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

[Admiral Beez]

Indentured servantry.

Indentured servantry under the British has caused a great deal of trouble in many former British colonies, such as in Fiji where Indo-Fijians are quarreling with native Fijians, and Sri Lanka where the British brought a large number of indentured workers from Tamil Nadu setting the foundation for that country's ethnic struggles. Indeed, my people have caused some trouble in the world.

 

[syn]

It is discrimination, and that IS THE JOB of immigration controls. You discriminate on who you want to let into the country, and who not to let in the country. If it was not the job to discriminate, there would be no immigration department. I actually agree with Admiral (just not necessarily the selection), that you keep statistics on immigrants from different countries and then modify the weighting system to weight countries where people arrive from and integrate faster (i.e. less social assistance). To be quite honest, I am not sure which would get higher weighting other than from countries like Hong Kong and India (those that come from commonwealth countries - that are not basket cases - are more likely to integrate faster).

You're looking at the word in it's broadest definition.

There is a huge difference between selecting qualified applicants and rejecting an entire group based on their cultural background, especially when they've already contributed so much to Canadian society.

I would also question how on earth you could declare everyone from the Carribean to be "basket cases" when the vast majority become hardworking, contributing members of society.

My family came here with almost nothing and worked their way up the ladder. Pretty much all of their children (us 1st generation Canadians) have university/graduate degrees. In fact, every country they've immigrated to they've established themselves well.

It's quite sad that attitudes like this still exist in 21st century Toronto.

You then allow free movement of people between Canada and the US/Mexico (citizens - posing no security problems) for work or travel (part of NAFTA). You have a EU - Canada trade agreement (which includes free movement of people as part of it). Maybe side agreements with other countries that are like minded and successful (i.e. Singapore, HK, etc). Actually, I would prefer a side agreement with part of ASEAN as opposed to Singapore by itself - so maybe Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand [course Thailand is there just because it is one of my favourites - and I judge based on food - which means maybe we should restrict people from England

And then you adopt the lottery system from the US to add a little bit of balance (maybe 500 per country maximum if not from above criteria).

20+ years ago, I really did not want to move to Toronto because it was not interesting enough (and diverse enough).... I actually prefer Toronto now better than back then.

Here's an idea - how about letting people in based on merit, rather than discriminating based on cultural and ethinic backgrounds? It's not accepted in society, so why let people in based on a racist system?

As far as "racism", I would not allow people in that require full hajab (face covering) to be worn (headscarves are fine) - since they are likely not to integrate into society (since the clothes themselves are meant to segregate the wives from society).

And where do you propose the line is drawn? This is a country where people are free to dress however they'd like. I've known a few women like this in university and aside from their dress they were like everyone else. I don't agree with the concept behind it, but you can't tell people what they can and cannot wear.

 

[theman23]

It is discrimination, and that IS THE JOB of immigration controls.

But not by national origin.

When Canada was 'settled' at the turn of the last Century, the poor Italians, Polish and others that came here were dumped off at the end of a dusty train station and booted into the Prairies with $50 in their sack and no cultural centers to help them integrate. These people were commited. They would never again see their family or countrymen. Few Canadians had telephones then, so contact with the homeland was only possible via snail mail.
Compare that to today. You can watch your favorite TV shows from your homeland, via satellite. You can email your family back home pictures directly from your picnic site. For about about two weeks wages you can fly anywhere in the world. Why would these people want to commit to Canada?

So what do you suppose we do, take away their TVs and telephones? Get real. The world has progressed. Your notion of the past is false anyways.

In a word, no. Any 'open' discussion on Canada's immigration policy immediately turns into a slug-fest with the ususal suspects crying 'racist' before any points have been made.
It doesn't matter where 'new Canadians' come from, as a country we are not demanding that they become 'Canadian' any more. Since social liberals have decided long ago that the white Europeans only destroyed and enslaved, we now know there is no such thing as true Canadian culture; therefore, we invite the world to come here and do what they want.

