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.
Showing posts with label Canada's Immigration Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada's Immigration Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)