My Big Respectable Gay Wedding: Same-Sex Marriage and the Paradox of Multicultural Vulnerability

This discussion examines whether, and in what ways, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada may reinforce some of the existing hierarchies within gay and lesbian culture. Through an analysis of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability and the same-sex marriage debate in Canada, it suggests that same-sex marriage may operate as a vehicle for social respectability. In so doing, it may further marginalize those individuals who do not conform to particular heteronormative notions about sexuality and relationships. This is not an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is undoubtedly a significant right for several gays and lesbians. Rather, it is an inquiry into the shortcomings of same-sex marriage the aims to enhance its subversive potential for the broader queer community. Our discussion begins by describing two key concepts: multicultural accommodation, and the paradox of multicultural vulnerability. The second part of this discussion briefly associates the legalization of same-sex marriage with multicultural accommodation to suggest that the former may be seen as a functional form of the latter. More significantly, the third part of this discussion puts forward a case for understanding same-sex marriage as a manifestation of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability.

Definitions

Ayelet Shachar (2000) in “On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability” describes two concepts that are critical to our discussion about same-sex marriage. The first concept that Shachar describes is multicultural accommodation. This refers to legal measures that “[aim] to provide identity groups with the option to maintain… their nomos—the normative universe in which law and cultural narrative are inseparably related” [Emphasis in original]. The author further observes, “the move toward multicultural accommodation generally is justified in terms of promoting the ‘participation and inclusion…[of] groups with different circumstances or forms of life… without shedding their distinct identities’” (Shachar 2000: 65). In other words, multicultural accommodation seeks to help members of a minority group maintain some of their ‘different’ norms. This is regarded as being desirable for not only the minority group, but also the dominant group or institution, which benefits from increased participation of members of the minority group. The second part of this discussion briefly puts forward some reasons for understanding the legalization of same-sex marriage as a functional form of multicultural accommodation.

The second concept that Shachar describes is the paradox of multicultural vulnerability. This paradox arises “when state accommodation policies intended to mitigate the power differential between groups end up reinforcing power hierarchies within them” (Shachar 2000: 65). The paradox involves not incidental in-group rights violations, but rather systemic in-group rights violations. The primary concern is “whether or not the multicultural state accommodates a social and legal disadvantage that is already evident in the group’s established traditions” [Emphasis in original] (Shachar 2000: 71). The third part of this discussion adopts Shachar’s description with the minor amendment that social and legal disadvantage need not be “already evident,” but rather it need only exist. It puts forward some reasons for understanding same-sex marriage as a manifestation of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability. Our discussion now turns to the links between the legalization of same-sex marriage and multicultural accommodation.

Same-sex marriage and multicultural accommodation

The legalization of same-sex marriage may be seen as a functional form of multicultural accommodation. As we will see in our discussion about Halpern et al v. Attorney General of Canada (AGC), this legal measure provides gays and lesbians with the option of maintaining the norm of private monogamous unions between two same-sex individuals through its inclusion into the regime of marriage. (Some queer scholars have contested the claim that such unions constitute the norm of gay and lesbian relationships.) This is not to suggest that multiculturalism per se motivates such an inclusion. Rather, certain parallels between the legalization of same-sex marriage and multicultural accommodation suggest that the former is akin to the latter. As stated above, the legalization of same-sex marriage provides gays and lesbians in private monogamous unions with the option to maintain those unions in context of marriage. Some proponents of same-sex marriage suggest that it is beneficial for not only gays and lesbians, whose relationships are legitimized through state recognition, but also the institution of marriage and the dominant culture that supports it, which is strengthened by the participation of gays and lesbians. Since the legalization of same-sex marriage is similar in process and effect to multicultural accommodation, the former may be understood as a functional, if not formal, form of the latter. Having linked these two processes, our discussion below provides some reasons for understanding same-sex marriage as a manifestation of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability.

Same-sex marriage and the paradox of multicultural vulnerability

In Halpern et al v. AGC, the Court of Appeal for Ontario decided that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the common law definition of marriage—“the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman”—breaches s. 15(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner that is not justified in a free and democratic society. Seven gay and lesbian couples argued that their reasons for wanting to engage in the formal civil union of marriage—“to celebrate their love and commitment to each other”—are the same as heterosexual couples. They argued that since the definition of marriage creates a formal distinction between opposite- and same-sex couples that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, the definition ought to be deemed unconstitutional and amended to include same-sex couples. The court performed s. 15 and s. 1 analyses, the Law test and the Oakes test, respectively, to assess the validity of the couples’ claim, and subsequently accepted their equality-based argument. The successful argument in Halpern in essence upholds the common law definition of marriage, but for the opposite-sex clause. Thus, to a significant extent, it maintains the heteronormative structure of marriage as a private monogamous union between two individuals.

Cossman (forthcoming) in “Queers as Citizens” examines the debate about same-sex marriage—a debate that is, in her view, “vastly dichotomized, inadequately ambivalent, and temporally dislocated”—to advance a nuanced understanding of “a middle zone between marriage and nonmarriage, between legitimate and illegitimate citizenship” (Cossman forthcoming: 6). The author outlines the two most commonly held views about same-sex marriage within gay and lesbian communities. Proponents of same-sex marriage hold inclusion into an important social and legal institution as being vital to the citizenship of gay men and lesbians. In contrast, opponents from within gay and lesbian communities argue that since same-sex marriage will be normalizing and assimilating, it will undermine the subversive aspects of queer identities.

