Migration and Linguistic Diversity at Babel

While the book of Genesis is rightly known as the book of beginnings—the story of creation; the origin of sin; the beginning of God’s response to the problem of sin; the birth of Israel—there is also a significant subplot.  Most Genesis narratives include migration as part of its plot—not as a minor detail around which other significant events happened, but as a primary plot line through which the theological message of the book is revealed.  Additionally, the diversity of humanity find its roots in the Genesis narrative, and in no narrative are these two themes more interconnected than in the account of Genesis 11 and the tower of Babel.

Linguistic Diversity: A Curse?

One of the first commentaries I ever purchased on Genesis was by Allen P. Ross, then a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.  His verdict on the passage was clear:  Genesis 11 “demonstrates that the present number of languages that form national barriers is a monument to sin” (234). Two very critical assertions are made by Ross here: first, diverse languages create a “national” barrier that God did not intend and, second, diverse languages are a monument to sin. And on a first reading of the text his logic seems straightforward (albeit rather anachronistic and Americentric): God does “judge” the people by confusing their languages.  And the confusion of languages thwarts the hubris of humanity, forcing people to migrate across the earth.

But I believe there is far more at play here than first meets the eye. 

But before we look at the broader picture of the text, let’s pause for a moment and dig a bit deeper into the notion that linguistic diversity is a curse for, unfortunately, Ross’ interpretation is not completely unique nor is it unpopular.

Now while I am not a linguist, even a casual reflection on languages reveals the propensity of language to evolve across time and space. Try reading an English article from two hundred years ago and you will be hard pressed to understand it. Further, simple words are used differently. And today, despite the prevalence of media such as television and the movie industry, language difference continues.  My daughter, Jessica, just came to realize that in Michigan when she asked if anyone needed to use the washroom they thought she was asking if they needed to go to do their laundry—that the word she was looking for is “restroom.”  And we live only six hours away! (Granted, we live across an international border). In southern Ontario washroom and bathroom are used interchangeably.

Anecdotal evidence reveals that the broader the geography, the more complexity is found. And despite the ubiquitous presence of English on media outlets and the internet, the diversity has not been minimized at all. Consider how uniquely English is spoken in the UK, Canada, the USA, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia—and how uniquely it is spoken even within each of these countries.  Try having people from different regions within a single country like the USA say the same sentence and you will hear quite a different rhythm depending on whether you are in Boston or Baton Rouge; Midland, Michigan or Midland, Texas.  One of the most amazing experiences I ever had with linguistic diversity was during the summer of 1988 when, as part of a men’s choir from Moody Bible Institute, we toured the UK, staying in homes of people in the churches we visited. No matter how hard I and my fellow choir members tried, we simply could not communicate with the family we stayed with in Belfast, Northern Ireland—yet we ALL claimed to be speaking English!  In fact, I did much better in Paris and Orleans where my very limited French was put to the test.  Geographical diversity results in linguistic diversity. But am I to understand that all this diversity is the result of sin as Ross suggests?

The Table of Nations (Genesis 10)

Here is where we can begin to dig a bit deeper.

“Context is everything”—so my seminary professors would repeat over and over. From translating specific words in a passage to understanding a passage within a larger book and even the canon, context is determinant. So it is, when we come to the episode of the tower of Babel and the scattering of the nations, we must remember its placement between the table of nations in Genesis 10 and the call of Abraham in Genesis 12. Indeed, the placement of the story of Babel at the end of the line of Shem in the Table of Nations and just before the genealogy of Shem is not without import.

Scattering was God’s intention from the beginning (“Be fruitful and multiply”).  He had commanded all peoples to scatter and fill the earth.  Genesis 10 records the successful migration of humanity across the world.  But Genesis 11 interrupts this fulfillment of God’s purposes with the episode at Babel.  Put in this context, the scattering at Babel cannot be considered a judgement.  Further, the means to this end—the mixing of languages—ought not be considered judgement, but rather a way in which God accomplished his purposes for humanity, albeit in an aggrieved situation.

