Come to Canada, and bring your family too!

Social Democrats have three central values when it comes to society: equality, freedom, and fellowship (Mullaly, 2007, p 122). With social democrats, social integration is tied to the value of equality. As you can imagine, social integration is extremely vital for immigrants and refugee’s because as Mullaly (2007) states, “it ensures reduction in inequalities and feelings of isolation” (p. 123). If you were to move to a new country where you felt like an outsider, wouldn’t you want a government that makes an effort for you to feel like you belong there? That being said it’s fairly easy to get a sense of how the NDP (the political party with a social democratic ideology) feels when it comes to the topic of immigration. They welcome immigrants and make an effort to make them feel welcome in several ways.

With the idea of social integration, the NDP supports the idea of allowing families  as whole to immigrate to Canada to avoid the long process of bringing family members separately. The NDP is constantly critiquing the Conservative government on their flawed immigration policies. The NDP released a statement saying “Immigrants in the application queue are waiting longer than ever before to be reunited with their spouses, parents or children in Canada,” (2011). I am not surprised at all by that statement because I know how hard it can be for an immigrant to have to go through the long and stressful process of bringing their family members to Canada. It took a relative of mine around five years to bring her spouse to Canada. Within these five years she visited her spouse two times and even got pregnant the second time in hopes of possibly speeding up the process. I truly do believe that if Canada had an NDP Government over those years more of an effort would have been made by the government to speed up her process along with the processes of many other immigrants in Canada.  

When it comes down to it, if you’re an immigrant in Canada you’re going to want a government run by the NDP. Why, you might ask? For the reasons stated above as well as the fact that most immigrants and refugees are interested in a better financial situation than the one they had in their homeland. With social democracy the public would ideally have control of the means of production and distribution as well as equal distribution of income and opportunities says Mullaly (2007, p. 125). This is a perfect set of economic beliefs for a society that integrates immigrants because they’re given the same opportunities financially, as all other Canadians. Now, what kind of immigrant wouldn’t want to live in that type of society?

References:

Mullaly, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work (3rd ed.). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press Canada.

Stop tearing loved one’s apart: NDP. (2011, February 14). Retrieved October 24, 2011, from http://www.ndp.ca/press/this-valentine-s-day-stop-tearing-loved-ones-apart-ndp

NDP Canada. (2008, April 30). Jack Layton on immigration [Video File]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDZ_pxY__Ek

Yodit D.

The Inclusion of Immigrants and Refugees into Society

As we all know, Canada is indeed a multicultural mosaic of people who come from all over the world. In a diverse country such as Canada, I’m sure that there are many people, such as immigrants and refugees, who strongly want to believe that someday, discrimination and racism will no longer exist. In a social democratic state, they believe that achieving equality, freedom, and collectivism will reduce these inequalities as it decreases isolation and increases social cohesion. Their ideal goal is to achieve equality of condition for all. Social democrats believe that freedom ranks with equality in terms of values but, unless equality is attained, freedom or collectivism cannot exist (Mullaly, 2007). My question is however, can achieving the equality of condition really diminish prejudice and discrimination towards immigrants and refugees, and allow them to feel truly included in society? 

According to Mullaly, Social democrats believe that “[narrowing] the gap as much as possible between [the] rich and poor” will enable everyone to attain equality of condition. Doing so allows both immigrants and refugees, and citizens to have the same economic resources and have the same opportunities. With that being said, no one is greater than the other in terms of wealth and influence. This gives citizens and non-citizens the same freedom to have more control of the choices in their lives. Eliminating social class in terms of who is rich and who is poor, also allows for social cohesiveness, as it encourages cooperation for the good of the community rather than competition between individuals for power (Mullaly, 2007). 