Cossman rightly points out that “the debate performs an either/or of being for or against same sex marriage, and for or against inclusion in citizenship as it is currently constituted” (Cossman forthcoming: 1). However, the author does not adequately consider the underlying premises of the so-called “queer activist” standpoint. Certain queer scholars have argued that although gay assimilation is troubling, the production of gay difference—“limiting what is imaginable as a recognizably gay citizen: usually white, male, affluent, discreetly sexual, apolitical, gay subjects”—is even more problematic (Sender 2005: 23; see also Crimp 2004, and Moore 2004). The debate within gay and lesbian communities exists in a context where public spaces for queer sexual experimentation, which in the 1970s and 1980s were sites of a gay liberation movement, are disappearing (Toub 2007; see also Crimp 2004: 298), and being replaced with more socially “respectable” kinds of queer spaces and visibility.

The same-sex marriage debate and the shift toward respectable queer visibility constitute reasons to think about same-sex marriage in terms of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability. In this particular paradox, the legalization of same-sex marriage provides gays and lesbians with the legal option to conform to a heteronormative structure of marriage. This is supposed to help gays and lesbian maintain the same-sex feature of their unions in the context of marriage. However, as queer scholars have argued, same-sex marriage may also operate as a vehicle for social respectability, which may ascribe respect to gays and lesbians in marital unions. In so doing, it may further marginalize those individuals who do not conform to the particular heteronormative notions that same-sex marriage involves. For example, gays and lesbians who are not in monogamous unions, or those who are in unions of more than two people do not fit into the current scheme of marriage. The social and legal disadvantage such individuals experience is “already evident.” Thus, it is important to think about whether the scope of same-sex marriage could be widened to include such individuals. If so, then we may enhance the subversive potential of same-sex marriage. If not, then several queer individuals may remain outside of an institution that neither reflects nor allows their realities.

References

Cossman, B. (forthcoming). Queers as Citizens, excerpts, from Sexual Citizens: The Legal and Cultural Regulation of Sex and Belonging. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Crimp, D. (2004). Melancholia and Moralism: essays on AIDS and queer politics. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.

Halpern et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont. C.A., 2003)

Moore, P. (2004). Beyond Shame: reclaiming the abandoned history of radical gay sexuality. Boston: Beacon Press Books.

Sender, K. (2005). Business, Not Politics: the making of the gay market. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shachar, A. (2000). "On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability," Political Theory 28, no. 1: 64-89

Toub, M., (2007, March 24). There goes the gaybourhood. The Globe and Mail, Retrieved 29 March 2008 from personal database.

Domestic Abuse is No Different Between Cultures

Do Asian men bring their families to the West to accommodate their abusive behavior within a judicial system immature and naïve enough to disregard their transgressions as cultural phenomena? Unlikely, but it makes prominent a major notion of cultural insensitivity that Sonia Lawrence writes about in her article Cultural (in)sensitivty: The Dangers of a Simplistic Approach to Culture in the Courtroom, whereby domestic abuse of a kind unusual to typically western perceptions, such as burning and the use of sticks (in this case in a Tamil Sri Lankan family [Lawrence 102]) is deemed primitive and third-world. (115) Lawrence correctly argues that women of colour are denied both racial and cultural respect, as they are constantly undermined in the judicial system by having their “otherness” focused on, rather than their affinity to all women, and their prejudice is sustained in having no voice in the media with which to air their grievances. Much was said to condemn Kabilaraj Kanagarajah’s behavior, in beating his two cousins with sticks, but it was the lack of opportunity for Tamil women to portray themselves as much like all others, still victims of domestic abuse regardless of the form it takes, that speaks volumes about the assumptions of Western society about the complacency of coloured women. Would they not want to speak out against this brutality the way many white women do? The patriarchal assumptions, and the subsequent reductionistic approach to the domestic abuse of women in the western world are what I would like to focus on in this post.

Lawrence quotes from the Toronto Sun days after the Kanagarajah case which stated that “Toronto Police and Sri Lankan community members said the incident wasn’t cultural, because with more than 100,000 Sri Lankans living in Toronto, there would surely be weekly incidents of this type if that were the case.” (109, my italics) The inability of the media to separate the incident from the culture; insistence that the sticks were important to focus on merely because they were unusual weapons; and the qualification that sticks were worse than any other weapon, are all reasons why we as Western citizens are not able to separate the crime from the people, and the type of people, who commit them. There is a very prominent gun culture in the United States, and is often a source of satire and ire within certain age and political groups, but the people who commit gun crimes span many cultures and engender an increasingly diverse group of people. There is something to be said for a stick being used as a weapon, and how it relates to a certain culture or ethnicity: perhaps there is a preponderance of sticks available near Sri Lankan homes, citing the convenience angle. Regardless of the reason, domestic abuse is viewed differently when perpetrated by members of the mainstream culture compared to the diseased approach taken by alien cultures. Guns, to those unfamiliar with their scorching ferocity, are likely infinitely more frightening to a person unaccustomed to its loudness, its heat, its immediate deadliness, and the stick, such a toy in its place, looks far less intimidating. But it is the strangeness of the crime, the beating of two young girls for having pre-marital interest in boys, that I suspect people cling to in an effort to justify their own violent infractions, “well at least I didn’t hit my family member over something so petty,” that leads to this intense racialization, and the superiority complex most westerners develop when comparing themselves to others. As Lawrence says, we no longer condescend upon races, but rather the different cultures within those races, and by doing so, marginalize those members of an ethnicity who do not participate in those traditions.

