[Brandon716]

I'm not interested in a political argument, but you have apparently met only people who have benefited from the student policies, of which not a great deal changed. You are NOT guaranteed a work permit under the new system after graduating, what has changed is the ability to apply from within Canada instead of going back to your home country (or mailing it to the native country consular office).

That is the only positive in the student permit to work permit to permanent resident process, and it doesn't help my situation or the numerous others in my circumstance.

I don't seek anyone's pity, I want people to notice the problem with the new system. I prefer not to hear how the few positive changes are so good, because there are far more people in my circumstance than the few thousand students who have benefited by being allowed to apply in Canada vs. the home consulate office.

I think you are greatly overstating the benefit of the new policy, because there are so many talented people being rejected under this new arrangement its absolutely nuts.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not interested in a political argument, but you have apparently met only people who have benefited from the student policies, of which not a great deal changed. You are NOT guaranteed a work permit under the new system after graduating, what has changed is the ability to apply from within Canada instead of going back to your home country (or mailing it to the native country consular office).

It's not guaranteed. But I have yet to hear of a single person who got rejected. I asked the girls living with my parents if anybody from their international student cohort had gotten rejected. They said no. All got their work permits within weeks. Some have landed jobs and have already begun the process to seek PR. This is from folks who finished school in December.

I don't seek anyone's pity, I want people to notice the problem with the new system. I prefer not to hear how the few positive changes are so good, because there are far more people in my circumstance than the few thousand students who have benefited by being allowed to apply in Canada vs. the home consulate office.

I think you are greatly overstating the benefit of the new policy, because there are so many talented people being rejected under this new arrangement its absolutely nuts.

Respectfully Brandon, I think you are more opposed to the changes because you are feeling the worst of them. Sure there are skilled migrants who won't make it into the country. If their skills are not applicable to our labour market they should not be given residency. That's after all the goal of any immigration policy.

If anything, the imposition of 'categories' now has loosened the standards a bit. Whereas before you had to have experience in a specific occupation (really it was a sub-occupation) now you can count experience in a category. I think that's a positive development. I really can't see how that hurts an applicant unless that individual has had an erratic resume working in several unrelated fields/industries.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see evidence that the changes are working from where I sit, you see evidence to the contrary (not in the least in your own rejection). All things considered, however, I don't even think the changes are that big. Many of these changes were probably considered by the Liberals, and many are changes that are probably unlikely to be reversed. They might be tinkered with (lower time limits here and there) but I can't see any of them being so objectionable to the Liberals.

The only place I think Conservatives and Liberals really differ is the value of family class immigration and refugee intake

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2008/permanent/01.asp

Looking at the stats it seems like family class applicants and refugees have seen their intakes decline under the Conservatives while economic class migrants have seen an increase. I don't think its a bad thing to bring more economic migrants while curtailing some family class migration.

I am a little concerned about the reduction in refugees. But even there if you look at the sub-categories the greatest reduction is in landed refugees who presumably are now being disqualified because most will be arriving from countries where they could have sought refuge to begin with. I don't support asylum shopping. If this policy cuts down on that while maintaining solid support for genuine government sponsored refugees I'd be supportive of it.

 

[Brandon716]

There are far more people in my situation because skilled worker immigration where people were educated and/or gained experience outside Canada is the largest section of Canadian immigration.

The student permit to work permit to permanent resident pathway is not the typical immigration pattern, and the changes to that process are mostly irrelevant because most former students could get a work permit before as they could today. There are only a few thousand student permit - work permit - permanent resident cases every year; however, there are hundreds of thousands of skilled worker applicants any given year. Your anecdotal stories need to be taken into context, because not everyone can afford the $25,000 tuition for an international student and there aren't enough scholarships and grants and loans out there to cover these differences.

I've got tough choices to come to over the next year or two. I'm making a final push over the course of the next year to look for work in Canada, and if no employer is receptive to my resume or willing to look into hiring me, I am likely going to just make plans to stay in the US and deal with the fact I have no choice in the matter. Years and years of work have ended up with poor results, I don't have the money to get involved with an international study program to attend a Canadian university or I would start tomorrow. At a certain point I can't continue to invest into something with no future.

These are the choices people are forced to take when bad immigration policy is implemented, its not characteristic of a good change for these things to be happening.

I'm lucky in many regards, but I cannot keep wasting away my life on an unattainable goal that will only work when I'm 40 years old. I've passed up opportunity and relationships here in my quest to become a resident of my favorite city. Those tough decisions yielded poor results, and yes it can be blamed on the new immigration rules. I can't continue to make those decisions, I just turned 27 last week and my life has to start being built eventually.