On the other hand, although poverty for immigrants is an issue that should be addressed, eliminating it may not completely achieve social inclusion, “especially if the offered solutions take the form of simple income re-distribution programs” (Howard, 2003). Howard (2003) also states that “breaking down poverty according to ethnic groupings can lead us to conclude that a society might be excluding members of specific groups, thus setting up a division of “us” and them” along ethnic and racial lines”.   Therefore, judging who is in poverty due to their ethnicity and race still promotes social exclusion rather than social inclusion in society. This proves that even if equality of condition is achieved, many immigrants and refugees are still prone to experience feelings of isolation. If immigrants and refugees are discriminated because of their race, culture, gender, and sexuality, they are deprived of the freedom to be themselves,  as they may be forced to make choices they feel are more “socially acceptable” to avoid alienation. Furthermore, this can also affect the social democratic belief in collectivism as it begins with an individual’s willingness to cooperate within the group. Thus, if immigrants or refugees feel isolated in a group, there could still be a power struggle between them and citizens, making it more of a competition rather than a strong, cohesive group. Yes, they may be standing on the same end of the economic scale, but there are still many stigmas about immigrants and refugees that will cause them to be judged and scrutinized by others.  

Someday many immigrants and refugees, including myself, want live in a place where they can just be themselves and still feel like a part of society, no matter what race, culture, gender, or sexuality a person represents. Essentially, a “society that is socially inclusive is a society that grants access to everyone to the vehicles of the good life” (Howard, 2003). Because of the social democratic belief in equality of condition, everyone – including immigrants and refugees – are indeed granted access to the “good life”. However, I don’t believe that reducing the differences between social classes will completely dissolve the issues of racism and discrimination towards immigrants and refugees. Personally, I love the fact that the social democrats draw so much focus and attention to equality for all, but unfortunately not everyone wants to see themselves as equals in society; there are many people who will always feel superior to other and will personally go out of their way to make people feel unwelcome. Ultimately, social democratic beliefs by definition, will lead us to a socially inclusive society, but due to cultural differences, immigrants and refugees can still feel like outcasts in society. 

- Adrienne A.

References

 

Howard, D. (2003). "Social inclusion, social capital, and immigration". Canadian Issues. Retrieved on October 26, 2011: http://proxycheck.lib.umanitoba.ca.proxy1.lib.umanitoba.ca/libraries/online/proxy.php?http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.lib.umanitoba.ca/pqdweb?did=509713671&Fmt=3&clientId=12305&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Mullay, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work. Canada: Oxford University Press Canada.

Equal or unequal for all?

           We live in a time and place where immigration is a very common occurrence. People immigrate for several reasons. To leave war torn countries, economic hardship and sometimes just to live in a free country where they are accepted and treated equally. Many countries even today do not provide equal opportunities for all people. Discrimination against women, disabled people, the poor etc still exists in most countries.

            “We believe strongly in the people who come to this nation. People come because their escaping war, escaping dictatorship, escaping regimes. They come to Ontario to enjoy the freedom.” (Paikin, 2011) Liberalism understands why people immigrate and create a society that supports new Canadians. They believe in equal opportunity that gives everyone a chance to be successful in life. This is what immigrants come looking for. They want to be treated equally and fairly. Hobhouse (as cited in Mullaly. 2007. p. 95) stated that Liberals implicitly connect the well-being of society to the well being of the individual. Therefore they make sure everyone has access to education, the job market, health care, social services, and so on (Mullaly. 2007. p. 98).  They also try to redistribute income and some goods and services through the tax system and/or social welfare system (Mullaly. 2007. p. 96)

            “The current western debate about immigration and asylum provides a key test for liberals in combating prejudice with prudence. The best example of policy response can be seen in Canada, where liberals’ electoral success has been notable. Recognizing that zero immigration is not a realistic policy option and that immigrants contribute hugely not only to their host communities but also (through remittance of money) to their countries of origin” (Watson. 2004. p.170). Liberalism believes in self worth and the contribution that immigrants make culturally and economically to our society. They provide everyone with equal chances and if they don’t succeed in achieving their goals it is usually because they did not make use of the opportunities presented to them, is what they stand by.