Consider the table of nations: Here we have a record of the three sons of Noah and their decendants.  We are told where the different groups went in their migration.  And, the concluding statement of each section is strikingly similar:

·         ⁵ These are the descendants of Japheth in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations.

·         ²⁰ These are the descendants of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

·         ³¹ These are the descendants of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

Then, in conclusion, this summary is given: ³² “These are the families of Noah's sons, according to their genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.” In short: Genesis 10 records the accomplishment of God’s command to humanity to be fruitful and multiply across the face of the earth.  This multiplication is accompanied by the development of diverse families, nations and languages—all of which are portrayed as natural, God-intended results.

Right in the middle of Genesis 10 we also find a comment about Babel and Shinar. It is declared that the kingdom of Nimrod began in the land of Shinar at Babel, Erech and Accad (10:8-10). In Genesis 11, however, we are told that “the whole earth had one language and the same words” (11:1). In itself, this is not an unusual statement.  Then we are told “And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there” (11:2). There is an important question, though: who is “they” referring to?  The assumption of Ross and many others is that it is referring to ALL of humanity (some would say that it is humanity re-gathering, having rejected God’s command to scatter). But based on Genesis 10:8-10, it would seem that a more suitable answer is that we are speaking here of the descendents of Nimrod (or, perhaps a broader sample of descendents of his father, Cush) who thought they had gone far enough and wanted to stake out their kingdom by building a city with a notable tower so that they would be able to unify and stem the flood of migration that was impacting all peoples. It is Cush’s descendants who are the city builders in Genesis 10. So we have here the first evidence of urbanization—another significant topic with profound points for theological reflections.  And it is this city building and its motivations in the midst of God’s command to scatter across the earth that create the context of Genesis 11.  The first city is a direct attempt to thwart God’s plans for humanity. In essence, it appears that while the descendents of Japheth and Shem (and some of Ham) were continuing to scatter, the descendents of Cush, intent on establishing their place in the land and among the other nomadic peoples, establishing themselves as the leaders of all humanity. Indeed, here we do have the beginnings not only of nations but of empires—and it is striking that many of the most powerful and aggressive empires arose from the lines of Cush—Assyria, Babylon, Persia.

The turning point of the passage is found in verse 5-7.  The passage is truly striking and, at first blush, somewhat mindboggling.  God’s primary concern seems to be that with their current linguistic unity these people will be able to do anything they set their minds to—“nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” (11:6). Why is this issue so disconcerting to God?  I believe it has much to do with God’s initial intention for humanity to spread out across the face of the earth.  He had no choice but to, in essence, bring one result of scattering to the fore (linguistic diversity), which so confounds the people at Babel that they break camp and scatter.

Regardless of how one comes to understand God’s concerns, what we have here is not necessarily the creation of diverse languages as a punishment but as a means to accomplish God’s purposes. The languages of Cush’s descendents (or all humanity) were going to become diverse anyway had they continued with God’s agenda.  Once people migrated their languages would develop in different directions.  God simply decided to reverse things at Babel—to cause diverse languages to suddenly appear—resulting  in immediate confusion and the termination of the tower project. They result: the dispersal of the people according to God’s initial purposes.

To be continued

As this post has been so long in coming, and as it has already grown to a considerable length, I will continue with a second post exploring the issue of human unity and the reversal of Babel in Zephaniah 3 and Acts 2.

In the Beginning

Forced Migration in Genesis 3 and 4

If you begin reading the Bible at the beginning, it doesn’t take long before we find patterns of migration.  The first recorded incident is found in Genesis 3.  Adam and Eve, given all they would need to thrive by God, reject his ways and provision, and find themselves correspondingly driven from the Garden.  Though we traditionally focus on the consequences for sin being pain in childbirth and agricultural challenges, perhaps the most significant of all the results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion is forced migration.  Homelessness.  Restlessness.  And humanity has been on the move since then, seeking that location where we can be at peace with each other, with the creation in which we live, and ultimately with God.