Lawrence states that “’Third World’ cultures are perceived not only as monolithic but also as static,” (116) and in that she makes an argument for why North Americans combine strangeness and primitiveness together when thinking of the Other. Because we, as a western ‘culture,’ are always moving forward and improving, and leave those perceived static cultures further and further behind, and by doing so perceive their strangeness more acutely as we go. It’s such a skewed patriotism that I wonder if there is ever really any respect in the way we treat immigrants. The phenomenon of cultural racism exists, as she states, under the guise of “cultural sensitivity.” We no longer denigrate a person based on his or her skin colour; instead we scoff at the smell of his food or the clothes he wears. These people are inherently inferior because they exude a strangeness that we pass off as primitive, an unlikely and uncanny ability to understand them because they are less complex than we are. In all, the foundation of our cultural sensitivities, and hence the ways we approach the punishment of deviants based on the degree that their behaviour differs from our own, is a learned pattern sustained from colonial superciliousness.

Any change in our behaviour will have to come when we recognize in ourselves that to all others our actions are just as strange and remote, and the judicial system needs to understand the notion that not all people can be culled into a single culture, the notion itself an ever-accelerating current. One may not be able to decide his place within the world, but culture is not necessarily tied to skin colour, and the Tamil girls who were beaten with sticks by their cousin may not have wanted to be thrust unwittingly into this process of racialization. Unwittingly extricated from such a place by the media, by school, by friends, they may have perceived their interest in boys to be acultural, devoid of any defined intent, ill or otherwise. Culture exists only when it is externally recognized by others, and their understanding of their positions in a minority skin colour may have conflicted quite starkly with the fact that nobody, except their own family, treated them differently from any other fourteen or seventeen year old girl.

That the media latched on to the story because of the strangeness of the instrument of abuse, the stick, and the awkwardness around the reason for the attack. People in western societies don’t typically use sticks to attack others, but many refused to see past their myopic interpretation of otherness at the telling realization that domestic abuse is merely that, regardless of whom is the perpetrator.

Works cited:

Lawrence, Sonia N., "Cultural Insensitivity: The Dangers of a Simplistic Approach to Culture in the Courtroom," Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 13 (2001): 107-36

Paradox of Multicultural Vulnerability and the Civil Society Solution

Culture is an important component of a person’s identity; however, the same culture could have vastly different manifestations in different individuals. This is because culture, like identity, is an organic and dynamic concept. An immigrant rich county l can expect a diverse range of cultures, and an even more diverse range of manifestations due to exposure to both native and other immigrant cultures. The government should adopt an accommodation policy that supports the development of civil society groups within identity groups in Canada. This post will first examine the need for government to adopt a policy of cultural accommodation, the resulting problem of the paradox of multicultural vulnerability [hereon: multicultural paradox](Shachar 2000), articulate the nuances of the civil society proposal, and finally consider some of the consequences of this proposal.

There are numerous rationales for the government to pursue a policy of cultural accommodation. Among the most persuasive reasons for a policy of cultural accommodation is that members within minority cultures (or identity groups) are more likely to be discriminated against by mainstream society. In this regard, cultural accommodation is often a form of affirmative action. The maintenance of minority and immigrant cultures also adds a diverse voice in the democratic discourse. Cultural accommodation and promotion promotes a vibrant democracy by allowing minority groups a chance to voice their opinions. The premise is that a state which has a high level of immigrant population, cultural accommodation is an essential policy for the state.

While the government should adopt a policy of cultural accommodation, there are varying degrees by which the policy could be pursued. The problem with state support of culture is that the state will inevitably endorse one version of a culture over another. The ‘multicultural paradox’ exists when the government’s endorsement of a particular version of culture reinforces the power hierarchies that exist within that culture. An example of the multicultural paradox is the government giving cultural groups the right to adjudicate family law issues. In Israel, the government’s acceptance of religious jurisdiction of family law under extensive circumstances has undermined the citizenship rights of woman within those religions (Ibid, 77-79).

Another problem with the government pursuing a policy of multiculturalism is that by pursuing only one version of a particular culture, it is retarding the evolution of that culture. When sponsoring a version of a cultural identity, the government is giving those who disproportionately gaining an incentive to discourage change to the culture’s identity. Specifically, it allows the current cultural elites to accuse those who advocate for a change in the status quo of ‘destroying the culture’. The fact that all culture experience evolution disproves such accusations and the government should not consider all promotion of cultural evolution as destruction of the target culture.

The problem that the government faces with the multicultural paradox is the tension created by the governments need to respect, and provide accommodation, for non-dominant cultures and the dominant philosophy of liberal individualism. The extremes of either pole present troubling consequences. If the government adopts a policy that defers to minority cultures, the government is abandoning the minorities within those minority cultures to the whim of the majority (Kymlicka 1995, 41). If, on the other hand, the government adopts a policy to protect individual’s citizenship rights, the government effectively limits the diversity of voices available in a democratic society. It is also imposing the values of the majority on the minority, also a situation contrary to liberal theory.

A possible solution to this problem is for the government to adopt a concurrent policy of cultural accommodation and support for the establishment and maintenance of culture-specific civil society-like organizations for minorities within the cultural identity group. In this dual-track policy, the government would continue to support and accommodate protections for critical cultural practices. This would include practices that directly or indirectly reinforce the power of the cultural group’s elites and would be detrimental to minorities within the cultural group. The difference in this policy is that the government would actively support the emergence and sustenance of culture-specific civil society groups for cultural minorities.

The civil society groups that the government should support can, and should, range in their mandates and form. In the case of the religious groups, the government should sponsor groups from organizations helping woman who leave their husbands establish a new life (hand-on aid agencies) to those who would advocate for a change in the group’s divorce procedures (advocacy organizations). The existence of such organizations provides a venue by which minorities within cultural groups could organize to effect change within the culture. This program allows the government to respect the importance of a diverse cultural mosaic while promoting the evolution of those cultures by empowering the weak minorities within the culture.

