Role of the State in Canadian Immigration Policy and Settlement - Term Paper Example

Role of the in Canadian Immigration Policy and Settlement Immigration has always been a contentious issue for western nations and more so for Canada since it is the second largest country in the world with vast untapped resources but a small population. There are also other problems faced by Canada that would be alleviated by immigration e.g. the aging population, a lack of skilled labor and family separation between immigrants (Prasad, 2004). To alleviate these problems with the use of immigration and towards the goal of creating positive immigration policies, the state plays a vital role. A good understanding of this role is important since it would answer many questions as to how and why the policies are set as they are. The first question that needs to be answered is who has access to state power and the ability to make government policy? Of course the answer in an ideal situation would be the people. Democratic principles and democracy itself is founded on the rule of the people therefore in a perfect world, the people would get to decide who immigrates to Canada or not. The people of course are a very busy bunch therefore power of the people is delegated to those who are elected to be the representatives of the people. If there has to be one person who is given the responsibility of making all the decisions of state in Canada, it has to be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minster and the ruling party give their agenda to the people before they are elected and once they are elected, their standing on immigration becomes the people’s standing. It must be noted that the ideas given by politicians rarely become government policy in exact terms since the realities of state may demand some concessions. Eventually, with the help of law makers, legal advisors, economic analysts and the bureaucracy, the wishes of the people are translated into laws and policies. In a roundabout way, the wishes of the people are the guiding force behind the rules of the state but the reality seems different. For example, nearly 20% of the total population in Canada is immigrant yet family unification is not a top priority for the immigration policies maintained by the Canadian government since only 2.5% of immigrants in 2004 were permitted entry into Canada for the purposes of family reunification (Woroby, 2005). It can be assumed that the immigrant population would like to be reunited with their family members and bring them to Canada if possible yet Canadian immigration polices are focused in another direction altogether. Since the 1960s that direction has been the economic influence of immigration on Canada. With the introduction of a point system in 1994, Canada has significantly increased the stress on the skills of the immigrant as a measure for judging suitability. By scoring a certain number of points, an immigrant can be judged to be fit for immigration or unfit and higher education as well as professional degrees increase the number of points gained by an applicant. In comparison the United States has kept family reunification as the foremost goal of immigration (Woroby, 2005). Canada has benefited from their policies in economic terms while the United States has been hurt. Nearly two-thirds of immigrants entering the U.S., enter on the basis of family-reunification at the same time, only 20 percent of immigrants are admitted because of their education or professional skills in their field. On the other hand, Canada admits 60% of its immigrant population solely because they are skilled workers (Woroby, 2005). This works for the benefit of Canada yet also creates issues for immigrant families which are separated by law. In fact, it is the lawmakers who are said to hold the real power in making and developing the immigration policies of Canada. Elected as well as appointed officials have taken their own viewpoints to the created of policies and have largely ignored the suggestions for society members or business concerns. This does create some hostility between various branches of government and the business community at large yet the policies remain firmly in the hands of the policymakers rather than the people (Veugelers, 2000). Like many other aspects of Canadian government, Quebec takes a slightly different path in setting immigration policies since language is an important issue for immigrants who wish to go to Quebec since French speaking immigrants have an advantage over those who do not (Veugelers, 2000). Thus the people and elected officers come across as nothing more than mere influences while the overall policies are designed and implemented by career bureaucrats. The decision making process for selecting those who are fit to immigrate to Canada has a troublesome history. It is a matter of historical fact that the immigration policies from 1885 to 1962 were explicitly racist and did not make it easy for non-whites and non-Europeans to immigrate to Canada. The Chinese immigrants coming to Canada had to pay a head tax and all immigrant applications coming from China were refused in 1923 (Taylor, 1991). Immigrations from India and Sri Lanka were stopped and the 1906 act was worded to prevent the coming of any persons who were, "feeble-minded, idiots, epileptics, the insane, the deaf and dumb, those afflicted with a loathsome disease, paupers, the destitute, professional beggars, vagrants, and anyone likely to become a public charge” (Taylor, 1991, Pg. 1). If that did not stop them, the government could also prohibit any class of immigrants from landing in Canada at will (Taylor, 1991). Immediately, it can be seen that the policy of the government was to bring in to Canada those people who are going to be a positive part of the labor force in more ways than one. Not only do they have to be healthy and of sound mind and body, it is important that they have some money too establish themselves in Canada to provide a boost to the economy. Canada had experienced a production boom during the first world war and the policies established for immigration after the war simply show that the government wanted to continue the same state with the help of hardworking people who would not become a ‘burden’ on the state. Additionally, if they were white, they were to be given preference. Historically, while the condition of being white seems to have been removed, the condition of being a positive influence on the economy and