The Immigration Policy. An American, Canadian … and a Personal Perspective (III)

Photo by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

The Canadians have federal elections on October 21^st, 2019. Due to the fact that Canada is already using a points-based system, the debate on immigration policy was precise. Similarly to Australia and New Zealand already using this immigration system, they know its weaknesses and each candidate (that represents a political party) had a concrete vision on the way the immigration policy should be improved. For example, Y.-F. Blanchet (Bloc Quebecois) suggests that all immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship in Quebec to have at least a satisfactory level of French – a justified requirement since Canada is bilingual and the immigrant applied for the whole Canadian citizenship in the French-speaking part of Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the BQ).

            Furthermore, J. Trudeau (Liberal Party) starts from the observation that ‘diversity is Canada’s strength. And as a consequence starting with 2021, the Liberal Party would want 350,000 immigrants and a free path to citizenship (click here for more on the immigration policy of the LPC).

            Elizabeth May (Green Party) favors immigration because of the aging population and is open to immigration, including climate refugees (click here for more on the immigration policy of GP).

            Andrew Sheer (Conservative Party) considers that the number of immigrants should change every year depending on the economic needs of Canada, and would like to strengthen legal immigration, which he considers fairer to those already in Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the CPC).

            J. Singh (New People’s Party) thinks that the number of immigrants should be adjusted every year depending on the needs of the Canadian economy; he considers family reunification a priority and a legal path should be found in order for the LGBT refugees to remain in Canada (click here for more on the immigration policy of the NPP).

            Maxime Bernier (People’s Party of Canada) gives also precise numbers of immigrants that Canada should receive every year, but the numbers are different than those of the Liberal Party: from 100,000 to 150,000 per year (click here for more on the immigration policy of the PPC). In which concerns the concept of ‘family reunification’, the People’s Party of Canada wants it limited to spouse and children and not the whole extended family. It would also prefer an interview, in order to assess whether or not the immigrant’s mentality can cope with the Canadians’ values (ex. equality between men and women, separation of Church and State, etc.).  

Both the United States and Canada are countries committed to immigration and to refugees trying to escape persecutions of all kinds in their countries (ex. political, religious, sexual, etc.). The best immigration policy is probably a combination of all these suggestions in a harmonized legal document, which does not impose either a small immigration number that would affect the economy or a too large number that would be too difficult for the society to financially support (ex. free language classes, inclusion workshops, building of new kindergarten, etc.).

The immigration rules are intended to protect the country and its citizens from potential terrorists or wide spread contagious diseases. And the interviews are meant to build on the same values the countries have been developing so far. The price of illegal immigration in terms of money and of physical integrity is much higher than the price of the legal immigration, although the latter is more difficult. The immigrant is by definition a person who leaves a country to build a better life in another country. The legal immigration offers the legal framework for an immigrant to legally start a new life in another country (ex. to have the right papers to get a job, to have the right documents to rent a place, to enroll children to school, etc.). The legal way is safer for both the immigrant and the country of the new residence. I can’t agree more with Andrew Sheer arguing that ‘the immigrant takes a brave decision’ when it decides to leave a country; that when taking such a decision, the immigrant is interested in ‘a better life for himself and his family’ – and that is a democratic right – and I cannot agree more that an immigrant wants to contribute to make the host country a better place.

            Why would I choose to emigrate to either Australia, Canada, New Zealand or United States? Definitely to have a better life for myself and my family, and to contribute to the host country the best I can. Listening and reading about immigration policy, about how many a country needs or does not need, whom they need and whom they do not need, reasons why we, immigrants, are needed or not, all these sound like a business. Therefore, the issue is not only what these countries need and want, but also why would an immigrant bring its skills to one of those countries. And I would bring my skills to one of these countries for several reasons.

            Firstly, I would bring my skills in one of these countries as an immigrant because hard and serious work pays off in these countries. My constant and meticulously improved skills have been done on my parents’ money and on my time, and so were the sharpening of my skills with German language classes and recent writing courses, for example. The host society would only ‘import’ and use my skills and help improve them even more, while I am simultaneously contributing to the society.

A second reason would be that the implementation of my skills and the improvement of them would be in a language I already know and the country of new residence does not have to spend a cent on my language training. To me personal it is also easier to work in a language I already know. Also in this framework as immigration as a business, I think it is more advantageous for a country to host one educated immigrant that will find a job and pay taxes to the state, rather than bring one with a partner, who may not speak English and the society must train him on public money (and sometimes be on social benefits until he learns the language) or whose doctor or engineer diploma is not recognized, etc. Even for me personally it is easier to emigrate alone and without children, because the immigration process is rough and difficult at times. It is less heart breaking for me to be temporarily on a diet, rather than to find explanations for children on why we do not have enough food. It was difficult for my parents, it is difficult for all responsible parents and it would definitely be difficult for me, too. For me it is easier and for the host country is cheaper, when as an immigrant I have contributed to the society and be on a maternity leave for a while.

Third, I would choose one of these countries because we share the same values, particularly the equality between men and women, separation of Church and State and combat through arguments and words rather than violence. I am convinced that women are at least as competent as men are, and by the way I am, I cannot accept being patronized by a man simply based on the argument that God made first the man and then the woman, although I am a Christian and a believer in God myself. I really believe in the equality between genders. And in the separation between Church and State, because the former deals with pure spiritual and magnificent things, while the latter deals with dirty political issues that the head and the body (back stage) arrange and, at the end, most of them prove completely irrelevant. 

Fourth, I chose to emigrate to either Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States of America because they are as far away as one can possibly go from the European Union. And I cannot possibly think of one single person or one single thing (argument) that would change my mind about staying in the European Union, as long as my parents agree that I emigrate. If I disagree with the European Union’s political project and given the undemocratic and humanly appalling way people long behaved with me while a PhD student (and afterwards), do I qualify for being a political refugee in one of these countries? (the end)