            “Liberals do not consider the possibility that some people in society, because of their social position and resources, may be in a better position to exploit these so-called available opportunities than others” (Mullaly. 2007. p. 98). As Mullaly explains, liberalism does not take into account the different social classes that people fall into, there by ignoring a huge factor that may be the cause of unsuccessful lives. He uses the analogy of a person with 50 metre headstart in a 100 metre race. A person with no head start is most likely to never catch up to the person with the headstart (Mullaly. 2007. p.98). This is referred to as “The Achilles heel of the equal opportunity”. Karger (as cited in Mullaly. 2007. p. 99) states,” The fallacy of the entire argument is that true equality of opportunity is unattainable in an unequal society.”

            So as much as liberalism would like a society with equal opportunities for all people, this is not the reality. Most people become who they are due to the impact of various social classes, cultures, economic situations and families that they were born into. These classes do exist and is something that cannot be ignored. Babies automatically belong to the social class that their family belongs to. They do not get to choose for themselves. This is a reality that liberalism does not take into account. Even though Liberalism wants to provide equal opportunities, what happens to those of us that do not have that 50 metre headstart? 

Iresha 

           

REFERENCES 

Watson G. (2004). Liberalism and globalization. Asia Europe Journal, 2(2). 167-173. doi: 10.1007/s10308-004-0084-x

Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Paikin, S. (2011, April 11). Khalil Ramal: Liberals and Immigration (video file). Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PnX0RNsThA

Neo-Conservatives Deserve to be Colour Blind!

If you were living in poor conditions, were being treated unfairly and inhumanly, would you want to continue living in your current country if it meant having to stay in these poor conditions?  I am going to assume you would not.  Citizens of first world countries may not have to consider the issue of relocating due to unsafe and unfair living conditions, so they may not understand how pressing the matter is.  What gives citizens of a first world country, such as Canada, living without worry of their rights being met, the power to decided who from what countries deserve the chance to live in Canada?  Another question I would like you to contemplate is what should affect the chances of someone being denied entry into the country?  Should education and occupation play a part?  How is this decided fairly?  These topics and questions will be discussed in my blog.

Growing up in Canada and not having to worry about your needs and rights being met is a privilege, which brings me to the point that current living conditions in some parts of certain countries would be deemed unacceptable to Canadians.  Not all Canadians have the chance to understand or be informed about these said conditions, therefor may not understand or even consider that it would be fair to let people immigrate to Canada.  The citizens of Canada just may not see it as necessary, if they do not understand the reason behind the immigration.  Canadian citizens may view immigrants and refugees coming to live in Canada as a chance for them to be unemployed with benefits, therefor using the system inappropriately.  Tax payers could possibly be upset about their hard earned dollars going towards supporting someone who moved here from another country.  If our country is willing to help support our citizens it should be our rightful duty to assist.

With the current political views of Canada’s current government, immigration is being monitored strictly.  “Neo-Conservative views are skeptical of immigration, especially when it involves people of colour” (Mullay, 2007).  This statement demonstrates that immigrants applying to immigrate to Canada are being judged by the colour of their skin and their race.  This judgement is completely unfair and appalling.  I do not understand what gives the Canadian government the right to judge people’s physical ability and work ethic upon skin colour.  This point of view may corrupt a person’s chances of immigrating to our country that may have made a perfectly average citizen, maybe even above average citizen.  This way of thinking should be seen as unacceptable in our country because who are we to choose another person’s future.

Works Cited

Mullay, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.


Serena Stuart

The Realistic "Promised Land"

Many immigrants come to Canada with misconceptions about what it is like to like to live such a wonderfully diverse and culturally accepting country. They tend to see Canada as some sort of "promised land" where they can feel safe to make a better life for themselves as equal members in society, even if it means leaving their families and careers behind just to escape the intolerable conditions of their old country behind (Miller, 2008). Unfortunately, this only has some truth. Yes, Canada is a place where many opportunities are offered to obtain a better life however, there are still many challenges immigrants face in their daily lives that will cause them to struggle first before they can succeed. With that being said, I feel that a liberal society is a more realistic and practical view for immigrants. From a liberal perspective, emphasis is placed on helping them overcome these obstacles by providing them with the same legal rights as Canadian citizens, besides the right to vote, in terms of the law. However, the law can’t change how people see immigrants and refugees; the reality is that there are still people in Canada, despite of how multicultural the country is, who will look down on them as outsiders who don’t belong. The prejudice and discrimination towards immigrants is a factor which gives me reason to believe that achieving an equal society will never happen. Fortunately, liberals believe that everyone is entitled to equal opportunities and rights before the law (Mullally, 2007). They acknowledge the fact that there will always be inequalities amongst people, and work towards minimizing it, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