the society as a whole is still strictly enforced even if it leads to the total separation of family members. The historical continuation on the focus of immigration policies as positive economic policies can still be seen today as it has been described by Cohen (2000) Veugelers (2000) and Woroby (2005). The racist polices certainly affected the immigrant makeup of Canada during those and several years afterwards since the preference for immigrants was clearly made towards European settlers. Seventy-five percent of all immigrants who landed in Canada between 1901-1904, more than seventy percent of those who arrived between 1915 and 1945, as well as 66% of those who came between 1960-1963 were from the United Kingdom or the Northwestern regions of Europe including Germany and France (Woroby, 2005). The majority of European settlers meant that Canada would have the majority of the population following European tastes and ideals until the situation could be evened out in later years. After the Second World War, Prime Minister Mackenzie King gave the immigration policy two goals. The first one was to increase the total population of the country by expanding the immigration policies in the long term, and the second one was to reduce immigration in the short term to prevent unemployment. While these ideas may seem contrary, the plan was to ensure that incoming immigrants would be suitable for absorption into mainstream Canadian society (Veugelers, 2000). The connection between unemployment and immigration was maintained until the government of the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney who detached immigration policies from unemployment and based immigration purely on the suitability of incoming immigrants with regard to their education, qualifications, work experience and likelihood of being a positive contributor to the Canadian economy (Veugelers, 2000). This was a positive sign for the social indicators of the country as well as the country’s commitment to immigration as a source of future skilled and unskilled workers (Wayland, 1997). Once all racist language and limitations were removed from the immigration policies of Canada, the country saw a marked increase in immigration from countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. to the extent that immigrants from these countries outnumbered European immigrants two to on. Between 1968 and 1988, total number of European immigrants went from almost 2/3rd to less than 1/3rd of the total immigrant influx into Canada (Taylor, 1991). Without the barrier of race, the Canadian system depends on the personal abilities and qualifications of the immigrant and that has been lauded as a good system for judging the fitness of an applicant. Since it is a point based system, if the Canadian labor market faces challenges due to influx of immigrants the policy can be changed automatically depending on economic variables. Any country seeking immigrants has a certain absorption level beyond which additional immigrants could be harmful for the economy and the Canadian appear to be well aware of that. The policy makers can make adjustments to the points given for each of the criteria for selection to lower or raise the number and nature of immigrants wanted by Canada (Woroby, 2005). This system is much more effective for the economy than the American system that focuses on family reunification. In fact, the system has been appreciated by analysts from America, New Zealand and Germany. Germany and New Zealand have even considered establishing a similar system for immigration as well. On the other hand, the system creates difficulties for settlement and absorption into society for the immigrants who have little or no family in Canada. This is especially true in the case of low skill or unskilled workers as described by Cohen (2000, Pg. 82) who says, “From the perspective of the Canadian authorities, the former family life of a domestic worker is, at best, irrelevant. But nothing can be further from the truth. Domestics constantly think about their families and many report being homesick”. This certainly has a negative impact on the Canadian society since immigrants without families lead lonely lives and the immigration policies have disastrous consequences for the family. The families become dysfunctional and unskilled workers have to maintain long-distance relationships by calling home once a month or less. In case the family members are ever reunited, they are faced with tension and conflict which comes from being separated for many years (Cohen, 2000). In light of these facts, I believe that the future of immigration policies in Canada will need to take humanitarian and social reasons for immigration into account as well as economic factors. In conclusion, the immigration policies of Canada have historically been established by the bureaucrats more than the will of the public and have been based more on the economic benefits to Canada than the social benefits. However, due to the nature of these policies, the immigrant workers have suffered by being separated from their families and loved ones which has made assimilation into the Canadian society difficult for them. At the same time, there are signs that immigration policies of the future will be made more flexible (Birchard & Ceaser, 2005) and will take into consideration the humanitarian concerns of the immigrants. Works Cited Birchard, K. and Ceaser, M. “International Notes.” Chronicle of Higher Education 51.34 (2005): 39 Cohen, R. “’Mom is a Stranger: The Negative Impact of Immigration Policies on the Family Life of Filipina Domestic Workers.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 32.3 (2000): 76-89. Prasad, A. ”Canadian Immigration Policy for the 21st Century.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 36.2 (2004): 141-143. Taylor, K. “Racism in Canadian immigration policy.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 23.1 (1991): 1-21. Veugelers, J. “State-Society Relations in the Making of Canadian Immigration Policy during the Mulroney Era.” Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology 37.1 (2000) 95-110. Wayland, S. “Immigration, Multiculturalism and National Identity in Canada.” International Journal on Minority & Group Rights 5.1 (1997): 33-58. Woroby, T. “Should Canadian Immigration Policy be Synchronized With U.S. Immigration Policy? Lessons Learned at the Start of Two Centuries.” American Review of Canadian Studies 35.2 (2005): 247-264. Read More