This rest has indeed been elusive for humanity.  So much so that Scripture refers to salvation itself as re-entry into God’s rest (Heb 4:1-11).  From the record of creation itself, we are invited to return to God and enter his rest.  Such entry, however, requires complete submission to God as God.  Adam and Eve’s sin was, in its essence, rejection of God’s place in their lives.   They substituted a new set of values—the enjoyment of that which was pleasant to the eye and the achievement of knowledge (and with it, power)—above God’s values.  And as a result, they were banished from Eden, forbidden re-entry.  They would toil, searching for suitable land in which to live and survive.  Their families would likewise toil, to this very day, fighting each other in this race to establish a sustainable and comfortable life.  We are, indeed, all migrating between heaven and hell, aliens from our genuine home, and apart from Christ, we are strangers and aliens from God.

Not long after the garden episode we encounter yet another forced migration.  Cain, beset with jealousy over how his brother gained a favourable response from God for his sacrifice, decided the only way forward was the ultimate violence of murder.  The result: further hardship in agricultural pursuits, but more profoundly, continuous migration.  Cain is deeply disturbed and worried, saying, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me” (Gen. 4:13b-14).  We aren’t told where these other people came from, only that Cain was concerned that he will be ostracized and at risk, endangered by emigration into hostile lands.

Migration as a result of brokenness and sin

It is indeed striking that each of the first two Scriptural references to migration are records of forced migration. Brokenness and sin lay at the heart of migration stories, but unlike the stories of Adam, Eve and Cain, migration today is not necessarily the result of the migrant’s sin.  Indeed, it is very rare that someone is displaced because of his or her own sin.  It is, rather, the result of the sins of others.  People flee war torn societies, trying to avoid being caught in the cross fire.  Young men flee warlords who seek to draw them into servitude in their armies.  Other young men flee the oppressive regimes that will force them into a life in the army where their chances of surviving ongoing clashes with rebels or drug lords are uncertain.  Young women and children flee being sold into sexual slavery or indentured factory work.  

Much to the contrary of contemporary North American rhetoric, people arriving in Canada and the United States as asylum seekers are not terrorists.  Certainly some do seek to sneak in this way, but their numbers in comparison to others who are fleeing for their lives as miniscule.  The presence of these fraudulent claims makes the cause of the vulnerable that much more difficult.  And it is what makes the work of adjudicators so challenging.  As Rupert Colville, former editor of the UNHCR periodical, Refugee, explains, “There are people who articulate a false story well, and people who articulate a true story badly – or not at all (because it is too painful and too personal)” Refugees; 2007:148 p. 2).   

Further, it is completely ridiculous to assert, as has the current Canadian government, that because one finds passage to the west in a ship, one is a terrorist, being trafficked, or are migrants seeking a shortcut to the current system.  What is needed in Canada is careful investment in the Immigration Review Board: finding qualified people who are then trained and regularly upgrading their skills, who can sift through the very difficult process of verifying asylum claims.  What is not needed is a regression to closing our borders, rejecting people cart-blanche because of the country from which they are fleeing or the nations in which they have stopped along the way.  What is needed is moral courage to recognize the obligation we have as a nation toward justice for the poor, the oppressed, and the vulnerable.  And if this is the case for Canada, how much more is it so for the church?

