Showing posts with label immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigrants. Show all posts

2026-04-07

Towards a Rational and Humane Immigration Policy

As the white supremacist regime to the south of us embarks on a policy of ethnic cleansing we should look at our own immigration and citizenship policy.

I have written posts about immigration previously but this post. rather than dealing with specific programs, will deal with the broader philosophy of immigration starting with some basic facts and values.

Firstly, 95% of Canadian residents are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants so, unless they are indigenous, someone claiming that they have more right to be here because their people immigrated here before people that immigrated later is making a baseless argument.

Also claiming that one’s place of birth gives someone more rights to a decent life and human dignity than someone born elsewhere is just as baseless an argument.

As I have written before in On Immigration:

Immigration has traditionally been a matter of consensus within Canada with everyone agreeing the country needs immigrants and has a responsibility to refugees. Political differences have been minor and over implementation rather than broad policy.

Change has come with strategists in the current Conservative Party thinking that the road to power is emulating Trump and cultivating a hard core right wing base. Unfortunately for the Conservatives this path will never lead the party back to the glory days of the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Canada’s immigration policy needs to be shaped by Canadian values.

Canada actively promotes inclusion and respect for diversity at home and abroad. Diversity is a natural characteristic of every society. Canada recognizes diversity as a source of strength and works to champion inclusive attitudes and encourage the adoption of inclusive approaches that lead to the full and meaningful participation of all. (Source: GofC)

The Canadian Multiculturalism Act serves as a legislative framework for promoting diversity, equality and inclusion in Canada, recognizing multiculturalism as a defining characteristic of Canadian identity. (Source: GofC)

Canadians do not fear the other, 95% of us were the other.

There are two major reasons people want to immigrate to Canada.

The most urgent one is fleeing conflict zones where a normal life is impossible or fleeing persecution by the authorities or others because of who they are. This group is known as asylum seekers or refugees. Canada has both a moral and legal requirement under international treaties to accept refugees and asylum seekers.

The second group are those seeking a better life for themselves in Canada. This group is often referred to as economic migrants. This is the group that Canada seeks as refugees as they are needed to fill jobs existing residents are not educated or trained for or simply not interested in doing. They are are also needed to provide demographic balance and support. an aging population. Of course, refugees more often than not, also serve this purpose.

There is another group, family members abroad of those that have already immigrated here and wish to be reunited with their family members in Canada. We could refer to this group as family values immigrants.

All immigrants provide much more than an economic benefit, they help build our communities and contribute to the diversity and multiculturalism that makes up the fabric of Canadian society and the core our value system.

Morally there should be no borders that determine that people deserve a better life based on where they are born and people would be able to move freely globally to try and make a better life for themselves.

But realistically, to maintain the society we have we need to limit immigration to levels our society and infrastructure can accommodate at any particular time, and we need to protect ourselves from those that pose serious criminal and national security threats to the country.

However immigrating is not a crime, so those entering the country without proper documentation or without following proper procedures are not criminals but have committed administrative offences, so while they should face due process they should not be treated as criminals.

I would also argue that anyone who has entered without following proper procedures and has established themselves as contributing members of society should be deemed to have earned their right to be here and provided a path to citizenship like all other immigrants.

I would further add that minor criminal offences should not be an automatic reason to refuse admission or deport people but should be considered within the overall character of the individual and their contributions or potential contributions to Canadian society.

Also “terrorism” should not be used as an excuse to exclude people based on their expressed opinions rather than any actual threat to Canada.

As Canada has only one class of citizen we should also have only one class of immigrant. We currently treat people who come here to do permanent continuing work, such as harvesting crops, differently by calling it temporary employment simply because the work is seasonal, even though the jobs continue from year to year and often the same people do the same jobs from year to year,.

This creates a category of underpaid work with little or no benefits where employees are subject to exploitation and cannot organize to improve their conditions because they can be deported at any time at their employers discretion. It is time to end this practice of exploiting workers then casting them aside till the next year and grant these workers permanent residence status. If we need people to do these jobs they should be able to do them as Canadians.

The only exceptions should be truly temporary jobs, such as foreign workers temporarily working here to install foreign purchased equipment or to train Canadian workers to use the equipment, as well as foreign performers touring Canada.

And it goes without saying that all immigrants should have a path towards full citizenship.

Canada needs to return to being seen as a welcoming society.

2008-03-27

Debunking E-mail Bigotry: Immigration

I usually ignore and delete any of the hate e-mails I receive but I decided to comment on this one because:

1. It was sent to us by someone we know that thought we would appreciate it.

2. It claimed to come from the Royal Canadian Legion.

3. It was inspired by disturbing remarks by a 2010 Olympics ceremonies committee official, and

4. It was such an easy target that it would be fun to tear it apart.

First I would like to make it clear that this e-mail does not originate from the Royal Canadian Legion. I received the following response from the Legion when I enquired about this e-mail:

The Royal Canadian Legion has identified this as a bogus e-mail which has not been sanctioned. The logo in use on it has been out of date since 2001. Notification of this has been posted to all branches via elegion and on the bulletin board at www.legion.ca. While we would like to catch the person who started this e-mail this is proving impossible. Please send this on to the people that sent you the bogus message so that they too will know that this message is bogus.
The e-mail stated:
Bruce Allen not out of hot water yet.

VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Despite being given a show of support by Vancouver 2010 organizers, embattled music manager and CKNW editorialist, Bruce Allen is not out of hot water just yet as the fallout continues from his recent commentary indicating immigrants to Canada should 'fit in,' or 'go home.'