This policy is employs a similar philosophy to theorists who argue that development of civil society within a state is vital to ensuring that that state respects individual rights. The government’s role in the establishment of civil society should only be limited to providing the environment (in funding and other areas) that would promote minorities within the culture to form the civil society organization itself. A government established organization would have the same effect as the government dictating the direction that the evolution should take. By allowing the minorities to form the organizations, the government can ensure that the core of the culture’s evolution remains in the hands of members of the group. The government, in short, should only enable and not direct change.

The dual-track policy is not without its flaws, especially in the areas of selection bias, delayed impact, and inconsistency in government policy. The problem of selection bias is similar to the argument made about cultural accommodation. The government, in choosing which advocacy group to fund is at risk of establishing legitimate minorities that receive funding and support, as opposed to ‘illegitimate’ minorities that do not. While selection bias is a real problem in the dual-track policy, the fact that minorities are being organized forces the established elites to be more receptive of minority concerns. It also breaks the mainstream conception of a homogeneous cultural identity, and alerts the public to the fact that nuances to cultural identity exist.

The delayed impact critique of the proposed policy refers to the fact that cultural evolution requires a significant period of time to occur. During the time when the minority groups are being established to the time when successful evolution takes place, many minority cultural group members remain second-tier citizens. The continued subordination of cultural minorities is an unfortunate cost of the dual-track policy. The alternative, of unconditionally privileging individual liberties over the integrity of minority cultures, is more costly. The destruction of cultural integrity would not only have the detrimental effects mentioned at the beginning of this post, but also expose the culture's minorities to being cast as traitors of the culture (Shachar 2000).

Finally, the government sponsorship of cultural minority groups advocating for change within their culture and its implicit endorsement of cultural elites via cultural accommodation has the government in effect sponsoring both sides of the debate. The government is concurrently pursuing a policy to respect of minority culture while attempting to foster evolution of such culture. The dual-track policy is not fundamentally inconsistent; the promotion of cultural minority groups is predicated on respecting minority cultures while empowering cultural minorities to advocate for change within the mainstream minority culture. The policy adopts a more nuanced approach to culture and cultural evolution; it also allows the government to strike a balance between respect of minority cultures and the rights of minorities within culture.

While it is tempting for citizens of the mainstream identity to argue for the unconditional primacy of individual rights over cultural accommodation, it is contrary to the fundamental principle of multiculturalism to adopt such a stance. The dual-track policy, even with its flaws, provides the government with the ability to balance between supporting cultures and minorities. The multicultural paradox may not be fully resolved by the dual-track policy; however, the policy represents a positive step to resolve the paradox. Until a more comprehensive multicultural citizenship model can be developed the dual-track policy represents the optimal course of action for the government.

Works Cited List

Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford, 1995), pp. 34-49

Ayelet Shachar, "On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability," Political Theory 28,no. 1 (2000): 64-89

Horrendous Reality of Canadian Immigration - Take III

Dear prospective highly skilled immigrant,

In Canada our immigration policy is based on a business-capitalist framework. It is formed in terms of economic benefits to this corporation…oops, we mean state. We currently have openings in the second-tier. We are aware that you are a cardiologist and we do have openings at that level but we prefer to give this opportunity to the Canadian-born as opposed to you, the immigrant. Besides haven’t you always dreamed of flipping a burger or to be driving a taxi through rush hour traffic? Canadians cant be expected to drive or cook for themselves. We need immigrants for such prestigious jobs.

Since we are providing you with this great opportunity, we need you to fulfill the following criteria when employed in your position:

- try not to speak with an accent; it makes Canadian customers uncomfortable

- do not complain about long hours and low wages; after all you should be grateful to be here

- do not be vocal about any ideas that you may have which contradict the dominant social paradigm; we are only interested in your exotic food, music and sometimes clothing (please make note: we do not like turbans or hijabs; they make Canadians uncomfortable)

So though we were not able to make much use of your medical expertise, your employment in the second-tier will surely be of benefit to your offspring (which we need to keep our population from declining because we as Canadians do not wish to have as many offspring because our first-tier jobs require our precious time). Please note that the benefits to your offspring may differ in their extent depending on what your country of origin is; offspring of European immigrants can expect higher benefits than those of non-European immigrants.

So don’t delay, apply today for the opportunity of our lifetime…oops, your lifetime…maybe your offspring’s lifetime…maybe your offspring’s offspring’s lifetime.

Sincerely,

The Corporation of Canada…oops
The Government of Canada

Canada's Immigration Policy: A Historical Overview

Canadian Immigration Policy: A Historical Overview

Canadian immigration policy has gone through several changes in the last 120 years, some of them permanent, some of them temporary. Canadian immigration policy is flexible, and thus continually changing to meet social and economic conditions. In addition to temporary policy adjustments, some permanent changes to the immigration system have occurred. We will examine the history of Canadian immigration policy and chart the changes in the last century, both temporary and permanent.

Late 1800’s-1930

The goal of Canadian immigration policy up until World War I was to attract farmers and farm workers to build an agricultural base in the West. The countries that Canada sought immigrants from were Britain the U.S and Northwestern Europe. However, when demand for labour exceeded supply of immigrants, policy shifted to allow immigration from other countries to address the shortcoming.

The first official regulatory structure for immigration was established in 1910, focusing on the prospective immigrant’s country of origin. This act was written in broad terms and delegated complete control over immigration policy to the cabinet. Since the cabinet can create regulations through Orders in Council, which are not brought before the house, they could make changes in policy without public scrutiny. This autonomy was justified by the necessity for flexibility in immigration policies in response to economic fluctuations. The regulatory structure established in 1910 delineated countries into two groups: preferred and non-preferred. Admission to immigrants in preferred countries was based solely on country of origin. Preferred countries included: Britain, the U.S, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and South Africa. Prospective immigrants from non-preferred countries were taken in certain conditions. Some countries in Northern and Western Europe were given almost the same status as the official preferred countries and immigrants were often admitted from these countries, whereas potential immigrants from other countries required sponsorship by someone who was already a legal Canadian resident.