In order for me to work in Canada right now, I'm willing to take a step down in lifestyle to make a larger goal happen. But I cannot make the same decision when I'm 30 or 35 or 40.

I'm at a stage right now where I can work the front desk at a hotel and downgrade my income, as long as it gets the experience I need to become a Canadian resident I don't care.

But I'm not going to step down that low when I'm 30+ years old. I'm getting too old and too tired for this nonsense.

For you it seems to be political talking points, for me its my life. That's the difference in this discussion. You seem to chastize me for bringing my personal situation into this discussion, but what I'm doing is bringing realism into this discussion. This is the only area of Canadian policy that directly affects my life. This new immigration policy IS nonsense, and I've provided all the hard evidence and rules changes people can read for themselves.

I've come to the understanding that my dream may have to go unfulfilled. Despite all the non-sense I still respect the Canadian system very much.

 

[Whoaccio]

From The Globe

Issues don't get much hotter than immigration. It's where political correctness abounds, where allegations of intolerance and racism are but a breath away, where ministers had best show finesse with their pronouncements.

Not so Jason Kenney. Our man at the immigration turnstiles has been in a bull-in-a-china shop mode lately. He's told newcomers they have to speak our official languages better, he's barred British MP George Galloway from admittance, he's accused refugees of systematic abuse of the system, he's called for more integration of immigrants, and he's gone to war with the Canadian Arab Federation, a group that accuses him of being a shill for the Jewish community.

It's serious stuff. The purport is that immigrants must do more to conform to Canadian standards. The minister wants to tighten the definition of what it means to be Canadian. The pitch - when in Rome, do as the Romans do - is for less multiculturalism and more melting pot. "We want to avoid the kind of ethnic conclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European communities," says Mr. Kenney. New Canadians have "a duty to integrate. ... We don't need the state to promote diversity."

Monte Solberg, the previous Conservative immigration minister, favours the move to the melting pot, saying the Liberal concept of the multicultural mosaic is dated. Immigrant communities are more self-assured now. Ottawa, Mr. Solberg says, shouldn't be in the business of preserving their cultures.

If the Conservatives press forward with this approach, it will be a big step for a government often criticized for having no vision. Multiculturalism has become one of our hallmarks. We have developed a reputation for tolerance. The Conservatives are saying that there's too much tolerance, that there needs to be limits. Mr. Kenney, for example, has ended the heritage language program wherein Ottawa helped pay for children to learn their parents' language.

The government, favouring a more selective immigration process, brought in legislation last year that allowed it to fast-track the types of immigrants it wants and freeze out those it doesn't. Critics said it gave too much prerogative to the immigration minister. Many Liberals were pushing for increased immigration, saying an aging population and declining birth rate will reduce the population and, in turn, hinder economic growth.

In his book Unlikely Utopia, Michael Adams contests the need for melting-pot initiatives, saying it's the absence of a strong Canadian identity that helps make this country free of prejudice and a place where immigrants can feel comfortable. Communities with a stronger, more confined sense of themselves are less tolerant. In parts of Quebec and Europe, multiculturalism is seen as a threat. In Canada, Mr. Adams notes, it's a source of pride.

Mr. Kenney, one of the Harper government's most talented performers, earned goodwill among many ethnic communities when he served as secretary of state for multiculturalism. He was a workhorse, going to every ethnic event imaginable, earning the moniker Curry in a Hurry. The empathy he offered had a strategic purpose: The goal was to end the Liberals' domination of the immigrant vote, and results in the last election showed he made some headway.

But his more aggressive approach, an attempt by the government to reinvent multiculturalism, may be putting the gains at risk. The barring of Mr. Galloway brought on widespread condemnation. The move to ramp up language requirements for entrants has led to allegations of intolerance. The heavy tilt to the Jewish community has alienated Muslims. In the House of Commons, however, the Liberals have been lax in going after Mr. Kenney, hardly mentioning, for example, the Galloway controversy.

In that he is viewed as a potential leadership contestant, Mr. Kenney's pugnacity on the immigrant file might be a bid to burnish his right-side credentials. But there is likely more to it than that. The Conservatives appear set on charting a new course on immigration.

While melting-pot measures may alienate pockets of the population, they speak to their core beliefs. They also speak well to many Canadians who feel that indulgence toward immigrants has been carried too far.