Richmond Liberal MP, Raymond Chan, is set to file an official complaint with the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Television Commission) about Allen's recent 'reality check' alleging the piece was discriminatory. Chan is also demanding an official apology and a retraction of the comments.

It's time we all get behind Bruce Allen, and scrap this Political Correctness business. His comments were anything but racist, but there are far too many overly-sensitive 'New Canadians' that are trying to change everything we hold dear.
So what did Mr. Allen say:
In his regular Reality Check radio comment on CKNW Sept. 13, Allen stated "special interest groups" expect rules for themselves.

"There is the door. If you don't like the rules, hit it," said Allen. "We don't need you here. You have another place to go. It's called home. See ya."

Added Allen: "This is simple. We have laws in this country. They are spelled out and easy to get a hold of. If you're immigrating here and you don't like the rules in place, you have the right to choose not to live here. If you choose to come to Canada, shut up and fit in. We are a democracy, but it seems more and more that we are being pilloried by special interest groups that want special rules for themselves."
His idea of democracy does not seem to include immigrants. So, according to Mr. Allen, we should all be living by aboriginal tribal laws with no special rules for those nasty European immigrants and they certainly should not have criticized anything or changed any of the rules that were in place when they first came here.

In fact there is only one class of Canadian citizen, whether Canadian born or naturalized citizen. We all have the same rights to express our opinions and the same democratic right to participate in the law-making process.

The e-mail continued:
For example, our National Anthem: Don't know what your opinions are, but I certainly agree. --- I'm sorry, but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Hindi - enough is enough. Nowhere or at no other time in our nation's history, did they sing it in Italian, Japanese, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German, Portuguese, Greek, or any other language because of immigration. It was written in English, and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close.
Well first of all the national anthem was NOT written in English. It was written in French. So Mr. Allen and his supporters better start singing it in French if they believe it should be sung “ word for word the way it was written”. And it has also been sung in many different languages on many occasions, a testament to the love of Canada exhibited by the various immigrant groups in wanting to sing their new national anthem in their mother tongue.

And the misinformed bigotry continued:
I am not sorry if this offends anyone, this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP ---- please pass this along.... I am not against immigration .. just come through like everyone else... Get a sponsor; get a place to lay your head; get a job; pay your taxes; live by the rules ...AND... LEARN THE LANGUAGE

as all other immigrants have in the past.
Another lie, or perhaps just a “misunderstanding of Canadian history”. I would venture to state that very few immigrants, except perhaps for the early explorers, have learned to speak or write, Cree or Ojibway or any other of Canada’s non-immigrant languages.

And the hate message concluded:
and LONG LIVE CANADA!

PART OF THE PROBLEM? Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone-----YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM !!!!

Will we still be the and still be CANADA if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries who have come to live in CANADA because it is the Country of Choice??????

Think about it! IMMIGRANTS, NOT CANADIAN'S, MUST ADAPT. It is Time for CANADA to Speak up. If you agree - pass This along.
Obviously, I do not agree with this hate. Canada is a country of immigrants that brought with them the cultures and languages of the world to create a multicultural country that is the envy of the world. It is the immigrants that came here and learned from our First Nations and added their cultures to Canada that have made this country what it is - “the Country of Choice”.

It is Mr. Allen, and those that think like him, that are “the problem”.

2008-01-21

Multiculturalism and Reasonable Accommodation - It’s as Canadian as a Kilt or a Hijab

When you invite friends over do you ever serve food that their religion forbids them to eat. If you go to a wedding of someone of another faith do suggest they should be married in a “Canadian” church. If neighbours invite you to a cultural celebration do you complain about their foreign customs. Of course not, because that would be impolite and certainly not the Canadian way. That is essentially the spirit of “reasonable accommodation” practiced at the personal level.

So why does something that is so natural on a personal level become so controversial on a societal level.

Recent census results indicate that currently there are just over one million aboriginal people in this country. The rest of us are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. We come from all over the world and we are what makes Canada the wonderful country that it is.

Certainly, due to history, certain groups have become more dominant and certain customs more ingrained in our way of life than others. For example we have a government based on the British Parliamentary system and Christian religious holidays enshrined in statute law. But we are also strengthened by adding the customs of newer Canadian to our way of life.

Canada is a multicultural country that is only strengthened by the many customs and cultures of the people that immigrated to this country to become Canadians. Multiculturalism means that not only do we allow immigrant groups to maintain their customs but also share them with them.

So what is “reasonable accommodation”. Leonard Stern, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, said it best:

Ode to a sales clerk

2007-09-13

The Rule of Law and "Veiled Voting"

Canada is not a police state. The police cannot simply tell people to do something because they are the police. They must have legal authority. And neither can other government officials. It does not matter whether everyone thinks that requiring voters to show their faces is a good thing, whether it be the Prime Minister, all political parties, all Muslim organizations and leaders and veiled Muslim women themselves, or even a Parliamentary committee, if the law does not provide the authority election officials cannot require Muslim women to show their faces to vote.

Perhaps the law should be changed. But if the law is to be changed to require photo identification of voters then it must apply to all voters. So why was it not applied to all voters when the act was amended. Perhaps it was because many voters, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, do not have photo identification and requiring it would effectively disenfranchise many of the poor from voting. Do we want to do that simply because veiled women make some people uncomfortable.

And what of those who vote by mail, who do they show their face and photo identification to. Indeed, mail in ballots are a greater concern because there is no guarantee of a secret ballot, one of the basic principles of democratic elections, when mail in ballots are used.

Perhaps we should stop and think before implementing knee jerk reactions to what is in reality more of a theoretical, rather than real, problem.