Haha.

 

[syn]

It's a hypothetical question, based on hindsight, what would you have done to change the system? If you don't like those sorts of questons, that's okay too.

You're avoiding the question. You're basically suggesting they adopt a policy that discriminates against an entire group of people based on the idea that their children may become criminals. It's ridiculous.

 

[theowne]

It's mindlessly wasteful, the way we force the cream of the world's crop to perform menial tasks in our society. Foreign-trained doctors and scientists and engineers should not be selling slurpees to our own high-school dropouts.

Exactly! I look at America's immigrants and all I see is that we are wasting potential. Look at immigrants in America, Indians, Chinese, etc, and they make way more money and contribute to the upper end of society (technology, science, executive jobs, etc) in numbers far greater than the non-immigrant population. In other words America has benefited by far from the legal side of immigration. And America actually has a looser immigration policy than we do. So why are we wasting this potential?

As for Carribeans, well, on one hand you have to admit that some groups are contributing more to crime than others, and in my opinion this is mostly because hip-hop gangster culture influences certain groups more than others in my own experiences. For example, Vietnamese youth seem to get drawn to it more than Korean or Japanese youth are. I doubt it's a coincidence that Vietnamese youth also have a high dropout rate. I don't even understand why gangsta culture is tolerated, you have music that openly talks about shooting people or committing crimes and evading the police, etc...

About this whole integration debate, I take a neutral position. I do think that we shouldn't be a country/city made up of smaller communities, I don't think that you should see one entire neighborhood where all you see is Chinese writing on buildings, and then another neighborhood where all you see is Tamil writing, and etc...I think Canada needs to try a bit harder to integrate everybody....we're not creating a melting pot at this rate. A melting pot is a multi-ethnic homogeneous society influenced by different cultures, but in Canada we seem to just be putting each culture in different pots and then placing them next to each other..(weird analogy)

 

[cacruden]

You're looking at the word in it's broadest definition.

There is a huge difference between selecting qualified applicants and rejecting an entire group based on their cultural background, especially when they've already contributed so much to Canadian society.

We have a point system - I would not eliminate it - but I would assign points based on recent immigration from that country - based on who well people from those countries integrate in overall. Past performance IS a good indicator on how people will integrate into society.... not all countries have the same culture - and it is easier for certain cultures (over others) - to be integrated into our society. If we have had immigration from a nation, and 50% are on social assistance..... then obviously there is a problem. I don't know or care what is the cause of the problem -- it could be Canada's failure, it could be that culturally there is too much of a difference -- I just do not want as much immigration from that country -- until there is some proof that the problem has been mitigated - at which time the statistics will indicate that the most recent are integrating into Canadian society better.

I would also question how on earth you could declare everyone from the Carribean to be "basket cases" when the vast majority become hardworking, contributing members of society.

Where did I say there was a problem with those from the carribean? I left out that region completely since I really do not know about the success or failure of integration from that region. I like cold hard numbers, not feelings when making decisions. In fact you really cannot look at the carribean being one entity since I have found that most other carribean nations - don't really like Jamaica that much .... they are all different.

My family came here with almost nothing and worked their way up the ladder. Pretty much all of their children (us 1st generation Canadians) have university/graduate degrees. In fact, every country they've immigrated to they've established themselves well.

Well then that would increase the likelyhood that others from whatever country your family came from would integrate well -- would it not? Of course person by themselves does not provide enough to generate good statistics. When you mine for ore - you don't mine in a place where there is a low probability that you will be successful - you tend to start mining in areas that are rich in resources..... in this case we are just mining for people. Sure we might miss one nugget, but overall - you will be more likely to have a higher success rate.

Here's an idea - how about letting people in based on merit, rather than discriminating based on cultural and ethinic backgrounds? It's not accepted in society, so why let people in based on a racist system?

