successive generations if you take the stance that those things are simply generic a-priori 'laws' that preexist? Instead you creat groupings of disparate citizens who 'follow' the law without necessarily believing in it or feeling part of it.

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.

The interesting thing here is that I don't think I've actually talked too much at all about the specifics of what a Canadian should be, or put down any rules or parameters for that.

 

[theowne]

Some people may go out of their way to include other ethnic groups in their social mix, but for the vast majority of both whites and non-whites, that is not the case. Nothing wrong with that; it's natural.

Natural for you, maybe. For many people, like me, race isn't immediately the thing I think about when choosing friends. For example, I have many friends I know through a common hobby (in my case, trivia/quiz bowl), and through others (music). This is an example of someone who is "like me" but in ways other than ethnicity. Just because that's how you think, doesn't mean it applies to everyone else.

 

[afransen]

That's been my experience, too, theowne. I've met people from many different backgrounds through more general interest clubs and I always regretted that there were so many people for whom my only means of interaction would be through attempting to penetrate an organization that implicitly excluded me on the basis of ethnicity or simply because the language of discourse of the group was not English.

I'm not sure how much the decline/weakening of mainstream organizations at UW (notably student government) can be attributed to the proliferation of ethnic clubs sopping up scarce free time, but I have a feeling that this might be the case.

 

[theowne]

That's because these aren't racist supremacist groups. They're cultural groups. There are also European based cutural groups, like the Polish Students Association, Greek Students Association, etc. and no one accuses them of being racist.

The South Asian Association? The Asian Christian fellowship? The Black club at York U? How are these not the nicer equivalent of "The Brown/Yellow/Black clubs"? What's the difference between them and a "White Christian Fellowship" which we immediately (and rightly) register as being discriminatory. UTSC recently rejected an application for a European students club on the basis that it was discriminatory. Yet these groups are allowed to exist.

I still fail to see how "Chinese Students Association" can be seen to have an intent other than "An association for Chinese students."

 

[kEiThZ]

This whole debate goes to the point of how we should define citizenship.

Do we do it something like this:

“I am not less of a Canadian, because I am a Canadian citizen, but I will always remember my Chinese roots.”

...where a passport is the sole determinant of their status as a citizen. Or do we want them to have Canadian values, and our language and perhaps some of our cultural norms to become citizens.

The cases in the article that Whoaccio put up are a lot more common than people think. Yes, there's few examples of 3rd generation illiterate immigrant kids, but there are tons of examples of children who will go through a decade of schooling in Canada and never escape ESL. How do these kinds of migrants really help Canada or themselves?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

AoD, please remember that I am not opposed to diversity. I just do not see diversity as synonymous with Multiculturalism. When I debate about Multiculturalism here I'm talking about how it functions as a government policy, and the consequences of this to Canadian society, as I perceive them.

Then you better be ready to debate the specifics of how multicultural policy is operationalized in Canada, and demonstrate exactly what negative effects are the direct result of such operationalized policies, rather than coming up with generic slogans like "Down with multiculturalism". Down with what kind of multiculturalism?

But how did those 'Canadian' Laws come into being? What and who created them and informed them? What shaped those very notions of citizenship, and those notions of what the responsibilites of that citizenship are?? Those things didn't emerge out of thin air. Our specific version of them are unique to Canada and our history. They are the sum of that history and reflect the ethos or value-system that created them. So how can you say they do not exist? What's more, how do you instill a love for and belief in those things among newcomers and their successive generations if you take the stance that those things are simply generic a-priori 'laws' that preexist? Instead you creat groupings of disparate citizens who 'follow' the law without necessarily believing in it or feeling part of it.

Or do they? Can you genuinely say you understand (much less practice) the mindset, values and motives of the Fathers of Confederation, for example; and that they are the same mindset, values and motives of say the Canadians 50, 100 years later? Has these characteristics ever been universal in nature? Can you argue some combination of all of the above is more valid than others as being Canadian? I didn't say our laws exists a-priori - what I am arguing is that you can't find a universal set of values that define us, without excluding others who rightly claim to be Canadian, and that the most accurate, most inclusive definition of what Canadian means is citizenship and expectations of behaviour consistent with Canadian law.

In addition to that, if you need to create myths or instill beliefs (chosen by?) for citizens to love and believe in the country, you are putting way to little trust on the citizenry, not to mention stepping beyond the bounds into dangerous territory. There is also the fallacy of equating love of our history to love of our country - the two things are not equivalent. What if someone rejects the romantic notion that the Canadian state is a wholly benign construct from a historical perspective? (indeed, if you are familiar with Canadian history, some aspects of the rise of the state is hardly honourable and ethical, to say the least). Are these individuals any less Canadian? You also presumed that groupings of disparate citizens never ever have any aspects of commonality that binds them - is that true?

The interesting thing here is that I don't think I've actually talked too much at all about the specifics of what a Canadian should be, or put down any rules or parameters for that.