Although these regulations evolved significantly up until the great depression, Canadian immigration policy was still focused on securing farmers and farm workers to build an agricultural base.

1930-1946

During the great depression, Canada closed its doors to new immigrants. A passage of Order in Council in 1931 brought Canadian immigration to a halt, and it remained near zero as a percentage of population until after World War II. The country-building phase of Canadian immigration policy was complete and by the 1930’s, and with the severe economic downturn of the great depression, the emphasis was on preserving the nation. After the great depression, the fear of another depression, made Canadians wary of reopening the border to immigration even after the economy picked up.

The only exceptions to the rule of zero immigration applied to British subjects and U.S citizens with the means to maintain themselves until they found employment, a wife or child under 18 of a legal resident of Canada who had the means to care for them, or an agriculturalist with the means to farm in Canada. These exceptions only applied if the prospective immigrants destination province did not object. The exceptions also did not apply to any Asiatic race. They were prohibited from entry.

1946-1960

Post-war economic prosperity created a shortage of workers. Canadians were wary of increased immigration with the memory of great depression fresh, but in 1947 William Lyon McKenzie King re-opened immigration with a selective immigration policy. McKenzie King didn’t want a “fundamental alteration in the character of our population… Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens” (Troper p260) Accordingly Ottawa opened the border to those races and nationalities with a ‘proven track record of assimilation’, predominantly Western and Northern Europeans. In concession to the business lobby who wanted workers willing to do the low wage, low status work that these ‘preferred’ immigrants and native Canadians weren’t willing to, the government also allowed entry to some Slavic and Jewish immigrants.

In addition to addressing the labour shortage, Canadian immigration policy had a stated aim of population growth, ensuring, as McKenzie King put it; “the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed.” Canada was seen as an under-populated country. The official labour policy also allowed for enough flexibility to address future labour shortages and surpluses effectively. The official labour policy in this era did not explicitly state how many immigrants Canada sought or from which countries; it left these determinations up to the government to handle through Order-in- Council directives – again attempting to preserve flexibility.

Labour shortages continued into the 1950’s and restrictions on race and nationality were loosened to keep up. In 1952 a new immigration policy was enacted to attract a continuing stream of immigrants, and boost population growth, without opening the door too wide to certain races and nationalities. The act continued to bar against non-whites, especially Asians. Canada did however allow a small number of non-white immigrants from Pakistan, India and Ceylon. This had the effect of setting a precedent for admission of any non-white immigrants. The main source of increased immigrant flow however was Italy. Hundreds of thousands of Italian immigrants came into Canada by the mid 1960’s, most of them unskilled.

1960-1975

In the early 1960’s economic slowdown capped the demand for labour and immigration numbers fell by half. At the same time, immigration policy revision was the new focus: this period was subject to the most change in the regulatory environment since 1910. The goal was to keep immigration policy in line with new human rights initiatives at the federal and provincial level. The result of these policy changes were the lifting of racial and ethnic restrictions on independent applicants, although for some time after these changes occurred, administrative procedures allowed discrimination to continue. For example, almost all the resources of the immigration offices were concentrated in areas traditionally considered ‘preferred’. Little resources were directed at recruiting from the developing world. In 1960, Canada operated 27 immigration offices. Twenty-four were in Europe, One in Israel, and two in Asia. None existed in Africa or South America. Harold Troper puts it like this: “It was as if Ottawa was inviting the world to a party but did not expect anyone to accept the invitation.” (Troper p 268)

Further policy reforms in the mid 1960’s finally removed all racial and ethnic discrimination from the formal immigration policy in Canada.

In addition to these advances in racial equality in the immigration system, the overall immigration policy shifted to place an emphasis on skilled labour. A points system was introduced to screen candidates based on merit, removing discretionary powers of immigration officials and allowing immigration to be adjusted more easily with economic fluctuations – the points system could be quickly and easily adjusted as needed. The points system also shifted the basis of selectivity from country of origin to the individual immigrant. These changes were described by Ellen Fairclough, Minister of Immigration and Citizenship:

We shall do our best to admit as immigrants individuals and families who are personally suitable and who have the required background and training to become worthwhile citizens. The key to our immigration policy will be the consistent application of proper selection standards designed to bring the best possible settlers to Canada. I am sure all Canadians agree that once these standards are established they should be applied consistently to all who seek admission to this country, except where the admission of the immigrant is based on compassionate grounds [refugees] or on close relationships [family sponsorship by members already admitted] (Green p37).

In effect, Fairclough was placing emphasis on individual merit, and removing race and nationality from the selection criteria in Canadian immigration policy.

1975-1985

There were many economic fluctuations in this period, testing the flexibility of the immigration system for the first time. This also tested the efficacy of the points system, which proved to be insufficient to screen candidates with the skills necessary to consistently find employment in their field. The points system did prove successful in reducing the number of unskilled immigrants.

In 1978 an all-new immigration act was enacted, to replace the much-amended immigration act of 1952 that was still in place. The 1952 legislation had been amended to meet modern social issues but still reflected outdated aims of attracting unskilled and agricultural labour, which were out of place in an increasingly urbanized society. The Canadian government felt that the immigration laws in the 1952 Act could no longer be amended beyond recognition and needed to be completely reinvented. The stated goals of the 1978 Immigration Act were as follows:

1) To facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian residents with close family members from abroad;
2) To fulfill Canada’s legal obligations with respect to refugees and uphold its humanitarian traditions;
3) To foster the development of a strong and viable economy in all regions of Canada.