How do you determine merit? Do they speak english - you get points, do you speak french - you get points. So basically if you come from an English speaking nation you get points automatically. That by it's very nature is discriminitory - is it not? You are more likely to speak english if you come from certain countries..... People in England automatically get additional points - for nothing - just that they were born in an English country.

Merit is so wishy-washy since merit is often in the eye of the beholder.

In the end it is whether you become a functioning member of society -- and that you can only determine in hindsight. One person from one country does not provide good statistics (too high of an error ratio), but by looking at all immigration from a certain region - you can get a better indication how easy it is for people to integrate in from that culture. I would even bet that it might create some surprises since perception is often flawed.

And where do you propose the line is drawn? This is a country where people are free to dress however they'd like. I've known a few women like this in university and aside from their dress they were like everyone else. I don't agree with the concept behind it, but you can't tell people what they can and cannot wear.

Simple - if dress is a means to segregate you from society - then this society does not need you. Other than that - I really don't care how you dress.

The diversity lottery would ensure that you always have a pool of recent immigrants that you would have statistical information from.

 

[Brandon716]

Exactly! I look at America's immigrants and all I see is that we are wasting potential. Look at immigrants in America, Indians, Chinese, etc, and they make way more money and contribute to the upper end of society (technology, science, executive jobs, etc) in numbers far greater than the non-immigrant population. In other words America has benefited by far from the legal side of immigration. And America actually has a looser immigration policy than we do. So why are we wasting this potential?

As for Carribeans, well, on one hand you have to admit that some groups are contributing more to crime than others, and in my opinion this is mostly because hip-hop gangster culture influences certain groups more than others in my own experiences. For example, Vietnamese youth seem to get drawn to it more than Korean or Japanese youth are. I doubt it's a coincidence that Vietnamese youth also have a high dropout rate. I don't even understand why gangsta culture is tolerated, you have music that openly talks about shooting people or committing crimes and evading the police, etc...

About this whole integration debate, I take a neutral position. I do think that we shouldn't be a country/city made up of smaller communities, I don't think that you should see one entire neighborhood where all you see is Chinese writing on buildings, and then another neighborhood where all you see is Tamil writing, and etc...I think Canada needs to try a bit harder to integrate everybody....we're not creating a melting pot at this rate. A melting pot is a multi-ethnic homogeneous society influenced by different cultures, but in Canada we seem to just be putting each culture in different pots and then placing them next to each other..(weird analogy)

There's a slight problem with your statement, America actually has a more restrictive immigration policy. The Green Card program is literally a lottery system. Immigrant applications are put into a system and randomly selected and they have a quota each year.

If you aren't selected, you don't get a green card.

What the US is more open about is temporary worker cards. Anyone can practically work in the US, Canada is more stingy on this issue.

I know, my work permit was denied last summer in 2007 for NO GOOD REASON. I have a post-secondary degree, 3 years of relevant work experience, and a motivation to succeed in Canada... All denied because an officer just made the decision subjectively.

BTW, Canada's new immigration policy under the Conservatives is horrible.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2008/2008-07-03.asp

To meet the 2008 immigration plan, which calls for the admission of 240,000 to 265,000 new permanent residents, CIC missions around the world continue to process applications submitted before February 27, 2008, the date the legislation takes effect. With wait times exceeding six years in some categories, few missions are currently processing applications received in 2008, which is expected to be a transition year.

As of July 2008, effectively the Canadian government has stopped processing any new applications and they will automatically be rejected.

I won't even be able to apply for permanent residency until 2009!

All I can do is apply for temporary work permit status again, but I haven't found an employer willing to sponsor... So my status of moving to Canada is in limbo yet again, this time thanks directly to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada.

Just another reason I dislike Harpie.

 

[theowne]

There's a slight problem with your statement, America actually has a more restrictive immigration policy. The Green Card program is literally a lottery system. Immigrant applications are put into a system and randomly selected and they have a quota each year.

