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/