Consider the plight of Romani children in Hungary who are forced into schools for the less skilled as if there is something wrong with the whole population, and are then ridiculed and systematically abused by nationals while the national police force turns a blind eye.  Consider also the story of Assyrian Christians fleeing northern Iraq for fear of religious persecution.  And then there is Columbia—widely recognized as one of the top producers of displaced peoples in the world.  Farmers fleeing drug lords are not safe in the cities as some have suggested (propaganda put forth by governments seeking to ignore human rights issues in order to secure trade agreements).  All these people would love to return to their home, but they cannot (and, in my estimation, should not be forced to return to places where they feel unsafe).  And the reason they are displaced?  Sin.  Individual sins of their oppressors and systemic sins of societies that ignore their plight or who value economic gain over justice.  Can you hear the echo of the Old Testament prophets?

Sin has broken the bonds between people, the mutual responsibility we have to one another.  And like Adam and Eve—and later Cain—these people find life in a new land is hardly as receptive and positive as they had hoped.  Unwanted, many fly under the radar, undocumented, misunderstood, working cash jobs for pauper’s wages, often being manipulated into new abusive and controlling relationships.  Asylum itself becomes another form of bondage.  And while many would take this new suffering over the suffering in their home land, remaining silent, we must not.  Abuses to migrants who come by regular means (i.e. according to the laws and systems set up by international bodies) or irregular means (i.e. undocumented, sneaking across the Vermont-Quebec border into Canada or the Rio Grande from Mexico into the USA) is simply unacceptable in our society and must be confronted—not by punishing the vulnerable asylum seeker, but by punishing the powerful who treat these people like commodities to be used and thrown out when they are no longer needed.

A clash of values

When we extend a hand of welcome and of love, we embody the love of God to all humanity.  He seeks to welcome ALL into his rest.  He went through great personal loss to secure our return to him, knowing all are powerless to make our own way.  So too, forced migrants are at the mercy of powers they cannot control.  These people are completely vulnerable and often as not, abused by those with power and money.  Are we right to expect them all to stop in refugee camps—places of violence themselves—a stop that can be interminable, waiting for the wealthy of the world to decide their fate?  Should we be surprised that many seek to avoid these camps and find their own way out of a life of hopeless waiting?  It is estimated that less than 10% of refugees in camps will ever see the light of home or a new country by working the system.  Waiting in a refugee camp is a far cry from an entrepreneur waiting for permanent residence papers and to make such characterizations as politicians have been doing in Canada is scandalous and deplorable.

I truly believe God is calling the church to open her heart to the migrant—regular and irregular—to look beyond what it may cost us to, instead, focus on reflecting the gospel of Christ above all.  To seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, to pursue the experience of his will on earth as it is in heaven—that is the call of the church in the face of social ills.  So much more is at stake than our financial well being.  Live—yes, souls—are at stake.  What are our driving values behind our response to migrants?

Immigration--How important of an election issue?

An Eye Opening Experience

Yesterday I had the privilege of engaging with a group of high school students of Roma background who fled persecution in Hungary within the last two years.  What a powerful story!  I was moved to tears by the way the students portrayed the way they were treated in Hungary.  Roma families are systematically abused in many Eastern European countries.  For example, in Hungary, ALL Roma students are placed in special education institutions.  Though they represent 10% of the population of the country, they represent 65% of students in special education!  They are never taught about their own history--a history dating back over 1000 years to a flight from S. Asia in response to persecution and oppression they were facing there.  For centuries Roma people have been subjugated to terrible oppressions.  And what a thrill it was to watch these four high school students share their story and issues with us.  And what an emotional turn when I asked them this question: "What are your dreams now that you are in Canada?  Are you encouraged to dream big?"  (I, of course, have three daughters near their age.  Their response?  We don't dare dream because we expect to be deported back to Hungary.