If you throw words like "disrespectful" around, I am fairly certain you already have expectations and parameters on what Canadians should be. No?

Actually, come to think of it, one of the most destablizing aspects of the Canadian Confederation isn't multiculturalism - it's provincial politics - and that's actually enshrined in our Constitution.

AoD

 

[adma]

Then again, you also don't see a "White Students Club" or "White Debate Society". Because those would be discriminatory and shut down immediately, even if they put a disclaimer on their web page saying "Hey, anyone is welcome!". And yet for some reason these other ones are allowed to exist.

Though nowadays, I wonder if the climate is right for so-labelled groups to exist--though in a tongue-in-cheek spirit that turns the concept (and the stigma) on its head.

Of course, what'd really help legitimize such campus organizations is if nonwhites led them, thus ramping up the "knowing irony" element...

 

[syn]

The South Asian Association? The Asian Christian fellowship? The Black club at York U? How are these not the nicer equivalent of "The Brown/Yellow/Black clubs"? What's the difference between them and a "White Christian Fellowship" which we immediately (and rightly) register as being discriminatory. UTSC recently rejected an application for a European students club on the basis that it was discriminatory. Yet these groups are allowed to exist.

I have no idea why the group in question was rejected. I do know that many European based groups exist at UofT so there was clearly another reason why their group was deemed discriminatory.

You keep painting all these groups with the same brush, as though they're a collection of racist organizations. These groups are not about hate, but promoting different cultures on campus. Instead of judging a book by it's cover, judge them for what they are.

I still fail to see how "Chinese Students Association" can be seen to have an intent other than "An association for Chinese students."

That's because you're far too close minded.

I am not Filipino yet participated in Filipion Student Association activities.

I'm not Spanish yet took part in the Spanish Students Association and their related events.

I even knew a few people who weren't South Asian that helped to run the South Asian club and a black guy who was on the executive of the Filipino club.

I also know many people who took part in these cultural groups that were involved with other hobby-based groups and student government.

You suggest that joining these groups close people off to others when it's really the opposite. Conversely, eliminating all cultural groups on campus would take away a lot of opportunities for enrichment for all students.

 

[afransen]

Though nowadays, I wonder if the climate is right for so-labelled groups to exist--though in a tongue-in-cheek spirit that turns the concept (and the stigma) on its head.

Of course, what'd really help legitimize such campus organizations is if nonwhites led them, thus ramping up the "knowing irony" element...

I was one of the founding members of a club called the Campus Crusade for Cheese, a deliberate critique of the most prominent Christian club on campus, the Campus Crusade for Christ (now Campus for Christ). While cheese is awesome, I think that the club's huge popularity was that people had at least some vague objection to the ghettoization of the campus community.

 

[theowne]

I have no idea why the group in question was rejected. I do know that many European based groups exist at UofT so there was clearly another reason why their group was deemed discriminatory.

No, many European National groups exist. But when you go beyond national origin and make a European club, it's racist. Yet the Asian Christian Federation or the South Asian club doesn't get evaluated in the same way. No matter how you want to look at it, it's a double standard. And the solution isn't to allow a European Students Club, it's to get rid of these exclusionary clubs altogether which you keep calling culture clubs. I've been involved in many *actual* culture clubs dedicated to Japanese language/culture, classical music, etc....

You keep painting all these groups with the same brush, as though they're a collection of racist organizations. These groups are not about hate, but promoting different cultures on campus.

No, I never said they were racist. I said they were isolationist and a hindrance to true diversity, and another indicator of the problems with so-called multiculturalism in the city. I said they promote segregation and fragmentation.

That's because you're far too close minded.

I'm close minded because I when I read "Black Students Association" I interpret it to mean......."Black Students Association"?

I am not Filipino yet participated in Filipion Student Association activities.

I'm not Spanish yet took part in the Spanish Students Association and their related events.

I even knew a few people who weren't South Asian that helped to run the South Asian club and a black guy who was on the executive of the Filipino club.

Well, good for you. I like a good anecdote as much as anyone else. But here's a fact, do a survey of these clubs and you will find that most, if not all, are ethnically homogeneous. These aren't centers of mass cultural discourse. Well, there actually was a true "multicultural club" back in my high school. It was the least attended club all year. There's an anecdote for you.

You suggest that joining these groups close people off to others when it's really the opposite.

Why? Because one person on a message board says he joined the Filipino club? Open your eyes and take a look at what's actually happening here instead of thinking about idealized situations. Most, if not all, of these groups are homogeneous and they all serve primarily as organizations which....well, just reread afransen's definition from earlier.

They are pretty much exclusively about insulating oneself with the university community as a whole by forming a social network with those of a similar ethnic/religious/racial background as oneself.

 

[lordmandeep]

Canadians show their patriotism throw Bush Bashing.

 

[theowne]

Of course, what'd really help legitimize such campus organizations is if nonwhites led them, thus ramping up the "knowing irony" element...

That's a great idea. If I wasn't so busy already I would try to do it myself, but I can already think of the amusing possibilities.