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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The Canadian immigration policy, like all policies of the state, is not perfect. That being said, it is not as fundamentally flawed as the above analysis presents. This response argues that the Canadian policy's flaw in credentialisation process is an error in not maximizing the needed benefit, and not discrimination. An examination of the need for immigrants, followed by a critique of the above analysis makes the case that the immigrant process is not nearly as flawed as portrayed.
In order to fully understand the proper rubric to evaluate immigration policy, one must first examine the rationale behind Canadian acceptance of immigration. The main reason for the government to accept immigrants is the declining birth, and death, rate, creating the need for demographic replacement (Liston & Carens, 242). Demographic replacement is synonymous, in this case, with the need for the Canadian government to find the tax base to support the growing elderly group with the current level of social support. Immigrants are tax bases that are needed to support our welfare infrastructure.
The need to maintain the welfare infrastructure drives the immigration policy, Canada needs immigrants. This explains why it is unimaginable for Canada, or any state actively courting immigrants, to not put a good spin in its advertisement to immigrants. It is comical to believe that, given its need for immigrants, Canada would highlight the difficulties to become accredited in a profession. (Just as it is difficult to believe that it never rains in California, despite advertisements that suggest otherwise). Canada does have the obligation to not lie in its advertisement (i.e. claiming that everyone with a medical degree can be a doctor in Canada with no extra training or testing), and an obligation to ensure that the truth is available. Canada’s immigration advertisement fulfills both those requirements.
The credentialisation process is not a systemic attempt at preventing immigrants from competing with native born citizens, as suggested by the above analysis and Hiebert (Hiebert 2006, 46). Hiebert argues that because the proportion of native born earning low incomes has declined while the immigration proportion has increased demonstrates a systemic attempt via credientialisation to prevent immigrants from competing with natives (Ibid). The analysis ignores that half of all immigrants are not skilled labour (and even those in the skilled about, only a proportion work in a regulated profession), and that the native population’s average educational attainment has risen dramatically (Ibid, 42). The two factors explain the difference in the fortunes of the two groups.
Skilled immigrants, especially in the regulated professions, should expect that their credentials would not be automatically accepted in Canada. The regulated professions are regulated because there is a social benefit in ensuring that all practitioners achieve a minimum standard of professionalism. Skilled immigrants from the regulated professions should understand the difficulties of being licensed, presumably because they had to go though the same process to work in their profession in their native states. (Their qualifications would be highly suspect if they practiced in a state where they did not need to be licensed).
While the credentialisation process is not an example of the government preventing immigrant/native competition, a good immigration policy should lead to minimal immigrant/native competition. Immigration policy should be responsive to the needs of the country, and be aware of the native labour demographics. A country with an excess of health-care should value foreign health-care professionals at a great discount, regardless of their educational credentials. The Canadian immigration policy's problem is not in accepting the wrong people; Canada is in need of skilled labour (especially in health-care). Canada's flaw is in not maximizing the potential benefits from accepted immigrants.
The immigrants accepted in the skilled category would, ideally, be employed in their specialized profession because that is where they would make the biggest contribution to the tax base. However, the benefit of maximizing tax base is dwarfed by the consequences of a sub-standard professional working in a regulated profession. The Canadian policy could remedy this problem by ensuring that skilled workers in the regulated professions have adequate resources for retraining before being accepted for immigration. This way Canada could ensure that the skilled immigrants in the regulated professions could make the maximum contribution to the Canadian social infrastructure.
Works Cited List
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.
On the world-stage, Canada appears to have a creditable immigration system, giving it the positive reputation as a haven of opportunity for immigrants. In reality, this is not immediately the case for the average immigrant. MJ’s assertion that “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” is an extremely insightful one which I would like to build upon in the following paper. I agree with MJ and Hiebert who both argue that“immigrants are seen as essential to Canadian prosperity” (Hiebert 2006: 39) and would like to advance this argument by outlining the possible motivational factors upon which the ‘upright’ Canadian immigration system is built.
First and foremost, Canada desperately needs to attract immigrants to respond to internal demographic factors such as its low birth rate. According to Liston and Carens as sited by MJ, “by 2026 Canada’s population will grow solely through the arrival of immigrants.” (Liston & Carens, 242) According to Statistics Canada, Canada's current natural birthrate is less than 1.5%, but a growth rate of 2.1% is needed just to maintain the same size population."(CBC, 1:2007) According to the Toronto Star, immigrants are therefore an “investment in human potential needed for this country to remain a viable nation." (Rosenblatt Associates, 1: 2007) Thus, while the Canadian population does not personally seem interested in having large families but still recognizes the importance of a steady birth rate in order to maintain a demographic balance, the immigration system effectively works to increase the population by attracting migrants from around the globe. Accordingly, the welcoming immigration practises known worldwide serve Canada’s best interests in this manner.