It got me thinking.  Did you know that just a couple years ago BEFORE the Canadian Minister of Immigration, Jason Kinney, went on record alleging "bogus refugee claims", almost 80% of asylum claims by Roma families were ACCEPTED?  After the repeated claims of the government about the Roma were made, the reversal was profound.  Today very few Roma claims are accepted.  Why?  Because Canada wants to be on good ECONOMIC terms with Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Consider another case: Refugee claimants from Columbia used to be accepted at a rate of 84%.  BUT the government of Canada recently signed a free trade agreement with Columbia.  They now claim that families facing danger in Columbia can safely move to one of a couple major cities.  BUT the truth is that these cities are NOT safe.  Families are tracked down and eliminated by drug lords.  Further, the Conservative government is seeking to remove the special status that used to be in existence for Columbia: the ability to apply for refugee status WITHIN the country.  NOW Colombian acceptance rates have dropped below 50% and are expected to drop further--all for the sake of free trade.

Finally, consider how much Jason Kinney emphasizes that he believes refugees should line up and walk through the system patiently.  He is seeking to reduce the time allowed for claims and appeals.  All these things favour people with money; people with connections; people who, in short, are not nearly as vulnerable as so many who have historically sought out our nation for refuge.

Psalm 72 ... A Canadian Legacy?

It's a little known fact that Psalm 72 lay behind the 1867 official title of Canada: "Dominion of Canada"--Dominion from sea to sea.  In 1867 this was a move to allay the fears of American manifest destiny that rejected the notion of a "kingdom" on the continent other than itself.  (Note how the Alaskan panhandle was purchased from the Russians at the exact same time as Canada negotiated its sovereignty from British rule).  Dominion had shades of meaning, but for the fathers of Confederation--men who knew their Bible--rest Psalm 72.  

John Rolston Saul calls Psalm 72 a "psalm of welfare" and, I believe, he is right.  Dominion here speaks of power.  And according to the psalm, this power was to be used for the welfare of the most vulnerable.  Notice how strong God speaks about the necessity of justice.  The respect due the king was due to the following:

 ¹²For he delivers the needy when he calls,
   the poor and him who has no helper.
¹³He has pity on the weak and the needy,
   and saves the lives of the needy.
¹⁴From oppression and violence he redeems their life,
   and precious is their blood in his sight.

At the beginning of the Psalm Solomon request:

²May he judge your people with righteousness,
   and your poor with justice!
^...
4May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
   give deliverance to the children of the needy,
   and crush the oppressor!

At the heart of so much of the criticism of the prophets to Israel and Judah was their failure PRECISELY to care for the poor and vulnerable in society.  I, for one, am deeply troubled over the way our nation has gone from being internationally celebrated for its compassion and responsiveness to refugees to where it is today, criticized by the UN for its harsh stances, witnessing a profound drop in refugee claims (30% since the Conservatives took office).

We are a wealthy nation.

We have come through the global financial crisis virtually untarnished.  

Political parties may war over who is more responsible for this--Cretien and Martin Liberals or Harper Conservatives.  

But one thing to me is clear: to him who is given much, much is expected.  

How can we sit by and allow our financial aims and priorities cloud our judgment and interfere with our sense of justice?

Immigration in Canada - Part Three: Why help Immigrants?

It’s been a while since I’ve blogged.  February flew by so fast and March is threatening to do the same as I scramble to confirm what it is I will be doing vocationally as of April 1.  But let’s not allow that to distract us.

Helping Immigrants—Historic Precedents

Since March 23, 1848, support for newcomers has been a hallmark of Canadian society building. As John Ralston Saul explains in his book, A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada, the first law passed in the Province of Canada (the newly formed entity uniting upper and lower Canada into a single colony that would achieve peaceful freedom in 1867) was the “Act to create a fund [to enable] Indigent Emigrants to proceed to their place of destination, and of supporting them until they can procure employment.”

Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, the first Canadian-born Prime Minister of this new political entity, and Robert Baldwin, his political partner, are enshrined on Parliament Hill as ground-breaking leaders of what many consider to be the first truly Canadian government.  They established a precedent for the government taking responsibility to ensure that newcomers to the country are given every opportunity to quickly and smoothly adjust to life in their new home.  And note: though the law focuses on employment and poverty, the focus was not simply on economics but, as Saul explains, on peace, fairness, and good government. “The key to a society built on more than one language and on multiple cultures was an idea of justice based on fairness or, to put it differently, an egalitarian approach based upon a constant striving for fairness” (143).