Being a fellow immigrant myself, I know from experience that immigrants and refugees must start from the bottom of the economic class and slowly work their way to the top in order to achieve a better life for themselves. Migrating to Canada is much more helpful to immigrants and refugees who don't have as much to lose in status and wealth as others. Therefore, I feel that it is not a good idea for immigrants who are already living a privileged life in another country to migrate to Canada. No matter how good their profession may be or how highly educated they are in their old country, it most likely won't be accounted for. As an example, if an immigrant who is a doctor in their homeland, comes to Canada in hopes that they can once again find work as a Doctor, they must go back to school and get their degree again. In other words, immigrants and refugees who are on the higher end of the economic scale in their country will not benefit from coming to Canada as they must start their lives from scratch, and possibly live on the lower end of the economic scale at first.


As I have mentioned before, coming to live in Canada means that immigrants and refugees must give up their past life in order to take advantage of the opportunities that will help them work towards a better future. In turn, Canadian citizens must also give up some of their rights in order to provide jobs and benefits for incoming immigrants and refugees, so that a well-balanced society can be achieved. This proves Miller's (2008) point that in order to create an equal opportunity society, there must be a give-and-take relationship between cultural minorities, such as immigrants and refugees, and the dominant culture: Canadian citizens. In a liberal society, principles are governed by "a deep commitment to treat those subject to the states authority fairly and equally” (Carens, 2005). Luckily enough, this means that both immigrants and citizens have equal legal rights in terms of finding work, having the right to be protected by the government, as well as having access to certain welfare laws (Miller, 2008). Liberals believe that the only way a person can fail in society is if they do not make use of the many opportunities and benefits the government provides for them. They believe that society should “use the welfare state to guarantee a minimum income to purchase the basic necessities of life and to ensure that everyone has access to basic levels of or standards of health care, housing and education”. In my opinion, the social welfare state is especially helpful for immigrants and refugees. Even if immigrants aren’t able to get a good paying job at first, the fact that the social welfare state can provide the basic minimum for everyone acts as a sufficient starting point while they struggle their way up the economic chain. Doing so is the best way for liberals to reduce the “ugliness of poverty” in society (Mullaly, 2007). Liberals are aware that if none of these opportunities are provided for immigrants, moving forward in society and economically would be an extremely long and difficult process. Because the liberals are embracing the inequalities between cultural minorities and the dominant cultural, they are able to find ways to make Canada a more liveable place for everyone. Ultimately, this makes it possible for immigrants and refugees who have chosen Canada as their home to have a more promising future.

I believe that if Canada was not influenced by liberalism, many immigrants, including my family and myself, would not be able to achieve our goals and dreams to having a good life. Liberalism recognizes that immigrants and refugees in Canada are truly a part of society who should be treated with as much equality and respect as Canadian citizens (Carens, 2005). Contrary to what a lot of immigrants and refugees believe, setting foot on Canada does not guarantee that they have arrived at the “promised land” and that their lives will immediately become better. However, because liberals believe in equal opportunity, they will eventually be able to provide themselves with a much more realistic “promised land”. If they work hard and take advantage of every opportunity that comes their way, they will be able to find stability as individuals, and amongst society. Although it takes time, immigrants and refugees will eventually be able to stop being seen as “outsiders” who are struggling just to get by, and move on to become people who are not only making a better life for themselves, but for future generations as well.

- Adrienne A.

References

Carens, J. (2005). "The Integration of Immigrants". Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2(1), 29-46. 
DOI: 10.1177/174046810505258

Miller, D. (2008). "Immigrants, Nations, and Citizenship". Journal of Political Philosopy, 16(4), 371-390. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00295.x

Mullay, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work. Canada: Oxford University Press Canada.