What if a tree collapse in the forest and no one listen to the sound? That is one of the most entertaining stumper. What if immigration activists prevailing in a country have an argument and no one grasps it? That is something which is extremely serious. This is the current topic that attempts to question the direction that the Canadian immigration policy is taking.
In a Star op-ed which was conducted last week immigrant advocates Ms. Debbie Douglas and Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go had an argument that the public consultations are conducted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) are extremely flawed. The online background paper and survey questions in CIC claim to have an overpoweringly economic slant which is designed to provide responses that favour economic-class immigrants at the expense of family-class immigrants and refugees. Canada has to consider the consultation to ensure full range of perspectives.
According to the nature of this non-economic outlook, Douglas and Go are expected to be fairly self evident. Immigration policy has various roles, which have been captured, by the concept of nation building. There is more in Canada than the GDP index. Besides the logic, they believe that a sound notion of “national success” will go far beyond the economic statistics.
For Canada to succeed, the government will need immigrants from various backgrounds and skills to come and build a permanent home in Canada. For immigrants to succeed, they should have a sense of acceptance which will come when their entire family is integrated to Canadian society. At MoreVisas, we help the applicants in the documentation process who aspire to Canada Family immigrate.
The result of these arguments between Douglas and Go conclude that the non-economic dimensions of Canada must be count as much as economic ones in informing how CIC chooses and integrates immigrants.
However, even the readers will sympathetic to these type arguments (and I am one of them). I find that these allusions to non-economic factors and criteria of national success are very brief. It is less likely; that the readers are not familiar with these perspectives, or those inclined to adopt an exclusive economic cost-benefit analysis regarding immigration policy. I do understand the message that Douglas and Go are trying to convey.
Arguments which are presupposing, these ideas were more commonly heard in public debates several decades ago, and might not have needed to explore these ideas in detail. It has been a long time since Canada’s immigration system was wide opened beyond Europe. It has been a long time since the family-class and refugee components of Canada’s immigration system have been established. We have not heard many public discussions in recent decades about the reasons in favour of these decisions. The result is that Canadians are hardly familiar with why it was vital for a more globally diverse pool of immigrants for the betterment of Canada, or why it will be beneficial for family members to follow immigrants to Canada.
The people who are supporting the broad view of nation-building and excellence as an essential background for Canada immigration policy need to go beyond preaching the choir. They cannot rely on the currently like-minded to make their case in public policy discussions. Rather, they must discover ways of making their case to the much larger group of Canadians that located those ideas unfamiliar and more difficult to grasp than the concrete information of economy. It is the time to be patient, persistent re-introduction of the concepts that will shape Canada’s current immigration.