From its inception, Canada has been built around the notion of peace, welfare (or fairness) and good government (cf. Saul’s entire book, but especially part two).  Our approach to immigration is a critical litmus test for how well we have done in fulfilling that vision of our “founding fathers.”

Settlement in Canada Today

At a forum on federalism sponsored by the Mowat Centre of the University of Toronto and the International Forum of Federalism on Friday, January 28^th of this year, Daiva Stasiulis, professor at Carleton University made the following observation:

“If 50% of immigrant selection is targeted as ‘economic,’ should the federal government treat settlement programs (in part) as priority funding for economic development to address the gap between recruitment and integration and settlement?”

So when the Canadian government decided to cut $55 million from settlement across Canada this year ($43 million from Ontario alone), they were actually undermining the economy—reflecting an astonishing individualistic vision regarding society’s obligations to those we recruit as immigrants.  In essence, we are saying, “Please come to Canada and help us build our economy.”  Then once they come and cannot get their credentials recognized or a job commensurate to their skills, we say, “Fend for yourself.”

Based solely on economic considerations, every dollar spent on speeding the integration of immigrants is a dollar invested in our economy.  In my earlier post, Immigration Part One, I noted that the reason Canada pursues immigration is economic.  When people around you say, “If those people are going to come here and live off our land, then they should become like one of us” REMEMBER: they are coming in order to ensure YOUR standard of living is secure.

But there must be more. We must also consider the importance of humanitarian values, faith values, and the matter of society building when we consider our responsibility to immigrants.

Immigration: Economics or Society Building?

Yesterday in a meeting with bureaucrats at CIC we began to debate current policy direction around immigration. It was suggested that if we take care of the economic interests of newcomers, helping them find jobs quickly, then everything else will fall into place.

Yet, was not economic pragmatism the driving force behind immigration policies in many European nations that are today bemoaning multiculturalism—at least their take on it—and how it has failed.  They feel their societies are splintering.  I contend that part of the reason is that any approach to immigration has at its CORE society building. Economic well being will surely be a major part of any strategy, but always in light of how we forge a diverse yet cohesive society.

It’s not just about economics—it is about building the tapestry of our nation. 

What about the church?

In my next post I will take us on a journey through Ephesians to reflect on the way the early church faced the challenge of forging a new humanity in and through faith in Jesus Christ.  Leading up to that I simply leave you with this query: what role does the church have in welcoming newcomers and helping to forge a cohesive society characterized by peace, fairness and good government?

Canada’s immigration policy: Who is on the guest list? - The Globe and Mail

It's been a while since I posted ... crazy times as my current position has become another casualty of the government cuts to settlement and I am scrambling to find new ways to engage the sector. BUT, this article (follow the link) is a profound complement to the posts I have put up previously regarding WHO we are inviting into Canada, focusing specifically on the implications around the record number of temporary foreign workers (mostly in low-skill positions) that our government is prioritizing over immigrants. The author notes the issues that need to be carefully pondered lest we find ourselves no longer breaking new ground on society building, but rather following down the failed roads implemented by European nations that are experiencing significant fallout from focusing on such migration policies.
Canada’s immigration policy: Who is on the guest list? - The Globe and Mail

British PM questions ‘multiculturalism’ - thestar.com

British PM questions ‘multiculturalism’ - thestar.com

This blog has been up a little over a month and this will be my first post on diversity. For those of you who have interacted with me much, you know this is a central and passionate issue for me, especially as it relates to the church. But we will start here with what has become a landmark speech (some say his most important speech) by British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

British Multiculturalism—a Failed Experiment?