The act then aimed to allow easier family sponsorship, recognize refugees for the first time as a distinct class of immigrants eligible for sanctuary and tailor Canadian immigration policy to labour shortages and surpluses. The act gave top processing priority to refugees and family members.

The 1978 immigration act set targets for immigration, including for refugees and family sponsorships and aimed to attract skilled labour. The act also targeted a new ‘entrepreneurial immigrant’ class who had the capital to build a business in Canada and provide jobs.

1985-1993

A government review of immigration policy in 1985 determined that fertility in Canada had fallen below replacement levels, and that Canada’s population was projected to decline after year 2000. The result of this review was to increase immigration through removal of the prerequisite of prearranged employment. This had the effect of increasing immigration levels from roughly 80,000 in 1985 to 250,000 in 1993.

The new immigration policy set stable targets of 1% of the population for immigration, despite a poor labour market. This policy was intended to provide for long-term population growth, and was the first time the Canadian government had kept immigration flows consistent despite high levels of unemployment. This signaled the first time population growth had taken precedence over economic concerns in immigration policy.

By 1985, non-European immigration topped 60 percent, and while Canadians rejected racism, it was clear that the ethno cultural composition of Canada was changing fast.

1993 – Present

In 1995 the Liberal government implemented a new strategy in immigration policy, maintaining total immigration levels at a consistent 1%, adjusting target ranges for different groups, including refugees, individuals and families.

The point system was drastically revamped, placing emphasis on individual skills relevant to given careers, rather than on education levels, as the system did previously. This put trades workers and other low-education high-skill workers at a disadvantage.

The revisions to the immigration policy were intended to contribute to the goal of “ensuring that newcomers to Canada can integrate and contribute to Canada as quickly as possible, without adding to the burden on social programs” (Hawkins, p80).

The revisions were intended in broad terms to minimize the costs of immigration programs while ensuring large inflows of the right type of immigrants to stimulate economic growth and fill gaps in the labour market.

Changes have occurred in the race, economic standing of the immigrants Canada allows to enter the country. The policy directing these changes have been based on economic concerns mostly, but also adapted to keep pace with human right. Now the focus of Canada’s immigration policy is still economic but also shifting to population perpetuation.

Bibliography:

Green, A.G and D.A Green. 1995 Canadian Immigration Policy: The Effectiveness of the Point System and Other Instruments. Canadian Journal of Economics 1006-41.

Green, A. G and D.A Green. The Goal’s of Canada’s Immigration Policy: A Historical Perspective. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 13-1.

Hawkins 91 Hawkins, F. 1972. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Troper, Harold. Canada’s Immigration Policy Since 1945. International Journal 181-2.

How Are the Second Generations of Immigrant Families Faring in Canada?

Immigrants continue to flock to Canada in hopes of achieving a better life for themselves and their families. Many of them are highly educated, but upon arrival to Canada, find that they cannot obtain jobs in their field of choice. Rather, many of them end up in menial service jobs after leaving their native countries where they possessed jobs of higher status and income. This begs the question: Do highly educated immigrants come to Canada expecting to attain the same occupation that they were qualified for in their native country? If so, upon failure, why not return, instead of staying in Canada where they are likely to obtain jobs of lower status? After all, there are disclaimers on the official website of the Canadian government (), which explains that there is a disjuncture between the Canadian immigration policy, which values education, and the credentialisation process, which might not recognize foreign diplomas and experience (Hiebert 2006). Therefore, I would argue that many of the educated immigrants are aware of their limited capacity to obtain first tier occupations, so their decision to stay in Canada is based on the future of their children, in hope that their future generations will live prosperously.

Many have come to believe that educated immigrants are somewhat misled by the Canadian government into believing that because a high status position was obtained in their native country, that Canadian society offers similar opportunities. While this is possible, a certain amount of research beforehand would reveal that the credentialisation process in Canada is somewhat exclusive to foreign degrees and work experience. If for some reason, a new immigrant has been unaware of these circumstances, they can still return to their native country and their previous occupation. However, many will continue to stay because research indicates that the second generation of immigrant families not only achieve parity with native Canadian salaries, but earn roughly 10% above their native Canadian counterparts (Hum and Simpson 2007). Therefore, although life may be hard for immigrant parents, who could fare much better in their home countries, many of them sacrifice their comfort for their children.

In 2005, China and Korea constituted two of the top eight sources of immigrants to Canada, with China representing the greatest influx (Liston and Carens). What these two countries have in common is that their cultures are strongly influenced by Confucianism. This may be significant because one of the main themes of Confucianism is the virtue of filial piety. This term denotes the respect that a child shows their parents and is the most important relationship other than to the sovereign. This relates to the immigration topic because it is possible that some parents of Chinese or Korean ethnicity may decide to struggle in Canada, believing that their children will succeed and take care of them in old age. Therefore, the sacrifice made is somewhat of an investment into their retirement years. Obviously this does not represent the motivations of all educated immigrants from China and Korea, and in the same way, many immigrants of other cultures may be motivated by these ideas. However, it is a possibility that culture influences the decision to make that sacrifice.

One of the main reasons why the second generations of immigrant families succeed is because they are more educated than native Canadians. Studies indicate that second generation men acquire about 8% more years of schooling than their native Canadian counterparts, while second generation women acquire about 5% more schooling (Hum and Simpson 2007). Obviously a higher educated segment of the workforce will achieve higher average incomes. A possible reason for their higher education statistics may be because of the educational attainment of their parents. Studies by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) show that parents with a university degree or higher qualification are more confident that their child would go on to higher education (91% compared with 74% otherwise) (Istance 2006). Moreover, Canadian immigrants, on average, who arrive through all different classes, are better educated than their Canadian counterparts (Hiebert 2006). To put it simply, educated immigrants expect their children to attend postsecondary education. These statistics would indicate that an immigrant’s decision to stay in Canada, despite having a low standard of living, could result in higher educational attainment and status for their children.