Doesn't this support my statement? If it's randomly selected that means the U.S. isn't only accepting top-notch educated immigrants and nothing else (which would the only way to explain why their immigrant success is so much higher than Canada). They also have a family reunification program which acounts for 2/3 of immigration each year. If the United States had a policy that said "You can only immigrate here if you have X amount of money and X amount of education" than that would be an example of being more restrictive. When I say restricted I don't mean that more or less immigrants come in. I mean that the U.S. is less restrictive on the kind of immigrants coming in compared to Canada with our points system. And yet, the immigrant communities in the U.S. do far better. In my opinion this is a result of what "whatever" was talking about, recognition of foreign education and it's just a wasted opportunity here in Canada because the U.S. gains a lot from it's immigrant population, notably the ones I mentioned before.

 

[syn]

As for Carribeans, well, on one hand you have to admit that some groups are contributing more to crime than others, and in my opinion this is mostly because hip-hop gangster culture influences certain groups more than others in my own experiences. For example, Vietnamese youth seem to get drawn to it more than Korean or Japanese youth are. I doubt it's a coincidence that Vietnamese youth also have a high dropout rate. I don't even understand why gangsta culture is tolerated, you have music that openly talks about shooting people or committing crimes and evading the police, etc...

Is this your own personal experience or is it based in reality?

http://canadianimmigrationreform.blogspot.com/2008/04/portuguese-lead-drop-out-rate-for.html

Portuguese (42.5 per cent drop out rate)
Spanish (39.1 per cent)
Somali (36.7)
Vietnamese (24.6)
Persian/Farsi (30.6)
Arabic (27.8)

So yes, they have a high dropout rate relatively speaking...but it's still far below others.

So is Hip Hop to blame for everything . ?

About this whole integration debate, I take a neutral position. I do think that we shouldn't be a country/city made up of smaller communities, I don't think that you should see one entire neighborhood where all you see is Chinese writing on buildings, and then another neighborhood where all you see is Tamil writing, and etc...I think Canada needs to try a bit harder to integrate everybody....we're not creating a melting pot at this rate. A melting pot is a multi-ethnic homogeneous society influenced by different cultures, but in Canada we seem to just be putting each culture in different pots and then placing them next to each other..(weird analogy)

That's because multiculturalism is endorsed.

 

[theowne]

But still far higher than others too...I don't claim that hip-hop culture causes crime alone nor that it is to blame for everything, but you can usually find a correlation between them...I mean obviously the Vietnamese are affected by the fact that there are more Vietnamese refugees compared to other groups.... but it seems obvious to me as a recent high school student...I never saw a school fight between two anime geeks....Honestly, what positive effects come from the "gangsta" culture?

P.S. - When "Portugese" and "Spanish" speakers are mentioned, are these immigrants from Spain and Portugal or Mexicans/Brazilians?

 

[syn]

We have a point system - I would not eliminate it - but I would assign points based on recent immigration from that country - based on who well people from those countries integrate in overall. Past performance IS a good indicator on how people will integrate into society.... not all countries have the same culture - and it is easier for certain cultures (over others) - to be integrated into our society. If we have had immigration from a nation, and 50% are on social assistance..... then obviously there is a problem. I don't know or care what is the cause of the problem -- it could be Canada's failure, it could be that culturally there is too much of a difference -- I just do not want as much immigration from that country -- until there is some proof that the problem has been mitigated - at which time the statistics will indicate that the most recent are integrating into Canadian society better.

You cannot judge integration simply based on place of origin. It has to be a case by case decision.

Where did I say there was a problem with those from the carribean? I left out that region completely since I really do not know about the success or failure of integration from that region. I like cold hard numbers, not feelings when making decisions. In fact you really cannot look at the carribean being one entity since I have found that most other carribean nations - don't really like Jamaica that much .... they are all different.

Whatever the location - you cannot discriminate based on nationality.

Well then that would increase the likelyhood that others from whatever country your family came from would integrate well -- would it not? Of course person by themselves does not provide enough to generate good statistics. When you mine for ore - you don't mine in a place where there is a low probability that you will be successful - you tend to start mining in areas that are rich in resources..... in this case we are just mining for people. Sure we might miss one nugget, but overall - you will be more likely to have a higher success rate.