Canada is not only facing a demographic imbalance that is remedied by its receptive immigration policies but also an employee deficit in the workplace that benefits from these policies as well. Promoting immigration ensures that labour shortages are kept under control, advanced by the belief cited by MJ that “by 2011, immigrants will account for all of Canada’s labour force growth.” (Liston & Carens, 242). However, even though education and work experience rank high on the immigration points system for entrance into Canada, it appears that ironically, external credentials amount to little after that stage. The University of Toronto’s Centre for Industrial Relations, released a study showing the reality that immigrants have in working in their fields after they arrive in Canada. It states, “on average it takes ten years for immigrants to get hired in jobs for which they have skills and, even then, they are not necessarily working at the skill level to which they have been trained.” (Ramsey, 1: 2002) It is estimated that collectively, immigrants are underpaid $12.6 billion every year. (Ramsey, 1:2002) Evidently, it simply benefits the Canadian economy to attract educated, experienced professionals but then to have these immigrants limited to 2nd and 3rd tier jobs that the native population has no interest in. This solves not only an employment problem, but a status problem by concentrating the ‘outsider’ in menial jobs.
While welcoming immigrants onto Canadian soil may seem benevolent on the surface, it is apparent that actively seeking newcomers largely benefits the economy as well. One may wonder who is actually reaping the greater benefit: the immigrant or the host country. Many inaccurately argue that Canada’s altruistic immigration system taxes social services such as welfare and health care and thus cannot possibly be motivated by economic greed. In reality, statistics show that immigrants pay more taxes, and expand the Canadian economy through their consumption of goods and services. On average, immigrants use social services less than Canadian-born residents; they do not use a disproportionate amount of health care, and given how independent immigrants are chosen, it is understandable that immigrants use welfare far less than the average native citizen. In the case of health care, “researchers have observed what has been termed the healthy immigrant effect: newly arrived immigrants tend to be in better overall health than the general population.” (Newbold & Danforth, 2003; Hyman & Guruge, 2002) Since immigrants are screened for health problems prior to admittance to Canada and those who are very ill would be unable to travel, this fact not surprising.
While the immigration points system is looked on favorably by potential immigrants and other countries as a model example of humanitarian immigration practices, it is important to note that this system also has a self-serving purposes. The points system is a practical, empirical method to ensure that Canada accepts highly-skilled, educated, experienced and ‘qualified’ candidates. The economic rationale behind this is that professional, skilled and business migrants promote economic growth in the host country. The other class of non-skilled immigrants would cause the economy to become stagnant or even decrease activity. “The United States admits a great many more unskilled migrants who proportionately tend to impose greater costs on the education, welfare and prison systems.” (Rosenblatt Associates, 1: 2007) In attempt to avoid the ‘sinking lifeboat’ phenomenon, the points system allows Canada to screen candidates on an ‘objective’ system to ensure subjective criteria are met and that only model immigrants enter. To further our selfish behaviour, accepting primarily professionals from undeveloped countries who have spent precious resources training them is a form of poaching that negates whatever foreign aid they may receive. Underdeveloped countries require doctors and engineers as well, and attracting only professionals by misrepresenting or hiding the reality of their employment prospects upon arrival in Canada is rather dishonest and self-serving.
Finally, once admitted to Canada on the ‘illustrious’ and ‘objective’ points-system there appears to be little follow-up in place to help immigrants transition, adjust and feel like valued and integral members of the social and economic fabric of the country. While being more than happy to attract immigrants to Canada, it appears that initial numbers and global reputation are main concerns motivating our ‘hospitable’ attitude toward immigrants. Under the amiable surface, it becomes apparent that once in Canada, various cultural, social, economic barriers must be overcome in order that new immigrants will feel fully apart of the country and free to avail of its opportunities and resources. If Canadian state truly cared about the welfare of its immigrants, the creation and implementation of transitional programs to aid immigrants during their early years in their new land would be a governmental priority. I would like to insist that whether or not this transitional gap is an intentional and conscious effort on the part of the Canadian government to exclude immigrants from feeling too welcome and continuing to justify subordinating them; the current immigration policies and practices in place seem to serve the given purpose for the country in terms of initially attracting many immigrants to Canada as well as giving it a favorable reputation around the globe. As a result, I feel they are unlikely to be adjusted in the near future to more beneficial practices that will aid the newly immigrated members of society.
Thus, I agree with both MJ and Hiebert who both argue that“immigrants are seen as essential to Canadian prosperity” (Hiebert 2006: 39) and have advanced this argument by outlining various possible motivational factors upon which the ‘honourable’ Canadian immigration system is built. Many will simply disregard these assertions as being part of a dramatic conspiracy theory which condems the conniving actions of the government against immigrants. This is not my intention or personal view in the least. However, I do believe it is imperative to have a balance when evaluating a governmental system as influential as immigration policies and practices, in order to obtain an objective and valuable conclusion. Thus, though the immigration policies of Canada may appear to be altruistic and humanitarian on the surface, it is sometimes necessary to expose the possible underlying motivational factors behind such a ‘noteworthy’ system before showering it with praise.
______________________________________
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “Immigration Critical to Canadian Population Growth: Census.” March 13, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/13/census-canada.html (March 24, 2008)
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.
Hyman, I., & Guruge, S. (2002). A review of theory and health promotion strategies for new immigrant women. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93, 183-7.
Mary Liston and Joseph Carens, “Immigration and Integration in Canada,” forthcoming.
Newbold, K. B., & Danforth, J. (2003). Health Status and Canada's Immigrant Population. Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1981-95.
Alison Ramsey, “Why Canada Needs More Immigrants: Now.” Reader’s Digest 04: 2002 http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2002/04/immigrants.html (March 21, 2008)
Rosenblatt Associates “Immigration Canada” 2007. http://www.immigrate.net/Law/en/Canada/Default.asp (March 24, 2008)
Post a Comment