Additionally, children who grow up with educated parents who work at low paying jobs might feel the psychological pressure of living up to expectations. If the parent is sacrificing to offer the child the hope of a better future, then the child may feel the obligation to succeed. Again, the Confucian values of filial piety may play a role in the child’s motivation to please their parents.

To put this into the context of Canadian immigration policy, this should encourage the government to keep its doors open to immigration. Although recent immigrants are not faring particularly well in the Canadian labour market, future generations will end up contributing just as much as native Canadians or even more. Some critics claim that Canadian immigration is framed around failure and wasted human capital evidenced by the iconic figure of the cab driver with an engineering degree or PhD (Hiebert 2006). While it is true that Canadian society could benefit from the experience and education of immigrants, the reality is that a strong command of the English language is essential in most high paying jobs. The upside of the situation is that because most immigrants are arriving with secondary education, their children are more likely to fill those high paying positions. Therefore, the positive effects of Canadian immigration policy using the ‘points system’ may not be realized until the second generation grows into a very qualified workforce.

The problem, however, is that the percentage of actual applicants who immigrate though the ‘points system’ program is less than 50% (Hiebert 2006). The admitted immigrants are most likely highly educated, and would contribute their future children’s human capital, but if a large percentage of admitted immigrants are not chosen based on educational attainment, then these positive benefits may not be realized. Therefore, the Canadian government should consider raising the percentage of people admitted through the points system so that their children’s human capital can contribute to the future of Canadian society. Of course, this can only be realized if the immigrant is made aware that they might not attain a high paying occupation, depending on different circumstances such as Canadian experience and language proficiency. However, if they decide that their children’s future is worth staying, then this could benefit both Canada and the immigrant family.

Immigrants decide to stay in Canada for various reasons. Some, hoping that Canadian society can offer them the same position they had in their native country, are disappointed once they arrive, since they cannot obtain their job of choice. For whatever reason, they stay, and can be comforted by the fact that their children can grow up to become very successful members of Canadian society. Other educated immigrants are already aware that dream jobs are not available, but simply want to immigrate to offer their children an opportunity to succeed in Canada. Either way, these immigrants are contributing something to the future of Canada, so Canadian immigration should reflect their desirability.

Bibliography

Hiebert, Daniel. “Winning, Losing, and Still Playing the Game: The Political Economy of Immigration in Canada.” Tidschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 97, no. 1 (2006), pg. 38-48.

Hum, Derek and Wayne, Simpson. “The Legacy of Immigration: Labor Market Performance and Education in the Second Generation.” Applied Economics, Vol. 39, no. 13 (2007), pg. 1985-2009.

Liston, Mary and Caren, Joseph. “Immigration and Integration in Canada.”

Instance, David. Demand Sensitive Schooling: Evidence and Issues. OECD Publishing, 2006.

Horrendous Reality of Canadian Immigration - Take II

Dear Prospective, Skilled but Highly Undervalued Immigrant

Thank you for showing interest in our country. We are honored that you have recognized how great and welcoming we are. Due to our rapidly aging population and low replacement rate, our current social structure cannot be sustained. Thus, at this time we are actively pursuing immigrants toaugment our tax base.

If you wish to bring your family to the land of opportunity, we would like to advise you at this time that there are a multitude of qualified individuals who wish to make our country their home. Unfortunately, the majority of candidates are unable to enter their profession of choice upon entering our Canadian society. That being said, we are more than happy to offer you admission into our country with the acceptance that you will work happily in our second-tier occupations. We guarantee that some of these jobs will provide you with a minimum-wage salary and we encourage you to take advantage of the plethora of second-tier jobs available, perhaps concurrently in order to atleast surpass the low-income cut-off line.

Being the accommodating country we are, we are willing to wave the second-tier occupational condition and corresponding standard of living provided that you have received a professional education from an internationally recognized, elite university.

Although renown for our multiculturism, in order for your children to reach their highest potential in Canada, we strong encourage that upon entry to the public education system they adapt and embrace the mainstream expectations of our Canadian culture and allow their distinct culture and accents to blossom only in the nurturing environment of the private sphere.

We thank you for your application this time, and are happy to accept you into our beautiful country. Take pride in the fact that you are now planting a seed that perhaps may blossom in generations to come. We hope that you understand that the fruits of your labour (or foreign educational degrees) may not fully be realized immediately, expect that 50 years down the road the generations to follow may perhaps attain the standard of living that you so hoped to attain upon your entry to Canada. Good things come to those who wait and on that note, we wish you all the best in attaining the Canadian dream.

Love, Canada

Canada's Immigration Policy: The Package Deal of Immigration and Qualified Accommodation

Compared to other developed countries, Canada has a good reputation for being a welcoming country to immigrants. Introduced in 1962, its points system criteria for evaluating potential immigrants is put forth by the government as an apparently objective tool for determining compatibility with Canada’s needs and the likelihood of a successful transition. Many of those who choose to attempt to immigrate to Canada, by going through the painstaking and often lengthy process of applying, do so because of what seems like a widespread misconception amongst new immigrants that upon arrival, their needs will immediately, or at least soon be met. This misconception is attributable to the fact that Canada’s immigration policy does not explicitly state that Canada’s welcoming attitude regarding immigration is based, not on the needs of potential immigrants, and their desire for a better life, but rather, the state’s needs. According to Liston and Carens, “by 2011 immigrants will account for all of Canada’s labour force growth, and by 2026 projections show that Canada’s population will grow solely through the arrival of immigrants” (Liston & Carens 242).