Not necessarily - that's the point. One person may immigrate from the Carribean and have a horrible time while another may not. Blanket generalizations don't work.

How do you determine merit? Do they speak english - you get points, do you speak french - you get points. So basically if you come from an English speaking nation you get points automatically. That by it's very nature is discriminitory - is it not? You are more likely to speak english if you come from certain countries..... People in England automatically get additional points - for nothing - just that they were born in an English country.

Merit is so wishy-washy since merit is often in the eye of the beholder.

That's completely different. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that discriminating against an entire group based on their nationality is entirely different from judging applicants on a case by case basis. Obviously candidates with an education who can speak one of the official, languages, have demonstrated they can support themselves, etc. are more desireable than those who haven't demonstrated any of these things.

In the end it is whether you become a functioning member of society -- and that you can only determine in hindsight. One person from one country does not provide good statistics (too high of an error ratio), but by looking at all immigration from a certain region - you can get a better indication how easy it is for people to integrate in from that culture. I would even bet that it might create some surprises since perception is often flawed.

I agree, perception is often flawed. That's the whole problem with this process. Many of the Muslim women you see in Burkas actually integrate very well - they just look out of place in the grand scheme of things.

Discriminating against people from an entire region makes no sense because no two people from an entire region are the same.

Simple - if dress is a means to segregate you from society - then this society does not need you. Other than that - I really don't care how you dress.

It segregates them visually, but does it segerate them overall?

There really isn't an accepted standard of how one should dress in society - if there was then many people would be 'segregating' themselves.

The diversity lottery would ensure that you always have a pool of recent immigrants that you would have statistical information from.

I don't see the point in a lottery. There doesn't seem to be a better way of ensuring you end up with unqualified candidates...

 

[theowne]

and Sri Lanka where the British brought a large number of indentured workers from Tamil Nadu setting the foundation for that country's ethnic struggles.

Not really. Only a minority of Sri Lankan Tamils are descended from the ones the British brought over. However the Sinhalese felt that the British favoured the Tamils and thus when they left started to "strike back" at the Tamils, so in a way yes it is still all your fault (just kidding).

 

[syn]

But still far higher than others too...I don't claim that hip-hop culture causes crime alone nor that it is to blame for everything, but you can usually find a correlation between them...I mean obviously the Vietnamese are affected by the fact that there are more Vietnamese refugees compared to other groups.... but it seems obvious to me as a recent high school student...I never saw a school fight between two anime geeks....Honestly, what positive effects come from the "gangsta" culture?

P.S. - When "Portugese" and "Spanish" speakers are mentioned, are these immigrants from Spain and Portugal or Mexicans/Brazilians?

Associating Hip Hop culture with Gangsta culture would be inaccurate. It's like describing all Rock as Heavy Metal.

Believe it or not, Hip Hop is mainstream. Most people do not become criminals or dropouts because they listen to Hip Hop. These issues are a lot more complicated than that. It's a pretty ridiculous connection, really.

One thing that no one wants to address is that quite a few of the provinces with the highest rates of crime, dropouts, etc. are the ones with the biggest concentrations of people from European descent. Why is that an issue we don't see certain posters starting threads on?

 

[theowne]

One thing that no one wants to address is that quite a few of the provinces with the highest rates of crime, dropouts, etc. are the ones with the biggest concentrations of people from European descent. Why is that an issue we don't see certain posters starting threads on?

But you also have to remember that these provinces have a large amount of poverty among Aboriginal communities and as a result, crime, (which is horrible, by the way), so that also boosts the numbers, doesn't it?

 

[urbandreamer]

One thing that no one wants to address is that quite a few of the provinces with the highest rates of crime, dropouts, etc. are the ones with the biggest concentrations of people from European descent. Why is that an issue we don't see certain posters starting threads on?

Show me the proof!