 

[jade_lee]

Canadians take pride in their multicultural approach to human kind. Perhaps the Liberals aren't saying much because it's great stuff to utilize in their campaign strategy. The Arab/Zionist divide promoted by this government may come to bite them in their arses come election time since most Canadians don't agree with picking sides on issues that are ambiguous but instead like to foster a sense of working out our differences.
Jason Kenny is walking a tight rope. Instead of insisting that speaking English or French is essential for the "ideal" immigrant and that funds to promote a persons ethnic identity in Canada is a waste of money, he should consider the Canadians who speak perfect English or French who appreciate the diversity in this country and consider it as part of our National identity that makes our country unique around the world and offers hope to other countries struggling with their own special brands of hate towards those who are different from themselves. Canada has served as a role model with respect to how we view immigrants in our country and how we protect their identity as well as offering them into our culture based on tolerance of other people's foibles.
There is no doubt that this conservative government wants a Canada more like our American cousins but I doubt it's what the average voter here in Canada truly wants.

 

[kEiThZ]

Whoaccio, good article. Thanks for posting.

I think Canadians need to have a debate on this issue. I am extremely proud of Canada's multi-cultural traditions, and more so when ever I travel to Europe. Every time I attend a NATO course, my European counterparts are often baffled that there's a brown guy with a Canadian patch on his shoulder who speaks hoser english and broken Quebecois french. They often ask me why I am in a Canadian uniform and how I can square away my Indian heritage with my Canadian citizenship. After several beers and a lecture on Canadian multi-culturalism many of them often express an admiration for our way of doing things.

However, every time I am home in T.O. I am also left wondering if multi-culturalism has gone too far and is failing immigrants. I see scores of immigrants who don't adapt well to Canada to their own detriment and ours as a nation. And now we are starting to see kids who are born in Canada who need ESL and are also falling behind. This situation is not a far cry from what was brewing in the Paris banlieu prior to the riots there.

The best solution is probably somewhere in between. We need to a better job of teaching immigrants the Canadian way...that means our languages first and foremost, and then to value our liberal democratic values (umm no strangling your daughter if she wears tight jeans, not running over protesters from another ethnic group with your car, voting according to your conscience , etc.), all while letting them keep some elements of their culture.

I always understood the bargain of multiculturalism to be that governments don't bother demanding integration of the first generation and simply allow subsequent generations to integrate naturally over time. If that's not happening (and there are signs that we are failing some communities) it's a legitimate question to ask if we are failing our immigrants by adhering too rigidly to a multi-cultural ideology.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

However, every time I am home in T.O. I am also left wondering if multi-culturalism has gone too far and is failing immigrants. I see scores of immigrants who don't adapt well to Canada to their own detriment and ours as a nation. And now we are starting to see kids who are born in Canada who need ESL and are also falling behind. This situation is not a far cry from what was brewing in the Paris banlieu prior to the riots there.

Is multiculturalism to blame for failing immigrants though? You sort of take it as granted when there are far more compelling explanations for such (e.g. income gap due to structural reasons, class differences, etc.) And it isn't like the French have a policy of multiculturalism either; or the Americans, or Australians - didn't prevent inter-ethnic/racial violence from flaring up - which BTW didn't happen here. Personally, I think that's a sign that immigrants actually taken up Canadian values - non-violence, respecting authority, etc.

The best solution is probably somewhere in between. We need to a better job of teaching immigrants the Canadian way...that means our languages first and foremost, and then to value our liberal democratic values (umm no strangling your daughter if she wears tight jeans), all while letting them keep some elements of their culture.

No doubt we should teach immigrants certain non-negotiable Canadian values - but at the same time, it's not these certain these values are taken up even by the general Canadian population. We might abhor what happened to Aqsa Parvez, but that's like what, the only case in years - whilst how many cases of domestic violence leading to death are there in the general population? In any case, the law already restricts what immigrants cannot do, multiculturalism notwithstanding. Differential treatment on the basis of multiculturalism has to stand up to testing in the court of law - and so far, in spite of our fears - the court is quite consistent in its' rulings. And in many ways, our language is already first and foremost - if you go beyond the first generation - I wouldn't hazard to say that the greatest majority of children born here have no language issues.

I always understood the bargain of multiculturalism to be that governments don't bother demanding integration of the first generation and simply allow subsequent generations to integrate naturally over time. If that's not happening (and there are signs that we are failing some communities) it's a legitimate question to ask if we are failing our immigrants by adhering too rigidly to a multi-cultural ideology.