“Multiculturalism” (which, in short, is a British policy established in the 60s encouraging all groups to live by their own traditional values) has, according to Cameron, failed. He alluded to what amounts to segregated communities in which many different migrants have chosen “to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.” He claims that these communities have too often become the incubator for extremism targeting, in particular, Muslim groups.

His response? “We have to get to the root of the problem,” Cameron claims. And that involves what he calls a “much more active, muscular liberalism” and, among other things, a reduction of public money going to certain communities.

Two questions come to mind in response:

• Has Cameron truly uncovered the “root” of the issue?
• Is a militant stand the way forward or is there another way?

What is (are) the Root Issue(s)?

First, I suggest that a policy of “tolerance” of differences is not a sufficient cause for the extremism that has surfaced in Britain. Further, I contend that the practice of extremism is not simply an issue of migrant communities, but of radical groups that more and more vocally and visibly oppose immigration in all its forms across Britain. (Take, for instance, the demonstration by English Defence League that, strikingly, coincided with Cameron’s speech).

To see people congregating and gathering with likeminded and similar people is a common sociological pattern. Multicultural policy or not, people would move into communities with others like themselves. This is happening in Canada as much as in England; yet we have yet to experience the levels of unrest being experienced in Britain. So I suggest there is more to the story.

I wonder, for instance, what part poverty plays in the extremism that is developing. What part does racism play? Are people living in communities because they don’t feel accepted outside the community? Are they in these communities because of financial reasons? I don’t deny that extremism exists—it clearly is out there here in Canada as in Britain. But I believe extremism is fuelled when people feel disadvantaged, marginalized, threatened, and who feel their plights are ignored.

So, I wonder if the right response is a militant response. What exactly is an “active, muscular liberalism.” To me this sounds like an approach that will only further entrench the radical fringes of British society.

What Other Strategies Can Be Used to Build Society?

In the end, there must be a strategy for forging a sense of community and a lived experience of unity. To me, Cameron is only thinking of aggressive action that could potentially marginalize groups even more. Where is the strategy that seeks to find a way to build a cohesive yet culturally diverse society? We learned the hard way in Canada through the residential school debacle that one must not (and cannot) stamp out cultural identity. Britain, like Canada, needs immigration in order to continue growing its economy and experiencing the standard of life people have grown accustomed to. So, there must be a way forward.

On the home front, this is one reason I am deeply troubled, in Canada, that Ottawa has decided that funding for activities that pair immigrants with established Canadians in what is called a HOST program has been scaled back. The friendships that result from such pairings are not considered to be a sufficient outcome for the program. Really? I can think of few activities more important to the fabric of Canadian society than one that intentionally bridges communities one relationship at a time (recognizing, of course, that there must be mingled with this a strategy for addressing structural issues that leads to racialized poverty—a trend that the UN has traced WORLDWIDE). http://www.hiddencities.org/

Immigration in Canada - Part Two; How do we Choose Immigrants?

How do people gain access to Canada?  Brace yourself: it’s quite complicated.  

Canada’s Asymmetrical Immigration Policies

Keith Banting of Queens University also spoke at a forum on federalism sponsored by the Mowat Centre of the University of Toronto and the International Forum of Federalism on Friday, January 28^th.  He characterized Canada’s selection process as being characterized by “rampant asymmetry.”  That is, the Canadian government has entered into a series of bilateral agreements with the provinces, surrendering its role as the sole decision maker regarding selection and settlement.  The federal government maintains primacy, but the provinces now have a major say in what is called the Provincial Nomination Program (PNP).

So the selection of immigrants in Canada is not simply a federal decision.  Banting observed that about 50% of immigrants who come to Canada come via the federal selection process with a heavy focus on economic migration.  The other 50% come via each province’s approach to the nomination process. 

While both levels of government pay significant attention to the education of the applicant and the ability of the applicant to be self-sufficient during the process of settlement, the provinces allegedly focus more on local economic needs.  So a potential immigrant can try to come via the national selection process or, various Provincial Nomination Programs.  The complexity is truly mystifying.