Canada’s need for a constant influx of immigrants in order to sustain its economy and population seems to come with the implicit condition that immigrants adapt to the Canadian labour market needs, by working in whatever fields most require their services. Often, the job opportunities open to new immigrants are those in the low-level service sector, jobs that Canadian-born citizens are unwilling to take. Here lies the contradiction, although “immigrants are seen as essential to Canadian prosperity on the one hand,” and decisions on whether they can immigrate to Canada are based upon their potential contributions, it seems as though the contributions they can potentially make are systematically restricted (Hiebert 2006: 39). The credentialisation process is proof of the systematic restriction of the potential contributions that immigrants can make to Canadian society and economy. According to Hiebert, the Statistics Canada findings suggest that rather than competing equally with the general population, immigrants end up competing against other immigrants in the labour market, due to the fact that “immigrants are prevented from competing directly with the Canadian-born through the credentialisation process” (Hiebert 2006: 46).

Certainly, some resourceful potential immigrants are fully informed of this reality upon applying, however, it is also a fact that many are not. To many potential immigrants, Canada is made out to be a land of opportunity where cultural differences are welcomed and regarded as positive defining characteristics. This is not to argue that Canada is unaccommodating of the economic and cultural needs of its diverse pool of immigrants, but, it may be more accurate to say that it is a conditional and qualified accommodation. Canada accommodates the economic and cultural needs of immigrants insofar as it suits the needs of and the comfort level of the dominant Canadian-born population. Canada can still be regarded as the land of opportunity, but just not to the extent of ‘equality’ that many potential immigrants mistakenly assume it to be.

Canada is a country that prides itself on its official commitment to a policy of multiculturalism, and goal of equality in all respects for the diverse ethnic groups that comprise its population (Liston & Carens 252). It is perhaps these policies that lead many potential immigrants to believe the misconception that immediately or soon after their arrival here, they will have open to them a plethora of great opportunities that they were unable to find in their home countries. Unless potential immigrants are resourceful and have researched well the reality of immigrating, this misconception leads them to overlook the implicit metaphoric fine print on their immigration application. If read carefully, this implicit fine print would clearly indicate to potential immigrants that qualified accommodation upon arrival is in fact part of the package deal of immigration. This may be an unfair reality of immigration, but as the present system stands, it is the reality that many uninformed immigrants currently face.

The present system that implicitly packages qualified accommodation upon arrival together with immigration requires further examination into whether the system must be set up in this way, and if so, why. The discussion by Hiebert of the improved human capital of Canadian-born workers may shed some light on this issue. In recent decades, the Canadian government has “invested heavily in educational institutions, [resulting in] a dramatic increase in the attainment level of Canadians” (Hiebert 2006: 42). Thus, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s, Canadian-born workers are now able to satisfy the labour market needs in the professional and skilled fields (Hiebert 2006: 43). Consequently, the needs of the labour market are now in the low-level service fields that many Canadian-born workers are no longer willing to take. If viewed from this economic perspective, the present package deal of immigration and qualified accommodation may in fact be necessary in order to sustain the way the Canadian economy is currently set up. Regardless of whether or not the present package deal of immigration and qualified accommodation is necessary, the most important concern is that all potential immigrants should be made well aware of this reality upon applying.

Aside from the issue of the qualified economic accommodation of immigrants, the issue of cultural accommodation is also worth mentioning. Qualified accommodation seems to apply to the issue of cultural differences as well. Canada’s immigration history after Confederation, demonstrates a limited willingness to accommodate the cultural differences that certain cultures would bring, if allowed to immigrate to Canada. Specifically, between 1896 and 1914, “racial preferences were employed in the selection and admission process [of immigrants]. The imposition of costly head taxes on Chinese immigrants, continuous-journey requirements on East Indians, and a voluntary immigration quota on Japanese persons drastically reduced Asian immigration” (Liston & Carens 236). Although the current Canadian approach to cultural accommodation may no longer be as drastic as this example, as demonstrated by less racially discriminatory immigration practices, the extent to which cultural differences are accommodated and accepted is still largely contingent upon the preferences of the dominant Canadian-born population. Thus, it seems that the package deal of immigration and qualified accommodation applies to both the economic and cultural aspects of life, that many new immigrants are challenged with upon their arrival in Canada.

Works Cited

Mary Liston and Joseph Carens, “Immigration and Integration in Canada,” forthcoming.

Daniel Hiebert, “Winning, Losing, and Still Playing the Game: The Political Economy of Immigration in Canada,” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97, no. 1 (2006): 38–48.

Horrendous Reality of Canadian Immigration

Dear Member of the Developing World,

If you have the credentials to be a professional or a skilled labourer, we would like to invite you to apply to immigrate to our fine nation. We cannot guarantee that your found employment will reflect the aforementioned credentials. In fact, we CAN guarantee that your employment will put your education to shame.

No matter, what really matters to us, is the education of your children. In fact, you should be proud at the thought of contributing to the Canadian economy through the intonation of your sweet child`s voice as they say: `Would you like fries with that?” Lest you fear that immigration is not all it’s billed as, there’s always YOUR ability to get a job. Right? Right.

What we can guarantee is a spot with an illustrious chauffer agency, Sedexo, or au pair job. Likely, all of these jobs will put you in close contact with over-educated, under-qualified university students, who will have access to the primary job market. You will not. That should not deter you from applying, as Canadians seem not to want to reproduce themselves. Thus, we are vehemently pursuing a policy of misrepresenting Canadian life, so as to increase immigration. If you would like to be a part of this fairy tale, please apply below.

Sincerely,
The Ministry of Lies and Propaganda
Under the Government of Stephen I-Enslave-Your-First-Born Harper

P.S. Those with high hopes for a better life, education for their children, and an improvement of any kind…need not apply.
P.P.S. Don’t even THINK about getting sick.