Again, are the immigrants not integrating due to multiculturalism (and to further that question - what level of integration are we talking about - obeying Canadian Laws? Accepting all "Canadian Values" - which means what?), or due to factors other than such?

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

AoD

Not saying I have the answer or something. But this country has never had any serious debate on what multi-culturalism means as a policy. I am willing to bet that the average person could not identify the policy differences between multi-culturalism and the melting pot. That's not the way to run a successful immigration policy regardless of which government is in power. I don't necessarily appreciate the Conservative immigration policy changes in their entirety but I do appreciate the fact that these changes are bringing the issue to the fore.

Surely, requiring people who move to this country to learn the language to a sufficient level that they can pass a 20 question exam which has a knowledge level of about grade 6 would not be all that detrimental to them or us as a country? As for the more thorny issues (level of integration, adoption of Canadian cultural values, etc.), like I said, those need to be discussed.

Aqsa Parvez was an extreme example to be sure. But it's no coincidence that South Asians have the highest rate of spousal abuse and female abuse in Canada. Aside from abuse, look at the employment participation rates of South Asian women. Look at the domestic workload these women face, compelled to cook chapatis at 5am while their husbands snore away. Why is it wrong to question whether it is right to say that if you move here you must adopt our values towards women as part of your new cultural norms? Surely gender equality is not just for non-immigrants?

I often find it amusing that non-immigrants find these questions taboo when these questions are increasingly subject to several books and movies in the immigrant communities. One recent film documents the abuse faced by an indian woman who moves to Toronto after an arranged marriage. Sensational it may be but it's far from atypical for many immigrant women living in Canada.

 

[jade_lee]

Canadians like myself don't mind the government putting forth an effort to address problems immigrants are experiencing here, but to pick away at our core values with respect to "multiculturalism" is a mistake and will surely lead to this current conservative government's demise. The diversity we have fostered here in Canada is based on respecting the differences in others. We don't expect or demand immigrants conform to our ways, only our laws, we like the idea that immigrants contribute to our society with their own customs and beliefs brought with them, making them and us appreciate each other even more knowing we both contribute to this dynamic society.

I am a 50 year old woman who has witnessed great changes in this country. I want to move forward and not backwards and I find the conservatives are showing their regressive stripes now.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

Aqsa Parvez was an extreme example to be sure. But it's no coincidence that South Asians have the highest rate of spousal abuse and female abuse in Canada. Aside from abuse, look at the employment participation rates of South Asian women. Look at the domestic workload these women face, compelled to cook chapatis at 5am while their husbands snore away. Why is it wrong to question whether it is right to say that if you move here you must adopt our values towards women as part of your new cultural norms? Surely gender equality is not just for non-immigrants?

Of course gender equality is for everyone, the question is how do you want to "enforce" it, so to say (or even have it as a selection criteria for immigrants). Beyond that (and I am not saying I agree with this the interpretation on this outcome) - what if an immigrant woman say (if not feel) that she is willingly cooking chapatis at 5am in the morning? Are we going to say you can't do it because it violates what we think women shouldn't be doing? What if a non-immigrant woman do the same for someone? Do we say that it isn't right and shouldn't be done? Gender equality, above all else means women having the right to determine what is best for them - and them gaining the understanding that it is their right to do so. If women are subjected to domestic abuse, it is their right, under Canadian law to seek legal redress and to do so without fear of reprisal.

I often find it amusing that non-immigrants find these questions taboo when these questions are increasingly subject to several books and movies in the immigrant communities. One recent film documents the abuse faced by an indian woman who moves to Toronto after an arranged marriage. Sensational it may be but it's far from atypical for many immigrant women living in Canada.

In other words having a vibrant immigrant population in Canada has already sparked debate within these communities - I can think of no better outcome than that. Multiculturalism did not hinder that process - in fact, it might have encouraged those who wouldn't have access to the outside world to gain an understanding of values beyond what they're taught were "right".

AoD

 

[jade_lee]

Keithz:



Of course gender equality is for everyone, the question is how do you want to "enforce" it, so to say (or even have it as a selection criteria for immigrants). Beyond that (and I am not saying I agree with this the interpretation on this outcome) - what if an immigrant woman say (if not feel) that she is willingly cooking chapatis at 5am in the morning? Are we going to say you can't do it because it violates what we think women shouldn't be doing? What if a non-immigrant woman do the same for someone? Do we say that it isn't right and shouldn't be done? Gender equality, above all else means women having the right to determine what is best for them - and them gaining the understanding that it is their right to do so. If women are subjected to domestic abuse, it is their right, under Canadian law to seek legal redress and to do so without fear of reprisal.