Doctors Driving Taxis

It can take upwards of five years before someone’s application to migrate to Canada is processed (wait times vary depending on the country from which one applies—see http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/times/index.asp#immigration).  Currently there are close to 1,000,000 applications for permanent residency backlogged in the system.  Any notion of being responsive to economic needs is clearly lost!

Federally, the result of the immigration policies is a large number of immigrants with professional degrees like doctors and engineers.  The problem is that there are not sufficient jobs (or, in the case of doctors, resources) to place these immigrants in positions commensurate to the work they did in their country of origin.

For instance, in Canada there are over 8,000 foreign-trained doctors (7,500 in Ontario alone) who are trying to get licensed to practice.  (See http://www.thebigwait.com/ for an incredible documentary on the plight of International Medical Graduates.)  It is worth noting that many of the 8,000 doctors worked as highly specialized and acclaimed doctors prior to coming to Canada.  But to have their credentials recognized, each doctor must participate in a residency; and, there are only approximately 300 residency spots available each year. 

So it is that we have PhDs driving taxi cabs.

But what are we advertising when we recruit these people to come to Canada?

Provincially, the process seems to work a bit better with a focus on trades, not just professions.  But there is rampant inequity regarding the supports provided to immigrants from province-to-province and the rules surrounding access are truly perplexing.  However, given a 1-2 year waiting time for PNPs applying abroad, one questions just how “responsive” this system is.

Temporary Residents

Given the extensive backlogs experienced in processing immigration requests, the current Canadian government decided to institute a policy change, focusing heavily on temporary foreign workers.  While some of these people will apply for permanent status via their province’s PNP, most will not.  They are here to allegedly to address skill shortages in Canada.

But, there is much to be concerned about with the emphasis on temporary foreign workers:

• Exploitation of employees who are controlled by their employer
• A lack of supports for temporary residents
• A perception that temporary workers are not committed to nation building like permanent residents
• Corporations finding loopholes in the system to hire people for jobs Canadians are trained to do—but at a fraction of the cost

And consider the recent class action suit by a groups of temporary foreign workers against … wait for it … Denny’s!  Denny’s?  What unique skills did Denny’s need that were not available in Canada?  (See the story at http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/01/24/DennysForeignWorkers/).

Problems in European states with temporary foreign workers are well documented, and concerns have been voiced repeatedly to the current government; but there seems to be no end to this process.

A Word About Refugees

This post is getting long, so allow me to simply note that there are three ways someone can arrive in Canada as a refugee:

1. Government Assisted Refugees (chosen by the government from UN refugee camps, commonly known as “GARS”)
2. Privately Sponsored Refugees (groups of five or community organization—must be either UN refugee or be able to demonstrate refugee context) 
3. Asylum Seekers (known in Canada as Refugee Claimants—people who claim a refugee context once they arrive in Canada)

What most people don’t know is that GARS must pay back the government the travel expenses for their trip to Canada.  The result, for a family of four, can be in excess of $10,000—a burden for which most refugees are ill equipped to comprehend let alone pay.

Concluding Thoughts

This post, once again, has been rather extensive—though I feel like I have barely skimmed the surface on the issues.  It lays further groundwork for the context of our theological reflection.  What I find curious about the issues we experience today around immigration, settlement and integration is that they were not part of the discussion when the Canadian constitution (or the American, for that matter) was written.  Our society has evolved and has had to find ways to interpret the constitution in light of this new reality. 

Similarly, when it comes to theological reflection, we are approaching the text of Scripture with questions that require more than simply citing a verse or two.  We need a comprehensive understanding not only of Scripture and the themes contained therein, but also of the social and cultural milieu that forms the backdrop for each book of the Bible.  How do these considerations intersect with the issues we are facing today?  My hope is to contribute even a small amount to this extensive theological process progressively through these posts—and I hope to engage with you as we continue down this path.