AoD

I agree.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keithz:

Acutually, if you really want immigrants to "integrate" into Canadian society - make sure they aren't rich enough not to have to work - and make sure they (and/or their children) aren't stuck in some low-level service job forever so that there is class mobility. I think everything else is relatively unimportant.

AoD

 

[Brandon716]

BTW, speaking to my personal situation, I've been researching college tuition rates and I've found a more attractive situation at York University for international transfer students. If I can get involved with a program there it seems considerably more affordable than UofT, but the problem is financing. I have no idea where the financing is going to come from.

As a comparison, in state tuition at the University of Pittsburgh is over $12,500 USD while York U is only $15,000 CAD for international students.

Financing and figuring out living arrangements is the problem.

If I have to study for 2 years, hopefully it can keep financing under $40,000, but I don't know how much books and fees will be.

 

[kEiThZ]

BTW, speaking to my personal situation, I've been researching college tuition rates and I've found a more attractive situation at York University for international transfer students. If I can get involved with a program there it seems considerably more affordable than UofT, but the problem is financing. I have no idea where the financing is going to come from.

As a comparison, in state tuition at the University of Pittsburgh is over $12,500 USD while York U is only $15,000 CAD for international students.

Financing and figuring out living arrangements is the problem.

If I have to study for 2 years, hopefully it can keep financing under $40,000, but I don't know how much books and fees will be.

Canadian universities even at international rates are cheap in comparison to most American universities. Books and supplies tend to be between 1k - 2k a year. I would say that you should budget around 55k for two years of study with international fees.

You are right that work permits are not guaranteed. However, I have never heard of anyone getting rejected. They are pretty good with handing out the work permits after graduation. Just be careful to pick a program that will let you easily get related employment after graduation. That's the one caveat about getting PR after. If you pick a field where you will struggle getting relevant employment you might be denied residency after your work permit expires.

 

[Whoaccio]

I don't really think the multicultural mosaic is a real policy or any different from the supposed "American melting pot." Depending on who you are talking to, multi-culturalism is just a metonym for Canadian immigration policy and everything they perceive as right or wrong with it. I guess multiculturalism and immigration policy will always be related, but as it is people are generally talking about different things (or nothing at all).

At one end, some people do dislike immigrants. I know an old couple in my neighborhood tried circulating a petition around when the first Chinese couple was moving in in order to try to register their dissatisfaction. It can be exaggerated, but there are people who genuinely dislike what they perceive as the "thirdwordlization" of Canada (i.e. pad thai replacing roast beef as meal of choice). To them, multiculturalism is virtually anything that relates to immigrants. Black people on welfare, multiculturalism gone awry. Slumdog Millionaire, multiculturalism gone awry. These people interpret anything which threatens their perception of "Canadian" as multiculturalism, when it isn't.

As you move to the other end, multiculturalism is an identity issue for some left wing types. Relatively benign suggestions like having higher language standards are immediately denounced as an "Americanization" of Canadian multiculturalism and the pinnacle of intolerance. Looking at Britain, nominally left wing parties like Respect have thrown traditional values like LGBT rights and Women's rights under the bus in order to accommodate more conservative Muslim immigrants. Or the NDP sticking up for people like Maha Elsamnah, a person who claimed raising her children in Canada would turn them into homosexual drug addicts, based almost purely on a twisted version of multiculturalism as some kind of hyper tolerant thridworldism.

Most of the values which multiculturalism embodies are already enshrined in the Charter. Purely executed, multiculturalism just recognizes that individuals should be free to pursue an identity of their choosing (insofar as it doesn't violate other's rights to the same thing). Socioeconomic programs like ESL or funding various cultural events really don't have all that much to do with it. There is really no difference between Canadians and Americans in this regard. Anybody can move to San Francisco or NYC and they are pretty much identical to Toronto in their respect for personal freedom.

I am personally skeptical that a government can force people to "integrate." It strikes me as borderline megalomaniac to think that you can just engineer society like this. Obviously respect for laws and rights is non-negotiable, but I don't really see much evidence that this is an issue. When I hear "integrate" it is generally in the context of not wearing a hijab or turban, cultural issues in other words. There are issues amongst certain segments of the South Asian community, mainly domestic abuse, but it is best to tackle these from a law and order approach (and relevant domestic support agencies) as opposed to trying to culturally engineer an entire ethnic group. MTV will do a better job of that than any government policy initiative.